Summaries Change & Human Factors
#1 – Smith & Graetz Ch. 7
Change management philosophies tend to ignore how individuals respond to change. Similar to the 5
stages of dealing with serious loss, Bridges (1995) describes three stages in the change transition
process: endings, the neutral zone, and new beginnings.
Changing tasks or priorities undermines an employee’s sense of mastery and replaces it with fears
about inadequate performance, escalating workloads, ridicule and termination. Hence, the
psychological philosophy assumes that resistance commands the first instinct towards change. The
psychological philosophy might be differentiated from other philosophies by its interest in the
personal impact of change. The key motif here is minimizing the trauma and discomfort associated
with change. The philosophy encourages employee involvement and empowerment in organizational
decisions, which can promote or undermine the trust required for successful change. A clear balance
must be sought between consultation and democracy. Sometimes, resistance might be legitimate
and advantageous because it delays or obstructs a poorly conceived change project.
Commitment and resistance do not occur separately and can be better understood as polar extremes
of a single issue: responses to change. Common psychological solutions for overcoming negative
responses to change include empowerment, participation, education, facilitation, and negotiation
Empowerment does not mean chasing strategic objectives. Instead it aims to foster community,
contribute to society, and to help organizational members feel better about their work. It strives less
to give power away and more assumes that employees already have it. Converting existing power
into change action comes by creating ownership and capability using cooperative goal-setting and
positive reinforcement. Other common strategies involve role modeling, organizational learning and
positive encouragement to offset stress or anxiety, and to persuade individuals of their capability and
worth. However, despite the intuitive and popular appeal of empowerment, it is difficult to
implement as it may lead to more work, responsibility, and risk. Some employees do not want the
power to make decisions if it means accepting accountability for the outcomes.
With or without formal empowerment, when employees develop a sense of self-determination their
responses to change become more positive. Resistance to change should diminish as employees take
ownership of decisions in an inside-out, or bottom-up approach to change management. For
example, job enrichment and rotation programs may encourage employees to engage in novel ways,
leading to higher levels of satisfaction. Another common approach involves coaching and mentoring,
with coaching referring to training, guidance and feedback about tasks and performance. However,
coaching and mentoring may be impractical for a large group of employees.
Organizational spirituality can generate honesty, trust, creativity, morale, satisfaction, fulfillment,
commitment, and even financial performance through personal psychology. Despite a diverse range
of definitions, a common thread places emphasis on individuals in the most important parts of the
organizations. Spirituality spans a bridge of values and principles between organizations and
employees. However, critics may put that organizational spirituality is a fad, as spirituality, personal
growth and values have limited potential as agents of change. Research suggests that employees
who feel that their principles are respected report greater satisfaction and perform better.
Organizational development explores the human side of change responses. OD converges on the
values, intentions, and perception of employees whose personal experiences of change need to be
positively managed. Creating the right conditions for change requires leaders to intervene directly.
OD tries to create working environments that meet employees’ needs, support inter-personal
relationships, promote satisfaction and fulfillment, and bolster commitment. OD seeks to establish
an alignment between all organizational functions while uniquely using human intervention as the
vehicle for introducing change. OD change agents do not dictate or direct change, but act as
facilitators through action research. OD has been criticized for failing to bridge the gap between
theory and practice as it sidesteps the importance of top-down strategy in response to competitive
market conditions.
Organizational learning marries the developmental side of OD with the cognitive side of the culture
philosophy to create an approach emphasized knowledge. For OL proponents, change means
challenging established ways of behaving. OL and OD make comfortable bedfellows as both feature
open communication and collaboration, aiming for common inquiry where organizational members
recognize, question and replace existing practices and behaviors. The OD component of OL
contributes the idea that employees interpret their experiences and share them. Collectively, the
voices of employees represent a knowledge base from which change leaders can learn. In the open
dialogue of OL, the dialogue process shapes meanings and experiences into a shared schema or
frame of reference. This is facilitates by flexible forms of organizing through fluid and permeable
structures and boundaries. Here, change must emerge from the ground up through collaboration and
a willing desire for improvement. This overcomes the problems of OD in having to appeal every
employee and combines cultural with the organizational schema.
Encouraging employees to explore workplace satisfaction may not be helpful in bringing about
change. People fail to choose optimally either because they do not accurately predict the
consequences of the choices or ignore their own predictions when they come to choose. An example
concerns impacts biases, referring to the euphoria of a work promotion which gets swallowed up in
the aftermath by added responsibilities, higher workload, and more stress. Moreover, distinction
biases occur in predictions made during different modes of evaluation as well as emotional states.
People evaluation options differently before and after the decision. In addition, how past decisions
worked out also affects the accuracy of future predictions.
The conclusion of this chapter is that organizational change pivots on individual responses to change.
#2 – Leadership competencies for implementing planned organizational change (Battilana et al.
2010)
One of the defining challenges for leaders is to take their organizations into the future by
implementing planned organizational changes that correspond to premeditated interventions
intended to modify organizational functioning towards more favorable outcomes. A challenging task
in doing so is implementing change once a direction has been selected. Previous research shows
evidence that the leadership characteristics of the change agent influences the success or failure of
this implementation.
Battilana et al look at the task-oriented and person-oriented behaviors model, also referred to as the
initiating structure and showing consideration model, in their research on leadership. Task-oriented
skills are those related to organizational structure, design, and control, and to establishing routines
to attain organizational goals and objectives. Person-oriented skills include behaviors that promote
collaborative interaction among organization members, establish a supportive social climate, and
promote management practices that ensure equitable treatment of organizational members. This
distinction is well suited because of role that these behaviors have in organizational change, because
they have been shown to cover a majority of the day-to-day leadership activities, and it has been
shown to be a powerful model through empirical research.
Effectiveness at both behaviors requires different but related competencies. At task-oriented
behaviors, effectiveness hinges on the ability to clarify task requirements and structure tasks around
an organization’s mission and objectives. Effectiveness at person-oriented behaviors relies on the
ability to show consideration for others as well as to take into account emotions. Variation in
leadership competencies on these behaviors has implications for planned organizational change
implementation. Depending on their mix of leadership competencies, leaders might differentially
emphasize the activities involved in planned organizational change implementation.
The authors emphasize three key activities involved in planned organizational change
implementation: communicating (making the case for change, share vision), mobilizing (gain
support), and evaluating (monitoring the impact and institutionalizing change).
(communicating) To destabilize the status quo and paint a picture of the desired new state for
followers, change leaders must communicate the need for change. Leaders skilled at interpersonal
interaction are able to monitor and discriminate among their own and others emotions and use this
information to guide thinking and action. Hence, person-oriented leaders are more inclined to put
emphasis on communicating activities (H1a). Leaders who are effective at task-oriented behaviors,
are more likely to concentrate their energies on developing the procedures, processes, and systems
required to implement the change. Hence, they are less inclined to emphasize communicating
activities (H1b).
(mobilizing) Leaders must mobilize organization members to accept and adopt proposed change
initiatives in their daily routines. Leaders must create a coalition to support the change project, that
entails both appealing to organization member’s cooperation and initiating organizational processes
and systems that enable that cooperation. Thus, both person-oriented and task-oriented skills.
Effective communicators and maangers of emotions can marshal commitment to a firm’s vision and
inspire organization members to work towards it realization. Hence, they are more likely to pay
attention to individuals’ attitudes to change and to anticipate the need to involve other in the change
process . However, mobilizing also implies redesigning existing organizational processes and systems
in order to push all organization members to adopt the change. Task-oriented leaders wil focus on
gettings tasks done that leads them to identify the different stakeholders who need to be involved
and build systems to facilitate their involvement. Hence, both person and task-oriented leaders are
more likely than other leaders to focus on activities associated with mobilizing organizational
members (H2a & H2b).
(evaluating) Leaders also have a role in evaluating the content of change initiatives and ensuring
compliance. Hence, they must employ measures to monitor and assess the impact of implementation
efforts and institutionalize change. Person-oriented leaders are reluctant to place much emphasis on
method, productivity and the imposition of impersonal standards and as a result, are less likely to
engage in evaluating activities (H3a). Task oriented leaders tend naturally to focus on tasks that must
be performed to achieve the targeted performance achievements and are more likely to focus on
evaluating change project implementation (H3b).
The hypothesis are tested at the UK National Health Service (NHS), engaging in a ten year renewal.
Data was gather from 95 managers through a 360-degree leadership survey and a telephone survey
12 months later.
The results confirm H1a, stating that person-oriented leaders are more likely to focus on
communicating the need for change. H1b, stating that communicating the need for change is less
likely to be effective for task-oriented leaders was reject. The control variable found a relationship
between manager’s likelihood to focus on activities associated with communicating the need for
change and organization size. In addition, H2b was support, stating that task-oriented leaders are
more likely to focus on mobilizing organization members, though H2a was rejected, claiming the
same for person-oriented leaders. The control variables show a relation between management
education and the likelihood that managers focus on mobilizing organization members. However,
education is negatively related to mobilizing activities. Finally, H3b was supported, claiming that taskoriented leaders focus more on evaluating planned change. There is no support for H3a in that
person-oriented leaders are less likely to evaluate the change. The control variable show that
managers with longer tenure in their positions are more likely to emphasize evaluating change.
The robustness checks show that effectiveness in task- and person-oriented behaviors has
independent effects on the emphasis put on the communicating activities. Moreover, there is
significant interaction between mobilizing and evaluating, indicating that the competency in one
dimension has an influence on how the other dimension is associated with the degree of emphasis
put on each of these two sets of activities. Finally, leaders who are highly skilled in both personoriented and task-oriented behaviors are likely to be more effective than other leaders.
This study yielded two important findings: (1) leaders who are more effective at task-oriented
behaviors are more likely to focus on both mobilizing and evaluating activities and (2) personoriented leaders are likely to focus on communicating activities of change implementation.
Furthermore, leaders who are effective at task-oriented behaviors might need to interact with peers
and to initiate an intended new structure and hence need to share their visions with others. Finally,
although person-oriented leaders are good at inspiring others, task-oriented leaders are able to
mobilize people by designing organizational processes and systems according to the change.
#3 – Becoming a Master Change Agent (Cawsey et al., 2012, Ch.8)
Change agents are critical to the entire change process, from initial diagnoses to implementation.
They are sources of energy and intellect that help organizational members recognize the need for
change, see what the future may look like, build support, and mobilize the troops to move towards
the vision, then asses where and how to proceed next. However, the role of change agent is a
double-edged sword. When done wrong, it can be hazardous to your career, frustrating and
demoralizing.
The interaction of person, situation, and vision comprises a change agent. In formula: Being a Change
agent = Person x Vision x Situation. Here, situations play a critical role. Endothermic change situation
suck out the energy whereas exothermic change situations builds on enthusiasm.
Literature shows many personal characteristics that are claimed to be essential to the change
process:
1. Commitment to improvement: The essential characteristics of change leaders is that they
are people who seek opportunities to take action in order to bring about improvement.
Through a trial-and-error approach, they challenge the way things are currently done.
2. Communication and Interpersonal Skills: Change agents require emotional resilience,
tolerance for ethical conflicts and ambiguities and political savvy. Negative characteristics
may be being cold and aloof, displaying insensitivity, being arrogant, being burned out,
lacking trustworthiness, being overly ambitious, abusing power, inflicting damage on
other, over exercising control, and rule breaking for own purpose.
3. Determination: Change agents need a dogged determination to succeed in the face of
significant odds and the resilience to respond to setback in a reasoned and appropriate
manner.
4. Eyes on the Prize and Flexibility: Change agents must focus on getting it done, be ready
to take informed risks, modify their plans to pursue new options, or divert their energies
to different avenues as the change landscape shifts.
5. Experience and networks: Change agents with experience constantly scan the
environment and pick up clues that allows them to develop a rich understanding of the
situation. They should remember never be seen as shooting the messenger and use their
network to gain value.
6. Intelligence: this is needed to engage in the analysis, to assess courses of action and to
create confidence in a proposed plan. However, the IQ has to be supplemented by the
EQ.
Another way to think about the attributes is grouping them in framing, capacity-creating, and
shaping behaviors (See Higgs & Roland).
Future leaders need to be aware of (a) more complex challenges, (b) a focus on innovation, (c) an
increase in virtual communication and leadership, (d) the importance of authenticity, and (e) leading
for long-term survival. Bennis argues that you are your own best teacher, you should accept
responsibility, you can learn anything you want, and that true understanding comes from reflection
on your experience. Reflection can occur through the concept of appreciative inquiry (AI), which is
the engagement of individuals in an organizational system in its renewal. If you can find the best in
people, that is, appreciate it, growth will occur and renewal will result.
Miller argues that there are developmental stages of change leaders, going from novice to junior to
experience by observing others. The fourth stage, expert can only be learned through personal
experience with change.
Change leaders should be able to anticipate strategic shifts, manage that order of change, and
continuously improve and grow between these significant changes. Episodic change is infrequent,
discontinuous, and intentional, whereas continuous change is ongoing, evolving, and cumulative. The
appropriate model here is to freeze, rebalance and unfreeze. Episodic change needs a prime mover
change agent, one who creates the change, whereas continuous change needs a change agent who is
a sense maker and able to redirect the organization.
Change agents can act in pull or push ways. Pull actions create attractions or goals that draw willing
members to change and are characterized by organizational visions or higher-order purposes and
strategies. Push actions are data based and factual and communicated in ways that advance
analytical thinking and reasoning and that push recipients thinking in new directions. Change agents
using push actions can use legitimate, positional, and reward-and-punishment power to change the
dynamics of situations.
Strategic Change and Incremental Change vs Vision Pull and Analysis/Power Push
Strategic Change
Emotional Champion
Developmental Strategist
Vision Pull
Analysis Push
Intuitive Adapter
Continuous Improver
Incremental Change
The Emotional Champion has a clear and powerful vision of what the organization needs and uses
that vision to capture the hearts and motivations of the organization’s members. They are needed
when there is a dramatic shift in the environment and the organization’s structures, systems, and
sense of direction are inadequate. The Emotional Champion is conformable with ambiguity and risk,
thinks tangentially and challenges accepted ways of doing things, has strong intuitive abilities, and
relies on feelings and emotions to influence others.
The Development Strategist applies rational analysis to understanding the competitive logic of the
organization and how it no longer fits with the organization’s existing strategy. He engages in bigpicture thinking about change and the fit between the environment and the organization, sees the
organization in terms of systems and structures, and is comfortable with assessing risk and taking
significant chances based on a thorough assessment of the situation.
The Intuitive Adapter has the clear vision for the organization and uses that vision to reinforce a
culture of learning and adaptation. He embraces moderate risks, engages in a limited search for
solutions, is comfortable with the current direction that the vision offers, and relies on intuition and
emotion to persuade others to propel the organization forward through incremental changes.
Finally, the Continuous Improver analyzes micro environments and seeks changes such as reengineering systems and processes. He thinks logically and carefully about detailed processes and
how they can be improved, aims for possible gains and small wins rather than great leaps, and is
systematic in his or her thinking while making careful gains.
Internal change agents can play four different internal roles; the catalyst is needed to overcome
inertia and focus the organization on the problems faced. The solution giver knows how to respond
and can solve the problem. The process helper facilitates the how to of change, playing the role of
third-party intervener often. Finally, the resource linker bring people and resources together in ways
that aid in the solution of issues. Internal change agents are critical because they know the systems,
norms, and subtleties of how things get done, and they have existing relationship that can prove
helpful. However, they may not possess needed specialized knowledge or skills, lack objectivity,
independence, difficulty refraining existing relationships or lack an adequate power base. Hence, it
may be necessary to bring in external agents.
Consultants may be used to provide subject-matter expertise, facilitate the analysis, and provide
guidance to the path forward. Too often, insiders find themselves tied to their experience and
outside consultants can be used to help them extricate themselves from these mental traps.
Moreover, external agents can provide guidance and lend external credibility and support for
analyses or actions that advance the change imitative. However, they have limitations in that they
lack the knowledge of the political environment and culture of the organization and are not
responsible for the change in the end. Another risk is that they are expected to support the position
of the leader of the organization and lose their ability to provide independent judgment.
When a change is larger, a team may be required. A good team member should be knowledgeable
about the business and enthusiastic about the change, possess excellent communication skills, have
total commitment, is open minded, and respected within the organization. Possible roles within a
change team are the champion, who will fight for the change under trying circumstances. They
should consider two further organizing roles: a steering team that provides advice to the champion
and an implementation team for the direction of the change in light of other events and priorities in
the organization. The design and implementation team often have a change project manager who
coordinates planning, manage logistics, track progress, and manages the adjustments needed along
the way. Finally, sponsor can be senior executives who foster commitment to change and assist
those charged with making the change happen. This can be in the form of visible sponsorship,
information sharing and knowledge development, or providing protection.
Seven factors are critical to team success: (1) clear engaging direction, (2) a real team task), (3)
rewards for team excellence, (4) availability of basic material resources, (5) authority vested in the
team, (6) team goals), and (7) the development of team norms that promote strategic thinking.
Finally, rules of thumb for change agents are: (1) stay alive, (2) start where the system is, (3) work
downhill, (4) organize, but don’t over organize, (5) pick your battles carefully, (6) load experiments
for success, (7) light many fires, (8) just enough is good enough, (9) you can’t make a difference
without doing things differently, (10) reflect, (11) want to change; focus on important results and get
them, (12) think and act fast, and (13) create a coalition.
#4 – What does it take to Implement a Change Successfully? (Higgs & Rowland)
There is a widely held view that attempts to implement organization change are predominantly
unsuccessful. Past research from Higgs & Rowland in 2005 shows that change approaches that
tended to be programmatic and rooted in a viewpoint that saw change initiatives as linear,
sequential, and consequently predictable tended to fail in most contexts. On the other hand,
approaches that recognized change as a complex responsive process and embedded this recognition
within the overall change process tended to be successful across most contexts.
The role of leaders in the change process does affect significantly the success of change. The beliefs
and mind-sets of leaders have been shown to influence their orientation of choices and approaches
to problem solving. Thus, it may be implied that leaders’ behaviors will influence their approach to
change and its implementation. However, leadership behavior has to be examined within the context
of change.
In their 2005 article, Higgs and Rowland identified five broad areas of leadership competency
associated with successful change implementation:
1. Creating the case for change: effectively engaging others in recognizing the business need for
change
2. Creating structural change: Ensuring change is based on in-depth understanding of the issues
3. Engaging others in the process and building commitment
4. Implementing and sustaining changes: developing effective plans and ensuring monitoring
and review practices are development
5. Facilitating and developing capability: ensuring that people are challenged to find their own
answers and they are supported in doing this
Another analysis identified three broad sets of leadership behavior:
1. Shaping behavior: The communication and actions of leaders related directly to the change;
making others accountable, thinking about change, and using an individual focus
2. Framing change: establishing starting points for change; designing and managing the journey
and communicating guiding principles in the organization
3. Creating capacity: creating individual and organizational capabilities and communication and
making connections.
In their analyses, they demonstrated that leader-centric behaviors had a negative impact on change
success in all the contexts examined. More group- and systemic focused behaviors were positively
related to success in most of the contexts they examined. Shaping behaviors tended to be more
widely encountered within the more programmatic approaches to implementing change, whereas
framing and creating were predominant behavior sets in approaches that were based on the
recognition of change as a complex phenomenon. Leaders who had a notable combination of the
framing an creating behavioral sets appeared to be particularly successful in implementing change
across most of the context examined.
The main RQs in this paper of H&R concern whether leaders of framing and creating exhibit more
effective changing behavior and whether shaping leaders their negative impact on change is reduced
when combined with facilitating and engaging behavior. They conducted this study through
interviews with leaders in 33 organizations. Based on coding, new behavior sets were found and
described:
-
-
-
Attractor (FC1): Creates a magnetic energy force in the organization to pull it towards its
purpose. The leaders pull people towards what the organization is trying to do, not toward
themselves
Edge and Tension (FC2): The leader tests and challenges the organization and amplifies the
disturbance generated by the change by helping people see the repeating and unhelpful
patterns of behavior.
Container (FC3): The leader holds and channels energy, which in unnerving times of change
provides composure.
Transforming Space (FC4): The leader creates change in the here and now based on the
assumption that the only thing you can change is the present moment.
Framing was identified as being a combination of the new categories of attractor, edge and tension,
and container. The original category of creating was identified as being a combination of container
and transforming space. The combination of all four of these behavioral components was labeled as
Framcap behavior.
The data were also coded for the dominant approach, being either directive (change that is driven,
controlled, managed and initiated from the top), self-assembly (direction from the top,
implementation at local managers), master (direction set at top but open to discussion, line
leadership), or emergent (senior management establish sense of direction but change can be
initiated anywhere).
The results showed that the more successful change initiatives tended to evidence higher
proportions of Master and Emergent change approaches, confirming the general view that
programmatic change is largely unsuccessful. Less successful changes showed a far higher proportion
of dominant shaping behavior and low Framcap behaviors, whereas the more successful changes
showed a dominance of Framcap behavior. Thus, the data confirm both research questions.
However, it is interesting to note that although the Framcap behaviors were dominant in the
successful changes, there were some examples where these were accompanied by a degree of
shaping behaviors.
More concretely, successful leader were self-aware and conscious of how to use their presence,
where able to work in the moment while staying attentive to what was happening and to work with
what arose, and remained in tune with the bigger picture within which the change was positioned.
Furthermore, the result showed that the Framcap components of Attractor, Container, and
Transforming Space had a very positive emotional feel, whereas Edge and Tension has a more
negative emotional potential. In addition, the four aspects of Framcap appeared to contain both
elements of stabilization and destabilization. For example, the attractor sets and frames the context
of how things fit together, the container makes it safe to say risky things, edge and tension holds
people on course, and transforming space includes putting self out there and allowing oneself to be
vulnerable.
The conclusion is that effective leadership behaviors need to be more engaging and facilitating,
change processes that posit change as complex phenomenon are more successful than linear
approaches, the role of leaders is more significant in complex change paradigms, effective leader
behaviors are more enabling than shaping, and that true transformational leaders work beyond
immediate self-interest to achieve transformation.
High
Shaping
Low
Ineffective
Change
Leadership
Invisible Change
Leadership
Low
Dark Side Change
Leadership
Effective
Transformational
Leadership
High
Framcap
#5 – Positioning change recipients’ attitudes toward change in the organizational literature
(Bouckenooghe, 2010)
The surging interest in people’s attitudes toward change entailed the current situation where
meaning, labels, and definitions of constructs referring to attitudes towards change are used
interchangeably. Although not all studies use the same definition, attitudes are seen as a
tridimensional concept composed of cognitive, affective, and intentional/behavioral components.
The affective component refers to a set of feelings about the change, the cognitive component to the
opinion one has about the change, and the intentional reactions refer to the action taken or which
will be taken in the future.
Readiness is conceived as organizational members’ beliefs, attitudes and intentions regarding the
extent to which changes are needed and the organization’s capacity to successfully make those
changes. In this conceptualization, there is a strong emphasis on the cognitive component referring
to the necessity or urgency of change. Through the assessment of readiness for change, one can
identify the gap between the current situation and the desired one. Different conceptualizations on
readiness for change exist. For example, Cunningham, arguing that readiness for change is a
sequential process. In the first stage, the need for change is not acknowledged (precontemplative)
but becomes more salient through a process of comparing the benefits and risks of change
(contemplative stage).
Resistance to change is probably the best known attitude to change. Some view resistance as any set
of intentions and actions that slows down or hinders the implementation of change. Throughout the
many definitions, a driving force behind maintaining the status quo is the intentional/behavioral
component. In addition, resistance to change can range in terms of intensity. The continuum may
range from passive resistance to active resistance. Passive resistance exists when mild or weak forms
of opposition are encountered demonstrated by the existence of negative perceptions and attitudes.
Active resistance moves more towards aggressive resistance and is characterized b strong but not
destructive opposing demeanor such as blocking or impeding change by imposing views and
attitudes, working to rule, slowing activities down, protests, and personal withdrawal. However,
resistance may also be a source of facilitator of change.
Commitment to change is a force that binds an individual to a course of action deemed necessary for
the successful implementation of a change initiative. This mindset can reflect (a) a desire to provide
support for the change based on a belief in its inherent benefits (affective commitment), (b) a
recognition that there are costs associated with failure to provide support, and (c) a sense of
obligation to provide support for the change (normative). The idea of commitment to change is
related to the theory of planned behavior (TPB), with the core assumption that individuals make
decisions rationally and systematically through information available to them. Moreover, this theory
advances the supposition that people’s intentions are determined by their thoughts and feelings,
social pressure, and experienced self-efficacy.
Cynicism about organizational change involves a negative or pessimistic viewpoint regarding the
potential success of the change. Finally, another concept, the one of openness to change, is
comprised of two factors: (a) willingness to support change and (b) positive affect about the
potential consequences of change.
In the study, the authors use four dualities of change: (a) the nature of change (planned vs
emergent), (b) the level of change (individual/collective), (c) the positive vs negative focus on change
(negative problem-solving view vs. positive potential view) and (d) the research method
(variance/process methods).
The nature of change can be episodic, planned discontinuous and intermittent on the hand, or
continuous, emergent, evolving, and incremental on the other. Episodic change is an intentional
intervention method for bringing change to an organization and is best characterized as deliberate,
purposeful, and systemic. Planned change reflects the teleological approach (organizations follow a
specific goal), whereas continuous change invokes an evolutionary approach.
Negative focus draws attention to approaches that stress negative aspects of organizations, such as
various problems at hand, whereas positive focus emphasizes the positive reasons for change, such
as building a unique organizational history, creating opportunities in the environment, or developing
a positive future vision. The distinction here being drawn is one between thinking about change as
focusing on overcoming problems or weaknesses or meeting threats in contrast to thinking about
change as focusing on seizing opportunities for improvement, motivating people to perform at a
higher level, and so on.
Research into changes distinguishes the variance strategy and the process strategy. The variance
strategy concentrates on variables that represent the important aspects or attributes of the subject
under study, whereas the variance research support predictive models capable of explaining the
variation in such outcome measures as resistance to change, project success, and user satisfaction.
The purpose of the variance approach is to establish the conditions necessary to bring about change.
A assumption of the variance method is that outcomes will occur invariable when necessary and
sufficient conditions are present. Process is more appropriate for research that conceives of change
as a narrative description of a sequence of events over time, whereas the variance strategy is the
most effective approach for studies that conceptualize change as an observed difference over time
with regard to a selected set of variables.
The author conducted this research by checking literature and facet analysis, in which you can
systematically classify and describe the concepts that have been used. 79% o the cases involved
planned change, top-down driven. The majority of studies used individual-level thinking or individual
states that become shared within a group of individuals. The literature review showed that both the
cognitive and intentional components of attitudes have been covered by the positive and negative
view on change, whereas the affective component is only embedded in positive potential thinking.
Finally, most studies used the variance strategy as prevailing research method.
#6 – Managing recipients of change and influencing internal stakeholder (Cawsey et al., 2012, Ch.7)
Many managers assume that resistance is inevitable in change situations. However, employees do
not always react negatively and in many situations will react quite positively. Some research
suggested that resistance to change is a term that has lost its usefulness, because it oversimplifies
the matter and becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: if change leaders assume resistance will occur, it
becomes more likely. People may have mixed feelings on change that can be magnified by concerns
about their jobs and the impact o change on their relationship with others, their ability to do what is
being asked, the fit with their needs and values, and their future prospects. The range of possible
perceptions and responses is complex, as people assess the change against their interests attitudes
and values. Moreover, the recipients’ understanding and responses to change will evolve over time
as the change unfolds. As a result, the approaches used by change leaders will need to vary of the
course of the change process. If resistance occurs, it may stem from those in the middle roles, as they
often have most to lose.
However, change initiative can also represent a chance for personal growth or promotion. All in all,
change leaders need to (1) channel the energy in positive ways, not letting enthusiasm overwhelm
legitimate concerns, (2) name the problem of mixed feelings and the need to understand different
reactions to change, (3) appoint highly respected, positively oriented stakeholders to chair significant
committees or other change structures, and (4) manage the dilemma and remember that going too
slow can lose enthusiastic support.
When ambivalence is prevalent, change leaders should expect to hear people voice concerns and
need to create an environment that welcomes feedback. When people feel discomfort generated by
ambivalence, they may protect their attitudes by turning to habits that worked in the past, engaging
in selective perception, selectively recalling events, and denying counterarguments geared to
support and strengthen one’s position. In this case, change leaders should (1) focus on helping
people make sense of the proposed changes, (2) listen for more helpful information, (3)
constructively reconcile their ambivalence, and (4) sort out what action is needed). It is almost
always in the best interest of agents to actively engage people in meaningful discussions early in the
change process and help to align their interpretations of the process.
Concerns and negative reactions towards change develop for a variety of reasons:
-
-
Perception of negative consequences of the change may be a reality: the change may be
fundamentally incongruent with things the people deeply value about their jobs (e.g., job
loss).
Communication process may be flawed: people may be left feeling ill informed or misled.
People may have serious doubts about the impact and effectiveness of the change: they may
think the change has not been studied and tested sufficiently or have adverse consequences.
-
-
People may lack experience with change and be unsure about its implications or their
capacity to adjust: when conditions have been stable for long, even small changes may seem
threatening as people developed well-engrained habits and patterned behavior.
People may have had negative experiences with similar change initiatives before
People may have had negative experiences with those advocating the change
People may be influenced by the negative reactions of peers and subordinates or supervisors.
There may be justice-related concerns: was the process fair? Did the people have the chance
to participate?
The psychological contract that people have with the organization can be a critical contextual
variable. This represents the sum of the implicit and explicit agreements we believe to have with our
organization and defines the perception of the terms of our employment relationship and includes
expectations for ourselves and for the organization, including organizational norms, rights, rewards,
and obligations.
Change can be thought of as occurring in three phases: before the change, during the change, and at
the end of the change. The reaction can continue until long after the initiative has been completed
as people work through the feelings created by the change.
Stages of Reactions to Change
Before the Change
During the Change
Anticipation and anxiety phase Shock, denial, and retreatment
phase
Issues: Coping with uncertainty Issues: Coping with the change
and rumors about what may or announcement and associated
may not happen
fallout
After the Change
Acceptance phase
Issues:
putting
residual
traumatic effects of change
behind you, acknowledging
change and achieving closure
Prechange anxiety
Shock, defensive retreats, Acknowledgement, adaptation
bargaining, depression and and change
guilt, alienation
This table follows a sequential approach, similar to the approaches that Kotter takes: (1) establishing
a sense of urgency, (2) forming a change team, (3) creating a vision for change, (4) communicating
the vision of change, (5) empowering others to act, (6) planning for and creating short-term wins, (7)
consolidating wins to reinvigorate the process, and (8) institutionalizing the change.
Even those who are retained after organizational downsizing will be upset. The survivor syndrome is
term that refers to the reaction of those who survive a poorly handled, traumatic change such as
downsizing. All in all, three factors influence how people adapt to change: personality and experience
with the rate of change, the reaction of coworkers and teammates, and experience with and trust in
leaders. For example, people who have a low tolerance for turbulence and uncertainty tend to be
comfortable in stable environments and will experience stress when change accelerates. On the
other hand, people who have a high tolerance for turbulence and uncertainty will find stable and
unchanging environments unsatisfying after a period of time.
Previous experience with change will affect a person’s view and behavior. A sustained period of
success can cause people to be trapped by those strategies that served them well. The tendency to
rely on competencies and strategies from the past is referred to as competency or a complacency
trap. However, when organizations live in an environment with extended periods of major upheavals
and uncertainty, employees may become exhausted and feel increasingly vulnerable to the next
wave of change. Furthermore, our views are influenced by the comments and actions of those
around us. If people believe their perspectives and interests are recognized and they trust their
leaders, they are likely to respond positively. Finally, skepticisms can shift to cynicism ( a real loss of
faith) and heightened pessimism when people whose opinion we value share a similar negative
believe. When change leaders are viewed as credible and trustworthy, their vision of the future
reduces the sense of uncertainty and risk in recipients as the people put their faith in the leader’s
judgment. Leaders effort to actively involve recipients in the initiative reduce the chances of
cynicism. Integrity is the antidote to skepticism and cynicism. A leader’s credibility will be either
enhanced or diminished by the extent to which organizational systems and processes send a
consistent message or are themselves the focus of changes that will bring them into alignment with
the change vision.
Several steps can be taken to minimize the negative effects of change: engagement (personal
involvement of engaged leaders), timeliness (communicate change through internal channels), and
two-way communication (change leaders must learn from exchanges with followers).
Strategies for recipients for coping with change are accepting feelings as natural, managing stress,
and exercising responsibility. Change leaders should be rethinking resistance, giving first aid, and
creating capability for change.
#7 – Change recipients’ reactions to organizational change: a 60-year review (Oreg et al., 2011)
Most studies focus on how organizations prepare for, implement, and react to change. At the heart
of events however, is how change recipients react to organizational change. The main aim of this
study is to provide an overarching view of change recipients reactions, and to propose an organizing
structure for the various study themes.
The authors conducted an extensive literature review. The resulting model is intended to depict the
relationships among antecedents, explicit reactions, and consequences of an organizational change.
The antecedent categories consist of prechange antecedents (i.e., change recipient characteristics
and internal context) and change antecedents (i.e., change process, perceived benefit/harm, and
change context). The variables comprising these antecedent categories have been linked with
individuals explicit reactions (affective, cognitive, and behavioral) to an organizational change and in
some case with the longer-term, indirect impact of an organizational change consisting of (a) workrelated and (b) personal consequences.
The main criterion for considering a variable to be an explicit reaction was that it pertains directly to
how change recipients feel (affect), what they think (cognition, or what they intend to do (behavior)
in response to the change. The affective component focused on either positive or negative reactions
to change. The behavioral component focused either on explicit behaviors in response to change or
as reported intentions to behave. However, some studies were not assessed with a tridimensional
definition of reactions in mind and therefore, measures of reactions to change in these studies
combined different components.
The antecedents to explicit reactions are appropriately conceptualized as the reasons for the
reactions rather than the reaction itself. Five primary antecedent categories are (a) change recipient
characteristics, (b) internal context, (c) change process, (d) perceived benefit/harm, and (e) change
context.
The change recipient characteristics include differences in individuals’ personality traits, coping
styles, motivational needs, and demographics. One personality trait that has been linked with
reactions to change is the locus of control. An internal locus of control – reflecting the individuals
beliefs that they are responsible for their own fate – was positively related with positive reactions to
organizational change. Higher levels of self-efficacy were associated with increased change
acceptance, higher levels of readiness to change, increased engagement in the change, increased
commitment to the change, and a greater likelihood using problem-focused coping strategies, with
improved coping and adjustment to change. Another set of change recipients characteristics involved
individuals’ dispositional affective states. Positive and negative affectivity were linked with reactions
to change. Thus, recipients prone to negative thinking are more likely to experience negative
outcomes. Surprisingly, depression and emotional exhaustion were linked with higher readiness and
willingness to participate in a change program. Other traits that may influence reactions to change
include tolerance for ambiguity, dispositional resistance to change, dispositional cynicism, openness
to experience, and neuroticism and conscientiousness. On coping styles, a problem-focused coping
style reported greater readiness for change. The use of maladaptive defense mechanisms such as
denial and isolation yield greater behavioral resistance. On needs, it was shown that individuals
driven by higher order needs such as achievement and growth were more willing to engage in
continuous organizational improvement in the context of implementing a TQM program. In addition,
change recipients high in personal initiative ted to evaluate change more positively. On demographic
variables, tenure, level of education, and union membership were linked with acceptance of
organizational change.
The internal concept is split up in the supportive environment and trustworthy management,
organizational commitment, organizational culture and climate, job characteristics, and
miscellaneous factors. First of all, recipients who reported high levels of trust in management and
perceive them as supportive, are more receptive to change. Moreover, recipients who are
committed to their organization, accept its values, are willing to exert effort on its behalf and wish to
remain in it; they accept change easier. However, higher commitment prior to change may also yield
negative reactions as the committed recipients were satisfied with the old way of doing things. On
the organizational culture and climate, it was found that perceiving the working environment in
positive term predicts recipients readiness for change. On job characteristics, it was found that the
degree to which one’s job allowed for the use of a variety of skills was also related to favorable
perceptions of change. Finally, a variety of other organizational characteristics were linked with
positive reaction to change such as the degree of perceived participations and existence of flexible
policies. Overall the strongest relationship s the extent to which change recipients trust
management.
The change process can be split up into five process categories: participation, communication and
information, interactional and procedural justice, principal support during the change, and
management change competence. Studies on participation focused on the effect of the degree to
which change recipients were involved in planning and implementing the change. High involvement
leads to higher readiness and acceptance of change. In addition, participation contributed to change
recipients’ sense of competence, improved interpersonal trust, and increased attachment to the
organization. Furthermore, the quality and quantity of change information is associated with
positive reactions whereas a lack of communication can lead to uncertainty. Interactional justice
(information) and procedural justice are associated with higher acceptance, readiness, and
commitment to organizational change. Furthermore, the principals who support an organizational
change will have the recipients’ being more open to the change. Finally, management change
competence is important to change. Perceived management commitment to the change and its
perceived effectiveness in managing it yield positive outcomes. In conclusion, a participative and
supportive process, with open lines of communication, and management that is perceived as
competent and fair in its implementation of the change, is effective in producing positive reactions
towards change.
A key determinant of whether change recipients will accept or resist change is the extent to which
the change is perceived as personally beneficial or harmful. The anticipation of negative or positive
outcomes are influential to the degree of acceptance. Particular attention should be paid to
perceived threats to job security. Furthermore, distributive justice, reflecting the perceived fairness
of the outcomes resulting from the change has also been shown to be influential.
Finally, the change context may have an influence on recipient reactions to change. Content may be
defines as the degree or perceived meaningfulness of change.
After the change, the change may have had work-related consequences such as organizational
commitment, job satisfaction, turnover, motivation, and morale. Change may also have had personal
consequences, such as psychological well-being.
#8 – From intended strategies to unintended outcomes: the impact of change recipient
sensemaking (Balogun & Johnson, 2005)
Organizational change is a context-dependent, unpredictable, non-linear process, in which intended
strategies often lead to unintended outcomes. When organizations attempt to implement change
through top-down initiatives middle managers become key, as they are both recipients and
deployers of the plans designed by their seniors.
To achieve strategic change it is necessary for a change to occur in organizational interpretive
schemes – the fundamental shared assumptions that determine the way the members of an
organization currently conceive of their organization and their environmental context and how they
act in different situations. Sensemaking plays a central role in this, as shifts occur in individuals
schemata during organizational transformation. Schemata are the mental models held by individuals
that affect the events individuals respond to and how. Though these are initially individual based,
some level of shared understanding needs to exist for coordinated activity to occur. The commonality
between individuals schemata lead to an enacted reality at group level in the form of routines,
rituals, systems, norms, assumptions, and beliefs, also called generic subjectivity. As a result of
change, generic subjectivity may break down to make sense of what is going on around them.
Individual representations become merged or synthesized through face-to-face conversations and
interaction, also called intersubjective sensemaking.
The input from the codings were grouped into a set of categories: (1) designed change goals and
interventions, (2) design flaws, (3) congruent change consequences, (4) counteracting change
consequences, and (5) existing ways of thinking. From this, it became clear that the case study
interviewees perceived complex patterns of interaction between the different change interventions
and events and the existing organizational context leading to both the counteracting and congruent
change consequences. This then turned the planned implementation into a more unpredictable
process with both intended and unintended emergent change outcomes.
Five additional thematic concepts were identified: (1) social processes of interaction (the
conversational and social practices that middle managers engaged in as they attempt to make sense
of the new structure and their roles and responsibilities), (2) old schemata (the existing way of
thinking for individuals), (3) sensemaking triggers (the events identified as triggering intersubjective
sensemaking, including designed change goals and interventions, behavior of other organizational
actors, and the design flaws), (4) developing schemata (the interpretations that change recipients
arrive at, which underpin the (5) emergent change outcomes).
Change recipients develop interpretations about the imposed changes through their social processes
of interaction. These interpretations then lead to both intended and unintended change outcomes.
Whenever change recipients encounter sensemaking triggers they cannot account for in their
existing schemata, they engage in more conscious social processes of interaction to attempt to
resolve their ambiguity and uncertainty, leading to emergent change outcomes. The individual
schemata or interpretations drawn on at any point in time constitute a mix between old schemata
that have not been challenged, schemata in the process of transition, and schemata that have
already changed. Earlier schemata become the ground for subsequent ones.
The social processes of interaction can be split into vertical processes occurring between senior and
middle managers and lateral processes of interaction occurring between the middle managers
themselves. Most of the interactions that contribute to emergent change outcomes occur informally
between middle managers. In addition, these social processes are of different types, varying from
highly formal verbal communication to much more informal communication in the form of
storytelling and gossip. In top-down processes, many of the vertical interactions are formal designed
interventions, whereas most of the lateral interaction are more informal conversational and social
practices. The greatest amount of middle manager sensemaking occurs through these lateral and
largely informal middle managers process.
Finally, managing change is less about directing and controlling and more about facilitating recipient
sensemaking processes to achieve an alignment of interpretation.
#9 – Resistance to Change: the rest of the story (Ford, Ford & D’Amelio, 2008)
The predominant perspective on resistance is decidedly one sided, in favor change agents and their
sponsors. It is presumed change agents are doing the right and proper things while change recipients
throw up unnecessary obstacles or barriers intent on doing in or screwing up the change. This change
agent-centric view presumes that resistance is an accurate report by unbiased observes. However,
there is no consideration to the possibility that resistance is an interpretation assigned b change
agents to the behaviors and communication of change recipients or that these interpretations are
either self-serving or self-fulfilling. Resistance to organizational change is never portrayed as the
product of rationally coherent strategies and objectives, nor is it viewed as potential contributor to
or resource for effective change.
Current approaches assume that change agents are mirroring a reality in which resistance is a report
on objective phenomena that exist independent of them. In the complex circumstances of change,
sensemaking is an active process that involves the interaction of information seeking, meaning
ascription, and associated responses. Change agents take actions consistent with the net
presentation (reality formed from experiences).
Expectation may be grounded in self-fulfilling prophecies, being a person’s 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 and communications of other in such a way as to confirm
the prophecy. Thus, if change agents expect resistance, they are likely to find it.
Sensemaking occurs in conversations that involve giving accounts or self-justifying explanations for
events and activities. An account is a linguistic device employed when action is subject to evaluation.
Whether people accept an account depends on the shared background expectancies and
understanding of the interactants.
Change agents contribute to recipient reactions by breaking agreements both before and during
change and by failing to restore the subsequent loss of trust. Agreements are breaches whenever
agents knowingly or unknowingly renege on a promise or an understood and expected pattern of
cooperation. This may be stronger in cases of transformational change, where there is a greater
likelihood that existing agreements will be broken and replaced with fundamentally different ones,
eroding recipient trust and agent credibility. It was shown that agents who repaid damaged
relationships and restore trust both before and during change are less likely to encounter resistance
than agents who do not.
Change agents can also increase resistance through communication breakdowns:
-
-
Failure to legitimize change: Change agents must provide discursive justifications that
establish the appropriateness and rationality of change adoption. Strong, well-developed
supporting justifications tend to be accepted and weak ones rejected. Inoculation theory
suggests that change agents who do not develop and provide compelling justifications that
overcome the potential or prevailing counterarguments or who fail to demonstrate the
validity of those justifications, end up inoculating recipients and increasing their immunity to
change.
Misrepresentation: Change agents may engage in intentional misrepresentation to induce
recipients’ participation, to look good, or to avoid losing face and looking bad. Especially in a
competitive context, agents may misrepresent the costs, benefits, or likely success rate of the
change. Furthermore, misrepresentation may also be unintentional, such as when change
agents optimism is genuine but incorrect.
-
No call for action: Change is fundamentally about mobilizing action, and not all talk leads to
this. Thus, understanding is not enough.
Change agents may also be resistant to the ideas, proposals, and counteroffers submitted by
recipients. If change agents fail to treat the communications of recipients as genuine and legitimate,
they may be seen as resistant.
Recipients’ reactions are not necessarily dysfunctional obstacles or liabilities to success. Resistance
may help keeping conversations in existence. Although in a negative way, it can be functional as it
keeps the topic in play, giving others the opportunity to participate in the conversation. In addition,
some resistance is thoughtful and may be absent on high levels of information processing, which are
more likely to generate scrutiny and well-considered counterarguments and thus, to be less
susceptible to persuasion than attitudes based on lower levels. Resistance theory proposes that
people resist externally imposed changes that threaten freedoms important to them, indicating a
potentially higher level of psychological involvement and commitment among people who are
demonstrating resistance than those appearing to accept changes. In addition, resistance can be
used through specific intervention, using the energy of resistance to help promote a given change.
Finally, change agents can use resistance as feedback on recipients engagement by listening keenly
to their comments, complaints, and criticisms, for cues to adjust the pace, scope, or sequencing of
change and/or its implementation.
The difficulty however is that both functional and dysfunctional conflict can occur simultaneously,
where it is hard to distinguish one from the other. By treating resistance as dysfunctional, change
agents lose the potential strengthening value from a functional conflict. The mere threat or
anticipation of resistance can encourage agents to adopt management practices such as
communicating extensively, inviting people to participate, providing people with needed resources,
and developing strong working relationships.
What is currently considered resistance to change can be split up in three elements. One element is
recipient action, which is any behavior or communication that occurs in response to a change
imitative. The second element is agent sensemaking, including the agents interpretation of the
meanings given to actual or anticipated recipient actions as well as the actions agents take as a
function of their own interpretation. The third is the agent-recipient relationship that provides the
context in which the first two elements occur and are shaped.
Finally, resistance is public, meaning that recipient actions are the triggers for agent sensemaking
and it is these actions that are the basics for the label resistance. A second implication is that there is
no resistance to change existing as an independent phenomenon apart from change agent
sensemaking. A third implication is that what is currently called overcoming resistance is an issue of
agents effectively managing the argent-recipient relationship. Resistance cannot be a one-sided
recipient response. When agents are willing to see resistance as a product of their own actions and
sensemaking, they are free to choose more empowering and effective interpretations of recipient
actions.
#10 – We’re changing or are we? Untangling the role of progressive, regressive and stability
narratives during change implementation (Soneshein, 2010)
One of the most important processes of strategic change occurs when managers use discursive and
other symbolic materials to destroy existing meaning systems and establish new ones in an effort to
set strategic direction. Scholars have adopted Lewin’s model of to explicitly focus on meanings during
change, arguing that the change process involves managers first breaking down employees existing
meaning constructions (unfreezing), then establishing new meanings (moving) and finally solidifying
those new meanings (refreezing. However, this kind of research is limited because it studies only
certain types of meanings constructed by managers and employees (either positive or negative) and
secondly, it overlooks the perspective and responses of the recipients of change (manager’s
perspective).
Two related lenses are especially useful for examining meaning constructions during change. A
narrative lens focuses on discourse, often containing a sequential structure, that gives meaning to
events. This sequential structure captures how organization members understand events in a
relationship to other events over time and in specific contexts. A sensemaking lens involves
individuals engaging in retrospective and prospective thinking in order to construct an interpretation
of reality. Narratives are a tool that actors use to make sense of events and can capture the outcome
of collective sensemaking. Furthermore, they can be used to influence others, which is an example of
sensegiving. Narratives are used in this study as they allow for multiple perspectives on changes and
broad types of meaning, they are inherently a temporal construction, and individuals construct
meanings both to enable their own understanding and to influence that of others.
In a single-site case study, the author used narrative analysis and content analysis to examining the
discourses individuals used to construct meaning. The study took place at Retail, Inc with the Project
Convert, in which some MallCo stores were transformed into BigBoxCo Light stores. There were 3
underlying goals for this project: creating greater consumer appeal, improve marketing and
operating efficiencies, and acquire new customers. Sources of data were interviews, documents,
archival records, observations, and surveys. The authors captured the fragments in individuals
discourses and transformed them into composite narratives based on a timeline.
The findings show that some managers saw project convert as a significant change that will
rejuvenate MallCo. MallCo was seen as old and renewal deemed necessary. On the other hand, other
managers saw Project Convert just as a name change and insignificant. Because the interpretation of
events may shift over time, the author came back for further analysis. Almost all of the managers saw
the change as having both significant and insignificant aspects.
The employees were also interviewed, though adding an additional dimension (now positivenegative & significant-insignificant). The outcomes were illustrated through four different narratives.
Project Convert significantly improves the store (positive/significant), project convert destroys
MallCo (negative/significant), project convert is not ambitious enough to make a difference
(insignificant/negative) and project convert preserves my work environment and job routines
(insignificant/positive).
The author identified three possible responses for employee behavior: resisting (subverting the
change, reducing work effort, raising objections), championing (making the change a success,
promoting to other) and accepting (making necessary adjustments). Narratives, following Gergen &
Gergen, can be progressive, regressive, and stable.
The model of strategic change implementation derived from this study shows that meanings
attributed to change vary along two theoretical dimensions. The first dimension, preservartional or
transformational accounts for the change-as-insignificant theme in the data. The second dimension
classifies meanings as either supportive or subversive. Managers may convey preservational
meanings alongside transformational ones when the fundamental goals of strategic change are to
convince a firm’s employees that existing interpretations are no longer valid and to devise a new,
unequivocal strategic direction for the firm. This may also happen as a result of managerial
confusion, when managers struggle to bridge old and new ways of understanding change. Another
explanation comes from the concept of strategic ambiguity, according to which managers are
intentionally equivocal about meanings to promote unified diversity, a condition that allows
employees and managers to have multiple interpretations of a change while believing that they
agree on meanings.
The findings suggest two potential mechanisms to explain some of the differences in the narratives
from the employees: time period (when was the change implemented?) and local context (was a
given store centrally involved in the change?). Transformational meanings were more common later
in the change and in converting stores, that insignificant meanings were more common earlier in the
change for converting stores, and that more subversive meanings were constructed at nonconverting
stores and later in the change.
The findings also suggest two narrative pathways managers simultaneously use to implement
strategic change and along which employees subsequently construct their own meanings and narrate
responses to change. In the transformational pathway, managers unfreeze employees by
constructing a new, better organization for them and employees than construct transformational
meanings. In the preservational pathway, the managers stability narrative construct the change as
consistent with the status quo, thereby freezing employees existing meaning constructions.
The transformational path shown affirms research on Lewin’s unfreezing model. However,
employees do not directly import managerial narratives about change, but rather, the embellish
them. In the preservational pathway, contra Lewin’s idea, managers use discourse to first freeze
meanings, and employees then affirm construction of the change that preserve the status quo.