CHAPTER 2: ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE
2.1. Introduction
Contemporary authors of works pertaining to and practitioners specialising in organisational
change often utilise maxims such as “change is the only constant”, and “the only thing that does
not change is change” to emphasise the omnipresence and importance of this phenomenon 1 .
Others cite the pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus, who purportedly declared that everything in
nature is in constant flux – “all things are in process and nothing stands still” (Allen, 1966, p. 42)
– in his famous “The sun is new every day” and “You could not step twice in the same rivers; for
other and yet waters are ever flowing on” (Smith, 1956, p. 11) to express the dynamic nature of
contemporary organisations. As was argued in Chapter 1, then, it is apparent that change is a
phenomenon that needs to be strongly considered by most – if not all – contemporary
organisations.
Given the above statements, the primary objective of this chapter is to provide a discussion
regarding the notion of organisational change. The purpose of this discussion is to provide
insight into the context in which the proposed logotherapy-based OD intervention will function,
thereby initiating a business case for the importance of developing this intervention for the
facilitation of organisational change. In order to fulfil the objective of this chapter, a number of
secondary objectives will be addressed. 1) Organisational change is to be defined. 2) Some of
the foremost catalysts of organisational change are to be identified and discussed. Here, both the
organisation’s external and internal environments are to be explored. 3) Some of the major ways
in which organisations respond to these catalysts are to be investigated. 4) It is to be ascertained
what impact these responses may have on the human element within the organisation. 5) The
contrasting phenomena of resistance to change and readiness for change are to be discussed.
1
This postulation is consistent with Elving’s (2005) indication that the line “The only thing constant within organisations is the
continual change of these organisations” is “widespread and famous within organisational and management literature” (p. 129).
27
2.2. Conceptualising “organisational change”
In order to really understand something, try changing it (Kurt Lewin).
Traditional definitions describe an organisation as a purposeful coordination of people and their
activities to reach explicit and shared objectives or goals2 (see Robbins, 1990; Schein, 1994).
Change, at its most basic level, may be denoted as present when there is “an alteration of the
status quo” (Bartol & Martin, 1998, p. 500), or “the new state of things is different from the old
state of things” (French & Bell, 1999, p. 2). Thus, organisational change generally involves a
situation where a different state of things is created with regard to the goal-directed coordination
of people. The intention of such changes, then, “is to move the organisation from its current
state to a more desirable, improved state” (Ragsdell, 2000, p. 105; see Figures 2.2, 2.4, and 3.3).
From the above, it may be inferred that people are central to organisational change.
Accordingly, Dalton (1970, p. 231) viewed organisational change as “any significant alteration
of the behavior patterns of a large number of the individuals who constitute the organization”.
However, others view organisational change as involving more than employee behaviour. For
example, Gibson, Ivancevich and Donnelly (1988, p. 19) defined organisational change as “the
planned attempt by management to improve the overall performance of individuals, groups, and
the organization by altering structure, behavior, and processes”. Greenberg and Baron (1993), in
turn, emphasised different foci by claiming that organisational change affects “structure,
technology, and/or people” (p. 633).
Whereas Robbins (1990) included both of these
perspectives by stating that organisational change involves four organisational levels, namely
people, structure, technology and processes, and Waldersee and Griffiths (2004) emphasised that
the “categorization of change as behavioral-social or technical-structural has long been
recognized” (p. 426), Stiles (1999) emphasised an additional dimension of organisational change,
namely shifts in organisational strategy. By integrating the viewpoints presented here, then, it
2
Of importance here is that more contemporary views recognise organisations as “inherently multi-layered and multi-faceted”
and denote the dynamics both inside and outside organisations as “flexible, dynamic and competitive” (Iedema, Rhodes &
Scheeres, 2005, p. 327). This is in line with the general view taken in this study that most – if not all – organisations are
constantly changing.
28
may be inferred that organisational change involves the significant alteration of any number of
levels in the organisation, including behaviour, structures, technology, processes and strategy 3 .
Stickland (1998) posited that “the problem with studying change is that it parades across many
subject domains under numerous guises, such as transformation, development, metamorphosis,
transmutation, evolution, regeneration, innovation, revolution and transition to name but a few”
(p. 14). In order to overcome this caveat, then, the concept of organisational change will be
used as an umbrella term in the current study, thus encompassing all concepts related to
modifications and transitions within organisations, including organisational transformation (see
Section 2.2) and organisation development (OD)(see Chapter 3).
Despite the above contentions that organisational change exceeds behavioural change, a deeper
investigation reveals support for Dalton’s definition. For example, Gratton and Hope Hailey
(1999) indicated that structural changes (see Restructuring, Section 2.4.2) often result in one of
three types of attitudinal or behavioural responses, namely ‘get safe’ (obeying any orders due to
fear of redundancy); ‘get out’ (leaving the organisation), or ‘get even’ (reducing one’s
contribution to the firm). Similarly, research has shown that technology may have a significant
influence on the social dynamics in the organisation (Bridgman & Willmott, 2006; Davidson,
2006; Jackson & Schuler, 1999), whereas changing processes to obtain a competitive advantage
is often aimed at changing employee behaviours (Gratton, 1999). Furthermore, Stiles (1999), as
well as Rosenthal and Peccei (2006), cited a shift towards a customer focus as an example of
strategic change.
Such a focus, then, requires behaviours fundamentally different from a
production (Bowen, Gilliland & Folger, 1999) or shareholder (Stiles, 1999) focus, implying that
strategic changes will also require fundamental changes in employee behaviours. Accordingly,
Jime’nez-Jime’nez and Sanz-Valle (2005) maintained that “different strategies will require
different employee skills, knowledge and behaviours to be implemented” (p. 375).
The above arguments thus suggest that although organisational change may take place on various
levels other than behaviour, these changes still require – or result in – behavioural alterations.
Given the centrality of people assumed in both the definition of an organisation, and in obtaining
3
See Figure 3.1 for a graphic representation of these organisational levels or subsystems.
29
a competitive advantage (Section 1.1), employee behaviour should thus be considered when
change initiatives are planned (see Chapter 3). In this regard, Ghoshal and Bartlett (1996)
contended that organisational change “is as much a function of individuals’ behaviors as it is of
the strategies, structures and systems that top management introduces” (p. 23). Similarly, Porras
and Robertson (1992) maintained that “change in the individual organizational member’s
behavior is at the core of organizational change” (p. 724, emphasis in original), whereas Elving
(2005) argued that since “an organisation's functioning depends on the actions of its members,
the organisation can change only when members’ behavior changes” (p. 131). Accordingly, the
intervention developed in this study revolves around the attitudes and behaviours of
organisational employees.
The previous discussions clearly indicate that the “effective management of change must be
based on a clear understanding of human behaviour at work” (Mullins, 1999, p. 734). The study
of human behaviour at work, to ultimately bring about improvements for both the individual and
the organisation, is then the fundamental concern of industrial psychology 4 (Berry & Houston,
1993; Dipboye, Smith & Howell, 1994; Muchinsky, 2000). This centrality of human behaviour
converges with the central role of people in change, which suggests that industrial psychology
can be instrumental in facilitating organisational change. In fact, a survey of publications in
industrial psychology since the early 1990s (see, for example, Aamodt, 2004; Cascio, 1995;
Heller, 1998; Muchinsky, 2000; Porras & Robertson, 1992; Schein, 1994; Thierry, Koopman &
De Gilder, 1998; Van der Vlist, 1998; Warr, 1996) revealed that change is acquiring increasing
importance in this field. This potential role of industrial psychologists in organisational change
therefore substantiates Cascio’s (1995) claim that this field may make significant contributions
towards human welfare amidst the “[d]ramatic changes… affecting the world of work” (p. 937).
These postulations, then, clearly reflect the rationale behind positioning the current study within
the discipline of industrial psychology.
4
Known as Industrial and Organisational (I/O) Psychology in the United States of America (USA), as Work and Organisational
Psychology in Europe, and as Occupational Psychology in Great Britain (Lunt, 2000). In SA, there also seems to be a movement
towards the I/O Psychology title, particularly since the renaming of the Society of Industrial Psychology (SIP) to the Society for
I/O Psychology of South Africa (SIOPSA).
30
Greenberg and Baron (1993) postulated three preconditions for successful organisational change,
namely a high need for change, low resistance to change, and high readiness for change. The
subsequent sections address contextual factors that may increase the need for change (Section
2.3), as well as organisational responses to these factors (Section 2.4) and the human impact such
responses may have (Section 2.5). This is followed by discussions of resistance to change
(Section 2.6) and readiness for change (Section 2.7).
2.3. Catalysts for organisational change
Faced with changing markets and increased competition, more and more companies are
struggling to… ensure their survival.
Many have come to understand that the key to
competitive success is to transform the way they function (Beer, Eisenstat & Spector, 1990,
p. 158).
The citation above serves to introduce the main objectives of the current and subsequent
sections: whereas Section 2.3 aims to demonstrate some of the primary contextual factors that
increase the need for organisational change, the objective of Section 2.4 is to discuss a number of
ways through which organisational change takes place as firms attempt to survive in rapidly
changing environments. Regarding the latter, the discussion centres on planned organisational
change – that is, organisational change based on a deliberate, purposeful, and explicit decision to
implement a change programme (Levy, 1986).
This differs substantially from unplanned
change, which is typically driven or forced upon organisations, by forces outside of the
organisational system 5 (Johnson, 2004; Porras & Robertson, 1992).
Organisations are viewed as open systems (Robbins, 1990; see Figure 3.1) – complex units
consisting of a number of interdependent subsystems that are dependent on the environment for
inputs (Jackson & Schuler, 1999). At its most fundamental level, system theory postulates that
within an organisation, inputs are transformed during throughput to outputs, which are then
exchanged in the environment (Morgan, 1994; Schein, 1994; Verwey, 1983).
5
Regarding
Although this discussion centres on planned organisational change, it is assumed that the human consequences (Section 2.5)
will be similar in the event of unplanned change and hence, the planned intervention (Chapters 5 and 6) will be applicable in such
instances as well.
31
organisational change, systems theory implies that changes in organisational subsystems and/or
the external environment will necessitate changes in other subsystems. It is therefore apparent
that the need for change may originate from both the organisation’s external and internal
environments (Mullins, 1999).
In this regard, Robbins, Odendaal and Roodt (2003)
distinguished between the organisation’s internal and external environments in “a four-tier model
of forces for change”, as illustrated in Figure 2.1 below.
Global Arena
Regional and Sub-Regional Arena
National Context
Organisation
• Individual Level
• Group/Team Level
• Organisation Level
Figure 2.1.
A four-tier model of forces for change (Adapted
from Robbins et al., 2003, p. 24)
Whereas the internal environment involves aspects such as people, structures, processes,
strategy, and life cycle stages (Gibson, et al., 1988; Jackson & Schuler, 1999), the external
environment refers to everything outside the organisation’s boundaries.
More specifically,
Robbins (1990, p. 206) referred to the organisation’s “specific environment” – that part of the
environment that is directly relevant to achieving organisational goals. As is evident from Figure
2.1 above, this specific environment is present in the organisation’s national, regional/subregional, and global contexts. What follows is an overview of a number of changes in the
organisation’s external and internal environments that may serve as catalysts for organisational
change.
2.3.1. Catalysts for change in the organisation’s external environment
Mullins (1999), as well as Stoner, Freeman and Gilbert (1995) indicated that forces in the
organisation’s external environment (or “contextual pressures”, Brock & Powell, 2005) are
32
critical antecedents to organisational change efforts. Similarly, Pettigrew (in Armenakis, Harris
& Mossholder, 1993) contended that the legitimacy of changes in the organisation can be
established by emphasising the effects that contextual factors have on organisational
performance. These contextual factors may emerge from a number of sub-environments external
to the organisation, including the technological, political/legislative, economic, and sociocultural environments (Fink, Jenks & Willits, 1983). Changes in these sub-environments may
require changes in organisational subsystems (Mohrman & Lawler, 1999; see Figure 3.1 and
Table 3.7). This may then, consistent with the open systems approach, require other subsystems
to change, thereby serving as a catalyst for large-scale organisational change.
McGreevy (2003b) and Smit and Cronjé (2002) provided support to these arguments by stating
that constant and increasingly rapid environmental changes inevitably impact upon
organisations, most notably by creating a need for change 6 . According to Pfeifer et al. (2005),
research indicates “that the speed, frequency and intensity of changes in the business
environment will continue to increase in coming years”, and that “it will become increasingly
difficult to foresee environmental changes” (p. 297). This indicates that as a result of dynamic
environments, organisational change will not only persist, but also become more prevalent in
years to come.
Technological developments are regarded as the most significant source of change to which
organisations must adapt (Bridgman & Willmott, 2006; Cronjé, du Toit, Mol & Van Reenen,
1997; Davidson, 2006; Francis et al., 2003), and are subsequently the most frequently cited
reason for the initiation of change programmes (Herzog, 1991). These changes require of
organisations to adapt at an increasing rate (Gil et al., 2005; Smit & Cronjé, 2002): “due to the
technology revolution, change has become a way of life in today’s organizations” (Hacker &
Washington, 2004, p. 52). Technological developments include progress in aspects such as
communication – where information technology has played a dominant role (Ahn et al., 2004;
Burnes, 2003; Davidson, 2006; Gardner & Ash, 2003; Hellriegel, Slocum & Woodman, 1998;
Iedema et al., 2005), e-commerce (Rashid et al., 2004), and transportation (Ives, 2005; Kudray &
Kleiner, 1997). Apart from influencing human behaviour (see Section 2.2), technology has also
6
See the discussion on the importance of a high need for change in attaining successful transformation (Section 2.2).
33
resulted in substantial social changes.
In this regard, Gibson et al. (1988) indicated that
technology has led to the creation of a number of new jobs, but has also made a number of others
redundant (see discussion on obsolescence, Section 2.5.4).
For example, whereas cellular
phones and on-line shopping are respectively threatening ‘conventional’ phone companies and
shopping malls, airlines, rental car firms and hotels are suffering losses due to teleconferencing
(Brown, 1996) – all of which have implications for employment in these companies. Such
redundancies, then, often bring about higher unemployment and the resulting plethora of social
ramifications (see Sections 2.5.1, 4.2, and 5.2) that may have further implications for
organisations. These include decreased company income (due to a decrease in public buying
power), as well as adapted human resource management (HRM) practices (Jackson & Schuler,
1999).
Organisational change is also often a result of the political/legislative environment. In this
regard, research indicates that the reasons often cited for organisational change include
“complying with new legislation” (Herzog, 1991, p. 7), privatisation (Wu, 2007), as well as
government regulations and deregulation (Brock & Powell, 2005; Cappelli, 1999; Cusick, 2005;
Jackson & Schuler, 1999). In SA, the influence of the political/legislative environment is
illustrated by, amongst others, affirmative action prescriptions in the Employment Equity Act, 55
of 1998, aimed at transforming organisations to remove unfair obstacles to employment
(Finestone & Snyman, 2005; Tinarelli, 2000; see also Section 5.3).
Economic pressures (Heller, 1998) and competitive conditions (Counsell et al., 2005) are also
regarded as powerful catalysts for organisational change. Uncertainties in the economic subenvironment have resulted in many organisations repositioning themselves to secure a
competitive advantage (Appelbaum, Close & Klasa, 1999, Counsell et al., 2005). Sono (2001)
contended that such repositioning is at the core of organisational transformation; transformation
that is evident in the increasing number of organisations taking a leaner approach in order to
enhance competitiveness (see also discussions on second-order change, Sections 2.4 and 3.2).
This approach involves laying off employees in an attempt to cut costs and sustain a competitive
advantage (Appelbaum et al., 1999; see downsizing, Section 2.4.1).
34
Closely related to the economic sub-environment is the phenomenon of globalisation, which is
considered a primary characteristic at the onset of the 21st century (Tetenbaum, 1998). Koch
(1999) held that globalisation encompasses the “process whereby global tastes and product
offerings converge and are increasingly satisfied by global products rather that local ones” (p.
875). “Increasingly, organisations are viewing their market areas as global rather than domestic
or even foreign. Every corner of the world has become a potential source of raw materials,
labour or new market for products and/or services” (Lundy & Cowling, 1996, p. 1). Dramatic
developments in information technology, together with electronic media and the Internet, are
regarded as some of the central contributing factors to globalisation (Robbins et al., 2003;
Rossouw, 2002).
Other influences include the emerging markets in ‘newly industrialised
countries’ (e.g. Spain, Korea and Taiwan) and the previous Second World countries (e.g. Russia,
China, and Eastern-European countries), as well as the development of “new ‘power blocks’ of
international traders” such as the European “economic unification” and the “yen block (Japan
and its Pacific Rim trading partners)” (Hellriegel et al., 1998, p. 576).
According to Rothwell (1999), globalisation “has emerged as perhaps the single-most important
trend of the 1990s” (p. 7).
This author contended that from the 1960s to the 1980s, the
percentage of the US economy that was exposed to international competition has increased from
six to 70 per cent, and it continues to grow. As pointed out by Khatri (1999), this increase in
international competition has major implications for companies 7 :
The forces of globalization are sweeping across the world and national borders are
disappearing. One major outcome of this change is that competition has intensified greatly.
In the past, inefficient companies could survive because they were protected by national
boundaries. This may not be possible any more. In the global era, companies have to be
able to take on other companies located in any part of the world. They need to be supple
and adaptable to meet the competitive challenge (p. 516).
Thus, as “a country’s economy is opened up to international competition” and “[g]overnments
find it increasingly difficult to regulate international competition through protective measures”,
7
The impact of these factors on SA organisations specifically, is discussed in Section 1.4.
35
organisations are under pressure to continuously change and adapt if they are to attain a
competitive advantage: “Businesses have to become more competitive and raise their products or
services, as well as their customer service, to ‘world-class’ standards” (Robbins et al., 2003, p.
25).
In this regard, Youndt and Snell (1996) pointed out that globalisation is a primary
contributor to the weakening of traditional sources of competitive advantage such as financial
capital and scale economies.
Consequently, HRM is increasingly expected to fulfil the
organisation’s competitive requirements (Tang & Fuller, 1995, see Section 1.1), particularly as
people “are one of the most important factors providing flexibility and adaptability to
organizations… one needs to bear in mind that people… are the adaptive mechanism in
determining how the firm will respond to the competitive environment” (Khatri, 1999, p. 516).
Apart from the above factors, various other aspects external to the organisation may necessitate
change. Related to the organisation’s socio-cultural environment, Kudray and Kleiner (1997)
stated that change is often triggered by societal changes like shifts in attitudes, beliefs and
lifestyles. Robbins et al. (2003) contended that the changing nature of the workforce, like greater
focus on quality of work life 8 (QWL) and greater diversity require large-scale changes in
organisations. In SA, as in the rest of the world, HIV/AIDS has further become a looming
challenge to organisations, often necessitating extensive adaptation and change (Lessing &
Maritz, 2001; Sunter & Whiteside, 2000). Finally, a number of other external catalysts include
social trends, shifts in national and international politics, changing customer needs and demands,
product obsolescence, professional regulatory bodies, and labour union influences (Brock &
Powell, 2005; Gibson, et al., 1988; Johnson, 2004; Kudray & Kleiner, 1997; McGreevy 2003a;
2003b; Mullins, 1999; Naidu & Van der Walt, 2005; Szilagyi & Wallace, 1983).
In the SA context, research by Veldsman and Roodt (in Robbins et al., 2003) found that
companies perceive a number of forces in their external environments as major catalysts for
change – many of which are related to the challenge of remaining competitive in the
international arena in terms of the quality and prices of products and services (Meyer & Botha,
2004, p. 5). These forces are “socio-political transformation, different client service delivery
mechanisms,
8
changing
regulations/legislation/agreements,
technological
The concept of QWL is related to the notion of meaning in work, as discussed in Section 5.2.1.
36
innovation
and
changing customer expectations/demands” (Veldsman & Roodt, in Robbins et al., 2003, p. 25).
Robbins et al. (2003) went on to identify a number of forces for change in SA within the levels
identified in Figure 2.1, including societal and political changes (global arena), HIV/AIDS and
trade agreements such as SADC and NEPAD (regional/sub-regional arena), and the changing
age distribution and education levels (national context). Furthermore, these authors singled out
globalisation as a particularly threatening challenge to SA companies, for reasons indicated in
Table 2.1 below. This postulation was largely affirmed by a large-scale study conducted by the
International Labour Organisation (ILO)(1998) into the social impact of globalisation on SA. It
is thus apparent that the factors in the organisations’ external environments that necessitate
change are also of decisive significance in the SA context.
Table 2.1.
Globalisation and implications for SA organisations’ competitiveness (Adapted from Robbins et al.,
2003, p. 24)
Global
•
•
Southern African
Most companies are used to trading either on a •
SA companies have only recently entered the
multinational or a global scale
global arena
These companies grow and prosper due to their •
A large proportion of SA companies is not
“world-class” performance levels
ready to engage international competition
effectively
•
•
•
Multinational and global companies are used to •
Although part of a wider, culturally diverse
competition and culturally diverse business
community, some SA companies still have
contexts
homogenous workforces
Most multinational and global companies have •
Diversity in the workplace is enforced mainly
diverse workforces
by means of employment legislation
Such companies have fully explored the •
Most companies are not fully aware of the
benefits of culturally diverse workforces
potential benefits of a diverse workforce
2.3.2. Catalysts for change in the organisation’s internal environment
In addition to factors present in the organisation’s external environment, change may also be
necessitated by internal factors. According to Gibson et al. (1988), internal catalysts for change
relate to process and behavioural problems, both of which may result in poor performance. Poor
37
performance (Schaefer, 1998) or declining effectiveness (Organ & Bateman, 1986), then, is
frequently cited as a catalyst for organisational change. Process problems involve issues such as
poor decision-making and communications (Gibson et al., 1988). For example, restructuring
(see Section 2.4.2) and business process re-engineering (BPR) (Section 2.4.3) are often
implemented to reduce the layers in the organisation in an attempt to improve communication.
In terms of behavioural problems, increased turnover and decreasing employee morale are often
cited as determinants of organisational change (Robbins, 1990).
According to Kudray and Kleiner (1997), new organisational goals constitute an “important
internal source of change” (p. 18). Similarly, much organisational change can be ascribed to
changing strategies and objectives (Hacker & Washington, 2004; McGuinness & Morgan, 2005;
Organ & Bateman, 1986). This is affirmed by Hellriegel et al.’s (1998) contention that strategic
changes are designed to “alter the organization’s intended courses of action to attain its goals” (p.
605), as well as by the ‘structure follows strategy’ school of thought (Robbins, 1990).
Furthermore, a crisis, such as a large-scale strike, the death of a senior manager (Organ &
Bateman, 1986), corporate scandals or employee violence has the potential to “fundamentally
alter the form, structure and direction of an organization” (Seeger, Ulmer, Novak & Sellnow,
2005, p. 78).
Power relations and politics within organisations may also have a significant impact on
organisational change (Buchanan & Badham, 1999; Brock & Powell, 2005; Cao et al., 2003;
Saka, 2003; Voronov & Yorks, 2005). For example, Newman (1991) claimed that change is
often initiated if it may further the personal objectives of management. Moreover, it has been
argued that a “pathology of power” exists in many modern organisations, resulting in changes to
fulfil the “power-lust” of those in control (Butts, 1997, pp. 118-120). This is to some extent
confirmed by research which found that changes in management often drive organisational
changes (Schiemann, 1992). Similarly, the Power-Control perspective posits that organisational
structures are largely determined by the choices of those in power (Robbins, 1990), which
suggests that changes in the organisational power structure will result in structural changes.
38
Beer and Nohria (2000) pointed out that “[n]ot since the Industrial Revolution have the stakes of
dealing with change been so high. Most traditional organizations have accepted, in theory at
least, that they must change or die” (p. 133; emphasis added). Accordingly, research by the
American Management Association over a number of years found that 84 percent of US
companies have undergone at least one major change, whereas 46 percent reported that three or
more change initiatives were in progress in their companies (Weber & Weber, 2001; Vakola &
Nikolaou, 2005). Whereas Bews and Rossouw (2002) contended that “[this] situation is not
unique to the United States, as there have been substantial [organisational changes] reported
from the United Kingdom, Europe, Australia, Africa, and even Japan” (p. 2), Tsang (2003)
pointed out that organisational changes are also taking place in China, Russia and countries in
Central and Eastern Europe. The subsequent section, then, is aimed at providing an overview of
the initiatives most commonly implemented to change organisations in order to adapt to their
environments.
2.4. Organisational responses to catalysts of change
Spicer (in Swart & Van Vuuren, 1998) contended that organisations could respond to catalysts of
change in one of three ways – regression, first-order change, or second-order change.
Regression encapsulates resistance to changes in an effort to maintain the status quo. As is
discussed in Section 2.6, such resistance often constrains change to such an extent that
organisational survival is threatened. The dominant distinguishing characteristics of first- and
second-order change is presented in Table 2.2 below (see also Table 3.3). It may be noted that
despite the focus on radical (second-order) change in much of the literature (see, for example,
Hamel, 2000), no evaluative stance is taken in this study regarding the relative value of either
approach to change in the organisation. What may be evident from the subsequent discussions,
however, is that second-order change places substantially greater demands on both the
organisation and its people. As a result, these changes then have a greater probability of failure
than first-order change. What may also be evident is that if organisations succeed in ensuring
constant and effective first-order change, a smaller probability exists that the need will arise for
second-order change to remain competitive.
39
Table 2.2.
Characteristics of first- versus second-order change (adapted from Levy, 1986, p. 11)
First-order change
•
•
•
Second-order change
A change in one or a few dimensions, •
Multidimensional, multicomponent, and multi-
components, or aspects
aspectual
A change in one or a few levels (individual and •
Multilevel change (individuals, groups, the
group levels)
whole organisation)
A change in one or two behavioural aspects •
Changes in all the behaviourial aspects
(attitudes, values)
(attitudes, norms, values, perceptions, beliefs,
world view, behaviours)
•
A quantitative change
•
A qualitative change
•
A change in content
•
A change in context
•
Continuity, improvements, and development in •
Discontinuity, taking a new direction
the same direction
•
Incremental changes
•
Revolutionary leaps
•
Logical and rational
•
Seemingly irrational, based on different logic
•
Does not change the world view, the paradigm
•
Results in new world view, new paradigm
•
Within the old state of being (thinking and •
Results in a new state of being (thinking and
acting)
acting)
As is apparent from Table 2.2 above, first-order change involves incremental modifications
within an organisation, most often with regard to processes and procedures (Breu & Benwell,
1999).
This encompasses the modification of behaviour to conform to the organisation’s
established beliefs concerning appropriate actions (Bartunek & Moch, 1994). Thus, first-order
change initiatives are aimed at improving the status quo through changes on a limited number of
organisational levels (Cummings & Worley, 2001; Carbery & Garavan, 2005). Encapsulated
within such change, then, are both alpha change, where employees merely expand their current
activities, and beta change, which involves the modification of the standards used to assess
behaviour (Chapman, 2002). Examples of first-order change could include the implementation
of diversity management programmes in response to the changing nature of the workforce
(Greenhaus, Callanan & Godshalk, 2000), the initiation of training programmes aimed at
equipping employees with the capabilities demanded by rapidly changing environments (Gratton
40
& Hope Hailey, 1999), and an increase in (rather than the initiation of) participative decisionmaking (Bartunek & Moch, 1994; Bartunek & Reis Louis, 1988). Thus, first-order change
leaves the individual’s dominant frames of reference or interpretation schemes (Breu & Benwell,
1999), as well as the core of the organisation (Levy, 1986), unaffected: improvements “take
place within already accepted frameworks” (Bartunek & Reis Louis, 1988, p. 100).
However, as was alluded to above, incremental changes are sometimes inadequate – in
contemporary turbulent environments – in attaining or preserve a competitive advantage (Hamel,
2000; Heller, 1998). What is required under such circumstances is second-order change, which
involves a paradigm shift in the organisation (Breu & Benwell, 1999; Spicer, in Swart & Van
Vuuren, 1998), or “discontinuous shifts in frameworks” (Bartunek & Reis Louis, 1988, p. 100),
which involve “radical departures from past practices and major shifts in leadership, values,
culture, and strategy” to the point where such shifts “constitute a re-creation of the organization”
(Scroggins, 2006, p. 84). This then corresponds to gamma change, which implies a “quantum
shift in the way that work and its purpose is understood” (Chapman, 2002, p. 16), as well as with
transformational change, which involves a situation where current ideas are no longer sufficient
to deal with the challenges faced by the organisation (Carbery & Garavan, 2005) and ultimately
leads to “a process of altering radically the organization’s strategic direction, including
fundamental changes in structures, processes, and behaviors” (Cummings & Worley, 2001, p.
674).
According to Breu & Benwell (1999), the influence of second-order change reaches beyond the
organisational level to impact on the individual (particularly by transforming his or her frame of
reference, or redefining “the relevant psychological space”, Golembiewski, 1979, p. 413), the
group, and society at large. Whereas Figure 2.2 below provides a graphic representation to
illustrate the differences between developmental, transitional (both first-order) and
transformational (second-order) change, Sections 2.4.1 to 2.4.4 briefly address four dominant
contemporary examples of large-scale organisational change, namely downsizing, restructuring,
business process re-engineering, and mergers and acquisitions (M&As). The organisational
subsystems in which these changes occur are graphically represented and discussed in Section
3.4.
41
Improvement of what is
Developmental change
Old
State
Transitional change
Transition State
New
State
Implementation of a known
new state. Management of
the interim transition state,
over a controlled period of
time.
Plateau
Chaos
Transformational
change
Growth
Re-emergence
Birth
Figure 2.2.
Death
Emergence of a new state,
unknown until it takes
shape, out of the remains of
the chaotic death of the old
state. Time period not easily
controlled.
Developmental, transitional and transformational change (Adapted from
Ackerman, 1997, p. 46)
2.4.1. Downsizing
Every week more employees learn that they are being let go. In offices and factories around
the world, people wait, in fear, hoping to be spared one more day. Like a deadly epidemic
inexorably working its way through the marketplace, the strange, seemingly inexplicable
new economic disease spreads, destroying lives and destabilizing whole communities in its
wake (Rifkin, 1995, p. 3).
Redundancy is probably the most evocative and fear-inducing form of organisational change
(Worrall & Cooper, 2004, p. 41).
Downsizing involves a “radical reduction in the size of an organization” (Koch, 1999, p. 867) by
“laying off… large numbers of managerial and other employees” (Byars & Rue, 2000, p. 9).
Downsizing is most often assumed to be a business strategy aimed at ensuring competitiveness in
a globally competitive environment by means of the increased flexibility, improved decision42
making, and more effective communication associated with a reduction in bureaucratic structures
(Mirabel & DeYoung, 2005).
Also known as right-sizing, de-layering and staff reductions, downsizing is a pervasive
phenomenon: research by Mishra, Spreitzer and Mishra (1998) found that in North America
alone, it has brought about the loss of 43 million jobs between 1979 and the time in which the
study was conducted. These changes are also evident in most other industrialised countries,
including SA. For example, Bews and Rossouw (2002) cited research indicating that 40,6 per
cent of the industrial companies listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) had fewer
employees at the end of the 1997 financial year than they had had a year earlier.
The most common causes of downsizing include restructuring (Ambrose, 1996), business
process reengineering (Grey & Mitev, 1995), mergers and acquisitions (Cartwright & Cooper,
1995; Hymowitz, 2007), outsourcing 9 and reductions in bureaucratic functions (Dolan, Belout &
Balkin, 2000), attempts to stay competitive by reducing people-related costs and technological
developments making jobs obsolete (Appelbaum, Everard & Hung, 1999), changes in the focus
of the business and/or skills required (Vallance, 1995), economic conditions, cost constraints,
structural changes, slow growth and intense competition (Ugboro, 2006; Zeffane & Mayo, 1994).
Furthermore, McKinley, Sanchez and Schick (1995) maintained that three social factors lead to
downsizing. Firstly, constraining refers to pressures exerted on the organisation to conform to
institutional rules concerning legitimate structures and managerial activities. Secondly, cloning
encapsulates pressures exerted on companies to ‘clone’ those organisations that serve as industry
benchmarks in terms of effectiveness. Finally, learning refers to the exacerbation of downsizing
by the continuous discussion thereof in academic institutions.
According to Zeffane and Mayo (1994), downsizing “has become a popular and seemingly easy
method of coping with current conditions, with many businesses of all sizes endorsing trimming
their workforce as the easiest way of responding to competitive pressures and recession fears” (p.
9
Outsourcing involves the handing over or subcontracting of certain functions (most often non-core business functions or support
departments) to an external organisation in order to reduce operational costs, improve service, enhance skills, and facilitate
effectiveness and flexibility by allowing a more explicit focus on the organisation’s core business processes (see, for example,
Aktas & Ulengin, 2005; Beaumont & Sohal, 2004; Distorted outsourcing decisions, 2005; Hyatt, 2004; Linder, 2004; Power,
Bonifazi & Desouza, 2004).
43
5). Thus, downsizing is generally regarded as a strategic decision (Lämsä, 1999) aimed at
achieving or enhancing market competitiveness by reducing people-related costs (Appelbaum et
al., 1999; Hellgren, Näswall & Sverke, 2005). This is affirmed by Worrall and Cooper (2004),
who found that “downsizing-driven redundancy and delayering programmes” are utilised as a
means of “strategic transformation” in order to “change organisations’ corporate cultures and to
drive down costs”, and that “[i]n the 1990s, the conventional wisdom was that workforce
reduction through downsizing would bring about reduced costs, increased flexibility, smoother
communications and faster decision making (p. 41)”.
However, despite downsizing being aimed at cost reduction, the literature indicates that this is
often not realised. In fact, not only do costs often increase (McKinley, Sanchez & Schick, 1995;
Morris, Cascio & Young, 1999), but downsizing often also has “severe consequences for the
organisation’s vitality and competitive ability” (Hellgren et al., 2005, p. 87). In this regard,
renowned industrial/organisational psychologist Wayne Cascio, in association with the Office of
the American Workplace (1995), carried out extensive research into the costs associated with
downsizing. Some of these costs are summarised in Table 2.3 below.
Table 2.3.
Direct and indirect costs of downsizing (Adapted from Cascio & The Office of the American
Workplace, 1995, p. 3)
Direct costs
Indirect costs
•
Severance pay, in lieu of notice
•
Recruitment and employment cost of new hires
•
Accrued vacation and sick pay
•
Low morale among remaining employees
•
Supplemental unemployment benefits
•
Increase in unemployment tax rate
•
Outplacement
•
Training and retraining
•
Pension payoffs
•
Potential charges of discrimination
•
Benefit payoffs
•
Heightened insecurity
•
Administrative processing costs
•
Reduced productivity
Furthermore, whereas proponents of downsizing maintain that it will result in advantages, others
contend that downsizing is ineffective in achieving organisational goals (Appelbaum, Close &
Klasa, 1999) such as increased productivity and competitiveness (Doherty, Tyson & Viney,
44
1993) – particularly due to reductions in morale and lost talent and organisational memory 10
(McGreevy 11 , 2003a; 2003b) and increased job insecurity (Section 2.5.7) (Bean & Hamilton,
2006); Hellgren et al., 2005; Ugboro, 2006).
Studies also show that downsizing has a
significantly negative impact on organisational commitment 12 (see Section 5.2.3.2) (Devine,
Reay, Stainton & Collins-Nakai, 2003) – particularly as lay-offs are often viewed as an
indication of reduced organisational commitment to employees (Rousseau, in Fiorito, Bozeman,
Young & Meurs, 2007). Not only lower-level employees are negatively affected: “redundancy is
a particularly damaging form of change on surviving managers” (Worrall & Cooper, 2004, p. 41;
emphasis added). Kaye (1999), then, expressed dissatisfaction with downsizing by stating that
rather “than putting people first and [gaining an] enduring competitive advantage through the
way they manage people, organizations continue to seek solutions to their competitive challenges
by downsizing, outsourcing and weakening their organizational culture13 ” (p. 580).
In addition to individual (see Section 2.5) and organisational costs, downsizing also has
devastating effects on local communities, such as a reduction in tax revenue, loss of business,
greater loan defaults, and increases in social issues (such as crime, alcoholism and divorce)
(Aamodt, 2004).
Finally, Baumohl (1992) illustrates why downsizing is often called
‘dumbsizing’ (or ‘corporate anorexia’; Brown, 1996) by stating that
[downsizing] was supposed to be the fastest and easiest was to cut business costs, be more
competitive and raise profits – or at least that’s what many top executives thought. But there
is mounting evidence that this slash-and-burn labor policy is backfiring. Studies now show
that a number of companies that trimmed their workforces not only failed to see a rebound
in earnings but found their ability to compete erode even further (p. 55).
Research evidence thus clearly indicates that downsizing is not only often ineffective, but that it
is exceptionally rare to find cases where victims and survivors thereof did not suffer significant
10
According to Kets de Vries and Balazs (1997), this relates particularly to competences such as problem-solving.
McGreevy argued that downsizing often results in the loss of the key individuals who could have made a substantial
contribution to organisational revitalisation.
12
Such a reduction in commitment is associated with an increase in intention to turnover – often among “high performing
survivors on whose long-term commitment, motivation and loyalty, the success of restructuring and downsizing depends”
(Ugboro, 2006, p. 232).
13
See discussions on organisational culture in Sections 2.4.4. and 5.2.2.4.
11
45
detrimental effects (Cascio, 2001). Nevertheless, studies show that many organisations persist in
this strategy. In fact, Worrall and Cooper (2004) indicated that “[r]edundancy, delayering,
downsizing and various other forms of organisational change, often accompanied by the
managerial fad of the moment, have become increasingly prevalent over the last ten years” (p.
41, emphasis added).
2.4.2. Restructuring
Restructuring involves creating flatter organisational structures (or hierarchies) to facilitate
greater flexibility, responsiveness and cost-efficiency (Anstey, 1999). According to Cummings
and Worley (2001, p. 280), rapidly changing environments “are forcing organizations to
restructure themselves from rigid bureaucracies to leaner, more flexible structures”. Similarly,
Lester, Piore and Malek (2002) contended that turbulent markets have spurred organisations to
abandon old hierarchical structures, which are too rigid to survive in these environments, in
favour of flatter models.
These leaner structures are mostly brought about by means of downsizing (Ambrose, 1996;
Carbery & Garavan, 2005; Watson, 2003; see Section 2.4.1 above) – in some cases, entire levels
of the structure are eliminated, resulting in many people losing their jobs. Whereas such layoffs
were traditionally associated with production-line-type jobs, Greenberg and Baron (1993)
contended that “these days, even middle managers and executives… find themselves
unemployed” (p. 582).
2.4.3. Business process re-engineering
Business process re-engineering (BPR) has received substantial attention in the past decade due
to its “perceived importance” (Burnes, 2003, p. 628) and has been “promoted as one of the major
modern techniques of change management within organisations” (Tennant & Wu, 2005, p. 537).
According to BPR pioneers Hammer and Champy (1993), this approach involves “the
fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business processes to achieve dramatic
improvements in critical, contemporary measures of performance, such as cost, quality, service,
and speed” (p. 32). Business processes are combinations of activities that deliver value to the
customer (Coulson-Thomas, 1999; Hammer, 1996). BPR is technology driven – particularly
46
information technology is utilised (Gardner & Ash, 2003; Thomas, 1994). Its purpose, then, “is
to eliminate – or prevent – the erection of barriers that separate employees and customers”
(Hellriegel et al., 1998, p. 471). However, this objective is frequently not fulfilled, as managers
are often “driven simply by reducing staff numbers or the cost base rather than delivering value
to customers” (Coulson-Thomas, 1999, p. 234).
The eventual outcomes of BPR resemble those of restructuring (see Section 2.4.2) – flatter
hierarchies, redundancy and job losses (Grey & Mitev, 1995). Outsourcing plays a crucial role
here, as it allows organisations to “focus on the core competencies that drive profit margins”
(Thomas, 1994, p. 28). Adelstein (1994) argued that a number of symptoms may justify BPR in
organisations. These symptoms, together with the central characteristics of BPR and essential
management skills to make such efforts a success, are summarised in Table 2.4 below.
Table 2.4.
Primary characteristics and causes of and required skills for BPR (Adapted from Adelstein, 1994;
Coulson-Thomas, 1999, p. 228; Crainer & Obeng, 1999; Tennant & Wu, 2005)
Primary characteristics
Symptoms justifying BPR
Necessary management skills
•
Radical transformation
•
Led by a vision
•
Requires a review of existing
•
A lack of managerial vision
(planning, controlling,
frameworks
•
Autocratic management
learning, organising and
structures
people skills)
•
Insufficient employee or
•
Interpersonal skills
vendor skills
•
Project management skills
•
Introduces new technologies
•
Changes employee attitudes
•
Slow responses to customers
•
Leadership and flexibility
and behaviour
•
‘Red tape’ and/or politics
•
Managing and improving
Led by directors, rather than
•
Excessive interdependence
managers
•
Goals too departmentally
•
Managing strategy
focused
•
Managing own development
•
Inertia
•
Teamwork
•
Activities that do not add
•
value
47
processes
However, despite some of these arguably sufficient reasons for the implementation of such
radical changes, BPR often fails (Burnes, 2003).
In fact, Hammer and Champy (1993)
themselves admitted that up to 70 per cent of BPR efforts result in organisations being worse off
than before their implementation, whereas research conducted in 1998 showed that up to 80 per
cent of BPR efforts fail (Developing change and leadership capabilities, 2004). Such failure is
then – as with the other large-scale organisational changes – regularly attributed to people
issues, or more specifically, “the failure of managers to anticipate and address the human aspects
or soft side of BPR”, as “human aspects are more central than technological aspects”
(Marjanovic, 2000, p. 44). This contention is clearly supported by a comment made by Michael
Hammer himself:
I wasn’t smart enough about that… I was reflecting on my engineering background and was
insufficiently appreciative of the human dimension. I’ve learned that’s critical (in Hellriegel
et al., 1998, p. 602).
The arguments in the preceding paragraph again point out the decisive importance of adequately
addressing issues surrounding the human element in the organisation, if change is to be
implemented successfully. This, in turn, provides support for the development of a uniquely
human-focused intervention to assist in addressing these people issues, and thus contributes to
the successful facilitation of organisational change. This argument is further addressed in the
subsequent paragraphs, as well as in Chapters 3, 5 and 6.
2.4.4. Mergers and acquisitions
Mergers and acquisitions (M&As), or ‘organisational marriages’, involve the integration of two
or more organisations into one unified whole (Cartwright & Cooper, 1995). In particular,
mergers refer to the peaceful integration of two ‘equal’ organisations, like in the analogy of a
marriage. Acquisitions, in turn, involve a takeover of one organisation by another – a situation
often referred to as a hostile takeover (Newton, 1993a; 1993b; Werhane, 1993).
M&As have been steadily increasing since the 1970s (Cartwright & Cooper, 1993), with
international M&As being worth 2,4 trillion US dollars in 1998 (Tetenbaum, 1999). In 2002
48
alone, there were 4 363 M&As in the US (Kilfoil & Groenewald, 2005). Marks (1997) cited a
number of modern trends in M&A activities: firstly, technological developments and
globalisation are the driving force behind many M&A decisions. Secondly, strategic concerns are
playing an increasingly significant role.
Thirdly, M&A activities are involving larger
organisations and even entire industries. Finally, “human assets are even more crucial to merger
and acquisition success than before” (p. 271). The latter trend not only again illustrates the
centrality of people in organisational change, but also alludes to the primary reason why M&A
efforts often fail: people issues (see Section 2.5) – particularly as these change efforts are often
“characterized by heightened emotions, fears of losing one’s job 14 , having to move sites, changes
to conditions of service that might be unfavourable and so on” (Kilfoil & Groenewald, 2005, p.
12).
The predominant aim of M&As is improved organisational performance (Appelbaum, Gandell,
Shapiro, Belisle & Hoeven, 2000). The primary causes of M&As, then, are environmental
factors such as technological developments and regulatory changes forcing organisations to
create “operating and strategic synergies” (Tetenbaum, 1999, p. 35). Such synergies are known
as the “2 + 2 = 5 effect” (Cartwright & Cooper, 1993, p. 329). M&As have a high failure rate
(Marks, 1997), and “invariably result in job losses” (Cartwright & Cooper, 1995, p. 35). Thus,
like restructuring (Section 2.4.2) and re-engineering (Section 2.4.3), M&As are also associated
with downsizing (Section 2.4.1) and subsequent redundancies.
When two organisations amalgamate into one, it stands to reason that either one of the cultures
will be replaced by the other, more dominant culture, or both will be substituted by a new
culture. According to Robbins (1990), then, the primary reason for the failure of M&As is a
mismatch between the cultures of the merging organisations. In particular, he stated that a
“cultural mismatch is more likely to result in a disaster than a financial, technical, geographic,
product, or market mismatch” (p. 451). Although many definitions of organisational culture
exist (see, for example, Schein, 1992), two definitions most apt for the purposes of this study
depict culture as a “set of assumptions, beliefs, values and norms that are shared by an
organization’s members” (Newstrom & Davis, 1997, p. 102), or as a shared system of meaning
14
See Section 2.5.7.
49
(Kurashina, 2005; Robbins, 1990; Strandgaard Pedersen & Dobbin, 2006)(see also Section
9.4.1.1). As is illustrated in the subsequent sections, meaning (which is often found in elements
such as shared beliefs, values and norms, both inside and outside of the organisation – see
Chapters 4 and 5) is a central motivation in one’s life. M&As, then, pose a threat to this shared
system of meaning; the individual’s sense of purpose is endangered, which may result in
resistance to change (see Section 2.6 and Chapters 1, 5 and 6).
The preceding discussion served to indicate that organisational changes not only often fail to
produce the intended outcomes, but they also frequently result in (often dramatic) job losses.
From this, it can be derived that organisational change may result in a multitude of unintended
negative consequences for those employees who survive such change initiatives; consequences
that need to be addressed if the implementation of change is to be successful (see Chapters 5 and
6). Subsequently, Section 2.5 presents a discussion on some of the most prominent human
consequences of organisational change.
2.5. The human consequences of organisational change
While change is inevitable in organisations, does it usually have to be so injurious and so
badly managed? (Worrall & Cooper, 2004, p. 65).
As has been emphasised in the preceding sections, people-related issues constitute the primary
reason for the failure of organisational change efforts (Atkinson, 2005; Cartwright & Cooper,
1993; Chawla & Kelloway, 2004; Karp, 2004; Roxburgh, 2003; Schiemann, 1992; Smith, 2005a;
2005b; Rashid et al., 2004; Vakola et al., 2004; Worrall & Cooper, 2004). Such issues should
not be viewed as occurring only amidst lower-level employees following changes implemented
by management. It has been shown that “gaps in the understanding of organization change” –
and thus responses thereto – also occur among different levels of management (Bartunek,
Rousseau, Rudolph & DePalma, 2006, p. 183).
The people-related issues involved in
organisational change may result from the negative impact that changes often have on
employees. Because people are considered the “critical factor” in the success of change efforts
(Herzog, 1991, p. 6), and managing change is “in very large part, about managing the ‘people’
50
aspects of that process” (Smith, 2005a, p. 408), an investigation is warranted into some of the
most prominent human consequences of change. In particular, the psychological and physical
impact of organisational change, the career plateau, obsolescence, the survivor syndrome, the
new psychological contract and job insecurity are discussed.
2.5.1. The psychological impact of organisational change
Most people are not detached from their work but experience a range of emotional
involvements through their membership of the organisation (Mullins, 1999, p. 734).
[Change] engenders ambiguity, stress, resistance and some loss, regardless of the gain
(Abel & Sementelli, 2005, p. 443).
Unlike the business side of change, the human side is not entirely rational. Rather, it involves
emotions like fear, uncertainty and doubt. However, despite this, management is still grounded
in the theory of ‘the rational man’ (Karp, 2004), and, as a result, over for past “50 years,
management theory and practice have adopted a technical, analytical approach in which the role
of the so-called soft factors like emotions and feelings has largely been denied” (Bruch &
Ghoshal, 2003, p. 45). Subsequently, the implementation of “the vast majority” of change
initiatives has been “managed from a technical viewpoint” with little recognition or
understanding of “how the human element influences the success or failure of change” (Bovey &
Hede, 2001, p. 535).
According to Demers, Forrer, Leibowitz and Cahill (1996),
“[o]rganisations tend to be very good at planning and orchestrating the technical and structural
aspects of change, but poor at guiding and supporting the human side – the personal
reorientation 15 associated with change” (p. 22). According to Bartunek et al. (2006), this neglect
of the emotional side of change is also apparent in the change literature, as a “call to study the
role of recipient emotions during organizational change” only surfaced in recent years (p. 183).
Organisations’ failure to address the human side of change often has a detrimental psychological
impact on employees. According to Iacovini (1993), “when an organization embarks on a major
change effort, employees at all levels find themselves in a sea of stress and confusion” (p. 66).
15
Schein (1992; 1994; 1996) emphasised personal reorientation as critical in ensuring successful organisational change (see
Section 3.4).
51
Stuart (1996, p. 11) similarly argued that the “stress, worry, angst and grief” of organisational
change is similar to “the trauma usually associated with disasters or catastrophes and even
abuse” to such an extent that the terms “victims” or “survivors” are used to label employees (see
Section 2.5.5). Accordingly, research indicates the emotional responses that some employees
experience as a result of organisational change to be akin to trauma such as death and grief. For
example, Perlman and Takacs (in Vakola & Nikolaou, 2005; Vakola et al., 2004) pointed out a
definite resemblance between the phases of emotional experiences that individuals go through
when subjected to change, and those described by Elizabeth Kubler-Ross (1969) as the
progressive stages of dealing with death.
From the above propositions, it is apparent that stress is one of the primary psychological
consequences of organisational change that employees are subjected to.
According to the
psychological literature, stress involves a “challenge to a person’s capacity to adapt to inner and
outer demands, which may be physiologically arousing, emotionally taxing, and cognitively and
behaviourally activating” (Westen, 1996, p. 426). In the organisational context, the construct
occupational stress is defined as “the impact of job demands on employees due to the existence
of a stressor, or organisational condition [such as organisational change] that may require an
adaptive response from an employee” (Jex, in Devine et al., 2003, p. 110). What follows is a
discussion of some of the primary causes and consequences of stress. Although stress in the
work context is discussed in general, an effort is also made to illustrate the impact of
organisational change in particular.
2.5.1.1. Causes of stress
A 1997 study indicated that for most Americans, their jobs are the biggest stressor in their lives
(Caudron, 1998). Research further indicated that the most prominent contributors to job stress
are time pressures (60 percent); work overload (54 percent); threat of job loss (52 percent); lack
of consultation and communication (51 percent) and understaffing (46 percent) (Woodall &
Winstanley, 2001). Greenhaus et al. (2000) proposed a model of job stress that not only
illustrates a number of causes, but also indicates the strain that stress causes the individual. What
is more, this model points out which factors may serve as moderating variables in the
relationship between stressors, stress and the strain exhibited by employees. Finally, it indicates
52
some of the consequences that such job stress may have for the organisation. This model is
presented in Figure 2.3 below.
Stressors
Strains
Personal
characteristics
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Organisational
characteristics
Job demands
Role characteristics
Interpersonal
relationships
Working conditions
Career concerns/
transitions
Nonwork pressures
Job outcomes
Job
dissatisfaction
Perceived
stress
Physical
Reduced job
involvement
Emotional
Increased
absenteeism
Behavioural
Increased
turnover
Work
ineffectiveness
Appraisal of
situation
Figure 2.3.
Coping and
support
The Job stress process (adapted from Greenhaus et al., 2000, p. 264)
As is apparent from this model, stress is brought on by a substantial number of factors in the
organisational context. These factors are summarised in Table 2.5 below. Furthermore, from
both the preceding and the following discussions, it may be deduced that many of these stressors,
as well as those cited above, may be associated with organisational change. For example, as will
be seen in Section 2.5.2, downsizing often results in an increased workload for remaining
employees, which may aggravate time pressures and work overload (Bergh, 1999).
Organisational changes such as job redesign bring about a change in role characteristics, a
potential consequence of which is role ambiguity (see Table 2.5 below). At the same time, the
survivors of organisational change efforts often fear that they will be next to lose their jobs (see
Section 2.5.5), whereas career concerns and transitions such as obsolescence (Section 2.5.3) and
the career plateau (Section 2.5.4) are common consequences of organisational change. Finally,
the stress of organisational change may further aggravate non-work pressures. For example, role
53
overload may result in longer working hours, which, in turn, may put pressure on individuals’
relationship with their significant other and their children.
Table 2.5.
Examples of stressors (Adapted from Greenhaus et al., 2000, p. 265)
Organisational characteristics
Working conditions
•
Centralisation, low participation in decision-
•
Crowding
making
•
Noise
•
Poor communication
•
Excessive heat or cold
•
Pay inequities
Career Concerns/transitions
Job demands
•
Change of job/employer/location
•
Time pressures and deadlines
•
Obsolescence
•
Responsibility for people
•
Career plateau
•
Repetitive work
•
Bias in the workplace
Nonwork pressures
•
Loss of employment
•
Family conflicts
•
Retirement
•
Life changes (e.g. Divorce, illness, death of a
Role Characteristics
loved one, birth of a child)
•
expectations)
Interpersonal relations
•
Conflict within/between groups
•
Competition
•
Inconsistent/inequitable supervision
Role conflict (caught between conflicting
•
Role ambiguity (lack of clarity about
performance expectations)
•
Role overload/underload (having too much or
too little work)
2.5.1.2. Moderating factors
As is depicted in the model above, one’s perception of stress, as moderated by one’s personal
characteristics (for example, Type A behaviour, inflexibility, intolerance of ambiguity,
neuroticism, and a strong internal locus of control) may increase one’s propensity to experience
stress, as may one’s appraisal of the situation (Greenhaus et al., 2000; Muchinsky, 2000).
Regarding the latter, it is generally accepted that the way in which one approaches a situation,
that is, one’s attitude towards a stressful situation, often impacts upon the extent to which one
experiences stress. This resembles the logotherapeutic principle of attitudinal values and was
54
largely affirmed by Frederickson’s (2006) assertion that finding positive meaning results in
positive emotions 16 (see Chapter 4).
The above model further shows that coping and support influences the extent to which this
perception of stress puts strain on the individual. Psychological research has shown that social
support is positively correlated with one’s ability to cope with stressors in the environment (see
Barlow & Durand, 1999; Baron & Byrne, 1997; Westen, 1996). What is more, the presence of
social support has been found to be predictive of employee attitudes toward organisational
change and, in particular, of readiness for change (Vakola & Nikolaou, 2005). However, as is
shown in this chapter, organisational changes often involves the downsizing of one’s colleagues,
which may result in the collapse of a large part of one’s social support network. In this way,
then, organisational change makes an additional, more indirect contribution to the stress one
experiences during such times of transition.
2.5.1.3. The consequences of stress
In the literature, a distinction is usually made between emotional/psychological, behavioural and
physical consequences of stress (see Bergh, 1999; Robbins et al, 2003). Whereas the physical
effects of stress are addressed in Section 2.5.2, this section addresses not only the psychological
and behavioural ramifications of stress, but also some of the social and organisational
consequences. From these effects, the motivation behind comments such as those by Grey and
Mitev (1995, p. 11), who stated that organisational change (and singling out BPR) “can
legitimately claim to be distinctive in the scale of human misery it promises to produce” (p. 11),
becomes more apparent.
i)
The psychological impact of organisational change and stress
As was shown above, organisational change often results in conditions such as disorientation,
anxiety, uncertainty, sadness and fear (Roberto & Levesque, 2005; Stuart, 1996). Research has
shown that the psychological and emotional impact of stress range from irritability and general
negativity to clinical conditions such as anxiety and depression. In addition, prolonged stress
may have adverse effects on one’s memory and concentration, moods, ability to relate to others,
16
This author proposed a reciprocal relationship between positive meaning and positive emotions.
55
and motivation, and increase one’s propensity to substance abuse (Barlow & Durand, 1999;
Byars & Rue, 2000; Greenhaus et al, 2000; Oltmanns & Emery, 1998; Weiten, 1992; Westen,
1996). Stress also often results in apathy and boredom – two conditions that are associated with
a lack of meaning or purpose in life (see Chapter 4)(Greenhaus et al., 2000).
In addition to the above effects, it has also been shown that long-term stress may result in a
condition known as burnout (Greenhaus et al, 2000).
The common causes, psychological
reactions, and consequences of burnout are summarised in Figure 2.4 below. Briefly, burnout
occurs when work becomes meaningless to the individual (Byars & Rue, 2000) and he or she
“disengages him/herself from clients and the job, therefore changing his/her attitude from caring
to indifference” (Maslach & Pines, in Bosman et al., 2005, p. 33). In the context of this study,
this condition may have devastating effects for both the employee and the organisation, as work
serves as a central source of meaning for the individual. Strümpfer (2002) provided much
support for this contention by postulating that a number of variables relating to positive
psychology (see Chapter 1), humanistic psychology (see Chapter 3), as well as existentialism and
logotherapy (see Chapter 4) may have a direct or mediating positive effect on the prevalence of
and individuals’ experience of burnout. In addition, job satisfaction – a construct shown to be
related to the individual’s experience of meaning in organisations (Section 5.2.3.2) – has been
shown to be negatively related to burnout (r = -0,75) (Tsigilis, Koustelios & Togia, 2004).
56
Psychological
reactions
Causes
Organisational conditions
•
•
•
•
Lack of rewards
Lack of control
•
Emotional exhaustion
•
Depersonalisation
•
Low personal achievement
•
Feelings of anger, boredom,
Lack of clarity
Lack of support
Personal conditions
•
Idealistic expectations
•
Personal responsibility
Predisposition to stress
Figure 2.4.
Chronic negative emotions
up to the point of emotional
fatigue
•
Interpersonal friction
guilt, depression, anxiety,
•
Social withdrawal
helplessness, pessimism,
•
Poor general health
•
Declining job performance
•
Substance abuse
•
Feelings of meaninglessness
hopelessness.
Attitudes of cynicism, self-doubt,
and indifference
•
•
frustration, suspicion, apathy,
resentment, irritability and
•
Consequences
Low self-esteem
The burnout process (Adapted from Bergh, 1999, p. 491; Jackson & Schuler, 1983,
p. 60)
Over the past few years, the prevalence of burnout in organisations has risen significantly,
resulting in a substantial increase in research and knowledge relating to this construct (Tsigilis et
al., 2004). This phenomenon is also prevalent in SA, as is evident from the 2003 special edition
of the SA Journal of Industrial Psychology dedicated entirely to the subject of burnout, stress and
coping. Here, Schaufeli (2003) indicated that burnout research has flourished over the past 20
years, with studies having been undertaken in 34 countries outside of the US. In addition to
summarising aspects similar to those reflected in the model above, this author indicated that
burnout occurs in between four and seven per cent of individuals in the working population. In
some occupations, it is believed that the prevalence of burnout is as high as ten per cent.
Although Schaufeli (2003) stated that results from research regarding the relationships between
burnout and organisational elements are “disappointing” (p. 7), this author emphasised that in
economic terms, the cost of burnout to organisations may be substantial.
57
ii)
The behavioural impact of organisational change and stress
According to Greenhaus et al. (2000), the behavioural consequences of stress include a sudden
change in the use of alcohol and/or smoking habits, sudden changes in weight loss or gain, and
difficulty breathing. Furthermore, stress has also been shown to negatively influence sleeping
patterns (Robbins et al., 2003), which, in itself, may produce a multitude of negative
ramifications (see, for example, Carlson, 1995). In addition, the table above shows that the
behavioural consequences of burnout include interpersonal friction and social withdrawal.
Greenhaus et al. (2000) explained these phenomena by stating that when individuals are
“emotionally drained”, they often have “less empathy for those with whom they work and live”
(p. 273).
This results in strained communications, which often causes burnout victims to
withdraw from social interactions in an attempt to cope. This will thus result in one alienating
oneself from one’s social support network, which may further exacerbate stress.
Bergh (1999) further added that burnout may also be associated with behavioural indicators such
as an increase in how rigidly rules are followed, higher defensiveness and levels of criticism,
continuous procrastination, and an increase in the number of mistakes made. In addition, stress
also has a number of behavioural consequences specific to the workplace. A number of these are
addressed under Section iv) below.
iii)
The social impact of organisational change and stress
Not only the individual employee is affected by organisational changes. Scott and Jaffe (1988)
pointed out that the adverse outcomes of organisational change might have “negative
consequences for jobs, health, marriages and resulting costs for productivity and profitability”
(Scott & Jaffe, 1988, p. 25). Thus, changes such as “layoffs are traumatic for everybody
involved” (Doherty et al., 1993, p. 45; emphasis in original), including the families of those
individuals affected by change. This may then impact upon non-work pressures (see Table 2.5
above) and thus place strain on the individual’s social support network.
58
Van Tonder (2004a) pointed out that although the financial costs associated with organisational
change 17 “are staggering”, more attention should be paid to the “human and social costs that
accompany the millions of lost employment opportunities” (p. 91). Butts (1997) further traced
the consequences of organisational changes by examining the impact they have on society at
large. This author stated that the large numbers of lost jobs have led to increased unemployment,
job insecurities (Section 2.7) and poverty. These are believed to contribute to “disease and
death, as well as a multitude of family and social problems including increased crime, violence
and even urban riots” (p. 115). These problems are further addressed in Sections 2.3.1, 4.2 and
5.2.
iv)
The effect of stress on organisations
According to Stuart (1996) and Vakola and Nikolaou (2005), the consequences of change in
organisations include eroded commitment (see Section 5.2.3), morale, trust, loyalty and selfesteem. Scott and Jaffe (1988) similarly contended that the “personal distress” employees
experience include “illness, low energy, lack of motivation, difficulty concentrating, accidents,
and interpersonal conflict” (p. 25).
What is more, research indicates that the emotional
consequences of change are likely to influence employee performance negatively for up to “even
four years after the initial transition” (Cartwright & Cooper, 1995, p. 36).
Byars and Rue (2000) made the impact of stress on organisations more explicit by listing the
following work-related effects: increased absenteeism; lower morale, lower productivity;
increased accidents; increased workers’ compensation; increased legal costs; higher labour
turnover, and higher direct medical costs. Directly relevant to the current study, Vakola and
Nikolaou (2005) found that negative correlations exist between “occupational stressors and
attitudes to change”, which, according to their research, indicates that “highly stressed
individuals demonstrate decreased commitment and increased reluctance to accept organizational
change interventions” (p. 160). Similarly, Tsang (2003) noted that stress becomes a significant
hindrance to effective organisational change.
17
This author specifically discussed the concept of organisational decline, or what he terms “organisational death and near-death
experiences” (Van Tonder, 2004, p. 91).
59
From this, it is apparent that the human impact of organisational change may also have a
detrimental impact on the effectiveness of organisations – including posing a threat to the change
initiative itself. This then again underscores the importance of addressing the human side of
organisational change if such transitions are to be effective – a criterion for success that may be
fulfilled by the proposed logotherapy-based intervention.
2.5.2. The physical impact of organisational change
In addition to the potentially negative implications for employees’ mental health, organisational
change may also have adverse physical outcomes for the individual. In particular, because
downsizing results in there being “fewer employees [to] handle what must be done” (Rice &
Dreilinger, 1991, p. 41), many employees may experience increasing work overload – not only to
work harder, but also to constantly improve their performance (Higgs, 2005; Ugboro, 2006) –
often with fewer resources (Bosman et al., 2005). This includes employees in both lower and
managerial levels (Gratton & Hope Hailey, 1999; McGovern, 1999).
In addition, it is commonplace for surviving managers to have to assume greater responsibility
and increased decision making, and take on wider spans of control (in terms of both number of
people managed and variety of tasks performed), which results in high levels of task
fragmentation and reduces role clarity (Worrall & Cooper, 2004; see also Ugboro, 2006). This
additional workload, resulting from organisational change, is likely to produce negative attitudes
towards and a reluctance to contribute to change initiatives (Vakola & Nikolaou, 2005),
particularly as their heavy workloads will preclude the availability of time to support such efforts
(Sirkin, Keenan & Jackson, 2005). Given the importance of positive attitudes (Sections 2.6 and
2.7) and organisational citizenship behaviours (Section 5.2.3.2) in achieving successful change,
these consequences may be detrimental to the effectiveness of the organisation.
Furthermore, this increase in employee inputs is often not rewarded, thereby resulting in
perceptions of unfairness and inequity (Folger & Skarlicki, 1999; see also Sections 2.6 and
5.2.3.2 for discussions on the impact of perceived inequity in the organisation). In this regard,
Brown (1996) went as far as to call contemporary organisations ‘modern sweatshops’,
characterised by psychic rather than physical brutality. Such employee overload may also
60
influence the organisation negatively, as it is has been shown to result in less productive
employees (Rice & Dreilinger, 1991).
According to Higgs (2005) and Tang and Fuller (1995), the physical consequences of
organisational change may also extend to the physical health of employees. As was illustrated in
the previous section, the stress that accompanies change can result in a multitude of
psychological and behavioural conditions that may have a detrimental impact on not only the
individual, but also on the organisation. In addition, stress may also have a number of physical
consequences for the individual. According to Barlow and Durand (1999), Byars and Rue
(2000), and Westen (1996), these include conditions such as headaches; coronary heart disease;
diabetes; gout; hypertension; decreased immunity functioning; gastro-intestinal problems;
bronchial asthma; rheumatoid arthritis; muscle tension; menstrual dysfunction, and sexual
dysfunction. In addition to decreasing the quality of life of the individual, these effects may then
also impact negatively upon the organisation (see Section 2.5.1.3).
2.5.3. The career plateau
A career plateau refers to a “point in a career where the likelihood of additional hierarchical
promotion is very low” (Ference, Stoner & Warren, 1977, p. 602). This phenomenon is caused
by factors such as slow organisational growth, technological changes closing career paths (see
obsolescence), and the pyramidal structure of organisations, which provides fewer and fewer
positions at higher organisational levels (Greenhaus et al., 2000). Other organisational factors
that may impact on the promotional opportunities of employees include organisational norms and
procedures, as well as “work experiences and work attitudes such as work value congruence,
supportive work relationships, autonomy, job involvement, and work-role overload” (Cohen,
Granot-Shilovsky & Yishai, 2007, p. 10); the impact of which may be aggravated by
organisational change 18 .
The career plateau is often accompanied by thoughts of one being a failure and feelings of guilt
and betrayal (Greenhaus, et al., 2000). This may result in plateaud individuals lowering their
18
For example, changes in organisational culture (see Section 9.4.1.1) may result in new organisational norms and procedures,
whereas the loss of relationships may result from downsizing (Section 2.4.1).
61
aspirations, their commitment to the organisation, and their willingness to accept responsibility
as they disengage from work activities to deal with their negative feelings (Dalton, 1989). As a
consequence, employee morale and productivity suffers, thereby negatively influencing the
organisation (Greenhaus, et al., 2000). Because organisational change is often aimed at creating
flatter structures (see Section 2.4.2), it may decrease promotional prospects in the organisation
(Young, 2000), thereby further exacerbating the prevalence of career plateaus.
Although persistent organisational change decreases the likelihood of addressing career plateaus,
this does not preclude the implementation of interventions to assist affected individuals in still
finding purpose in their work, thus increasing commitment and morale in the organisation. Such
interventions may be more successful if consideration is given to the principles of logotherapy
(see Chapters 4 and 5).
2.5.4. Obsolescence
Obsolescence refers to “the degree to which organizational professionals lack the up-to-date
knowledge or skill necessary to maintain effective performance in either their current or future
work roles” (Kaufman, 1974, p. 23).
According to Greenhaus et al. (2000), the root of
obsolescence lies in change. In particular, this phenomenon is attributable to job changes and
personal changes.
Whereas the former encapsulates changes in technology, occupational
requirements and managerial methods, personal changes involve aspects such as life transitions
and other experiences that may impact upon the individual’s desire to learn.
Hitt, Hoskisson, Harrison and Summers (1994) contended that “with the pace of technological
change quickening in the midst of global competition, obsolescence of employee knowledge,
skills and abilities is becoming a big problem” (p. 43). Accordingly, this phenomenon has
negative outcomes for both the individual and the organisation. For the individual, insufficient
job knowledge will result in decreased performance (Greenhaus et al., 2000), thereby placing
him or her at risk of disciplinary action, or even job loss (Byars & Rue, 2000). In addition,
people may experience fear and frustration as they fail to adapt to new environments. For the
organisation, a workforce that does not have the skills and knowledge required to be effective,
may have disastrous implications for competitiveness and survival: “These employees represent
62
a drag on current and, potentially, future productivity. Moreover, they are incapable of coping
with, let alone creating, the knowledge that their organizations will require for competitive
advantages” (Hitt et al., 1994, p. 43).
2.5.5. The survivor syndrome
Stuart (1996, p. 13) contended that the witnesses to trauma “are as much affected by the events
as are the actual victims”.
In the organisational change context, this implies that change
‘survivors’ – and not only those who have lost their jobs – may also suffer detrimental emotional
consequences (see Hellgren et al., 2005).
Observations of these effects in changing
organisations, then, have resulted in the identification of the survivor syndrome.
Survivor syndrome refers to a set of behaviours and emotions often exhibited by remaining
employees, following redundancies in their organisations (Bashford, 2004; Doherty & Horsted,
1995). Typical symptoms of the survivor syndrome include feelings of job insecurity (Section
2.7), unfairness, depression, distrust, betrayal and anger, anxiety and fatigue, and a reduction in
motivation (Bashford, 2004; Caudron, 1996; Noer, 1993). Other symptoms of the survivor
syndrome cited in the literature include lower morale; lower job and organisational satisfaction;
lower commitment to the organisation; increased absenteeism and turnover; reduced work
performance and productivity; loss of faith in the employer (and psychological contract
violation, see Section 2.5.6); career ambiguity; animosity towards the organisation; poor
conduct, and feelings of guilt (Appelbaum & Donia, 2000; Baruch & Hind, 1999; Devine, Reay,
Stainton & Collins-Nakai, 2003; Dolan et al., 2000; Hymowitz, 2007; McGreevy, 2003a; 2003b;
Thornhill, Saunders & Stead, 1997).
Research indicates that the initial consequence of layoffs is often an increase in productivity, due
to survivors fearing that they too will lose their jobs. This then reflects the attitudinal change
known as ‘get safe’ (see Section 2.2). In this regard, Worrall and Cooper (2004) referred to the
term ‘presenteeism’, which indicates survivors’ perception of a need to work very long hours in
an attempt to appear irreplaceable and thus ‘safe’ from future retrenchments. However, this
initial increase is short lived and often followed by strong despondency in the organisation even
in organisations with a strong focus on employee involvement practices “such as training,
63
information, motivation and latitude” (Hymowitz, 2007, p. B1). Furthermore, when individuals
function in this ‘get safe’ mode, they become not only less likely to display organisational
citizenship behaviours (Worrall & Cooper, 2004) (see Section 5.2.3.2), but also more cautious
and risk-averse. As a consequence, the taking of risks and exercising of discretion are avoided
(Brown, 1996; Thornhill et al., 1997; Worrall & Cooper, 2004). This severely impedes
innovation, which may not only be detrimental to the individual finding a purpose in life (see the
discussion on creativity in Section 4.4.3), but may also threaten the competitiveness of the firm.
Finally, survivors tend to display less commitment to the organisation (Fiorito et al., 2007; see
Section 5.2) and become more focused on their own needs (Worrall & Cooper, 2004; see Section
2.5.6).
Thus the survivor syndrome, like the other human consequences of change addressed thus far,
also negatively impacts upon the organisation. Nevertheless, these issues may be effectively
addressed by means of an intervention that both considers the psychological and spiritual needs
of employees and the goals of the organisation as regards organisational change. One such
approach may be found in an OD intervention, with its roots in logotherapeutic principles and
practice (see Chapters 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6)
2.5.6. The ‘new psychological contract’ and the ‘new career’
The term ‘psychological contract’ implies “an unwritten set of expectations” (Schein, 1994, p.
22) between the employee and the employer that specifies “the contributions an employee
believes are owed to the organization” and the “inducements the employee believes are owed in
return” (Greenhaus et al., 2000, p. 188). Aspects generally encapsulated in the psychological
contract include the duration of the employment relationship, the performance requirements the
employee is to adhere to, and what is to be regarded as fair outcomes (Mohrman & Lawler,
1999).
MacNeil (in Altman & Post, 1996; Hall & Moss, 1998) distinguished between ‘transactional’
and ‘relational’ psychological contracts. The latter is reflected in traditional careers – employees
offer commitment in exchange for job security (Greenhaus et al., 2000). This largely reflects
Whyte’s notion of “the organisation man” (see The new organisation, 2006). However, “the rash
64
of downsizing, restructuring [and] outsourcing… has put an end to the old psychological
contract” (Mohrman & Lawler, 1999, p. 438), resulting in the emergence of the new, or
transactional, psychological contract. Here, employee performance is exchanged for financial
rewards (Gratton & Hope Hailey, 1999), and people are paid what they are worth in the market.
Reich (2000) indicated how radical this shift is in some organisations by reflecting on the
attitude that “if [employees] can’t find someone willing to pay them more, it’s their own fault”
(101). In addition, this contract has led to the end of job security, as it is based on short-term
employment. Former Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of General Electric (GE), Jack Welch,
explained this phenomena as a one-day contract “in which all that counts is the current value that
each party contributes to the relationship” (Hall, 1996c, p. 5). Similarly, McGreevy (2003b)
pointed out that “long-term job security and stable employment that had characterised the midtwentieth century has been replaced by the constant threat of job loss and the continual
assessment of an individual’s contribution” (p. 192). Table 2.6 below offers an overview of some
of the central differences between the ‘old’ and the ‘new’ careers.
Table 2.6.
The old versus the new career (Adapted from Hiltrop, 1996, p. 39)
Past
Present
Long-term
Mutual trust
Immediate results
Opportunism
Security
Company loyalty
Flexibility
Professional loyalty
Predictability
Doing well
Uncertainty
Doing better
Equality
Shared responsibility
Individuality
Personal accountability
Certainty
Title and rank
High risk
Making a difference
Tradition
Pay for status
Constant change
Pay for results
Fairness
Tolerance
Personal gain
Impatience
Stability
Mutual respect
Employability
Fear
Interdependence
Self-reliance
As self-directed careers are replacing the former paternalistic role of organisations (Hall, 1996c;
Handy, 1996), the end of the relational contract has resulted in the demise of the traditional
career.
However, as “companies [move] away from providing people with lifelong… job
security, they [create] anxiety and insecurity in the very people they want to make more
65
productive” (Trahant, Burke & Koonce, 1997, p. 21). In this regard, Hiltrop (1996) contended
that “most organizations are buying only half of the new psychological contract. They cannot
offer job security, but at the same time they do not want to lose the traditional commitment and
loyalty of their employees” (p. 40). Zeffane and Mayo (1994) expressed a similar opinion by
stating that:
In these circumstances a fundamental dilemma is to maintain both high organizational
adaptability and high workforce commitment. This is a difficult task because the constant
resizing and restructuring required for adaptability may undermine the employee security
needed for commitment (p. 5).
Thus, whereas organisational competitiveness is becoming increasingly dependent on employee
commitment, little loyalty is demonstrated to employees (Mohrman & Lawler, 1999; Watson,
2003). “Employees are expected to give more in terms of time, effort, skills and flexibility,
whereas they receive less in terms of career opportunities, lifetime employment, and job
security” (Bosman et al., 2005, p. 32). Moreover, as organisational changes produce changes in
the psychological contract, employee attitudes and behaviours are affected (Schalk, Campbell &
Freese, 1998). According to Bews and Rossouw (2002), “the so-called ‘Protestant work ethic’
that encourages a hard, honest day’s work and which would be rewarded with regular salary
increases, promotions and job security has collapsed” (p. 3). This is also evident in SA, where
there has been a substantial growth in “non-permanent employment contracts” – particularly due
to the “taxing and strenuous labour laws” (see the Employment Equity Act, Sections 2.3.1 and
5.3.2) and “an unprecedented increase in economical uncertainties” (Labuchagne et al., 2005, p.
26).
As a result of these factors, “a shift on both sides of the employment contract” has taken place,
which severely impacted upon the traditional relationship of trust between employers and
employees (Martins, 2000, p. 27).
Consequently, employees are no longer inspired to
demonstrate loyalty to the organisation; rather, personal career interests are pursued, regardless
of the impact on their employer (Greenhaus et al., 2000; Worrall & Cooper, 2005). Particularly
younger employees “have no compunction about switching from one company to another if it
66
seems to their personal advantage” (Kerr, 1999, p. 1015). Furthermore, the lack of security
accompanying the new career often results in employees taking part in politicking and being
unwilling to take risks (Rice & Dreilinger, 1991).
In Chapter 5, it is indicated that the
individual’s finding of meaning in the organisational context may play a central role in the
attaining commitment from employees.
Given the importance of such commitment for
successful organisational change, this again illustrates the potential benefit of an intervention that
addresses the meaning employees find in life.
According to the literature, the changes in employee behaviours towards self interest (described
above) are the result of the violation of the psychological contract between the individual and the
organisation (Chawla & Kelloway, 2004; Hallier & James, 1997; Morrison & Robinson, 1997;
Worrall & Cooper, 2004). Such violation results in increased distrust, employee dissatisfaction
and intention for turnover, while excessive violation may provoke employee retaliation through
acts such as sabotage or theft.
Research indicated that employee well-being may also be
negatively influenced by psychological contract violation (De Witte, 2005a). Furthermore, the
resulting distrust is associated with low levels of “security, uncertainty, self-efficacy, stress,
commitment, loyalty, morale, self-esteem and job satisfaction” (Mone, in Appelbaum et al.,
1999, p. 547). Finally, the occurrence of psychological contract violation may threaten the
success of changes by producing resistance to change (Folger & Skarlicki, 1999). This concept
is addressed in Section 2.6.
2.5.7. Job insecurity
Largely due to organisational transformation in the US and Europe, job insecurity has become “a
sizeable social phenomenon”, accompanied by “an extensive research tradition [originating]
since the 1980s” (De Witte, 2005a, p. 1; see also Chirumbolo & Areni, 2005) – particularly into
the psychological consequences thereof (De Witte, 2005b). Although this phenomenon has
enjoyed limited attention in SA (Buitendach, Rothmann & De Witte, 2005), a recent special
edition of the SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, dedicated entirely to job insecurity, indicates
that this phenomenon is also pervasive here (see Section 1.4).
67
In an extensive literature review of the subject, De Witte (2005a) cited many definitions of job
insecurity, including “the perceived threat of job loss and the worries related to that threat” (p.
1). He further posited that this construct “is situated between employment and unemployment,
because it refers to employed people who feel threatened by unemployment” (p. 1) and is
characterised by a subjective 19 and involuntary 20 apprehensiveness about the future that often
involves feelings of powerlessness or helplessness 21 “to preserve the desired job continuity” (p.
2).
Research indicates that common antecedents of job insecurity include individual personality
factors such as locus of control (De Witte, 2005a; see also Labuschagne et al., 2005), larger
contextual factors such as the national unemployment rate and economic situation, and positional
variables “which indicate a vulnerable labour market position” and makes individuals more
susceptible to job loss (e.g. “blue-collar workers, low-skilled individuals, employees in the
industrial sector and those with a temporary job contract 22 ”) (De Witte, 2005a, p. 2). This clearly
indicates that the experience of job insecurity is often preceded by organisational changes such
as downsizing (Section 2.4.1). In particular, job insecurity is also intricately related to changes
in the employment contract (Section 2.5.6) (De Cuyper & De Witte, 2005).
Job insecurity may have a significantly negative impact on both the individual and the
organisation. Regarding the former, this construct is often viewed as a work stressor, which
means it can be associated with strain (see Section 2.5.1) (Bosman, Buitendach & Rothman,
2005; Buitendach et al., 2005; Chirumbolo & Areni, 2005; Näswall, Sverke & Hellgren, 2005;
Viljoen et al., 2005). Accordingly, studies show that this construct is associated with lower wellbeing, which includes higher instances of burnout (Section 2.5.1.3) (Bosman et al., 2005;
Chirumbolo & Areni, 2005) and stress-related conditions such as anxiety, depression, social
dysfunction, somatic symptoms and heart disorders (De Witte, 2005a; 2005b; Näswall et al.,
19
This implies that - as is the case with other human consequences of change (see resistance vs. readiness, Sections 2.6 and 2.7) the experience of job insecurity is influenced by individual characteristics such as his/her perception of or attitude towards the
situation. For example, Buitendach et al. (2005) contended that whereas organisational change results in some experiencing job
insecurity, others perceive it as an opportunity.
20
This means that the study of job insecurity does not include individuals who intentionally choose an “uncertain job status” (de
Witte, 2005, p. 1).
21
See Section 5.2.4.
22
See Section 2.6.
68
2005; Viljoen et al., 2005). Furthermore, whereas some studies suggest that job insecurity can
be as detrimental to individuals as actual job loss (Buitendach et al., 2005), others have indicated
that it can be more damaging than “the certainty of dismissal” (De Witte, 2005a, p. 3). Thus,
“the anticipation of a negative change in the individual’s job position causes greater stress than
the actual change itself” (Viljoen et al., 2005, p. 24), which again illustrates the harmful effects
of the uncertainty associated with organisational change.
Regarding the organisation, job insecurity has a significantly negative impact on employee
attitudes and behaviours towards the organisation (Buitendach et al., 2005; De Witte, 2005b). In
particular, it has been found to correlate negatively with job satisfaction (Section 5.2.3.2)
(Labuchagne et al., 2005; Näswall et al., 2005) and job involvement (Section 5.2.3.1) (De Witte,
2005b), and leads to an increase in work withdrawal behaviours (Probst, in Bosman et al., 2005),
a decrease in organisational commitment and organisational citizenship behaviours (Section
5.2.3.2), distrust in management, a decrease in performance, and higher turnover intentions
(Chirumbolo & Areni, 2005; De Witte, 2005a; 2005b). Unsurprisingly, then, job insecurity may
“in the long run also have consequences for the vitality of the organisation itself” (Buitendach et
al., 2005, p. 8) and thus “threaten the organisation’s survival” (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, in De
Witte, 2005b, p. 41). Consistent with the central theme of this chapter, then, research by
Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt (in De Witte, 2005a) also showed that job insecurity might result in
resistance to change. This construct is discussed in Section 2.6 below.
Despite the above, it should be noted that Bosman et al. (2005) found that individuals with
higher levels of ‘dispositional optimism’ (a more positive outlook on life) are less likely to
experience job insecurity. Given that the aim of logotherapy is to assist individuals in changing
their attitudes towards life, it is again apparent that the intervention proposed in this study can
make a significant contribution towards both addressing the negative impact of and facilitating
organisational change.
69
2.6. Resistance to change
Resistance reflects the subtext of organizational humanity on stage during organization
transformation efforts (Trader-Leigh, 2002, p. 139).
Pfeifer et al. (2005) identified four primary barriers to effective change implementation in
organisations. 1) The “management barrier” occurs when management fails to assume a strategic
focus and instead becomes preoccupied with daily issues. 2) The “vision barrier” comes into
play when management fails to effectively communicate the vision and associated strategic plans
to employees 23 . 3) The “resource barrier” involves situations where resources are insufficient for
strategic implementation. 4) Pfeifer et al. (2005) contended that change implementation is
significantly inhibited if management fails to secure the acceptance of employees. In the context
of this study, failure to obtain such acceptance will be intricately related to resistance to
change 24 . As will be shown in this section, the absence of such acceptance – that is, the presence
of resistance to change – poses a significant threat to the successful facilitation of change within
organisations.
Thomas Kuhn, author of the landmark contribution “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”
(1970), claimed that attempts at bringing about a paradigm shift typically provoke great
resistance. Second-order change, which requires such a shift, may thus be met with considerable
opposition; opposition which often manifests in resistance to change. Folger and Skarlicki
(1999, p. 36) conceptualised resistance to change as “employee behavior that seeks to challenge,
disrupt, or invert prevailing assumptions, discourses, and power relations”. Similarly, Newstrom
and Davis (1997, p. 403) defined this phenomenon as “any employee behaviors designed to
discredit, delay, or prevent the implementation of work change”.
These definitions indicate that resistance to change is largely a behavioural phenomenon.
However, Piderit (2000) emphasised that in addition to its behavioural component, resistance to
23
Burger and Crous (2002) indicated that the organisation’s vision, mission and strategy can play a significant role in the
individual’s experience of meaning in life (see Section 9.4.1.1), whereas Dvir, Kass & Shamir (2004) showed a relation between
the organisation’s vision and the affective component of organisational commitment (Section 5.2.3.2). This then indicates the
far-reaching negative effects of this ‘vision barrier’.
24
Success in obtaining such acceptance will, in turn, relate to readiness for change (see Section 2.7)
70
change can also be described in both emotional (e.g. aggression, frustration, anxiety) and
cognitive 25 (negative thoughts relating to the change) terms. This then indicates that resistance to
change has three components, namely affective (emotion), conative (the motivational aspect of
behaviour) and cognitive (thoughts) elements. Together, these three components (to which a
fourth, namely behavioural intentions, may be added) constitute attitudes (Baron & Byrne, 1997;
Rashid et al., 2004). It may thus be deduced that resistance to change is an attitude – an
inference that has particular significance for this study and the intervention to be utilised (see
Chapter 6), as a central aspect of logotherapy involves addressing negative attitudes (see Chapter
4).
In the framework of resistance to change, then, such a negative attitude would involve “a
psychological rejection of the need for the change” (Chawla & Kelloway, 2004, p. 485). Such
attitudes are often very difficult to change, as they become “deeply ingrained in organizations
and people” (Sirkin et al., 2005, p. 2). Nevertheless, a number of studies “showed that positive
attitudes to change [are] vital in achieving organisational goals and in succeeding in change
programmes” (Vakola et al., 2004, p. 89), and that changed “attitudes, values, and beliefs must
accompany changed responsibilities and formal patterns of interaction if the change is to “take”
and prove useful” (Abel & Sementelli, 2005, p. 444). This then clearly underscores the potential
value of the current study in its attempts to change attitudes towards effectively facilitating
change: changing the way in which people think (and feel) will result in different behaviours
(Gardner, 2004).
However, it may be argued that of the attitudinal components listed above, behaviours are most
readily observed in organisations, which may justify the particular emphasis in the literature.
Some of the resistant behaviours in which such resistance then manifests, are summarised in
Table 2.7 below. These resistant behaviours occur in both lower and managerial levels in the
organisation (Abbasi & Hollman, 1993, Folger & Skarlicki, 1999; Schaefer, 1998; Young, 2000).
As is apparent from these behaviours, resistance to change is rarely displayed explicitly. Rather,
it assumes a more covert or passive manifestation which, as a result, hinders the effective
identification and management of this phenomenon (Atkinson, 2005).
25
See discussion on framing, Section 9.4.1.2.
71
Table 2.7.
Resistance to change behaviours (Compiled from Chawla & Kelloway, 2004; Hellriegel et al., 1998;
Lawrence, 1970; Nguyen-Huy, 2000; Robbins et al., 2003; Wanberg & Banas, 2000; Young, 2000)
•
Deliberate and persistent reduction in output
•
Reduced sharing of knowledge
•
Increased resignations and requests for transfer
•
Reduced risk taking and experimentation
•
Chronic quarrels
•
Passive compliance
•
Strikes
•
Foot-dragging
•
The expression of various reasons why the •
•
change will be ineffective
•
•
Increased absenteeism
The
undermining
of
the
Sabotage (e.g. deleting computer records or
executives as change leaders
leaking confidential information on product •
Sullen hostility
legitimacy
development)
•
Tardiness
High accident or error rates
•
A lack of commitment to change efforts
of
The behaviours tabulated above resemble what Roodt (2002) referred to as “counterproductive
behaviours in the workplace” (p. 36).
According to this author, certain situations in the
workplace result in individuals either engaging in undesired behaviours or disengaging from
desired behaviours that severely inhibit the productivity of the organisation. Whereas undesired
behaviours include examples such as theft or destruction of company property; abuse of
company time, information and resources; poor attendance and inappropriate verbal or physical
actions (e.g. violence); disengagement encompass behaviours such as tardiness, absenteeism and
intention to turnover (see also the discussion on alienation in chapter 5).
Roodt (2002) maintained that these counterproductive behaviours result from a multitude of
organisational conditions. These include a lack of need satisfaction by organisational members;
ego-defensive situations; organisational injustice or bullying; over-commitment to the
workplace; livelihood-threatening situations; individual and organisational pathologies and
controlling organisational cultures. Each of these organisational conditions, then, may be caused
or aggravated by organisational change, thus contributing to counterproductive behaviours at
work. This contention is illustrated by means of specific examples in Table 2.8 below.
72
Table 2.8.
The origins of counterproductive behaviours in organisational change (Adapted in part from Roodt,
2002, pp. 36-37)
Conditions causing counter-
Examples of how organisational change can contribute to these
productive behaviours
conditions
Lack of need satisfaction by
Organisational change often brings about a threat to the satisfaction of
organisational members
employee needs.
For example, the individual’s need for status and
power may be left unfulfilled due to a new strategy that makes the
individual’s influence less important.
Ego-defensive situations
Individuals experience frustration when the fulfilment of their objectives
is stunted by organisational change. For example, delayering reduces
one’s opportunities for vertical promotion.
Organisational injustice or
Organisational changes are often viewed as unfair, particularly when
bullying
they involve retrenchment. Individuals question the equity involved in
their colleagues losing their jobs, particularly after loyal service.
Over-commitment to the
The “get safe” phenomenon and ‘presenteeism’ (see Section 2.2) often
workplace
results in ‘workoholic’-like behaviours.
Livelihood-threatening
Organisational change often threatens individual jobs, or may result in
situations
obsolescence or demotion. This threatens the individual’s income and
survival.
Individual and organisational
Bureaupathic organisational behaviours result from an excessive desire
pathologies
for control in organisations. This high level of control is often pursued
by leaders in crisis situations – situations often associated with
organisational changes.
Controlling organisational
M&As often result in the replacing of one culture by another.
cultures
Individuals may feel dissatisfied with this new culture, particularly when
they were highly committed to the previous culture.
In the literature, a number of different types of resistance to change are identified. For example,
Newstrom and Davis (1997, pp. 405-406), distinguish between psychological (based on
employees’ “emotions, sentiments, and attitudes”), logical (based on the employees’ difference
of opinion regarding the “facts, rational reasoning, logic, and science” underlying the change),
and sociological (based on “a challenge to group interests, norms, and values”) resistance to
73
change (see also Lawrie, 1990). Furthermore, Cummings and Worley (2001, pp. 157-158)
distinguish between technical (based on the “habit of following common procedures and the
consideration of sunk costs invested in the status quo), political (based on a threat to “powerful
stakeholders”), and cultural (based on systems, procedures, norms and values in place to
maintain the status quo) resistance to change. Finally, whereas Petrini and Hultman (1995)
differentiate between active (where individuals take part in actions to derail change efforts)
versus passive resistance (e.g. agreeing to actions but not executing them, withholding
information, or claiming ignorance), De Jager (2001) distinguishes between rational (based on
reasons why the change will be ineffective) and irrational resistance (applying to individuals who
will not change their minds regarding the need for change, regardless of the amount of evidence
presented to them).
According to Mauer (in Trader-Leigh, 2002), resistance to change operates at three levels. At
Level One, people question or oppose ideas. Level Two is characterised by deeper resistance,
and involves forces such as distrust, culture change and loss of control. Finally, at Level Three,
a “deeply embedded, deeply entrenched” form of resistance is encountered (p. 150). Research
then indicates that resistance to change is not only a major reason why change efforts fail (see
Boles & Sunoo, 1998; Bovey & Hede, 2001; Chawla & Kelloway, 2004; Maurer, 1996; Vakola
et al., 2004), but also a major barrier to productivity (Frazee, 1996) and innovation (Zwick,
2002). Harrison (1999, p. 9) effectively indicated both the high prevalence of such resistance
and the potentially devastating effect thereof by stating that:
Sometimes, change isn’t merely inevitable – it’s essential for a company’s survival. That
doesn’t mean that people will embrace it any more readily. The simple fact is that any kind
of change makes people uncomfortable, and the result is resistance.
In their development of the Change Readiness Inventory (CRI) (see Chapter 6), Kinnear and
Roodt (1998) conceptualised resistance to change as organisational inertia, or “the resistance of
an organisation to make transitions and its inability to quickly and effectively react to change”
(p. 44). These authors then went on to utilise a model that illustrates “forces in organisational
inertia” (p. 44) to explain this concept. This model is presented in Figure 2.5 below. In the top
74
part of this model, which resembles transitional change as illustrated in Figure 2.2 above (see
also Figure 3.3), the intent of the organisation to move or transform from a current to a desired
state, is indicated. The left side designates a number of forces external to the organisation that
may influence resistance (or inertia). The circle in the middle of the model serves to illustrate
“the vicious circle in which organisations are trapped, with certain forces hampering change,
whilst others facilitate change” (Kinnear & Roodt, 1998, p. 44).
Current state
Desired state
Change-restraining
forces
Prior internal
features
Prior strategic
commitments
Organisational
inertia
Organisational
momentum
Strategic
direction
Social, political,
institutional
pressures
Change-facilitating
forces
Figure 2.5.
Forces for organisational inertia (adapted from Kinnear
& Roodt, 1998, p. 44)
This notion of change-restraining and facilitating forces is based on Lewin’s Force Field
Analysis Model (see Section 3.4). Here, change-resistant or restraining forces are depicted as
reinforcing existing practices, thereby inhibiting the intended change (depicted in the top part
and right-hand sides of the model) whilst “gathering momentum for the continuation of the status
quo” (Kinnear & Roodt, 1998, p. 44). Thus, resistance to change or organisational inertia is
viewed here as a situation where momentum propels the organisation in an undesired direction.
Although the dominant perspective in change management literature views resistance to change
as negative or problematic, some authors have contended that it may also serve a positive
75
purpose in the organisation.
For example, Mabin, Forgeson and Green (2001) stated that
although resistance is viewed as undesirable in most cases, it is a “necessary and positive
element in any change process” (p. 168). Waddell and Sohal (1998), in turn, identified a number
of advantages of resistance to change. 1) It exposes the misleading notion that change is always
good. 2) It drives the organisation towards greater stability. 3) Resistance to change contributes
an “influx of energy” (p. 545) to the change process by decreasing apathy and passivity. 4) As
steps are taken to synthesise conflicting perspectives, it prevents groupthink by promoting a
search for alternative options.
In addition to these advantages, Perren and Megginson (1996) contended that resistance to
change may also prevent foolish changes, save the careers of those attempting to implement
changes with dire consequences, and provide leaders with the opportunity to bring about more
effective change – should they choose to listen to those who resist changes. Atkinson (2005), in
turn, pointed out that resistance to change presents an opportunity to learn from the change
process. Finally, De Jager (2001) posited that resistance serves to prevent unnecessary change,
whereas Piderit (2000) stated that employee resistance to change might be motivated by
individuals attempting to act ethically, or by attempts to convince senior management to address
issues that may be critical for organisational performance. Nevertheless, despite these potential
advantages, the focus of the current study is on resistance to change as a negative phenomenon
that may impede organisational adaptation, and thus needs to be addressed if the organisation is
to remain competitive in the market.
Foote (2001) claimed that resistance to change is a natural defence, a part of the inherently
human survival instinct. Thus, these behaviours are “a natural part of the change process and are
to be expected” (Bovey & Hede, 2001, p. 534). The psychodynamic perspective suggests that
individuals have defence mechanisms to deal with external situations which provoke anxiety;
situations like organisational change (Diamond, 1986; Willcocks & Rees, 1995). A number of
these defence mechanisms are summarised in Table 2.9 below. As a result of these mechanisms,
energy is directed away from the cause of anxiety – the changes – often resulting in inefficiency
(Bovey & Hede, 2001).
76
Table 2.9.
Defence mechanisms contributing to resistance to change (Adapted from Bovey & Hede, 2001, p.
537)
Defence mechanism
Humour
Description
An individual deals with internal/external stressors by emphasising amusing
and ironic aspects.
Anticipation
An individual deals with internal/external stressors by experiencing or
anticipating consequences and emotional reactions in advance and
considering realistic alternative responses or solutions.
Denial
An individual deals with internal/external stressors by refusing to
acknowledge some painful aspects of external reality or subjective
experiences that are apparent to others.
Disassociation
An individual deals with internal/external stressors with a breakdown in the
usually integrated functions of consciousness, memory, perception of self or
the environment.
Isolation of affect
An individual deals with internal/external stressors by separating ideas from
the feelings originally associated with them. The individual loses touch with
the feelings associated with a given idea while remaining aware of the
cognitive elements.
Projection
An individual deals with internal/external stressors by falsely attributing to
another their own unacceptable feelings, impulses or thoughts.
Acting out
An individual deals with internal/external stressors by actions rather than
reflections or feelings, and includes transference (the recreation of
experiences from earlier childhood relationships in present relationships).
Whereas psychodynamic theory (as well as learning theory, as postulated by authors such as
Argyris; see Section 2.6.1 below) suggests anxiety and the resulting defence mechanisms as the
primary causes of resistance to change, other streams of research have identified two categories
of variables that may result in such resistance. These categories, including factors related to the
individual, and factors related to the organisation (Greenberg & Baron, 1993; Robbins et al.,
2003), are subsequently discussed.
77
2.6.1. Individual causes of resistance to change
Dent and Goldberg (in Chreim, 2006, p. 317) indicated that in general, people do not resist
changes – rather, they resist the threat to “status, pay, or comfort” posed by the change.
Newstrom and Davis (1997), then, stated that resistance to change results from three factors,
namely the nature of the change, the method by which it is introduced, and inequitable
experiences during changes (see also Section 5.2). Concerning the nature of the change, these
authors claimed that individuals experience discontent when change violates their moral beliefs;
when they feel that the changes are technically incorrect (or when “their own rational assessment
of the outcomes of the proposed change differ from the outcomes envisaged by management”,
Waddell & Sohal, 1998, p. 544), or when they are not comfortable with losing the security and
stability of the status quo.
Consistent with the above, a number of authors have posited fear of the unknown and the
accompanying insecurity and unpredictability as resulting in resistance to change 26 (Atkinson,
2005; Chawla & Kelloway, 2004; Chreim, 2006; Elving, 2005; Feldberg, 1975; Proctor &
Doukakis, 2003; Ugboro, 2006; Vakola et al., 2004; Washington & Hacker, 2005). Similarly,
Kotter and Schlesinger (1979) argued that individuals resist change when they feel it can result
in them losing something of value 27 . Such aspects of value may include social relationships at
work or economic security (Greenberg & Baron, 1993), status (Proctor & Doukakis, 2003),
competence or self-efficacy (Chreim, 2006), and self-esteem (Newstrom & Davis, 1997), as well
as the vision and the values of the status quo (Trader-Leigh, 2002).
Ford, Ford and McNamara (2002) further argued that change may be resisted because “it
threatens the way people make sense of the world, calling into question their values and
rationality” (p. 105). This point again reflects the notion that second-order change requires a
paradigm shift from individuals (see Section 2.4). Finally, Trader-Leigh (2002) identified seven
factors related to the nature of the change that may underlie the behaviours individuals partake
in, to counteract change. These are summarised in Table 2.10 below.
26
This phenomenon is particularly apparent when organisational change results in redundancies and the associated job insecurity
(Elving, 2005).
27
Bartunek et al. (2006) argued that employees “often gauge organizational change in terms of their own perceived or anticipated
gains or losses from it, the extent to which change makes the quality of some aspect of their work or work life better or not” (p.
188).
78
Table 2.10.
Factors underlying resistance to change (Adapted from Trader-Leigh, 2002, pp. 146-149).
Factor
Self-interest
Description
Individual buy-in to change is affected by the degree to which personal
interests are fulfilled
Psychological impact
Resistance results from a threat to one’s job security, professional expertise,
and social status in the organisation
Tyranny of custom
People in control are often more resistant, as they are more content with the
status quo and thus have more to lose
The redistribution factor
Resistance results from the threat to funding, policies, procedures, and losing
control; as well as from operational and political constraints
The destabilisation effect
Shifts in structures and responsibilities may produce resistance to change
Culture compatibility
Current trends in organising are incompatible with the bureaucratic
structures which have been monopolising organisations and their cultures
The political effect
Resistance is the result of a threat to the values protected by present
arrangements
As regards the way change is introduced, research has shown that the ineffectiveness of many
change efforts has been attributed to “failures in the implementation process rather than strategy
itself” (Waldersee & Griffiths, 2004, p. 424), which, in the context of this study, illustrates its
potential to cause or aggravate resistance to change. Newstrom and Davis (1997, p. 404)
claimed that individuals may “resent having been ill-informed, or they may reject an insensitive
and authoritarian approach that did not involve them in the change process”. In this regard, the
role that inadequate communication can play in exacerbating employee resistance to change is
well documented (see Armenakis & Harris, 2002; Elving, 2005; Hoogervorst et al., 2004;
Johnson, 2004; Kotter, 1995; 1996; Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979; Palmer, King & Kelleher, 2004;
Proctor & Doukakis, 2003; Seeger et al., 2005; Vakola & Nikolaou, 2004). Moreover, a lack of
(procedural) fairness in the way change is introduced may constrain employee commitment
towards these changes (Chawla & Kelloway, 2004; McGreevy, 2003a; 2003b; Roberto &
Levesque, 2005). In addition, Schalk et al. (1998) found that the way change is introduced often
affects the psychological contract between employer and employee. As was indicated in Section
2.5.6, this may result in employee attitudes and behaviours being directed towards self-interest,
79
rather than the goals of the organisation (see also the discussion on organisational commitment in
Chapter 5).
Robbins (1990) cited research indicating that change processes that lack employee involvement
and participation have the lowest success rate in organisations. In this regard, many authors have
argued that the empowerment of employees is essential for effective organisational change 28
(Appelbaum & Honeggar, 1998; Bartunek et al., 2006; Chawla & Kelloway, 2004; Erstad, 1997;
Hyland, Sloan & Barnett, 1998; Nixon, 1994; Proctor & Doukakis, 2003; Rodrigues, 1994).
Empowerment refers to a “form of decentralization that involves giving subordinates substantial
authority to make decisions” (Byars & Rue, 2000, p. 490), and encompasses “any process that
provides greater autonomy to employees through the sharing of relevant information and the
provision of control over factors affecting job performance” (Newstrom & Davis, 1997, p. 227).
employee involvement in organisational change is likely to reduce resistance.
However, more recent research by Waldersee and Griffiths (2004) indicated that “unilateral
implementation approaches” often yield better results than participative types” (p. 424),
regardless of whether change is aimed at technical/structural or behavioural/social elements.
These authors found that employee support is an essential element in ensuring successful change,
but that such support is more a function of the type of change than the way in which it is
implemented. This means that employees are more inclined to support behavioural or social
changes than changes in technical or structural elements, regardless of whether they participated
in the change. The latter, according to Waldersee and Griffiths (2004), is “not surprising”,
especially “given the personally detrimental nature of many technical-structural changes,
including downsizing and dismantling of work groups” (p. 433).
Although the research by Waldersee and Griffiths (2004) largely contradicts the popular
perception that employee participation is essential for effective organisational change, the
majority of research seems to question these findings, particularly as the “change management
literature unanimously declares that employee involvement during change is critical for success“
28
As is shown in Chapter 8, empowerment practices have also been shown to contribute to individuals’ experience of meaning in
work (Varoglu & Eser, 2006).
80
(Chawla & Kelloway, 2004, p. 487). Furthermore, these authors admit to the possibility of their
results being contaminated by bias inherent in the ratings, which means that “some caution
should be exercised in the interpretation of the findings” (Waldersee & Griffiths, 2004, p. 433).
In the context of this study, they did not investigate or negate the potential impact of the way
change is introduced on resistance to change, nor is it at odds with the aim of the current study 29 .
Moreover, the autonomy, control and power of decision making inherent in empowerment may
also make a significant contribution to job satisfaction, thereby countering the experience of
alienation (see Section 5.2.4). In addition, many of the elements inherent in empowerment, a
number of which are summarised in Table 2.11 below, may contribute to the individual’s
experience of meaning. These arguments are further pursued in Chapter 5.
Table 2.11.
Organisational elements that may facilitate empowerment and participation (compiled from
Appelbaum & Honeggar, 1998; Chapman, 2002; Erstad, 1997; Nixon, 1994; Robbins, 1993)
•
Promote
trust
between
management
and •
•
employees and among employees
Job enrichment
High
levels
of
vertical
and
horizontal
•
Self-managed work teams
•
Reduced formalisation
•
Delegation of authority
•
Collaboration
•
Structuring jobs for intrinsic feedback
•
Continuous improvement
•
A clear vision and values
•
Unrestrictive systems and processes
•
Relevant, whole tasks
•
Goal setting
•
Education, training and development
•
Promotion of employee self-management
•
An organisational structure that promotes
•
Positive feedback
•
Skill recognition
communication
learning and development
•
Sufficient growth opportunities
Managerial actions may also affect the way change is introduced, thus increasing the possibility
of employee resistance. For example, Lawrence (1970) postulated that such resistance might be
the result of managerial attitudes during the introduction of change that over-emphasise the
technical side and ignore the social aspects, such as relationships. Bovey and Hede (2001)
29
The aim of the current study is to assist in the facilitating of organisational change, regardless of the method of
implementation. It should nevertheless be considered that different methods may have an impact on the study, particularly insofar
as they create or aggravate resistance to change.
81
supported this position by stating that the technical side of change, that is, “dealing with
quantifiable and predictable issues such as developing strategies and action plans, calculating
profitability and rationalising resources” (p. 535) is often easier to deal with than the more
emotional and unpredictable human side. As a result, the human aspects are avoided. This may
result in distrust and resentment “towards those leading change”, thereby contributing to
resistance to change (Ford et al., 2002, p. 105). These arguments again reflects how ignorance of
the importance of the human element in organisational change can not only produce a number of
detrimental effects (see Section 2.5), but also reduce the probability of the change initiative being
successful.
Finally, resistance to change may result when individuals experience inequity due to them having
to change while others appear “to gain the benefits of the change” (Newstrom & Davis, 1997, p.
404). Trader-Leigh (2002) postulated that “changes ordinarily benefit some people by injuring
others, particularly where change is feared and members of the organization are not made to see
the possibilities” (p. 140). Furthermore, Rice and Dreilinger (1991) stated that the violation of
the fundamental human need for justice might result in individuals distancing themselves from
the organisation. Finally, Folger and Scarlicki (1999, p. 35) argued that:
Research in organizational justice has shown that when workers see themselves as treated
fairly, they develop attitudes and behaviors required for successful change – even under
conditions of adversity. In contrast, when organizational decisions and managerial actions
are deemed unfair, the affected employees experience feelings of anger, outrage, and a
desire for retribution.
In addition to these broad causes of resistance to change, a number of other reasons are offered in
the literature. For example, psychological contract violation was implicated earlier as such a
cause (Folger & Skarlicki, 1999; Ugboro, 2006). From a learning perspective, people may resist
change when they believe they are unable to learn the competencies that will be required of them
after the organisation has changed (Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979). In this regard, Schein (1996)
states that to change, one must admit to oneself that one is imperfect – something which may
threaten one’s self-esteem and identity.
Furthermore, people are generally “afraid to try
something new for fear that it might be too difficult, that we might look stupid in the attempt, or
82
that we will have to part from old habits that worked for us in the past” (Schein, in Couto, 2002,
p. 104). In order then to prevent such “learning anxiety” (Schein, 1996, p. 56), one may resist
change 30 . This is particularly problematic due to the great amount of learning required if
organisations are to survive in contemporary environments (see Antonacopoulou & Gabriel,
2001; Argyris, 1992; 1993; 1995; 1997; Bokeno, 2003; Henderson & McAdam, 2003; Lei,
Slocum & Pitts, 1999; Lines, 2005; López, Peón & Ordás, 2005; Phillips, 2003; Robinson,
Carrillo, Anumba & Al-Ghassani, 2005; Van der Bent, Paauwe & Williams, 1999; Washington
& Hacker, 2005).
Related to the above, a cognitive psychological point of view attributes resistance to change to
the individual’s limited learning capacity, which results in mechanisms that protect the status quo
(Diamond, 1986). These mechanisms involve defensive reasoning, which is “self-serving, antilearning, and overprotective” (Argyris, in Trader-Leigh, 2002, p. 141).
Similarly, the
psychoanalytic point of view has that learning and change are resisted due to factors such as
“each individual’s narcissistic belief that he/she is already perfect and therefore needs no
development or change”; “the belief that the individual knows what he/she needs to learn and
nothing beyond it is necessary or desirable”, and the challenge learning poses to “individuals,
endangering some valued ideas, habits and beliefs about self and others and generating an
unavoidable degree of discomfort or even pain” (Antonacopoulou & Gabriel, 2001, p. 435-436).
Finally, Hellriegel et al. (1998) postulated that resistance to change might also be the result of
personality characteristics such as dogmatism (or closed-mindedness31 ) and dependency (see also
Vakola et al., 2004), or perceptual defences. These defences refer to a situation where one
selectively perceives only those things that are consistent with one’s current world view, and
may result from the threat that second-order change poses to one’s paradigm (see also Section
2.4).
In Chapter 5, it is shown that many of the factors threatened by change, as discussed above,
make a contribution to the meaning or purpose that the employee finds in his or her work in
30
In this regard, Vakola and Nikolaou (2005) found that if employees feel they are sufficiently trained and informed to face
organisational changes, their fear and uncertainty, and, as a result, their resistance to change, will decrease.
31
This characteristic can be defined as the polar opposite of the Big Five Personality characteristic ‘Openness to Experience’ (for
discussions of this trait, see, for example, Anastasi & Urbina, 1997; Cohen & Swerdlik, 1999; Gregory, 1996). This may affect
the extent to which the individual displays openness to change (see Section 2.7).
83
particular, and in the organisational context in general. Given the importance that such meaning
plays in the life of the individual (see Chapter 4), then, it is further demonstrated that this threat
to meaning may be a significant reason why individuals resist organisational changes. However,
it is not only individual factors that cause resistance to change. Often, certain situations or
conditions inherent to organisations result in such resistance. A number of these are discussed in
the subsequent section.
2.6.2. Organisational causes of resistance to change
Although a number of organisational causes of resistance to change are cited in the literature, the
intervention to be utilised in this study (see Chapters 6 and 7) is aimed at the individual level.
Hence, only a limited number of organisational causes will be discussed.
As will become
apparent from the exploration below, these organisational causes are often inextricably linked to
individual reasons for resistance to change.
Lennox (1994) proposed that resistance to change is the result of politics inside the organisation
and “in-bred anti-change [organisational] cultures” (p. 16). Similarly, threats to an existing
power balance may cause resistance to change, as attempts are made to conserve power
relationships (Greenberg & Baron, 1993). Structural inertia, which involves the mechanisms
built into the organisation to promote stability (e.g. selection and training aimed at employeeorganisation congruence, roles, established procedures), may also act to constrain organisational
change (Hellriegel et al., 1998; Mullins, 1999; Robbins et al., 2003), particularly in older
organisations (Tsang, 2003). Related to this, group inertia involves group norms that result in
employees resisting change (Robbins et al., 2003). Furthermore, Mullins (1999) maintained that
change efforts require substantial investments in resources.
These funds may then be
unavailable, either because the organisation cannot afford it, or because it may already be
dedicated to other projects (i.e. insufficient funds or fixed investments – Hellriegel et al., 1998).
Greenberg and Baron (1993) stated that previously unsuccessful change efforts might result in
resistance to change, whereas Mabin et al. (2001) held workload consequences as a possible
organisational cause of such resistance. Hellriegel et al. (1998) postulated that organisational
causes of resistance to change also include inter-organisational agreements and associated
84
obligations and commitments (e.g. contractual requirements) which prohibit or constrict change.
Finally, Robbins (1993) argued that a limited focus of change efforts may produce resistance.
Consistent with the open systems view of organisations, Robbins stated that if changes were
implemented in one subsystem, it would affect other subsystems (see also Cao et al., 2003). If
these intended changes are incongruent with the other subsystems, the change may be rejected.
Given the detrimental effects resistance to change may have on the success of change efforts, and
thus on the survival of the organisation, it is apparent that its management is a major challenge
for those responsible for the initiation of change in the organisation. This point was emphasised
by O’Connor (in Bovey & Hede, 2001), who stated that resistance to change overshadows “any
other aspect of the change process” (p. 535). Subsequently, a number of strategies have been
developed in an attempt to overcome such resistance. In their classic article in this regard, Kotter
and Schlesinger (1979) indicated six such strategies, all of which are summarised in Table 2.12
below.
Table 2.12.
Strategies for dealing with resistance to change (Adapted from Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979)
Strategy
Education
Description
and Employees are educated beforehand. Communication helps them to understand the
communication
need for change. This prevents misunderstandings that may cause resistance to
change.
Participation
Potential resistors are involved in the change process. Commitment to change is
and involvement
obtained and resistance is prevented.
Facilitation and Supportive efforts like guidance, training, counselling and therapy are offered to
support
help employees overcome the fear and anxiety associated with change.
Negotiation and Something of value is offered to potential or active resistors in exchange for the
agreement
lessening of resistance.
Manipulation
Subtle attempts are used to influence employees. For example, resistors are co-
and co-optation
opted to play an important role in the change effort.
Coercion
Employees are threatened (e.g. that they will lose their jobs/a promotion) or they are
actually dismissed or transferred.
85
In addition to these major strategies, Feldberg (1975) contended that change could also be
facilitated through better planning; group decision making; the reduction of conflict in the
organisation (particularly interpersonal and intergroup conflict); minimising the significance of
the change (making the change imperceptible); ceremonies and symbols 32 ; economic incentives,
and the use of change agents. However, it is apparent that none of these interventions, nor those
proposed by Kotter and Schlesinger above, address the uniquely human dimension of meaning in
life. This again illustrates the potential value of an intervention that takes into consideration both
the organisation’s need for change, and the individual’s search for meaning, as proposed in this
study (see Chapters 5 and 8).
According to Diamond (1986), the psychodynamic perspective on human development is
characterised by “two contradictory behavioural tendencies” (p. 544). This author maintained
that the first behavioural tendency is “change-oriented and crucial to the development of selfidentity, maturity and autonomy” (p. 544), whereas the second resists change and facilitates the
development of defence mechanisms to avoid anxiety and maintain stability.
Due to
organisational change threatening stability and provoking anxiety, the latter tendency may thus
explain resistance to change.
However, the first tendency implies that despite people’s
resistance, they also have a need to develop and grow 33 . This may then lead employees to
support changes; support which may be intricately related to readiness for change.
2.7. Readiness for change
In Section 2.2, it was stated that successful organisational change is dependent upon a high need
for change (see also Section 2.3), low resistance to change (Section 2.6), and high readiness for
change (Greenberg & Baron, 1993). This was affirmed by Chapman (2002), who stated that
organisational change is only possible when employees display readiness for change, accept the
need to change, and display “a positive willingness to engage in processes that may be difficult
and challenging” (p. 23). Similarly, Karp (2004) pointed out that “people change best when they
32
Contemporary research within the Social Constructionist paradigm places much significance on the role of symbols such as
stories, myths, artefacts, and metaphors in achieving organisational change (see, for example, Karp, 2004; Movva, 2004; Seeger
et al., 2005; Tsoukas, 2005). Such symbols then also form a critical element of the organisation’s culture, which often plays a
critical role in the degree of success achieved with organisational change initiatives (see Robbins, 1990).
33
This is consistent with the centrality of development and growth in logotherapeutic and existential theory (see Chapter 4)
86
are excited about where they are going and what they are doing” (p. 350). This final section of
the current chapter, then, addresses the concept of readiness for change – not only to bring about
conceptual clarity regarding this factor, but also to further indicate and emphasise its importance
in organisational change efforts.
Wright and Thompsen (1997, p. 36) contended that organisational change “is successful when
the people are ready for change”. Similarly, Chapman (2002) argued that many organisations are
“ill-prepared” to deal with “strong pressure[s] for change from the external environment” due to
low readiness for change (p. 23). Forcing people to change despite low readiness may have
detrimental effects – most notably resistance to change (Heil et al., 2000; Smith, 2005).
According to Armenakis et al. (1993, pp. 282-283), readiness for change is
reflected in organizational members’ beliefs, attitudes and intentions regarding the extent to
which changes are needed and the organization’s capacity to successfully make those
changes… creating readiness for change involves proactive attempts… to influence the
beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and ultimately the behavior of the change target. At its core,
the creation of readiness for change involves changing individual cognitions across a set of
employees.
Readiness for change is thus essentially an individual state, as it pertains to one’s attitudes and
perceptions about the need and organisational capacity for change.
Moreover, employee
perceptions of the organisation’s readiness for change constitute a crucial factor in facilitating
successful change (Chawla & Kelloway, 2004; Weber & Weber, 2001).
In addition to
organisational capacity, readiness for change also involves individuals perceiving themselves as
having the capability to change, as illustrated by Wright and Thompsen’s (1997) equating of
capacity to change with “personal readiness” (p. 38). The importance of this capability lies
therein that resistance to change often results from individuals’ beliefs that they lack the
capability required to adapt to organisational changes (Argyris, 1993; Kotter & Schlesinger,
1979; Schein, 1996).
Armenakis and Harris (2002) suggested that one’s belief in one’s own efficacy is central to
readiness for change, as individuals “will only be motivated to attempt a change to the extent that
87
they have confidence that they can succeed” (p. 170). Furthermore, these authors held that
readiness for change can be created by crafting a message based on efficacy, as well as on
discrepancy, appropriateness, principal support and personal valence. These five components of
a transformational message are summarised in Table 2.13 below.
Table 2.13.
The five key components of a transformational message aimed at creating readiness for change
(Adapted from Armenakis & Harris, 2002, p. 170).
Component
Discrepancy
Description
Describes how the organisation’s current state differs from a desired end-state.
Individuals must view the post-change state as more attractive than the status quo.
Efficacy
The individual’s confidence in his or her own ability to succeed.
Appropriateness
Individuals must agree that change is necessary and that the proposed way of
changing will be the most effective. If the change message fails to persuade and
consensus cannot be reached, the change should be reconsidered.
Principal support
Without resources and commitment, changes will not be institutionalised.
Personal valence
Employees will assess the distribution of the change outcomes (positive and
negative), the fairness of the change, and how individuals are treated.
If the
proposed change threatens their self-interest, they will probably resist it.
Greenberg and Baron (1993) stated that readiness for change is present when dissatisfaction with
current conditions is high, a desirable alternative is present, and a plan exists to reach this
alternative 34 . These factors are believed to lead to a perceived benefit of change, which may, if it
outweighs the costs, bring about the effective execution of change. However, should the cost of
the change outweigh the benefits, readiness is absent and changes should not take place.
Similarly, Ford and Ford (1994) held that if change is not attractive it will not gain employee
support, and resistance to change will result.
From the above, the implicit assumption is clearly that readiness for change constitutes the polar
opposite of resistance to change. Accordingly, Piderit (2000, p. 784) interpreted Armenakis et
al. (1993) as viewing resistance to change as encapsulating a cognitive state called
34
This contention largely reflects Lewin’s model of change (see Sections 1.3.2 and 3.4).
88
“(un)readiness”, whereas Elving (2005) concluded that – based on his interpretation of
Armenakis and Harris (2002) – the “concept of readiness for change consists of both resistance
to change and support for change as a continuum, with on one end resistance to change and on
the other end readiness for change” (p. 131). This assumption has significant implications for
the measurement of key constructs in the current research (see Chapter 6). Moreover, Bovey and
Hede (2001, p. 540) provided a framework for measuring behavioural intentions to resist change
that is helpful to illustrate this ‘resistance to change–readiness for change’ dimension. This
framework is presented in Figure 2.6 below. Further clarification is found in the distinction
between constructive and destructive responses associated with change made by Ugboro (2006).
Examples of such behaviours are listed in Table 2.14 below.
Overt
Covert
(Openly expressed behaviour)
•
Active
(Originate action)
o
Passive
•
Initiate
Embrace
•
Observe
Refrain
Wait
•
Support
Cooperate
Resistance
o
o
o
Agree
Accept
Stall
Dismantle
Undermine
o
Readiness
o
o
Readiness
o
o
Resistance
o
o
Resistance
o
o
o
•
Oppose
Argue
Obstruct
Readiness
o
•
•
Resistance
o
o
o
•
(Concealed behaviour)
Ignore
Withdraw
Avoid
Readiness
o
o
Give in
Comply
(Not acting, inert)
Figure 2.6.
A framework for measuring behavioural intentions to resist change (Adapted
from Bovey & Hede, 2001, p. 540)
89
Table 2.14.
Employee responses to organisational change (Adapted from Ugboro, 2006, pp. 233-234).
Constructive responses to change
Destructive responses to change
(readiness for change)
(resistance to change)
Obliging
Hopeful
Fearful
Cynical
Calm
Hope
Worry
Anger
Relief
Excitement
Fear
Disgust
Committed
Optimism
Anxiety
Moral outrage
Loyal
Problem solving
Helplessness
Cynicism
Following order
Taking initiative
Withdrawing
Retaliating
Routine behaviour
Procrastinating
From Figure 2.6, it is apparent that the behaviours associated with the resistance to change/
readiness for change construct may be interpreted as occurring on two dimensions, namely the
extent to which the individual is active vs. passive in resisting or supporting changes, and the
degree to which the individual’s resistance or support is openly displayed or hidden. The
behaviours listed above further again reflect the importance of gaining the support of employees
for changes, particularly if the potential detrimental effect of the resistance behaviours is
weighed up against the probable positive outcomes of the readiness behaviours. This, then,
again illustrates the importance of addressing resistance to change – not only to minimise the
negative effects, but also to attempt to gain employees’ support to such an extent that they
display readiness behaviours (see also the discussion on organisational citizenship behaviours in
Section 5.2.3.2).
The view that readiness for change is a cognitive state is supported by a number of authors. For
example, viewing changes as an opportunity is seen as a key skill of those better able to cope
with organisational change (Scott & Jaffe, 1988; Wanberg & Banas, 2000). Furthermore, the
reasons for change play a central role in how readily employees accept the changes (Rousseau &
Tijoriwala, 1999).
However, it was shown above that readiness also involves the beliefs,
attitudes and intentions of employees, which suggests that more than a cognitive component may
be involved. Accordingly, Dunham, Grube, Gardner, Cummings and Pierce (1989) argued that
one’s view regarding organisational changes consists of one’s “cognitions about that change,
90
affective reactions to that change and behavioral tendency toward that change” (p. 4). Thus,
readiness for change, like its polar opposite resistance to change, is fundamentally an attitude
that the individual displays towards organisational changes. Subsequently, it is apparent that all
three components of these attitudes must be considered when an intervention is planned to
facilitate organisational change, as the omission of one or more components may render such
programmes ineffective.
In an SA study, Kleynhans, Schmidt and Schepers (1999) argued that readiness for change is a
multi-dimensional concept influenced by a number of factors. These aspects – which were
condensed from the literature by Kleynhans et al. – are summarised in Table 2.15 below. It will
become apparent that many of these factors were discussed in the preceding paragraphs.
Table 2.15
Factors that impact upon readiness for change (Adapted from Kleynhans et al., 1999, p. 12).
•
•
•
•
Individual attitudes, perceptions, intentions and •
The extent to which there is support and
convictions regarding the extent to which
commitment to the organisation’s vision,
change is necessary
policies and culture
The organisation’s capacity to implement •
Levels of motivation to solve current problems,
changes (including systems, structure, and
level of dissatisfaction with status quo, and
skills)
vision for the future
The levels of resistance to change and the •
The presence of a social dynamic where
management of related emotional issues
individuals’ readiness for change influences or
The optimal combining of skills, management
shapes others’ readiness.
style and personality traits
In addition to these elements, Wanberg and Banas (2000) argued that a factor that may be critical
in facilitating change readiness, is openness to change. This involves a willingness to support
changes and positive affect regarding possible outcomes of change (Chawla & Kelloway, 2004;
Miller, Johnson & Grau, 1994). This construct may be predicted by factors such as high selfesteem, perceived control, participation and social support. Furthermore, change openness is
associated with outcomes such as increased job satisfaction (see Section 5.2.3.2) and decreased
intentions to resign (Wanberg & Banas, 2000). These findings support the contention that
91
openness to change is a “necessary, initial condition for successful planned change” (Miller et
al., 1994, p. 60), particularly as some of the predictors of change openness were indicated earlier
as factors which, when threatened, may lead to change resistance. Because openness to change
is a precursor to change readiness, this also lends support to the contention that resistance to
change and readiness for change may be polar opposites on the same dimension; a dimension
that may be successfully addressed by means of an intervention aimed at the individual’s search
for meaning in life (see Chapter 5).
2.8. Conclusion
The primary objective of Chapter 2, namely to provide an overview of organisational change,
was fulfilled by addressing of five secondary objectives.
It was shown that organisations
generally respond to the many catalysts of change in their internal and external environments in
one of two ways, namely first-order incremental change, or second-order transformational
change. Large-scale changes in particular, such as downsizing, restructuring, BPR and M&As,
which are often of a second-order nature, result in a number of consequences for those
employees who survive such change efforts. These consequences include various psychological
and physical issues, the career plateau, obsolescence, the survivor syndrome, the new career and
job insecurity – consequences that, in turn, produce resistance to change in some employees.
Such resistance encompasses attitudes (emotions, behaviours and cognitions) that may seriously
damage the success of organisational change efforts. Nevertheless, not all employees display
resistance. Rather, some may gain advantages from such changes, and, as a result, display
attitudes related to readiness for change. Resistance to change and readiness for change, then,
are polar opposites on the same attitudinal dimension, and low resistance and high readiness are
crucial in accomplishing effective change.
According to Frohman (1997), the emphasis placed on organisational transformation has resulted
in the obliteration of the focus on a critical factor of organisational effectiveness: “fully utilizing
employees’ energy and commitment” (p. 52). Similarly, Beckhard (1969, p. 3) summarised what
he regarded as the true challenge with regard to organisational change as follows:
92
How can we optimally mobilize human resources and energy to achieve the organization’s
mission and, at the same time, maintain a viable, growing organization of people whose
personal needs for self-worth, growth and satisfaction are significantly met at work?
The subsequent chapter is aimed at providing a discussion of organisation development (OD), a
field that was established to contribute to the facilitation of organisational change. It should
become apparent from this discussion that OD may not only encapsulate one answer to the
question posed by Beckhard, but may also contribute to the engagement of employees’ energy
and commitment, thereby contributing to organisational effectiveness. This chapter, then, will
also further address the potential value of an intervention based on logotherapeutic principles to
facilitate organisational change.
93