Nigerian company
Master thesis, Msc BA Business Administration, specialization Change Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Management and Organization
FRANK MADERN Akerkhof 21a 9712 BB GRONINGEN THE NETHERLANDS Tel: +31(0)613166032 Email: frankmadern@hotmail.com
Student no.: s1335588
First Master Thesis supervisors:
Wiebren Pool
Second Master Thesis supervisor:
Albert Boonstra
Acknowledgements:
I would like to thank my faculty supervisor for his excellent and professional advice during the process of writing this thesis, and also my company supervisors for a wonderful abroad experience. Furthermore I want to thank my father for
correcting my English, all other interns, and last all employees of Consolidated Breweries who participated in the climate survey and the anonymous questionnaire and made writing this thesis possible.
ABSTRACT
In this thesis, the influence of internal corporate communication on employee trust in senior managament is empirically tested. Senior management of the Nigerian target company found that the perceived level of internal corporate communication and the perceived level of trust in management could be improved. Through an in-house magazine and an information tour of the managing director to both of their breweries, they tried to improve this. This study measured the differences between the situation before and the situation after the implementation of these two quick win action plans by using a 2 point longitudinal method, the first point being a climate survey (n=731) and the second being a random sample survey (n=47). Both surveys used questionnaires with 5 point Likert scales as measuring instruments. Furthermore, respondents were divided into two different sub samples so that differences between these categories could be analyzed. The results clearly show that not only the perceived level of quality and quantity of communication increased, but also the perceived level of trust in senior management increased.
These results appeared in both categories of respondents. This confirms results from previous studies and supports the hypothesis. Also, results suggest that quick wins are suitable tools for improving the perceived communication and trust level. The author suggests a deeper
examination of the impact of employee and environmental differences on trust in senior management, and also provides several examples provided by other scholars, clearifying to managers how to put results on trust in senior management more into practice.
Key words: quantity and quality of communication, trust in senior management, internal corporate communication, quick win action plans
“Trust is the miracle ingredient in organizational life – a lubricant that reduces friction, a bonding agent that glues together disparate parts, a catalyst that facilitates action. Non substitute
– neither threat nor promise – will do the job as well.”
(Gordon F. Shea, 1984: 21)
TABLE OF CONTENT
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ... 5
2.1 Introduction ... 7
2.2 Change and Trust ... 7
2.3 Trust ... 8
2.4 Change and Communication ... 9
2.5 Communication and Trust ... 9
2.6 Assumed effects of quick win projects... 11
2.7 Research question ... 12
CHAPTER 3: METHOD ... 14
3.1 Introduction ... 14
3.2 Data Collection... 14
3.3 Type of research and type of data used ... 14
3.4 Research instrument... 15
3.5 Analysis ... 16
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS... 18
4.1 Introduction ... 18
4.2 Results of Climate Survey ... 20
4.3 Results Sample Survey ... 21
4.4 Comparison Climate survey and Sample Survey... 23
4.5 Summary of results ... 24
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION ... 25
5.1 Introduction ... 25
5.2 Conclusions ... 25
5.3 Limitations and Discussion ... 27
5.4 Further directions for scholars and implications for managers ... 30
REFERENCES ... 32
APPENDIX A: Introduction MD of First Issue Consolidated Voice ... 37
APPENDIX B: Content Road Show Sheets MD October 2008... 39
APPENDIX C: Questionnaire for Sample Survey... 43
APPENDIX D: Relevant Detailed Results Consolidated Breweries Climate Survey ... 45
APPENDIX E: Results of Sample Survey... 55
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Consolidated Breweries is a medium sized player in the Nigerian beer market, with a market share around 10 % and is the number three brewer in the market. Since 2005 a big Dutch multinational has a 50,05% majority share in it. Consolidated Breweries’ head office is located in Lagos. The firm also has two breweries, both in other parts of Nigeria.
In March 2008, the company conducted a climate survey to see how the working conditions were perceived by its employees. All results could be viewed on location level (Lagos Head Office, Awo-Omamma Brewery or Ijebu-Ode Brewery), staff level (junior staff, senior staff or management) and it is also possible to view the results of a category of staff at a certain location. The results of the climate survey were compared to two benchmarks: the Dutch multinational’s benchmark (average of all climate survey results within the multinational’s group), and an international benchmark of the Hay consultancy group (Climate Survey Consolidated Breweries PLC March 2008, Information package and results). When compared, some of the dimensions that scored relatively low were “Trust and confidence in the management team”, and “Explanation of the reasons behind decisions or actions taken by the management team” (see Table 1).
Action plans were developed to counter these weak spots. Because this research was constrained by time and budget, it focused on a so called short win. Kotter (1996) mentions quick wins as short-term win-win outcomes that are visible and encourage those leading change. These outcomes should result from low risk, high visibility, low cost, and short-term projects. Hiebert and Klatt (2001) suggest the leadership team should have a short term plan to generate small wins. Then, so they tell us, the successes should be celebrated. They believe that quick wins silence cynics. Some of the short win action plans were meant to improve communication with the employees of the company, and to gain trust of employees in the management team. The plan was to do so by introducing an in-house magazine providing information on state of business, and organizing road shows, where the managing director would travel to the breweries and explain the reasons behind strategic actions performed and decisions taken (also referred to as “soap box speeches” or “zeepkist toespraken” -in Dutch). Furthermore it is an opportunity for employees to ask questions face to face. This is the first time ever this has occurred this way within this company.
What of course was interesting to know was whether or not these actions had effect on improving some of the weak area’s that appeared from the climate survey results. This research tries to test a theoretical hypothesis about internal corporate communication and trust in senior management empirically, by measuring some of the assumed effects of these short wins.
TABLE 1
Scores of Consolidated Breweries Climate Survey Compared to Benchmarks (source: adapted from climate survey Consolidated Breweries PLC march 2008,
information package and results)
To give an overview of this study in a nut shell:
In the chapter 2, an overview of relevant literature is given, the research question is formulated from these theories and a hypothesis is stated.
In chapter 3, the methods of this study are explained and justified.
In chapter 4, the results of the study are presented.
In chapter 5 the research question is answered, discussed and put in context.
Furthermore, scientific and managerial implications are presented for possible further research and practice.
Question Consolidated
Breweries average:
percentage of positive scores
Dutch Multinational’s Benchmark:
percentage of positive scores
International Hay Group Benchmark:
percentage of positive scores
The management team explains the reasons behind decisions or actions taken here
35 38 58
How would you rate the trust and
confidence you have in the management team?
39 44 65
CHAPTER 2: THEORY
2.1 Introduction
After having introduced the research in the previous chapter, in the theory chapter relevant issues in the field of trust and communication are collected and highlighted. In this chapter I will lead the reader from current developments in the corporate and managerial landscape towards the eventual research question and hypothesis, on the way explaining, specifying and justifying this research. I will emphasize why trust got a managerial interest over the last decades, what the exact definition of trust is in this research and how communication is of relevance in change management. Furthermore I will explain how communication can influence the perceived level of trust in senior management and what quick win projects Consolidated Breweries undertook after the climate survey. Finally I will elaborate on their assumed effects.
2.2 Change and Trust
Two very important tensions for change management in organizations are on the one hand the tension between design of the company and its environment and on the other hand the tension between planning and action (Morgan and Zeffane, 2003). These authors also state that
“the tension which arises from balancing improvement in competitive performance and maintaining concern for employees is a significant issue for trust in organizations” (Morgan and Zeffane, 2003: 2). Because of increasing competitive pressures on organizations in a time of globalization, deregulation, but also recent financial crises, there is an increasing managerial interest in trust. Resulting from this, organizations take on new shapes, with less formal procedures, multi-functional teams and more of these new organizational forms (Morgan and Zeffane, 2003). In a world where transactions are handled faster and faster and the diversity of the workforce keeps increasing, leaders can no longer only rely on ‘old-fashioned’ interpersonal ways to generate confidence and trustworthiness, also because it gets harder to properly predict future results and actions. These are all important conditions for effective work performance (Morgan and Zeffane, 2003).
Building trust can be one of the available tools that can bridge inter group distances within companies (Burt, 1992, 2001; also Lane and Bachman, 1998, all in Morgan and Zeffane, 2003) and thereby makes it possible for organizations to be more flexible in their operations and allows them to change constantly. Cashman (1998: 12, in Morgan and Zeffane, 2003) emphasizes that “a trust focus is key to change mastery”. Barrier (1998, in Morgan and Zeffane, 2003) underlines the importance of long-term trust building for change. Albrecht and Travaglione (2003: 89), in an empirical study on trust in senior management in the public sector, came to the following conclusion: “Clearly, senior management, who has the ultimate responsibility for
initiating and managing change, will be interested to know that by managing trust they can influence the extent to which employees will be positively or negatively predisposed towards change.”
In the next paragraph I will state a definition of trust, and shall explain how senior management and employees are enrolled in respectively a trustee and trustor relationship.
2.3 Trust
As mentioned in the previous paragraph, growing competitive pressures on organizations under conditions of globalization, deregulation and higher consumer expectations make that not only leaders must trust their employees, but employees also must have trust in their senior management. Corporate employees work in a company where not they themselves, but senior management determines which strategic direction the company will take at a certain point in time, and how the structure of the organization must be changed to adapt to the external environment, in order to stay competitive. In doing so, they take a certain risk as well. Although senior management will try to diminish company threatening risks when deciding on future strategy, direction and change within their competitive environment, risk can never be totally terminated.
Keeping this in mind, Johnson-George and Swap (1982: 1306, in Mayer, Davis and Schoorman, 1995) state that "the willingness to take risks may be one of the few characteristics common to all trust situations." Kee and Knox (1970, in Mayer et al., 1995) stated that, in order to properly study trust, there must be an important incentive at stake and the trustor (in this case the employee) must be aware of the risks. To specify this to our subject of study, the incentives for the employee could be his salary, promotion or job at stake. Following Mayer et al., (1995: 5) the definition of trust proposed in this research is “the willingness of a party (the employees) to be vulnerable to the actions of another party (senior management) based on the expectation that the other will perform a certain action important to the trustor (in our case; manage the company well), regardless of the ability to control that other party”. This definition of trust is relevant to one party in a relationship with another party (senior management) who is perceived to act and react intended toward the trustor (the employee). Important in this definition is the vulnerability part. Putting yourself in a vulnerable position (Boss, 1978, in Mayer et al., 1995) means that one could loose something important. Putting yourself in a vulnerable position is taking risk. Trust is not per se taking risk, but more in particular it means one is willing to take risk. Cook and Wall (1980: 39, in Mayer et al., 1995) defined trust as "the extent to which one is willing to ascribe good intentions to and have confidence in the words and actions of other people." More specified on organizations, Gilbert and Tang (1998: 2) define organizational trust as “a feeling of confidence and support in an employer; it is the belief that an employer will be straightforward and will follow through on commitments.”
The next two paragraphs will show how important these actions, but especially these words in the definition of Cook and Wall (1980: 39, in Mayer et al., 1995) are for the trustor to be willing to ascribe good intentions and to have confidence in senior management. It will also show the importance of communication in building trust between the trustee, senior management, and the trustor, the employee(s).
2.4 Change and Communication
In order for employees to have trust in these words and actions, and to clarify the good intentions of the senior management, good communication is a key factor. Selling change, convincing others and making them trust the plans of senior management has a lot to do with communication. In Kale’s opinion (2005) it is critical to communicate to employees that the company is trying to achieve certain goals, and why. An organization’s senior management has to be specific and persistent in explaining why the status quo of the past is no longer viable or relevant given the external market context. An explanation about the business strategy is important. Miller (2004) suggests that the senior management should communicate the importance of the change efforts frequently for them to be effective. But how exactly should leaders of an organization communicate to make subordinates trust them?
2.5 Communication and Trust
To answer that question, I first have to specify what type of communication I am talking about. Senior management informing employees is part of the internal communication process of the company. According to Miller (1996, in Kalla, 2005), internal communication are all different disciplines meeting at the borders of communication and organizational life. Welch and Jackson (2007) approached internal communication from a stakeholder’s view. Structural levels could be used to identify broad organisation stakeholder groups. They divided the different levels in strategic management, day-to-day management and team and project management. According to them, stakeholder theory assists managers to consider different groups with different stakes and motivations in an organization, the so called stake holder groups, at different levels in the organization. All together, stakeholder groups, organisational levels and participants make that we can speak of a series of interrelated dimensions of internal communication. This leads them to a definition with a view of internal communication as “The strategic management of interactions and relationships between stakeholders within organisations across a number of interrelated dimensions including internal line manager communication, internal team peer communication,
TABLE 2
Internal Communication Matrix (source: Jackson and Welch, 2007, p 8)
Dimension Level Direction Participants Content Internal line
management communication
Line managers/
supervisors
Predominantly two-way
Line managers- employees
Employees’ roles, Personal impact, e.g. appraisal discussions, team briefings
Internal team peer
communication
Team colleagues
Two-way Employee-
employee
Team information, e.g.
team task discussions
Internal project peer
communication
Project group colleagues
Two-way Employee-
employee
Project information, e.g.
project issues
Internal corporate communication
Top
management
Predominantly one-way
Top
managers- all employees
Organisational/corporate issues, e.g. goals, objectives, new
developments, activities and achievements internal project peer communication and internal corporate communication” (Welch and Jackson, 2007: 7). This view is demonstrated in Table 2. In this study, I focus on the dimension of internal corporate communication as described by Welch and Jackson (2007). It highlights communication of senior management with all employees. It suggests that with internal corporate communication senior managers can contribute to create employee trust and commitment throughout the organisation. The authors tell us that internal corporate communication is communication between strategic managers of an organization and its internal stakeholders, designed and to be executed to promote commitment and trust to and in the organisation, a sense of belonging to the company, awareness of its changing environment and understanding of its changing aims (Welch and Jackson, 2007).
De Ridder (2004) categorised internal communication on different characteristics, and suggested that there are two different types of internal communication that create employee engagement. First, senior management can try to create employee commitment by increasing the quality of task-related communication. These are the daily communication processes that motivate employees. Committed employees will have a supportive attitude. According to this author, providing good-quality task-related communication involves making sure the right information gets to the right place at the right time. But De Ridder’s study shows that there is also a second strategy. A supportive attitude can also be accomplished by employees having trust in
senior management. The three most import characteristics of a trustee (senior management) that determine his/her trustworthiness are ability, benevolence and integrity (De Ridder, 2004). In order for a trustor perceiving the trustee to possess these characteristics, it is necessary that the trustee shows openness in his communication concerning all organisational subjects. These subjects are always related to goals, organisational problems and organisational policy. De Ridder (2004) calls information about these topics 'non-task-related' information. Internal media can be used to distribute this non-task-related information. Examples of these media are bulletins, memos, speeches, pep talks, staff magazines or intranets. Most important in using this media is that an organisation's senior management must show explicitly that it is sincere and open, by explaining its goals, decisions and actions. The perceived quality of non-task-related communications can indicate how successful senior management is in showing the extent of its uprightness, and therefore has a positive influence on the perceived level of trust in top management. (De Ridder, 2004). The better senior management explains and is open, sincere and transparent about strategic decisions and actions planned and taken, the higher the quality of the non-task related communication.
Some agile readers amongst us might have noticed it already; Welch and Jackson’s
‘internal corporate communication’ (2007) and De Ridder's ‘non-task related communication’
(2004) are similar. From here on, I will stick to the term of Jackson and Welch (2007): internal corporate communication. De Ridder (2004) showed that increasing the quality of this kind of communication has a positive influence on the perceived level of trust in senior management.
This is confirmed by Blau (1964, in Albrecht and Travaglione, 2003) who suggests that, in general terms, trust can be developed through increasing the quantity and or quality of communication exchanges over time. Accordingly, Morgan and Hunt (1994) found that frequent and high quality communication resulted in greater trust.
In the next paragraph I shall explain what actions senior management of Consolidated Breweries undertook after they evaluated the results of their recently assessed climate survey.
Together with the literature mentioned above it will lead to the assumptions, research question and hypothesis justifying this research.
2.6 Assumed effects of quick win projects
Consolidated Breweries’ climate survey showed that the level of trust in senior management could be improved. Senior management had also discovered over time and through the climate survey that “dissemination of information through the organisation is often not as fluent as it could be” (quoting the Managing Director of CB, in Consolidated Voice1, 2008: 3).
1 For more detail on the article of the Consolidated Voice, please have a look at Appendix A
After the climate survey, Consolidated Breweries performed two quick win projects. As a result of these projects, I assumed that:
The quantity/amount of internal corporate communication received by personnel from senior management increased. First of all, two new communication channels were introduced especially for the purpose of internal corporate communication, namely the road show and the in-house magazine (these are the two quick win projects). Secondly, the frequency of giving out internal corporate communication increased. The road show is now executed twice a year at each brewery, and the in- house magazine is now published twice a year companywide, both being zero before (Managing Director, sheets road show2, 2008; Consolidated Voice 2008).
The quality of internal corporate communication increased, according to de Ridder’s theory (2004): by explaining strategic goals and decisions and actions taken during the road show and in the magazine; describing possible threats like the rise of prices for food, and noticing upcoming competition as well. In this way, management showed transparency, sincerity and openness for the first time, which increased the quality of internal corporate communication. In the past, an explanation of the reasons behind decisions and actions of senior management towards the entire company was not given at all or only randomly to a small part of the workforce close to senior management, either in staff level nor at work location. (Managing Director, sheets road show 2008; Consolidated Voice, 2008). The climate survey results reflect this3.
2.7 Research question
Taking into account the literature earlier in this chapter on frequent and high quality corporate communication positively influencing trust in senior management, and having seen what follow up actions (quick wins) senior management of Consolidated Breweries performed, made it interesting to determine whether the perceived level of trust had actually increased. The research question of this study is therefore:
“Can an increase in the perceived level of quantity and quality of internal corporate communication increase the perceived level of trust of employees in senior management?”
I expect the variable ‘quantity and quality of internal corporate communication’ to be better appreciated on average in the sample survey than in the climate survey, because of the
2 For more detail on the Managing Director’s sheets of the road show, please have a look at Appendix B
3 For results of the Climate survey; see Chapter 4.2: Results of Climate Survey
quick wins undertaken by senior management. Therefore I also expect the ‘perceived level of trust in senior management’ to be higher appreciated in the sample survey, because this variable is positively influenced by the perceived level of quantity and quality of internal corporate communication.
We can now turn the research question into a hypothesis:
Hypothesis: “An increase in the level of perceived quantity and quality of internal corporate communication will increase the perceived level of trust of employees in senior management.”
In this study, I tested this hypothesis empirically. In the succeeding chapter 3, the methodology chapter, I will explain which data I collected, why I collected them, how I collected them, and how I analyzed these data.
CHAPTER 3: METHOD
3.1 Introduction
In chapter 2, I highlighted relevant literature in the field of trust and communication to explain, specify and justify this study, and I stated my assumptions, the research question and hypothesis. The climate survey, which was one of the two empirical measure points over time in this research, was conducted over 800 people, with a response rate of 92%. It was not possible to conduct such a big survey again because of constraints on budget and time, and management did neither want to create possible precedents towards their employees by performing a high frequency of climate surveys in a short period of time, nor attract a lot of attention to it.
3.2 Data Collection
Therefore, the most suitable alternative to find out whether the road show and the introduction of the in-house magazine had effect was a smaller random sample of employees present after the road shows. I took this sample at both breweries right after the road shows where I asked employees randomly to fill in an anonymous questionnaire. I collected the results in a box, and as an incentive the people who filled in a questionnaire could keep the pen. I emptied the box after every road show at each location. The collected forms were documented and analysed.
3.3 Type of research and type of data used
This study is a causal, longitudinal and hypothesis testing empirical study (Sekaran, 2003). This particular type of study fits measuring a subject at 2 different points in time best, and therefore the research question as well. In my opinion it is the best option, taking into consideration the construction of the research and the propositions made beforehand. This study makes a contribution to testing a theory empirically, which makes it theoretical of nature. It is a quantitative study as well, because of the hard differences measured between two different points in time (Baarda, de Goede and Teunissen 2005). I also used qualitative data, not being only scientific literature, but also the Managing Directors’ introduction of the in-house magazine and the content of his sheets of the presentation of the road show as source for the assumptions made in chapter 2. I also used qualitative data to put those quantitative results found in chapter 4 into context and discuss them; I will elaborate on that issue in chapter 5. This entire report is subject to lay out rules of the style guide of Academy of Management Journal.
FIGURE 1
Definition, Questions asked and scales used
(source: adapted from Climate Survey Consolidated Breweries PLC March 2008, Information package and results)
Management Team = The Top Management level who define the overall strategy of Consolidated Breweries made up of the Managing Director, the three General Managers and the Head of
Human Resources (Management Committee)
3.4 Research instrument
The questions in the anonymous questionnaire of the random sample survey could be answered in a five-point balanced Likert scale with a neutral point, ranging from ‘strongly agree’
to ‘strongly disagree’, and 'very good' to 'very poor’ and a ‘not applicable’ option (see Figure 1).
The scale is on ordinal level. These are the same questions and scales used in the Climate Survey.
On the questionnaire4 were also boxes to check, to identify a respondent’s work location and staff level. This assured the results could be compared on different levels or on different locations within the company, but also on all possible combinations of both.
I embedded these two relevant questions in some other questions, to divert some attention on the specific subject (posing just these two questions on this specific subject would have made respondents probably feel uncomfortable and would have reduced the response rate, and it would not have received management approval). I did not use and process the results on all other questions not relevant to this research.
Not only did I measure the perceived level of trust in the management team at these two moments in time, but also the perceived level of explanation of the Management Team behind
4 To see the full questionnaire of the sample survey, see Appendix C
TABLE 3
Allocation of respondents on Staff level and on Location of Climate Survey and of Sample Survey
Climate Survey Sample Survey
Staff level Respondents Percentage of
total Respondents Percentage of total
Managers 63 9% 3 6%
Senior Staff 137 19% 8 17%
Junior Staff 531 72% 36 77%
total 731 100% 47 100%
Location
Respondents Percentage of
total Respondents Percentage of total
Awo-Omamma 268 48% 26 55%
Ijebu-Ode 287 52% 21 45%
total 555 100% 47 100%
decisions or actions taken. This last question quantifies both the quantity and quality of the internal corporate communication in this study, stated in the research question and hypothesis.
3.5 Analysis
Differences (e.g. the assumed impacts of the short wins) could be measured by comparing the different scores on the climate survey with the sample survey. Because of the ordinal level of the data, I did this by giving every option in the scale a score ranging from 1 to 5.
I also divided the answers over 3 categories: positive response categorised in percentages of total, average response categorised in percentages and negative response categorised percentages. In the results chapter (chapter 4), I then analyzed and compared the percentages of every category scored in the sample survey to the earlier climate survey results. I also showed the modus scores on the two relevant questions and compared these. Using the modus and categories for percentages of scores are proper analysis methods for ordinal data (Jamieson, 2004). Only when the score of the positive response categorised in percentages increases, and the modus will shift 1 point towards a more positive perceived score, at both questions and in both categories, I will call the results ‘significantly improved’.
To have a valid sample, the sample size has to be between 30 and 500. If sub samples are used, these have to be larger than 30 (Sekaran, 2003). A total of 51 respondents cooperated by filling in the anonymous questionnaire for the sample survey, of which 47 responses were usable.
Because all respondents of the sample survey were located at the two breweries, and none of them at Head Office, the comparison of results is limited to the categories “Breweries average (without Head Office)” and “Breweries only; Junior Staff level Average”, the latter being the only sub sample available with a population exceeding the set lower border of 30 (n=36). To have
the biggest validity possible, I compared these two categories to results in the same categories of the climate survey. The sample survey population was quite representative for the population of the climate survey, with the biggest difference on location level of 7% (see Table 3).
In the discussion chapter (chapter 5), I attached conclusions to the quantitative results from chapter 4, in order to answer the research question and to see if the hypothesis stated in chapter 2 can hold. Then, I put these conclusions in context by showing the research’s limitations and validity. Finally, I considered possible scientific and managerial implications.
.
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS 4.1 Introduction
In the previous chapter, I explained the set up and methods of this research. In this section, I present the collected research data. The results are the responses to the following question and statement, with a given definition for management team:
“How would you rate the trust and confidence you have in the Management Team of Consolidated Breweries?”
and
“The Management Team of Consolidated Breweries explains the reasons behind decisions or actions here.”
Definition: “Management Team = The Top Management level who define the overall strategy of Consolidated Breweries made up of the Managing Director, the three General Managers and the Head of Human Resources (Management committee)”
I started with the results of the climate survey (see Table 4). After that, I presented the results of the sample survey. I categorised all data for both the climate survey and the sample survey on:
Location level average result
Staff level average result
Combinations of the two categories mentioned above, dependent on the available sub samples after the sample survey
N.B.! : The modus scores relate to the scores that are attached to possible responses. I did not include the ‘Not applicable’ score in scores, neither in the catagorised percentages. The scoring range is set in a manner so that the lower the quantity of the modus scores, the higher the appreciation, and vice versa. Also, the numbers of total respondents differ per question because some respondents did not answer both questions.
TABLE 4
Results of the Climate Survey
(source: adapted from Climate Survey Consolidated Breweries PLC March 2008, Information package and results)
Question: The management team of Consolidated
Breweries explains the reason behind decisions or actions taken here
Modus
1= strongly agree 2= agree
3= neither agree or disagree
4= disagree
5= strongly disagree
Categorised scores
Number of respondents
Percentage of total respondents (total respondents
=726) Managers Average
Results 2
Pos 51%
Neutral 30%
Neg 16%
63 9%
Awo-Omamma
Average Results 2
Pos 38%
Neutral 12%
Neg 48%
259 36%
Consolidated Breweries Average Results
4
Pos 35%
Neutral 14%
Neg 48%
726 100%
Senior Staff Average
Results 4
Pos 33%
Neutral 21%
Neg 45%
135 19%
Junior Staff Average
Results 4
Pos 33%
Neutral 10%
Neg 54%
513 71%
Head Office Average
Results 3
Pos 32%
Neutral 28%
Neg 32%
75 10%
Breweries Average Results (without Head Office)
4
Pos 32%
Neutral 11%
Neg 54%
538 74%
Breweries only;
Junior Staff Average
4
Pos 31%
Neutral 7%
Neg 59%
408 56%
Ijebu-Ode Average
Results 4
Pos 28%
Neutral 10%
Neg 60%
279 39%
4.2 Results of Climate Survey5
In this paragraph I will show what the results are per question (these being the two questions relevant to this research). The results are shown in Table 4.
Question: The management team of Consolidated Breweries explains the reason behind decisions or actions taken here
On Location level, comparing the results on positive percentages: Awo-Omamma perceived the explanation of the management team best, followed by Head Office. We see that at Ijebu-Ode brewery, the perceived explanation of reasons behind actions and
5 For more detail on the results of the climate survey, please have a look at Appendix D Question: How would
you rate your trust and Confidence in the management team of Consolidated
Breweries?
Modus 1= very good 2= good 3= average 4= poor 5= very poor
Categorised scores
Number of respondents
Percentage of total
(total
respondents = 725)
Management level
Average Results 2
Pos 68%
Average 25%
Neg 9%
61 8%
Head Office Average
Results 3
Pos 49%
Average 41%
Neg 10%
74 10%
Senior Staff level
Average Results 3
Pos 48 % Average 35%
Neg 17%
136 19%
Awo Omamma Brewery Average Results
2
Pos 43%
Average 25%
Neg 31%
257 35%
Consolidated Average
Results 3
Pos 39%
Average 32%
Neg 29%
725 100%
Breweries Average
(without Head Office) 3
Pos 33%
Average 33%
Neg 33%
537 74%
Junior Staff level
Average Results 3
Pos 33%
Average 33%
Neg 33%
513 71%
Breweries only; Junior
Staff Average 3
Pos 28%
Average 33%
Neg 39%
409 56%
Ijebu-Ode Brewery
Average Results 3
Pos 24%
Average 41%
Neg 35%
280 39%
decisions taken is significantly lower than at the other locations; even lower than the Consolidated average results and the Junior staff average results.
On Staff level, comparing the results on positive percentages: the results show that higher levels in the organization show significant higher perceived levels of explanation of reasons behind decisions of the Management team, and that level is decreasing at the lower staff levels in the organization.
Question: How would you rate your trust and Confidence in the management team of Consolidated Breweries?
On Location level, comparing the results on positive percentages: Head office has the highest trust level, followed by Awo-Omamma. We see that at Ijebu-Ode brewery, the trust level is significantly lower than at the other locations; even lower than the Consolidated average results and the Junior staff average results.
On Staff level, comparing the results on positive percentages: the results show that higher levels in the organization show higher levels of trust in the Management team, and that the level of trust is decreasing in the lower staff levels in the organization.
Comparison of the results of the two different questions:
If we compare the results of both questions on positive percentages, we see that overall, the perceived level of trust measured in senior management in positive percentages (39%) is appreciated higher than the perceived level of explanation of reasons behind decisions taken (35%). The differences on positive answers between categories on perceived level of trust is larger (24%-68%) than the differences on positive answers between categories of explanation of reasons behind actions and decisions taken (28%-51%)
4.3 Results Sample Survey6
Looking at the response rate, the only categories that could be used for comparison are
“Breweries Average Results (without Head Office)” and “Breweries only; Junior Staff Average Results”, with respectively 47 and 36 respondents both exceeding the set lower limit of 30.
Therefore, these 2 categories are the only ones that could be used in this study at this time. Both categories and their scores are shown in Table 5. I compared these two categories to the same categories of the results of the Climate Survey in paragraph 4.4. I used the same categories for comparison to have the highest validity possible. But first, we look at the results of the sample survey solely, and examine the results per question.
6 For more detail on the results of the sample survey, please have a look at Appendix E
TABLE 5 Relevant Sample Survey Results
Question: The management team of Consolidated Breweries explains the reason behind decisions or actions taken here.
Comparing the results on positive percentages: The “Breweries Average Results (without Head Office)” category scores slightly higher than the “Breweries only; Junior Staff Average Results” category, most probably because of the higher average scores of Senior Staff and Management level respondents to this questions.
Question: The management team of Consolidated Breweries explains the reason behind decisions or actions taken here
Modus 1= strongly agree 2= agree 3= neither agree or disagree 4= disagree 5= strongly disagree
Categorised scores
Number of respondents
Percentage of total respondents (total respondents
= 47)
Breweries Average Results (without Head Office)
2
Pos 40%
Neutral 27%
Neg 33%
47 100%
Breweries only;
Junior Staff Average Results
2
Pos 39%
Neutral 28%
Neg 33%
36 77%
Question: How would you rate your trust and Confidence in the management team of Consolidated Breweries?
Modus 1= very good 2= good 3= average 4= poor 5= very poor
Categorised scores
Number of respondents
Percentage of total (total respondents = 47)
Breweries Average Results (without Head Office)
2
Pos 51%
Average 32%
Neg 17%
47 100%
Breweries only;
Junior Staff Average Results
2
Pos 53%
Average 31%
Neg 17%
36 77%
Question: How would you rate your trust and Confidence in the management team of Consolidated Breweries?
Comparing the results on positive percentages: the “Breweries only; Junior Staff Average Results” category scores slightly higher than The “Breweries Average Results (without Head Office)” category.
Comparison of the results of the two different questions:
If we compare the results of both questions Overall, the perceived level of trust is higher appreciated than the perceived level of explanation of reasons behind decisions taken.
4.4 Comparison Climate survey and Sample Survey
In this paragraph I will compare the results of the climate survey with the results of the sample survey; again I did this by looking at the results per question. The results are also displayed in Table 6.
Question: The management team of Consolidated Breweries explains the reasons behind decisions or actions taken here. (In Table 6 referred to as “Explanation”)
In both the categories “Breweries Average Results (without Head Office)” as well as “Breweries only; Junior Staff Average Results”, the positive categorised score increased. The negative categorised score decreased significantly and the modus also shifted from ‘disagree’ to ‘agree’.
Question: How would you rate your trust and Confidence in the management team of Consolidated Breweries? (In Table 6 referred to as “Trust”)
In both the categories “Breweries Average Results (without Head Office)” as well as “Breweries only; Junior Staff Average Results”, the positive categorised score increased significantly. The negative categorised score decreased significantly and the modus also shifted from ‘average’ to
‘good’.
TABLE 6
Comparison of Scores of Climate Survey and Scores of Sample Survey
Climate Survey "Explanation" "Trust" Sample Survey "Explanation" "Trust"
Breweries Average Results (without Head
Office)
Breweries Average Results (without Head
Office)
Positive 33% 33% Positive 40% 51%
Average/neutral 11% 33% Average/Neutral 27% 32%
Negative 54% 33% Negative 33% 17%
Modus 4/disagree 3/average Modus 2/agree 2/good Breweries only;
Junior Staff
Average Results
Breweries only;
Junior Staff
Average Results
Positive 31% 28% Positive 39% 53%
Average/Neutral 7% 33% Average/Neutral 28% 31%
Negative 59% 39% Positive 33% 17%
Modus 4/disagree 3/average Modus 2/agree 2/good
Note: Both scores on the climate survey as well as the sample survey are reversely appreciated; meaning the lower the numeric modus score, the higher the appreciation.
4.5 Summary of results
At both the question ‘explanation of reasons behind decisions and actions taken’ as well as the question ‘perceived level of trust in the management team’ of the sample survey, both two categories (‘Breweries only; Junior Staff Average results’ and ‘Breweries Average Results (without Head Office’) score better on categorised positive and negative scores at the sample survey than at the climate survey. Also, the modus scores improved in both questions, at both categories at the sample survey compared to the climate survey.
In the next chapter I will draw conclusions to the results presented in this chapter and further elucidate them. I will answer the research question and we will see if the hypothesis stated in chapter 2 can hold. After that, I shall put the conclusions in context by mentioning the limitations of this research and discuss them. Finally I will give suggestions for further research, together with managerial implications.
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION
5.1 Introduction
In this chapter, I will draw conclusions from the quantitative results in the previous results chapter, in order to answer the research question and to see if the hypothesis stated in chapter 2 can hold. Then, I will put these conclusions into context by stating the limitations of this research, and I will discuss them by using more qualitative data. Finally, I will consider possible scientific and managerial implications.
5.2 Conclusions
After having introduced the total chapter in the previous paragraph I will first draw general conclusions of this research. After the general conclusions I will continue to go more in dept into the conclusions in the next paragraphs. In chapter 2, the research question and hypothesis stated were:
“Can an increase in the perceived level of quantity and quality of internal corporate communication increase the perceived level of trust of employees in senior management?”
Hypothesis: “An increase in the perceived level of quantity and quality of internal corporate communication will increase the perceived level of trust of employees in senior management.”
When we look at the results in chapter 4, we can see that the perceived level of quantity and quality of internal corporate communication is appreciated higher in both categories((‘Breweries only; Junior Staff Average results’ and ‘Breweries Average Results (without Head Office’) in the sample survey than in the climate survey. On average, the level of trust of employees in senior management is also perceived higher in both categories in the sample survey than in the preceding climate survey. The modus scores and the scores of the positive response categorised in percentages improved in both the perceived level of quantity and quality of internal corporate communication, at both categories at the sample survey compared to the climate survey. We can call the results for this reason ‘significantly improved’. We can therefore answer our research question with a “yes”. So, the theoretical foundations of chapter 2 also
gained empirical support. I found no evidence to refute the hypothesis I formulated. The hypothesis tested in this research, stated above, can therefore hold.
Because there was one sub sample available that was large enough to be considered valid (Breweries only; Junior Staff Average), a comparison could be made between two different categories. The results of this research, more in particular the results of the climate survey, suggest that the lower the staff level in the company, the lower ‘the perceived quantity and quality of internal corporate communication’ and ‘perceived level of trust in senior management’
among employees. This might explain why executing the road show and introducing the in-house magazine had a larger impact on lower staff levels in improving ‘the perceived quantity and quality of internal corporate communication’. However, the difference measured was not a big difference. It was the first time ever lower staff levels got informed on the state of business, and it is therefore possible they show higher appreciation for this, opposed to staff higher levels of the organizations who are used to being informed by senior management (at a regular basis). Looking at the climate survey results at location level, it struck me that the ‘perceived level of trust in senior management’ scores significantly higher at head office than the other locations. Although managers are slightly better represented there, I also suspect that the fact of meeting senior management on a day to day basis and talking face to face to them might increase the level of trust. This might have to do with knowing someone’s capabilities. Further research might confirm this maybe further. Another trend is that the average appreciation for ‘perceived level of trust in senior management’ was higher than ‘the perceived quantity and quality of internal corporate communication’ in both the sample survey and in the climate survey results, for both categories((‘Breweries only; Junior Staff Average results’ and ‘Breweries Average Results (without Head Office’). But, compared to the score of ‘the perceived quantity and quality of internal corporate communication’, the score of ‘perceived level of trust in senior management’
increased relatively more in both categories. I do not have a proper explanation for this trend, although I suspect that staff might think a higher information level also includes more work instructions, and this still lacks attention in their view. Perhaps management reaching out to them by means of an in-house magazine and a roadshow makes them perceive their trust in senior management relatively higher and rise faster than the information level.
On a communication level, the results suggest that a combination of introducing a road show and introducing an in-house magazine is an effective way to improve the ‘the perceived quantity and quality of internal corporate communication’ and by doing so improving the
‘perceived level of trust in senior management’. Following the results of this research one could
also say that quick win projects, like in-house magazines and/or road shows, are suitable tools to improve the ‘the perceived quantity and quality of internal corporate communication’ and the
‘perceived level trust in senior management’.
5.3 Limitations and Discussion
Because this research was constrained by budget and time, the available data set could measure only a small slice of the field of communication and trust. This study is focused on internal corporate communication as mentioned by Welch and Jackson (2007) and on perceived trust in senior management that might follow from this, especially in combination. The size and the diversity of the population of the data set testing the hypothesis were subject to limitation.
Senior management did not want to create possible precedents towards their workforce by performing a high frequency of big surveys in a short period of time, and neither did they want to attract a lot of attention to it. Therefore, letting people fill in an anonymous questionnaire in one hour after both road shows was the only possible and approved way to collect data for the sample survey. That is why the data of the sample survey is limited to a relatively small population compared to the climate survey. Another reason of limitation was that people were not very willing to cooperate. A great part of employees asked to participate were suspicious that their anonymity was not safeguarded, and senior management of the company had something to do with the sample survey, so that there was a possibility they could be punished for their input later on. Better explanation beforehand could maybe have prevented this. Also, the sample exists of only people working on both breweries, and of a relatively big part of junior staff. Having a bigger sample survey population, a bigger diversity on staff level in the sample survey and a bigger diversity on geographical location in the sample survey, and if all these factors were relatively equally divided in the sample survey compared to the climate survey, this would have increased the validity even more. It would have extended the scope of this research, by being able to compare more categories (combinations of staff level and location), giving the research more weight. Another limitation is the total time that was available for this research. Having only two measure points in time (and a total of almost 5 months time) does the job here, but having more (preferably 3; Willett, 1989) measuring points over a longer period of time would have made results even more reliable. A possible limitation on the measuring tools of this research (five- point balanced Likert scale with a neutral point) could be a behavioral bias, namely extreme aversion (Plous, 1993). This could have influenced both the results of the climate survey as well as the results of the sample survey. Fortunately there were no disturbing external factors that could have negatively affected both variables measured during the time the research was undertaken, like riots, violent clashes of workforce backed by unions, or military disturbance (which did appear in other regions of Nigeria during the time of this research).
Furthermore, in this research I looked at trust in senior management in a specific context, namely in a Nigerian organization. It might be possible that these results can not be totally generalized to other specific contexts, because of local and cultural influences. Nigerian (and other African countries’) company culture, employee behavior and leadership style, all being practiced in a ‘third world environment’, differ a lot from those in the western ‘first world’ (Blunt and Jones, 1997; see also Table 7). I experienced the issues mentioned in Table 7 first hand all to be very much true working as an intern in a Nigerian company for 5 months. It is hard to estimate if these differences make that leadership and trust theories are maybe not fully applicable in Africa/Nigeria or vice versa, these theories presently being dominated by Western (orientated) scholars (Blunt and Jones, 1997). The results of this research do not suggest a misfit between western theory and non-western practice, but further and more specific research on these differences could examine this deeper.
TABLE 7
Differences in Leadership Western World vs. Leadership Africa (source: adapted from Blunt and Jones, 1997)
Element Current Western Leadership
‘Ideal’
Leadership in Africa
Influences on Leadership practices
-Paramount concern for organizational performance -Drive for efficiency and competitiveness
-Urgency
-Follower-dependent, thus participative
-Highly centralized power structures -High degrees of uncertainty
-Emphasis on control mechanisms rather than on organizational performance -Bureaucratic resistance to change -Acute resource scarcity
-Individual concern for basic security -Importance of extended family and kin networks
Managing Authority -Relative equality of authority and status between managers and subordinates
-Delegation/decentralization -Teamwork
-‘Empowerment’
-Authoritarian / paternalistic leadership patterns
-Centralization -Bureaucratic controls
-Preoccupation with rules and procedures -Reluctance to judge performance Managing Uncertainty -High degree of tolerance for
ambiguity
-Uncertainty accepted as normal -Continuous change viewed as natural and desirable
-Sense of urgency
-High degrees of conservatism
-Change resistant organizational hierarchies, reinforced by the preoccupation with rules -Social networks crucial to provide individual security
Managing Relationships -High levels of trust and openness valued
-Open confrontation of differences -Conflict valued as potential creative
-Support of followers essential -Drive to secure commitment and high morale
-High degrees of conservatism
-Change resistant organizational hierarchies, reinforced by the preoccupation with rules -Social networks crucial to provide individual security
5.4 Further directions for scholars and implications for managers
This research investigated the influence of the factors quantity and quality of internal corporate communication on trust. Not only are by these factors the frequency of information distribution highlighted, but also the openness, transparancy and sincerity of senior management in this process. It might be interesting to see whether there are other factors that influence trust in senior management. Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard and Werner (1998) suggest in this light that the competence and ability of top managers are factors likely to be considered for further research.
Managers can be as open and frequent in distributing information as possible, as long as their personnel do not think they are capable of doing their job; it seems unlikely they will develop trust in their leaders.
But not only characteristics of managers could make a difference in employees developing trust in top management; characteristics of employees may also do so. Therefore I suggest further research on educational level difference, staff level difference, gender difference, and cultural difference on employee level and how these differences influence the employee’s perception on trust in senior management. For instance, one could imagine that in a culture where self interest is highly appreciated, trust is harder to attain than in a more conformist culture. In a country where corruption is quite normal and almost part of national culture, it might be harder to ascribe trustworthy behavior to leaders than in a well governed country. What (combination of) media channel(s) is/are most effective in increasing the perceived quality and/or quantity of information and thereby the perceived level of trust in senior management is another point probably worth investigating.
Because other researchers (Horton and Reid, 1991; Shaw, 1997, both in Albrecht and Travaglione 2003) suggest organizational benefits and higher effectiveness related to higher trust in senior management, there may be opportunities to improve organizational performance by improving the level of trust in senior management. Another managerial implication that might be interesting is that Firns, Savery, Albrecht and Travaglione (1997; in Albrecht and Travaglione, 2003) found trust in senior management to positively influence absence behavior (that is:
reducing the absence rate). Albrecht (2008) concluded that employees will probably be more positive toward organizational change initiatives and less cynical if they think management is credible and trustworthy. This implies that senior management teams who enjoy trust of their employees can spend less time and energy on driving change in their organisations and channeling resistance. With more and more companies having climate surveys more frequently nowadays, survey feedback processes (Golombiewski & Hilles, 1979, in Albrecht, 2008) could be used to better involve employees setting up strategies to develop higher levels of trust in senior management and developing more positive attitudes to change. Albrecht also suggests further
research on trust development in change processes on the issue of organizational politics (Kacmar
& Ferris, 1991 in Albrecht, 2008), openness to experience and risk aversion (Judge, Thoresen, Pucik and Welbourne, 1999, in Albrecht, 2008).
With this research I tried to contribute on the subject of internal corporate communication and trust in senior management. I tried to do so by testing and eventually supporting other theories on trust in senior management with empirical evidence (Albrecht and Travaglione, 2003;
De Ridder, 2004). With the emergence of new organizational forms, new information technologies, globalization, empowerment of employees, and increasing workplace diversity, trust in senior management might become more and more important in the near future in the transition from old organizational forms to new ones. Many questions regarding trust in senior management have not been (properly) researched yet, and I hope by these suggestions to stimulate further thinking and research on trust in senior management.
Word count: 8466
REFERENCES
Albrecht, S.L. Perceptions of Integrity, Competence and Trust in Senior Management as Determinants of Cynicism Toward Change. Source: http://pamij.com/7_4/v7n4_albrecht.html, accessed at 14-10-2008
Albrecht, S.L. and Travaglione, A. 2003. Trust in public- sector senior management, Journal of Human Resource Management 14, 1 February: 73- 92
Baarda, D. B., de Goede, M. P. M., and Teunissen, J. 2005. Kwalitatief onderzoek; Praktische handleiding voor het opzetten en uitvoeren van kwalitatief onderzoek. Educatieve partners Nederland BV, Houten.
Barrier, M., 1998 Managing Workers in Times of Change. Nations Business. May: 31-34, in Morgan, E. and Zeffane, R. 2003. Employee involvement, organization change and trust in management. Int. J. of Human Resource Management 14, 1 February: 55-75
Blau, P.M. 1964. Exchange and Power in Social life. New York: Wiley, in Albrecht and Travaglione, A. 2003. Trust in public- sector senior management, Journal of Human Resource Management 14:1 February: 73- 92
Blunt, P. and Jones, M.L. 1997. Exploring the limits of Western leadership theory in East Asia and Africa. Personnel Review, Vol. 26 No.1/2: 6-23
Boss, R. W. 1978. Trust and managerial problem solving revisited. Group and Organization Studies. 3: 331-342, in Mayer. R.C. Davis. J.H. and Schoorman. D. 1995. An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust. Academy of Management Review. 20: 709-34
Brewer. M.B. 1981. Ethnocentrism and its Role in Interpersonal Trust. In Brewer. M. and Collins.
B. (eds) Scientific Inquiry and the Stnial Sciences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, in Morgan, E.
and Zeffane, R. 2003. Employee involvement, organization change and trust in management, Int.
J. of Human Resource Management 14, 1 February: 55-75
Burt. R.S. 1992. Structurul Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, in Morgan, E. and Zeffane, R. 2003. Employee involvement, organization change and trust in management, Int. J. of Human Resource Management 14, 1 February: 55-75
Burt. R.S. 2001. Bandwith and Echo: Trust, Information and Gossip in Social Networks. In Casella, A. and Rauch, J.F. (Eds) Integrating the Study of Networks and Markets. New York:
Sage, in Morgan, E. and Zeffane, R. 2003. Employee involvement, organization change and trust in management, Int. J. of Human Resource Management 14, 1 February: 55-75
Cashman, K. 1998. Change Mastery: Leading the Row. Executive Excellence 15(1): 12, in Morgan, E. and Zeffane, R. 2003. Employee involvement, organization change and trust in management, Int. J. of Human Resource Management 14:1 February: 55-75
Climate Survey Consolidated Breweries PLC March 2008, Information packet and results
Consolidated Breweries’ Road Show; Sheets of Managing Director, October 2008
Consolidated Voice 2008; In-house magazine of Consolidated Breweries PLC, Issue 1 October: 3
Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment, and personal need non fulfillment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53: 39-52 in Mayer.
R.C. Davis. J.H. and Schoorman, D. (1995) 'An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust', Academy of Management Review. 20: 709-34
De Ridder, J. (2004). Organisational communication and supportive employees. Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3: 20-31
Firns. I., Savery, L.. Albrecht. S. and Travaglione. A. (1997) Regard for Senior Managers and its Impact on Attitudes. Absenteeism and Labour Turnover. In Armistead. C. and Kiely. J. (eds) Effective Organization: Looking to the Future. London: Cassel, in Albrecht and Travaglione,
‘Trust in public- sector senior management’, Journal of Human Resource Management 14, 1 February 2003: 73- 92
Gambetta, D. G. (Ed.). 1988. Can we trust trust? In D. G. Gambetta (Ed.), Trust: 213-237. New
