Change agents’ sensemaking process of recipients’ reactions in change situations

(1)

Change agents’ sensemaking process of recipients’

reactions in change situations

UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN

FACULTY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS

MSc BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION - CHANGE MANAGEMENT

(2)

Siebrich Westra, University of Groningen MBA Change Management 2

Change agents’ sensemaking process of recipients’

reactions in change situations

ABSTRACT

Change recipients’ reactions are a main determinant for the extent of successful organizational changes. In recent research the importance of change recipients’ reactions is addressed. For a long time the term resistance has had a negative sound, resistance was associated with slowing down the process and hindering the organizational change. This point of view changed the last couple of years; resistance is no longer just negative but also provides valuable insights. Current literature pays little attention to the change agents’ role on recipients’ reaction. In this study the sensemaking process of the change agent is researched to investigate the role of the change agent. With a multiple case study the sensemaking process of change agents and change recipients is investigated. Five case studies with each a change agent and change recipients are utilized to map the sensemaking process of change recipients’ behavior. This research demonstrates that the sensemaking process of the change agent starts with noticing an ambiguous event or issue, such as conflicting ideas, denial, ignorance, and curiosity. Next, the change agent brackets signs for closer attention, by comparing the reactions with his own beliefs and reactions of others. With the sign for closer attention, the change agents assign meaning to the change reaction through labeling. These meanings, passive behavior, active behavior, and resistance are given, where resistance behavior is only seen as negative with recalcitrant behavior. Lastly, the change agent categorizes the reaction by placing it in an interpretative scheme. The categories are age, history, level of education, organizational culture, and personal situation. Different interpretations by the change agent and change recipient of the labeling and categorizing stage influence the further change process. These different interpretations are associated with the self-serving attribution. Another finding is that the leadership behavior of the change agent remains the same after the sensemaking process.

(3)

INTRODUCTION

Organizational changes are abundant. Organizations continuously face new challenges and need to adapt to the changing environment (Oreg & Berson, 2011). There is much variance in the degree to which organizational changes are successful. Change recipients’ reactions to change can have a significant impact and influence upon the success of organizational changes (Van Dijk & Van Dick, 2009). There is a growing consensus about the key role that change recipients’ reaction to change have in determining the change’s potential to succeed (e.g., Bartunek et al., 2006). The importance of change recipients’ attitudes towards change for understanding the organizational change process is revealed in recent studies (Oreg, 2006; Rafferty & Griffin, 2006; Oreg et al., 2011; Ford et al., 2008; Bouckenooghe, 2010). Besides the recipients’ attitudes toward change, numerous studies have been conducted with the aim to identify the characteristic and conditions that are associated with leadership in organization change situations (Lilly & Durr, 2012). These studies mainly focus on the leadership behavior that impacts employee attitude towards changes.

(5)

Siebrich Westra, University of Groningen MBA Change Management 5 whether change agents’ responses to recipients’ reactions influence the change is examined for both theoretical and managerial contribution.

Central to the study is the sensemaking process of change agents of change recipients’ reactions. The sensemaking process consist of the stages of noticing, bracketing, labeling, and categorizing that managers perform in their sensemaking of change recipients’ reactions (Weick et al., 2005). Due to expectations in current literature (Oreg et al., 2011; Ford et al., 2008) the ensuing behaviors of the change agents are taken into account.

The literature gap that is described above will be addressed by answering the research question of this study:

(6)

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Recipients’ reaction to change is an important component in managing the overall process of change. In 1948, Coch and French already mentioned the importance of employees’ reaction to change for turnover, efficiency, and outputs. Nowadays, research on employee’s reactions to change still mentions the impact on the success of change initiatives (e.g., Jick & Peiperl, 2003). For example, cynicism towards the change leads to negative job satisfaction and commitment, which slows the change process or the change initiative will fail (Jick & Peiperl, 2003). Furthermore, participation in change is assigned an important role to limit the resistance to change and carries benefits for the process of change like creativity and innovation (Pardo-del-Val et al., 2012). Accordingly, the effects change recipients’ reactions have on the change process is acknowledged. In what way the managers react to these recipients’ reactions remains unknown in literature. The sensemaking process by the change agent of the change recipients’ behavior is unidentified, even though the way managers and change agents respond to change recipients’ reactions is likely to have a direct influence on the change progress and on the ultimate success of the change initiative (Oreg et al., 2011).

Change agents’ sensemaking is the initial response to the recipients’ reactions in

(7)

Siebrich Westra, University of Groningen MBA Change Management 7 order to construct an interpretation of reality”. It is shaping your own understandings. Sensemaking is triggered as people confront issues, events, and actions that are surprising or confusing and when this triggers a need for explanation (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014). Cues play a central role in sensemaking, since “sensemaking is focused on and by extracted cues” (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014).

The sensemaking process starts with a new situation or a situation of chaos. The incipient state in the process of sensemaking is noticing and bracketing (Weick et al., 2005). Weick et al. (2005) name this context “inventing a new meaning (interpretation) for something that has already occurred during the organizing process, but does not yet have a name, has never been recognized as a separate autonomous process, object, and event”. “It includes extracting particular behavior and communications out of streams of ongoing events (i.e., bracketing), interpreting them to give them meaning” (Ford et al., 2008: 363). After bracketing, the process continues in labeling and categorizing. “Labeling works through a strategy of differentiation and simple-location, identification and classification, regularizing and routinization the intractable or obdurate into a form that is more amenable to functional deployment” (Weick et al., 2005). Once the categorizing had occurred and the streaming of experience is stabilized, the change manager made sense of the situation. The change manager interprets ‘what is going on’; thereafter the second question appears ‘what to do next’.

Ford et al. (2008) expand the view by considering the serving and

self-fulfilling prophecy in the sensemaking process. The expectations a change agent has can

have considerable influence on the sensemaking process. Ford et al (2008) point out that a self-fulfilling prophecy starts with a person’s idea and confidence that an event will happen in the future. “The persons holding the belief then behave as if the event is an inevitable occurrence, making sense of the actions and communication of others in such a way as to confirm the prophecy” (Ford et al., 2008). The self-serving attribution illustrates that change agents make them look good and shift blaming to others. Expected is, that they account themselves and take credit for the successful change and blame other factors, such as resistance, for failures or problems (Ford et al., 2008).

(8)

Siebrich Westra, University of Groningen MBA Change Management 8 process of others and providing meaning towards a preferred of reality. Armenakis et al. (1999) explains this sensegiving process by the so called ‘change message’. Armenakis et al. (1993) mention that the change message should incorporate discrepancy and efficacy to create readiness for the change. They provide the strategies of persuasive communication, management of external information, and active participation to intervene in the natural flow of social information processing of organizational members to increase their readiness (Armenakis et al., 1993). “Persuasive communication is sending information regarding commitment to, prioritization of, and urgency for the change effort” (Armenakis et al., 1993: 688). Active participation by the change agent is managing opportunities for change recipients to learn though their activities and thereby send readiness messages (Armenakis et al., 1993).

Change recipients’ reactions differ between individuals, depending on e.g. the

(9)

Different perspectives of recipients’ reactions are developed over the years.

Resistance to change is a perceived in positive and negative ways. These different views towards change recipients’ reactions can influence the change agent. Many studies that examine recipients’ reactions in terms of behavior tend to focus on resistance to change (Oreg et al., 2011; Bouckenooghe, 2010; Coetsee, 1999). Dent & Goldberg (1999) argue that the term resistance to change has undergone a transformation in meaning in the last decade. The term resistance to change became popular in a negative way. For a long period literature and management textbooks gave resistance to change a negative charge. For management and organization resistance to change became an established concept (Dent & Goldberg, 1999). Kreitner (1992) mentions that for successful change management must foresee and neutralize any resistance. Recent work in the area of resistance to change seems to be revising the concept. Beer et al. (1990) advocate putting people into new organizational contexts that impose new ideas, responsibilities, and relationships. Not all the recent work in this area are resorting the concept. Resistance is seen “as a set of intentions and actions that slows down or hinders the implementation of change” by del Val & Fuentes (2003). Resistance is a kind of behavior that occurs in change situations, where the behavior ranges of intensity. Resistance is no longer just a negative aspect; it also provides valuable insights and directions for managers in change situations (Stensaker & Meyer, 2012).

Coetsee (1999) elaborates on Judson’s (1991) study of linking acceptance and resistance to change. He mentions that resistance may serve a positive purpose, such as rethinking or reevaluating change and motivation, but it is usually seen as a negative force. In his research he focuses on resistance irrespective of serving positive or negative purposes. He gives gradations to the terms acceptance and resistance to change. The extreme level of resistance is the aggressive resistance, a destructive opposition. The associated behaviors are sabotage, destruction, spoilage, and subversion. Where involvement means ‘taking part in’, where the next stage commitment continues with ‘being part of’ (Coetsee, 1999). Commitment represents enthusiasm, ownership, and internalization.

(10)

Siebrich Westra, University of Groningen MBA Change Management 10 sensemaking process”. Ford et al. (2008) and Dent & Goldberg (1999) bring up that resistance does not suddenly occur nor is it a direct response to particular instances of change. Focusing on the change agents’ sensemaking process, could introduce change recipients’ reaction, in terms of resistance and commitment to change, in a different perspective. The bracketing, labeling and categorizing steps categorize a reaction to change as either resistance or commitment behavior. Change agents’ own actions and inactions contribute to the occurrence of the reactions they label as resistance or readiness. Morrison and Robinson (1997) suggest “one reason agents may label recipients’ action as resistance is because they feel actions constitute a failure by recipients to honor and fulfill their psychological contract”. In other words, actions are not necessary harmful for the change process, but change agents can consider them as contrary to what is appropriate and right.

Ford et al. (2008) elaborate on the critique of Dent & Goldberg. Predominantly in research, the perceptive on resistance is particularly one sided, in favor of the change agent. The one-sided view is limited, simplistic and perhaps even misguided. Studies of change management appear to take the perspective where is presumed that change agents are doing the right things while recipients show unreasonable obstacles (Ford et al., 2008). Although, there “is a possibility that resistance is an interpretation assigned by change agents to the behaviors and communications of change recipients, or that these interpretations are either self-serving or self-fulfilling” (Ford et al. 2008). Besides, Ford et al. (2008) mention that resistance is a behavior reaction that is not only a conduct of recipients, but also “an interpretation assigned by change agents to the behaviors and communications of change recipients”.

Oreg et al. (2011) mention that for many researchers the current focus on change recipients’ reactions implies the fault on the change recipients’ part. The reaction of change recipients is seen as an obstacle for the change agents’ way towards successful change implementation. Dent & Goldberg (1999) talk about a similar critique, with the use of the term resistance to change. This term overlooks the possibility that the appearance of resistance has to do with the change agent or the change itself, instead of the recipient. Accordingly, transferring the research focus to the change agents’ reaction and actions could introduce a different perspective on change recipients’ role with respect to that of the change agent (Oreg et al., 2011).

(11)

Siebrich Westra, University of Groningen MBA Change Management 11 confronted with change”. Resistance supposes that recipients’ reactions are mostly directed to impeding or sabotaging the change (Metselaar, 1997). Merron (1993) argues that labeling individuals as resistant gives the resistance power. Recipients express different views of the truth and different views of the organization they want to be part of, instead of actually resisting change at all. In fact, by calling reaction as resistance, “managers reinforce the resistance, or even worse, play a part in its creation” (Merron, 1993: 83). A more positive model to resistance for change would go beyond the image and focus instead on the constructive value (Metselaar, 1997). Fiorelli & Margolis (1993) mention that it is a mistake to view resistance as simply being a reaction, response of malevolent or unsupportive people. Resistance is seen as productive and legitimate, “a lack of conflict in an organization signal rigid conformity, blind compliance and stagnant thinking” (Fiorelli & Margolis, 1993: 2). Accordingly, Metselaar (1997) views resistance from the negative and positive perspective. Labeling resistance as unavoidable reaction, undesired response, unhealthy reaction, harmful, and disapproval belongs to the negative view of resistance. Avoidable reaction, legitimate response, healthy reaction, beneficial, and expression of concerns belong to the positive perspective of resistance (Metselaar, 1997). The negative model for resistance focuses on working against resistance, where the positive view focuses on working with the resistance.

Van Dijk & van Dick (2009) work in the same line of thoughts. They mention that resistance is mostly considered from the change agent perspective, focusing on employees’ negative response to change, potential dangers of resistance, and identifying strategies to stay away from resistance (Van Dijk & van Dick, 2009). “These approaches suggests a linear process of resistance: change- resistance- resistance management strategies” (Van Dijk & van Dick, 2009: 158). Van Dijk & van Dick (2009) their understanding of resistance is a “complex interplay between individual and collective action and interpretation in the workplace”. They talk about social creativity and competition self-enhancement strategies of change agents in respond to a posed threat.

After the sensemaking process of noticing, bracketing, labeling and categorizing the behavior of the change recipient, the change agent will behave accordingly. The

actions of the change agent can influence the change recipient sensemaking and the

(12)

Siebrich Westra, University of Groningen MBA Change Management 12 organizational change efforts often run into some form of human resistance. They bring up different kind of methods for managing different types of resistance. The methods education, participation, facilitation, negotiation, and coercion are introduced. For example, education suits best when employees lack information about the change initiative (Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008). Coercion is best suitable when speed is essential and change initiators possess considerable power (Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008).

The study of Szabla (2007) focuses on leadership strategies for planned change. He presents the three types of leadership behaviors as rational- empirical, normative- reeducative, and power- coercive, related to work of Chin & Benne (1961). Rational- empirical leadership behavior focuses on human reason that can be used effectively to contest ignorance and superstition. The leadership behaviors’ goal is to make systems more efficient, the change is logically justified, and it demonstrates the benefits of the change. “Change leaders presume that change respondents are guided by reason and use logic to change their behaviors” (Szabla, 2007: 528). The normative- reeducative leadership is the linkage between scientific method and democratic principles. The assumption for this behavior is that individuals participate in re-education. The approach values principles of representation, participation, equal rights, responsibility, access to information, and personal dignity (Szabla, 2007). The third behavior, power- coercive is based on the application of power. “The strategy assumes that people will change because they are dependent on those with authority” (Szabla, 2007: 529).

In the sensemaking process, different interpretations by the change agent and the

change recipient can occur, possibly leading to differences in perceived behavior. Szabla

(13)

Siebrich Westra, University of Groningen MBA Change Management 13 van Dick, 2009). In addition, Jones et al. (2008) mention that the perceptions differ of supervisors, employees and management; especially the perspectives of communication and focus of the change process differ. Different perspectives and interpretations or minimal understanding of change recipients’ behavior by the change agent can influence the change process (Van Dijk & van Dick, 2009).

The change agents’ sensemaking process and the behavior of the change agent are researched in this study. In order to answer the main question of this research, three sub questions are developed. These sub questions are based on the literature and represent the gaps for this research.

1) How do change agents make sense of change recipients’ reactions in a positive or negative way?

2) How do change agents actually react upon the change recipients’ reaction?

(14)

METHODOLOGY

This study takes a theory refinement approach and focuses on the explanation of the effect of change agents’ reactions on change recipients’ reactions in terms of sensemaking. In-depth interviews create the opportunity to explain this relation and create a deep and thorough understanding (Cooper & Schindler, 2006). Theory development is required when a business phenomenon has not yet been addressed in academic literature (van Aken et al., 2012). Since change agents’ reaction to change recipients’ reactions is a new branch of learning in literature, theory development is needed. Theory development is based on the first part of the empirical cycle that is aligned with the work of Eisenhardt (1989).

The data collection is done with the use of case studies. Eisenhardt (1989) states that case study research is suitable for building theories. In-depth interviews are particularly useful for developing theoretical insights, especially when the research focuses on business phenomenon that has not yet been covered in existing theories (Ozcan & Eisenhardt, 2009). In order to gain reliability for the research, the instruments that are used are five different case studies. Both the change agent and the change recipients are part of the case study to amplify the reliability. Validity of the research is increased by applying several theoretical angles and by the multiple-case studies.

(15)

Siebrich Westra, University of Groningen MBA Change Management 15 The first case study has been performed within a multinational operating in the financial sector, located in the Netherlands. The change is about implementing new modules, new working procedures to achieve the same required advices, and a reduction in the amount of staff. The change implementation already started, whilst the complete implementation has to be finished before January 2016. The interviews were conducted with the change agent and two recipients of this change. The second case study has been performed within the same organization as case study one, although this case study is performed at a different department handling the same kind of change. Similar to the first case study, two change recipients and the change agent were interviewed. The third case study has taken place at a governmental organization in the safety and security industry. The change that takes place is a merger of departments. In the past, three provinces in the north of the Netherlands performed their own job, which are merged into one department. This merger involves, amongst others, alterations in jobs descriptions, procedures and tasks. The third case study focuses on one department, where the fourth case study focuses on another department that face the merger. For each of this departments an interview has taken place with the change agent and two change recipients. The fifth case study is performed with the executive of the change agents of the case studies three and four.

The participants of the case studies include change agents that have been responsible for implementing a change within the last two years. In addition, two recipients that experienced the change are included in each case. A total of 13 participants are interviewed, namely five change agents and two corresponding change recipients per change agent. With a selection of five case studies, a total of 13 participants, a reasonable database for information has been created.

Table 1 gives an overview of the case studies including the number of change agents and change recipients involved.

Participants/ Cases

Change Agent Recipients

Case 1 1 2

Case 2 1 2

Case 3 1 2

Case 4 1 2

Case 5 1 Each person of case 3-4

(16)

Siebrich Westra, University of Groningen MBA Change Management 16 A set of procedures is conducted for starting the data collection. The data collection method for this research is in-depth semi-structured interviews. Interviews are useful for developing theoretical insights (Ozcan & Eisenhardt, 2009), which suits this type of research. The semi-structured interview template (Appendix I & II) is based on the literature in the theoretical framework (Chapter 2). For gathering information, the in-depth semi-structured interviews have been performed with a template that functions as guidance. This is important to enable participants to express their own views and opinions about the change. With this template the risk of biased answers is mitigated. The format for the interviews is given in appendix 1 (Change agent) and appendix 2 (Change recipient).

The in-depth interviews were performed on a one-to-one basis, separately from the workplace, where the participant was able to share information. The interviews were of a confidential nature and are anonymous, to stimulate the participant to share their opinion and view of the change. As agreed with the participant, the interviews were recorded. The information that was shared in the interviews remains strictly anonymous. The interviews were recorded to be able to make a transcript and file and categorize the information.

Measures have been made to research the concepts of this study. The aspects of

this research are defined in the theoretical framework, which form the basis of the in-depth semi-structured interviews. The underlying literature provides a basis for the interviews that ensures construct-validity, which refers to the appropriateness and measuring what is intended to research. In the interviews the critical incident technique is applied. Critical situations that occurred during the change were the central subject in the interviews. “The critical incident technique is a qualitative interview procedure that facilitates the investigation of significant occurrences, identified by the respondent, the way they managed, and the outcomes in terms of perceived effects” (Cassel & Symon, 2004: 48). Deductive codes were created for gathering the information during the interviews (Table 2).

Code Description

Sensemaking

Noticing Experience a violation of expectations, or

ambiguous event or issue

Bracketing Considering possible sign for attention

(17)

Siebrich Westra, University of Groningen MBA Change Management 17 identification of the situation

Categorizing Placing it in an interpretive scheme

Change agents’ behavior

Rational- empirical change behavior Change behavior is focused on logic, efficiency and the goal of the change are central

Normative- reeducative change behavior Change behavior is focused on humans where participation and reeducation are central

Power- coercive change behavior Change behavior is focused on the dependence of power and authority

Self-fulfilling prophecies Begin with the belief that a certain event will happen in the future. The person holding the belief then behaves as if the event is an inevitable occurrence, making sense of the actions in such a ways as to confirm the prophecy

Self-serving attribution Change agents make them look good and shift blaming to others

Table 2. Deductive codes

Subsequently, analysis of the collected data was done. This analysis started with transcriptions of the interviews. The transcriptions were documented in the program ATLAS.ti 7, a program that facilitates professional qualitative data analysis. It supports in managing documents, gives a multi-document view, and sustains intuitive margin-area coding. The use of Atlas.ti 7 contributes to reliability and internal validity of the research.

The transcripts have been coded with the use of two types of coding, deductive codes and inductive codes. Deductive codes were developed from the interview guide, literature and professional insights. Miles & Huberman (1994) advise to create a provisional “start list” of codes created by the conceptual framework, problem areas, and key variables. In this study the “start list” is equal to the deductive codes. Inductive codes were generated by analytic readings, topic changes, and underlying concepts. Aspects that were important in at least one case were marked as a code. By this inductive coding important issues for participants were revealed instead of issues by the researcher perspective, which is valuable for theory development (Hennink et al., 2010).

(18)

(19)

RESULTS

The within-case analysis identifies a range of change agents’ behaviors. To show how the change agents make sense of recipients’ behavior, interpret resistance and behave, the cases are first analyzed on the individual level. The cases are addressed, after which they are compared using a cross-case study. The overall results are clarified with the coding scheme.

The first case study is about the reduction of FTE within an organization operating in the financial sector. The organization focuses on new developments in the market, offering online services to their customer. The need for FTE reduction is a result of changing job characteristics. The participants in the first case are in the age of 30 to 40. They have a relatively high educational level with polytechnic or vocational education. The change agent has been working for the organization for 27 years, whilst the recipients have been working for 10 years on average.

The change agent has a clear goal and purpose of the organizational change in mind. He expresses the goal and shares his opinion with the employees. The change will result in an FTE reduction over an unknown period of time, which will have a large impact on all the members of the organization. The change agent mentions that recipients experience frustration and disappointment with the organization, due to the FTE reduction. Employees are dealing with emotions, especially when close colleagues have to leave the organization and when they are questioning their own job. One related quote is: “Employees were shocked when the change was introduced”.

(20)

Siebrich Westra, University of Groningen MBA Change Management 20 The ambiguous, unknown event that happened is: “Employees want more information than necessary to perform their job”. The change agent explains that employees want to know everything about the change, even though this information is not relevant for them. There is high curiosity and involvement of the employees. In this case involvement is not perceived as positive, but involvement in the extreme is perceived as superfluous. The change agent focuses on this behavior and compared it with the behavior of other employees. The change agent thinks that communication between employees has influence on the behavior. The employees raise each other’s curiosity in chats and informal breaks. The change agent labels the behavior of the employee not necessarily resistant; but he mentions that not fulfilling the employees’ need for information makes them less positive and sometimes even resistant. The high expectations of the employees in communication are not feasible. Categorizing the behavior of the change recipient leads to the organizational culture. The change agent states: “I discovered that the organizational culture is ‘green’, I did not expect the importance of the nice-to-know aspect”. The organizational culture covers togetherness, sympathy, and caring for each other. This organizational culture makes employees requiring information, especially information that is ‘nice-to-know’ instead of information that is necessary for their job.

The change agent indicates his behavior as rational-empirical. He mentions that the focus lies on the opportunities and advantages of the change. Quotes related to this type of behavior are: “I am transparent, but I keep my back straight. “I mention the advantages of the situations and the positive results for our customers”. Due to the unforeseen event, the change agent did not change his rational-empirical behavior. He states that he paid more attention to communication in order to satisfy the employees. The behavior of the change agent intensified but did not change to a different behavioral approach. The following statements refer to his communication: “The nice-to-know aspect made me share more information. Creating support and commitment by sharing information. I am not capable of giving the information and personal attention that fits the needs of the employees, which leads to some resistance”.

(21)

Siebrich Westra, University of Groningen MBA Change Management 21 active and stimulats the active behavior of change recipients. The change agent states: “I expected the reactions of the employees”. The change agent works with the employees for a while and knows their interests and motives. Due to past experiences and the impact of the change, I expect the behavior of the change recipient. The change has an enormous impact on the future of employees’ careers, so a critical view is required. As soon as the redundancy of employees occur, it is important that people consider their jobs and future possibilities. Quotes about the change agents’ perspective: “People are considering their position, their fitness for the job and future possibilities. I stimulate this line of thought, and that people are aware that they might no longer meet their job requirements”.

The interpretations of the change recipients are given in order to compare them with the change agents’ interpretations. First, the goal is perceived the same and both the recipient and agent understand the urgency of the change. The recipients mention that the information about the change is shared. The change recipients point out that the information is shared on a too short notice before the situation actually happens, communication about sensitive subjects is hard for the managers, and that more information could be shared. The employee mentions that more information could be shared and it could be shared earlier in the process. The following quotes are related to the communication: “Information is important to reconsider my job and my opportunities for the future. There is solidarity and unity.” The employees mention that the organizational culture is ‘green’ in terms of solidarity and unity. There is sympathy for each other, but that is not necessarily the reason for acquiring more information. They mention different reasons for the required information: reconsidering the job, own positions, and future opportunities are the specified reasons.

The recipients indicate the change agents’ behavior as willing to talk, positive approach of the change, and an open attitude. They categorize the leadership behavior of the change agent as rational-empirical behavior. He does not let the employees participate in the change but rather emphasizes on the benefits of the change. The change recipient states: “The manager’ behavior did not change during the change”.

(22)

Siebrich Westra, University of Groningen MBA Change Management 22 have a positive attitude. But of course, I considered the effects on my own job”. The change recipients are aware of the situation, but not actively searching for other opportunities, since their current job is preferable.

In the first case study the change agent made sense of a new situation that has happened. He noticed the new situation, considered the situation with closer attention, gave the situation a new label, and categorized the situation by new causes and interpretative schemes. Remarkable is that the categorizing stage of the sensemaking process is perceived differently by the change agent and change recipient. The change agent saw organizational culture as root cause, while the change recipient mention that future opportunities and their own positions are reasons for requiring additional information. These categorized reasons are in favor of the change agent and change recipients themselves, which can be linked to self-serving attributions. The change agent and change recipients perceive the behavior of the change agent similarly, a radical-empirical change behavior is applicable.

Last, the change agent noticed that the reaction of the change recipient was a shock, due to the large impact of the change. Because of that impact, the agent stimulated employees to reconsider their job. He indicates that he expected the behavior of the change recipient and therefore stimulated and focused on the future of the employees. This strong focus on the future can be linked with the aspect self-fulfilling prophecy or sensegiving.

The coding scheme for the first case study is given in table 3.

Case 1 Change agents’ perspective Change recipients’ perspective

Change leadership behavior

Rational- empirical change behavior Communication by change agent Individual attention

Rational- empirical change behavior Communication by change agent Sensemaking process

Noticing Over curious Conflicting image

Communication by change agent Conflicting image

Too busy

Bracketing Communication between employees Communication between employees Labeling Active behavior Active behavior

Categorizing Organizational culture Job opportunities Job fit

Changes in

leadership behavior

(23)

Siebrich Westra, University of Groningen MBA Change Management 23 The second case study is about changes in an organization operating in the financial sector. The department has advisors and assisting advisors to support customers with their financial issues. The services and advices will be provided face-to-face, but is shifting more and more to the internet and other digital networks. The digitization of procedures and tasks leads to changing job characteristics and to a reduction in the number of FTE. The participants of the second case are between 30 or 40 years old. The work experience in this organization varies from 8 years to 26 years. The level of education is polytechnic and vocational education.

The change agent understands the need for the change. He stimulates the change and is aware of the need for change to keep alignment with the environment and the demand of the customer. The change agent talks about an optimistic perspective of the future by the recipient with a polytechnic background. The recipient with a vocational education background is more worried about the consequences and the possibilities on the labor market.

The change process starts with the introduction of the change. The manager introduces the change and the information about the change is shared on the intranet. In the weekly meeting the updates about the change are shared, there are individual meetings with the manager for coaching and there are progress meetings. The leadership style is characterized as rational-empirical behavior, where the agent focuses on benefits, pros, and opportunities. Quotes related to the communication of the manager are: “I name the pros, goals, and the use of the change. I have had individual conversations with employees about their professional development plan”. The change agent paid attention to the individual and each professional development plan.

(24)

Siebrich Westra, University of Groningen MBA Change Management 24 previous experience, level of education, and history. Quotes that are related to the categorized behaviors are: “The history and previous experience have influence on this passive behavior. Employees with lower level of education are not used to keep learning and developing”. The passive behavior is not directly distinguished as resistant behavior, but later in the change process it can cause resistance.

The rational-empirical behavior of the change agent did not change due to the unexpected situation. He mentions that he already focused on each person individually and that he continued this approach.

The change agent mentions that behavior is only resistant if employees counteract the change. The following quotes describe his perspective of resistance: “Resistance is counteracting towards the change”. I perceive resistance as negative. It is easy and positive if employees are willing to change. A ‘wait and see’ attitude is undesirable and way harder”. Resistance is identified as negative, hard to handle, and undesirable. Willingness to change is perceived as easy and positive.

(25)

Siebrich Westra, University of Groningen MBA Change Management 25 The change recipients interpret the behavior of the change agent as rational-empirical. They mention that the relation with the change agent is pleasant. He shares information and offers the opportunity to discuss the change individually. Quotes that are related to this behavior: “It is possible to discuss the change individually with the manager. There are coaching and progress meetings. As soon as information is available, he will share that information”. The change recipients mention that the behavior of the change agent did not change along the process. He still focuses on the efficiency and benefits, and shares information.

The second case study includes the sensemaking process of the change agent. He noticed a situation that he did not expect. After noticing the new situation, he brings the situation to closer attention and labels the situation by the existing label of passive behavior. The reasons of the behavior are categorized as level of education, history and past experience, which are existing categories. The change recipient does not perceive the situation the same. She mentions that her behavior is active rather than passive. The reasons for the behavior are similar, history and past experience are mentioned by both. Although, the change recipient also mentions the uncertainty of the process, where the change agent categorizes it by the level of education. For both parties, they shift the blame to someone or something else.

Remarkable is the comment of the change agent that he prefers a change situation with participative and willing recipients. Willingness makes changes easier. The agent mentions that it is easier to achieve the required goals without resistance.

Last, the behavior of the change agent is rational-empirical behavior. Both the change agent and the change recipient perceive this behavior. Also, both parties mention that the behavior of the change agent did not change along the change process.

The coding scheme of case study 2 is given in table 4.

Change leadership

behavior Rational-empirical change behavior Individual Attention Communication

Rational-empirical change behavior Individual Attention

Communication Sensemaking process

Noticing Sensitive

(26)

Siebrich Westra, University of Groningen MBA Change Management 26 Bracketing Comparing reaction with own

perspective Communication between colleagues Labeling Passive behavior

Emotional reactions Active behavior Categorizing Level of education

History Past experience Uncertainty History Past experience Changes in

leadership behavior No changes in agents’ behavior No changes in agents’ behavior Table 4. Coding scheme case study 2

The third case study is about a merger in the safety and security industry. Three regions merge into one region with shared working procedures, working characteristics, and working methods. The goal of the change is to generate one, unitary region. The participants of the case study are between fifty and sixty years old. They work in the organization with a minimum of 33 years. The level of education varies from polytechnic for the change agent to secondary school/ vocational education for the recipients.

The change agent supports the goal of the change. He understands the need for the change and interprets the change as an improvement. A quote of the change agent that illustrates the goal of the change: “The goal of the change is to generalize work in one region”.

The change process started with the announcement of the principal. In the news as well as within the organization the change is widely introduced. Plenary information sessions and during meetings information about the change is shared. The change agent perceives the reaction of the change recipient as skeptical. The recipients first reaction was: ‘another change’ and ‘uncertainty again’. Even though the change recipients perceive the goal of the change as good, with possibilities and advantages for the future.

(27)

Siebrich Westra, University of Groningen MBA Change Management 27 The change agent explained a critical incident that is an unexpected, noticeable event, which is the following: “Employees show passive behavior and complain about the change”. “They do not participate in focus groups but complain about minimal information and slow processes”. The agent did not expect people to behave passively while complaining about the involvement and participation. The change agent focuses on this behavior and mentions the link with the fear for the unknown. When he considered the situation, this fear and worrying of the change recipient became clear. The change agent labels the behavior of the change agent as passive behavior. He mentions that passive behavior is not the same as resistant behavior, but passive behavior is also undesirable behavior. In this situation recipients are knowingly passive and at the same time complaining. The reasons for this behavior are categorized as insecurity, level of education, and previous experience. The change agent quotes: “people feel insecure, have a low educational level and keep complaining. Previous experience explains the skeptical attitude towards the change”.

Due to the passive behavior of change recipients the agent emphasizes the benefits, opportunities and possibilities of the change. He focuses on the situation of each individual. The change agent explains that he made a switch in his change behavior because of the change recipients’ reactions. He says: “I changed my behavior because of the behavior of the recipient. I learned to listen to the employee with resisting behavior.” The change agent did not switch to a different leadership style but he intensified his current way of leadership. The leadership behavior remains rational- empirical and normative- reeducative.

The change agent explains that he understands the behavior of the change recipient. He expected that the behavior differs between recipients, depending on their personal circumstances. Because of that, negative behavior is not directly resistant. He sees resistance as: “More often being ill, being against the change. Resistance is not necessary negative, only if there is no reason for the behavior”.

(28)

Siebrich Westra, University of Groningen MBA Change Management 28 The change recipient experiences the leadership behavior of the change agent as rational-empirical. They mention that the change agent focuses on the possibilities and advantages of the change. They do not feel the personal attention and doubt the information sharing. The change recipient says: “The possibilities that the change offers are explained. The manager can not answer my questions about the change, communication is lacking and the situation remains unclear”.

The change recipient admits that he is passive in the change process. He mentions that this has to do with the time-consuming change process, uncertainty, and past experience. He rather focuses on the real job. The change recipient says: “I do not join focus groups or participate in the process. I prefer to work on my daily job.” “There is a lot of uncertainty, nothing is clear”. Another recipient mentions she was initially passive. The time-consuming process and past experience were reasons for this passive behavior. Her behavior changed during the change process to active behavior because the change agent emphasized the possibilities and qualities of her individually. She says: “My initial behavior was passive due to previous experiences. The possibilities this change offers made me active. I started to join focus groups”.

Last, the change recipient did not notice any differences in the behavior of the change agent. They perceive the behavior of the change agent as rational- empirical behavior over the whole change process.

(29)

Siebrich Westra, University of Groningen MBA Change Management 29 The change agent regards his leadership behavior as rational- empirical and normative- reeducative. Where the change recipient did not notice the involvement, participation, and individual aspect of the normative- reeducative leadership style. Both the change recipient and the change agent did not perceive a switch in the leadership style.

Change leadership behavior Rational-empirical behavior Normative-reeducative behavior Individual Attention Discussing Reflection Rational-empirical behavior Discussing

Communication by change agent

Sensemaking process

Noticing Passively complaining Skeptical

Passive behavior Discrepancies Bracketing Fear of the unknown Fear of the unknown Labeling Passive behavior

Understanding

Passive behavior Categorizing Level of education

Uncertainty Past changes Past changes Uncertainty Time-consuming Changes in leadership behavior

No changes in agents’ behavior No changes in agents’ behavior Table 5. Coding scheme case study 3

The fourth case study is about a merger of three regions into one region. This merger leads to new working methods, standards, and processes. The goal of the change is to generate a decentralized region that assures security and safety for the country. The change agent understands the change is important to sustain security and safety. The participants of the fourth case study are fifty years or older, while the change agent is in his thirties. The level of education differs from secondary school to polytechnic education. The recipients have worked in their current function for their whole life.

(30)

Siebrich Westra, University of Groningen MBA Change Management 30 good arguments, a discussion is desirable”. The change agent scales his leadership behavior in the normative- reeducative behavior.

The critical incident that occurred has caused a lasting negative atmosphere. The change agent talks about this negative atmosphere at work. It is known that the change is irreversible. Nevertheless, change recipients stick to their negativity. The change agent brackets the situation for closer attention. By bracketing the situation, he experienced that the recipients fear the unknown. Thereafter the change agent labels the behavior of the change recipient as passive behavior with some aspects of resistance. Passive behavior is not necessarily resistant, the same holds for a negative attitude. A negative attitude can provide valuable insights into the change. As long as people and work are not influenced by the negative attitude, it is not resistance. The change agent says: “Active behavior is desirable, if people share their opinion, unnecessary mistakes can be prevented. If people question the change and make it discussable, their critical view is valuable. It would be curious if people just accept the change”. The change agent explains that a critical perspective of the change recipient is very valuable. A critical look is different to a resisting view, resisting is working against the change slowing the change process. The change agents’ sight of the negative attitude is based on fearfulness, skeptical behavior, anxiety, emotional impact, and age. He explains that employees stick to the negative atmosphere to deny the new situation. They are scared due to previous experiences. Quotes of the change agent about the categorizing stage: “Employees are scared, skeptical, and passive. Past experience made them scared and skeptical. There is anxiety, there have been too many changes the last couple of years”.

The change agent explains that he changed his leadership behavior by focusing on the atmosphere at work, due to the recipients’ reaction. He shifts his focus a bit from quality of work to creating a good atmosphere at work. He created a better atmosphere at work by transferring positivity and paying attention to the employees individually. The change agent did not switch his behavioral style, but focused more on the atmosphere and individual aspects that are part of the normative-reeducative behavior.

(31)

Siebrich Westra, University of Groningen MBA Change Management 31 The change recipient states that there is a negative atmosphere at the department. The change has influenced the job and the complete organizational structure which has emotional impact. The reason for the negative atmosphere is mainly the process of the change. The recipient explains that process takes too much time, which is associated with uncertainty and skepticism. The change recipient says: “I have difficulties dealing with the long time of uncertainty. I became more skeptical towards the change due to the time-consuming process. Again, a new change, it is exhausting. I notice it in my private life as well”.

The change recipients mark the behavior of the change agent similarly. They label the behavior of the change agent both rational-empirical as normative-reeducative behavior. Participation is distinctive for the behavior of the change agent. The change recipient says: “He involves us in the process. With his positive attitude he tries to involve us in the change. The manager stimulates people to join focus groups and tries to make you enthusiastic about the change”. The change agent stimulates and has a positive attitude towards the change. The change recipient did not notice changes in the change agent behavior due to his reaction.

The fourth case study explains the sensemaking process of the change agent of the reaction of the change recipient. An unexpected, critical incident occurs, where the change agent did not expect the change recipient sticking to the negative atmosphere. He mentions the behavior of the change recipient as passive and sometimes resistant. The reasons are categorized by past experience, uncertainty, age, personal situation, and the time-consuming process. The change recipient also mentions the negative atmosphere. He mentions private life, uncertainty, past experiences, and the time-consuming process as reasons. Both the change agent and the change recipient mention that the reasons for the attitude lie at the change process and at the individual.

Both the change agent and the change recipient perceived the behavior of the change agent as normative- reeducative behavior. During the change process the behavior of the change agent did not change.

(32)

Siebrich Westra, University of Groningen MBA Change Management 32 behavior Communication by change agent

Discussing Questioning Ownership Normative-reeducative behavior Team work Sensemaking process Noticing Denial Refusing Skeptical Discrepancies Skeptical Passive behavior

Bracketing Fear of the unknown Communication between colleagues Labeling Passive behavior

Resistance

Emotional reaction Categorizing Past experience

Uncertainty Age Personal situation Past changes Job opportunities Time-consuming Private life Uncertainty Past changes History Time-consuming Changes in leadership behavior

The fifth case study is about the same merger as cases three and four. The fifth case is the change agent that is the overall manager of cases three and four. The change agent is around fifty years old, works for the organization for more than thirty years, shifted in his job several times, and has had polytechnic education.

The change agent started to discuss the change with his management team. With the management team they launched a shared understanding and approach to handle the change. The management team meetings helped to gain a shared vision, but it did not cover all the discrepancies. He mentions that an open attitude is important to work with all types of recipients. The three regions consist of various types of employees, old/young, educated/ not educated, and rigid/ flexible. The change agent has an open attitude.

(33)

Siebrich Westra, University of Groningen MBA Change Management 33 recipient. He realized that some people do not understand the change. The change agent quotes: “Some people really do not get the goal and purpose of the change. People with lower education sometimes do not listen because they do not understand the goals of the change”. He categorizes the behavior of the recipient by their age, level of education, and past experiences. The change agent perceives not listening to the information as resistance, whether the circumstances of not understanding the information eased the term resistance.

Another situation occurred where an employee had a burnout due to the change. The change agent concentrates on the employee as an individual, talked about the change, opportunities, paid attention to his view, and listened. The change agent quotes: “I did become more aware of the importance of Vitamin A. Vitamin A, Attention, is often lacking, but is so important”. “The employee went back to work and is now one of the early adaptors in the change process. The change agents’ behavior is normative- reeducative and rational- empirical. The change agent highlights important aspects of both leadership behaviors. He mentions that he did not change his leadership style during the change, but he became aware of the importance of ‘Vitamin A’.

The change manager explains that he expected most of the behavior of the change recipient. After working together for several years they know each other thoroughly. I expected that younger people are scared for their job opportunities, where the older people are more passively involved in the change process. The way I approach the recipient is based on my expectations.

I experience resistance in every change. A critical view towards the change is seen as positive and not characterized as resistance. Resistance is seen as the extreme version of counteracting behavior. Resistance becomes negative when people refuse work.

The change recipient explains that the goal of the change is clear. The change recipients understand the opportunities and benefits the change offers. The time-consuming change process brought the purpose of the change into question.

(34)

Siebrich Westra, University of Groningen MBA Change Management 34 The change recipients explain that the change agent’s behavior is characterized as rational- empirical and normative- reeducative. The change agent tries to involve employees and lets people participate in the change process. He mentions the benefits and pros of the change. The change recipients mention that the leadership behavior is lacking clear, concise communication. The change recipients did not notice changes in the behavior of the change agent.

The fifth and last case describes the change process and the associated sensemaking process of the change recipient. The interpretations in the sensemaking process of the change agent and change recipient differ entirely. The change agent explains that the change recipients do not understand the change. He perceives the behavior of the recipient as resistance and categorized the reasons for the behavior as age, level of education, and past experiences. The change recipient makes clear that the time-consuming process changed their perspective of the change purpose. They do not perceive their behavior as resistance; they just want to perform their job instead of discussing the future. They blame past changes, unclearness, and the time-consuming process for their passive behavior. The behavior of the change recipient can be related to the disability of the change agent. Since the change agent is not capable to inform and convince the change recipient. Or the attitude of the change recipient can be a disguise, because the change recipient does not want to admit the difficulty dealing with the change.

Another aspect that is addressed in this case study is the expectations of the change agent. The change agent declares that he knows the employee thoroughly and knows how the change recipients will react to a new situation. He claims that he approaches the recipient based on his expectations. This statement is risky, since it can lead to the self-fulfilling prophecy or sensegiving. An older employee mentions that she is very active in the process and took the lead. This means that the older change recipients are not generalizable.

Last, the change agent and the change recipient perceive the behavior of the change agent similarly. Both parties did not perceive difference in the change behavior during the change process.

(35)

Change leadership behavior

Rational-empirical behavior Normative-reeducative behavior Power-coercive behavior

Communication by change agent Individual attention

Discussing

Acknowledgement Reflection

Normative-reeducative behavior Communication by change agent Discussing Reflection Individual attention Sensemaking process Noticing Denial Don’t know Refusing Discrepancies Skeptical Discrepancies

Bracketing Comparing reactions with own perspective

Communication between colleagues Labeling Passive behavior

Resistance

Passive behavior Skeptical Categorizing Level of education

Age Past experience Time-consuming Past experience Uncertainty Past changes Time-consuming Changes in leadership behavior

The within-case analysis presents perceived similarities and discrepancies by the change agent and change recipient. With the cross-case analysis the results are compared in a matrix and descriptive data are generalized.

The Matrix is given in table 8, where the codes of each case study are compared. Based on the sub questions, the description of the sensemaking process, change agents’ reactions, and different interpretation are put in plain words.

The results are based on the matrix (Table 8) and the within case analysis. The

sensemaking process of change agents happens according to the four stages: noticing,

(36)

Siebrich Westra, University of Groningen MBA Change Management 36 possibilities that colleagues influence each other. Then the change manager gives meaning to the reaction of the change recipient. The assigned meanings by the change agent are for example: active behavior, passive behavior, resistance, and willingness. Next to that, they bring up emotional reactions and understanding of the reaction as well. The categorizing of change recipients behavior is placed in age, history, job opportunities, level of education, organizational culture, personal situation and uncertainty. Change agents state that resistance is only applicable when employees act recalcitrant. Critical employees are not seen as resistant but as valuable for the change.

Last, the self-fulfilling prophecy plays a role in the change process. Change agents expect behavior of the change recipient and act and guide with these directions in mind. The change agent influences other reactions then expected. The self-fulfilling prophecy occurs more often when change agents are older and have experiences within the organization. The change recipient perceives this behavior as pushing and uncomfortable. Influencing behavior of the change agent is also related to the concept of sensegiving. The following proposition is constructed based on the results of the within-case and cross-case analysis:

P1: There is a linear dependency between the extent to which the self-fulfilling prophecy occurs and demographical factors of the change agent like age and working experience.

The change agents’ behavior is perceived as important by the change recipients. The change agents behave most often according to the rational-empirical change behavior and the normative-reeducative change behavior of Szabla (2007). Next to these behaviors, they address behavioral aspects that are important: individual attention, questioning, discussing, ownership, reflection, acknowledgement, and teamwork. Multiple change agents emphasize especially the individual attention. The sensemaking process of change recipients did not change the behavior of the change agent. The goal and purpose of the change is clear in all situations and the change agent behavior remains the same. The following propositions are constructed:

P2: Normative- reeducative change behavior leads to a better understanding of

(37)

Siebrich Westra, University of Groningen MBA Change Management 37 P3: A clear goal and purpose of the change stabilizes the behavior of the

change agent during the change process.

The interpretations of change agents and change recipients have similarities and

differences. The behavior of the change agent is often perceived similar. Both change agent and change recipient have the same perceptive of the change agents’ behavior. The sensemaking process of the change agent has differences with the perspective of the change recipient. The stages noticing and bracketing of the change process are, in general, perceived as similar. The categorizing stage differs. Change agents categorize the causes of change recipients’ behavior mainly as age, history, level of education, organizational culture, and personal situation. The change recipients mention causes in general as past changes, past experiences, uncertainty, job opportunities, time-consuming process, and private life. Thus, the change recipient blames mostly the change process, situations of previous changes, and the consequences for the future. While the change agent mainly mentions recipients’ characteristics as causes, like age, level of education, personal situation, and culture. It is unknown how this categorizing stage relates to the self-serving attribution. Change agents can shift the blame towards the change recipients’ characters to make them look good. Change recipients can also indirectly blame the change agent by pointing the finger at the change process. The case studies reveal that different interpretations have consequences for the communication and line of thought further in the change process. The behavior of the change agent is focused on the passive behavior and personal characters, while the change recipients would prefer to focus on the change process improvements. These differences in labeling and categorizing influence the further stages of the change process. It results in the following propositions:

P4: Change agents categorize change recipients reactions by age, level of education, history, personal situation, and culture because of their self-serving attribution

Change agents’ sensemaking process of recipients’ reactions in change situations

Change agents’ sensemaking process of recipients’

reactions in change situations

Change agents’ sensemaking process of recipients’

reactions in change situations

ABSTRACT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

METHODOLOGY

RESULTS