the impact of change communication on change receptivity: two cases of continuous...
TRANSCRIPT
1
The impact of change communication on change receptivity: Two cases of
continuous change
Jennifer Frahm
Bachelor of Business (Comm. with Distinction) Honours in Management
(Queensland University of Technology)
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Management)
Work and Industry Futures Research Program
School of Management Queensland University of Technology
February 28 2005
2
Abstract
Communication is inextricably linked with the process of organisational change
(Lewis, 1999). However, managers report that communication of organisational
change is challenging, particularly with the advent of continuously changing
organisations (Buchanan, Claydon & Doyle, 1999). Continuously changing
organisations are those that seek to be more flexible, more innovative and more
responsive to the dynamic external environment. One of the problems associated with
continuous change is the resultant impact of successive downsizings, re-engineering
efforts and culture changes on employee receptivity to change. Despite the
unquestioning adoption of continuous change efforts (Zorn, Christensen, & Cheney,
1999) there is a paucity of research on communication during this type of change. This
thesis addresses this knowledge gap by situating the research within a continuous
change context. The primary research question is ‘how do change communication
models impact on employee receptivity to change within a continuous change context’,
and this question considers issues pertaining to how accurately previous change
communication models reflect and explain what occurs within change processes. This
topic is examined within two case-study organisations through the use of multiple
methods. The analysis occurs through an interpretive framework and utilises Langley’s
(1999) alternate templates as a strategy to manage the process based research. A model
of change communication during continuous change is presented, with the central
constructs of the model being monologic change communication, dialogic change
communication and the background talk of change. Further, Van de Ven and Poole’s
(1995) Process Theories of Change are extended to consider the sequencing of the three
constructs. The findings suggest that the sequencing of the dominant change
communication models is informed by an alignment of individual communication
competences and change communication expectations.
4
Acknowledgments I wish to acknowledge the support and encouragement received during the course of completing this doctorate. In particular I would like to express my deep gratitude to:
• Associate Professor Kerry Brown for your enthusiasm and energy in direction of the PhD process
• Dr Lisa Bradley for continued patience, good cheer and commitment to methodological rigour
• Dr Namrata Malhotra for earlier guidance on parts of this research A number of the academic community within the School of Management, Faculty of Business, QUT have been greatly influential along the process and I am thankful for your interest and guidance: Dr Barbara Pini, Professor Neal Ryan, Professor Boris Kabanoff, Dr Jennifer Waterhouse, and Dr Cheryl Rivers. Professor Neal Ryan was instrumental in organising a study leave with the Department of Sociology at Princeton University, New Jersey, USA, and for that I am most grateful. I also would like to acknowledge the stellar academics who allowed me to audit their classes: Professors Bruce Western, Paul Di Maggio, Viviana Zelizer and Alexandro Portes. Thanks also go to the Princeton cohort. Still miss you. I have been told by many of my peers that the PhD journey can be a lonely one, isolating and alienating. I have been fortunate to find the opposite, with many, many wonderful folk accompanying me on the journey. In particular, I would to thank the following: The Cubies and Bish. Matt, it is true – you are all knowing, and all seeing, and the true guru of SOM. I am privileged in having shared a cubie with you. WejyWoman – I look forward to further adventures, and working with you both within the academic sector and beyond. You’re a bloody star. Adelle – your abundance of grace and humour make life within Marg St much easier. The Bringers of Joy: Mary, Meeta & Tash. You have been the unexpected joys of the PhD process. Thank you. KJ & Owlet – thank you for your continued love, support and interest. Deeply indebted to you both for the genes! An abundance of social support and reality checks were provided by some of the most fab folk I know: JVD, SJD, Bec, Sam, Fi, Catrina, Deb and of course the Loveys. Thank you all. And finally, I am deeply grateful to the two organisations that supported this research. Thank you for your trust and acceptance.
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2
TABLE OF CONTENTS----------------------------------------------------------------------5
List of Figures -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13
List of Tables---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14
Statement of original authorship -------------------------------------------------------- 15
CHAPTER 1----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16
Introduction ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16
Background to the research..............................................................................................16
Research problems and questions...................................................................................19
Methodology ......................................................................................................................22
Outline of the thesis...........................................................................................................23
Conclusion ..........................................................................................................................26
CHAPTER 2----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27
Review of the Literature ------------------------------------------------------------------- 27
Introduction........................................................................................................................27
Theoretical Frameworks of Change ................................................................................31
Change Communication...................................................................................................38
Organisational Communication: The Debates ..........................................................40
What is Change Communication?...............................................................................41
Monologic Change Communication...........................................................................42
Dialogic Change Communication ...............................................................................44
6
Instrumental Change Communication – Model 1 ....................................................49
Constructivist Change Communication – Model 2 ..................................................52
Integration of Instrumental and Constructivist change communication ..............55
Informal Change Communication ..............................................................................56
Methodological implications of previous change communication research.........59
Change Receptivity ...........................................................................................................61
Change Readiness..........................................................................................................65
Change Resistance .........................................................................................................68
Change Cynicism...........................................................................................................69
Change Openness ..........................................................................................................71
Methodological implications of change receptivity studies ....................................73
Summary.........................................................................................................................73
Continuous Change Organisations – what do they look like?....................................74
Conclusion ..........................................................................................................................80
CHAPTER 3----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 83
Methods and Research Design ----------------------------------------------------------- 83
Introduction........................................................................................................................83
Objectives of Study............................................................................................................85
Research Paradigm-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 86
Research Design ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 88
Development of Case-Study Methodology....................................................................90
Development of Longitudinal Design ............................................................................92
7
Sampling and Data Sources--------------------------------------------------------------- 95
Selection of Research Sites................................................................................................95
Sampling within case. .....................................................................................................100
Data Collection------------------------------------------------------------------------------101
Methods ............................................................................................................................102
Tech D Focus groups...................................................................................................102
Tech D Survey ..............................................................................................................104
Survey Administration ...............................................................................................104
Tech D Observation.....................................................................................................106
Highsales Focus groups..............................................................................................106
Highsales Survey .........................................................................................................108
Highsales Observation................................................................................................109
Measures ...........................................................................................................................110
Rationale ...........................................................................................................................114
Ethnographic Observation .........................................................................................115
Organisational Surveys...............................................................................................117
Data Analysis--------------------------------------------------------------------------------117
Procedures ........................................................................................................................118
Surveys..........................................................................................................................120
Ethnographic Observation .........................................................................................120
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................121
CHAPTER 4----------------------------------------------------------------------------------123
8
Tech D Findings & Results ---------------------------------------------------------------123
Introduction......................................................................................................................123
The Case............................................................................................................................124
Time 1 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------124
Study 1: Survey, January 2002 .......................................................................................124
Study 2: Focus groups, February 2002..........................................................................126
Monologic Change Communication.........................................................................126
Dialogic Change Communication .............................................................................128
The Background Talk of Change...............................................................................130
Study 3: Ethnographic Observation, January – September 2002 ..............................133
Monologic Change Communication.........................................................................134
Dialogic Change Communication .............................................................................138
The Background Talk of Change...............................................................................141
Time 2 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------143
Study 4: Survey, January 2003 .......................................................................................143
Study 5: Focus Groups, February 2003 .........................................................................145
Monologic Change Communication.........................................................................145
Dialogic Change Communication .............................................................................147
The Background Talk of Change...............................................................................149
Study 6: Ethnographic Observation, January – December 2003 ...............................152
Monologic Change Communication.........................................................................154
Dialogic Change Communication .............................................................................157
9
The Background Talk of Change...............................................................................160
Time 3 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------163
Study 7: Survey, January 2004 .......................................................................................163
Study 8: Focus Groups, February 2004 .........................................................................165
Monologic Change Communication.........................................................................165
Dialogic Change Communication .............................................................................167
The Background Talk of Change...............................................................................169
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................171
CHAPTER 5----------------------------------------------------------------------------------172
Highsales Findings & Results -----------------------------------------------------------172
Introduction......................................................................................................................172
The Case-study.................................................................................................................172
Time 1 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------173
Study 1: Survey, June, 2003 ............................................................................................173
Table 5.2 Means of Key Variables at Time 1 -----------------------------------------175
Study 2: Focus Groups, July 2003..................................................................................175
Monologic Change Communication.........................................................................175
Dialogic Change Communication .............................................................................177
Background Talk of Change.......................................................................................179
Study 3: Ethnographic Observation, June – December, 2003 ....................................181
Monologic Change Communication.........................................................................184
Dialogic Change Communication .............................................................................186
10
Background Talk of Change.......................................................................................189
Time 2 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------192
Study 4: Survey, January 2004 .......................................................................................192
Study 5: Focus groups, February 2003..........................................................................193
Monologic Change Communication.........................................................................193
Dialogic Change Communication .............................................................................195
Background Talk of Change.......................................................................................197
Study 6: Ethnographic Observation, January – June 2004 .........................................199
Monologic Change Communication.........................................................................201
Dialogic Change Communication .............................................................................204
Background Talk of Change.......................................................................................206
Time 3 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------207
Study 7: Survey, July 2004 ..............................................................................................207
Study 8: Focus groups, July 2004...................................................................................209
Monologic Change Communication.........................................................................209
Dialogic Change Communication .............................................................................211
Background Talk of Change.......................................................................................213
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................215
CHAPTER 6----------------------------------------------------------------------------------217
Discussion------------------------------------------------------------------------------------217
SECTION 1-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------217
How did Change Communication impact on Change Receptivity? -----------217
The impact of Monologic Change Communication on Change Receptivity ..........218
11
Expectations .................................................................................................................218
Competences ................................................................................................................220
The impact of Dialogic Change Communication on Change Receptivity...............224
Expectations .................................................................................................................224
Competences ................................................................................................................226
Forums ..........................................................................................................................229
Pseudo- Dialogic Change Communication (the wolf in sheep’s clothing)..........231
Impact of the Background Talk of Change on Change Receptivity .........................234
Language ......................................................................................................................236
Framing Discourses.....................................................................................................237
The Presence of Sense-givers .....................................................................................241
The Sequencing and Interplay of the Three Templates..............................................243
SECTION 2: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------255
What were the Communicative Implications of Continuous Change?--------255
Uncertainty and Ambiguity ...........................................................................................256
Change Fatigue ................................................................................................................258
Necessity to Provide Metrics to Measure Success ......................................................259
Communicative Attention..............................................................................................261
Receptivity as a Process ..................................................................................................263
Future Research-----------------------------------------------------------------------------267
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................270
CHAPTER 7----------------------------------------------------------------------------------272
12
Conclusion -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------272
Introduction......................................................................................................................272
Theoretical Contribution ................................................................................................272
Limitations........................................................................................................................279
Future research ................................................................................................................280
Contributions ...................................................................................................................281
Appendix 1: Subscales of the Inventory of Change in Organisational Culture--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------299
Appendix 2: Confidentiality Statement -----------------------------------------------300
Appendix 3: Research Protocol ---------------------------------------------------------301
Appendix 4: The Vignettes ---------------------------------------------------------------302
Appendix 5: Exploratory Factor Analysis: Total Variance Explained (Highsales) -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------305
Appendix 6: Exploratory Factor Analysis: Total Variance Explained (Tech D)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------306
Appendix 7: Perception of Organisational Capacity to Change ----------------307
Appendix 8: Perception of Change Communication ------------------------------308
13
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Structure of Literature Reviewed………………………………………………. ..28
Figure 2.2 Process Theories of Organisational Development and Change…………………..33
Figure 3.1 Process Map of the Comparative Case Study Process……………………………93
Figure 6.1 The Pipeline of Continuous Change Communication…………………………...244
Figure 6.2. The Simple Model of Change Communication and Change
Receptivity………………………………………………………………………….……….253
Figure 6.3 Revision of Relationship between Change Communication
and Change Receptivity…………………………………………………………………….254
14
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Significant Change Communication Studies in the Last 10 Years…………….….46
Table 3.1 Comparative Case Similarities…………………………………………………….98
Table 3.2 Tech D Reliabilities………………………………………………………………113
Table 3.3 Highsales Reliabilities…………………………………………………………....113
Table 3.4 Demographics of the Two Case-Studies………………………………………….113
Table 4.1 Means of Key Variables at Time 1……………………………………………….125
Table 4.2 Means of Key Variables at Time 2……………………………………………….144
Table 4.3 Correlations between Openness to Change and Communication Variables……...145
Table 4.4 Means of Key Variables at Time 3……………………………………………….163
Table 4.5 Summary of ANOVA statistics within Tech D…………………………………..164
Table 4.6 Correlations of Change Communication Variables with Openness to
Change……………………………………………………………………………………....164
Table 5.1 Correlations between Openess to Change and Communication Variables ………174
Table 5.2 Means of Key Variables at Time 1……………………………………………….175
Table 5.3 Correlations between Openness to Change and Communication Variables……...193
Table 5.4 Means of Key Variables at Time 2……………………………………………….193
Table 5.5 Summary Table of ANOVAs within Highsales………………………………….208
Table 5.6 Means of Key Variables at Time 3…………...…………………………………..208
Table 5.7 Correlations between Openess to Change and Communication Variables……….208
Table 6.1 Framing Discourse within Tech D………………………………………………..240
Table 6.2 Framing Discourse within Highsales……………………………………………..240
Table 6.3 Van De Ven & Poole’s Process Theories of Change Adapted …………………..249
Table 6.4 Dominant Communication Models of Change………………………………...…250
15
Statement of original authorship
The work contained in this dissertation has not been previously submitted for a degree
or diploma at any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and
belief this dissertation contains no material previously published or written by another
person except where due reference is made.
Signed Date
16
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Background to the research The advent of continuous change as a fundamental ‘truism’ of organisational
life presents intriguing challenges to those seeking to manage organisations. The
last thirty years has witnessed increasing emphasis on organisational
development (OD), whereby the importance of the employee is elevated within
change (Beckhard & Pritchard, 1992). However, much of the field has
maintained a focus on the ‘planned’ and ‘episodic’ aspect of organisational
change (Seo, Putnam, & Bartunek, 2004). Many managers suggest that the
contemporary experience of change is rarely rational and planned (Doyle,
2002). Thus, the value of diagnostic tools, models and approaches derived from
the field of OD is diminished in the context of organisations that change
continuously.
Alongside the unquestioning adoption of continuous change efforts (Zorn et al.,
1999) there is now a burgeoning body of research on continuous change as
opposed change as a discrete event. Brown and Eisenhardt (1997) agree on the
need for such research, suggesting that many firms change, not by a rare
episodic event, but rather through a continuous process. Despite this promising
trajectory, current research sheds little light on the change communication of
organisations aspiring to achieve continuous change. This thesis addresses this
17
knowledge gap by situating the research within a continuous change context,
and thus contributes to the advancement of change management knowledge.
The practical import of managing continuous change is highlighted in
Buchanan, Claydon and Doyle’s (1999) study of change practitioners. They
suggest that within this continuous change environment, communication of
change, and issues pertaining to change receptivity, such as cynicism, fear, and
resistance prove most challenging. Change receptivity is a central issue within
continuous change. Huy (1999) defines change receptivity as an interpretive,
attitudinal state (both cognitive and emotional) to accept the need for proposed
change. Various dimensions of change receptivity include openness to change,
change fatigue, change resistance, change cynicism, and change contempt
(Frahm & Brown, 2002). Managers have long struggled with managing
employees during change (Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979), and the emergence of
continuous change elevates the difficulty.
One of the more popular remedies to the difficulties of managing organisational
change is to bolster the organisational communication. This thesis uses the term
change communication to denote organisational communication that is specific to
change efforts (Zorn, Page, & Cheney, 2000). Zorn et al (1999) have used the term to
refer to change-related communication and this description is consistent with the use
of the term within the content of this thesis.
Previous research suggests that the value of change communication in organisational
change lies in improving change receptivity of employees (Kanter, 1999; Kotter &
Schlesinger, 1979). Change communication scholars perceive organisational change
as a communication problematic (Bourke & Bechervaise, 2002; Faber, 1998). In this
sense, problems with managing change are a result of poor communication and
18
improving the quality of the communication enhances the quality of the change effort.
It is argued that organisational change efforts fail in part due to ill considered, or mis-
used organisational communication strategies and tactics (Frahm & Brown, 2003).
Traditionally, popular management theorists have advocated the importance of
communication in achieving successful organisational change (Kanter, Stein, & Jick,
1992b). However, recent studies indicate that despite being recognised as a critical
area of change implementation, change communication is one of the most difficult
aspects of change management to implement (Buchanan, Claydon, & Doyle, 1999;
Doyle, 2002).
Previously, change agents managed change as a discrete event and co-ordinated
the communication strategies and plans accordingly. Some argue that today’s
change agents find communicating change incredibly difficult as the contextual
factors of organisations render the ‘textbook recipes’ on managing change
impotent (Doyle, Claydon, & Buchanan, 2000). The difficulty exists despite the
best practice advice derived from the works of change management gurus
(Bennis, 2003; Kanter, 1985; Kotter, 1996; Senge, 1990). Buchanan et al (1999)
report that accompanying the increasing frustration with change
communication, there is an escalation of frustration with continued ‘fashion
driven’ reforms and change programs. It is surprising then that only a few
studies have investigated the link between change communication and change
receptivity, for example, Economo and Zorn (1999).
Buchanan et al (1999) found that although managers reported they were aware
of the importance of communication and well-supported change agents, the
reality often did not match the rhetoric. Within the management literature
‘communication’ is considered a monolithic entity, the ‘black box’ of
19
organisational studies (Barrett, 2002). Despite the recognition that
communication is an integral component of organisational change, only a small
body of change communication specific research exists (Lewis, 1999; Mills,
2003). A considerable number of organisational change studies note
‘communication’ as an outcome in their research (for example, Brown &
Eisenhardt, 1997; Stewart & Kringas, 2003), but few focus on communication
processes per se. There is a need for change communication to be more clearly
defined, and understood, particularly within continuous change contexts. This
research agenda becomes more salient when considering the underdeveloped
link between change receptivity and change communication within the
management literature.
Research problems and questions From the initial discussion outlined above, it is clear that an opportunity exists
for a research study that offers the potential to make a significant contribution to
change management knowledge. Thus, this research addresses the following
questions:
Empirical Research Question 1: How does change communication impact on change receptivity within a continuous change context?
Theoretical Research Question 2: What is change communication?
Empirical Research Question 3: How does unpacking the ‘black box’ of change communication inform our understanding of change receptivity?
Eisenberg, Andrews, Murphy and Laine-Timmerman (1999) assist in improving our
understanding of change communication by attempting to align communication
models with organisational change models. They consider the different applications of
monologic change communication, transactional change communication and dialogic
20
change communication. While the authors recognise ‘transactional change
communication’ as a third model of change communication, this thesis adopts only
the monologic and dialogic models of change communication in order to illustrate
their instrumental and constructivist properties in change communication, and to also
manage the size and scope of the research project. Further, Eisenberg et al (1999)
argue that ‘transactional change communication’ is the primary model of
transformational change. As already noted, this thesis is concerned with continuous
change as opposed to discrete episodic change, not transformational change. For this
additional reason, ‘transactional change communication’ is not addressed.
Eisenberg and Goodell (1993) introduce us to the idea of organizations consisting of
monologues or dialogues. Monologic change communication is identified as top-
down, one-way, instrumental communication (Botany, 1997). There is emphasis on a
unified voice, with power centralised in a dominant discourse (Boje, 1995). Dialogic
change communication is constructive, and based on relational communication that
emphasises trust, symmetry of power between those involved and empathy. It
emanates from a dialogic understanding of organisations, which reflects multiple
voices, plurality of positions and diversity of counter cultural perspectives (Boje,
1995). Much of the management literature accommodates the instrumental
perspective in which communication is used as a managerial tool of control to manage
change (Bourke & Bechervaise, 2002; Mumby & Stohl, 1996). This constitutes a
monologic approach to communication. Monologic themes reflect unilateral action,
where deviation from the norm requires a corrective and controlling communicative
response (Bokeno & Gantt, 2000). By employing monologic communication,
managers seek to stabilise the organisation by communicating vision and educating
employees on the benefits of the intended change (Frahm & Brown, 2003). Using
21
Ford and Ford’s (1995) framework, monologic change communication creates
initiative conversations by way of directives and declarations, and conversations for
performance such as requests and promises to create action, and get things done. The
focus is one-way, reflected in speech acts or written directives that suggest a one-way
direction from senior management.
In contrast, some argue that dialogic change communication is more appropriate for
continuous change contexts (Eisenberg, Andrews, Murphy, & Laine-Timmerman,
1999; Weick & Quinn, 1999). Dialogic change communication includes speech acts
or texts that suggest a constructive and relational dialogue. It is argued the ability to
engage with genuine care and respect, to generate reflective discussion and to speak
authentically has positive impacts on innovation and organisational change efforts
(Bokeno & Gantt, 2000). The nature of dialogic communication is about creating new
meaning, processes, or products out of the conversations. Ford and Ford (1995)
discuss the conversations for understanding, suggesting that these conversations
include three key by products; conditions of satisfaction, opportunities for
participation, and potential for interpretation of decision makers statements. In this
sense, the purpose of communication is to instigate change through the use of dialogic
processes, in dialogic settings, and by people who are dialogically competent (Bokeno
& Gantt, 2000).
As described above, both terms monologic and dialogic change communication
suggest purposeful and deliberate uses of formal communicative action within
organisational change. However, for those in organizations that undergo continuous
change, the real communication of change is rarely as structured, formal or considered
as the two approaches identified above. Yet this reality of change is not reflected in
academic literature (Mills, 2003). Many narratives of change occur through the
22
grapevine, by the water cooler, and within the corridors conversations (Buchanan,
2003). Individual sense-making of change can dominate and produces the
‘background talk of change’. The background talk can serve as a barometer of the
employees’ receptivity to change. In managing employees’ receptivity of change,
managers need to be aware of the impact of the organizational members’ interpretive
schemes and sense-making (Gioia & Thomas, 1997). Sense-making is an interpretive
process in which the individual seeks to reduce ambiguity and uncertainty through
selective interpretation of information and cues (Weick, 1995), and thus reflects a
more private conversation for understanding (Ford & Ford, 1995).
Consideration of these factors builds on Research Question 1 to generate Research
Question 4.
Empirical Research Question 4: How do the different communication models (instrumental/monologic and constructivist/dialogic) inform our understanding of the impact of change communication on change receptivity within a continuous change context?
The final research question is derived from the observation of the difficulty of
managing change receptivity in a continuous change context. While much research
has looked at the effect of organisational change on those involved, there is much less
known about the implications of repeated change efforts and prolonged change on
individuals. Thus Research Question 5 asks:
Empirical Research Question 5: What happens to openness to change over time in the context of continuous change?
Methodology A constructivist epistemology informs this thesis and is grounded in subjective,
interpretivist origins. In this way the socially constructed nature of understanding is
acknowledged and is incorporated into the research process, as is the individual’s
interpretation of their experience. From a research perspective, interpretivism presents
23
a qualitative, phenomenographic, post positivistic and naturalistic approach to
conducting research (Patton, 1990). While constructivist epistemology is seldom used
in management research (Alvesson & Deetz, 2000), it is more common to find work
done from this perspective in organisational communication (Salem, 1999). Because
the research question sought to understand how change communication impacts on the
participant’s receptivity to change, it was considered important to take into account
the subjective meanings that participants attribute to their experience of organisational
change.
To do so, the research was conducted on a longitudinal basis, using multiple methods
including focus groups, surveys and ethnographic observation for data collection.
Langley’s (1999) Alternate Templates strategy was used to classify and categorise the
data, and thematic analysis deployed to generate the findings. The research aims were
to examine how change communication impacts on change receptivity and to provide
a deeper investigation of the communicative implications of continuous change.
Outline of the thesis Chapter One provides an introduction to the thesis and establishes the background to
the development of the central research question, ‘How does change communication
impact on change receptivity in the context of continuous change?’. It introduces
some key issues in relation to change communication and continuous change. In
particular, it is noted that there are clear gaps in the theoretical knowledge of change
communication and change receptivity. Further, the lack of research on continuous
change organisations creates a justification for undertaking contextual studies such as
this one.
Chapter Two presents an overview of the literature that encompasses the bodies of
research surrounding the research question. The chapter starts with a review of the
24
literature on change communication as this is the primary phenomena of interest. As
there are so few studies specifically addressing change communication and change
receptivity, the chapter moves to the literature on the second construct of interest in
the research question ‘change receptivity’ and looks for potential overlap or utility
with the change communication literature. Finally, the chapter reviews the research on
continuous change in order to establish research priorities and a sampling frame.
Chapter Three details the methodological approach undertaken to address the research
questions and subsequent hypotheses. A comparative case-study design is explained
and justified. In this study, the two cases are run concurrently after an initial period of
sole focus on the first case-study. The running of the cases in parallel provides
opportunities for testing emergent findings from the first case within the second case.
Cross-case comparison is a useful strategy to develop analytical insights and the
power of the strategy is enhanced when the cross comparison occurs in real time,
rather than retrospectively after the research has finished. In this situation, the
researcher is able to check emergent analysis with case-study participants as events
unfold. In this chapter, justification is also provided for the use of multiple methods
including surveys, focus groups and ethnographic observation.
Chapter Four presents the findings of the first case-study in the format of eight studies
in chronological order of the field study. The ‘Alternate Templates’ (Langley, 1999)
strategy is used to ground the data and, as such, the findings are reported using the
monologic and dialogic models and background talk as organising constructs. The
first case-study is a two year study of a public sector technology diffusion agency
attempting to become a ‘learning organisation’ with the Chief Executive Officer
(CEO) intent on creating a continuous change organisation.
25
Chapter Five uses the same strategy as Chapter Four to analyse the second case-study.
The second case-study is a 12 month study of a business unit within a Government
Owned Corporation (GOC) concerned with the provision of utilities and identified as
a continuously changing organisation.
Chapter Six takes the findings reported in Chapters Four and Five and refers back to
the literature in Chapter Two to address the initial research aims expounded in
Chapter One. The research aims were to answer how change communication impacts
on change receptivity and to provide a deeper investigation of the communicative
implications of continuous change. The first section of the chapter addresses how each
of the alternate templates; ‘monologic change communication’, ‘dialogic change
communication’, and an emergent template from the data, ‘the background talk’
impact on change receptivity within the two cases studies. Then the separate templates
are integrated to advance a model of a pipeline of continuous change communication.
Further, Van de Ven and Poole’s (1995) Process Theories of Change are adapted to
include the dominant sequencing of the three change communication models. The
second section reviews the specific contextual demands of continuous change on
change communication. Chapter Six concludes by offering implications for theory and
further research, as well as providing recommendations for practice.
Chapter Seven concludes the thesis by outlining some limitations of the study, and
proposes a number of areas of future research. The findings and major contributions
of the study are proffered. The ultimate contribution of the study is the advancement
of a model of continuous change communication and the subsequent adaptation of
Van de Ven and Poole’s (1995) Process Theories of Change. This contribution
represents a major addition to the theoretical knowledge of change communication
26
and is of practical import to those seeking to manage change receptivity in
organisations undergoing continuous change.
Conclusion This chapter has outlined the key questions this thesis seeks to address. Of particular
note is the underdeveloped area of knowledge surrounding change communication,
change receptivity and the continuous change context provided in the background to
the research. The chapter presented an overview of the methodology employed. An
outline of the thesis has been provided to show how the research question is answered.
The following chapter develops these themes further by presenting a review of the
literature applicable to the key research questions posed above. First, the literature
review provides a theoretical overview of continuous change and then addresses
change communication. Next, the literature review looks for overlap within the
literature on change receptivity and concludes by elaborating on the nature of
continuous change organisations. Through this exposition, research gaps will be
highlighted in order to demonstrate the need for further research on change
communication and change receptivity within a continuous change context.
27
CHAPTER 2
Review of the Literature
Introduction Chapter One outlined the background to the development of this dissertation’s central
research question, ‘How does change communication impact on change receptivity
within a continuous change context?’. In order to develop a rigorous research study
that will provide a framework within which to answer this question, the literature and
research studies encompassing the three key constructs of the thesis topic need to be
explored. The three core constructs are change communication, change receptivity
and continuous change. The analysis of these bodies of literature informs further
development of the case-study methodology and initiates further research questions to
be addressed. From this literature review, it is established that there are clear gaps in
the theoretical knowledge of change communication and change receptivity including
a lack of overlap within empirical studies. While there is a significant body of
research on organisational change, the lack of research on the specific context of
continuous change justifies further examination of the unique properties of continuous
change. Figure 2.1 outlines the structure of the chapter. The chapter starts with a
review of the literature on change communication as this is the primary phenomena of
interest. The instrumental and constructivist models of change communication are
reviewed. Additionally, the review recognises the emerging literature on informal
communication within organisations. There are very few studies specifically
addressing change communication and change receptivity from which to glean insight
into future research developments. Accordingly, the chapter moves to examine the
literature on ‘change receptivity’ and looks for potential overlap or utility with
28
Continuous Change – theoretical overview
Organisational Change Communication
Constructivist model
Instrumental model
Informal
Change Receptivity
Change resistance
Change Cynicism
Change readiness
Change Openness
Continuous Change Organisations
literature on change resistance, change readiness, openness to change and change
cynicism. Finally, the chapter reviews the research on continuous change in order to
establish research priorities and a sampling frame. The arrows within the diagram do
not represent causal relationships between the constructs, rather the direction of the
literature review.
Figure 2.1 Structure of Literature Reviewed
Along with accelerated changes in social systems, political arenas, and of
technological platforms, organisational change is purportedly the ‘core of
organisational life’(Coram & Burnes, 2001). Within the organisational studies
literature, there is an overwhelmingly insistent discourse surrounding change
that argues organisations need to change continuously (Zorn et al., 1999).
Environments are changing rapidly and unpredictably; competition is
29
increasing, and alongside the escalation of technological development and
customer demands, organisations must change continuously in order to remain
competitive, or even survive (D'Aveni, 1994; Hoag, Ritschard, & Cooper, 2002;
Tushman & O'Reilly, 1996). This discourse is rarely questioned, and
accordingly has now permeated both the private and public sector (Cheney,
Christensen, Zorn, & Ganesh, 2003). In response to the escalation of
environmental pressures and the pervasive discourse of continuous change,
taxpayers and funding sources are insisting that both governance and not-for-
profit organisations need to meet the challenge of doing more for less. In
addressing the challenge, it is recommended to organise for continuous change
(Zorn et al., 2000). Certainly the industry press suggest that organisations have
fully embraced the exhortation to continuously change (Buhler, 2000; Colella,
Cross, & Rieley, 1999; Conner, 1996; Knowles, 1999).
In parallel with the unquestioning adoption of continuous change efforts (Zorn et al.,
1999), and the plethora of research on planned episodes of change, there is an
emergent body of research on continuous change that is attracting significant
academic interest. One of the most cited researchers in organisational change is Kurt
Lewin (1951). In assisting planned change, Kurt Lewin’s (1951) Field Force Theory
has generated a body of change models utilising three step models of the ‘unfreeze-
change-refreeze’ variety (Bamford & Forrester, 2003; Weick & Quinn, 1999). The
Field Force Theory presents forces for change opposing forces for stability, with the
greater force affecting equilibrium. In this model, a period of refreezing occurs where
the new pattern of behaviour is locked into place, after a change takes place (Lewin,
1951). However, in continuous change there is no ‘refreezing’ and therefore the
workforce struggles to create norms. In this sense, Weick and Quinn (1999, p. 363)
30
state the majority of organisational change models can be attributed to an underlying
three-step process of the Lewin (1951) ‘ Unfreeze-Change-Refreeze’ type. In the face
of a change driven by inertia, the three steps make sense as the change process
follows a rational and linear forward momentum. However, continuous change is not
driven by inertia – rather as the organisations are engaging in competition on the
‘edge of chaos’ (Peters, 1989), and using both reactive and proactive strategies to deal
with emergent change, the change is driven by disequilibrium. Building on Marshak’s
(1993) Confucian concepts of organisational change, Weick and Quinn (1999, p. 361)
suggest a more useful process is the ‘freeze, rebalance and unfreeze’. This process
however means that the workforce is in a heightened state of transition. During freeze
– they are aware that something is about to change, rebalance requires change, and
unfreeze, requires greater change again. This is a tiring process for all (Abrahamson,
2004), and necessitates further understanding in how employees respond to
continuous change efforts.
More recently, Punctuated Equilibrium (PE) (Gersick, 1991; Tushman &
Romanelli, 1985) has provided a robust and reliable framework within which to
analyse organisational change. Punctuated Equilibrium is a theory of
organisational change based on the premise that organisational change is an
event with a discrete beginning and end, and interventions reflect this. Thus,
studies based on discrete change reflect a body of work where issues of
implementation, interventions, communication during change and change agent
roles are geared towards planned change (Huy, 1999). The assumption that
follows is that organisations that undergo continuous change should simply use
the available wisdom from studies of discrete episodes of change on a
continuous basis. As Marshak (2004, p. 8) notes ‘many organizational
31
development models implicitly assume that organizational change is something
that can be started and then stopped or stabilized’. Yet, this assumption is
untested, and as noted in Chapter One, there is cause to be cautionary about
using repeated planned change interventions in continuous change contexts.
Marshak (1993, 2002, 2004, 2005) has observed that the nature of
organisational development has changed significantly and the changing nature
of the field needs to be accommodated in the interventions used. Whereas once,
change management involved episodic change that focused on the parts and
segments, now change practitioners are grappling with continuous change
efforts. The difficulty is amplified as the change efforts have focus on two
levels, the parts and segments (such as Kaizen and TQM) and continuous
change that addresses a focus on the patterns and whole of organisation (such as
morphing) (Rindova & Kotha, 2001). In support of these observations, Weick
and Quinn (1999) recognise there is a small but important body of work that is
developing on the concept of continuous change. Continuous change is deemed
to be evolving, incremental, adaptive, emergent and far from the rational and
linear event as previously described. The reason for the move to identifying and
understanding newer models of change is that existing models and interventions
offer little to firms operating under conditions of rapid growth and change
(Edelmann & Benning, 1999). As Marshak (2004) notes, a theoretical
perspective of continuous change is not provided and review and expansion of
change theories are required.
Theoretical Frameworks of Change Pettigrew, Woodman and Cameron (2001) suggest that for scholarly
development of organisational change theory, there needs to be consideration of
32
history, context and processes. New theories of organisational change need to
explain continuity, and in this sense, examinations of the processes of
organisational change are necessary, and indeed are lacking. Specifically,
Pettigrew et al (2001) urge change researchers to focus on six interconnected
analytical issues: 1) examination of multiple contexts and levels of analysis in
studying organisational change, 2) the inclusion of time, history, process and
action, 3) a focus on change processes and organisational performance
outcomes, 4) international comparative research on organisational change, 5)
the study of receptivity, customisation, sequencing, pace, and episodic versus
continuous change processes, and 6) engagement between scholars and
practitioners (Pettigrew et al., 2001, p.697). A research question concerned with
organisational change processes and change receptivity in the context of
continuous change embraces a number of these analytical issues flagged for
further study and thus can be considered at the forefront of the organisational
change theory development.
Earlier, Van de Ven and Poole (1995) had recognised the need to explain the
processes of change within organisations. After conducting an interdisciplinary
literature review, Van de Ven and Poole (1995) advanced four basic theories
that may assist in explaining process of change in organisations. The theories
are evolutionary, dialectic, lifecycle and teleological.
33
Figure 2.2 Process Theories of Organizational Development and Change
These theories focus on life cycle, teleology, dialectics, and evolution and offer
explanations of the different sequencing of change within organisations. The
fundamental characteristics of these process models are the motors that drive the
change and the levels at which they operate.
Van de Ven and Poole (1995) propose that further research needs to consider the
multiple motors of change processes and how they interplay. Thus, the authors offer
16 possible combinations of change models generated from the change literature.
These types accommodate either one, two, three or four motors of change. However,
at least two of the possible combinations of these motors are unaccounted for
theoretically. Given the early stage of emerging empirical studies in continuous
change (Pettigrew et al., 2001), this is not surprising. Without in-depth longitudinal
processual research it is unlikely to observe all motors. In their more recent work,
Poole and Van de Ven (2004) extend their framework to consider the interplay of the
motors that drive the change process. The complexities of change processes are
explained by whether the motors nest, entangle or aggregate within and with each
EVOLUTION
LIFE CYCLE
DIALECTIC
TELEOLOGY
Variation Selection Retention
Population scarcity Environmental selection
Thesis
AntithesisConflict Synthesis
Pluralism (Diversity)
Confrontation
Conflict
Stage 4 (Terminate)
Stage 3 (Harvest)
Stage 2 Growth
Stage 1
(Start -up)
Immanent program Regulation Compliant Adaptation
Multiple Entities
Unit of Change
Single Entity
Prescribed Mode of Change Constructive
Dissatisfaction
Search/Interaction
Set/EnvisionGoals
ImplementGoals
Purposeful Enactment
Social construction
Consensus
Process Theories of Organizational Development and Change*
*Arrows on lines represent likely sequences among events, not ca usation between events.
EVOLUTION
LIFE CYCLE
DIALECTIC
TELEOLOGY
Variation Selection Retention
Population scarcity Environmental selection Competition
Thesis
AntithesisConflict Synthesis
Pluralism (Diversity)
Confrontation
Conflict
Stage 4 (Terminate)
Stage 3 (Harvest)
Stage 2 Growth
Stage 1
(Start -up)
Immanent program Regulation Compliant Adaptation
Multiple Entities
Unit of Change
Single Entity
Prescribed Mode of Change Constructive
Dissatisfaction
Search/Interaction
Set/EnvisionGoals
ImplementGoals
Purposeful Enactment
Social construction
Consensus
Process Theories of Organizational Development and Change*
*Arrows on lines represent likely sequences among events, not ca usation between events.
34
other. Further, they extend their framework to consider: 1) whether the end state of
the process can be predicted at the outset, 2) if the path of development is
predetermined, 3) if the process is convergent or divergent, and 4) if time is based on
events or cycles. (Poole & Van de Ven, 2004). It is interesting to note that there is no
consideration of communication processes within this framework, despite the widely
accepted contention that organisational change is dependent on communication
(Kanter, Stein, & Jick, 1992a; Lewis, 1999; Mills, 2000). Van de Ven and Poole’s
model will be used in this study as a classification device of the case studies, rather
than a theoretical framework that informs the research design.
Continuous change as described by Weick and Quinn (1999) is constant, evolving and
cumulative. With an emphasis on long-run adaptability, change is dependent on
recurrent interactions, response repertoires, emergent patterns and learning (Weick &
Quinn, 1999, p. 366). Using this description, there is a strong similarity between
Weick and Quinn (1999)’s continuous change and Van den Ven and Poole’s (1995)
Evolutionary Change. This model also features recurrent, cumulative and repetitive
sequences of variation, selection and retention events amongst entities in a given
population. The organisation ‘evolves’ in an adaptive form, as a learning response to
emergent patterns and competitive threats.
While Weick and Quinn (1999) distinguish between episodic and continuous
change, Van de Ven and Poole’s (1995) typology is not restricted to either
episodic or continuous change. However it could be argued that if episodic
change is based on the linear Lewinian change intervention (Weick & Quinn,
1999, p.366) then episodic change may be considered a Lifecycle theory of
change (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995). Lifecycle theories of change recognise
prefigured sequences and linear models. Change is linear and occurs through an
35
irreversible sequence of prescribed stages. Van de Ven and Poole (1995)
contend that the dialectic and the teleological theories of process change occur
in discontinuous sequences. This situation would suggest they are examples of
episodic change rather than continuous change. However, Van de Ven and
Poole (1995) also make the case that change is an event. With this logic,
continuous change can be considered a series of events and therefore, it could be
argued that the dialectic and the teleological theories of change are micro views
of part of the continuous change process. Poole (2004) notes that the distinction
between episodic and continuous change is not always possible; indeed it is
often a matter of perspective.
Brown and Eisenhardt (1997) agree, suggesting many firms change, not by a
rare episodic event, but rather by a continuous process. They contend current
research sheds little light on how firms actually achieve continuous change. The
evolving body of research on continuous change focuses on repeated acts of
improvisation, translation and learning. This is contrary to the large body of
work on single episode change that seeks to identify variables critical to
successful change implementation such as participative work practices
(Buchanan et al., 1999; Coyle-Shapiro, 1999), information processing (Miller,
Johnson, & Grau, 1994) and overcoming resistance to change (Lewis, Stephens,
Schmisseur, & Weir, 2003b). There is little consideration of these variables in
the context of continuous change.
The neglect of these variables is raised by Buchanan et al’s (1999) study of
managers involved in repeated change experiences. They suggest that within
this continuous change environment, issues of change communication and the
emotive responses to change such as cynicism, fear and resistance, are daunting.
36
While some studies (Fairhurst, 1993; Johnson & Rice, 1987; Lewis, 1997) have
addressed the importance of communication in implementation of planned
organisational change, only a few have investigated the relationship between
communication and how people respond to change (Ashford, 1988; Economo &
Zorn, 1999; Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979; Lewis, 1997).Those that have
consider: communication as a coping response to change (Ashford, 1988, Lewis
& Seibold, 1996), what constitutes helpful corporate communication in a
downsizing (Economo & Zorn, 1999), and communication as a tool in
overcoming resistance (Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979). Responses to change are
numerous. For example, Reichers, Wanous and Austin (1997) discuss the
multiple factors that induce change cynicism (for example, history of
unsuccessful change, inadequate information about change, and a predisposition
towards cynicism). Strebel (1996) discusses resistance in terms of misaligned
personal compacts between management and employees, and Folger and
Skarlicki (1999) recognise resistance as occurring when employee’s sense of
organisational fairness is violated. Whilst all three of these scholars recognise
the importance of communication in managing these responses, none explicitly
investigate the communication or discuss in detail. In considering responses to
change, the positive connotations of organisational change (openness,
enthusiasm) must also be acknowledged. Thus change receptivity can be
considered an umbrella term for the myriad of responses to change. Not one of
the studies reviewed address communication and change receptivity within a
continuous change context. This observation provides the guiding and
overarching empirical research question of this thesis:
RQ1: How does communication impact change receptivity within a continuous change context?
37
Lewis (1999) suggests that communication and change are inextricably linked.
However, the contextual anchor of the question suggests there may be issues
specific to continuous change that are different to those covered in the previous
literature that recognises change as a discrete event.
Buchanan et al (1999) found that although managers reported they were aware
of the importance of communication and well-supported change agents, the
reality often did not match the rhetoric. As noted in Chapter 1, Barrett (2002)
reports that the management literature communication is a conglomeration of
factors; the generalisation of the topic has not assisted managers. At worst
communication becomes lumped with ‘miscellaneous’ on studies of obstacles to
change (Hoag et al., 2002). In a study designed to identify the main obstacles to
change of 146 human resources professionals, Hoag et al (2002) chose to code
any response relating to communication as ‘other’, with other responses not able
to be coded under ‘cost’, ‘workload’ and ‘legislation’. There is a transparent
need for change communication to be more clearly defined. This recognition
produces two further research questions. Research Question 2 is a theoretical
question and best answered by exploring the existing literature in order to
inform the operational aspects of the study.
RQ 2 What is change communication?
RQ 3 How does unpacking the ‘black box’ of communication inform our understanding of change receptivity?
To provide a more comprehensive understanding of the independent variable,
the change communication literature is now reviewed. In so doing, the literature
38
assists in answering Research Question 2 and operationalising Research
Question 3.
Change Communication
Despite the recognition that communication is an integral component of
organanisational change, only a small body of change communication specific
research exists (Mills, 2003, Lewis, 1999). As noted in Chapter 1, while many
organisational change studies note ‘communication’ as a factor deriving from their
research (for example, Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997; Stewart & Kringas, 2003), there
are very few that focus specifically on the communication processes. Brown and
Eisenhardt (1997) examine how firms manage continuous change and determine
successful firms have frequent and regular opportunities for communication. Stewart
and Kringas (2003) examine six public sector agencies undergoing change and find
that communication to stakeholders is crucial in successful change. From the studies
in which communication is an incidental outcome it is known that communication
plays an important role in implementation (Lewis, 2000b) and establishing support for
change (Stewart & Kringas, 2003). Others recognise communication as important in
creating vision (Nutt & Backoff, 1997) and educating participants of the need for
change (Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979).
However, this body of work is limited in its assistance to change managers owing to
the incidental nature of the findings and lack of a dedicated focus on the change
communication. One such research program that addresses communication as factor is
the research conducted by UK researchers (Buchanan et al, 1999; Doyle et al, 2000).
In an initial study of 34 change managers, they found that despite recognition of
communication as being a critical area of change implementation issues, the rhetoric
39
of communication does not meet the reality of their experiences. These findings were
followed up in a larger survey and it appears the problems they experienced with
vertical and cross functional communication, diminished relationships, and employee
involvement resulted in only nine percent of the sample believing they have best
practice change communication. Interestingly, they also reported increased levels of
resistance, fear and cynicism. The disconnect between reality and rhetoric in change
communication was earlier noted by Ford and Ford (1995), and this finding clearly
suggests a need for deeper investigation of the concept and import of change
communication and the resulting impact on change receptivity.
Doyle et al (2000) and Ford and Ford (1995) contend the change literature does not
elaborate on the ‘how to’ aspect of communicating change and produces prescriptive
findings unable to be actioned. Arguably, the lack of empirical research on change
communication processes perhaps has resulted in practitioners having limited success
in achieving change communication goals as recognised by Doyle et al (2000) and
Ford and Ford (1995). As previously noted by Barrett (2002), organisational
communication is frustratingly ‘either everything in the organisation (vision, strategy,
business planning, management meetings, information flow, knowledge management,
etc.) or it is nothing more than publications intended to keep the communication staff
busy and the employees informed of the company news’ (p. 219). It is not surprising
then that communication during change becomes confusing for change managers.
Popular management theory (Kanter et al., 1992b; Kotter, 1995) repeatedly raises
‘communication’ as critical to the success of organisational change, yet neglect to
elucidate what exactly is the ‘communication’ that is aligned with successful
implementation, or explain why after much communication, implementation still fails.
40
Kotter (1995) cites ‘under-communication’ as one of the main reasons why companies
do not have successful change programs, yet does not clarify what level of
communication needs to be achieved to avoid the problems of under-communication.
At best, it is argued that communicating vision, and involving employees is key to
‘good communication’ (Nutt & Backoff, 1997). While this is promising as general
statements about ‘communication’ start to become more specific, there is still
considerable progress to be made in unpacking ‘the black box’ and producing a
change communication framework that both informs theory and is useful to the field
of change management. The generalisation of communication clearly demonstrates a
need for specific studies of change communication that provides specific guidance to
change managers not afforded in the change communication research. As many have
made the case (Ford, Ford, & McNamara, 2002; Kreps, 1990; Lewis & Seibold, 1996)
it is difficult to separate organisational communication from organisational change.
Thus it is necessary to pursue further knowledge about change communication, in
order to advance the field of organisational change research.
Organisational Communication: The Debates
While a wide body of organisational communication research exists, Salem (1999)
observes integration of organisational communication research remains a primary
challenge. The organisational communication field has grown substantially in the last
20 years and theoretical and methodological approaches abound. Salem (1999)
contends that researchers are challenged to develop explanations of greater depth and
richness, and to work with non-academic professionals to share ideas about their
studies. This observation is not confined to the field of organisational communication,
Pettigrew et al (2001) also make the claim that organisational change research needs
to bridge the gap between practitioners and theory. The lack of integration of
41
practitioner and academic perspectives makes it difficult to translate the studies of the
last 20 years into a cohesive body of work that can assist organisational
communicators in successfully implementing change programmes.
In synthesising the organisational communication field, Mumby and Stohl (1996)
acknowledge the appearance of a fractured field. They suggest the appearance of a
fractured field can be attributed to the fundamental identity of organisational
communication scholars. Teaching students practical skills to deal with
communication problematics is secondary to the primary purpose of providing them
with analytic and critical skills to understand their organisations from a
communicative perspective (Mumby & Stohl, 1996). When students progress beyond
concepts of fractured fields, they master a variety of research approaches and
theoretical perspectives. In so doing they use the pre-requisite analytical skills to
integrate fractured organisations. Integration of a variety of approaches assists in
understanding the multi-faceted nature of organisations. Accordingly, this research
project will employ multiple approaches and theoretical perspectives to further
understanding of contemporary organisations.
What is Change Communication?
In understanding change communication, a debate exists about the ontological nature
of change communication. The instrumental perspective views change communication
as an instrument used to effect change (Eisenberg et al., 1999). Much of the published
research in the management and business field reflects this understanding with
researchers studying a linear process of communication (Putnam, 1999). The conduit
model embodies the linear process with emphasis on transmission of information
between sender and receiver. Analysis of the exchange occurs to determine
42
organisational effectiveness. The instrumental approach is exemplified in Laurie
Lewis’ body of work that examines communication during change (Lewis, 1997,
1999, 2000a, 2000b; Lewis, Hamel, & Richardson, 2001; Lewis, Richardson, &
Hamel, 2003a; Lewis & Seibold, 1996; Lewis et al., 2003b). In the majority of her
research, Lewis aids communication knowledge development by detailed
investigation of the communication processes within change utilising the Shannon and
Weaver (1946) model of information transmission. Within her studies, there is a focus
on information dissemination, conduits of negotiations, message exchange
characteristics, channels of communication, and sources of information. Lewis’s work
initiates the much sought change communication specific studies and tests existing
communication theory within change contexts.
Similarly, more recently, Timmerman (2003) proposes a framework for assessing the
most effective media use in change; that also focuses on the most effective
dissemination of information in change. In so doing he takes Daft and Lengle’s (1986)
seminal work and applies it in a change specific context. The aforementioned studies
represent the application of general communication theory within a change context,
and provide an example of the instrumental perspective of change communication.
The next section introduces change specific studies that exemplify the monologic
model of communication.
Monologic Change Communication
Eisenberg et al (1999) label communication that is used as a tool and where change is
an event as a ‘monologic change model’. Citing Deetz (1995), they state that ‘in a
monologic change model, communication is the process of information transfer from
the top down or an informational orientation, and is best suited to first order changes
(Eisenberg et al., 1999, p.133). The instrumental approach is a manifestation of the
43
underlying assumptions of a monologic change model (Eisenberg et al., 1999).
Monologic themes reflect unilateral communicative action, where deviation from the
norm requires a corrective and controlling communicative response (Bokeno & Gantt,
2000). Managers seek to stabilise the organisation by communicating vision and
educating employees of the benefits of the intended change. For this reason, it has
been noted that the monologic voice represents a unitarist model of power sharing,
whereby the management communication of change is centralised in a dominant
discourse (Boje, 1995). The focus is reflected in speech acts or written directives that
suggest a one-way direction. This unilateral trajectory establishes monologic
expectations. The monologic change communication model has dominated planned
change efforts as implementers focus on the instrumental dissemination of
information. Lewis (1999) suggests that change implementers rely on a top-down
approach to communicating change that focuses on disseminating information:
Implementers appear to associate successful outcomes with use of channels to disseminate information…but they may perceive participation of staff in implementation as less critical to success.
(Lewis, 1999)
In essence, implementers expect to use monologic change communication to achieve
change goals, and the employees expect to receive information from above.
The constructivist perspective views change communication as a site of constructing
new understanding, new knowledge, and therefore new organisations (Taylor & Van
Every, 2000). When change is considered as an event, then the communication
approach is instrumental and the communication is used as a tool to effect change, and
is represented in the one way transmissions. However, in times of continuous change,
communication is considered constitutive, in that it is the ‘communication’ that
creates further change. This represents a dialogic change communication model and is
44
further described in the next section.
Dialogic Change Communication
Eisenberg et al (1999) discuss the constructivist approach to organisational change.
Here the constructivist approach is based on the human system being proactive
meaning makers and language users (Botella, 1995). Communication scholars Jeffrey
and Laurie Ford have amassed a body of conceptual work that has influenced much of
the current research in communication and organisational change. Firmly positioned
within in the constructivist paradigm, Ford and Ford (1995) posit that organisational
change is a product of organisational conversations, as opposed to change
communication coming out of the organisational change. The challenge for change
agents is to take a role in ‘authoring’ the conversations and intentionally shifting the
conversations to create new organisations (Ford & Ford, 1995). The basis of
organisational change is the ability to shift the conversations that shape change (Ford,
1999). Thus, the conversations within organisations both shape the change process
and are the way that reality is constructed within organisations.
Some of the more difficult conversations within changing organisations are those of
resistance. Conversations of resistance, complacency and cynicism occur within the
background of the organisation (Ford et al., 2002). A background conversation is ‘an
implicit, unspoken ‘back drop’ or ‘background’ against which explicit, foreground
conversations occur’ (p.108). The foreground conversations consist of four types of
committed conversations: those that initiate change, those that seek to gain
understanding, those that call for action, and those that provide closure (Ford et al.,
2002). The main limitation to Ford and Ford’s work is a lack of empirical research.
Despite widespread currency within the change communication literature, the authors
45
do not provide primary research to substantiate their themes and concepts. They
suggest that some conversation sequences are more effective than others and thus
further research is clearly needed to understand the contribution of conversational
sequences to organisational change (Ford & Ford, 1995).
As earlier noted, continuous change is often a result of the adaptive and emergent
responses to external stimulus and unable to be planned in a rational and linear
fashion. Thus, it is argued that dialogic change communication is more appropriate for
continuous change contexts (Eisenberg et al., 1999; Weick & Quinn, 1999).
Originating from Buber’s seminal work (1923, 1924) and later Bohm’s (1996) related
work, dialogic change communication includes speech acts or texts that suggest a
constructive and relational dialogue (Bohm, 1996). Distinctly different to the usual
patterns of management communication, the ability to engage with genuine care and
respect, to generate reflective discussion and to speak authentically is seen to have
positive impacts on innovation and organisational change (Bokeno & Gantt, 2000).
The nature of the communication is about creating new meaning, processes, or
products out of the conversations from multiple stakeholders, and listening to the
pluralvocality (Boje, 1995, Eisenberg & Goodall, 1993). By using dialogic processes
within dialogic settings, and by people who are dialogically competent, further change
is constructed (Bokeno & Gantt, 2000).
There is some cross-over between organisational communication and the management
studies. Weick and Quinn (1999) suggest the role of the change agent in planned
change is that of prime mover (i.e. sends a message to change behaviour) and this is
indicative of a monologic, instrumental approach. The dialogic, constructivist
approach is illustrated by Weick and Quinn’s (1999) consideration of the sense-
making change agent in continuous change. In the change communication literature,
46
the ascent of the discursive research highlights the constructivist perspective (Putnam,
1999). The rise of the constructivist perspective may provide answers to the dilemmas
faced by Buchanan et al’s (1999) managers regarding the mismatch of reality and
rhetoric. Not only does the field require integration, there appears to be a polarised
treatment of the ontological approaches, as the field takes an ‘either/or’ focus, rather
than addressing the relative benefits of the findings of both constructivist and
instrumental research. Indeed, Eisenberg et al (1999)’s continuum aligns the differing
change communication models with types of change, and continues to promote an
either/or position. Change is either an event and requires monologic change
communication or it is continuous and should use dialogic change communication.
Integration of the field requires the consideration of how the two change
communication approaches may work in tandem, or using Ford and Ford’s (1995)
consideration, how the change communication approaches may sequence.
As noted previously, empirical studies that focus on communication during change
are scarce. The following table presents some of the major change communication
studies, their focus, and further research questions.
Table 2.1 Significant Change Communication Studies in the Last 10 years.
Author YEAR Instrumental Constructivist Research implications
Planned Change
Sample
Formal Informal
Lewis & Seibold
1993 User receptivity to planned change
Dissemination dominates change communication
Yes
Fairhurst 1993 How managers frame communication about TQM
Further research required on the framing discourse of
Yes Multi-national organisation
5 sites,
47
Author YEAR Instrumental Constructivist Research implications
Planned Change
Sample
Formal Informal
change 132 routine conversations
Ford & Ford 1995 The role of conversations in producing intentional change
Identify and propose different sequences of conversations and test effectiveness
Not clear Not empirical
Could work with cont change
Witherspoon & Wohlert
1996 Flow of communication linear perspective
Alternative meanings and perceptions can enable organisational change
How do alternative meanings contribute to change processes
Yes
14000 employee state-wide public agency (US)
Lewis 1997 Users’ individual communicative responses to organisational innovation
Antecedents of users’ responses to innovations further area of research
Yes
University post grad students n = 142
Non academic career staff workers n = 40
US
Ford 1999 Organisational change as shifting conversations
Not clear Not empirical
Could work with cont change
Economo & Zorn
1999 What constitutes effective communication during a downsizing
How do employees construct effective communication
Further studies required in Asia Pacific organisations
No – Reactionary
16 org. members + 4 focus groups US branch
Lewis 1999 Targets, sources and channels
need more longitudinal analyses to determine the degree that implementers make adjustments in their strategies
Yes
N=76
Cross sector
US
48
Author YEAR Instrumental Constructivist Research implications
Planned Change
Sample
Formal Informal
Kellet 2000 Dialogue and dialectics – underlying tensions
Private and public communication affects the dialogue. How can people live with dialectic tensions
Yes
School - committee members, staff, board members and parents
US
Lewis 2000b Barriers to effective communication of change
Yes 4 cases: hospital,
Mills 2000 Grapevine activity
Informal communication of change
Sense making tied to emotional engagement
Food processing plant
n = 48
Zorn, Page & Cheney,
2000 Alternative perspectives on change related discourse
Both concertive control and romantic framing has positive impacts on change receptivity.
yes
Business Services Department of a large public sector organisation.
Lewis, Hamel & Richardson, 2001 (model)
Lewis, Richardson & Hamel, 2003 (test)
2001
2003
Communicating change to non profit stakeholders
Characteristics of message exchange
Test validity of framework within different contexts
How do organisations carve up available time and communicative resources to interact with various stakeholder groups
Yes
n =66
Non profit orgs (US)
Armenakis & Harris
2002 Relationship between messages and readiness
Change message shapes the sentiments that determine reactions to
Yes
Single case-study – large multi -national corporation /
49
Author YEAR Instrumental Constructivist Research implications
Planned Change
Sample
Formal Informal
change business unit
Zorn 2002 Receptivity to ICT introduction: the role of emotion in managing the transition
Ambiguity of emotions within change and the role of the change agent
Yes Not for profit organisation NZ
Mills 2003 Interpretative discourses of chaplains to communication of change
Yes and unplanned
n-14 WSW within NZ
Frahm & Brown
2004a Monologic change communication
Dialogic Change Communication
Background talk of change
Interplay of the three change models
No State technology diffusion agency
Frahm & Brown
2004b Monologic change communication
Dialogic Change Communication
Background talk of change
Interplay of the three change models
No Business Unit within a GOC
The studies and theoretical approaches in Table 2.1 that have had significant impact
on the field are now reviewed to expose the research limitations of the field. This
review can inform the development of a study that will contribute new knowledge
within the field of change communication.
Instrumental Change Communication – Model 1
Planned change and single episodes of change are often analysed using a monologic
instrumental framework with a transmission theoretical model of sender-message-
receiver-feedback-interference (Shannon & Weaver, 1949). Amenakis and Harris’s
(2002) study on crafting a change message to create transformational readiness is an
example of the instrumental approach to change communication. Here success of the
50
change effort is argued to be dependant on how well the message is crafted and sent
(Armenakis & Harris, 2002). In a single case-study they found that the message
conveying strategies of active participation, persuasive communication, and
management of information helped an organisation create readiness for a major
transition. However, the authors reveal that they were less involved in the later stages
of the change process, so crucial knowledge on the dynamic of these change strategies
and change receptivity over time is lacking.
Lewis (1999) found that a dissemination focus dominates change communication
within organisations. Implementers do not perceive ‘participation of staff’ as critical
as ‘getting information out to the employees’ (p.66-67). In her later work, using a
multiple case-study design, Lewis (2000b) investigated the implementation of quality
programs and the key communication problems in an education department, a
hospital, a university and a messaging technology company. Her findings suggest that
implementers struggle with creating and communicating vision, sense making and
feedback, establishing legitimacy, and communicating about goal achievement.
Because of the planned nature of these changes, this study is typical of monologic and
instrumental communication research, with the change communication conceived as a
linear process. Research directions deriving from a study by Lewis (2000a) suggest
more research is required on understanding how implementers and lower-level
employees in the organisational hierarchy create vision for the future. Echoing Ford
and Ford’s (1995) concern about the lack of knowledge about the relative sequencing
of conversations, Lewis (2000b) opines such systematic research about the relative
effectiveness of communication strategies about change is scant.
Later with Richardson and Hamel (2001, 2003), Lewis continues to focus on
information dissemination, but this time within the not-for-profit sector. In this study
51
the researchers investigate the strategies that not-for-profits use to communicate with
key stakeholders during change. They find that implementers generally follow a quid
pro quo ‘matching rule’, where those stakeholders that possess the most valuable
resources gain the most communicative attention. This directional focus of
communicative attention implies that there are key stakeholders who will be neglected
at times, and it is unclear the impact this will have on change receptivity, or the
strategies to use when the communicative attention is spread too thin. Further, they
call for further longitudinal studies that will provide evidence of how not-for-profits
communicate with stakeholders over time.
Evidence of the instrumental perspective of change communication is found in
Witherspoon and Wohlert’s (1996) research on a statewide public agency consisting
of 14000 employees. Their action research study sought to foster and maintain
diversity within the employment practices of the agency. Their study had a dual focus;
investigating both the communication flows within change and the management of
meaning to overcome different frames of reference. They state:
‘Communication is the process on which the initiation and maintenance of organisational change depends … Ultimately the success of any change effort depends on how effectively the strategy for and the substance of the change is communicated to those who are the targets of change [emphasis added].’
(Witherspoon & Wohlert, 1996)
Understanding employees as ‘targets of change’ suggests a singular focus of change,
and does not consider the proactive and ‘driver’ like roles of change those employees
pursue in continuous change efforts. Witherspoon and Wohlert (1996) found that
information is distributed downward and differentially. Managers and supervisors
viewed information as a commodity to be brokered, and a scarce resource to be
guarded. The study found that the flow of information stopped at supervisor level
52
(Witherspoon & Wohlert, 1996). The treatment of communication as an information
commodity emphasizes a managerialist perspective that is characteristic of the
instrumental studies. In this sense, communication is a tool that enhances
management’s capacity to ‘command and control’(Bourke & Bechervaise, 2002;
Eisenberg et al., 1999). The use of information theory in these studies is informative
in terms of flows of communication during change, and message quality, yet there is
no attempt to align with change receptivity or organisational change theory,
particularly in relation to the more challenging demands of continuous and emergent
change.
Constructivist Change Communication – Model 2
Contrary to the focus on effectiveness displayed by the instrumental approach, the
constructivist approach considers how organisational knowledge is created though
performance, voice and discourse (Putnam, 1999). Communication becomes the site
of new knowledge construction, where the organisation emerges out of
communication (Taylor & Van Every, 2000). Thus change management is a practice
that generates new products, processes, and organisations out of the organisational
discourse.
As noted previously, there has been little attempt to integrate the instrumental and the
constructivist approaches. One research study that did attempt the integration was
Witherspoon and Wohlert (1996)’s work. They extended their instrumental study to
accommodate the constructivist perspective, to explore how alternative meanings and
the reframing of perceptions can enable organisational change. Their research ceased
prematurely when the senior management of the case-study organisation resigned, and
then subsequent cuts in research funding ended the research program (Witherspoon &
Wohlert, 1996, p. 393). The interruption of their study creates a research imperative –
53
to finish what they had begun in order to assess how alternative meanings can
contribute to organisational change processes.
On a similar trajectory as Ford and Ford’s (1995, 1999) body of work, Butcher and
Atkinson (2001), in a theoretical paper, argue that the active management of language
in the context of change has not received enough attention. ‘Reframing’ of meaning is
a key characteristic of dialogic communication approaches. Within dialogic change
communication, participants actively manage the language and reframe their
perspectives to encourage further dialogue. Language norms and taboos can be a key
anchor to maintaining the status quo when the organisation undergoes continuous
change. Several researchers highlight ‘framing’ and language as a potential area to
pursue in change management research as a result of their studies (Butcher &
Atkinson, 2001; Eisenhardt, 2000; Gioia & Mehra, 1996; Leonard & Gilsdorf, 1990;
Palmer, Kabanoff, & Dunford, 1997; Watson, 1995; Witherspoon & Wohlert, 1996).
However, this body of research reflects a managerial emphasis with the focus on
managers ‘reframing’ their language for the benefit of change. The literature is silent
on what happens when employees reframe the language of change.
Zorn et al (2000) present a study of three different perspectives of change
communication within a business services department of a large local government
department in New Zealand. They found that within the longitudinal study,
managerial discourse is both ‘pervasive and persuasive’ (Zorn et al, 2000, p.555),
with both the functional perspective of change communication and the romantic
perspective creating an intoxicating level of commitment to change and positive
receptivity to change. They highlight the concertive control that the active
participation within dialogic change communication processes creates, and caution
against the camouflage of control as ‘non-control’, or what might be considered
54
‘pseudo dialogic’ practices. Stohl and Cheney (2001) further explore this paradox,
citing a number of illustrative examples of how the dialogic practice may be
manipulated inadvertently or not.
In a later study of a not-for-profit organisation in New Zealand, Zorn (2002) looks at
the relationship between emotions and Information Communication Technology
(ICT) introductions. His work highlights the deliberate use of emotions on the part of
change agents to influence others’ receptivity to change. The use of humour and
shared emotional experiences also serve to enhance the working relationships. While
Zorn’s (2002) study revealed that an employee’s expression of frustration acts as a
signal function of the employee’s receptivity, Kramer and Hess (2002) have found
that it is more likely to mask negative emotions such as frustration in the workplace.
The difference in finding may be explained by the small size of the New Zealand
organisation, whereby it is easier to develop trust in workplace relationships.
Additionally, Kramer and Hess’s (2002) research was based on evaluation of
hypothetical scenarios, whereas Zorn’s (2002) findings were predicated upon
observational data of actual behaviours. The implications here for future research are
to consider how those in more powerful positions (for example, change agents) may
impact on the receipt, delivery or sense-making of change communication.
In an ethnographic study of a school developing a mission statement within a series of
dialogue sessions, Kellet (2000) reports on the multiple dialectic tensions evident in
the sessions (for example the limits of public schools versus the opportunity of private
schools). His findings suggest that part of managing change is creating dialogic space
for the oppositional dialectics to be addressed. When opportunity is provided for these
tensions to be addressed, collective sense-making of the change goals occur.
From a constructivist perspective, these studies demonstrate that there has been little
55
engagement with an instrumental use of communication, however there has been
more consideration of the employee’s receptivity to change. There has been an
emphasis on the managerial perspective, and it is surprising, given the emphasis on
discourse, that there is limited consideration of power other than Zorn et al’s (2000)
work. The lack of engagement between instrumental and constructivist models of
change communication leads to an opportunity for integration of theoretical
approaches. This opportunity supports Taylor and Van Every’s (2000) thesis of a
‘bimodal theory of communication’ where no attempt is made to refute either of these
ways of seeing, but instead perceives they are dimensions of a complete theory of
communication in language (p. 5).
Integration of Instrumental and Constructivist change communication
Consideration of both the monologic and dialogic communication activities during
change leads to questions of the potential utility of integration of instrumental and
constructivist models of communication. Rather than address the styles as either/or,
consideration of the integration of communication models may contribute to
managing the paradox of change and stability (Harter & Krone, 2001; Leana & Barry,
2000; Tushman & O'Reilly, 1996). While Tushman and O’Reilly (1996) recognise the
ability to manage the dual tensions of capability and change as an ambidextrous
capability, they fall short of addressing the communicative aspects of this
ambidexterity. Leana and Barry (2000) argue that it is inevitable to experience a level
of tension between stability and change in organisational life and that research on
work and organisation must consider these tensions. Eisenberg et al (1999) establish
that monologic change communication serves a purpose of control, and thus is a force
for stability. Conversely, dialogic change communication is about creating more
56
change; it then could be said an ambidextrous organisation is one that accommodates
both change communication models. It is this speculation that influences the fourth
empirical research question,
RQ 4: ‘How do the different communication models (instrumental/monologic and constructivist/dialogic) inform our understanding of the impact of change communication on change receptivity within a continuous change context?’
There is an alternate consideration of the integration of monologic and dialogic
communication. Some warn against the overly eager embracing of dialogic exchange,
cautioning the potential for collective forums of ‘manufactured consent’ (Burawoy,
1979; Stohl & Cheney, 2001), concertive control and team tyranny (Bokeno & Gantt,
2000; Cheney et al., 2003). Once management ‘allow’ forums for dialogic exchange,
and control who is allowed to participate, the power imbalance creates a pseudo-
dialogic exchange. In this sense, the dialogic change communication takes on an
instrumental and controlling focus, previously considered the terrain of monologic
change communication.
Informal Change Communication
The previous section addressed the formal instrumental and constructivist models of
change communication. However, as noted in Table 2.1, the latest studies by Colleen
Mills (Mills, 2000, 2002, 2003) suggest that change communication is rarely as
structured, formal or considered as the monologic and dialogic change communication
models contend. Her qualitative studies cover a number of settings (for example, blue-
collar workers in a food processing factory, a study of industrial chaplains) and reveal
that the informal sense-making of change occurs within the organisational grapevines.
Sense making ‘is a conversational and narrative process through which people create
and maintain their intersubjective world’ (Balogun & Johnson, 2004). Through
57
selective interpretation of informational cues, organisational members seek to reduce
ambiguity, cognitive dissonance, and uncertainty (Weick, 1995). Organisational
grapevines are not solely about information transmission, they are also sites of
identity construction. Mills (2000) found that the emotional engagement of the
employee affects the sense-making and is reflected in differentiated framing
discourses within this informal communication. Conditions of ambiguity and
uncertainty flourish during continuous change, providing fertile ground for individual
sense-making (Frahm & Brown, 2004b; Klein, 1994). Yet most studies of sense-
making address the formal cues used, and very few address sense-making in a change
setting. The exceptions (other than Mills) are Lewis, (1999 & 2000b) and Gioia and
Chittipedi (1991, 1999).
In a cross sectional study of 89 change implementers, Lewis (2000a) found that
change implementers perceive communication as challenging and problematic to start
with, and thus they ‘enact’ resistance. This finding means that the implementers’
sense-making process ‘constructs’ problems with organisational change. Later,
Lewis’s (2000b) study of four cases of quality management programs found that
employees’ sense-making is potentially problematic as the sense made may deviate
from the intended messages of change (Lewis, 2000b). This finding hints at a
relationship between informal communication and receptivity of change. Gioia and
Chitapeddi’s (1991) ethnographic study of change within a university setting
identified distinct sequential and reciprocal stages of sense-giving and sense-making.
During the phases of sense-making, understanding is attempted, and during the phases
of sense-giving, influence is created. Further publications derived from this study, and
subsequent testing (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991; Gioia & Mehra, 1996; Gioia &
Thomas, 1996) suggest top management’s perception of image and identity are
58
critical to team members’ issue interpretations. It appears that these two factors may
influence the sequencing of sense-making and sense-giving within change.
Thus, while the monologic and dialogic models address the formal communication of
change, the literature on sense-making hints at the potential utility in studying the
informal communication of change. The analysis of gossip, rumour and grapevines
has dominated the study of informal communication, and has crossed both the
management and the organisational communication literature (Applebaum, Lopes,
Audet, Steed, Jacob, Augustinas, & Manolopoulos, 2003; Bordia, DiFonzo, &
Travers, 1998; Crampton, Hodge, & Mishra, 1998; Michelson & Mouly, 2002). Few
studies though, address the topic in context of organisational change with notable
exceptions being Bordia et al (1998), Applebaum et al (2003) and Mills (2000). Even
less attention have been paid to the more mundane, yet instrumental discourses that
exist within organisational change as characterized by Mills’ (2000) framing
discourses, particularly in context of how they intersect with the formal
communication models. Therefore, by addressing monologic communication, dialogic
communication and the emerging issues of informal communication, a more
integrative perspective is acknowledged.
The other omission from the field is clearly the absence of consideration of change
other than as a one off event. All but one of the studies reviewed examined planned
change and as Dawson (2003) highlights, the literature on planned change does not
consider adequately the complexities of the change process. It is unclear whether the
findings of the previous studies reviewed remain applicable when faced with some of
the complexities of multiple change processes. Situating a study of change
communication within a continuous change context extends the research field and
contributes to new knowledge development.
59
Methodological implications of previous change communication research
The chapter so far has reviewed the ontological focus of the change communication
literature, and suggests the differentiation of ontological focus is part of the reason
why integration remains challenging (Salem, 1999). However, the divergence of the
field can also be attributed to the multitude of methodological approaches. Existing
research studies on change communication cover quantitative surveys, qualitative
case-studies, discourse analysis and content analysis. The studies using surveys
(Doyle et al., 2000; Lewis, 1999, 2000a) as their primary source of data collection
provide substantial orientation to the multiple factors that require further investigation
such as linkage of organisational change implementation to organisational learning
mechanism, management – employee distrust, content priorities of change
implementers. However, as Lewis (2000a) herself notes, the use of surveys is limited
in their ability to provide more than a snapshot of organisational life, and do not
adequately offer insight into communication processes. She argues for more
longitudinal analyses to determine relative effectiveness of communication strategies
over the course of a change effort (Lewis, 1999).
A substantial proportion of the research on organisational change uses a single case-
study approach (Beech, 2000; Bourke & Bechervaise, 2002; Heracleous & Barrett,
2001; Smith, Sohal, & D Netto, 1995; Witherspoon & Wohlert, 1996; Zorn et al.,
2000). The case-study approach offers greater rigour in its triangulation of multiple
sources of data collection including ethnographic observation, in-depth interviews,
focus groups, and archival analysis. Subsequently, triangulation of multiple methods
provides further clarity of the organisational processes covered. However, the
limitation in this research applies to the single case-study approach. While single
60
case-studies are necessary in early exploratory work, theoretical development requires
multiple case-studies for comparative purposes and increased transferability of
findings (Yin, 2003). Lewis (2000b) and Graetz (2000) provide examples of strong
multiple case research that address comparative cases over time. Consequently, the
research informing this thesis will use a similar research strategy of multiple cases and
multiple methods to enhance theoretical development.
A review of the change communication literature uncovers several research directions
to be explored, and addresses Research Questions 2 and 3. In order to contribute to
knowledge on the relative effectiveness and sequencing of communication strategies,
both monologic change communication and dialogic change communication should
be considered within longitudinal studies to allow time to observe the effects of the
different sequencing. Other researchers (Butcher & Atkinson, 2001; Eisenhardt, 2000;
Gioia & Mehra, 1996; Leonard & Gilsdorf, 1990; Palmer et al., 1997; Watson, 1995;
Witherspoon & Wohlert, 1996) argue the importance of framing, management of
meaning and language in change management research. Mills (2000) and Lewis
(1999) both provide promising initial studies on informal communication and sense-
making and this aspect needs to be developed further. Ultimately, integration of these
three different models is needed in order to provide clarity to practitioners (Salem,
1999) and situating this integration within a continuous change context provides
necessary theoretical insights into the problems faced by managers today when
communicating change (Doyle et al, 2000).
After reviewing the extant literature specifically focusing on change communication,
and the methodological implications of this body of work, this section has highlighted
the areas for further research derived from the change communication literature and
61
addresses the first part of the central research question. The second part of the
research question raises the issue of change receptivity, and in order to establish how
the two bodies of literature (change communication and change receptivity) may
inform the study, the following section addresses the empirical research on change
receptivity.
Change Receptivity
The primary research question informing this thesis is ‘how do different change
communication models impact on change receptivity in the context of continuous
change?’ The previous section addressed the change communication models, and this
section reviews the literature on change receptivity.
Although related concepts such as change resistance have a long research history
within the management literature, the specific term ‘change receptivity’ is most
recently used in the educational reform literature (Moroz & Waugh, 2000; Waugh &
Godfrey, 1995; Waugh, 2000). Despite initial work by Pettigrew, Ferlie and McKee
(1992), very few management scholars have addressed the construct of receptivity.
This means a deficit of existing scales that specifically measure receptivity. Cochran,
Bromley and Swando (2002) use an openness to change instrument to measure
receptivity, as do Klecker and Loadman (1999). Change readiness has also risen in
prominence in the literature on responses to change and so in this study the
quantitative aspects utilise the existing change openness scales and change readiness
scales from the literature to measure change receptivity, but in keeping with Piderit’s
(2000) plea for more multidimensional considerations of responses to change, this
chapter uses the related literature to develop considerations for the qualitative studies
which can explore the nuances of change receptivity. Thus, this section includes
62
related concepts such as change resistance, change openness, change readiness and
change cynicism in consideration of operationalising the research. The studies in the
educational sector found sector specific variables conducive to improving change
receptivity. Specifically, the variables are: 1) perceived cost benefit to the teacher, 2)
perceived practicality in the classroom, 3) alleviation of fears and concerns, 4)
participation in school decisions on aspects affecting the classrooms, 5) perceived
support from senior staff, and 6) feelings toward the previous system compared to the
new system (Moroz & Waugh, 2000). The results suggest that the variables can be
tailored to specific reform within the education sector, though the specificity of the
variables limits the generalisability. More recently, the community policing reform
literature (Cochran, Bromley, & Swando, 2002) addresses change receptivity and
found that for police officers, a service orientation and a belief that the agency has
attained an appropriate level of preparedness (readiness and organisational capability)
positively influence their receptivity to change (Cochran et al., 2002). Again, these
studies seem specific to a particular work sector, and this means that other studies of
change receptivity need to be broadened to larger sectors in order to test Cochran et
al’s (2002) findings. Hence, the first hypothesis was formulated:
H 1: There would be a positive relationship between openness to change and perceptions of organisational change capability
Waugh and Godfrey’s (1995) qualitative study of 549 teachers within Western
Australia also addressed six key variables leading up to an implementation phase
(Waugh & Godfrey, 1995). Without data from later stages of the change (which
neither of the previous, nor many other, studies have addressed) the predictive utility
of the receptivity measures is low. However, the rationale is clear – employees must
be receptive to change for purposive organisational change to be successful
(Amburgey, Kelly, & Barnett, 1993). What is less clear is the role of change
63
receptivity within emergent or continuous change.
As evidenced by Pettigrew et al’s (2001) call for further research on change
receptivity, it is a relatively new concept in the management literature. Few scholars
are studying the concept explicitly other than Pettigrew, Ferlie and McKee (1992) and
Huy (1999). Pettigrew et al (1992) initiated the interest in the field with a study of the
long-term processes of strategic service change in eight ‘high-change’ District Health
Authorities (DHAs) in the UK's National Health Service (NHS). They found eight
features of receptivity that are accompanied by an acceleration of change. The
features are: 1) the quality and coherence of policy-analytic and process components,
2) the availability of key people leading change, 3) environmental pressure, 4) a
supportive organisational culture, 5) effective managerial-clinical relations, 6)
cooperative interorganisational networks, 7) simplicity and clarity of goals and
priorities, and 8) a good fit between the change agenda and the locale. Despite this
solid examination, the authors caution that even in highly receptive contexts, change
can still be very complex. This research study addresses that very complexity.
The growing interest in continuous change can be attributed to the rising recognition
of the importance of studying change as a process (Dawson, 2003; Pettigrew, Ferlie,
& McKee, 1992). Huy (1999) defines change receptivity as an interpretive, attitudinal
state (both cognitive and emotional) to accept the need for proposed change and notes
that it is both a state and a process. The process perspective of change receptivity
recognises that receptivity to change is a dynamic state subject to fluctuations as
different contextual factors emerge. The conceptualisation of change receptivity as a
process highlights the difficulties for change agents in managing how employees feel
about change. In a dynamic succession of events, there can be little differentiation
64
between openness to change and change cynicism. The employee who is open to
change can quickly become cynical if disappointed (Wanous, Reichers, & Austin,
2000). As the contextual demands of continuous change can increase the dynamic
nature of change receptivity, it is critical to place a study of change receptivity in a
process framework, and thus avoid over-reliance of interpretation of the data based on
measuring states.
While there is relatively limited literature on change receptivity, there is a long list of
studies that address a number of the aspects, or subsets, of change receptivity. Change
readiness (Armenakis & Harris, 2002; Armenakis, Harris & Mossholder, 1993,
Beckard & Harris, 1987; Eby, Adams, Russell, & Gaby, 2000; Holt, 2001; Jones,
Jimmieson, & Griffiths, 2005; Jimmieson, White & Peach, 2004, Wanberg & Banas,
2000; Weber & Weber, 2001) is one such aspect and is defined as ‘the cognitive
precursor to the behaviours of either resistance to, or support for a change effort’
(Armenakis et al, 1993 pp.681-2). More commonly studies have addressed change
readiness as a response to change resistance (Bovey & Hede, 2001; Dent & Goldberg,
1999; Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979; Mabin, Forgeson, & Green, 2001; Piderit, 2000;
Waddell & Sohal, 1998). More recently, the researchers have turned their focus to the
topic of change cynicism (Buchanan et al., 1999; Pugh, Skarlicki, & Passell, 2003;
Reichers, Wanous, & Austin, 1997; Wanous et al., 2000). It has been noted that
research on employees’ response to change has focused on the negative aspects such
as change resistance and change cynicism (Mabin et al, 2001), and the studies on
change openness (Cent & Powley, 2002; Klecker & Loadman, 1999; Miller et al.,
1994) are a welcome alternative. Select studies from these four constructs are now
reviewed to develop the multi-dimensional aspects of change receptivity.
65
While change receptivity is argued to incorporate all of these responses to change,
there are subtle but key differences between the ways the terms are used within the
management literature. An overview of the research concerning attitudes and
responses to organisational change suggest that there are weaknesses in the existing
empirical work, and room for further theory development. Jones et al (2005) notes
that much of the previous work has focused on individual factors such as personality
attributes and cognitive processes. While clearly valuable from an organisational
psychology perspective in understanding individual responses, the previous research
contributes little to understanding the roles of groups in change receptivity or larger
institutional change processes. Therefore, future research needs to accommodate
consideration of change attitudes and responses at the group level of analysis, and
organisational processes to further develop understanding of change receptivity as a
process. In order to advance the research agenda on change receptivity, the four
constructs associated with change receptivity studies are now reviewed.
Change Readiness
Armenakis et al’s (1993) definition of change readiness suggests that to be receptive
to change, the employee is required to be change ready. Change readiness can be
considered an existing organisational capability. Change readiness denotes ‘the
cognitive precursor to the behaviours of either resistance to, or support for a change
effort’ (Armenakis et al, 1993, p.681). Organisational change scholars have recently
embraced the concept of ‘change readiness’ with most of the published work being
conceptual (Armenakis, Harris, & Mossholder, 1993). Despite much of the cited
literature on readiness being conceptual, there is an important emergent group of
scholars conducting empirical study on the topic (Eby, Adams, Russell, & Gaby,
2000; Jones, Jimmieson, & Griffiths, 2002; Weber & Weber, 2001). Eby et al (2000)
66
and Wanberg and Banas’s (2000) work concentrated on individual characteristics
such as personality attributes and cognitive processes. Their research indicates that the
opportunity to participate in the change effort is positively related to change readiness
(Eby et al., 2000; Wanberg & Banas, 2000) and information about change is
positively associated with change readiness (Wanberg & Banas, 2000). The findings
about participation and information hints at an underlying communicative perspective
yet falls short of making a direct link to how communication impacts on change
receptivity. Both studies also considered a single planned change not multiple change
processes or continuous change efforts.
Jones et al (2005) notes a focus on individual factors is inconsistent with the general
change literature, which addresses multiple level phenomena (individual, group and
organisational). The necessity for other levels of analysis, other than individual, is
recognised by Bazigos and Burke (1997, p.387) who note that when using Lewinian
theory ‘group opprobrium restrains individual behaviour from deviating too greatly
from the norm’ and therefore, the group is the target level of choice. Addressing this
criticism, Jones (2001) situates change readiness in the context of organisational
capabilities and addresses other macro phenomena such as organisational culture. In
her study of Information Systems (IS) implementation in a public sector organisation,
she found that change readiness mediates the relationship between a ‘human relations’
culture and one measure of implementation success (system usage). Furthermore,
change readiness mediates the positive relationship between organisational reshaping
capabilities and system usage. This study is valuable in using a meso-theory (House,
Rousseau, & Thomas-Hunt, 1995) approach to understand what change readiness
mediates, however, there is a need to investigate what mediates change readiness.
67
Given the early stage of change readiness empirical work, a deeper understanding of
the construct is required before examining how it affects organisational success
measures. Holt (2000) criticises the readiness literature for the diversity of
instruments to measure the construct and the lack of a common instrumentation being
used in the field. The plethora of instruments leads to many different concepts of what
change readiness is, and a lack of definitional clarity amongst researchers. Weber and
Weber (2001) used an organisational level scale to measure organisational readiness
for change (based on flexibility and innovation items) including perceptions for
organisational readiness for change. Using a sample of 90 fire fighters, they found that
goal clarity had a positive relationship with perceived ability of the organisational
readiness for change. Like the domination of single case-study work in the
organisational communication field, the work on change readiness tends to
concentrate on single case-study research, and caution is advised in the interpretation
of results.
Another shortcoming of the existing change readiness research is that there is an
assumption that employees are at the same stage of readiness and the results do not
allow for differentiation (Kennedy, 2002). This approach produces a ‘one size fits all’
response to using the findings. In order to redress this criticism, a focus on the
multiple perspectives about change readiness is required. While Armenakis and Harris
(1993) make the case for integrating change communication with change readiness by
considering messages for change, their work is seldom tested. However, like Eby et al
(2000) and Wanberg and Banas (2000), Weber and Weber (2000) imply a link to
communication. For example, goal clarity requires clear message transmission from
appropriate communication (Weber & Weber, 2001). Clearly, change readiness could
benefit from explicit understanding of communication models. For most of the
68
studies, change readiness is addressed as a way of avoiding change resistance. The
research on change resistance is further explored in the next section.
Change Resistance
It is suggested that change readiness may pre-empt the likelihood of resistance to
change (Armenakis et al., 1993). Resistance studies date back to Coch and French’s
(1948) seminal work, followed by Lewin’s work (1951) on force field analysis.
Resistance to change has received much interest with Kotter and Schlesinger (1979)
producing six techniques to overcome resistance. Their work is indicative of the
research that shows that resistance is a barrier to overcome. However, there is a
growing body of research that suggests viewing resistance to change as a barrier is
short-sighted (Piderit, 2000; Waddell & Sohal, 1998). Resistance need not always be a
negative aspect of change implementation; rather it possesses constructive utility
within change (Waddell & Sohal, 1998, p. 544). Indeed as Bovey and Hede (2001)
indicate, resistance is a natural part of the change process and to be expected. The
importance of change resistance to management theory is the contention that failure of
many large-scale corporate change programs can be attributed to employee resistance
(Martin, 1975; Maurer, 1996, 1997; Spiker & Lesser, 1995; Waldersee & Griffiths,
1997), and thus to overcome resistance is to improve the success of change efforts.
Others (Piderit, 2000; Waddell & Sohal, 1998) suggest that the link to failure is in
conceptualising resistance as a barrier to be overcome, as opposed to feedback of
change efforts.
More recently, researchers contend that the notion of employee’s change resistance
has been the scapegoat for managers, intent on finding someone to blame for poor
implementation of change effort (Dent & Goldberg, 1999; Piderit, 2000; Waddell &
69
Sohal, 1998). However, there is also a strong likelihood that in the research deriving
from employees’ perspective, the managers will be blamed for failed change (Piderit,
2000). The literature on change resistance is also limited in that it considers change
resistance in conditions of single episodic, not continuous change. If practitioners are
using traditional theory on change resistance such as Kotter and Schlesinger’s (1979)
tactics such as coercion, manipulation, education and facilitation on a repeated basis,
they may find contrary results than would occur in a one-off event. As a subset of
change resistance, change or initiative fatigue has so far received limited empirical
attention and clarification (Buchanan et al., 1999), yet provides insights to the impact
of continued change efforts. The authors further suggest change fatigue may relate to
the disillusionment and cynicism in the face of forthcoming initiatives, i.e BOHICA
1& ‘rolling eyeballs’ syndrome occurring specifically as a result of past experience
with change (Buchanan et al, 1999, p. 25)
Change Cynicism
The third construct related to change receptivity is change cynicism. It is particularly
important given the growing prevalence of the phenomena in organisational settings
and accordingly is starting to receive more academic attention (Atwater, Waldman,
Atwater, & Cartier, 2000). Any consideration of change receptivity should consider
change cynicism as Buchanan et al (1999) note in their research that many managers
now report cynicism amongst employees. Organisational change cynicism is defined
as a:
pessimistic viewpoint about change efforts being successful because those responsible for making change are being blamed for being unmotivated, incompetent or both (Wanous et al., 2000, p. 133).
1 Bend Over Here It Comes Again
70
Reicher et al’s (1997) study of 120 participants of change in a large US Midwestern
plant initiated the development of a cynicism about change construct. The results
indicated that employees on an hourly rate were more cynical than managers owing to
the lack of information provision and participation. The authors suggest that cynicism
may be a sense-making device, as it is an attempt to make sense of disappointing
results and further, can create a self-fulfilling prophesy whereby the cynicism about
change sets up a path towards failure. The ensuing failure creates further cynicism
about change. Their further work (Wanous et al., 2000) confirmed that Cynicism
About Change (CAC) is a legitimate construct and results from organisational factors
such as little previous change, ineffective leadership practices and lack of
participation in decisions, more so than personal attributes. However, the employees
in the sample studied had been working at the plant for 19 years. This observation
leaves an opening to understanding the transitory notion of cynicism, for example,
new employees coming in to an organisation with cynicism about change.
The prevalence of cynicism to change appears to increase when employees are
subjected to continuous change. It is argued that cynicism is a response to a history of
unsuccessful change efforts (Reichers et al., 1997). Pugh et al (2003) found that the
phenomenon of downsizing violates the employees’ trust in the employer. As the
downsized employee moves on to new places of employment, they take with them
feelings of mistrust and a cynical response to change. However, it is not clear if the
continued cynicism occurs with other more benign change experiences such as
Business Process Re-engineering, or the introduction of learning organisation
initiatives, that are not associated with the emotionally charged experience of layoffs
and redundancies (Mossholder, Settoon, Armenakis, & Harris, 2000).
71
Change Openness
The final construct captures a more positive perspective on change receptivity.
Change openness is an attitudinal state in response to proposed change. Miller et al.
(1994) investigation of openness to change within an insurance company found that
employees were more open to change when they received ‘quality’ information and
possessed a high need for achievement. In contrast to the pessimistic findings
advanced by the resistance literature, some contend that people are often much more
open to change than managers assume (Hoag et al., 2002). Cent and Powley (2002)
conducted an exploratory study by interviewing people undergoing change in
organisations. They found that, overall, respondents made 1.9 positive statements
about change for every negative statement. In looking for data to support evidence of
change receptivity, researchers need to consider the positive aspects of change as well
as the negative and also need to explore the implications of openness to change over
time. Allen et al (1995) suggest that, in the context of downsizing and restructure,
there will be an initial decline in openness to change after the downsizing event. Other
literature points to declining receptivity to change after successive change events
(Pate, Martin, & Staines, 2000). The literature is inconclusive about the effects of
other types of change on receptivity to change. This lack of clarity necessitates an
exploratory empirical research question:
RQ 5: What happens to openness to change over time in the context of continuous change?
Studies within the education literature have identified ‘openness to change’ as one of
the key characteristics that principals require to manage the educational reform and
propose that openness to change covers three dimensions (affective, cognitive and
behavioural). Klecker and Loadman (1999) measured 307 building principals’
72
openness to change in a studying using an adaptation of Huang’ (1993) doctoral
research. The instrument originally developed by Dunham, Grube, Gardner,
Cummings and Pierce (1989) measures three factors, cognitive, affective and
behavioural response to change. Dunham et al (1989 cited in Klecker & Loadman,
1999) define openness to change as ‘a person’s cognitions about change, affective
reactions to change, and behavioural tendency to change’ (p. 215).
Klecker and Loadman (1999) found there was an inverse relationship between
affective subscales and the cognitive and behavioural subscales. This was interpreted
as: ‘No matter how much we dislike the school restructuring changes, we recognise
that the changes will be good for schools and we will take action to facilitate the
changes’ (p.222). While this provides a useful way of measuring openness to change,
the face validity of the subscales can be challenged, as many of the items do not
reflect the factor it is loaded under (see appendix 1). For example the ‘I would resist
the changes’ and ‘I would hesitate to press for such changes’ could be interpreted as
behavioural factors as they indicate action, yet in the study they are factored in the
affective (emotional) scale. Clearly further work on change receptivity needs to
consider whether openness to change is indeed multi-dimensional or one factor.
Ultimately though, none of the these studies investigated the impact of
communication on openness to change despite the implied link between change
communication and change receptivity noted by Eby et al, 2000; Wanberg and Banas,
2000; Weber and Weber, 2001. Thus, the second hypothesis is generated:
H 2: There will be a positive relationship between monologic and dialogic change communication and openness to change.
The next section addresses the methodological implications of the change receptivity
studies.
73
Methodological implications of change receptivity studies
Methodologically, the studies on change receptivity depend on surveys, and while
useful in establishing baseline data and measuring change in states, the over reliance
on surveys limits the ability to understand the processes around change receptivity. As
already noted the field is deficient in multiple case-studies. Very few studies have
gathered longitudinal empirical data on changes in these critical attitudes before and
after an organisational change (Weber & Weber, 2001). Di Pofi (2002) states that
organisational researchers have begun to recognise the value of integrated methods,
and suggests that relying on one method alone results in an incomplete view.
Considering the lack of processual research, and the static nature of using surveys at
one time only, a methodological imperative exists to employ a combination of
quantitative and qualitative methods in order to provide a more complete explanation
of the phenomena of change receptivity, and thus a complete view of its entirety.
Summary
In order to fully consider the multiple considerations of change receptivity, the
literature was divided into change readiness, change resistance, change cynicism and
change openness. While these studies found that information provision, participative
work practices, and past experiences of change (Axtell, Wall, Stride, Pepper, & al,
2002; Buchanan et al., 1999; Miller et al., 1994) may inform the change receptivity
process, there is little research on the process of change receptivity over time. Like the
literature review on change communication, a major limitation with the change
receptivity literature is the lack of studies considering organisations that undergo
continuous change. This deficit renders much of the accepted knowledge about the
receptivity and change communication ineffective within contemporary organisations.
The following section addresses the characteristics of continuously changing
74
organisations in order to highlight selection conditions of ‘ideal types’ (Weber, 1949)
to inform the case-study design of this research.
Continuous Change Organisations – what do they look like?
In order to study organisations undergoing continuous change, the literature offers
some clues for identifying ideal cases. Key drivers of continuous change are ‘rapidly
changing’ and ‘hyper competitive’, turbulent environments (D'Aveni, 1994).
Typically, firms that are operating in these conditions rely on rapid new product
development, or new service development for competitive advantage. Additionally,
these conditions can be attributed to changing technology, increased globalisation of
markets and increasing pressure on public sectors to undergo private sector reform
(Baden-Fuller & Volberda, 1997). It appears that much of the literature refers to
external conditions as drivers of continuous change, (Baden-Fuller & Volberda, 1997;
Burnes, 1996; D'Aveni, 1994) rather than internal capabilities such as organisational
communication processes.
Continuous change is considered emergent because the outcomes emerge from what
appear to be trivial small scale and adaptive changes (Edelman & Benning, 1999).
The emergent dynamic is strategic, in that it is as much a strategic response to
constantly changing environments, with choices to be made on how to manage chaotic
and turbulent environments. Accordingly, continuous change organisations adapt by
using small, uninterrupted adjustments, in an evolving and cumulative fashion which
creates substantial change (Pettigrew et al., 2001, p. 704). Typical of continuous
change organisations are those that create entrepreneurial organisations like Ericsson
Australia (Graetz, 2000). Spurred on by technological change and government
industry policy changing the competitive framework, Ericsson Australia sought to
75
create a more responsive, customer-oriented organisation. For Pilkington Australasia,
the change strategy evolved from improving operations to redefining business strategy
and culture (Graetz, 2000, p. 551). As evidenced by both these cases (Pilkington
Australasia and Ericsson Australia), the size of change does not determine the
continuous change. Continuous change can be either incremental or transformational
change. Edelman and Benning (1999) assert that large-scale organisational
realignment can occur from continuous small scale adjustments.
From a micro perspective, some studies (Miner, Bassoff, & Moorman, 2001; Sitkin,
Sutliffe, & Weick, 1998) indicate how the individual may be assisted in managing
continuous change with improvisation, continuous adaptation, editing and learning
featuring as frameworks for coping with continuous change. These studies imply a
positive perspective on individuals’ receptivity to change, however others suggest that
the downside of continuous change is aligned with high levels of change fatigue
(Hazlett & Hill, 2000). This contradiction is why it is important to understand change
receptivity in the context of continuous change, particularly in understanding how
employees make sense of change, either positively as suggested by Miner et al.,
(2001) or negatively such as Hazlett and Hill (2000).
The case-studies used thus far can be classified as either public sector organisations
with a focus on continuous improvement, or firms engaged in New Product
Development (NPD) (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997; Buchanan et al., 1999; Hazlett &
Hill, 2000; Hill, Bullard, Capper, Hawes, & Wilson, 1998; Miner et al., 2001; Sitkin
et al., 1998). A review of this literature suggests that the level of change receptivity
varies across these contexts yet is least understood in the public sector (Coram &
Burnes, 2001).
76
For example, much of what has been undertaken uses New Product Development
(NPD) Teams as the unit of analysis (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997, Miner et al., 2001).
These studies interpret continuous change as innovation, and consequently focus on
NPD, and accordingly the samples have consisted largely of firms employing
technically-oriented employees. Brown and Eisenhardt (1997) and Miner et al (2001)
have highlighted the necessity to create semi-structures that allow flexibility and order
to co-exist in order to facilitate continuous change. Brown and Eisenhardt (1997)
point to the importance of frequent communication during change particularly in
cross-functional teams.
By focusing on NPD as a research context, the authors noted above are studying a
population that is pro-innovation and therefore quite positive about continuous change
as their role is to be innovative. It is also important to note that in these studies, the
product/product lines and supporting technology are continuously changing, not
necessarily the structure of the organisation. Indeed, evidence from Pate et al., (2000)
suggests that the frequent introduction of change programmes, rather than signal to
employees an innovative climate, actually creates a reaction where the employees
view the managers as incompetent. This situation creates a research need to balance
this initial work with a research agenda that focuses on organisational innovation.
Mikealsson (2002) addresses this need in his study of the Volvo Car Corporation. He
investigated how people who work within NPD units can use the same NPD processes
to create continuous change of the organisation. Indeed, by using the same change
mechanisms for the overall organisation as the employees do in their own NPD teams
(vertical and lateral communication and real-life experimentation), they created a
change organisation in which ‘multiple perspectives could be exchanged and new
knowledge created in many directions and dimensions’ (Mikaelsson, 2002). While a
77
strong case-study for understanding how communication strategies affect continuous
change, it neglected to address change receptivity. This deficit is highlighted in
Mikaelsson’s future research directions to explore the possibilities of dealing with the
anxiety levels of people exposed continuously to non-routine based change in non-
routine systems (2002).
Change receptivity is alluded to in studies from Hazlet and Hill (2002) and Baden-
Fuller and Volberda (1997). These authors suggest different organisational settings
(i.e public sector organisations) may produce different receptivity responses to
different triggers. The type of continuous change discussed includes changing
political environments and the move towards economic rationalism. Their studies
showed that in the public sector context, continuous change is associated with high
levels of change fatigue. Another study of a state government department with a
large-scale culture change program (Brown, Ryan, & Flynn, 2000) finds similar issues
with change fatigue. There is much to suggest that the public sector organisations are
unique and distinctly different to other private sector organisations in their cultural
dimensions (Parker & Bradley, 2000; Waterhouse, 2004). Yet this cultural distinction
is rarely accounted for when considering the frequent changes embarked on in the
public sector (Sinclair, 1991). In their survey research on six public sector
organisations, Parker and Bradley (2000) found that despite a change agenda that
promotes commercialisation, empowerment, entrepreneurialism, the public sector
remains heavily skewed to bureaucratic values and a hierarchical organisational
culture. They pose the question whether the adoption of private sector practices leas to
an organisational culture in transition, and this query is pertaining to the research
informing the thesis. Brown, Waterhouse and Flynn (2003) study of a large state
public sector organisation leads to observations of structural appropriateness with
78
reform agendas. The consideration of a hybrid model of New Public Management
initiates a departure from the concept of a unified culture within the public sector.
This example presented offers a carefully considered combination of both
bureaucracy and egalitarian values, reminiscent of Martins (yr) differentiation of
culture (Waterhouse, 2004).
Brown, Ryan and Parker (2000)’s study of three public sector cases draws on the
importance of human resources issues when extending a commercialisation agenda.
Further, Maddock (2002) also reports on the difficulty of making ‘modernisation’
work in the public sector. Using examples from public sector partnerships, Maddock
also makes the argument for a greater focus on people management in public sector
reform, and a need for greater leadership. This early work suggests there is much
opportunity to explore what continuous change may mean in specific contexts such as
public sector cultures, and then to identify the factors that enables continuous change,
and facilitates receptivity of change. What is interesting, that despite observations of
difficulty in managing public sector reform, and highlighting the people management
aspects of change, none of these studies specifically raise the issue of communication
of change.
The link between communication and continuous change is rarely made empirically
with an exception being Lewis et al’s (2003) study of not-for- profit firms. They
highlight the tumultuous state of fiscal instability in which non-profit organisations
reside, as their dependence on external sources needs to accommodate political shifts.
Their study on the communicative stakes during not-for- profit change, found
implementers generally follow a quid pro quo ‘matching rule’, wherein the
importance and desirability of the stakeholder’s resources serves as the basis on which
79
they are awarded communicative attention (Lewis et al., 2003a). While valuable in
addressing how not-for-profit organisations communicate during change to
stakeholders, it lacks clarification of how this impacts on their receptivity.
One of the more pervasive concepts associated with continuous change is the learning
organisation. Originating from Schon’s (1973) concepts of a ‘learning society’ as a
way to manage the continuous processes of transformation within our society and
institutions, the learning organisation presents as an ideal type. It is noted as a
systematic response to the pressure of globalisation (Schon, 1973). The learning
organisation is defined as:
Learning organisations [are] organisations where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning to see the whole together. (Senge, 1990)
The literature on learning organisations regards continuous change as part of the
sense-making and knowledge development cycle (Choo, 2001; Ingelgard, Roth,
Shani, & Styhre, 2002; Laiken, 2003). Their findings concur with Bokeno and Gantt
(2000) that learning organisations encourage experimentation, risk taking, openness,
systems thinking, creativity, authenticity, imagination and innovation (Bokeno &
Gantt, 2000). These studies present a communication perspective of change in terms
of knowledge dissemination and communicative forums in which employees can
negotiate change, but like Lewis et al’s (2003a & b) research, the aforementioned
studies do not address employee receptivity to change.
The literature concerning organisations that undergo continuous change has been
reviewed in order to identify potential organisational types to situate the central
research question within. In summary, these organisations may demonstrate a
80
commitment to the learning organisation, be a public sector organisation undergoing
reform, and are most often organisations that focus on innovation. Of the studies of
organisations that undergo continuous change, most have been within high technology
fields. The dominance of high technology samples makes it imperative to study
different types of organisations where less is known, particularly those such as public
sector organisations which are having difficulty with change receptivity. As none of
the studies on continuously changing organisations have addressed change
communication and change receptivity, this will be an exploratory study.
Conclusion
This chapter has reviewed the body of literature on change communication to
expound the research questions that inform this study. It has been established that
many organisations have moved towards a model of change that accommodates
continuous, adaptive, recurrent changes without empirical validation of the associated
interventions and ways of managing this change model. The lack of research has
resulted in the use of change models and interventions generated from episodic
change being used on a continuous basis. Accompanying this development, there is a
growing recognition of the necessity for and the lack of process theories of change.
Van de Ven and Poole (1995) provide the exception to this, and thus their work
provides the descriptive framework for considering continuous change within this
study. One such crucial process within change is organisational communication.
While some studies have addressed organisational communication and change
receptivity, none have done so in the context of continuous change and very few have
specifically focused on change communication.
Change communication is a very small field with the majority of studies polarised by
81
the ontological perspective taken. Change communication is considered either
instrumental or constructivist. A review of the change communication literature
reveals that there are two primary change communication models; monologic change
communication and dialogic change communication. While the management literature
relies on the instrumental perspective, the more recent organisational communication
literature has been dominated by constructivist perspectives. Integration of these
models is a rarity, yet a clear need exists for the integration of the two, which is why
the thesis employs a bimodal theory of change communication (Taylor & Van Every,
2000) as it utilises both instrumental and constructivist change communication
approaches. Specifically, the findings of the change communication studies signify
further research directions in the way of group level understanding of change
communication processes, clear explication of what change communication is, an
interest in the conversational sequencing of change, and the relative effectiveness of
different change communication strategies. Additionally, there is interest in how
alternate meanings, and employees’ reframing of change initiatives contribute to
change processes and how dialectic tension may contribute to an understanding of the
change process. Consideration of power should also be included in future research.
Methodologically, there is a clear imperative for multiple case-studies and preferably
in longitudinal designs.
Change receptivity is an emergent management concept that encompasses change
resistance, change readiness, change cynicism and change openness. The literature on
change receptivity indicates a need for a broader understanding of change receptivity,
with some pointing to multidimensional responses, which consider readiness,
openness and cynicism as well as resistance. Again a process perspective is needed as
well as multiple cases.
82
The lack of research on public sector organisation driven towards increased
flexibility, commercialisation and entrepreneurship suggests that this would be a
valuable setting to situate the study in, particularly as public sector receptivity to
change appears to be a contentious issue.
This chapter has made the research question and aims explicit and identified research
gaps to be filled. The literature review has revealed some compelling research
directions. The next chapter outlines and justifies the methodology employed. First,
the research objectives are made explicit and the research design described. The
sampling decisions and data sources are detailed and justified, and the data collection
methods explained. The rationales for these choices in methods are provided, as are
the analytical procedures.
83
CHAPTER 3
Methods and Research Design
Introduction
Chapter One provided an overview of the research background, discussed the
necessity for empirical investigation of the impact of change communication on
change receptivity within a continuous change context and outlined the structure and
content of this thesis. In Chapter Two, the literature on continuous change, change
communication, and change receptivity was reviewed to establish several research
gaps and imperatives. Amongst these was the need for longitudinal case-studies that
provide a deeper and integrative understanding of the complexities of communication
during continuous change. Of particular interest is an in-depth understanding of what
change communication entails, and how the different change communication models
may impact on change receptivity within organisations that undergo continuous
change. The research questions originating from the literature reviews are as follows:
Empirical RQ 1 How does communication impact change receptivity within a continuous change context?
Theoretical RQ 2 What is ‘change communication’?
Empirical RQ 3 How can unpacking the ‘black box’ of communication inform our understanding of change receptivity?
In Chapter 2, the literature review revealed that change communication could be
considered a combination of both instrumental and constructivist approaches.
Within the instrumental model, monologic change communication was the
dominant model, and within the constructivist approach the dialogic model was
84
primary. Thus, the literature review contributes to “unpacking” the black box”
of communication within change, and leads to the development of empirical
research question 4.
Empirical RQ 4 How do the different communication models (instrumental/monologic and constructivist/dialogic) inform our understanding of the impact of change communication on change receptivity within a continuous change context?
Empirical RQ 5 What happens to openness to change over time in the context of continuous change?
While the lack of empirical research on change communication produces exploratory
research questions, careful consideration of the literature relating to change receptivity
yields two hypotheses for testing.
H 1: There will be a positive relationship between openness to change and perceptions of organisational change capability.
H 2: There will be a positive relationship between monologic and dialogic
change communication and openness to change.
This chapter details the methodological approach undertaken to address the research
questions and test the hypotheses. A comparative case-study design is explained and
justified. In this study, after an initial period of sole focus on the first study, the two
cases are run in tandem. The parallel management of cases provides opportunities for
testing emergent findings from the first case within the second case. While cross-case
comparison is a useful strategy to develop analytical insights, the power of the
strategy is enhanced when the cross comparison occurs in real time, rather than
retrospectively. In this situation, the researcher is able to check emergent analysis
with case-study participants as events unfold. Justification is also provided for the use
of multiple methods including surveys, focus groups and ethnographic observation.
85
Objectives of Study
As noted in Chapter Two, there are very few studies specifically dedicated to the
investigation of change communication (Lewis, 1999; Mills, 2003). Similarly, despite
widespread acceptance of the concept of continuous change, there is scant research on
the topic (Pettigrew, Woodman, & Cameron, 2001). The paucity of research dedicated
to change communication compounds the difficulty in using the knowledge derived
from the change communication studies. While the link is often made between change
communication and implementation, it is not made so often between change
communication and change receptivity. However, some suggest one of the more
salient features of continuous change is the demand made on change receptivity
(Doyle et al., 2000; Hazlett & Hill, 2000; Stewart & Kringas, 2003). There are dual
objectives of the research. This research is an exploratory study aiming to acquire a
fundamental understanding of the processes and interactions of change
communication and change receptivity in order to construct new theory about change
communication. The literature review reveals there is a significant body of research
existing on change receptivity, yet what remains unclear are the implications of this
research within continuous change. Thus, the second objective is to test some of the
existing assumptions about change receptivity and change communication within a
continuous change context. These objectives are further grounded in understanding
how change communication contributes to change receptivity in the context of
continuous change. Anchoring the research questions within continuous change
necessitates a processual design, as this allows for study of the dynamics of
continuous change ‘as they happen’ (Pettigrew et al., 2001, p. 6). The next section
defines processual research and explains how the processual research approach is used
in this study.
86
Research Paradigm When determining what research approach to use, the researcher has several heuristics
available. For example, if the literature is insufficient to permit a deductive approach,
then an exploratory and descriptive approach (inductive) is recommended
(Desphande, 1983). If a deductive approach is applied then it needs to be committed
to the subject’s perspective to offer an interpretation that is credible, dependable and
confirmable (Lincoln & Guba, 1990; Wass & Wells, 1993). Interpretivist (qualitative)
research suits particular research questions, and is evaluated using specific criteria,
with both research question and criteria being different to those experienced in
positivist (quantitative) research (Jean, 1992). Table 3.0 illustrates the inherent
differences between the two research approaches.
Table 3.0 Differences Between Quantitative and Qualitative Research
Differences Quantitative Qualitative
Ontological Assumption Objectivity Subjectivity
Epistemological assumption Positivism Phenomenology
Aims of Inquiry Universality Particularity
Role of Researcher Outsider Insider
Researcher- respondent Relationship Detachment Involvement
Research Methods Statistics Description
Source: Jean, 1992, p. 89.
As discussed in Chapter 2, the objectives of this study are exploratory in nature,
aiming to acquire a fundamental understanding of the processes and interactions of
change communication and change receptivity in order to construct new theory about
change communication. This understanding requires descriptive data and this basic
research can be conducted through qualitative inquiry. The use of qualitative research
87
provides rich descriptions and explanations of processes (Miles & Huberman, 1994)
and can be justified on several accounts.
First, Bennet (1991) suggests that the research paradigm chosen should reflect the
nature of the study conducted. When discussing appropriate research approaches in
innovation studies, Van de Ven and Rogers (1988) argue that for innovation and
change research to be useful it needs to focus on the process, and that this shift
requires more qualitative and in-depth methods rather than quantitative methods. This
does not imply that the previous literatures covered in Chapter 2 need be ignored.
Rather the literature reviewed in Chapter 2 forms an important link in the retroductive
process (Blaikie, 1993) used in this study.
Retroduction is the activity of deductively applying ideas from certain bodies of knowledge and emerging frameworks to case studies and then inducing from findings of the case studies the extent to which (and the manner in which) the bodies of knowledge and emerging frameworks should be altered.
(Turow, 1984, cited in Potter, 1996, p. 157)
By combining retroductive logic and inductive processes, the researcher
acknowledges that there may be extant theory or phenomena in similar fields that may
be useful or adapted to create new theory and build on past work.
Further, the paradigmatic implications of this study involve ‘crossing boundaries’
(Brocklesby & Mingers, 1998, Hassard, 1993). In this sense, the study utilises a
positivist framework which assumes that there is an objective relationship between
communication and change receptivity, and seeks to capture this within the
quantitative studies. However, as the phenomena of change communication is little
understood, the study commits to an exploratory design, and an inductive
methodology in order to access the subject’s perspective to offer an interpretation that
is credible, dependable and confirmable (Lincoln & Guba, 1990; Wass & Wells,
88
1993). Whilst studies that cross paradigms are not plentiful they are not without
precedent particularly when there is cross-over of discipline as in this study
(management and communication). Ultimately this places the research within a
objective constructionist field (Geelan, 1997). My ontological position is that whilst I
believe that there are ‘facts’ out there, I believe that the establishment of those facts
are a socially constructed process of negotiation and interaction.
Research Design This research uses Langley’s (1999) Alternate Templates as a theoretical framework
to guide the research design. One of the central challenges to researcher investigating
processes is the inherent messiness, as the complexities of temporal embeddedness,
multi–level data and analysis, and dynamic emergent themes interplay and obfuscate
the analysis. In 1999, The Academy of Management Review published an article by
process researcher Ann Langley on how to build theory from process data. Her work
analyses the impact of seven generic strategies of theory building in conjunction with
three of Weick’s (1989) criteria of good theory (accuracy, parsimony, and general).
The seven strategies each act to bound the data and provide structure for the
untidiness of the data collected. These strategies include: the Narrative, the
Quantification, the Alternate Templates, Grounded Theory, Visual Mapping;
Temporal Bracketing and the Synthetic. The emphasis on each strategy changes
depending on what phase of theory building is occurring. This study has used the
alternate templates to ground the data (categorise and classify) with the use of
theoretical constructs (monologic, dialogic) and emergent constructs (background
talk). One of the benefits of using the ‘Alternate Templates’ is that the use of the
multiple templates can overcome the trade-offs usually associated with accuracy,
89
generalisability and simplicity. While each template provides simplicity but limited
accuracy, the use of multiple perspectives of the same phenomena, or theoretical
triangulation (Yin, 2003) generates the much needed accuracy.
A processual research design is one that captures multiple realities and experiences of
change in context over time (Dawson, 2003). Further, there are four key
methodological dimensions to the processual approach. These include the use of
competing narratives to develop a critical understanding of the change process, the
acknowledgement of multiple histories in understanding the impact of power and
politics in change, the substance of change composing of time and place, and finally
practical advice and relevance which assumes that the processual studies of change
produce practical lessons (Dawson, 2003). Pettigrew (1997) contends that processual
research involves studying a ‘sequence of individual and collective events, actions
and activities unfolding over time in context’ (Pettigrew, 1997). Processual research
approaches are eminently suited to a study of continuous organisational change. There
is substantial support for the necessity of researchers to study change with a process
perspective to avoid the normative and prescriptive accounts of change (Dawson,
2003). In considerations of Weick’s (1989) criteria of good theory development, the
first criteria, accuracy of the theory development, is enhanced by accounting for the
multiple realities and experiences of those undergoing change.
To enhance generalisability, which is Weick’s (1989) second criteria, the design
employs a comparative case-study approach, with data collection occurring through
the use of multiple methods such as surveys, focus groups and ethnographic
observation. One of the notable limitations in case-study research is the diminished
capacity to generalise from a single case, or through the use of a single method of data
90
collection. The use of both multiple methods and cross case comparison ameliorates
these limitations (Weick, 1989). Eisenhardt (1989) advocates the use of case-studies
in constructing new theory. The use of case-study research is further justified as the
research question addresses ‘how change communication impacts on change
receptivity’. When a research question addresses ‘how’, researchers suggest that case-
studies are an appropriate methodology (Eisenhardt, 1989; Patton, 1990; Yin, 2003).
The research question is not the sole influence on choice of methodology; the state of
prior knowledge on the topic also impacts selection of methodology.
Development of Case-Study Methodology
This research utilises a part deductive and part inductive approach. The benefit of this
approach is that it allows inspiration from the data, without denying existing concepts
that are useful to the study (Lamonthe & Langley, 2001). An inductive process is
advised to develop and build theory when the topic has been exposed to little previous
scrutiny through empirical studies (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Miles & Huberman, 1994;
Yin, 2003). Inductive processes involve developing concepts, insights and
understanding from patterns that emerge from the data and the purpose of inductive
theory is to explain rather than to generalise (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The limited
theory linking change communication to change receptivity is compounded by the
lack of empirical research on continuous change contexts. Eisenhardt (1989) suggests
that where a well-developed set of theories regarding a research problem does not
exist, theory building can best be done through case-study research. Thus, case-study
research provides in-depth insights that form a platform for theory development
(Eisenhardt, 1989).
As earlier noted, single case research can be limited in the ability to develop analytic
91
generalisability (Yin, 2003). While this research study does not make claim to
statistical generalisability, it uses comparative case analysis to improve analytic
generalisability, as well as to improve both particularity and transferability of results.
Multiple-case-study analysis allows ‘replication logic’ to occur (Yin, 2003) which
treats the collective cases as a succession of independent case-studies, in order to
confirm or disconfirm emergent findings and bolsters external validity (Yin, 2003).
This methodological approach assists researchers in perceiving patterns more easily
and helps to eliminate chance associations (Eisenhardt, 1989).
While the growth of dual case-studies for comparative purpose is growing in
popularity (Miles & Huberman, 1994), it appears to be most commonly used in a
sequential fashion (Greenwood, Hinings, & Brown, 1994; Lamonthe & Langley,
2001; Lewis, 2000b; Stewart & Kringas, 2003). Few researchers have conducted
comparative case-studies simultaneously or made explicit in their methodology the
order in which the case-study research was conducted. One of the few studies that did
was the research undertaken by Bamford and Forrester (2003) which tracked multiple
change initiatives across two sites with an UK manufacturing company. Within this
thesis, staggering the two case-studies over time allowed for testing of findings and
emergent theory from the first case-study within the second case-study in real time,
rather than retrospectively (Frahm & Brown, 2004a).
While Dawson (2003) suggests that within processual research a single case-study is
significant, the use of more than one case allows for testing of emergent theoretical
insights, and for improving the operational aspects of the case-study. The lessons
learnt from previous stages of the study could be introduced to subsequent stages in
order to improve knowledge development. Chapter Six will demonstrate that the
92
learning derived from the cross-case analysis contributed to a much richer
understanding of the change processes. Conducting two case-studies concurrently
presents very real time demands and cannot be managed in short time frames. Thus a
longitudinal design is required to provide enough time to conduct the research,
observe, report and test emergent theoretical insights. In summary, the use of
concurrent and comparative case-study design was novel, eliciting opportunities to
test earlier findings. The rigour of the study was strengthened by using multiple
methods, and usefulness (Weick, 1989) resulted from investigating the impact of
change communication on change receptivity within context of continuous change in
two cases over time.
Development of Longitudinal Design
The design is both longitudinal and interpretive, as it takes into account the research
subjects’ interpretation of change communication and continuous change, and the two
case-studies span the period 2002-2004. The longitudinal design allows for the
changes in change communication and the change receptivity to be observed over
time, and draws attention to the triggers or drivers of change within the process of
continuous change subject of interest (Yin, 2003). Van de Ven and Huber (1990)
argue an appreciation of the dynamics of organisational life is not afforded by static
data collection methods. This assertion establishes a mandate to examine
organisational change over time. The research purpose is to understand how change
communication contributes to change receptivity in the context of continuous change.
It is imperative to use a longitudinal case design in order to study the communication
processes implicit in continuous change, and to be able to explain the observed
sequences of events as they occur over time.
93
Dawson (2003) explains longitudinal research may refer to many different types of
study such as quantitative studies that seek to identify the temporal relationship
between two variables, cohort studies from which general trends can be identified,
and the processual accounts. This research identifies with the latter and is depicted in
the following diagram (Figure 3.1). The longitudinal element of the study is illustrated
with the time-frame on the left side. The arrows in the diagram show how successive
iterations of data collection inform the analysis, and then that analysis then informs
the next data collection. The diagram also depicts how the staggering of the two case-
studies enabled the researcher to use the findings from case-study one to inform the
data collection and analysis and conduct cross-case analysis. The analysis from the
first 14 months in the first case-study, Tech D, was used to inform the planning of the
second case-study, and to improve both the operational aspects and analytical inquiry.
By August 2003, it was possible to revisit some of the issues emerging from the
second case, Highsales, within Tech D. Thus, not only did the experience from the
first case inform the data collection within the second case, the experience from the
second case also informed the latter stage of research within the first case.
Both cases began with a quantitative study to establish baseline data on openness to
change, and organisational demographics. The first research stage was then followed
up by a round of focus groups, and ethnographic observation. This sequence was
repeated until the final survey and focus group. The Tech D case-study started in
January 2002 and by the time access was permitted with the second case-study, a
working model of the first 14 months findings had been developed. This lag effect
provided opportunities within the second case to test applicability and seek
disconfirming evidence about the initial findings. The findings of the second study
provided opportunity to revisit issues within the first case-study, and seek
94
explanations of absence of confirmatory evidence and strengthen the developing
framework through recursive scrutiny (Barley, 1986; Ragin, 1987).
Figure 3.1 Process Map of the Comparative Case-study Process
Jan 02
Feb 02
Mar 02
Apr 02
May 02
Jun 02
Aug 02
Jul 02
Aug 02
Sep 02
Oct 02
Nov 02
Dec 02
Jan 03
Feb 03
Mar 03
Apr 03
May 03
Jun 03
Jul 03
Aug 03
Sep 03
Oct 03
Nov 03
Dec 03
Jan 04
Feb 04
Mar 04
Apr 04
May 04
Jun 04
Jul 04
Tech D Highsales
Survey
Survey
Survey
Survey
Survey
5 x Focus Groups
4 x Focus Groups
4 x Focus Groups
4 x Focus Groups
4 x Focus Groups
Analysis & report informs focus groups
Analysis & report to all staff
Participant Observation
& Document analysis
(PO)PO notes and analysis with previous FG analysis informs the next survey.
Analysis & report informs focus groups
Participant Observation
& Document analysis
(PO)
Analysis & report to all staff
PO notes and analysis with previous FG analysis informs the next survey.
Analysis & report informs focus groups
PO & Document analysis
PO & Document analysis
Analysis
Analysis
Analysis
Analysis
Analysis
Cross case analysis
4 x Focus Groups
Survey
95
This design links the quantitative and qualitative data as a Type 2 study (Miles &
Huberman, 1994, p.41). This type of study presents a multi-wave survey conducted in
parallel with the fieldwork. The first survey draws attention to issues the fieldworker
may address in the qualitative studies, and indeed may lead to revisions of the second-
wave quantitative study. The overlapping of these studies allows for the iterative
interrogation between data collection and analysis that occurs within theory
development. The next section elaborates on the decisions made with regard to
sampling and selection of data sources by making the decision making process
explicit and justifying the choices made.
Sampling and Data Sources
Selection of Research Sites
When designing an inductive research design, researchers are faced with decisions
based on sampling strategy and case selection. Convention suggests that cases should
be purposive and theoretically useful (Patton, 1990). Yet, within this directive,
tensions exist in terms of case selection such as the trade-offs associated with decision
making(Curtis, Gesler, Smith, & Washburn, 1999). Dion (1998) provides a qualified
defence for selecting cases on the illustrative properties of the dependent variable
(change receptivity). Change receptivity is a dynamic process and is constantly
negotiated (Cochran et al., 2002; Huy, 1999; Newton, Graham, McLoughlin, &
Moore, 2003). Every organisation has members who experience differing levels of
receptivity, and this reduces the attraction as a selection criteria for case-study, as the
opportunities for maximum variation sampling (Patton, 1990) are diminished.
Pettigrew (1988, in Eisenhardt, 1989, p.537) suggests selecting cases in which the
process of interest is ‘transparently observable’. The strong recognition of
96
communication as a key element of organisational change (Kanter et al., 1992a;
Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979) suggests that every organisation undergoing change
should provide ample opportunity to witness the communication processes. However,
surveys of change agents suggest that change communication is difficult, even when
the change agents know the best practice principles of change communication
(Buchanan et al., 1999; Doyle et al., 2000). Thus, finding transparently observable
processes of change communication may not be so easy, and increases the difficulty
in identifying an organisation by its change communication processes. By focusing on
organisations that have a known formal change communication plan, the research
engages with a very select and unique body, one that perhaps is not representative of
the difficulties and complexities identified by managers (Buchanan et al., 1999). Thus,
the sample selection decision-making process rejected identification of organisations
based on change receptivity and change communication. The search for ‘good
subjects’ also presents practical considerations such as access to case-study
organisations and researcher reciprocity (Johnson, Duberly, Close, & Cassell, 1999).
However, Becker (1998, p.87) urges the reader to ‘identify the case that is most likely
to upset your thinking and look for it’. Strauss and Corbin (1998) remind us that
knowledge is often linked with time and place. The current focus on continuous
change presents a case that is most likely to upset our thinking, and anchor the
theoretical constructs of change receptivity and change communication in time and
place. Ultimately, using continuous change as the criteria for sampling strategy
satisfies the logic of sufficient and necessary conditions (Ragin, 1987). While cases of
change communication and /or cases of change receptivity are sufficient, those that
exist within continuous change contexts are necessary for comparative analysis. Not
only is there a lack of empirical work on continuous change, it appears that the
97
concept of such limits the application of existing models of change communication
such as top-down visionary statements, education and participation.
Therefore, to be theoretically purposive (Patton, 1990) and to determine what would
be an appropriate organisation to study, a list of characteristics was drawn from the
literature on continuous change. The continuous change literature reveals three
themes; innovation, learning and public sector change (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997;
Buchanan et al., 1999; Hazlett & Hill, 2000; Miner et al., 2001; Sitkin et al., 1998).
Underlying these three themes, there is an implied emphasis on the employees being
responsible for the continued evolution and success of the firm. However, it is clear
from Chapter 2 that the existing research on public sector organisations has largely
neglected the crucial aspects of communication. This neglect creates a research
imperative to address. Thus, the two organisations were selected based on a Weberian
(1949) ‘ideal type’ developed from the literature. Both organisations were government
funded, and under ‘increasing pressure to do more with less and become more
flexible’ (Zorn et al., 2000). There were also issues of public sector / private sector
receptivity, such as when a public sector organisation needs to change to a private
sector orientation (Parker & Bradley, 2000). Structurally, both organisations presented
as similar cases with around 70 employees and four functional divisions.
Accordingly, the first organisation approached was a public sector technology
diffusion agent, with a CEO intent on creating a learning organisation and
commercialising divisions of the business. The selection of the second site occurred as
the result of the first CEO’s recommendation and personal contacts, six months into
the first study. This case presented as a business unit of a comparable size to the first
case-study within a large public sector organisation also measured on private sector
98
metrics such as gross margin, profitability, and service Key Performance Indicators’
(KPIs). The willingness of both organisations to accommodate a researcher on site for
a period of one to two years was also a major factor in the decision. On initial
investigation, it appeared that there were considerable similarities within the cases for
replication logic to be used. The following table illustrates the similarities.
Table 3.1 Comparative Case Similarities
Similarities Tech D Highsales
Timeline February 2002 – February 2004 June 2003 – June 2004
Size Started with 74 employees 4 departments
Started with 72 employees 4 departments
Continuous change rationale
Government pressure to privatise, commercialise CEO’s intent to create a learning organisation.
Has already undergone commercialisation focus. Continued market reform, and creating new markets.
Type of employees
Technology focus Dominated by engineers, public sector background.
Retail focus. Business unit dominated by marketing retail employees, public sector background
Types of cumulative change
Restructure Downsizing Culture change Business process improvement
Restructure Downsizing Culture change Business process improvement
Tech D is a public sector organisation chartered with technology diffusion. The new
CEO has stated that he aims to achieve a ‘continuously changing, a learning
organisation of the Senge [CEO’s reference to ‘The Fifth Discipline by Peter Senge,
1990] type’. Starting with 74 employees, the occupations of staff ranged from foundry
workers and engineers to model finishers and business consultants.
The organisation is operating under seemingly volatile conditions, subject to political
change, both in terms of state and federal budgetary decision-making as well as
technological obsolescence. The case-study organisation’s charter requires it to source
high capital cost, new technology, in order to facilitate uptake within state and
99
national firms in the manufacturing sector. This means that they operate within the
boundaries of ‘market failure’ servicing Small to Medium Enterprises (SMEs) that are
not developed enough to afford state of the art technology. The CEO is under
considerable pressure from the key financial stakeholder, a state government
department. The firm is undergoing a directed change effort. Some of the changes
introduced over the 24 months studied include: a commercialisation focus, team
working, organisational restructure, downsizing, culture change, continuous
improvement, 360-degree feedback, spinning-off a business unit, introduction of a
new Customer Relationship Management System (CRMS) and introduction of new
financial reporting arrangements. Given the turbulent environment in which the
organisation is situated, the CEO is adopting an emergent approach to the change
plans; – the change effort is being adapted as new information is presented.
Highsales is a three year old business unit, within the Retail division of United
Utilities, a large public sector organisation concerned with provision of utility
services. Highsales focuses on selling a range of home products through their sales
call centre, and contracts to six licensees to undertake the installation of the products.
Originally Highsales was managed by an entrepreneurial marketing manager who
initiated the venture. After three years of declining profits, the CEO of Utilities United
introduced a new manager whose mandate was to halt the losses, improve gross
margin, and in so doing, turn the business around within the next 12 months. This
manager brought an external consultant in to assist in this venture. At four months
into the initiative, the new Highsales manager was informed that he had succeeded in
arresting financial decline, and was now responsible for an ambitious growth target.
Three months later, the manager was seconded to an urgent transformational project
of the parent company and one of the middle managers was promoted to the new
100
position. Some of the changes introduced over the 12 months include business process
re-engineering, new product introduction, performance management and culture
change.
Accordingly as illustrated in Table 3.1, both cases shared a number of similarities,
being size, structural orientation, change goals, and public sector orientation. The
main difference that occurred was the type of business (eg retail versus service
provision) and the way the change process was managed.
Sampling within case.
On entry to a research setting, further decisions need to be made regarding the
sampling strategy. Within this study, the decision on whom to sample primarily
concerned the data collection from surveys and focus groups. In establishing the
boundaries for the focus group data collection, a purposive sampling strategy (Patton,
1990) was used. Participation in the focus groups was voluntary, and the number of
focus groups was determined by the number of dominant functional groups. Selection
of participants was weighted by the considerations of how accessible and agreeable
each participant was, and the vertical representation within the organisation. For
example, within one of the functional groups in Highsales the employees were
represented in a number of positions, and rather than overweight the focus group with
all of the employees at one level, representative stratified sampling was used to ensure
that someone from each position was represented. Highsales was also stratified in
terms of employment status (casuals, contractors, and permanent) and this was taken
into account in focus group participation. Direct reports (or line supervisors) were
excluded from the focus groups in order for the participants to feel free to discuss all
issues without censure. It was considered better to select participants who were
101
willing to participate than to interview someone either reluctant or hostile. Despite
this, the reality of conducting focus groups with voluntary participants in a time
pressured context, and within environments that were downsizing meant that some of
the focus groups did not achieve optimum size (6-10) participants (MacIntosh, 1981).
However, Kitzinger (1995) and Hollander (2004) acknowledge that focus groups may
exist with as few as four participants, and there was sufficient synergy generated out
of the conversations within smaller groups to include their discussions.
As the research population was small and therefore easily manageable, it was decided to
conduct a census sampling strategy for the questionnaire which obtains the responses of
the whole population (Vogt, 1999; Zikmund, 1997). The census sampling strategy was
necessary to maximise response rates for the surveys. Likewise, the small size of the
research population meant that the overall population of the organisations was considered
in the ethnographic observation stages. Having access to all of the common areas and
permission to join any meeting allowed for opportunities to participate in all of the
organisational activities.
Data Collection
As noted by Yin (2003), the quality of case-study research is enhanced by multiple
methods of data collection. The methods used in data collection in this research
project were focus groups, ethnographic observation, and surveys. First the
operational issues are described and then the justification for the use of the data
collection method made explicit.
102
Methods Tech D Focus groups
Requests for participation in the focus groups were directed to the team / department
meetings, and a contact staff member was responsible for organising final numbers.
During April and May 2002, five focus groups were conducted. A total of 28 staff
members participated (40% of the organisation) with the smallest focus group
consisting of two participants and the largest involving nine, and covered the major
work divisions in the organisation. Prior to participating each member was provided
with a confidentiality statement (see Appendix 2). This statement assured the
participants of the confidentiality of their responses. Their names and identifying
statements were excluded from any reports derived from the research. The duration of
each focus group varied from 45 minutes to 90 minutes, and the focus groups were
conducted in a meeting room on site. All but one focus group were audio-taped and
transcribed before analysis. One focus group had a follow-up meeting with the CEO
the next day and the group used the main findings and the preliminary analysis as an
agenda for the meeting. This approach enabled the researcher to confirm and further
clarify points in the meeting with the CEO. The remainder of the participants were
provided with a research summary page of their focus group discussion, to ensure an
accurate representation of the focus group’s dialogue. All groups agreed with the
representations.
In order to keep track of the organisational change process over time, the focus groups
were then repeated during March 2003 (n =20, 44% of organisation) and February
2004 (n = 22, 60% of organisation). Owing to a subsequent restructure, and
downsizing that occurred during the previous 12 months, by the time the next round
103
of focus groups was due, only four functional groups remained. Thus four focus
groups were conducted, with a total of 20 staff members involved. After each focus
group, the analysis was written up as an interpretive matrix complete with segments
of the transcripts that provided illustrations of the codes. These were then provided to
the group to assess accuracy of the interpretation, and guard against inadvertent
exposure about issues sensitive to the individual participants. The continued
presentation of the researcher’s interpretation of what was discussed for member
feedback was a fundamental mechanism in ensuring quality of the interpretive
research.
While Miles and Huberman (1994) do not advocate that substantial instrumentation is
required when conducting inductive research, it was necessary to develop a guiding
framework in order to set parameters to avoid ‘scope creep’ of the research, and avoid
being overwhelmed with data and superfluous information. Four main questions were
used to elicit the group’s understanding of what type of change was occurring, how
employees felt about that, and how they believed the communication of change was
being handled. Additionally, as there is a lack of empirical study on ‘continuous
change’, and the emphasis of senior management on the concept, it was necessary to
obtain the perceptions of the work groups about continuous change. This approach
would enable management to have a better understanding of the impact of their
change initiatives as well as provide a clearer understanding of what ‘continuous
change’ is. The interview protocol can be found in Appendix 3. The four key
questions remain consistent in all rounds; however the prior analyses of the
ethnographic observation data, the surveys and the previous focus group enabled the
researcher to probe in different directions during the subsequent round(s) of focus
group.
104
After the interpretative summaries were signed off by the focus group participants, a
research report including aggregated findings was prepared for Tech D. The report
was released on the intranet and copies were provided in the tea room. This protocol
provided the employees with the opportunity to alert the researcher to contradicting
interpretations. While much of the qualitative literature suggests that transcripts
should be returned (Morse, 1999; Munford & Sanders, 2000) the justification for
doing so is in establishing reciprocity within the research setting. Returning the
transcripts does not allow the researcher to test or confirm the findings and address
the truth value (Marshall & Rossman, 1999) of the interpretation. By returning the
interpretive summaries to the participants, the researcher can test for agreement on a
higher level of inference. It also acts as a reflective device which generates further
discussion.
Tech D Survey
Very few studies have gathered empirical data on changes in critical attitudes before
and after an organisational change effort has been initiated (Weber & Weber, 2001).
In particular, it is noted that studies often neglect the pre-implementation phase (Jones
et al., 2002), where employee attitudes and perceptions may play an important role in
determining the successful transition of change, and measure change perceptions after
the change has taken place. For this reason, and in order to test the hypothesis, data
measuring change receptivity was collected throughout the change process within
both organisations as illustrated in figure 3.1.
Survey Administration
The questionnaires were administered to all organisational members not on leave, and
with the exception of the CEO, 69 questionnaires were administered. Each
105
questionnaire was attached to a self-addressed reply paid envelope and the response
rate was 44 (64%). Employees were asked to return the survey directly to the
researcher. Additionally, they were informed that no individual would be identifiable
in the results, and that participation was voluntary and they could withdraw at any
stage during the research. They were also told that it was the first of three surveys,
and that the summary results would be fed back to them after analysis. Employees
were reminded to complete the questionnaire by a follow-up email a week later, and at
a whole-of-staff meeting the following week.
This process was repeated in April, 2003. This time the questionnaire was provided to 52
staff with a response rate of 29 (55%). The second and third surveys contained an
additional item on Perception of Change Communication to allow for testing of
Hypothesis 2. Prior to survey distribution, the CEO introduced the researcher to the
organisation at team meetings, and followed up with an email encouraging participation
in the research.
In order to address content validity of the questionnaire, the items were pre-tested by
one manager, a lower-level employee, and with a colleague external to the case. The
manager inside the organisation recommended some wording changes in the item
scale to improve understanding of the questions. These recommendations were
adopted in the final version of the survey. The colleague external to the case was able
to complete the survey without difficulty. Negative worded items were reverse coded
prior to the analysis. The final survey was administered in February, 2004. By this
stage the organisation had undergone significant staff changes, and so the final
response rate was 55% (n=19). The next section details the operational issues of the
ethnographic observation study within Tech D.
106
Tech D Observation
Throughout the two change processes, the researcher adopted the dual role of active
participant and observer of activities (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1983; Spradley,
1980). In Tech D, the researcher participated in the change team meetings, was
present at the management meetings, and attended team meetings. It was common for
the CEO to introduce the researcher to visitors as his ‘academic mentor’ and to use the
researcher as a sounding board and reflective counsel. On the days the researcher was
on site, there was use of ‘hot desking’ spaces, as desk space was of a premium. This
provided the opportunity to experience many different views of the organisation
through chatting with ‘neighbours’. During the meetings it was commonplace for
participants to have notepads and be taking notes, so the researcher was free to write
down statements verbatim concerning change communication, without making the
participants conscious of being recorded. This approach was more difficult in the
informal settings such as the tea room, or chats in the corridor, and so the researcher
would often make excuses to disappear and quietly note what had been said regarding
change communication and change receptivity.
The CEO used the researcher to assist in strategic level planning and evaluative
exercises, and when on site the researcher would assist the technology diffusion team
in their strategic planning activities. As part of the ethnographic observation activities,
the researcher had access to the email system, intranet and organisational documents
such agendas, meeting minutes and memos. This process allowed for the cross-
matching of organisational events with observed reactions towards change.
Highsales Focus groups
During July and August 2003, four focus groups were conducted. A total of 21 staff
107
members participated (38% of the organisation) with the smallest focus group
consisting of three participants and the largest involving eight, and covered the four
departments in the organisation. Like the procedures in Tech D, managers were
excluded from the focus groups in order to enable people to participate in full and
frank discussion about the change issues. The duration of each focus group varied
from 45 minutes to 70 minutes, and the focus groups were conducted in meeting
rooms on site. All focus groups were audio-taped and transcribed before analysis. One
focus group was delayed owing to a difficulty in organising focus group composition.
The group’s team leader was demonstrating resistance to both the changes and the
focus group and resigned during the first four weeks of the field study. This focus
group was delayed six weeks to allow for the new team to settle.
Again, after the tapes were transcribed, interpretive summaries were presented back
to all of the participants. All groups agreed with the representations, with one
participant asking for a quote to be deleted as it may have identified her. This process
was repeated during February 2004 (n= 20, 30% of the organisation), and later in July
2004 (n = 16, 32% of the organisation). The existence of Scheduled Days Off (SDOs)
and reduction of permanent workers made it increasingly difficult to acquire larger
numbers within the focus groups.
The same four questions used in Tech D were used in Highsales in order to bolster the
replication logic across the cases; however the probe questions differed depending on
the emergent ideas from the first case. By the time the focus groups were being
conducted in the Highsales, the researcher had the benefit of the knowledge of what
happened in the first case-study and so was able to test emergent ideas from Tech D
within Highsales. Once the focus group participants signed off the interpretative
108
summaries, the researcher provided a verbal report to all the team briefs on the
aggregated findings. The responses from these briefings provided opportunity to
check on the validity of the analysis, and the confirmatory responses and continuing
interest from the participants suggest that the research interpretation was both
plausible and representative of the subjects’ understanding of their experiences.
Highsales Survey
The same process was followed on entry to Highsales. An email from the manager of
the business unit was distributed to all staff asking for co-operation, and the internal
newsletter featured a segment on the research. The survey was sent to 53 employees
with a response rate of 66% (n=35). Again in order to address content validity of the
questionnaire, the items were pre-tested within the organisation by two employees.
The employees inside the organisation recommended some wording changes in the
item scale to improve understanding of the questions. These recommendations were
adopted in the final version of the survey and thus construct validity enhanced (Yin,
2003).
This survey was repeated in January 2004, (64% response rate, n=33) and in July
2004 (response rate 54%, n = 27). On both occasions, repeated reminders were sent
using the email system. By the second wave, participants had commented on the
wastefulness of stamps and envelopes in using the mail-back envelopes. It was agreed
to use the internal envelopes. The researcher attached one to each survey with her
name on the internal envelope. The staff member responsible for collecting the
internal mail to be distributed to the internal mail department was alerted to hold all
envelopes addressed to the researcher. This approach appeared to work well. While
mail-out surveys are usually characterised by low response rates (Sekaran, 1992;
109
Zikmund, 1997), within Tech D the responses ranged over the three years from 54%
to 64%, and within Highsales the response range was 55% to 65%. The higher rate of
returns may be attributed to the beneficial effects of the increased rapport driven by
the ethnographic observation activity.
Highsales Observation
In Highsales, the researcher worked within the process improvement team and was
involved with creating process maps, and documenting changes in the business
processes. The researcher also participated in call monitoring of the sales center,
creating communiqués and training material for the change consultant, ‘spiked calls’
(took messages from the call centre queue), participated in the management meetings,
and facilitated the employee improvement team. Again, desk space was at a premium,
so the researcher was nomadic, and this provided greater access to the employees in
natural settings. Having possessed a background in retail and marketing, the
researcher was able to undertake more activity within the second case-study. The
additional activity may also be attributed to increased comfort with the research
procedures after having already spent 18 months within Tech D. The previous
experience and developed understanding of the research question ameliorated
concerns of ‘am I capturing enough data or the right data’. Working concurrently
within two organisations also allowed for a continual refreshing of the cognitive state
of the researcher and served as a daily ‘reality check’. Swapping organisational ‘hats’
acted as a deterrent to complete immersion, and the analysis being compromised by
subjectivity.
110
Measures
As noted in Chapter 2, it was difficult to find a specific receptivity to change survey
instrument within the literature. Thus, this survey utilised two dimensions – change
openness and change readiness (as measured by capacity to change) within the
quantitative studies. Within the survey instrument three variables were measured: 1)
Perception of organisational capacity to change, 2) Openness to change, and 3)
Perception of change communication. These shall now be described.
Perception of Organisational Capacity to Change. There is a body of literature that
suggests successful change implementation may be dependent on a work environment
that reflects innovative practice (Zammuto & O'Connor, 1992). Perception of
organisational capacity to change was assessed using a set of items adapted from
Gordon and Cummings (1979). The 4-item questionnaire measured employees’
perceptions of organisational capacity to change using a 5- point Likert scale (1 =
never, 5 = always) and the questions can be found in Appendix 7. Question one asked
whether senior management responded to new opportunities. Question Two asked
whether the respondent considered the organisation ‘a leader’ comparative to other
organisations. The senior management within Tech D perceived that this question
would be ambiguous as the employees would differ on their understanding of what
‘leadership’ meant. Thus it was adapted to included ‘Comparative to other
organisations is Tech D a leader in a) technology diffusion, b) in business processes,
and c) in adopting emerging technologies. Question Three examined the
organisation’s ability to respond to changes in funding and Question Four asked
whether the senior management team’s decisions were innovative.
111
Openness to Change. As one of the goals of the research is to measure change
receptivity over time, it was necessary to capture the data about receptivity to change.
Openness to Change was assessed using a set of items adapted from Klecker and
Loadman’s (1999) study measuring Principal’s Openness to Change. This scale was
originally adapted from Dunham et al.’s (1989) Inventory of Change in
Organisational Culture.
The 18-item questionnaire measured respondents’ attitudes to change with a 5-point
Likert scale (1=strongly disagree; 5=strongly agree) in response to a hypothetical
vignette. The adaptation involved developing a new vignetter specific to the case
studies. The vignette was developed in conjunction with the CEO of Tech D, and the
Manager of Highsales to describe the change priorities over the next six months and
can be found in Appendix 4. This approach was taken by Huang (1993) and then
replicated in Klecker and Loadman, (2000). In Dunham et al.’s (1989) original study
using the Inventory of Change in Organisational Culture measure, the principal axis
factor analysis revealed three factors, (affective, cognitive, and behavioural reaction to
change) each with six items. The three factor scales used by Klecker and Loadman
(1999) incorporating the adaptations used in this study are reported in appendix 1.
Factor 1 items measure affective reactions to change, factor 2 items measure cognitive
responses to change, and factor 3 items measure the respondent’s behavioural
intentions to change (Klecker & Loadman, 1999). Klecker and Loadman (1999)
assessed the reliability of the measures by using Cronbach’s (1951) alpha coefficient,
and all subscales used in their research were considered to have adequate internal
consistency (.82-.92). The reliability coefficients of each of the factors of change
112
receptivity scale within this study utilising Cronbach’s (1951) alpha was .65
(affective), .74 (cognitive), and .90 (behavioural).
However, as noted in Chapter Two, doubt is cast on the justification for the three
factors. In this study, the 18 items were subjected to an exploratory factor analysis.
The extraction method of principal axis factoring and an orthogonal (Varimax)
rotation was employed on the combined samples of returned surveys (Tech D n = 95;
Highsales n = 92).
Within Highsales, the initial number of factors extracted was five, determined by the
number of eigenvalues greater than one and they accounted for 77.5% of the variance.
However, 42.9% of the variance loaded on one factor (eigenvalue 7.72), and
subsequently all 18 items were averaged as the one factor (Appendix 5).
Using the same process with the Tech D data, three factors were extracted that
accounted for 65% of the variance. One factor accounted for 49.2% of the variance
(eigenvalues 8.86, Appendix 6). Subsequent analyses using openness to change used
an averaged mean of the 18 items, rather than the three factors noted in Klecker and
Loadman’ (1999) work.
Perception of Change Communication was assessed using a set of items developed for
this study from the deductive theoretical frames (monologic and dialogic change
communication) and can be found in Appendix 8. The 5-item questionnaire evaluated
characteristics of dialogic and monologic change communication. Monologic change
communication was assessed using two items, one question on top-down
communication, and another on the instrumental use of communication (Eisenberg et
al., 1999). The dialogic change communication was assessed both at peer level and
113
supervisory level on questions about listening and respect. The reliabilities of the
three scales described thus far are presented in Table 3.2 and 3.3.
Table 3.2 Tech D Reliabilities
Variable January 2002 January 2003 January 2004
Openness to change (OC) a =.92 a =.95 a =.84
Perception of organisations capacity to change (POCC)
a =.85 a =.81 a =.89
Dialogic change Communication (MEANDIAL)
Not available2 a =.72 a =.59
Table 3.3 Highsales Reliabilities
Variable June 2003 January 2004 July 2004
Openness to change (OC) a =.84 a =.90 a =.89
Perception of organisation’s capacity to change (POCC)
Not available * Not available Not available
Mean dialogic (MEANDIAL) a =.76 a =.67 a =.67 * Management declined permission to include this question
The scale for monologic change communication consisted of two items, (instrumental
communication and top-down communication). As neither of these items correlated,
the analysis occurred at item level. Finally, demographic information was collected in
relation to age, tenure, and gender and is presented in Table 3.4.
Table 3.4 Demographics of the Two Case-Studies (Range in Brackets)
Demographics Tech D
T1 T2 T3
Mean age 34.5 (23-59) 35.2 (24 – 58) 34.2 (20 – 56)
Mean tenure 3.13 (.25-10) 4.14 (.30 – 12) 3.95 (.50 – 14)
Gender
8 female, 34 male 6 female, 22 male 4 female, 12 male
2 This construct emerged from the first focus group and could be integrated into the Time 2 &
3 surveys
114
Demographics Highsales
T1 T2 T3
Mean age 32.80 (20-49) 31.10 (21-49) 33.28 (20-50)
Mean tenure 2.30 (.25 -13) 2.19 (.40 – 5.5) 1.98 (.10 – 6)
Gender 18 female, 17 male 15 female, 17 male 8 female, 16 male
Rationale
Now that the method procedures have been established, this section examines the
reasons for using the methods chosen. It is common to use in-depth interviewing and
participant observation in conducting process research (Dawson, 2003); however this
study replaces in-depth interviewing with focus groups and supplements the study
with surveys. The rationale for these choices will now be made explicit.
There were a number of reasons for choosing to undertake focus groups within this
study. The primary consideration was obtaining rich data necessary in answering the
research questions and the research aims. Focus groups provide the opportunity to
observe the interaction of the specific working groups (Morgan, 1997) and
additionally, offers an indication of the dialogic processes in action. One of the
hallmarks of process based research is the exposure of the multiple perspectives, and
certainly scholars have argued to diminish the one-dimensional aspect of change
receptivity (Piderit, 2000). The use of focus groups enabled the collection of several
perspectives about the same topic and highlights the communicative dimensions of
change. As Chapter Two notes, there has been very little research on change
receptivity at a group level, and the transcripts from the focus groups provided
opportunities to scrutinise pronoun usage (‘we’ talk as opposed to ‘I’ talk).
Additionally, focus groups allow the interviewees to be more in control and gives the
participants the opportunity to comment on what they feel is most important rather
than being prompted by the interviewer (Krueger, 1994), and this approach improves
115
the rigour of the study. Finally, the use of focus groups allows for the efficient
collection of greater quantities of rich data. The quality of such data is aided in this
case by conducting the focus groups in the employees' environment (Morgan, 1997),
and the necessity of rich data for theory construction has already been expounded.
From a pragmatic perspective, the use of focus groups was necessary. In Tech D,
many of the staff were involved in external consulting or project work; logistically,
the co-ordination of individual interviews would have been time intensive, and
impractical. The use of focus groups contributed to a more open sharing of
information, as in both cases they had their friends and colleagues around them and
interacted naturally with each other, as opposed to being conscious of the researcher
in a one-on-one interaction.
Ethnographic Observation
In this study, the researcher was an ‘overt’ ethnographic observant in both cases. All
of the employees were aware of the researcher’s status, and the nature of the research.
Data collected by ethnographic observation answers the research questions by
anchoring findings to observed or documented behaviour in context, as opposed to
general statements of attitude (Pettigrew, 1992) and assisted in identifying crucial
communicative implications of continuous change. In this way, the researcher was
able to search for incongruence between the ‘official story’ told in the focus group
and the ‘unofficial way’ (for example scrutiny of emails within the ethnographic
observation stages). With participant observation the researcher is immersed in the
experience, collapsing the traditional separation between subject and object of study
(Yin, 2003). In both case-studies, the researcher was provided unfettered access to the
organisations and was present at both formal and informal meetings, in order to study
116
the prevailing cultural symbols and artefacts such as organisational documents. Such
access allows for the improvement of internal validity through triangulation of data
between the interviews, focus groups, formal correspondence, internally conducted
surveys and observations. This type of ethnographic observation has elements of the
ethnographic tradition and this ensures the capture of the rich data required for new
theory construction.
Not only did the ethnographic observation provide data from which the research
questions could be answered, it also accelerated the rapport building necessary for the
conducting of the focus groups. For example, as a socialised participant of the second
case organisation, the researcher knew that ‘important meetings’ were signified by the
quality of food provided. Hence, it was imperative to provide enticing food (for
example, pizza, and muffins) to establish the importance of attending the focus
groups. However, the provision of food would have been incongruent with the
cultural norms of the first case-study, as adherence to time and schedules was a more
important organisational cultural value than eating in meetings.
The primary concern in regard to such close association within a case is the potential
for capture or ‘going native’ (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1983), where the researcher
becomes so immersed in the research setting that they are unable to provide any level
of objectivity in both reporting and analysis. The secondary concern is the ethical
considerations of observing individual behaviour. However, as noted earlier, working
in the two organisations concurrently (eg Mondays Tech D, Tuesdays, Highsales)
allowed for daily refreshment of the mental state. Further efforts were made to
minimise this concern through the recording of chronologically ordered field notes
and the keeping of a research diary to maintain objectivity. Additionally, like others
before (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991), the involvement of experienced researchers
117
external to the study (such as the supervisory team) as detached investigators assisted
the researcher with regard to issues of objectivity and provided a method of
overcoming such threats to validity. Ethical concerns were addressed through
informing staff within the work area of the aims of the research. The research had
approval from the QUT Research Ethics Committee. So while the ethnographic
observation work was deeply time intensive, and subject to potential capture, it was
also rewarding in important rapport building, the search for incongruence and
convergence amongst multiple data, and rich data on change processes.
Organisational Surveys
As already noted, few studies have gathered empirical data on changes in critical
attitudes before and after an organisation change effort has been initiated (Weber &
Weber, 2001). For this reason it was determined that data could be collected to
measure change receptivity over the process of change and provide ‘temporal
bracketing’(Langley, 1999). This strategy assisted in cross-comparative analysis.
These data collection points (Time 1, Time 2 & Time 3) created a temporal boundary
to contain the other data collected. One of the main strengths of using surveys is that
information can be gathered about what people are thinking, with less effort and
expense than many other data collection methods (Sekaran, 1992). The benefits of a
self-administered questionnaire are that these are easily distributed to large numbers,
and they also allow anonymity, which in turn indicates a more valid data set.
Data Analysis In order to organise the data, the data was collated in an in-depth narrative for each
case. A narrative uses the raw data to construct a detailed story (Langley, 1999) and
often provides context for the analysis (Pettigrew, 1985). The in-depth narrative is
118
high in accuracy, but usually used as an intermediate step in developing analysis. In
order to assist in cross-case and within-case comparison and analysis the quantitative
data points were used as temporal brackets. The temporal brackets provided a
structure to the process data, which was useful, both in being able to compare phases
of the change, but also to report back to the organisations. The next section expounds
the analytical tactics used with each data collection activity.
Procedures
In keeping with the alternate templates strategy (Langley, 1999), following
transcription of audio tapes, the focus group discussions were analyzed through the
use of deductive first order and second order codes and emergent codes, and reflective
comments (Miles & Huberman, 1994). As all the coding was conducted by the
researcher, there was no need to conduct tests of inter-coder reliability. It was
necessary to test the interpretation of the data with the subjects and this process is
explained further on.
The first order coding occurred by using the key words from the research question
(continuous change, receptivity, and change communication). This technique allowed
the further elaboration on sub codes within these categories. These were displayed
using a matrix with illustrative comments. The second order codes comprised of the
three alternate templates (monologic, dialogic and background talk) used to elaborate
on what was occurring within the change communication. The transcripts were
scrutinised for evidence of monologic change communication and dialogic change
communication (Eisenberg et al, 1999). To analyse the monologic themes, text that
contained themes of ‘top down’, ‘instrumental’, ‘one-way exchange’, concerned with
‘managerial control’, intent on ‘providing stability’, focussed on the ‘provision of
119
information’ were included. These segments of text were underlined with red pen. A
clean printout of the transcripts was then scrutinised for evidence of dialogic change
communication. This process included text that contained themes of ‘relational, rather
than hierarchical’, ‘creating change’, ‘constructing new realities’, ‘two-way’, ‘
concerned with a ‘spirit of inquiry’, intent on producing more change, based on
principles of ‘risk’, ‘vulnerability’, ‘empathy’, and ‘conflict’. These pieces of text
were underlined and highlighted in green pen.
Early analysis of the Tech D transcripts revealed little in the way of either green or
red coding, and therefore a ‘surfacing’ code (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) emerged. A
surfacing code identifies new categories within the data. From the communications
perspective one cannot ‘not’ communicate (Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967). In
the absence of monologic and dialogic themes, another communicative process had to
be occurring. This surfacing code was the ‘background talk’ or the dominant frames
of reference within the informal talk occurring in the background. The Background
Talk consisted of the ways that the employees made sense of the change in light of
little monologic and dialogic change communication. This became the third Alternate
Template following Langley’s (1999) strategy. Accordingly, another clean printout
was produced to analyse in terms of what were the dominant frames of reference in
use for the change process. Codes were developed to label how the participants were
making sense of the changes. Much of this text revealed phrases and close proximity
parsing concerning or prefaced by terms such as ‘grapevine’, ‘gossip’, ‘rumour’, ‘did
you hear’ and ‘somebody said’. This work was conducted with a purple pen. It was
important to work from clean transcripts each time, as the three theoretical frames
were not mutually exclusive, that is, in an interpretive study the same piece of text
may be able to be labelled with multiple codes.
120
Once the three versions were completed, the colour coding was integrated onto the
same document in order to uncover overlaps and clear examples of each template, and
look for relationships. The overlaps provided opportunities to examine ‘disconfirming
evidence’, and further interrogate the data for examples of negative cases and
alternate explanations (Devers, 1999). Again these codes were collated using a matrix.
Within Tech D, the first order matrix was presented back to the focus group
participants for integrity checking, and within Highsales, an interpretive summary was
written that incorporated the information from the first and second order matrices.
Surveys
The survey data was analysed using SPSS after each collection. Descriptives were run
to check for incorrectly entered data, and missing data was coded. One-way ANOVAs
(Stevens, 1996; Vogt, 1999) were conducted to determine the change in the openness
to change, perception of organisation’s capacity to change, dialogic change
communication and monologic change communication between Times 1, 2 and 3
within both organisations. Post Hoc Tukey’s were conducted on the results that
displayed a significant result. Tests of binary correlations were performed to evaluate
the relationship between perception of organisation’s capacity to change and openness
to change, dialogic change communication and openness to change, and monologic
change communication and openness to change.
Ethnographic Observation
The researcher created a table to log the ethnographic observation notes and emails.
The table consisted of three columns: date, data, and label/coding. The label/ coding
column represented a label given to a document collected, or codes based on the
theoretical frames used. The table provided a chronologically ordered log of change
121
communication such as emails, memos, newsletters, discussions, discourse, language
and expressions pertinent to the communication during change at the case-study. The
researcher log was then scrutinised for individual and group level findings, as well as
sweeping through for evidence of communication during change that could be
classified using the three alternate templates. The ethnographic observation phase was
critical as it provided access to non-public documents. Being embedded in the
organisations allowed for observation of the frequency and timing of the
communication of change and experiencing the employees’ responses to the change
communication as it occurred.
Conclusion
This chapter has detailed the research objectives and outlined and explained the
research methodology. The development of the case-study design and the necessity
for longitudinal research was explained and justified. The sampling and data sources
were made explicit to explain how these strategies would yield the best data to answer
the research questions. The data collection procedures and justification for doing so
were detailed. In order to demonstrate the trustworthiness (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) of
the research process, the analytical procedures were expounded.
One of the key aspects of this chapter has been the development of methodological
rigour through the use of multiple methods to enhance the construct validity (Yin,
2003), and the adoption of the ‘Alternate Templates’ strategy (Langley, 1999) in
building process theory, the return of interpretive focus group summaries, and the
concurrent cross- comparative research design to bolster external validity (Yin, 2003).
The last two strategies have seldom been reported, and provide an example of
122
research exemplars when conducting interpretive research, in areas where little is
known.
The next chapter provides an in-depth focus on the analysis from the findings from
the Tech D case-study. It presents a series of narratives that address the contextual
issues of the change process and uses the alternate templates as a framework for
reporting the results. The qualitative studies are integrated with the quantitative
studies in chronological order as illustrated in Figure 3.1.
123
CHAPTER 4
Tech D Findings & Results
Introduction
The previous chapter detailed the methodological approach undertaken in order to
examine how change communication impacts on change receptivity in a continuous
change context. This chapter presents the findings of the first case-study in the format
of eight studies in chronological order of the fieldwork. The succession of individual
studies was previously illustrated in Figure 3.1. Congruent with Dawson’s (2003)
process studies, the case-study is described in order to provide a contextual
perspective. All names within the findings have been changed to preserve
confidentiality of the subjects. Within each time period the survey results are reported
first to establish what happens to openness to change over time and the relationships
between the key variables of change communication, and change receptivity measured
as openness to change. Then, in order to obtain rich data on the processes of change,
the focus groups results are reported. Finally, the findings from the ethnographic
observation study are reported in order to offer data triangulation and alternative
explanations within the case-study. Langley’s (1999) ‘Alternate Templates’ strategy is
used to ground and analyse the qualitative data and thus the findings are reported
using the monologic change communication, dialogic change communication and
background talk of change as organising constructs. This framework will enable the
findings from the second case-study in Chapter Five to be compared with this chapter
in the Discussion chapter (Chapter Six). The next section describes the access to the
124
organisation.
The Case
As noted in Chapter Three, Tech D is a public sector organisation established to assist
in improving SMEs with the introduction of new technology. The researcher began
just after the entry of a new CEO to the organisation. Strongly influenced by Peter
Senge’s (1990) work, the CEO’s explicit goal was to create a learning organisation.
He believed a researcher on site would assist in developing the learning culture and
would be useful in providing feedback in relation to evaluation of the change effort. In
keeping with continuous improvement concepts, the researcher was the ‘check’ part
of the ‘plan – do – check – act’ cycle. The next section reports on the findings from
the first survey, the first round of focus groups and the ethnographic observation
activity within Time 1 (January, 2002 – September, 2002) to elicit information
regarding change communication, change receptivity and the contextual demands of
continuous change
Time 1
Study 1: Survey, January 2002
The first survey was conducted prior to the main change process commencing. There
was a 64% response rate (n = 44) to the survey. The average age of respondents was
35.4 years. The organisation was predominantly male, so the mix of females to males
(8 females, 34 males) was proportionate to the overall population. The respondents
possessed an average tenure of 3.13 years with the company. The means of the key
variables of the study are reported below.
125
Table 4.1 Means of Key Variables at Time 1
Variable Mean SD
1. Openness to change 4.16 .50
2. Perception of organisational capability to change
3.11 .68
3. Dialogic change communication not collected at T1
not collected at T1
4.a. Instrumental change communication not collected at T1
not collected at T1
4. b. Top Down change communication not collected at T1
not collected at T1
Results
Research question five asked what happens to openness to change over time. In order
to answer this, data was collected in order to compare at Time 2 and Time 3. The
survey results indicated a reasonably high openness to change (4.16) at Time 1.
Hypothesis 1 suggested there would be a positive relationship between openness to
change and the perception of organisational change capability. Contrary to previous
literature (Cochran et al., 2002; Weber & Weber, 2001), there was no correlation
between perception of the organisation’s capacity to change and openness to change
(r =.026, p = .860, n =44) and thus no support for Hypothesis 1. As this finding
contradicted previous research, the issue was highlighted as a finding that would need
to be explained in subsequent ethnographic observation activity.
Data was not collected on change communication in this first study as the construct
was not developed until after the first round of focus groups. Thus Hypothesis 2 could
not be tested until the second survey was conducted and reported. The next study
reports on the findings of the focus groups conducted in February 2002.
126
Study 2: Focus groups, February 2002
The first set of focus groups was conducted to ascertain what was occurring
regarding organisational change, the participants’ perspectives on the change
communication and the participants’ feelings about the process. The findings of the
first focus group were initially perplexing for the lack of monologic and dialogic
change communication evident in the transcripts. This result initiated a deeper
analysis to understand what was occurring in the absence of monologic and dialogic
change communication. Further analysis led to the detection of an emergent third
template, the background talk of change. The construct consisted of the different
frames of reference and framing discourses the participants used to make sense of the
change in the absence of monologic and dialogic change communication. This third
template emerged as a critical element of the communicative process and thus was
used in the rest of the research protocol. As noted in Chapter Three, the data was
subjected to thematic analysis using the monologic and dialogic models as deductive
templates, and the background talk as an inductive template. These are now reported
on separately to outline the impact each model had on change receptivity and the
change process.
Monologic Change Communication
The monologic themes evident centred primarily on the normative expectations of
monologic change communication and the absence of monologic change
communication. The primary focus of employees’ perceptions of change
communication was what ‘should’ occur with transmission of information. All of the
groups stated that there were insufficient and ineffective formal channels to relay
information about change.
127
There are intended formal channels, but people come back from a meeting and say ‘not much happened’. A lot did, but it’s not communicated, therefore more work is required on the formal channels, they’re not working.
(Focus Group A, Time 1)
The lack of use of the formal channels for information dissemination left some
participants unsettled with the early changes such as the redundancy of the entire
marketing department.
My only thought on that would be the departure of the marketing department. It wasn’t really explained to us. Well I suppose [the CEO] did send out an email – but it wasn’t really explained to us what was happening, like the marketing department, it was gone.
(Focus Group B, Time 1)
Yet, the findings indicated there were very clear expectations that monologic
communication was necessary and the characteristics of the linear perspective of
communication dominated. Despite the concern that there was insufficient monologic
change communication, it transpired there definitely was some top-down, one-way
communication occurring.
Given up [trying to provide feedback] - it’s a one way valve. (Focus Group A, Time 1)
It seems to be totally restructuring at the moment. Getting rid of some staff members, not really entirely sure of which way it is going, from the information that has come down to us…we’ve been told that TECH D is a series of silos and that is going to change.
(Focus Group C, Time 1)
One of the focus groups provided an interesting display of monologic competences
and censure. A debate began on the role that employees should have within change
and to what extent they should be involved in the strategic direction of the
organisation. The debate was ended abruptly when the Personal Assistant (PA) /
Human Resources (HR) adviser to the CEO declared, ‘And staff aren’t involved and
nor should they be as far as I’m concerned’. After the focus group, one of the younger
and newer employees confided to the researcher that she was reluctant to speak her
mind openly when the PA was around. The PA’s demonstrated monologic
128
competence prevented further discussion on the topic.
The overwhelming impression from this round of focus groups was there had been
very little in the way of top- down, one-way, instrumental communication, much to
the chagrin of the participants. The lack of information on change was proving
counter to improved change receptivity, as anxiety about the uncertainty in relation to
the strategic direction of the organisation increased. The participants were very clear
on what they expected in terms of change communication, for example, frequent
information about the change process from the top management. Unsatisfied
communication expectations led to an escalation of the discontent with change. The
delivery of monologic communication was not aligned with the monologic
communication expectations.
Dialogic Change Communication
The literature in Chapter 2 notes that characteristics of dialogic change
communication include symmetry, risk, respect, and engagement. Accordingly, focus
group analysis concentrated on looking for examples of these characteristics and
examination of the relationships of change communication with change receptivity
and continuous change. The findings of the first round of focus groups revealed little
dialogic communication, and the presence of some dialogic expectations. Much of the
dissatisfaction with change resulted from the absence of dialogic initiatives such as
opportunities for feedback and trust building.
You have to have feedback in there, that’s just pure communication! The morale might pick up if he [CEO] was more honest with us
(Focus Group A, Time 1)
Aligned with expectation of the feedback and the trust necessary in dialogic change
communication was the concept of listening and voice.
129
I wouldn’t expect then to make a democratic decision but at least considered … I think it is positive to voice our opinions, cause basically we don’t get a say in anything.
(Focus Group B, Time 1)
It was clear that the new CEO was introducing a dialogic approach, even if the middle
management were not supporting the attempts by limiting the reports back to the
organisation to only five minutes.
We spent all day at Bardon [cross-functional strategic planning day] and then reported back five minutes to our team, not an easy thing to communicate. Talkfest? No, it was quite constructive.
(Focus group A, Time 1)
The introduction of dialogic change communication was evident in the discussions
about the CEO’s personal competences.
He comes about quite regularly and says ‘g’day’, he’s very approachable…he definitely doesn’t make himself scarce.
(Focus Group B, Time 1)
Yes, well it was a discussion with [the CEO] that made me realise that you can get in and make this place need you a bit more and create a job for yourself
(Focus Group C, Time 1)
The Information Technology (IT) staff were keen to use the intranet to generate
discussion, and launch innovative initiatives from within, yet were frustrated by the
lack of use of the potentially dialogic forum.
People should make an effort. It works both ways, y’know
(Focus Group E, Time 1)
Overall, there was scant evidence of the dialogic change communication in the first
focus group other than reports of the CEO’s intent and attempts at initiating dialogic
forums. However, intent and attempts were not sufficient to create dialogic change
communication. The lack of dialogic competences of the employees prevented this
from occurring. There were some dialogic expectations in terms of listening, feedback
130
and honesty, but these were not as forceful, or frequent as the monologic expectations.
One of Watzlawick et al’s (1967) axioms of communication is ‘one cannot not
communicate’, so despite the protests of the focus groups participants of ‘ there is no
communication’, the data was scrutinised further to ascertain what was happening in
the absence of monologic and dialogic change communication.
The Background Talk of Change
The use of the term ‘background talk’ in this thesis emerged within the Tech D case-
study. It was observed that the informal talk (gossip, grapevine and rumours) going on
in the background of the change efforts was taking prominence over the conversations
at the foreground of change. With the lack of foreground conversations, employees
were relying on the background talk to make sense of what was happening. The
primary site of sense-making was the grapevine activity.
We’re pretty much out of the loop most of the time, the only time we hear anything is when we bump into somebody in the corridor.
(Focus Group E, Time 1) Our main source is the staff morning teas.
(Focus Group C, Time 1)
The lack of foreground communication led to a number of frames of references being
used to make sense of the rationale for change and to assist in coping with change.
There’s a fear about – from people coming and going, and then there’s the rumours. Which old fella is going to go next? [I’ve] only been here three months, so last in, last out policy? It hasn’t been to date - we’re eating them from both ends!
(Focus Group A, Time 1)
The participant, who revealed his concern about being the next to be made redundant,
above, quickly retreated behind bravado, and the others joined in.
131
Prior to that [starting 3 months] I’ve been self employed, so it doesn’t really worry me. Doesn’t worry me either, if they don’t want me, I don’t want to be working here. I’m much the same, doesn’t worry me. Absolutely not that it bothers me, but I could see how it might bother others.
(Focus Group A, Time 1)
This discussion was not an isolated occurrence. Others said similar:
Well of course it’s gonna make you ask – who’s next? But seeing as we are on the last two months of our contract it’s not likely it’s gonna be us. But there are people here with real concern, I mean last week there was some rumour flying around that 10 people were going to be retrenched, and so people are genuinely concerned.
(Focus Group C, Time 1)
Another participant focused on his employment contract as a method of avoiding
engaging with his feelings about change.
Well from my personal view I don’t really care cause my contract comes to an end in another couple of months time so I’m not the really the best person to ask. If I was staying here long term, I reckon I’d be a bit sad about it.
(Focus group C, Time 1)
The rise of the background talk can be attributed to the lack of monologic change
communication. Caution was given to the lack of information and the problems that
background talk can cause:
Unless you are doing that [providing information] the perception that all is happening is that people are getting sacked.
(Focus group C, Time 1).
Survival and the metaphors of naturalism provided another enduring frame of
reference.
Culling. Weeding. Weeding yeah. It’s unfortunate but a healthy part - when you are gardening, you’re always picking off the leaves to help the tree grow. I think it also relates back to having a commercial focus and making sure there are no overlaps.
(Focus Group B, Time 1)
132
These framing discourses provided a strategy to manage their change receptivity.
When survival influenced the framing discourse the participants responded with a
stoic acceptance of the changes. Another strategy to improve the change receptivity
was to reframe the change as continuous improvement. Most rejected the use of
continuous change in the research as the term had negative connotations.
I don’t think of continuous change, I think change just for the sake of changing, y’know change for change sake…personnel turnover.
(Focus Group B, Time 1)
I don’t necessarily concur – change improvement, not continuous change.
Not change for change sake. Change is a buzzword. Change doesn’t sound secure. Or positive.
(Focus Group A, Time 1)
Some saw continuous change as ‘looking at everything to see how they might do it
better’. For others, continuous improvement was preferred as ‘everyone can work
with continuous improvement cause you are making things better’ (Focus Group A,
Time 1).
In summary, while the analysis of the monologic and dialogic templates revealed
limited evidence of either change communication model in the data, it was established
that the employees possessed monologic expectations, and the lack of information
about change was negatively affecting the change receptivity in terms of increased
discontent, and cynicism about management’s ability to manage the change process.
The primary initiator of dialogic change communication was the CEO, and there was
a low level of dialogic expectations emerging from the staff. The CEO’s dialogic
competences were appreciated by the employees, but those competences were not
evident in other managers. In the absence of these two change communication
models, the background talk filled the void. The primary framing discourses were of
133
fear surrounding job loss, naturalism of change, and the reframing of the language of
change.
Study 3: Ethnographic Observation, January – September 2002
The next section provides a contextual narrative designed to provide political and
contextual orientation to the organisation at the beginning of the study. It is a
summary of the major events that occurred during the first ethnographic observation
period. Prior to commencement of the field study, Tech D received a new CEO, who
was previously a director of the Tech D Board. With an entrepreneurial background
spanning forty years, he had transformed a number of private sector manufacturing
companies. Inspired by organisational development ‘gurus’ such as Senge (1990) and
Katzenbach and Smith (1994), the CEO had previously successfully accomplished
major transformations through the use of process improvement, teamwork, and
participative work practices. The CEO was also a ‘captain of industry’, with extensive
experience leading a large industry association, a dominant interest group responsible
for contributing to Federal and State policies on innovation, technology, and
manufacturing. While not inexperienced with political liaison and negotiation in terms
of the public sector, the CEO was primarily used to leading private sector companies.
In the beginning of the change process, the CEO was clear on what he wanted to
achieve during his contract. The first objective was to drive the organisation towards a
commercialisation focus - ‘I know where you need to go and I’m not telling, you
have to get to that yourself…commercialisation’ (field notes, 3/3/02). He wanted a
purpose that was ‘harsh and clear’ and decided that a strategic review workshop was
the appropriate place to start in testing the environment, purpose, and opportunities.
134
Other key initiatives were to make the organisation an ‘exemplar to industry’, one that
is ‘continuously learning’. He understood Tech D to be ‘a boat at sea that required
some of the planks to be changed, with no time to come into dry dock and make the
changes’ (field notes, 16/02/02). Tech D had to make the changes in difficult
circumstances, while moving forwards.
He personally selected the participants to the strategic review weekend in order to get
a cross-section of the staff, ‘vertically mobile participants’. In some cases he asked
subordinates to come without asking their managers, and this was distressing for some
of the managers used to strong bureaucratic vertical structures. The CEO’s style was
transformational, and intent on open communication, and this was a stark contrast to
the earlier CEO who had led the organisation for the previous 10 years. The CEO,
however, possessed a very rapid decision making cycle. He processed ideas by talking
about them and this cognitive style was confusing and stressful for the staff as they
were often left confused by each iteration of his thought processes. ‘It’s a bit all over
the place, [the CEO] is indecisive and bouncing ideas off others – but I think he’s just
about hit it now’ (field notes, 5/3/02). Clearly the organisation was embarking on a
journey of continuous change, and the setting valuable for analysis of the multiple
perspective of the change process. The next section uses the three change
communication models to review the field notes from the ethnographic observation
and the documents collected over the first nine months.
Monologic Change Communication
Congruent with the focus group findings, the findings from the ethnographic
observation found low levels of monologic communication initially. With a
background in using high participative work practices, and empowering employees,
135
the new CEO claimed not to see managerial control as a high priority. The effect of
the lack of monologic communication in the early days was that it heightened
curiosity, tension and excitement about the upcoming changes, as evidenced by the
excited chatter in the tea room. Initially, the uncertainty produced by a lack of
communication about change was liberating for most of the staff, given their previous
experience with a controlling bureaucratic style of manager and lack of change.
However, as this situation continued, the lack of information appeared to stress the
staff and this led to many staff members casting doubts as to the effectiveness of the
new CEO. The consulting engineers, in particular, had expectations of monologic
communication, preferably in a step-by-step plan, yet were highly sceptical of
management’s ability to deliver this. The PA told the story that after one meeting, as
the consultants walked out of the room, they shook their heads laughed and said
‘management had no [expletive] idea’ (field notes, 03/02/02). Yet, by the beginning of
March, there had only been one CEO briefing, and two emails to all staff, bolstering
the consulting engineers’ beliefs.
The first all-staff briefing was in March, after the strategic workshop. While the CEO
was clear on the vision ‘everything we do is exemplar – what I mean is a commercial
culture and true excellence’, his visual aids were poor, the speech rushed and the
message was not clear. Some redundancies were announced and the staff were visibly
shocked, quietly cynical and not trusting. In May, the CEO met with all the staff again
to reveal a restructure. Again it was rushed, and the room remained silent when asked
if there were other questions. It was six months before another official staff briefing
took place: this, too, was to announce another new structure and further redundancies.
However, the organisation was not totally devoid of monologic communicators. Two
136
key participants stood out. The PA/HR advisor to the CEO had a very strong
monologic style. This was necessary in many cases, as it was her role to send out
information that was clear and unequivocal. However, her continued reliance on
monologic change communication possibly ran counter to the intended aims of the
CEO. It was very difficult to access the CEO with ideas of a new organisation, when
the gate keeper spoke of stability. She identified that other middle managers were
acting as restrictive gatekeepers and preventing change; ‘The problem is with middle
managers, they are not passing on information, its management’s fault – not filtering
down’ (field notes, 5/03/02).
In April 2002, when one of the more popular staff was made redundant, the PA sent
an announcement email to all staff. However, the tone of the email was terse and it
arrived five hours after the staff member made redundant had sent his own farewell
email. The subsequent discussion in the tea room revealed that the gap between the
announcement from the redundant staff member and the organisational announcement
did not impress the staff. It appeared to be crisis management and this aspect
highlighted the importance of timeliness of monologic change communication.
Another monologic communicator was a young, ambitious, Consulting Engineer
(Jonathon). He was initially earmarked by the CEO for a leadership role in the change
early on. Jonathon was quick to criticise and condemn, having worked for other global
MNCs, and was very concerned with being seen to be powerful. In his first two weeks
as leader of the change team, he was very concerned with who should be able to be
involved in the time team; ‘We should have the power to say who speaks at our
meetings and when’. After the April redundancies, he was in ‘telling mode’ within the
cross-functional change team; ‘You need to say….’ (field notes, 19/04/02). The team
responded indifferently to his commands, preferring to discuss the issues associated
137
with job loss more fully.
In August there was still discontent with the lack of communication with one of the
Time Team [change team] members noting,
‘Currently there seems to be a lack of a quick and easy way to communicate information to all staff. There are several channels available to provide information but is [sic] either under utilised or involve a time delay before the information is distributed. What is needed is central area where staff can be notified of any new information or news quickly and efficiently.’ (email, 24/08/02).
The proposed solution was an active desktop management tool. However, this
initiative petered out.
In a bid to increase the channels for information dissemination, the Time Team
initiated a staff newsletter in September. These were known as the Time Team Times
(TTT) and were sent out monthly. The only other formal channel of information
dissemination was the infrequent whole-of-staff gatherings. In November, the CEO
gathered all the staff in the conference room, to announce the dissolution of the
central sales team. The sales team had been given the opportunity to reach their
budget, however this was not achieved. This speech included the news of more
redundancies.
In the December TTT, it was noted that it was still necessary for management to
address all staff more regularly. However, it was noted by a number of staff that
because the CEO addresses were about redundancies, whole-of-staff meetings were
associated with the negative consequence of change. Thus, while the employees had
demanded more top-down information, the content of that communication was
inevitably bad news.
The focus groups revealed there was little in the way of dialogic change
138
communication occurring. One of the reasons for conducting ethnographic
observation studies is the opportunity to search for incongruence between the ‘official
story’ told in the focus groups and the ‘unofficial way’ within the case. In this case,
while there was certainly limited dialogic change communication occurring, there was
perhaps more than the focus groups revealed. The next section examines to what
extent the dialogic change communication was apparent.
Dialogic Change Communication
The CEO was acutely aware of power symmetry in communication exchanges. Even
when he sent out an email to inform staff of the upcoming Strategic Review Weekend,
he tried to alleviate the asymmetry by saying:
‘I am sure some of you will be disappointed at not being able to participate directly in the workshop. I apologise for not being able to make the group larger but feel the group selected is able to represent your views.’ (email, 29 /1/02 ).
The very next day, one of the consulting engineers (Thomas) sent an email to the
CEO and cc’d to all staff offering his resignation based on the fact that he believed he
was being fraudulent as an officer of Tech D in promising things to clients that he did
not believe that Tech D was capable of doing. The email served to highlight a number
of problem areas within the organisation; in so doing, others spoke of being slighted
by his condemnation. However, this action initiated a dialogue. The CEO responded
to the email by inviting Thomas along to the initial Strategic Planning workshop. The
workshop did not prove as useful as the CEO would have hoped. It was in essence a
dialogic process, but the participants were not dialogically competent, for example
able to respect each other’s position, actively listen, tolerate risk, and or empathise
with others. They perceived they had too much at risk politically to admit to what they
did not know. The CEO asked the email author to speak to the group regarding his
139
email, the CEO then thanked him and said, ‘I didn’t have a problem with anything
that you said, I thought the way you delivered it was a little unusual’. The CEO then
spoke to the importance of focussing on being a learning organisation, of focussing on
communication and how the lessons from the Senge’s Fifth Discipline could be
applied to the different sectors.
At drinks after the planning workshop, the CEO says of the email:
‘It was immature, it was inappropriate, it was career limiting, it wasn’t worth wrapping your neurones around, well except three neurones to say the bloody shit’s right.’(field notes, 3/2/02)
The CEO continued the exchange and sent a clear message to those present that it was
acceptable to take risks and express dissent. On return, the CEO gathered all staff
together, and detailed what the outcomes of the workshop were in the form of an
action plan and task list. He followed this up with an email announcing the creation of
a cross-functional change team.
The CEO intended the Time Team to be a dialogic forum. It was a cross functional
team designed to drive change through the organisation from the bottom up. Their
role was to understand the whole picture and communicate an ‘in full on time’
approach to their business services. The CEO instated ‘Jonathon’ as leader of the
team. Being very task orientated, and possessing a monologic style, Jonathon
presented a tension within the team.
Jonathon said: ‘There’s certain things that will be scary, and we shouldn’t talk too
much about that’ (field notes 11/03/02). Others protested that the team was not about
censure, it was about opening up discussions, questioning and gathering feedback in
informal settings. In other meetings, team members wanted to bring in one of the
managers to discuss progress of a particular initiative. This manager wanted to stay
140
for the whole meeting, yet the monologic leader protested: ‘We should have the
power to say who speaks at our meetings and who doesn’t’ (field notes, 20/03/02).
However, the remainder of the group was sensitive to power considerations and
recognised the potential for the group to be perceived as an elite task force and not
accessible by others. By May, there was a change in leadership of the change team
and Thomas (the author of the dissenting email) was appointed as the new leader. This
change signified a greater focus on the people considerations of the change, the
anxiety, the guilt, and the anger experienced as a result of the changes. Thomas also
introduced a code of conduct which explicitly stated procedures for conflict
resolution: ‘Conflict resolution is at first conducted through thorough and open
explanation (and listening) of points of view’, and ‘we will not personally criticise
individual employees’ (TT minutes, 21/06/02). However, the TT maintained an
ordered task focused agenda, rather than a site of conversations that created change.
Towards the end of the month, a leadership discussion was attempted off site. It was
facilitated by an OD (organisational development) consultant engaged by the CEO in
previous transformations. However, the lack of dialogic competences of those in the
organisation prevented true engagement. Instead, the consulting engineers became
increasingly agitated at the ‘waffly’ nature of the day, and were very uncomfortable
with open-ended process. Again, the CEO implored staff to read Peter Senge’s’ work
and Katzenbach and Smith so they could get on board with the concept of a learning
organisation. Nobody did. Apart from these aspects, there was little other evidence of
dialogic themes.
141
The Background Talk of Change
Owing to the lack of information coming through about the changes and the lack of
opportunities to clarify what was occurring, the sense-making of change was largely
influenced by peers and interpretations of symbols of change such as the resignation
letter and the organisational silos.
Actually [manager x] took the time to spend an hour with me explaining it all, and once he did that, it made a lot more sense, where we were supposed to be going (field notes, 13/12/02).
Thomas’s resignation letter was a major symbol of the change process. Many staff
reported feeling belittled by what he said and resented the ‘finger pointing’. Others
concurred with the sentiment and stated ‘the problem is with the middle management
– they’re not passing things down’. One of the members of the first change team
noted ‘A lot of people don’t believe in us internally and that will require a lot of
culture change’ (field notes, 11/03/02).
Another key symbol of change was the ‘silos’ formed by the different functional
divisions within the organisation. Many of the changes were seen as either reducing
power or as power gain for the silos. The sales team and consulting engineering staff
were heard crowing over the demise of the marketing team. As one senior manager
commented, ‘organisational silos are as durable as industrial concrete – easy to put
together but hard to break down’ (field notes, 19/11/04). The organisational silos
created ‘them and us’ discussions with strong identification with the original
functional groups and was most notable with the consulting engineers.
The strategic planning weekend was one of the first events to discuss change, but
some things were ‘undiscussable’ in the formal sessions. Concerns about
redundancies were nervously joked about around the dinner table, and others openly
142
challenged other colleagues about their value to the organisation over drinks. A
number of staff were heard loudly proclaiming their love of change. After the
weekend, one tried to understand the nature of continuous change:
‘I know it is horrible to keep saying everything is on hold - but feeling like everything should be halted until it is even more relevant. I don’t mind continuous change but you can’t put your life on hold’ (field notes, 4/3/02).
Others openly debated the tension between commercial intention and public service
charter. ‘Just because we are not for profit doesn’t mean we are not commercially
slick’. Yet this comment agitated a number of the older staff, who argued that they
worked for Tech D out of an altruistic purpose, to serve the faltering small to medium
firms within the manufacturing service. Again, the lack of dialogic competences left
these tensions unresolved.
However, by May, there were several managers made redundant, and with no
information going out about redundancies, for example the reason or the timing, there
were rising feelings of mistrust and betrayal. Though as one employee pointed out,
‘with an average income of $80,000 a year, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work
out the quickest way to fiscal stability’ (field notes, 31/05/02).
The disquiet with the redundancies gave way to confusion and anger as teams were
restructured and people changed roles. The OD consultant brought in to run the
workshop bore the brunt of the frustrations. The purpose of the workshop was to
establish a common vocabulary of change and smooth the process of restructuring.
Nevertheless, in discussions afterwards at a drinks session, the external consultant was
castigated over his process orientation and lack of structure by the consulting
engineers. Ironically, the importance of word choice and the language of
organisational change became very apparent once the employees started to reframe
143
the change effort. Purportedly, the insistence on using the term continuous
improvement was to maintain their commitment to the change goal. In an email
(3/9/02) to the change team it was argued:
In TTT [a change newsletter] it says the purpose of the Time Team is to help the organisation in its Continuous Change goal. Can I propose that we endeavour to have the goal changed to Continuous Improvement? The reason why should be self-evident.
However, in so doing, the use of the continuous improvement terminology restricted
the scale of change. By refusing to engage with the concepts associated with
continuous change, the employees ensured that the organisation maintained a very
steady, slow and incremental pace of change.
In conclusion, the findings of the ethnographic observation study concurred with the
findings from the focus groups. While the initial survey indicated a high openness to
change, the evidence gathered from the focus groups and ethnographic observation
study suggests it was so not as high, with many examples of change cynicism,
disappointment, concern and resistance. In the absence of monologic and dialogic
change communication, the background talk provided opportunities to clarify and
provide information through the provision of sense-makers and interpretation of the
symbols of change, regardless of the validity of the interpretation of some of the
symbols. The next section reports on studies 4, 5 and 6 encompassed in the second
time period of the study.
Time 2
Study 4: Survey, January 2003
In January 2003 the survey was distributed to 52 staff and the respondents were asked
to mail back the survey in self-addressed envelopes. The response rate was 29,
comprising 55% of the population. The respondents had an average age of 35.29, six
144
were female, 22 were male, and one did not identify gender. The earlier fear
expressed about ‘last on, first off’ may have been correct with the average tenure
increasing from 3.13 to 4.14 years. The means of the key variables are reported in
Table 4.2.
Table 4.2 Means of Key Variables at Time 2
Variable Mean SD
1. Openness to change 3.84 .56
2. Perception of Organisational Capability to change
2.78 .62
3. Dialogic change communication 3.51 .56
4.a Instrumental change communication
3.09 .75
4. b Top Down change communication
3.31 1.03
Hypothesis 1
Like the first survey results, there continued to be no relationship between the
subjects’ perceptions of organisational capability to change and openness to change (r
=.239, p = .212, n =29). The evidence from the ethnographic observation study
suggests that this can be explained by the consulting engineers believing themselves
to be above the management team in terms of competence and delivery. In this way
their sense of self efficacy is tied to sub-culture, not organisational capability.
This was the first survey where questions regarding the change communication were
able to be used. The monologic items consisted of instrumental communication and
top-down communication. Hypothesis 2 proposed that there will be a positive
relationship between both monologic and dialogic change communication and
openness to change. It was interesting to note there was no significant correlation
between either of the communication measures and the openness to change as
145
illustrated in the following table.
Table 4.3 Correlations of Change Communication Variables with Openness to
Change
1 2 3 4
1. Openness to change 1
2. Top Down Change Communication (Monologic) .081 1
3. Instrumental Use of Change Communication (Monologic) -.001 .355 1
4. Dialogic Change Communication .237 .112 .159 1
N = 29.
Given the implied link between communication and organisational change, this was
surprising, and needs to be explored further in the qualitative study. The next section
reports on the findings from the second round of focus groups.
Study 5: Focus Groups, February 2003
The findings of the second focus group continued to concentrate on the background
talk of change as there was still little in the way of monologic and dialogic change
communication occurring. Like Study 2 and Study 3, the Alternate Templates are
used to order and categorise the findings.
Monologic Change Communication
Similar to the findings of Study 2, there was a continued lack of monologic themes
with a corresponding expectation of monologic change communication. This situation
intensified the frustration with the implementation of change.
For me at that point in time, it was a place full of hope. Everyone had a spring in their step cause [the CEO] did. There were lot of promises being made then, and we’ve gone through this high, just through disappointment and frustration cause of the things we’ve mentioned.
146
So there were high expectations developed but no follow though, and no communication as to why there were delays so it was frustrating.
(Focus Group A, Time 2)
The participants believed that part of good change communication was the provision
of stability through clear documentation and the participants showed an extreme
aversion to improvisation and experimentation. This belief clearly demonstrated an
expectation of a rational and linear model of change.
A lot of change was not well documented. It was just piled higgledy-piggledy. Sort of: try this – didn’t work, try that.
(Focus Group A, Time 2)
It would just be nice to know where we are actually going and how we long we’ll be about for, sort of thing.
(Focus Group D, Time 2)
In the two weeks prior to the focus group, the CEO had stepped up the monologic
change communication with additional emails and visits to team meetings to fill the
vacuum that ensued.
There are periods of just void. I’m sure he [CEO] was busy, but he probably didn’t have a clear path forward so he wasn’t communicating anything…But now he is making a lot of effort to come in and talk at our team meetings. I think we’re basically being told... sort of basically what [the CEO] knows.
(Focus Group D, Time 2)
At this point, in the absence of information about change, it was not unusual for the
middle managers to attempt to fill the void. This action resulted in the success of the
change effort being dependent on individual communication competences rather than
institutional processes.
Kevin, sort of …it was almost as though, enough is enough, if nothing is going to come down, we’ll take the bull by the horns and we’ll do our own thing…once we had seen that top management had failed in my mind, I think they [middle management] had to step up and run with the ball. I’d say that Kevin perhaps truncates stuff to what he sees as important, and it may not always be what you see is important. But he’s extremely good at communicating what he expects to us.
(Focus Group A, Time 2)
147
One such institutional process was the Time Team. Despite being established to
generate change, the employees saw it more instrumental in passing on messages of
change and as a ‘useful tool for pumping communication channels back down to
people on the ground’. However, the responsibility of ‘controlling’ the flow of
information was disturbing to some of the team members: ‘[the CEO] tells us in the
time team, he says you know that’s between us, don’t filter it down yet’. Thus the
time team (a dialogic process) was commandeered for monologic purpose.
In summary, the monologic template in the second round of focus groups revealed
that there were high expectations of stability and information. The requirement for
information was more likely to be met by individual managers, rather than the cross-
functional change team, despite their reflection on how useful it could be in
disseminating information.
Dialogic Change Communication
The findings of the second round of focus groups revealed a number of barriers to
dialogic change communication. These included conditions that impeded satisfactory
change conversations such as the lack of reporting mechanisms and feedback cycles,
and the inclusion of pseudo-dialogic factors. Both barriers created negative attitudes
and emotions to change.
The first barrier identified was the lack of reporting mechanisms and feedback cycles.
We’ve got no real input into a managers meeting, that’s how it gets on [CEO’s] desk, through management meetings.
But does anyone see any fundamental flaws in this or should we discuss, at least have an opportunity to have input if you so desire.
(Focus Group A, Time 1)
148
The substantive considerations of change also impacted on dialogic exchanges. Fear
of redundancies prevented staff from entering into exchanges with the CEO.
I mean I can send him an email, but not everyone in the organisation wants to put their hand up, especially when they have laid off 15 people in the last two months.
(Focus Group A, Time 2)
I think some people are reluctant to communicate openly [for fear of retribution].
(Focus group B, Time 2)
The concern of public scrutiny could be a reason for the lack of use of the discussion
board on the intranet noted in Study 2.
Yeah, their name is attached to any comment, and anyone can read that comment. I guess there’d be a lot of people that have lots of things to say on email, personally to each other but they wouldn’t want everyone else to know…
(Focus Group E, Time 2)
Similarly, the process of change did not appear to be ‘people focussed’ and this was
contrary to dialogic principles. Other problems transpired when managers were not
perceived to be listening.
Not listening. I don’t think there is a good reporting mechanism back, because there is a lot going on, and [I] would never suggest that they’re ignoring things, but they have probably got other issues really taking their attention away. There’s no reporting mechanism as such for this sort of stuff.
(Focus group A, Time 2)
This comment reflected a theme consistent across the focus groups where there
appeared to be a pseudo-dialogic process whereby the managers would appear to be
listening, but not really listening – or not following through on issues raised.
Certainly he listens, but whether he follows anything. (Focus group B, Time 2)
Maybe they decide on what they hear, they might listen but whether they hear it all…
(Focus Group E, Time 2)
149
Honesty and secrecy were two factors preventing dialogic engagement. Several of the
group members were unhappy with the amount of confidentiality that had to occur
within the Time Team, and this had a silencing effect on dialogic communication. As
one group member pointed out: ‘As long as there’s real honesty people accept bad
news more readily’ (Focus group D, Time 2).
Despite participants recognising there was a void in information, and a lack of
feedback mechanisms, it was paradoxical that they continued to recognise that the
CEO was very accessible and open. Again, the change communication was dependent
on individuals, not institutional processes.
I have found that [the CEO] is prepared to walk, he seems to make a point of sending you an email, and then you’ll see him flitting around, chatting about the weekend, but what he is doing is making sure that he’s there to get feedback, and he’s making himself available, so if you have an issue or a comment, you’ll get it to him, so he is actively collecting.
(Focus Group A, Time 2)
Overall, the use of the dialogic change communication template revealed a number of
issues that acted as barriers: namely, a lack of dialogic forums for feedback, fear of
redundancies preventing open communication, and a lack of genuine engagement
from managers. Contrary to these findings, the CEO was recognised for his dialogic
competences.
The Background Talk of Change
The background talk of change continued to dominate the change process. The
employees focussed on survival to achieve a forward momentum.
I suppose the end result is whichever way they go, the team will survive.
(Focus Group A, Time 2)
150
Survival. Well I guess they realise if they don’t pull together, no-ones going to be
here tomorrow…we’re in a repair situation.
(Focus Group E, Time 2)
The vacuum of information created by the lack of monologic change communication
meant that people turned to other sources to make sense of the change, regardless of
whether those providing the information had the complete picture.
I heard from one of the[division A] people, told me as we were coming out of the lunch room that I hear from another source that is, you know, you wouldn’t think it would come from that section that [division B] is going to go up for sale too, after [division A]. That was news to us.
(Focus Group B, Time 2)
In particular, the financial status of the company dominated the background talk.
[about rumours of insolvency] I thought it was really bad the employees weren’t told first…so you get all these Chinese Whispers going around the place.
(Focus Group B, Time 2)
I’ve been dealing with accounts a lot and the fear of who’s going to have a job in a few months, because of from where I was, I couldn’t see where the money was, because we never had money, and it was just really frightening to think, how are they going to do a pay run every fortnight and pay all our debtors.
(Focus Group A, Time 2)
Though as one participant intoned, the background talk rarely advanced receptivity.
You get a tremendous breeding ground for all those sorts of rumours and those rumours are invariably very, very dark.
(Focus Group D, Time 2)
It was common to see competing tensions between frames of reference such as
strategic versus operational issues, then and now, and public service duty versus
commercial tension. Participants debated with each other as to how to make sense of
the problems of change.
It’s a pity that operational staff, which is what we are, don’t make a dollar, so to speak, have to worry about…I get the feeling that you are all worried about the big
151
picture, like the big vision, like the operation unit should have their own objectives. And it’s a pity that you carry this weight on your shoulders of the company. We don’t have a choice though. Why? Because we carry the weight and you carry the company’s success on your shoulders because if the companies not successful, you don’t have a job. That’s what a lot of people will always see; they’ll always look at the bigger picture. But it’s a pity that that is your day to day concern, like why isn’t the… Well maybe if there’s more communication from the senior management down and saying ‘yes, we are doing okay, yes we don’t need to worry about this stuff’.
(Focus group E, Time 2)
Others clearly wanted no engagement with higher level strategic issues.
A lot of it has got to do with [government funding body] funding, which for me, I don’t feel I have to worry about that side of it. That’s not my job to get funding. That’s what their guys do. And I know that we benefit from it. But as Jerry said, we just get in and do our work. So when he talks about the getting all the funding and everything… We don’t need to know the mechanics of it. No. We just need to know that it’s going to come through, or not going to come through. Yeah, that’s right, so sometimes if he talks about funding and that, and I don’t understand, I just stand and listen. Smile and nod.
(Focus Group B, Time 2)
Finally, participants remained acutely aware the importance of using the appropriate
language for change.
I don’t think it’s so much that the particular words upset people, is that they have a problem with the implied meaning. Continuous change, because there is no direction, you change without improving…and the same with ‘market failure’, it’s not that…it’s got economic connotations but to the ignorant person, no I shouldn’t say ignorant person – but to someone who’s not familiar with that terminology…but the average person whose going to be making the funding decisions will see market failure and think oh shit – we’ve got limited funds, I’m not going to go through them at something that’s not going to break even…
(Focus Group A, Time 2)
In summary, the analysis of the monologic and dialogic templates continued to reveal
little of either change communication model evident. The employees’ monologic
expectations had escalated to a need of stability and information, and they offered
examples of dialogic barriers. The CEO remained the primary source of dialogic
change communication. The major framing discourses were of survival, financial
status and competing tensions between strategic and operational orientation, and
152
public service duty and commercial inclinations. The import of the language of
change remained a key consideration.
Study 6: Ethnographic Observation, January – December 2003
This section addresses the findings from the ethnographic observation data from
January 2003 to December 2003. As in the first study of ethnographic observation, the
substantive and contextual issues of the change process are summarised and then the
findings from the alternate templates are reported.
January was quiet with many staff on holidays. On their return in February, the
employees relocated to the ‘west wing’ of the premises. The move was primarily a
cost cutting exercise, as the top floor and front reception area could now be leased out
for income generation. The secondary consideration was that by situating all of the
staff in an open plan area, communication and relationship building would naturally
occur. February brought dissatisfaction amongst staff and a lowering of morale as a
result of continued changes. Two of the staff resigned. A management meeting was
convened to discuss the issue of declining staff morale.
In March, a major piece of capital equipment was sold due to its being obsolete
technology. This sale was a highly symbolic event as it signposted the importance of
commercial considerations and operating at a profit.
During the months of February to May the organisation was in a state of flux. One of
the divisions was being sold, and the PA was adamant that there was no point in doing
core work until it was sold. Despite her frustration, changes continued to be
introduced. In May, the CEO met with another OD consultant to address the soft side
153
of change such as the people issues and cultural change, in his own words the
employees were described as ‘the walking dead’ (field notes, 29/05/03). The
emotional state of the company was not helped by the announcement of the
resignation of Thomas. This time the resignation was more than a protest. Despite
being framed as a positive change, and with management blessing, the change
unnerved a number of staff (field notes 03/06/03).
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 14:11:15 +1000 From: ‘the CEO@Tech D.com.au> Subject: Congratulations Thomas Thomas has been offered an outstanding opportunity to join the executive team at [company x] to assist in their exciting growth plans. While very sorry to loose [sic] Thomas, who has been an integral part of Tech D for many years, it is a pleasure to see people moving through Tech D to become part of the best and brightest companies in our region… …Thomas will be leaving us at the end of June. Congratulations, The CEO.
There were a number of conversations in the lunch room over the implications of this
staff member leaving. Most of the staff were concerned that the ‘writing was on the
wall’, if long serving staff members were leaving then there must be real problems.
During June, the organisation continued to look at different structures and what they
would have to do to continue to receive funding. The contract of one manager was not
renewed when this came up, and one of the younger staff was promoted to his
position.
By July, the new team responded by developing a mission statement for themselves.
Discussion within the organisation continued via email, despite the organisation
numbering less than 35, and all being situated in a small area. The operational angst
was further compounded by uncertainty over the CEO’s position. In an unexpected
move, the state department responsible for Tech D advertised the CEO’s position and
reduced the original tenure of the role. The CEO had to reapply for his position, and
154
there were a few of the middle managers who applied for the same position. However,
in being successful with renewing his contract, it also signified a cognitive shift for
the CEO: ‘I can now go forward as a builder of Tech D’ (email, 23/08/03). The
impact of the redundancies had weighed heavily on the CEO.
The other focus in September was the introduction of a new Customer Relationship
Management (CRM) software program. This was a project that had been stalled and
started, and stalled and started for a number of years. Previously, when a product and
implementation was decided on, someone blocked the project claiming they had more
knowledge about CRM’s than those deciding, and it was held over for review.
October saw substantial resistance and blocking tactics to the CRM, the introduction
of job costing, and the new office layout. Many people continued to use spreadsheets
unrelated to the package as ways of working around it. Others noted an increasing
lack of inclusiveness in decision-making with the office layout being one particular
example. The working team did not approach anyone else for contribution. In
December there was a continued focus on the CRM implementation and the Time
Team was disbanded. The year ended with the PA resigning to go to another job after
being totally exasperated with the uncertainty of the organisation’s future: ‘Look you
just have to understand, these people need to be left alone to do their jobs – they have
had enough of change’ (field notes, 05/12/03). The next section examines the
prevalence of monologic change communication within this time period.
Monologic Change Communication
The majority of communication concerning change occurred via email as information
provision. While there were a few staff with strong monologic competences, the most
powerful, eg the CEO and the second in charge, stayed away from top-down,
155
unilateral information provision. Part of the reason for his avoidance of top-down
communication was that it was not congruent with the CEO’s natural style of
communication, and secondly, he did not feel he had information to give, given the
environmental uncertainty with policy stakeholders. As the middle managers were
also acting as gatekeepers of this information, a vacuum was created during the
change process and this contributed to the morale problems and discontent. The one
exception was within the division to be sold off. This division was led by Jonathon,
the previous leader of the time team, who possessed very strong monologic
competences. While this was perceived as aggressive and bullying by others, in
context of this work group who knew they were probably going to be sold off, his
direct provision of information assisted in their need for knowledge about what was
going to happen to them and thus improved their receptivity to change.
In February, a management meeting was called to discuss the problem of low staff
morale. As one division manager was going to be absent, he emailed the PA/HR
officer with a list of concerns his staff had to be taken to the meeting. Her response
was terse and swift and indicated that the management team should not be bothered
with petty considerations. The company was in trouble and as a manager he should be
managing his people better. The exchange prevented any further discussion and
devastated the group. Later that week, one of that team members said, ‘The managers
don’t want to hear about morale, when the bomb drops the bomb drops – you just
have to ride through it’ (field notes, 20/02/03).
Email was being used by the CEO to communicate congratulations.
‘Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:31:17 +1000
From: ‘The CEO’ <the CEO@Tech D.com.au> Subject: FW: testimonial This new product has some great potential. A lot of work has gone into its development. The consulting team is powering on. CEO
156
The message was unilateral, and the purpose to provide stability. Likewise, other
emails encouraged commitment to change in a unilateral sense
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 08:19:42 +1000 From: ‘The CEO’ <.the CEO@Tech D.com.au> Subject: RE: Time Sheets Folks, I have made a commitment to our board that we will get this process under control v quickly. We currently have external accountants reviewing our systems and TIME SHEETS ARE A KEY FOCUS. Please don't let this slip.
These emails were typical of the types of information being sent ‘down’, and any
formal communication of change was invariably by email. One such formal
communication was the announcement of the sale of one of the divisions.
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 13:16:07 +1000 From: ‘The CEO’ <.the CEO@Tech D.com.au> Subject: [division] sale/license Last week the Audit review committee signed off on the process we will follow in the sale or license of the [division] facility. I expected to be able to circulate the draft advertisement on Thursday last but the minister needs to briefed on the final documents before this can be released. As soon as I have the ok I will circulate info to you. This has all taken at least a month longer than planned but we are still hoping to have the tendering process completed towards the end of June. The CEO
After the sale, the CEO set about addressing the physical workspace in order to
improve communication. Though the email was one-way and top-down, the tone
reflected a spirit of inclusion and uncertainty, and it was apparent he still struggled
with pure monologic change communication.
----Original Message----- > From: The CEO > Sent: Thursday, 7 August 2003 1:37 PM > To: _Tech D-staff > Subject: making us comfortable at [location] You may have heard that it is likely that the area we occupy at the Western end will be redeveloped around 2007or 2008. Perhaps we will move back to the Eastern wing or a new site at [location]. But that's at least 4 years away and in the mean time, now that we have secured working capital to support growth, from the sale of RP &T, it’s time to re-structure the area we occupy so as to make us, and the new people we will need to recruit, as comfortable as possible. I would like to put a working group of 3 or 4 people together to manage this process and while I have not given this detailed thought, the only parameters we should not
157
consider changing are the outside walls. (But of course it makes sense to utilise existing offices as appropriate)… … First thing is to form the working group and have it develop the terms of reference.
So in summary, the CEO increased the use of email as a way of increasing top-down
information to employees, but only when he was positive about the content of the
emails. These were satisfying to the employees as evident in the focus group where
they mentioned that the CEO had improved his communication. However, this was
not his sole approach – he continued to include dialogic themes in his top-down
communiqués. The next section addresses the dialogic change communication evident
in the second ethnographic observation study.
Dialogic Change Communication
There continued to be little in the way of true dialogic change communication, which
would have allowed further change and enabled the CEO to be a ‘builder’ of the
organisation. The main potential for dialogic action was the Time Team (TT) – the
cross-functional change team. However, according to the examples provided, what
transpired could be considered more as barriers to dialogic change communication.
Members of the second TT were increasingly frustrated and chasing separate agendas.
One member stated at the time of resigning from the team that ‘my sole goal was to
get the web site up and running’ (yet that reason for joining the team was never
disclosed in any meeting) (field notes, 15/05/03). By mid May the members of the TT
were depressed and negative about the future. One argued that the organisation had
become too flexible and too creative and the lack of structure meant there was no
consistent effort at change. After the sale of the division spun off and Thomas’s
departure, the second Time Team was disbanded and a new team was called for.
158
The result was a group with an interesting composition and, contrary to the previous
two groups, possessed no clear leader. Those who had been previously vocal in their
discontent of change joined. One member advanced Kotter’s (1995) eight points for
successful change on the Time Team and the expectation of planning and structure
continued. The new team responded by developing a mission statement for
themselves. Discussion continued via email, despite members often sitting within
metres of each other. The Time Team shifted to a focus on task completion and the
meeting minutes were addressed in a sharp perfunctory manner. It was rare to have
genuine discussion, though one that did occur was about the continued lack of
communication about change. Debate ranged on whether it was a cultural aspect or
whether it should be the management’s responsibility. It was clear a schism between
managers and workers existed.
One member commented, ‘I wouldn’t want to be the one who communicates to
management ‘you don’t value communication’’ , and as one member pointed out,
‘When you think about it, you say management needs to take responsibility, then they
are only going to communicate it down the line for others to do’(field notes 17/07/03).
The schism between management and employees appeared to be getting deeper.
Despite the discontent, the TT tried to resurrect the TTT [a newsletter] as a way of
improving communication and generating conversation about the change within the
organisation. However, the success of this effort was dependent on people
contributing to it and they did not.
By the end of July, the frustration boiled over in the TT in a debate over the
difference between first order and second order change. Phillip and Maree were
focused on time and task completion and they were reluctant to engage in discussion
159
of more difficult issues of change. Other members remained silent and non-committal.
Finally, one of the team (Sean) challenged, ‘I’m taking issue with the attitudes of the
people on this team not embracing continuous improvement’.
Phillip: ‘I take issue with that – you shouldn’t change for change sake!’ Sean: ‘I was very careful not to use the word change, it’s very different. I just don’t think the Time Team is prepared to tackle the big things’.
While this exchange may have had the potential to spark new understanding of what
change should be attempted, the team members chose to ‘agree to disagree’ (field
notes, 31/07/03).
The following month, the TT did not meet again, all avoiding the conflict that had
occurred at the previous meeting. The CEO was disappointed with this, but reluctant
to intervene. He felt if the TT was not able to stand on ‘its own legs’, then it should
not exist. Despite this belief, the TT asked him to attend to help them regain some
energy. At the meeting the CEO spoke of renewed commitment to the learning
organisation principles and that the current morale was ‘part of the ebb and flow of
the dark days’. He implored the staff, ‘Let’s try not to find another word’ [referring to
the refusal to use the word change]. One of the quieter members burst forth – ‘For
Tech D to work, and to make it work, we need to be given direction’. The CEO
acknowledged with ‘we will be an exemplar, we are spending on people development,
and we need to be a learning organisation. Most important is our culture – it needs to
be an exemplar and full of openness’. However, this caused further derision
afterwards. The change team was fighting the concept of the learning organisation
every step of the way (field notes, 9/9/03). The time team members eventually
reported they no longer wished to be part of it as the team was not respected or
empowered to do anything. Indeed, one of the time team members was told by their
manager, ‘Look if you want something to change, see your manager and follow the
160
proper channels!’ (field notes, 29/10/03). Despite being initiated and empowered by
the CEO, the middle management team were frustrating the efforts.
The Background Talk of Change
The shift of the company to the west wing was made for both economic reasons and
to improve communication. However, not all staff saw the move in that way, and
certainly it was not explained as such. The receptionist was despondent: ‘It feels like
we have been shifted away to a corner and not where we should be…but if that’s what
we have to do to survive’.
The term market failure was being openly discussed in the lunch room, as one of the
divisions was aggravated by the use of the term. They perceived they were being
made to look like poor performers. The persistent use of the term ‘market failure’ was
inflaming negative responses to change.
One of the more curious discussions was that the CEO was too generous with
redundancy packages. Employees were resentful of the fact that staff leaving were
being given their work laptops, or allowed to use the work car in order to find other
jobs. Though as one manager commented, ‘The place is a mess. People’s attitudes to
change are affected by their love of material things, y’know, worried they’ll lose the
house’ (field notes, 20/02/03). Despite earlier insisting that ‘all you need to know
about change is control and planning’, he concluded, ‘Look, business needs to be
flexible and adaptive’.
However, for the most part, silence dominated the vacuum for the first three months
of the year. The after-effects of the sales team being made redundant had everybody
in shock, and there was a decline in the rumours: ‘so much change, too much to keep
161
up with. Everyone is paranoid about losing jobs’ (field notes, 6/3/03). The IT manager
reported that during these months, whenever the CEO sent out an email updating staff
on what the current funding status was, there would be a corresponding surge of
internet activity on recruitment sites (eg seek.com) (field notes, 20/02/03). At this
point the government cuts were uniformly being blamed for the redundancies, not the
management team.
However, many of the employees continued to talk of expectations that everything
would be clear soon and ‘we can resume normal programming’. Very few recognised
that continuous change was to be the norm. As the PA/HR officer said, ‘There’s not
much point doing core work until they sell’. This response assumed that after the sale
there would be ‘normal conditions’. In this sense, a refusal to engage with the idea of
continuous change was paralysing the change process.
In May, the new time team understood itself to be the ‘primary voice for change and
accountability’; however by the end of the year, the TT was recognised as a
‘Toothless Tiger’ (field notes, 7/11/03).
The employees divided into two camps. One camp were those who chose to endure
the changes in silence, and continue to do what they were told as an expression of
organisational stoicism. The other camp chose to be more involved, and critical of the
changes. Typical of the changes sought were better distribution of company cars and
keeping the front of the building clean. By speaking the language of continuous
improvement (for example ‘5 S’ and TRAC3), the employees actively resisted and
prevented the large scale organisational transformation required. Cynicisms and
3 continuous improvement programs sold to the SME’s to improve the manufacturing
industry
162
disinterest remained – with one conversation in the tea room heard discussing the role
of a new OD consultant introduced to the organisation.
So what’s she doing? Don’t know. Issues and stuff A big fat nothing – they have a whole bucket of dollars and they just have to spend it. Oh. Okay.
(Field notes, 17/11/03)
Yet a unique perspective on the role of management in change was afforded after the
new OD consultant ran a weekend workshop. The OD consultant involved preferred
the weekend not be under scrutiny and so the episode was not directly observed, but
relayed by one of the participants.
Well she was trying to get across the idea that we should be in partnership with the managers, not treating them as parents. And Ricky (consulting engineer) challenges her. He’s says ‘no, I want Jerry (manager) to tell me when I have to do something, how I’m going to do something, and if I’m going off track then he has to pull me up’. And so she (OD facilitator) says ‘Ok, well can you see how that might be an example of parent/child relationship’ and he says ‘Yes! – That’s what a good manager should be!’ Unbelievable, the fact that he is a highly paid professional seems to completely escapes him …but it’s so typical of how they think, there were others nodding!
This story highlights how far the consulting engineers were from dialogic engagement
and the development of dialogic competences. In conclusion, the findings of the
second ethnographic observation study again concurred with the findings from the
second round of focus groups and provided an explanation for the decline in openness
to change. After initially having high expectations about change, many were
disappointed with the speed and scope of the changes that occurred, as well as being
traumatised by the redundancies. The next section reports on the final two studies 7
and 8 encompassed in the third period of the study.
163
Time 3
Study 7: Survey, January 2004
The final survey was distributed in January 2004 to 33 staff and the respondents were
asked to mail back self-addressed envelopes. The response rate was 19 (54%) of the
population. The respondents had an average age of 34.29, five were female, and 12
were males. The average tenure was now 3.95 years with the company. The means of
the key variables are reported below.
Table 4.4 Means of Key Variables at Time 3
Variable Mean SD
1. Openness to change 3.73 .42
2. Perception of Organisational Capability to change 2.82 .64
3.Dialogic Change Communication 3.41 .79
4.a Instrumental change communication 3.14 .77
4. b Top Down change communication 3.89 1.19
Research Question 5 asked what happens to openness to change over time. The results
of the ANOVA conducted revealed that there was a significant decline F (2, 89) =
6.31, p < .05. Post hoc Tukey tests revealed the significant difference occurred
between Time 1 and Time 2 and Time 1 and Time 3 . A summary of the ANOVA
statistics is provided in Table 4.5 below.
164
Table 4.5 Summary of ANOVA statistics within Tech D
between Time 1, Time 2 and Time 3
Variable Source of Variation
Df F P
Measured at Time 1, Time 2 & Time 3
Openness to change Between Groups (2, 89) 6.13 .003
Perception of organisation’s capacity to change
Between Groups (2, 88) 2.71 .072
Only measured Time 1 & Time 2
Dialogic change communication Between Groups (1, 44) 1.036 .314
Instrumental change communication
Between Groups (1, 34) .04 .842
Top down change communication Between Groups (1, 45) .057 .813
There continued to be no support for a relationship between Openness to change and
perceptions of organisational capability (r =.045, p =.844, n =19). In terms of
Hypothesis 2, there continued to be no correlations between the communication
variables and the openness to change thus rejecting H 2. Had there been a greater
response rate, there may have been support for a significant relationship between
instrumental use of communication and openness to change.
Table 4.6 Time 3 Correlations of Change Communication Variables with
Openness to Change
1 2 3 4
1. Openness to change Pearson Correlation 1
2. Top Down Change Communication
Pearson Correlation .255 1
3. Instrumental use of Change Communication
Pearson Correlation .508 -.216 1
4. Dialogic Change Communication
Pearson Correlation -.024 -.026 -.113 1
165
N = 18
The next section reports on the final qualitative study.
Study 8: Focus Groups, February 2004
The findings of the final focus group indicated that after a heightened escalation of
monologic communicative demands, attempts to meet the needs by management were
rejected. This result may have occurred because at the same time the employees had
started to shift towards more dialogic change communication.
Monologic Change Communication
In study 8, the participants were more strident in their complaints about the lack of
monologic communication. They believed that top-down, one-way communication
about change would provide the much needed structure, but curiously when certain
staff members took on monologic styles, the participants were not satisfied, or ignored
the information provided. Clarity, consistency, frequency and timeliness were seen as
characteristics of good information transfer.
Yeah some of the communication coming from the top when it is being presented in the big group is not clear which is unfortunate. I think we need clear direction from the top as to where we are heading, clearly facilitating, so actually taking the initiative and facilitating that process.
(Focus Group F, Time 3)
Need to communicate that we are doing well or badly.
We don’t communicate how the company is going; we don’t communicate what the goals are or the targets.
(Focus Group A, Time 3)
There’s disorganisation and communication doesn’t get funnelled through.
(Focus group E, Time 3)
Frustration existed with the issue of control, in terms of who had it, and who didn’t
have control, reflecting the parent/child relationship highlighted in the previous
166
section of the second ethnographic observation study.
Nobody has been allocated, like you are the person in charge of making this a better organisation.
Someone who can kick when it’s required and praise when it’s not (Focus group E, Time 3)
These sort of things need to be driven from the top. You will do this on such and such a day and everybody will take four days to do this
(Focus Group G, Time 3)
However, another participant pointed out that this expectation was inconsistent with
the CEO’s ability to deliver.
I don’t think that’s [the CEO’s] style. It’s not bureaucratic and [the CEO’s] door is always open.
(Focus Group G, Time 3)
He, he has these visions but he’s not taking a top view that says this is what Tech D has to deliver in 12 months.
(Focus group A, Time 3)
But when some of the managers moved into monologic mode, staff were
discontented.
I guess lately from our point of view it’s sort of been bang you know, this is what you are going to be doing from now on and it was a bit of a shock…It was kind of she’s not being replaced, this is what you are doing now, which is fine what can you say?
(Focus group E, Time 3)
I don’t like being the recipients of thou shalt not do this, and thou shalt not do this.
(Focus Group G, Time 3)
We had a consultant helping us, who I didn’t think did a very good job because she broke everything onto task and then gave it back to people and said go work away in isolation, bring it back.
(Focus Group B, Time 3)
In summary, by the time of the third focus groups, the discontent with the lack of
information in the change communication had escalated the communicative
167
expectancies to demands and needs. The resulting discontent with the change
communication meant that any of the initiatives to meet those needs with matching
monologic change communication were not received well. It may be that the CEO’s
dialogic orientation was starting to ‘seed’ within certain groups as evidenced by the
groups requiring ‘discussion’, and wanting involvement around major changes, and
consciousness of control.
Dialogic Change Communication
The findings of the final round of focus group revealed increased consciousness of
dialogic change communication. The use of cross-functional problem solving groups
had created a division within those involved in the groups. Some really appreciated
the opportunity for involvement.
An example is the strat team working on the strategy, so there’s about ten, there’s a good cross section.
(Focus Group F, Time 3)
[the CEO’s] been very good at getting a lot of people involved in the planning.
(Focus Group A, Time 3)
Others felt that it was an example of management manipulation to avoid taking
responsibility for failed change initiatives.
I didn’t get the feeling it was a good collaborative effort (Focus Group F, Time 3)
One thing I’ve been involved in lately is this participation agreement group also. And while it started out as a good thing, as most things do, people have quickly become cynical about the whole process and in particular the way it is managed… There’s a bit of an uneasy feeling about that because it could become a scapegoat exercise that if something doesn’t come up there’s a group of people to blame and they’re fairly low down…
(Focus Group G, Time 3)
168
There was some concern that management was being instrumental in the change
communication, and creating a pseudo-dialogic approach.
I just thought shit that’s a good idea and suggested it to [the CEO] that we get flu vaccinations and he’s just given straight away that sounds OK, find out how much it costs, let me know. I did that, sent it back to him, [he] sent me back today ‘how can’, I think the question was, ‘how can we make this look like its come through consultation in a learning organisation?’, so I’m currently writing his email for him.
(Focus Group A, Time 3)
Participants were more relaxed with the idea of reflective practice, and could see the
benefits of discussions rather than being told what to do.
While we were going through the process, I think of exploring what we were here to do, who was Tech D as an identity. What was our role, you know in life?
(Focus Group F, Time 3)
There would have been nice if there was discussion before hand…but it was never discussed with what we actually have on our plate.
Like we openly talked about having meetings, we should have sat down and discussed what impact that would have had.
(Focus Group E, Time 3)
One participant cautioned that for communication to work, employees needed to take
responsibility for their role in the process.
I think there is a way of doing this [dealing with geographically separated teams], I think having them separated is there is the potential to get lazy, and out of sight and out of mind, so when you take a phone call that really should be referred to one of those guys down there before, or trying to bring them into it, you try, instead of thinking of them straight away, you think of we’ll handle it ourselves.
(Focus Group F, Time 3)
The growing recognition of the necessity for self-responsibility in change
communication was noted in other groups as well.
Of all the people who do the most whinging too, Jennifer, aren’t exactly people that run with the ball. They’re the ones that you know when there is movement going on or any hard stuff to be done you don’t see them.
(Focus Group A, Time 3)
Many were able to empathise with other team members and the CEO.
169
Must be difficult for those actually involved in it. Yeah you guys just had more work thrown on you and you were already busy to start with.
(Focus Group E, Time 3)
Evidently, by the beginning of the third year of change, the organisational members
had started to recognise the merits of dialogic change communication and demonstrate
some of the principles of dialogic change communication. However, as noted in the
previous section, this corresponded with the management team starting to
communicate in a monologic style.
The Background Talk of Change
The background talk of change continued to thrive, despite the monologic attempts by
management and the tentative shift in the dialogic orientation of the employees.
Central themes were staff leaving, ambiguity and uncertainty and the terminology
surrounding the Learning Organisation.
There was an expectation across all groups that it should be possible to obtain
certainty in the change plans, and accordingly they did not accommodate ambiguity.
It’s the uncertainty of it you know. (Focus Group G, Time 3)
The continued focus on change was perplexing and discomforting for many.
We’re still doin’ it, still doin’ it, and doin’ it, and it’s giving me the shits….things haven’t settled down yet, they’re still going.
(Focus Group E, Time 3)
The vacuum created by the lack of monologic and dialogic change communication
continued to contain a number of rumours, primarily about staff leaving.
A comment came out yesterday, by a few people was, what happened to Victor? Why has Victor left? Yeah that didn’t get communicated. Why did he leave? There’s a thousand science fiction stories going around.
170
Is [department x] still around? There’s another question. (Focus Group E, Time 3)
You hear a little, few filtered down remarks through the management committee, but it might directly affect you but you’re still waiting to find out what the latest is. I’d say communication is still an issue.… and it’s funny finding out something from someone in a group completely unrelated to you… finding information out that’s related to you from someone who is completely unrelated to the project or task that you are actually doing so the communication channels are very adhoc as well.
(Focus Group G, Time 3)
Without the opportunity to check and clarify stories, ‘truths’ were exaggerated, and
‘facts’ escalated.
We’ve had a HR consultant come in and sit in the office and not speak to a single person in the organisation over three or four days. So that whether he’s working on procedures or not, I don’t know but as far as I can see that’s money spent that wouldn’t have you know, affected us operationally if it wasn’t spent, and it’s in a month where we obviously didn’t balance the books.
(Focus Group A, Time 3) For newer employees the confusion increased.
Well I’m a bit confused in relation to the financial situation because like hearing Donna and working accounts office and then going to meetings with [the CEO] and he’s saying we’re all in the clear now.
(Focus Group E, Time 3) However, longer serving staff members saw it differently.
There isn’t so much ‘woe is us, we don’t have any money’ anymore.
(Focus Group G, Time 3)
And the organisation continued to develop a dictionary of change language.
I heard a term used the other day…ah ‘background management’ and I reckon that applies… Who’s in the background? Whoever’s in the CEO’s office. It depends who’s in there. So what about learning organisation? Is that a buzzword?
(Focus Group G, Time 3)
When we sort of said don’t call it continuous change, call it continuous improvement, because change without focus is very counter productive. I think a learning organisation is just another way of improving, they I know it’s a fancy name for saying we want a better environment.
(Focus Group A, Time 3)
In summary, by the beginning of the third year of continued change initiatives, the
171
analysis of the monologic and dialogic templates revealed an intensification of the
monologic expectations, and an attempt by management to meet some of those
expectations. At the same time, there was a tentative shift to dialogic change
communication, yet there was not sufficient monologic or dialogic change
communication to suppress the background talk of change. The key themes of
background talk of change suggested that employee receptivity to change was
declining with an increased cynicism towards change and concern about job security.
Conclusion
This chapter has used a chronologic ordering of the eight studies to describe the
change processes with a state funded technology diffusion agency over two years. The
results from the surveys conducted annually suggested that the employees’ receptivity
to change when aggregated from individual responses was quite high at Time 1 and
experienced a decline to Time 2 and stayed stable for the next time period. There was
no correlation between change communication and the receptivity to change. The
ethnographic observation studies converged with the findings of the qualitative
studies and showed that for the most part of the two years there was a deficit of
monologic and dialogic change communication. In the change communication void
that ensued, the background talk of change dominated.
Rarely did the central themes of the background talk enhance or improve the change
receptivity, with the notable exception being the discourse of naturalism. Towards the
end of the study the employees started to display more dialogic expectations, at the
same time as the managers moved more to monologic change communication. The
next chapter uses the same analytic process to explore the impact of change
communication on change receptivity within a business unit of a GOC.
172
CHAPTER 5
Highsales Findings & Results
Introduction Similar to Chapter Four, this chapter presents the findings and the results of the
second case-study in the format of eight studies in chronological order as previously
illustrated in diagram 3.0. The chapter resumes with the ‘Alternate Templates’ as an
analytic strategy, and therefore, the findings continue to be reported in terms of
monologic and dialogic change communication and the background talk of change as
organising constructs. The framework of the eight studies allows the process of
change to be investigated over time. The use of the multiple methods provides
opportunity for data triangulation and the development of multiple perspectives of
change communication and change receptivity.
The Case-study
Highsales was created three years ago with Utilities United, in response to a
commercialisation agenda with State Government, and an attempt to be more
‘business like’. Highsales focuses on selling a range of related products through their
sales call centre, and contracts to six licensees to do the installation of the products.
Originally, Highsales was managed by the entrepreneurial marketing manager who
initiated the venture. After three years of declining profits, the CEO of Utility United
introduced a new manager, (Charles), whose mandate was to halt the financial losses,
improve gross margin, and in so doing, turn the business around within the next 12
months. This manager brought in an external consultant (Jessica) to act as change
173
agent and assist in achieving these aims. At four months into the initiative, Charles
was informed that he had succeeded in arresting financial decline, and was now
responsible for an ambitious growth target. Some of the changes introduced over the
12 months included redundancies, business process re-engineering, and culture
change. At seven months, Charles was seconded to a larger, more urgent project, and
one of the middle management team (Mary) was promoted to manager of the business
unit.
Time 1
Study 1: Survey, June, 2003
The first study was conducted after a round of redundancies and five weeks after four
divisions were moved to the one location. There was a 66% response rate, with the
respondents having an average age of 32.8 years. Of the 35 respondents, 18 were
female and 17 were male. The respondents possessed an average tenure of 2.3 years
with the Government Owned Corporation. The survey results indicated a reasonably
high openness to change (M 4.01, SD .38). As noted in Chapter Three, the question
regarding the organisation’s capability to change was not asked on account of
management veto. The initial score on openness to change will be revisited in Study 4
and Study 7 to answer Research Question 5.
Like the first case-study, there was no support for Hypothesis 2. It can be noted that
one of the monologic change communication items (instrumental change
communication) was close to being significant at .05 (at r = .325, p = .056). This
result suggests that the more managers use communication as a tool to get their own
way, the more open to change the respondents are. While this may initially appear
surprising, as it implies that the respondents recognise the utilitarian nature of the
174
change communication, it may simply be recognised as empirical evidence of the
effectiveness of instrumental communication. There is a positive correlation noted
between the two monologic (r = .382, p = .023, n = 35) items which provides some
support of reliability. The mean of top-down communication was 3.82, (SD .82).
There is a further significant negative correlation noted between dialogic change
communication (M = 3.51, SD = .66) and instrumental change communication
(r = -.359, p = .037, n = 34) and this suggests that the more instrumental the
communication, the less dialogic change communication occurs, although caution is
urged with interpretation of small sample sizes. This is not surprising; if managers are
using communication to ‘get their own way’, then trust and respect (principles that
underpin dialogic change communication) will be compromised. The correlations are
provided in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1 Correlations between Openness to Change and Communication
Variables Time 1
1 2 3 4
1. Openness to change
Pearson Correlation 1
2. Top Down Change Communication (Monologic)
Pearson Correlation -.066 1
3. Instrumental Use of Change Communication (Monologic)
Pearson Correlation .325 .382(*) 1
4. Dialogic Change Communication Pearson Correlation .000 -.104 -.359(*) 1
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
N = 35
The next table provides the means of the key variables of interest at Time 1.
175
Table 5.2 Means of Key Variables at Time 1
Variable Mean SD
1. Openness to change (OC) 4.01 .38
2. Dialogic change communication 3.51 .66
3. Instrumental change communication 2.91 .98
4. Top Down change communication 3.82 .82
The next study reports on the findings of the focus groups conducted in July 2003 to
establish how the participants were feeling about organisational change, and their
perceptions of the change communication.
Study 2: Focus Groups, July 2003
Contrary to the findings of the first case-study Tech D, the first round of focus groups
of Highsales provided considerable discussion on change communication. As the first
case-study had demonstrated a relationship between the background talk of change
and the monologic and dialogic change communication, the third template was
retained for use in this case-study. Analysis occurred via thematic screening using the
monologic and dialogic themes as deductive templates, and the background talk as an
inductive template. These templates are now reported on separately.
Monologic Change Communication
Monologic themes evident in the first focus group transcripts were asymmetrical
exchanges of communication (up/down), unilateral message transmission from
management to lower level employees, managerial control of information and change
processes, and a focus on the change media used for information transfer and
dissemination.
176
Prior to the arrival of the new manager, the employees possessed high expectations of
monologic change communication. The expectations were evident in every focus
group, and demonstrated by participants observations of what had not happened
earlier, such as information about redundancies, relocations and new job roles. There
was a clear understanding that this communication needed to come from above by the
repeated use of the word ‘down’.
The other thing that’s affected us with the change is the redundancies, that’s made a lot of people feel very insecure and should have perhaps been explained a lot more thoroughly to the staff…again a download to all staff.
(Focus Group A, Time 1)
Communication of management has to be passed down the lines.
(Focus Group B, Time 1)
But I still think that to a large degree key issues as far as change management goes and communicating those things to the lower levels and I’m assuming that this is a hierarchical process and it is not going to change those things don’t filter down to the lower levels where people can start to think about the future changes and the structural change (which obviously have got to happen) and I don’t disagree with that but I’m only saying that from the point of view that I don’t understand the change management process and I don’t know how it’s meant to work and how it’s meant to filter down, and feed down in to the other areas…
(Focus Group C, Time 1)
The asymmetrical nature of monologic change communication was also noted by the
Marketing group: ‘But we are not necessarily at that level and privy to that type of
thinking’. Additionally, they highlighted themes of unilateral transmission and
control. They noted that previously Highsales had been driven by one person, and
they lamented, ‘The thing is he didn’t necessarily let go of it…I felt he definitely felt
threatened but he was reluctant to give up control’. The previous manager engaged a
large consulting firm to assist in the initial strategic review which initiated the change
process. However, the employees perceived that they were subject to a one-way
inquisition and the participants were left ‘exhausted and drained, because there was no
177
feedback’. The strategic review left many staff feeling very isolated. Participants of
all of the focus groups concurred on this point: ‘You were never told anything…
there’s all these big hoo has, big bells and whistles and nobody ever explains what we
do’, to ‘it was not communicated and that was very stressful’, and finally, ‘we would
just get yelled at a lot’. Clearly, there was an expectation that in providing this
knowledge to the consulting firm, they deserved a level of reciprocity. The initial sole
use of monologic change communication and then withdrawal of information had
devastating effects on change receptivity.
However, once the new manager arrived, all of the groups noted satisfaction with the
delivery of information. The monologic change communication improved the change
receptivity by increasing the transfer of information. As a result, the employees felt
more positive about change. Prior to the new manager commencing, the lack of
monologic communication and information led to feelings of isolation, insecurity,
frustration, despair, cynicism and anger. Further, the lack of monologic change
communication impacted on the sense-making and the background talk of change. As
one participant noted the lack of information ‘lent itself to rumours’. Other
participants backed this response and noted the rise of gossip in response to lack of
information about change. The finding regarding the expectation of reciprocity with
the consulting firm hinted at dialogic expectations within the group. This is elaborated
further in the next section.
Dialogic Change Communication
Dialogic themes such as listening, inclusiveness, empathy, and a spirit of inquiry
emerged within the focus groups after discussion turned to the impact of the new
managers Charles’s arrival. One of the key principles in a dialogic exchange is that of
178
active listening (Bokeno & Gantt, 2000). All of the focus groups acknowledged that
Charles was notable in his ability to listen.
[the new manager]’s first week in, ‘right tell me a story what needs to be changed’ and unlike that particular person you were talking about, he takes it all in, and he is working through the changes you can see it and then you don’t get frustrated…. It helps me have confidence in, OK when I say something, if I say an idea that I’m listened to. Yeah, new ideas are being heard and considered and trialled and if it works then great.
(Focus Group A, Time 1)
It was a breath of fresh air!
(Focus Group B, Time 1)
Similarly, the introduction of a number of dialogic forums such as morning teas,
licensee workshops, newsletters, and process checkpoints workshops led to a greater
feeling of inclusion and reduced the existing isolation. At the time of the first round of
focus groups the employees had been co-located on the one floor together for 10
weeks and still did not have a strong sense of who their colleagues were.
The installers feel a lot more free to call us and discuss the problems that they have whereas they didn’t really have the opportunity before… there’s more trust factor.
(Focus Group C, Time 1)
The opportunity to ask, learn and clarify was seen as a highlight of the introduction of
the process checkpoints, and morning teas.
I find their [Jessica and colleague] processes really wonderful – you can get them to clarify it more clearly for you, and get feedback… and the morning teas are a lovely idea, you get to meet other people and find out things!
(Focus Group A, Time1)
Some of the participants were less enthusiastic, pointing to the practical constraints of
having everybody attending these forums.
It was harder for the small groups cause it was hard for all of us to get there, cause someone always had to be left behind to answer the phone. I don’t think sales support ever got to them at all, because there was always only ever one in at a time.
(Focus Group C, Time 1)
Others voiced concern at the facilitators of the forums, suggesting they could be more
productive or indeed constructive if the ‘correct questions’ were asked.
179
My criticism is that they actually come and ask you a question about the process and then they ago away, they’re not asking you to currently evaluate the process that they are currently …
They go away but don’t come back…
Yes I agree… Yes, what happens is they say ‘I’m doing this’, I’m just using a very silly example but ‘I’m doing this - is what I have written down right? And you go ‘yes’, they go ‘thank you very much’ and it’s ‘a process’. They don’t say to you, ‘have a look at this, analyze this, take your team away debate it, work it through, find out where are we going wrong, what additions can we do, what can we take out, in other words mince it up and come up with something new’.
(Focus Group D, Time 1)
So, while some questioned the implementation of some of the dialogic forums and
highlighted the potential ‘tokenism’ of dialogic forums, the impact of the dialogic
change communication was generally positive. The increased management listening,
and opportunities to clarify understanding of change initiatives resulted in staff feeling
more inclusive and valued, and it renewed their enthusiasm and faith in the change
efforts. The next section examines the inductive template, the background talk of
change.
Background Talk of Change
Chapter Four described the vacuum effect that occurs when monologic and dialogic
change communication are lacking. This case-study confirmed the dynamics of a
change communication vacuum. It was noted in the discussion about the lack of
change communication before the arrival of Charles that the absence of any
communication, either monologic or dialogic, led to an increase of rumours, gossip
and grapevine activity. The outside smoking area became the central site of
information about change, dubbed the ‘Utilities United Post Office’ by employees.
This informal change communication provided opportunities for the staff to make
sense of the changes. Provided the sense making was grounded in plausibility, it
quickly became ‘truth’.
180
And it’s never explained to us who they are, never introduced, what they are doing so people kinda make it up or feed off what they are doing, or hear half a story and suddenly that becomes fact.
(Focus Group D, Time 1)
A powerful frame of reference during the earlier period of change prior to the arrival
of Charles was the economic value of employees. One participant noted that staff
started to assess each other in relative terms of ‘well what value do you really add to
the businesses?’ and ‘you’re just a cost’. In terms of impact on change receptivity, one
participant was quite clear on the impact of such background talk of change.
I don’t know if people don’t realise what that one little comment can affect someone who can go home and worry about it and then burden their husband with that who’s then worrying about it and how it actually affects people outside work instead of inside of work.
(Focus Group B, Time 1)
Despite the angst of the previous comment, the concept of continuous change was
received well. Continuous change was described as:
Development, learning …otherwise you just stagnate but I see it as improvement and it is good, it is always good, even though you may hit one or two things that you may not want to do, you learn by that and change that.
(Focus Group B, Time 1)
It’s not always for the better, but again that’s something that you mull over at the time and if it doesn’t work then it changes again. Utility United is really, really good at that, we are…lots of times where they put something into being where they can see in six weeks, two months it’s not working as it should, it’s not gelling, so the process is changed.
(Focus Group A, Time 1)
However, past experience with change provides an important voice in change
communication and can influence the organisational culture. Not everyone was as
enthusiastic about change.
Initially, we thought oh great, fantastic, and then after you experience it you don’t get that excited any more, you get back to work, you get an email going…great cool, I’ll see if it works…It’s not that you are being negative it’s just that through experience you know. You know coming to your team briefs and all that, it’s great you know, arms flapping everywhere, but two weeks later it’s scrapped.
(Focus Group A, Time 1)
181
This comment started to hint at possible explanations for the lack of support for
Hypothesis 2 found in Tech D and in the first survey of this case-study. When faced
with change communication, some of the employees are comparing the ‘hype’ to
experience of the past change and evaluating their response to future change.
In summary, the analysis of the monologic and dialogic templates revealed evidence
of both change communication models in action. In particular, the employees
possessed monologic expectations, and the extent to which these were satisfied
impacted on their receptivity to change. The new manager displayed strong dialogic
competences in terms of listening, and the provision of dialogic forums were
welcomed. While the background talk was loudest at times when the monologic
information delivery waned, the receptivity of change was enhanced by a continuing
background conversation of the merits of innovation and not stagnating. The next
section compares the findings from the first survey and round of focus groups to the
ethnographic observation activity.
Study 3: Ethnographic Observation, June – December, 2003
At the time of entry to Highsales, the researcher had already conducted 14 months of
research within the first case-study organisation, Tech D. The early findings from that
case suggested that rather than consider monologic and dialogic change
communication separately there was value in considering the interplay of the two
communication models. Additionally, it appeared that there were direct relationships
between the background talk and the monologic and dialogic change communication.
The staggering of the case-studies allowed the researcher to test these observations
within Highsales. The findings over the first six months with Highsales confirmed a
dynamic interplay of monologic, dialogic and background talk approaches to change,
182
but highlight several differences in the effect owing to the different context. First a
summary of the substantive and contextual issues of the change process deriving from
the ethnographic observation study are presented, then the data analysis is presented
using the three templates.
It was evident in discussions that there was a clear delineation of change processes
before Charles (BC), and after Charles (AC). Historically, the business unit had been
managed with an excess of pseudo-dialogic processes. These were seen as ‘talk fests’,
and highly creative interactions. However, a number of the employees were scornful
of this management style, as it did not appear to be genuine in inviting input, nor of a
symmetrical nature. Only the privileged were invited to participate, and ultimately it
was considered ‘all talk no action’. There were no mechanisms to provide feedback or
input to the change processes.
There’s a lot of good ideas floating around as well. As you said there was obviously no channels before that people could’ve said well I think we should be doing this, let’s try. That wasn’t accommodated before, whereas now it is, and that’s exactly right, cause we have had people like [finance manager] who have been screaming about things for months and months and months and there hasn’t been anything done about it.
(field notes, 19/6/03)
The majority of change occurred through a focus on business process re-engineering
by Jessica. Charles made explicit his expectations of the managers in communicating
to staff, and initiated a number of breakfasts and work social events to build
awareness of other members of the team. Previously, all the teams had been
geographically distributed in other buildings. The last of the original management
team left within a month of Charles arriving, their departures managed with dignity.
Any acrimony over the redundancies was covert and not observable in the workplace.
183
Every month saw a number of changes introduced, the majority surrounding process
improvement and improving quality indicators (for example, call monitoring of the
sales centre, improving the credit check process, and customer feedback surveys).
Within three months, the seasonal demands of the business were having full impact,
and the workload had escalated. This change was also accompanied by the
introduction of a new General Manager (GM) of the Retail division of Utilities
United. Charles initiated weekly management meetings designed to touch base across
the business, and to make sure all were aware of what was happening in other areas.
The findings from Study 2 were reported back to the management team. In response
to the finding that the employees valued being listened to, an employee improvement
team was instigated known as the HIT team (Highsales Improvement Team).
Staff continued to leave at the rate of one or two a month, with the exception of those
in the sales centre. The sales centre continued to be a contentious employment site
with a high churn rate. Some of the movement was attributed to poor recruiting and
lack of performance, but others sought more permanent work, free of the insecurity of
casual contracting. Towards the end of this period, Jessica took on an additional
marketing and communication role. The BPR role was reducing after the initial
implementation phase, and the mix of process improvement and marketing appeared
to be useful enough to the organisation to extend her contract.
Towards the end of December, the parent company released the results of the annual
staff climate study, and requested that the results be discussed with a selection of each
business divisions. One of the most significant findings discussed at that forum was
the lack of career progression and security within the division. The calendar year
finished on a positive note with Charles acknowledging how much had been gained in
184
the last six months. The next section now looks further at the themes of monologic,
dialogic change communication and sense-making evident during the ethnographic
observation study.
Monologic Change Communication
As noted previously, monologic change communication was welcomed as a reprieve
from the uncertainty of change. Top-down communication provided direction and
acknowledgement of the strain the employees were undergoing.
Because I felt that I was just a little duck swimming on a pond! With my little legs working so hard to keep my head above water and I felt that no-one could pay me enough money to come in and put up with what I was putting up with, everyday, not knowing, not having any direction not having any support .
(field notes, 11/08/03)
The lower-level employees provided the most evidence of the vacuum, with frequent
references to ‘information downloads’ (field notes, 28/09/03). Three months into the
new business unit manager’s command he released a power point presentation that
evaluated the change process so far and provided a score out of ten on each change
priority. The format of each slide was simple and clear: ‘What have we done so far?’
and ‘What do we need to do better?’ His introductory email departed from traditional
monologic themes of control in the implementation of this release, by letting the
middle management know he was open to input from them.
-----Original Message----- From: [Business Unit Manager]
Sent: Friday, 10 October 2003 2:04 PM To: [Management team, PA], Cc: FRAHM Jennifer Subject: presentation for staff team briefs
All - as discussed in our recent management meeting I have produced a presentation for delivery to all staff. Attached is the draft. While I am fairly comfortable with it, I would welcome any comments that you have. If there are any changes I will re-issue the presentation, otherwise I will assume that you will talk it through with your staff
185
at the next team briefs. I would be more than happy to come along and talk to it or participate in any discussions as you wish.
This example illustrated how the manager was adroit at switching from monologic to
dialogic communication mode. His message was unequivocal, included justifications
for the changes and what it meant for the employees. In so doing, he provided much
needed stability and security. However, many slides of the presentation included a call
for input, ‘what do you think?’, ‘more ideas appreciated’, and these slides were then
discussed within teams, keeping open a climate of inquiry. When one of the
department managers was asked how the teams felt about the presentation, he
expressed surprise at the response: ‘It was good, I used the PowerPoint slides Charles
provided. It was a good wake up call – I just assumed that everyone knew what we
working towards, but they didn’t!’ (Field notes, 21/10/03).
Jessica also introduced monologic communication to the processes, and signified a
departure from the previous ‘all talk, no action’ culture. Jessica possessed a degree in
organisational communication and had five years experience within the change
management competency of a ‘Big 5’ consulting firm, and was primarily focussed on
action. As she left one meeting, one of the younger managers who had been in the unit
for five years, shook his head, and with a somewhat reverent tone commented, ‘You
gotta watch her – she throws action items as she walks out the door’ (field notes,
23/06/03). Her monologic change communication reflected the traditional themes of
control and unilateral management. She was more concerned with control than
Charles, making it explicit in one email to managers how communication to the
licensee group needed to be managed: ‘At this stage, any changes that need to be
communicated to the Licensees should be ‘held onto’. I would like us to communicate
any changes in a controlled way so as not to inundate them with many small changes
186
at many different points’ (19/6/03). Thus, the monologic change communication
observed in the first six months was welcomed by staff as it provided closure on
uncertainty, and was recognised as a sign of action.
Dialogic Change Communication
One of the focus groups in the earlier section noted the opportunity for token dialogic
processes. While the ethnographic observation period recognised substantial dialogic
change communication, there was also evidence of what could be considered pseudo–
dialogic change communication. After the initial HIT team was shown to be
successful, the Sales Manager was quick to initiate a series of ‘focus groups and
advisory teams’ concerned with call monitoring. Call monitoring was a quality
indicator process whereby management staff would conduct silent listening to the
Customer Service Representative’s phone calls and evaluate the quality indicators.
The reports were used for evaluating training and development needs. However, the
process had attracted significant union opposition, and the staff were uncomfortable
with managers not known to them conducting ‘surveillance’.
When the sales manager was asked the purpose of the focus groups, and what he
hoped to achieve, he responded, ‘Well nothing really. But it’s a great way to keep the
unions on the back foot – they can’t complain if their own members have sanctioned
the process in their focus group. And the staff feel like they have contributed too’.
If the two relevant unions wanted to object to excessive call monitoring, then the sales
manager could point to the union’s own members being part of the employee
involvement group that negotiated the terms.
One of the more unique examples of change communication was the ‘switching
competences’ displayed by Charles and Jessica. Both could take a dialogic moment
187
and move it into action or stability through monologic change communication. Both
Charles and Jessica were applauded for their ability to listen to multiple view points,
synthesise the differing perspectives and then create action plans that were monitored
and measured. This approach was complemented by a culture, which, for the most
part, viewed change as positive and was open to dialogue. The provision of a number
of mechanisms to facilitate the listening and the inclusion also assisted the switching
competences.
Three months into his arrival, Charles instigated weekly management meetings on a
Wednesday morning. The purpose of these was to go around the table and have a
quick snapshot of what was happening in each department. The climate appeared
collegial with much good humoured ribbing of all at the table evident. Managers at
the table did not hesitate to say when things were not going well within their
departments. Over a period of six months, Charles never raised his voice or publicly
criticised a manager. At one point the marketing department had to acknowledge a
costly error in a campaign. While clearly annoyed, Charles sat back from the table,
breathed deeply and returned with ‘Is there learning in this that we can harness?’
(field notes, 12/11/03). Reframing the error in terms of learning led to the
development of a new process in managing print campaigns, and this highlights the
constructivist nature of dialogic change communication.
Likewise, in her first week, Jessica went around all the departments and asked a
number of open-ended questions such as ‘so tell me what‘s been going on for you’. A
list of issues was generated and these were then prioritised in conjunction with
management team. The focus was the areas that had the most potential to impact
negatively on the gross margin of the business. Once she had the priorities, she called
188
for a number of cross-functional process workshops. ‘There’s no point in writing
processes if the people don’t know about them so we’ve really tried to get them
involved right from the beginning’ (field notes, 18/9/03). Beyond lowering resistance
to the impending change, this style of workshop had additional benefits. In working
through process charts with members of different departments, it became evident
there were many fundamental misunderstandings about other’s roles and
responsibilities. Typical of the exchanges were:
But you can’t do that – if you do that we are not able to bill the customer for 30 days. What do you mean? I thought it was account’s role to bill the customer once the system registers a closed action.
(field notes, 4/7/03)
This exchange exemplified how the business process reengineering forums were safe
spaces to take risks in acknowledging what was not known in order to create new
processes. At the same time it assisted in diffusing knowledge formerly specific to
individual departments. Both Charles and Jessica completed the dialogic forums with
action plans and schedules. These were monitored at the weekly meetings with
management and measured with the monthly budget review meetings. They both had
the ability to engage in a dialogic process until new understanding was constructed
then switch to a more unilateral command style. Another example of the dual
utilisation of monologic and dialogic communication was found in Charles’s email to
all staff prior to Christmas. He used a monologic medium and message (one way, top-
down) to reinforce dialogic principles (commitment to learning, support, and
teamwork) (email, 23/12/03).
This section has described the dialogic highlights of the first six months at Highsales.
The key findings were the use of a pseudo-dialogic process to achieve compliance
189
with stakeholders, and the integration of monologic and dialogic change
communication by Charles and Jessica.
Background Talk of Change
There were two main conversations occurring in the background of the change
process: one was the historical path, and the second, the potential for further
redundancies. The impact of past experience of change could not be understated, as it
continued to punctuate the successes of the change process for the next six months.
For some, this retrospective caution served to highlight how far they had come with
the changes, for others it acted as a barrier to embracing new processes. Many team
members were not able to separate past experience of change with the current
processes. This led to expressions of cynicism, and disbelief about impending change
processes. In some cases, it affected the actions as well. After three weeks of
conducting a system transaction in the ‘new way’, one employee would revert to the
‘old way’. When asked why she was not following the new process, she would look
surprised and say, ‘But that’s the way we’ve always done it…oh that’s right, that’s
changed now’. It was a ‘reversion problem’ according to Jessica (field notes, 18/9/03).
The resilience of the past was countered with increased monologic communication by
Jessica, to reinforce the present. The ‘reversion problem’ was not as visible at a
management level with the management team seemingly committed to the new
processes.
The other event that influenced the background talk was the prolonged and secretive
implementation of the redundancies prior to Charles’ arrival. The parent company had
recently received unflattering media coverage for another division’s redundancies and
endured a protracted legal battle with substantial union involvement. This reaction
190
meant that the senior management took much longer in announcing the Highsales
redundancies, while they worked to ‘get it right’.
Look we’re not good communicators anyway, so not ignoring that cause that is a big problem, but honestly 90% of the problem were IR issues.
Manager, 19/06/03
The subsequent restructuring was shrouded in silence, with no communication, either
monologic or dialogic occurring. As a result, a change communication vacuum was
created and gossip, rumour, and innuendo filled the vacuum. As noted in the findings
from the focus groups, the main site of sense-making was the smokers’ area, a
covered external entertainment area buttressing the communal tea room. It was
customary to gather there before shifts, in breaks, and after shifts. In the scheduled
breaks the employees would tell of the insecurity that surrounded the time, and how
the temporary and contract staff were completely ignored.
If you were a temp staff, you just felt like crap, cause how where you going to get a full time job if the full timers were being offered voluntary redundancies. If you were a temp, you weren’t even considered at all.
(field notes, 23/06/03)
Despite the main round of redundancies being over within four weeks of the
researcher starting in the business unit, the experience still coloured the subsequent
sense-making of staff regarding change. One of the marketing staff remarked she
would like to move to a particular office that was now vacant. ‘Are you sure Carol?
That’s a big call; it’s not called the ‘departure lounge’ for nothing…’ (field notes,
04/07/03)
Indeed, the nomenclature surrounding change, whether it was informal such as the
staff appointed ‘Departure Lounge’, or formal, such as the naming of the Customer
Relationship Management (CRM) project ‘SIMPLE’ or the New Product
Development (NPD) process ‘SPEEDI’, also highlighted the importance of language
191
during change. Once it was apparent that the CRM implementation was far from
‘easy’ and the NPD process really quite slow, managers were quick to realise the
potential for further derision and ridicule in future change efforts. Jessica thought long
and hard before naming the employee involvement improvement team ‘HIT’
(Highsales Improvement Team).
In summary, like the first case-study, a vacuum was created by the lack of
communication about redundancies and employee departures. This vacuum was filled
by gossip, rumours and the background talk of change. In the context of continuous
change, monologic communication, which is best illustrated by top-down, unilateral
messages about change, was appreciated as it meant direction, action, and closure on
dialogic exchanges. Rather than reflect the conventional themes of managerial control
and coercion, monologic change communication was welcomed, as it represented
stability and security: ‘Finally, we know what we are doing now’ (field notes,
01/07/03).
The arrival of Charles and Jessica signified a major communication transition for the
business unit. Both Charles and Jessica were highly competent at switching from
dialogic to monologic styles and complemented these interpersonal skills with
monologic and dialogic mechanisms such as morning teas with addresses to all staff,
power point information cascades, cross functional management meetings, cross-
functional business process workshops, and a cross-functional employee improvement
team.
Despite the presence of these two change communication models, the background talk
of change continued to have an impact on change receptivity in the way of cynicism
and disbelief about future change. The primary conversations were related, the impact
192
of the redundancies in the past and the potential for further in the future. Neither of
these conversations enhanced the change receptivity. The next section reports on
studies 4, 5 and 6 encompassed in the second time period of the study.
Time 2
Study 4: Survey, January 2004
The second survey achieved a 64% response rate. The sample possessed an average
age of 31.1 and consisted of 15 females and 17 males. The average tenure with the
parent company was 2.2 years.
Hypothesis 2 continued to have no support. The change communication variables
remained uncorrelated with openness to change. However the discussions from the
first round of focus groups within Highsales provides a tentative explanation as to
why this was the case. The past experience of change was acting as a moderator of the
relationship between change communication and change receptivity. Like the first
study, a significant negative correlation was noted between dialogic change
communication (M = 3.48, SD = .68) and the instrumental change communication (M
=2.75, SD = .93), (r = -.557, p = .001, n = 33) and the outcome continues to suggest
that the more instrumental the communication of change, the less likely dialogic
change communication is to occur. The correlations are provided in Table 5.3.
193
Table 5.3 Correlations between Openness to Change and Communication
variables, Time 2
1 2 3 4
1. Openness to change Pearson Correlation 1
2. Top Down Change Communication (Monologic)
Pearson Correlation -.020 1
3. Instrumental Use of Change Communication (Monologic)
Pearson Correlation -.303 .143 1
4. Dialogic Change Communication
Pearson Correlation .227 .151 -.557(**) 1
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). N = 35 The means of the key variables of interest in Time 2 are presented below.
Table 5.4 Means of Key Variables at Time 2
Variable Mean SD
1. Openness to change (OC) 3.84 .47
2. Dialogic change communication 3.48 .68
3. Instrumental change communication 2.75 .93
4. Top Down change communication 3.78 1.00
The next section discusses the second round of focus groups to establish what was
occurring regarding change, communication and change receptivity six months into
the study.
Study 5: Focus groups, February 2003 Monologic Change Communication
The monologic themes evident in the focus group transcripts were the continued
value of information transfer, and of passive communiqués and managerial control.
Traditionally, the literature eschews the concept of management control in
194
communication during organisational change, favouring a more participative practice
(Waddell, Cummings, & Worley, 2004). Yet this study found otherwise. As noted in
studies 2 and 3, there were expectations of monologic change communication, and the
lack of ‘shoulds’ and ‘needs’ in this round indicated that both Charles and Jessica had
been successful in meeting these expectations. When discussing what makes good
communication during change, the focus group participants repeatedly referred to
instances of information transfer.
Yes we sort of are, pretty much are, so we pretty much are following their process now, so we’ve got one point or one conduit of message dissemination for want of a better word, everything for Highsales should go through me, and I send out who it’s gotta go to . But I think those meetings were, had a good purpose to them cause we find out what what’s going on in the joint, we download from the exec which is a lot of times stuff you don’t find about.
(Focus Group D, Time 2)
Well if we have issues arise, from complaints or just licensees calling us we can take it straight to [colleague]…who then sends a sales alert to the whole floor and within a day people are aware of what the issue it is and yeah, it makes things easier…Make sure that’s communicated to all staff.
(Focus Group B, Time 2)
The information transfer continued to meet a need for clarity and stability, removing
ambiguity about staff changes and other organisational changes. There was
satisfaction with the passivity of communication mediums. The emailed sales alerts
and presentations cascade were one-way, and there was not the opportunity to engage
with those doing the communication, yet this was not noted as a problem.
Equally, when discussing examples of poor change communication the participants
referred to circumstances when information transfer was lacking or there was an
oversupply of information.
There was the [utility] issue for instance on Monday morning, we all came in eagerly to the first phone calls and not one of us had been notified that by close of business on Friday night, [utility] prices had gone up.
195
I mean if you’re flooded, if you flooded with sales alert every day it’s just you know… Yeah it’s… You end up going ‘oh it’s another one, click’, and it might actually be something quite important. Because if you get too many you tend to ‘oh no not another one’ you don’t really… Exactly …read it
(Focus Group A, Time 2)
Managerial control was still being highlighted as ‘best practice’ change
communication.
Now of course in all business certain directives can’t be given to all staff Nothing’s ever deliberately being held back unless it’s of such a nature that it can’t be divulged until a later date.
(Focus Group A, Time 2)
We can say to them [licensees] – well look you are breaching this. (Focus Group C, Time 2)
Additionally, good communication was recognised in the management ‘missives’ and
one-way transmissions.
I’ve been impressed. Oh I keep talking, I’ll shut up soon. I think when Jessica came in and just went through everyone’s processes and basically just told them to fix it or else. Basically, Jessica and that support structure said this is what’s going to happen. This is what’s happening. Basically we were told what was going to happen.
(Focus Group C, Time 2)
In summary, the monologic themes of the continued value of information transfer,
and of passive communiqués and managerial control, were having beneficial impacts
on the change receptivity, though it was highlighted that an excess of information in
the form of email can have the reverse effect on change receptivity.
Dialogic Change Communication
The primary dialogic themes arising from the second round of focus groups were an
intensified emphasis on group problem solving, increased symmetrical exchange, and
increased empathy across the organisation. The findings from study 2 suggested that
196
Charles had introduced dialogic change communication to the organisation via
empathetic listening, and the provision of dialogic forums. After six months, this had
increased with all focus group participants discussing the use of cross-functional
problem solving groups as a preferred approach. Cross-functional teamwork had
become part of the Highsales language, to the extent that the employees now expected
it.
Cross team networking – like breakfast here, lunch here, would you say the Christmas party? Would you say that? Just constantly meeting with other people, team members and within the floor and having a chat with them, um the HIT team that sort of thing. I find that the more I get to talk with them on a personal level them more you can appreciate what they are going through.
(Focus Group C, Time 2)
This cross-functional approach was also accompanied by devolution of managerial
authority signified by increased involvement of staff at all levels, and better access to
management.
In previous [jobs] I’ve had, never saw the CEO or what, not that we get to see [the CEO] much here but what I’m suggesting is your immediate sales manager is very, very accessible and the team leaders and management is in general, I think we have that accessibility. And through these changes that’s been incredibly beneficial in amalgamating and keeping people together through difficult times. It does, it does, it is a big driver. If you’re, if you’re the anonymous entity that’s sitting there in your pod all day and management, they’re there but they, you know, you see them everyday in the lift for six months and they still ask you ‘do you work here?’ (laughter) …
(Focus Group A, Time 2) Alongside the acknowledgement of increasing symmetry of communicative action
was the recognition that employees needed to take responsibility for asking for the
opportunities for better communication. It was considered that dialogic processes are
not a managerial bestowment. Unless there is joint commitment, they will not
proceed.
To a degree. There are some aspects [of discontent with management communication] but I think it’s also a two-way street in that management does, does communicate it, they may be able to communicate it better, but a lot of staff as well don’t necessarily listen, like look out for it… But, it’s, you’ve got to [ask] sort of does the, does the staff sit back and wait for it to come in or should they actively ask as well, so…
197
(Focus Group A, Time 2)
Finally, the impact of the increased involvement of all staff and cross functional
problem solving resulted in increased empathy for others.
And I think also there’s an understanding, a bit more understanding from the licensee point of view so maybe they are a bit more accepting of if we’re unsure we’ll get back to them or things like that, whereas before they ‘probably just put it in… …the too hard basket.
(Focus Group C, Time 2)
I think everybody knows also a lot of the challenges to people ideas a year ago were taken as personal challenges on that person, but now it’s just, I’m challenging it for the sake of the business, and that’s your opinion and I agree with part of it , but what about this, or I don’t really think that’s right or we should go this way, but I don’t think there’s any sort of personality or anyone takes it as personal attack on their idea, I think that’s quite a good change from where we were.
(Focus Group D, Time 2)
The next section further analyses the background talk of change to reveal how the
employees were making sense of the changes.
Background Talk of Change
Analysis of the background talk of change revealed no major convergent focus, but a
diffusion of topics within the background talk. One of the problems with gossip in the
workplace is the lack of ‘source credibility’. In this round of focus groups ‘Some-one
Else’ remained a definitive authority on the changes going on within the organisation.
Communicating to the staff about changes. Changes happen you’re not even aware that, when I say changes I don’t mean just little subtle changes, I’m talking about slap bang hit you in the face changes. And you do find out about it. It’s not notified to you until you’re talking to some one over a cup of coffee or you stumble across it in error. on the phones. That’s a communication breakdown. And I think that that’s, we’re still sorely lacking in communication. And we’ve had a couple of examples this week with communication problems that’s upset a few people. …And two of the people know and two of us didn’t. Now they had heard through speaking to some one else and it was an oversight.
(Focus Group A, Time 2)
There were a number of frames of reference occurring. One was the industry specific
nature of change. Comparative analysis was common whether it was comparing the
198
changes to past experience both within the organisation and other places of
employment.
If you remember back where we were. Natalie, when you started compared to now, I think we saw the worst of it back then so it’s changed a lot hasn’t it? Oh god I tell you, when we first started, oh my god!
(Focus Group C, Time 2)
The parent company’s culture impacted as well: ‘Well it’s a Utilities United way of
doing things’. Finally, the most concerning aspect of change were employees leaving.
I guess the only reason I’m looking a little funny is probably the only situation where it may not have stopped is the change that we had with people leaving, with Lisa leaving and Sharee leaving, quite a lot of people thought that Lisa had been let go, and there was a lot of chinese whispers around that. [Management] need to do a really good job of saying, well before people start the rumours and wonder what the hell is going on …to sort of address that. Well to me personally it is concerning [Charles’s departure] about who would you get to replace Charles.
(Focus Group D, Time 2)
Additionally, the employees recognised the turbulent environment that retail can
provide with product development.
Well to back Bob up with this one, ahm I think the market place out there, in general has changed and it still is changing and so are customers. The way they, the way they shop, the way they buy, what they expect from business such as ours. And if we stayed stagnant to use Brett’s words, we really would have a huge problem. So ahm I think there’s still a lot more changes to come about. I think we’re heading in the right directions. I don’t think we’ve got there yet, but em I think a lot of the changes probably aren’t necessarily the right changes but you’ve still got to try them. And if it doesn’t work then you try something else. I think we’ve just got to keep pace with what’s going on outside these four walls.
(Focus Group A, Time 2)
In summary, the analysis of the monologic and dialogic templates continued to reveal
there was evidence of both change communication models. The monologic change
communication appeared sufficient to meet expectations, with the exception being an
excess of emailed information that overwhelmed the staff involved and prevented
them focussing on the change process. It was evident that dialogic change
communication was occurring through the growing awareness of empathy, cross-
199
functional communication and increased symmetry of relationship between
employees and managers. Thus, the framing discourses in the background were not as
vocal as the previous focus group, yet focused on people leaving, comparative
analysis, and the unsanctioned sources of information.
Study 6: Ethnographic Observation, January – June 2004
This section addresses the findings from the ethnographic observation data from
January 2004 to June 2004. First, the substantive and contextual issues of the change
process are described and then the findings from the alternate templates are reported.
The beginning of 2004 saw Jessica frustrated and despondent about the limited
amount of embedding of change lamenting, ‘It’s not resistance, it’s forgetfulness’
(field notes, 6/1/04). Despite being able to name a number of areas of success, the
dissatisfaction with lack of ‘uptake’ was aggravating to her. The management
meetings continued in a collegial style. January signified a major business crisis in the
advent of adverse weather affecting service delivery. This situation placed a major
strain on the parent company and all divisions were required to take up the slack. The
strain of this environmental crisis was compounded by a legislative oversight that
occurred in the following month. A misinterpretation of existing legislation came
perilously close to closing the business down, and again the management team was
caught up in crisis management. At this point both Charles and Jessica were starting
to voice concerns that the change was too incremental to meet the change goals, and
that part of the fundamental business model was flawed. This problem was reflected
in continuing angst over control and performance of the licensees. Not surprisingly,
under such pressure, the sales centre started to report high levels of sick leave and
fatigue, and the employee improvement team saw lower attendance than at the
200
previous meetings. The organisation was too lean to cope with the volume of work
and two unexpected crises in a row. In a surprise move, the CEO terminated Charles’s
involvement with the case-study organisation in order to redirect his efforts to a
project critical to the parent company’s performance. The appointment was seen as
good internal move, but the remaining staff were somewhat bereft. Charles had made
a good impression, particularly with the middle management team. One middle
manager told the story of how they appreciated Charles frankness:
When Charles came in, he made it clear to us that there was a burning platform. We had 12 months to turn this business around. There was not going to be any leniency on our financial targets. It didn’t matter whether we liked him or not. But we did. (field notes, 17/12/03)
One of the middle management team stood in as acting manager and was later
appointed to the permanent position (field notes, 10/05/03). However, as the
recruitment of this position was not transparent and based on the conversations
outside of the management meetings, the appointment rankled with the other middle
managers. This event coincided with what appeared to be ‘musical chairs’ in the
workplace. The sales manager was seconded to an acting position in a higher role, and
together with a maternity leave vacancy, there were eight employees changing roles to
fill the ensuing vacancies. There was little time for handovers, yet, for the most part,
staff coped as they remained committed to the organisation.
At the same time, the new GM introduced a major behavior change program. It started
with a series of workshops with management and at the time of the research
concluding was yet to be cascaded down to the front line employees. The new
manager Mary had a different style to Charles. Whereas Charles would lean back and
allow the managers time to discuss issues, Mary introduced a ‘program of work’ and
focused on timely task completion. She also introduced pre-meetings to plan larger
201
meetings, so that all external communication was carefully controlled. This level of
control created a daunting environment for new staff, and those lacking in confidence
admitted they were anxious over the ‘micro management’, and tended to perform
poorly. Regardless, the financial results continued to be good, and by the end of the
financial year the organisation was in a very strong position and was considered a
very successful turnaround. The next section looks further at the themes of
monologic, dialogic change communication and sense-making evident during the
second ethnographic observation study.
Monologic Change Communication
It appeared that in the second six month study, monologic change communication was
dominating the communication during change. In discussions surrounding the overall
employee satisfaction survey, it was apparent that the employees felt that feedback
was lacking and they were not involved in the decision making – ‘Well we just get
told!’ Certainly Jessica’s admission that she was drip feeding the staff with
progressive information confirmed the increased monologic communication to assist
in bedding down the changes. When she was discussing the problems she was facing,
she said, ‘It’s difficult to get everyone communicated to’. This statement was a clear
indication of the message dissemination model that was occurring. The transition
from dialogic change communication to monologic change communication was
quicker than the previous six months. There was much less reliance on cross-
functional problem solving to generate new processes. The primary medium of use
was email, with some official ‘briefings’.
Mary possessed strong monologic competences and appeared comfortable in a
command and control role
202
‘Please ensure all your team members have been presented the Highsales planning update by COB Wednesday 17/3.’ I am giving a presentation to various teams today at 3pm - and I am happy to attend other sessions and present - my diary is up to date - so just book me in
thanks Mary
(email, 12/3/04)
However, the focus on task completion came at a cost to relationship building within
the middle management team. Mary’s focus on tasks diminished the climate of
empathetic listening and inquiry.
While there were frequent email notifications of new staff, there was little
communication to explain or announce who was leaving or why. This was particularly
evident in the sales centre. The one-way direction of communication only occurred
with new staff starting. Staff leaving was cloaked in silence. The exception was an
email from the sales manager regarding the departure of a long serving staff member
(email, 26/02/04).
While Charles requested that certain business information be ‘deployed down the
line’, Mary preferred to take responsibility for passing information on and developed
a Key Performance Indicator (KPI) tree to present to all the teams. She also sent
regular monthly emails announcing the financial KPIs.
Good Morning Congratulations to everyone for achieving a great May result May Results were: Revenue (Sales) target was $[x] and we achieved $[x] Net Contribution (profit) result was $[x] above target (a fantastic result!!) The target for June is: Revenue (sales) - target of $[x]
203
Over the last few weeks you should have been taken through the Highsales Plan for next financial year by your manager and me. As part of this plan I went through a ‘KPI Tree’ (Key Performance Indicator). From July, this tree will be used to communicate our results. If you have any questions - please feel free to ask your manager or me. Once again - a great May result - well done Now we need to focus on June Many thanks Mary
(email, 7/6/04)
While the employees commented on being surprised by the notifications of results,
they appreciated the stabilising effect of these congratulatory emails (‘Things are
settling down now’ - field notes, 15/06/04). The majority of the monologic messages
resulted in emails announcing new products, promotions and new processes. Yet
discussions with staff in the tearooms suggested that these emails were being missed;
So did you see that sales alert about the staff discounts? No – where was that? Oh it was emailed this morning. Hmmph – we don’t have time to check emails.
(field notes, 4/4/04)
The increase in one way emails could be attributed to the escalation of workload. As
the managers workload increased, they complained there was not the time to have
meetings with teams during busy times. As a default action, they sent multiple emails
to manage the increased information needs of the staff.
I have outlined the changes to the new Complaints Process. The full outline of the complaints process can be viewed in [internal web page]. If you require me to send you all the documentation please advise me ASAP. These changes will active immediately.
(email, 11/03/04)
It was common to sign off the emails with ‘Any questions let me know’, yet it
appeared that this phrase became redundant. Employees did not have time to process
the information let alone question and clarify issues.
204
Dialogic Change Communication
The final email for 2003 illustrated the unique switching ability of Charles. While the
email was one-way, the message content reinforced the dialogic principles and
elements
Hello everyone…
I would also take the opportunity to thank you for your efforts during 2003. In my mind it has been a very successful year, with many challenges overcome and some outstanding results achieved for the business. I believe that our performance during 2003 has put us onto a path to achieve great things during 2004. I have learned a lot in a very short time at Highsales and probably the most important learning is the power of the team that we have here at Highsales - it is outstanding! The changes we have made have been supported and great ideas and initiatives continue to come from all areas. Give yourselves a big pat on the back. Again, while there will be challenges in 2004 the business is in great shape to continue to grow and prosper.
We are taking very seriously the feedback that you have given regarding the staff survey - thanks for your honesty. One common theme is to make sure that we provide staff with as many opportunities for advancement as possible.
(email, 23/12/03)
‘Highjinks’ was an internal newsletter designed to notify staff of changes. Jessica
turned the internal newsletter into a dialogic collaboration.
Hello HIT-ters It's time for another edition of highjinks. So get those stories in about fascinating feats occurring in your part of the Highsales world. I want to start including a ‘team of the month’ section - Rupert, Casey said Finance might be interested in being this month's highlighted team. Can someone from Finance put a little blurb together for me? I would like to put the truth out next week, so please get me your ideas/stories by the end of this week. Thanks Jessica
(email, 6/1/04) However, for the most part, the dialogic progress of the previous six months
dissipated and this was reflected in a reduced commitment to the change initiatives.
Jessica lamented, ‘But people don’t take it seriously’. Once the business workload
205
became intense, time was not allowed for the existing dialogic processes. While one
employee took the initiative of raising this as a problem, the rest lacked agency.
Just some feedback....
I felt yesterday's meeting was very rushed, particularly when it came to discuss the issues in our sub-groups. I also felt that it is important that in the HIT meeting people are allowed to express their ideas freely without being dismissed (following the principles of brainstorming). I think it is important that everyone in that room is allowed to discuss their ideas and finish their sentences. I understand time constraints, but I believe the HIT team members will feel more valued and will speak more freely if this is the case.
Not having a go at anyone, it’s just some feedback that you can do with what you wish.
Thanks for allowing me to be part of the team.
(email, 13/1/04)
Other employees did not appear to feel empowered to raise the same complaints with
their managers, preferring to deflect the responsibilities to others.
sounds like you have some good ideas coming out of these meetings, and once again I apologise I couldn’t make it. I noticed you mentioned a problem of attendance of hit members. This is the sixth meeting you have done, and I have only been able to attend 3. May be someone needs to look at allowing for these sort of meetings in the rosters, as it isn’t that busy at the moment anyway. If you could raise this issue with the powers that be, that would be great.
(email 2/03/04)
Mary also showed evidence of switching ability, however in a different direction.
Whereas Charles moved from dialogic to monologic change communication, Mary
moved from monologic to dialogic as evidenced by emails that told the employees
what was going to occur, and then promised opportunity for feedback later. The
monthly forums with the licensees which were in essence dialogic forums became
very asymmetrical. Mary instituted ‘practice’ meetings before the forums, so that
managers would know what to say.
206
Background Talk of Change
Again the increased volume of work and the sufficient supply of monologic change
communication prevented much of the background talk from dominating. The key
topic of conversation was the high volume turnover of staff in the sales centre with
many staff speculating as to the cause and what was involved. The employees were
not provided with information to make sense of the turnover, and so they relied on
plausible understanding, ranging from financial insecurity, performance management,
to management incompetence. It affected the change initiatives, as some noted they
were too worried about people coming and going to focus on new processes. The
earlier commitment to staff progression highlighted in the Christmas email was
ignored.
The turnover of staff also meant that many of the ‘sense-givers’ had moved on and
this meant that there was a lack of people with enough historical understanding of the
company to make sense. It also transpired that many of the employees did not have
the knowledge necessary to make sense of certain statements.
[New General Manager] did a muffin afternoon tea yesterday with staff, at which he told staff about last years [$ x] loss and the fact that we had an exit strategy in place. [sales manager] raised this as he had heard people talking about it... as staff were not aware of this loss. I spoke with Sarah and she said that Berneise phoned her last night to discuss the possibility of people being made redundant. I spoke to Sara and Josh as my feelers and told them this was bollocks and every business should have an exit strategy.
(email, 26/05/04)
The morning tea would have been the first time many employees had heard the term
exit strategy and clearly it generated a lot of background talk. What is key here is
Jessica’s use of ‘feelers’ and her active managing of the background talk. It was also
interesting that Mary chose to ignore the background talk. When asked the reason for
the high staff turnover in the unit, she denied it was occurring, conceding some staff
207
had left on account of performance management issues, and they were looking at a
better system of using casual staff (field notes, 4/6/04).
The second round of research with Highsales is concluded with the following
observations. While the survey revealed no change in the openness to change, the
second round of focus groups provides a more complex understanding of the
relationship between monologic communication, dialogic communication and the
background talk. It appeared that in response to the increased dialogic and monologic
change communication, the background talk dissipated. However, these focus groups
were at the beginning of the time period studied and by the end of the second round of
ethnographic observation; it was shown that the change in leadership impacted on
how employees felt about the change process. The next round of studies captures
more details on that impact.
Time 3
Study 7: Survey, July 2004
The final survey was distributed in June 2004 to 50 staff and the response rate was 27
(54%) of the population. The respondents had an average age of 33.2, eight were
female, 16 were males and three did not disclose gender. The average tenure of the
respondents was 1.98 years with the parent company. Research Question 5 asked what
happens to openness to change over time. The results of the ANOVA on the third
round of surveys revealed that there was no change within any of the time periods of
the openness to change measure (F (2, 90) = 1.39, p = .253). The summary table of
ANOVAs are reported below.
208
Table 5.5 Summary Table of ANOVAs within Highsales
Variable Source of Variation
Sums of Squares
Df F P
Openness to change Between Groups
.501 (2,90)
1.396 .253
Dialogic Change Communication
Between Groups
.240 (2, 90) .292 .747
Instrumental Change Communication
Between Groups
3.36 (2, 90) 1.95 .147
Top down Change Communication
Between Groups
.810 (2,89) .559 .574
The means of the key variables are provide in Table 5.6.
Table 5.6 Means of Key Variables at Time 3
Variable Mean SD
1. Openness to change 3.92 .39
2. Dialogic Change Communication 3.39 .53
3. Instrumental Change Communication 3.24 .83
4. Top Down Change Communication 3.60 .64
The correlations between the change communication variables and openness to
change are reported below.
Table 5.7 Time 3 Correlations of Change Communication Variables with Openness to Change
1 2 3 4
1. Openness to change Pearson Correlation 1
2. Top Down Change Communication
Pearson Correlation .169 1
3. Instrumental use of Change Communication
Pearson Correlation -.101 .275 1
4. Dialogic Change Communication
Pearson Correlation .103 .416(*) .284 1
N = 26, * = <.05
209
Hypothesis 2 proposed there would be a positive relationship between change
communication and openness to change. Yet, like all of the results reported in relation
to this hypothesis, there continued to be no relationship between change
communication and openness to change. The contrary result on Hypothesis 2 is
further discussed in the next focus group summary. The survey revealed a significant
positive correlation between top down communication and dialogic change
communication (r = .416, p = .039, n = 25), however, caution should be advised in
interpreting this owing to the small sample size. One possible explanation for this
finding is that top-down change communication is inextricably linked to information
provision. Dialogic change communication can be a clarification activity, and when
information is provided, dialogue can occur. This section concludes the reporting of
the final survey. The next section provides the results of the final focus groups.
Study 8: Focus groups, July 2004 Monologic Change Communication
In the final set of focus group transcripts, there was an emphasis on information
transfer as change communication. The employees understood the change
communication to be problematic when the information delivery did not meet the
employees’ expectations.
The combination of continued incremental change and an increase in staff turnover
exacerbated the need for reliable, timely and consistent information and this was a
challenging goal for management.
Some of the things haven’t been communicated all that well… (Focus Group D, Time 3)
210
Part of the reason for this was a continued over-reliance on email for information
dissemination, and reluctance to engage in face-to-face meetings for emotionally
complex messages (such as the staff turnover).
It’d be better to rather than send an email around and rely on team briefs [which were not occurring], would be to say ‘right we all going to get together…just a really quick message.
(Focus Group D, Time 3)
I mean if you are flooded, if you are flooded with sales alerts every day, it’s just you know [shrug of hopelessness].
(Focus Group A, Time 3) Two of the focus groups also raised the importance of relevant information in order to
manage the information overload. There was a tendency to broadcast changes
regardless of the relevance to stakeholders.
You can communicate it but when it’s no relevance to you, you can talk till the cows come home and you won’t grasp it at all.
(Focus Group C, Time 3)
It appeared that management were focusing on the ‘big picture’ issues and this focus
led to the ‘little things’ being neglected.
From a, it’s the little things that they don’t communicate well, you know ah just when people leave or whatever like, here we are Oscar’s leaving tomorrow and nobody’s, there’s been no official ‘what’s happening’.
(Focus Group D, Time 3)
This round of focus groups saw a new monologic approach with Mary sending regular
one-way messages of congratulations as monthly updates. These were well received.
You know she sends out an email every two weeks to let us know how well we have done and to congratulate us.
(Focus Group C, Time 3)
While the use of email for broadcasting the financial achievements was welcomed by
many of the participants of the focus groups, the monologic competences of this
manager were not appreciated by all. Some noted the suppressing effect on raising
new ideas.
211
You, at first you tend to feel ok, yeah, yeah so you stick your head out a little bit and it’s negative reaction you pull your head back in and y’know, I’ll just sit here and so you know.
(Focus Group C, Time 3)
In summary, by the time of the third focus groups there was a recognition that the
information delivery had waned, particularly about the seemingly ‘little’ changes. The
employees appreciated the use of the email to deliver the financial achievements,
however some felt that Mary’s strong emphasis on the monologic delivery of change
communication prevented innovative practice, particularly when they had become
used to Charles’ Dialogic -Monologic sequencing.
Dialogic Change Communication
The third round of focus groups differed from the dialogic themes in the previous
focus groups as the respondents now presented examples of what was lacking
dialogically. Contrary to previous focus groups there was little discussion on cross-
functional teamwork, or dialogic forums. While individuals in the focus group
displayed dialogic competences such as empathy and recognition for others, there was
a silo effect at a group level. All of the groups contained their discussion to their
department only, and not other departments, which illustrated a decline in the
previous cross-functional teamwork focus.
At an individual level, it was apparent that many of the participants possessed dialogic
competences.
I don’t know if you agree [acknowledging differences] I thought, but maybe I’m wrong… [consciousness]
(Focus Group C, Time 3)
I don’t want to put words into your mouth… I’m not wanting to talk for anyone else (Focus Group D, Time 3)
212
However, at a group level, it was apparent that the departments had closed ranks and
the ‘whole of business’ teamwork evident in the earlier focus groups had declined.
Look I mean and I think we probably may have potentially gone a little bit backwards from where we were last time. I don’t get the feeling that there is a good strong team.
(Focus Group D, Time 3)
A number of participants noted that communication needed to flow across the groups
again. In a seemingly innocent lament, one participant revealed one group’s
perception of identity as being more important than any other group.
The most important people [their work group] are the last to find out. (Focus Group A, Time 3)
There were few forums available to create dialogue about change, and it was noted
that more were required.
More Highsales forums, speak up people! Pipe up! What’s going on? What’s the feelings that are happening with change and be open to all ideas?
(Focus Group D, Time 3)
I think we need more buy in on the original set of processes…The cross-functional is not happening.
(Focus Group A, Time 3)
One of the groups recognised that other key stakeholders (licensees) were deprived as
they did not have the opportunity to clarify and discuss the changes occurring. In
terms of what had to improve, one member of this focus group suggested that the
licensees needed more support: ‘Give them a bit of love, cause some, I mean they
don’t feel it!’ This department was the only department where there was a sense that
they had successfully imbedded the changes and they were content with the change
process.
Three of the groups noted that when Mary arrived as Business Unit Manager, she had
worked hard at building rapport and relationships with employees at the ‘coalface’.
213
She wants to build up rapport with the staff so that’s certainly a bonus, that personal touch.
(Focus Group C, Time 3)
Not only was Mary accessible, the focus groups noted continued accessibility of the
team managers. However, just because the team managers were accessible, it did not
necessarily mean they were listening.
Your immediate sales manager is very accessible and the team leaders and management in general. Yeah, I’d say look, look at better communication between perhaps [sales manager] and the staff, like even though the HIT meetings, they sound fantastic. Or just you know feedback. Like say, once every two weeks a meeting with [sales manager]. I think that would be good.
(Focus Group A, Time
Finally, the next section further examines the background talk of change.
Background Talk of Change
The staff turnover dominated the background talk of change within all of the focus
groups. It was noted that rumors and grapevine activity possessed strong purchase.
Did you hear in the corridor? [about the sales trainer leaving]. Sometimes the grapevine is the most efficient.
(Focus group D, Time 3).
The other background talk consisted of a changing appreciation of what continuous
change was about. In the last six months of the study the parent company had
launched a large change initiative, named ‘Utilities X Understanding’, with
motivational speakers, posters on the walls, and teaser promotions in the pay slip
envelopes. The large fanfare launch of Utilities X Understanding had mixed response.
One group was completely disengaged from it, cynically noting the ‘beautiful
posters’, and another group begrudgingly noting that, ‘Utilities X Understanding is the
hype that has been done reasonably well’ after diminishing the campaign with, ‘Well
that’s just two words with a multiplication sign’.
214
Despite all groups defining continuous change as ‘continuously evolving,
improvement’, it was clear that some understood the change process more
pessimistically. ‘It’s been sort of batten down the hatches and tighten up the
processes’, and ‘We are still fighting fires’ (field notes, 29/06/04).
Constant comparison remained a dominant frame of reference with staff referring to
other positions and past work experience as a way of making sense of the current
changes. For the most part this was not a favourable comparison and resulted in
apathy and scepticism.
You know someone puts up their hand and goes let’s try this and ahm we go to that and then it all turns nasty and then we come back to originally where we were. And because of the conglomeration of so much change all the time everyone just goes change, so? It just, it’s, you know, we just become neutral about it all.
(Focus Group A, Time 3)
I, I’d have to say it’s been, previous to Utilities United being with [name omitted] for [x] years and we had a re-organisation every 12 to 24 months. You just, you just you know get with your, your job and you just you know, you just get used to all the, you know change is going to happen and ah, a lot of times it does a full circle and comes back exactly, exactly where it was five years ago.
(Focus Group D, Time 3) The constant comparison was also part of the explanation of why the change
communication may not be directly related to the way the employees felt about
change. Under circumstances of continuous change, employees were always thinking
back to the last change to evaluate how likely it was they would support the next. If
their perception was that the previous change was poorly implemented, and the next
change was being managed by the same people, in the same way, the impact of the
ensuing change communication was diminished, thus providing further explanation of
why Hypothesis 2 was not supported.
Like, to me anyway, from what I’ve seen like a lot of us here like, unless like we’ve all talked about the things that we really wanted to see changed but there’s a certain level of helplessness to a degree on the sales floor. We’re going well, we want this change but we’re not seeing anything. So, the more that we, no matter how much
215
more you, you receive information, you become very apathetic and yeah sceptical to the whole thing and just go well, oh well oh it’s just another email that gets sent out to us, are we actually going to see that.
(Focus Group A, Time 3)
In summary, by the end of the first year of continued change initiatives, the analysis
of the monologic and dialogic templates revealed an intensification of the monologic
expectations, with the response being an escalation of the use of email. It was noted
that some of the dialogic principles had declined and the work groups had closed
ranks, and thus the benefits of cross-functional teamwork were ignored. It was
difficult to continue dialogic change communication amongst the silos. The key
themes of background talk of change suggested that the positive employee receptivity
to change was being compromised by the continued staff turnover, and sceptism about
future change.
Conclusion
This chapter has reported the findings from a twelve month study of continuous
change in a business unit of a GOC, Highsales. Results from the surveys conducted at
six month intervals suggest that the employees’ receptivity to change did not change
over the study. There was also no correlation between the change communication and
change receptivity. The ethnographic observation studies converged with the findings
of the qualitative studies and showed initially the case-study possessed enough
monologic and dialogic change communication to suppress the detrimental effects of
the background talk of change.
At six months into the study, the dialogic change communication has led to an
increased awareness of others, and the championing of cross- functional processes.
However, after the departure of Charles and Jessica, the case-study defaulted to higher
levels of monologic change communication, and this did not always benefit the
216
change receptivity. The background talk of change mainly centred around the issue of
redundancies, and staff turnover. The surprising result from the survey regarding the
lack of relationship between change communication and change receptivity was
explained by the participants of the last round of focus groups who suggested that
perception of previous change efforts acted as a moderating variable on the
relationship between change communication and change receptivity.
The next chapter analyses the findings of the cases reported in Chapter Four and
Chapter Five. It also engages with the extant literature in Chapter 2 to examine the
central research question, ‘How does change communication impact on change
receptivity within a continuous change context?’
217
CHAPTER 6
Discussion
SECTION 1 How did Change Communication impact on Change
Receptivity?
This chapter takes the findings reported from Tech D and Highsales, and consults the
literature in Chapter Two to respond to the guiding research questions and aims of the
thesis. The research aims were to answer how change communication impacts on
change receptivity and to provide a deeper investigation of the communicative
implications of continuous change. The first section addresses how each of the
alternate templates, monologic change communication, dialogic change
communication, and the background talk impact on change receptivity within the two
cases studies. The second section reviews the specific contextual demands of
continuous change on change communication. The chapter concludes by establishing
that while each of the change communication models, monologic and dialogic change
communication, and the background talk of change, has distinct impacts on change
receptivity, they must be considered in an integrated form to develop a theory of
change communication. In this sense, a bimodal theory of change communication
comprising both the instrumental and constructivist approach is supported.
Additionally, recommendations are provided in aligning the competences and
expectations of employees within change in order to better manage continuous
change.
218
The impact of Monologic Change Communication on Change Receptivity
The findings in Chapters Four and Five demonstrated that within the change process,
monologic expectations need to be aligned with monologic competences in order for
receptivity to change to improve or to stay positive. A misalignment will create a
decline in change receptivity. The overall purpose of monologic change
communication is to provide stability and closure. The stabilising change
communication can provide rewarding impacts on change receptivity when it reduces
uncertainty. However, this only occurs if there are existing monologic expectations; if
there are not, monologic change communication can create resentment in employees
as they feel dismissed and undervalued. Further, if employees are used to monologic
change communication, their expectations for more intensifies.
Expectations
In both cases, it was evident that monologic change communication was expected,
though in Tech D, this expectation was expressed more as a demand or need. The
escalation of intensity from expectation to need / demand in this case-study can be
attributed to two factors; the lack of fulfilment of the expectation and secondly, the
level of resistance to organisational transformation. The resulting impact on change
receptivity was an escalation of frustration, cynicism and ambivalence.
This response could be considered in terms of an extension of Burgoon’s Expectancy
Violations Theory (1978). While EVT was initially concerned with non-verbal
communication and the violations of personal space, since the 1990’s it has
encompassed a broader field of study incorporating verbal communication (Griffin,
2000). The essence of EVT is that people possess expectations regarding interactions
with other people (how close they will stand, how they will be greeted, the tone of
219
voice used). When these expectations are not met, the outcome will be either positive
or negative depending on the communicator’s reward valence, and how great the
violation valence is. Tech D’s CEO was too new to have developed a positive
personal impression which relates to the communicator’s reward valence. Thus when
he violated the employees expectations of what should occur (high violation valence),
they reacted negatively (derision). In Highsales, after the arrival of Charles, the
employees were satisfied with the level of monologic change communication and the
satisfaction provided a corresponding sense of comfort and support that enabled the
staff to be more accepting of change with little violation of expectations.
Second, as Eisenberg et al (1999) explain, monologic change communication is useful
in addressing first-order changes or incremental changes that occur within a constant
framework; and continuous or transformational change necessitates more of a dialogic
approach.
Accordingly, it appeared from their focus on the language of continuous improvement
that the employees of Tech D wished only to consider first -order change, and this
stance explained their expectations of monologic change communication. The
possession of dialogic expectations requires an acknowledgement of the need for
transformation and continuous change. By not acknowledging the need for continuous
change, the employees demonstrated a form of resistance to change. As noted in
Chapter 2, change resistance has dominated much of the past literature on change
receptivity. Within Tech D, resistance manifested in the lack of fit between the CEO’s
dialogic change communication competence and the employee’s monologic
expectation. The resulting impact was that the employees of Tech D possessed strong
monologic expectations of change communication which would be top-down, one-
220
way, and heavy on information provision. The lack of matching monologic
competences led to increased cynicism and derision. The resistance to continuous
change within Tech D is addressed further in this chapter when discussing language in
the background talk of change. The concept of monologic competences is further
examined to determine the impact on change receptivity.
Competences
The need for specific change management competences has been established in prior
literature. It has been argued that managers need to develop competences in change
management that accommodate continuous change efforts (Buchanan et al., 1999).
The managerial literature recognises a competence as a specific range of skill,
knowledge or ability. In terms of practical import, the development of ‘soft skills’
remains a key focus in the management development literature (Copelli, 1998).
However, the change management literature is yet to acknowledge the role of
communication competences in organisational change. Managers are urged to develop
communication competences to minimise occurrences of workplace sabotage (Anouli,
1995) and to develop competences in inspirational communication (Frese, Beimel, &
Schoenborn, 2003), however there is no clear direction for managers of change.
Methods of communication development beyond workshops and training seminars
include action training (Frese et al, 2003), coaching (Wales, 2003), and concentrating
on ‘in context’ practice (Doyle et al, 2000). Vecchio and Appelbaum (1995) suggest
techniques for improving communication in organisations including: using
appropriate language, practicing empathic communication, encouraging feedback,
developing a climate of trust and using effective listening. The findings from this
thesis suggest that in order to develop communication competence for organisational
221
change, managers can consider developing monologic communication competences as
part of the skill set.
The origins of communication competences can be traced to Habermas (1984) theory
of communicative competence in which he suggests in an ideal speech act successful
communication is dependent upon five claims. The five claims are that the utterance
is true, that the speaker is sincere or truthful, that the utterance responds to the
appropriate values, that it is fitting to the relation between speaker and listener, and
that it is comprehensible. The communications literature deviates from the
management literature’s skills and resources based usage of the term competences to
also include ‘attributional’ properties (Jablin & Sias, 2001). The organisational
communication literature has generally divided the ‘competence’ research into two
conceptual orientations (behavioural and cognitive). The behavioural focus of
competence addresses issues of appropriate communication behaviour in a given
situation. The cognitive orientation is more attuned to the management perception,
whereby communicative competence consists of cognitive resources and social
knowledge (Jablin & Sias, 2001) In recognising the dual understanding of
communication competence, some posit that the behavourial and cognitive
approaches to change communication competences do not necessarily converge (Zorn
& Ruccio, 1998).
This thesis suggests that within context of organisational change, it is insufficient to
simply possess either monologic or dialogic communication competences, to be
considered communicatively competent. This thesis puts forward that ‘communicative
competence’ during organisational change is determined by the purpose of the
communicative act. Within change there will be a need for monologic competences
222
and dialogic competences. Those who are communicatively competent know not only
how to use these competences separately, but also when to integrate the two, or switch
competence, thus demonstrating ‘fit for purpose’.
The idea of dialogic competences is developed by Kristiansen and Bloch-Poulsen
(2000), however the literature is rather silent on monologic competences. From the
data reported in Chapters 4 and 5 it can be deduced that those with monologic
competences will be good at providing stability through their communication, seek to
control the communication exchange, and thus manage change as smoothly as
possible for the employees. Those with dialogic competences are good at creating
further change. In this sense, this study extends Habermas’ (1984) understanding of
communicative competence to include ‘fit for purpose’. Consideration of the
appropriate usage of monologic and dialogic competences reflects the behavioural
orientation with the literature.
One of the key findings from the inductive analysis was the impact of specific
monologic competences in the change process. In Tech D, there were few who
possessed monologic change competences. One was the Personal Assistant to the
CEO, and it appears that her monologic competences ran counter to the CEO’s
dialogic intentions and actions. It was very difficult to create further change when the
PA (or gatekeeper to the CEO) was actively quashing attempts at dialogue, by
exerting control and seeking to stabilise the organisation as indicated by the
exasperated admonishment about leaving the people alone to do their jobs. The result
was a sense of helplessness experienced by the employees within the organisation as
the overemphasis on control and stability ran counter to the change trajectory set by
CEO. Likewise, in the episode in which the financial controller ‘told’ his staff that
223
one of the departing staff was not being replaced, his monologic delivery proved
inflammatory, as the employees felt entitled to be part of the reorganisation, and their
expectations had shifted to the dialogic change communication.
However, these findings should not be interpreted as an indication that all monologic
competences are negative or inappropriate for change. In context of the cross-
functional change team with Tech D, Jonathon’s monologic ‘power’ focus was
inappropriate, yet in context of leading a team through a spin-off process it was most
welcome. At this time the employees were very shaken and insecure about impending
job loss. This monologic communicator was able to lessen the anxiety and stress by
providing one-way information, on a frequent basis.
While the PA, the financial controller and Jonathon within Tech D, discussed in
Chapter 4, all appeared to operate with monologic change communication as a sole
approach, both the initial manager and change agent in Highsales were competent at
introducing monologic change communication as a way of moving dialogic
communication to action, and transitioning between monologic and dialogic change
communication. In the first half of the study of Highsales, monologic change
communication was more likely to be well received as it meant closure on
uncertainty, and evidence of action and therefore, results. After the ‘ambidextrous’
manager and change agent left, the new manager was responsible for the majority of
the monologic change communication. Like the staff discussed in Tech D, the
manager did not demonstrate transitionery or ambidexterity of communication
competences. Employees reported being appreciative of the frequent updates of
progress, although some in the management team recognised a suppressing effect on
innovation when there was an overwhelming emphasis on control as noted by the
224
comment ‘you pull your head back in’.
Unlike Highsales, there was very little in the way of monologic change
communication from senior management in Tech D and the deficit of monologic
change communication exacerbated the anxiety and information needs of the
employees, thus heightening the monologic expectations to demands. In summary, the
existence of monologic competences will enhance change receptivity if there are
corresponding monologic expectations. However, if the organisation is in need of
further change, the use of monologic competences may frustrate the participants or
make the employees feel undervalued. The next section reviews the implications of
the second template, dialogic change communication on change receptivity.
The impact of Dialogic Change Communication on Change Receptivity
This section continues the examination of the expectations and competences observed
in both cases with relation to the dialogic change communication. Specifically, it is
observed that the change communication expectations and competences exist in a
dynamic process. Both cases showed shifts in the monologic / dialogic states over
time.
Expectations
In Highsales, there was strong sense of recognition of the need for continuous change.
Employees celebrated the innovative climate, rejecting stagnant states, and thus
reflected Miner, Bassof and Moorman’s (2001) improvisational perspective of
continuous change. Part of this recognition could be attributed to a natural inclination
towards innovation as evidenced by the recognition of the turbulent environment that
retail can provide with product development.
225
In acknowledging the need and desire for continuous change, it was not surprising to
find that the staff possessed dialogic expectation. This expectation was strengthened
by a sense of entitlement of involvement within the staff. They believed that they
possessed many skills and expertise and should be involved in discussions about the
change. The main focus of the dialogic expectations was listening as noted by ‘It
helps me have confidence in, OK when I say something, if I say an idea, that I’m
listened to.’ One of the reasons for this may be the long history of union involvement
with the company. The presence of union involvement is a constant reminder of
‘entitlement’ and this pervades throughout all the levels of the organisation (Peetz,
1998). Stohl and Cheney (2001) contend that participation has become a ‘fundamental
social right of the people in the workplace’ (p. 351). In Highsales, it appears that the
employees exercise that right in the form of dialogic expectations.
There was a subtle difference in what was observed with the Tech D staff. While there
was evidence of some expectation of opportunities of involvement, it was
accompanied by mistrust and lack of symmetry between employees and the
management team. Expectations of involvement were tied to an underlying
assumption that management was wrong, and the employee was correct. There was
also the contradiction evident that when provided with opportunities for participation,
many employees did not believe the overtures to be genuine, and this lack of trust
compromises a dialogic exchange. The mistrust of management may be explained by
the dominance of an engineering culture (Ford, Voyer, & Wilkinson, 2000; Schein,
1996).
The engineers exhibited highly individualistic behaviours, and a strong belief in their
own capabilities and like the engineers in Ford et al. ’s (2000) study mistrusted
226
management. The PA’s story of the meeting where the consulting engineers walked
out and laughed at the management (see p.137) illustrated how nothing management
could do would have a positive impact on their openness to change. The professional
arrogance of the consulting engineers permeated the organisational culture and
hampered attempts at symmetrical exchange and genuine engagement, empathy and
mutuality (Kent & Taylor, 2002). Here, the plea to management to engage with
employees on levels of mutuality and reciprocity is inverted as the employees believe
that managers are not worthy partners of dialogue. Curiously, the consultants were the
group most vocal in their assertion that ‘we don’t take our own medicine’ in
recognising that their role was to consult to other companies and tell them how to
change. There is a body of research that acknowledges the difficulty of managing
change within engineering cultures (Ford et al., 2000; Kunda, 1992; Schein, 1996).
This thesis extends this body of work by providing guidance in the difficulty of
managing change. Establishing the communicative expectations of the workforce is a
crucial step in managing organisational change. This also represents a major area of
future research, in understanding the different communicative expectations of
organisational sub-cultures.
Competences
Dialogic competences are rather broadly defined as ‘particular ways of being’
(Kristiansen & Bloch-Poulsen, 2000). The authors further refine this definition to
explain that dialogic competences encompass a ‘combination of humour,
observations, emotional expressions with the checking of notions and willingness to
reflect on perspective’ (2000, p.182). There were very few staff within Tech D who
were dialogically competent. Two of the lower level employees stood out for their
frequent facilitative styles within meetings, and it was typical for them to demonstrate
227
all of Kristiansen and Bloch-Poulsen’s (2000) dialogic competences. However,
neither was in a position of influence or leadership, and thus their dialogic
competences remained isolated expressions. In contrast, it was not unusual for
individuals in the focus groups session to make long monologues on what they saw
‘wrong’ with the organisation, seemingly unaware that the rest of the group was
shifting in chairs, and disinterested. The exception, however, was the CEO, who
rejected notions of managerial control and power, preferring to establish a dialogue of
change.
Eisenberg et al (1999) discuss the importance of ‘stewardship’ as a way that
managers can move away from a ‘parental role’ to that of a partner in dialogue. The
authors argue, ‘This change characterises the dialogic approach and distinguished it
most clearly from the monologic and the transactional’ (Eisenberg et al 1999, p.145 ).
Here the literature exhorts with the managers to change their style, yet the case of
Tech D again inverts that plea. The story of the weekend away with the OD consultant
trying to explain the difference between stewardship and parental management
provides one of the clearest illustrations of dialogic incompetence or ‘pre-
competence’ (Jablin & Sias, 2001).
It is evident from the Tech D case that the introduction of dialogic principles can have
contrary impacts on change receptivity, beyond what is to be expected in the benefits
of increased participation (Hennestad, 2000). The CEO operated almost exclusively in
a dialogic orientation, eschewing one-way exchanges of management control. Yet as
there was not a reciprocal level of engagement, he was frequently misunderstood. A
willingness to reflect on perspective was interpreted by the employees as
indecisiveness and a lack of strong leadership. This observation illustrates one of the
228
differences between monologic and dialogic change communication. The literature in
Chapter 2 has highlighted how monologic change communication is the primary
orientation of change communication models. This can be explained as it is the easiest
of the orientations. It only requires one-way transmission. Provided there is a recipient
available with corresponding information needs it is relatively effortless to achieve.
However, one cannot engage in dialogic exchanges without substantial effort and
energy on behalf of all concerned. There needs to be reciprocity of dialogic
competences for the dialogic exchange to occur as well as the dialogic expectations
for the dialogic exchange to progress. In Tech D, there were neither the dialogic
expectations nor sufficient levels of dialogic competences for a dialogic engagement
to occur.
Within Highsales, not only were the manager and the change agent dialogically
competent, many of the participants within the focus group’s demonstrated dialogic
competences as they acknowledged differences and were conscious of interactions
within the focus groups. The matching competences meant that the employees were
responsive when the Highsales manager and change agent initiated dialogic
interactions. Further, as time progressed between T1 and T2, it was found that the
dialogic competences within the employees developed. By the second round of focus
groups there was a stronger emphasis on relationships, empathy for others, and
awareness of individual’s opinions on others. Within Highsales, the manager
demonstrated strong displays of empathetic listening, and initiated a focus on
relationships. The dialogic principles were embraced by the employees and evident in
the second round of focus group. The participants spoke of relationships and empathy,
and this could be linked to their satisfaction and confidence with the change process.
229
Underscoring the tenuous development trajectory of dialogic competences, after the
manager and the change agent had left the business unit, despite still demonstrating
some dialogic competences within group, the third round of focus groups displayed a
decline in the willingness to accommodate other perspectives. Without strong dialogic
competences evident in the leadership, the teams had ‘siloed up’. Within the groups,
they demonstrated competences such as humour and willingness to reflect on
perspective, however these competences did not permeate the team boundaries and it
appears the cross-team relationships have declined. As Kristiansen and Bloch-Poulsen
(2000) warn, dialogic competences are often absent within organisations and need to
be constantly learned and trained. Within Highsales, the decline of dialogic
competences indicated a need for retraining and more development.
Forums
A primary consideration for enabling dialogic change communication is the provision
of dialogic containers (Kristiansen & Bloch-Poulsen, 2000) or forums in which
dialogue or constructive change communication can occur. There were very few
formal forums available for dialogic change communication to occur within Tech D.
One that had the potential was the Time Team, the cross-functional change team.
However, the team never quite realised its potential. It was not enough to provide time
and place for dialogic change communication; without dialogically competent
participants, the power of constructive change communication is lessened. The
reasons for this appeared to be the lack of dialogic competences within the team, and
that many were operating with specific agendas separate to the joint goals of the
change team.
Eisenberg et al (1999, p.143) offer a summary of the ground rules of dialogue from
230
Bohm and Edward’s (1991) book Changing Consciousness, and Senge’s (1990) Fifth
Discipline. One of the ground rules is that:
Having no leader, no hierarchy, and no predetermined agenda enhances spontaneity. Imposing a question on the group is unnecessary – questions will grow out of dialogue.
Evidence from Tech D and Highsales counters this ground rule. Only one of the Time
Teams (Mark 2) was led by a person who understood some of the principles of
creating an environment for open discussion. By establishing ground rules for the
meeting, he was carving out a dialogic field. As much as the CEO may wish this
group to be reflective, and to not impose a direction, the members were acutely aware
of the cost of their time in meetings and the need to show results. In the second time
team within Tech D, the leader established a semi-structure that enabled to the
participants to be innovative. Placing dialogically incompetent participants in a
position of dialogic inquiry can prove a fruitless task. Ultimately, the team was not
championed by the CEO. He believed he had empowered them to make a difference,
but as the participants had not previously experienced an employee-led team, they
were unable to understand what ‘empowerment’ meant, and insisted on waiting for
approval to do things. Complicating this lack of understanding was the middle
management team blocking their attempts at empowerment: ‘If you want something to
change, see our managers and follow the proper channels’.
Contrary to this, in Highsales, the change agent instigated cross-functional business
process teams on her entry and these proved very successful in creating conversations
that enabled both learning and the development of new processes and ways to
improve implementation. These, too, included a semi-structured facilitative leader,
and were able to create new ideas and processes. The management meetings in the
first half of the year could also be considered dialogic forums, the tone being relaxed
231
and collegial and the emphasis on thinking across the organisation rather than just
about each team’s performance objectives. The outcomes of these meetings often
resulted in managers providing solutions for other managers and the teamwork flowed
on to the individual teams.
The creation of the Highsales Improvement Team also created a container for dialogic
communication. This team was set up after the cross-functional BPR teams had been
disbanded. One of the main purposes of the HIT team was to improve listening across
the organisation in that management needed to continue to listen to staff, and the
teams needed to listen to their representatives, and vice versa. The initial meetings
were very successful, however once the ‘busy season’ started, there was a lack of
middle management support for the HIT team, and this meant staff were not permitted
to attend. Thus, from both cases, it is evident that the continuance of dialogic forums
requires management support and commitment. The very nature of this support and
commitment implies some level of imposition of a ‘results focused’ application and
this deviates from Bohm and Edward’s (1991) and Senge’s (1990) application of
dialogue and contributes to some of the structural paradoxes of participative work
practices (Stohl & Cheney, 2001) expounded in the next section.
Pseudo- Dialogic Change Communication (the wolf in sheep’s clothing)
Caution has been advised in the literature about the potential for dialogic exchanges to
be manipulated for controlled communication (Kent & Taylor, 2002) and thus
misrepresenting true dialogic change communication. One of the questions that arises
from this study is whether the attempt to control dialogue is an example of the
integration of monologic and dialogic approaches or something more manipulative
232
such as concertive control (Cheney et al., 2003) and manufactured consent (Burawoy,
1979). A recent study on the success of deceptive interaction suggest that dialogic
communication is more successful in deceiving the participants, as there is already an
existing trust in their partners (Burgoon, Buller, & Floyd, 2001). In this sense, the
change communication that is purportedly constructivist is actually quite instrumental.
The Highsales case-study provided two examples of the darker side of dialogic
change communication, or what is hereafter termed the ‘pseudo dialogic’.
A Big Risk
The incident in which the sales manager in Highsales introduced the employee
involvement team to thwart union action against the silent call monitoring was clearly
a case of manipulating a potential dialogic forum for managerial control. While
successful in managing the unions, it appeared that the potential for this episode to
cause extreme distrust of management and cynicism about dialogic change
communication was high. This was a risk the sales manager was prepared to take. The
recent research by Burgoon et al (2001) suggests, though, that the risk is not so high.
It is indeed easier to deceive if there is an established trusting relationship such as that
existing between the sales manager and his staff. From the manager’s perspective, the
exercise enhanced the employees’ receptivity to the performance management
activity, and certainly there was a reduction in concern about the ‘surveillance’. For
all intents and purposes, the pseudo-dialogic process enhanced change receptivity of
the employees.
Dialogica Interruptus
A second risk inherent in building dialogic expectations is the inability to deliver
through the over control of the dialogic experience. This situation creates an
233
interrupted dialogic exchange and potential for frustration to arise. Once employees
have become used to dialogic environments, they resent having that time reduced.
This was illustrated with the frustration felt by one of the HIT team members when
the meeting was scheduled for an hour, rather than two. Stohl and Cheney (2001)
describe this as a ‘paradox of punctuation’ (p.360), whereby the democratic process is
abbreviated and the point of the process is lost. The example of Highsales suggests
that this paradox becomes a double bind; not only is the constructive element of the
communication lost, the receptivity to change is also detrimentally affected.
The last sentence of the email from the employee in Highsales HIT team (‘thanks for
letting me be involved’) provides a poignant reminder that, in this instance, the
dialogic forum is controlled to the extent of who may join the dialogue, and the
participant is acutely aware of the privilege. This sentence provides an example of
paradox of design (Stohl & Cheney, 2001, p.360) where the participation is imposed
or mandated from the top.
Like the examples provided by Stohl and Cheney (2001), the withdrawal of dialogic
space was also referred to when the management meetings transitioned to a focus on
‘Work in progress’ and performance indicators. The lack of open conversations and
opportunities to learn made some employees resentful. This finding represents a
formalization paradox (Stohl & Cheney, 2001), whereby the formalising of the
dialogic space in structures, ground rules, and codes of conduct prevents the very type
of engagement it is meant to create. Resolution of this paradox can be attributed to the
existence of matching competences with expectations. In the example provided in the
section on dialogic forums, the removal of the semi-structures put in place by the
leader of the time team in Tech D would have stymied full open exploration of the
234
issues, as the employees were acutely aware of time, and productivity, and dismissive
of the dialogic intent. In contrast, the management team in Highsales possessed
expectations of dialogic engagement within the management meeting. Accordingly,
when these dialogic expectations were met with monologic competences from the
second manager, and the intense structuring of the agenda, they were dismayed.
In summary, this section suggests that the impact of dialogic change communication
on change receptivity is dependent on matching expectations and competences, and
availability of dialogic forums. The utility of dialogic change communication is
enhanced when the communicator is able to transition appropriately between
monologic and dialogic forms of communication. If there are matching competences
and expectations, change communication will have a positive impact on the change
receptivity. However, caution is acknowledged in the application of pseudo-dialogic
change communication, as there is potential for damaging the change receptivity.
Impact of the Background Talk of Change on Change Receptivity
This section addresses the impact of the background talk on change receptivity. While
the construct ‘background talk’ originated from a conversation within the first case-
study, the concept is not without precedent. Ford et al (2002) posit that there are three
background conversations of change: complacency, resignation and cynicism (Ford et
al., 2002). The authors posit that a background conversation is an ‘implicit, unspoken
‘back drop’ or ‘background’ against which explicit, foreground conversations occur’
(Ford et al., 2002, p.108). The foreground conversations consist of four types of
committed conversations, those that initiate change, those that seek to gain
understanding, those that call for action, and those that provide closure (Ford & Ford,
1995).
235
The ‘background talk’ emerged as an important element within the early analysis
from Tech D. It was observed that the informal talk (gossip, grapevine and rumours)
going on in the background of the change efforts, was taking prominence over the
conversations that were going on at the foreground of change. With the lack of
foreground conversations, employees were relying on the background talk to make
sense of what was happening. Thus analysis of the background talk within this study
extends the previous research conducted on rumours, gossip and grapevine activity as
it also considers how the employees were making sense of the organisational changes
through the varying organisational discourses.
Sense-making is an ongoing process for individuals undergoing change, whether it be
in response to monologic change communication, dialogic change communication or
within the background talk of change. The difference between the sense-making that
occurs within monologic and dialogic change communication is that these approaches
offer ‘guided’ sense-making, whereby the sense-giver is providing formal, sanctioned,
and hopefully relevant cues from which the organisational member can derive a
plausible explanation of what is occurring. The research demonstrated that in the
absence of these formal cues, the diversity of sense-making is more spontaneous and
random as organisational members draw from a wide array of symbols and cues
represented in the informal communication in the background talk of change. This
section addresses some of the sense-making that occurs in the background talk of
change and explores and analyses the impacts the background talk has on change
receptivity.
The key aspects of this section relates to the management of meaning through the
language of change, the disparate frames of reference used to make sense of change,
236
and the deliberate provision of sense-givers.
Language
Both case-studies possessed examples of how the nomenclature of change initiatives
could impact on change receptivity. In Highsales, there were examples of how the
acronyms used to label the new complex financial software (SIMPLE) amplified the
discontent with the initiative. Likewise the new product development process was
named ‘SPEEDI’; the process was renowned for its slowness. In this sense the names
provided cues to how the implementation of the change should occur, and this
inflamed the participants and created substantial derision when there was dissonance
between the name of the program and the experience. These names then became
shorthand ‘cues’ for the retelling of stories about organisational change. As new
members started, and joined in conversations about change, they would inquire as to
what the others were talking about, and the acronyms were used with greater
emphasis each time. Butcher and Atkinson (2001) caution that if the language used in
change lacks in credibility, it risks being perceived as ‘empty rhetoric’ and thus
inhibits change (p.556).
In general, the employees of Highsales were comfortable with the use of the term
continuous change, as for the most part, they recognised it to be innovative,
evolutionary, and always improving. A few cautioned that it might also be considered
to be change for change’s sake, but this caution was pre-emptive rather than
descriptive of actual circumstances. Contrary to this perspective, the employees of
Tech D regularly took issue with the language used in the change process. In the first
year, the employees insisted on references to continuous change be changed to
continuous improvement, as it was more palatable to the participants.
237
Similarly, in the second year, Tech D employees took issue with the term ‘market
failure’, perceiving this to be a slur on one of the divisions. The continued employee
control of the language of change became a powerful form of resistance within the
change, particularly as on the surface it was undertaken in order to be more accepting
of change. However, by implementing this discursive change of speaking the
language of continuous improvement, (a language that is a legitimate discourse in
change), they prevented substantive second-order change and organisational
transformation occurring. It has been suggested that first-order changes are those that
the system practices to avoid the second-order changes (Cheney et al., 2003). This
appeared to be a clear example of this occurring with the language of change.
Likewise, by rejecting the term ‘market failure’ (even after it was explained what was
meant by the term), the employees were in denial of their raison d’etre. If the
employees are in denial as to their identity, transformation is very difficult to achieve
(Fiol, 2002). The aversion to the existing language of change had not gone unnoticed
as evidenced by the CEO’s plea to the Time Team regarding the learning
organisation: ‘let’s not try and find another word for it’. Sense-making is grounded in
identity construction (Weick, 1995), and the employees could not possibly make sense
of the transformation if they were rejecting their substantive identity. Despite
rejecting the need for continuous change, they were active in constructing a number of
differing frames of reference for the change process.
Framing Discourses
Colleen Mills’ (2003) work on the ‘framing discourses’ within the informal talk of
organisational change establishes a useful framework to analyse the background talk
of change. Within both cases there were specific framing discourses evident in the
238
background talk. There were three repetitive framing discourses within Tech D;
change as a ‘survival process’, the economic value of individuals and teams and the
likelihood of redundancies, and a dialectic tension between the goals of public service
and commercialisation. In the absence of monologic change communication to
provide information and dialogic change communication to clarify understanding,
these frames of references provided sense-making cues.
With the exception of ‘survival’, when employees made sense of conditions with the
other two frames, their receptivity to change decreased, resulting in change contempt
and low morale. Inevitably, the employees made negative comparisons of themselves
with others when trying to justify economic value. The competing nature of the two
differing goals of public service and commercialisation prevented any movement
towards a unified goal. However, when they understood and recognised actions as
part of ‘survival’, the employees’ resolve strengthened and greater acceptance of the
change goals was evident. Some suggest that when organisational members refer to
themselves as survivors they are ‘normalizing’ the change management process by
equating it with natural disasters over which they have no control (Jones, Worrall, &
Cooper, 2003). It then follows that making sense of change as survival frames the
experience as noble, natural, even courageous, and self affirming.
Highsales also evidenced three main frames of reference impacting the employee
sense-making; history of redundancies, industrial relations and economic value. The
prolonged implementation of the redundancies prior to the new manager’s arrival left
lasting impressions of secrecy. The parent company had recently received unflattering
media coverage for other divisions’ redundancies and endured a protracted legal
conflict with substantial union involvement. Under these circumstances, Highsales
239
took much longer in announcing the redundancies, while they worked to ‘get it right’.
This downsizing process was shrouded in silence, with no communication, either
monologic or dialogic occurring. This approach advances an alternate explanation of a
lack of change communication where the Industrial Relations environment silences
the change communication. It is feasible that in this instance the management ‘simply
couldn’t’ communicate the changes, as the risk of public scandal and union action was
too high. As a result, as in Tech D, a change communication vacuum was created and
gossip, rumour and innuendo filled the vacuum. The smokers’ area or the unofficial
‘Utilities United Post Office’ provided opportunity for the sense-making to be
augmented by colleagues’ opinions, and the employees’ knowledge of industrial
relations in terms of the legalities of redundancies dominated.
Despite the main round of redundancies being completed within four weeks of the
researcher starting in the business unit, it still coloured the subsequent sense-making
of staff regarding change as noted by the ‘departure lounge’ quip. One of the more
distressing frames of reference was the economic value of employees. Staff were
debating the relative value that they offered to the business. The only canon of proof
required in this debate is ‘plausibility’. Provided the gossip is plausible, it can have
more purchase than an officially sanctioned ‘message’. It appears that this was one of
the silent conversations of change with no observable attempt made by managers to
address or counter the negative impact of this conversation. Using Mill’s (2000)
framework, the frames of references identified in the two case-studies are presented
below in Table 6.1 and Table 6.2.
240
Table 6.1 Framing discourse within Tech D
Discourse Attitude and position
General features Phrases and metaphors
Naturalisation of change
Positive, accepting of change Stoic acceptance
Group view, high engagement, identification with others as a system rather than a team
Survival, ‘fire fighting’, pruning trees, getting rid of deadwood, a natural part of life
Economic Implications
Negative Fearful
Economic implications provide logical cues Physical symbols provide emotional cues Low identification with others High engagement
Redundancies Value adding
Schizoid Neutral or negative Limited engagementDetached, indifferent view Requires reconciliation of goals before engaging in change.
Tension between public service goals and commercialisation intent
Table 6.2 Framing discourse within Highsales
Discourse Attitude and
position General features Phrasing and
Metaphors
Industrial Relations
Negative Legal implications provide logical cues Physical symbols provide emotional cues Low identification with others High engagement
casual v permanent staff
Economic value Negative attitude Marginalised individual
Low identification with others High engagement Comparative process
Numerical metaphors Probabilities
Historical Neutral or negative Contemptuous
Limited engagementDetached, indifferent view
In the past, Remember when
241
The Presence of Sense-givers
Gioia and Chittipeddi (1991) have reported that sense-givers can ameliorate the
negative affects of individual sense-making during change. There was only one
manager who acted as a sanctioned sense-giver within Tech D, and many of the staff
reported feeling better about changes after he spoke with them about the
organisation’s history and what was occurring at other levels.
However, within Highsales, the sense-giving activities were much more controlled
and directed. Prior to the Charles’ arrival, the absence of information about the
changes meant the change communication vacuum was filled with individual sense-
making. Rarely did this sense-making contribute to the achievement of change goals.
The subsequent use of monologic change communication for providing information
assisted in reducing the references to the past and the dialogic change communication
reduced the anxiety about further redundancies without having to rely on grand
statements such as, ‘There will be no more redundancies.’ The change agent’s use of
‘feelers’ to disseminate better information, and correct misunderstanding to provide
positive sense-making, departs from much of the literature noted earlier (Lewis,
2000b; Mills, 2000). These studies focus on how the sense-making activities prove
difficult for employees and the change agents. The evidence from Highsales provides
guidance on how it is possible to manage the employees’ sense-making. The first step
in being able to do this is engaging with the background talk of change, and to know
how the employees are making sense of the change.
Like the Miller et al (2000) study findings that nurses rely on peers for information
during change, so did the participants of both the cases, underscoring the social nature
of sense-making (Weick, 1995). This study also supported Boyce’s (1995)
242
observation that individuals bring unique experiences, motivations and perspectives to
the sense-making process as captured in the exchange within one of the Tech D focus
groups about the tension between operational focus and strategic focus.
In summary, Research Questions 2 and 3 posed the questions ‘What is change
communication?’ and ‘how does unpacking the ‘black box’ of communication inform
our understanding of change receptivity?’. This section has examined each of the
three templates separately to conclude that communication within change consists of
monologic and dialogic expectations and monologic and dialogic competences. For
employees to be receptive to change, it necessary to align the competence and
expectation. Further, a crucial aspect of change communication is the background talk
of change, and the background talk of change will rise if there is a lack of fit between
the change competences and expectations. The ‘black box’ of communication within
change is further deconstructed to establish that dialogic forums are necessary for
dialogic communication to occur. Additionally, communication during change also
entails a level of pseudo-dialogic expression. The background talk within change
encompasses a focus on language usage, framing discourses and sense-givers. The
findings on the pseudo dialogic communciation, the language use, framing discourse
and sense-givers have important implications for managing change receptivity during
continuous change. It must be noted, though, that these results do not accommodate
the interplay of the three frames, which is necessary to provide a more accurate
perspective of what occurs with communication during change. The next section does
integrate the three frames to answer Research Question 4: How do the different
communication models (instrumental/monologic and constructivist/dialogic) inform
our understanding of the impact of change communication on change receptivity
within a continuous change context?
243
The Sequencing and Interplay of the Three Templates
The previous section addressed how each of the separate templates could answer the
question ‘How does change communication impact upon change receptivity within a
continuous change context?’ This section now weaves the three templates together to
reveal a more holistic and dynamic perspective of change communication. The
relationships between monologic and dialogic change communication and the
background talk are intrinsically related to the conditions for sense-making. Sense-
making is an on-going process; however it is amplified in times of uncertainty and
ambiguity. Monologic change communication is required in order for employees to
receive information so that they can then make sense of the changes. Second, dialogic
processes allow for collective sense-making and opportunities to clarify meaning and
consider alternate explanations to reduce ambiguity. The background talk is both a
product of the sense-making, but also a critical sense-making process, where
employees voice concerns, opinions and thoughts about change and test for veracity
amongst peers.
The use of Langley’s (1999) Alternate Templates has enabled three change
communication orientations to provide a more complex, and correspondingly
advanced, representation of what occurs in continuous change. Each theoretical
perspective on its own offers some insight, but the theoretical triangulation offers a
holistic interpretation of change.
The findings suggest that monologic (M) and dialogic (D) communication present as
the ‘front-end’ process of change with the background talk and the informal sense-
making (BT) occurring in the absence of change communication. Figure 6.1 depicts
this dynamic with organisational change conceptualised as a pipeline, where the
244
change process flows continuously.
Figure 6.1: The Pipeline of Continuous Change Communication
bt
M
D
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
mm
m
d
d
d
d
dd
d
dd
d
d
BT
btbt
btbt
bt
bt
bt
bt
bt
btbt
bt
bt
d
m
bt
bt
bt
bt
d
bt
btbt
m
It must be noted that while Putnam (1999) critiques the conduit perspective of
communication, the use of the pipeline metaphor proposed in this study does not
reflect the conduit perspective of communication. The pipeline represents a container
of continuous change, within which there are differing levels of monologic and
dialogic change communication and background talk. It is argued that the mix or
balance of the three elements determines the change receptivity.
In Tech D, for the full two years of study there was little in the way of monologic and
dialogic change communication up front. The lack of either model created a vacuum
and allowed the background talk to flow back up the pipeline of change and dominate
the change effort. There was little in the way of positive effects on change receptivity.
However, in Highsales, after the change consultant and the new business unit manager
began, there was substantial monologic change communication and dialogic change
communication at the front end of change. As the monologic and dialogic change
communication filled the pipeline, it left little room for the background talk of change
,in order to make sense of the changes. Of this background talk of change, three main
frames of reference were identified and two were countered with increased change
245
communication from the front end of change. Understanding organisational change as
a dynamic interplay of these three communicative approaches allows change
communicators a more specific approach to tailoring change communication. The use
of multiple perspectives also deviates from an understanding of change
communication as purely a function of management, and suggests a
reconceptualisation of change communication as creating change, and shaping the
change process.
As highlighted in Chapter 2, there is a need to know more about the sequencing of
conversations of change (Ford & Ford, 1995) and the relative effectiveness of
communication strategies (Lewis, 2000b). This research contributes to this knowledge
by positing that monologic and dialogic change communication sequence in response
to the level of alignment of expectations and competences. The level of misfit
between the competences and expectations has a direct result on the background talk
of change.
In Highsales, both the manager and change agent were adroit at switching from
dialogic to monologic to strong effect. They possessed an innate ability to sense when
the organisation required stability and when the organisation required further change
and then use the appropriate change communication competence. Kristiansen and
Bloch-Poulsen’s (2000) concept of dialogic rhythm provides a framework for
understanding how they knew when to switch competences.
Kristansen and Bloch-Poulsen (2000) discuss the implications of dialogic rhythm,
where dialogic rhythm progresses throughout the conversational sequence, and
something new is added all the time. In acknowledging the interplay between the two
models and the need for discursive shifts from one model to another, managers are
246
offered further guidance in managing continuous change. In relation to Highsales, part
of the manager and the change agents’s success in this regard can be attributed to the
timing and sensitivity to the points in the process where the exchange ceased to add
something new. At this point, both the manager and the change agents would
transition to monologic models of communication.
The Tech D CEO also led with dialogic change communication; however, owing to
the lack of dialogic competences and forums, nothing new was added. During this
time, the background talk filled the empty space, and by the time the CEO chose to
switch models, the background talk was ‘too loud’ for the monologic change
communication to get through. In Highsales in the last six months, the new manager
demonstrated a sequencing of monologic to dialogic; however initial results indicate
that this order is more difficult to manage in terms of change receptivity. Given the
level of control and power initiated in the monologic transmission, it is difficult for
employees to open up and ‘add something new’ after being ‘told’ what will occur.
The use of sequencing represents a major area for further research, and yet seemingly
a difficult area to enter as recognising transition points represents codification of tacit
knowledge.
At some point in a dialogic exchange, closure is required and a monologic moment
can take the ‘talk’ into action. Research that can expose the triggers of discursive
shifts would identify a critical change communication competence. Conversely, when
anchoring a new process, an engagement of dialogic processes can improve the
implementation of the new process, or indeed construct new processes and
understanding.
The consideration of sequencing of the change communication strategies greatly
247
enhances Van de Ven and Poole’s (1995) process theories of change. Using their
classification of change, Tech D and Highsales presented an intriguing confluence of
at least three of the motors of change. In Tech D, the CEO subscribed to an
evolutionary understanding of change by recognising the multiple entities within the
change process. These involved the government stakeholders, the client base and the
functional ‘silos’ existing within the organisation. The CEO recognised that change
had to be directed, and subscribed to the view that change naturally occurred as an
accumulation of small individual events that gradually changes the nature of the
organisation. There was no predetermined ‘end state’, indeed he envisioned that the
organisation would take on many different identities as they jointly explored the
opportunities exposed on the journey. His commitment to learning and risk taking
suggested an appreciation and/or tolerance of constructivist motors. He was
comfortable with the conflict required to create synthesis, and expected conflict as
part of moving forward in the change process.
However, the refusal of the employees to acknowledge the environmental turbulence
meant that many of the employees understood change from a lifecycle perspective.
They believed that they were a single entity, and that if provided with the logical, and
rational stages of change, they would comply. This belief was most evident in their
expectations that they should be told what to do within change, and their pique that
change was still continuing. It can be argued that the lifecycle motor of change nested
within the evolutionary motor (Poole & Van de Ven, 2004). Not a comfortable
interaction, the clash in understanding of what the change process should be initiated
the dialectic motor, with the lack of synthesis on this issue creating a stalemate. The
stalemate did not prevent change occurring continuously; rather it slowed the process
down, narrowed the focus to continuous improvement and made the experience more
248
uncomfortable for the participants. This combination of motors for change could be
considered to be one of the combinations as yet unaccounted for in Van de Ven and
Poole’s (1995) Table 3 ‘Logically Possible Theories of Organisational Change
Development’4.
The other combination not yet described in Van de Ven and Poole’s (1995) Table 35
can be illustrated using the second case-study. Highsales primarily subscribed to an
evolutionary theoretical foundation. As a business unit in a government owned
corporation, there were ministerial stakeholders and customers to satisfy and the
business unit had a number of licensees and functional groups to accommodate. The
change in product lines led to a natural process of variation. However, the constant
negotiations with the unions and other business entities suggested that the dialectic
motor was in full operation. Finally, the employees were comfortable with the
adaptive nature of the organisation and believed they had a role in determining the
progress, rather than just being told what to do. The change agent’s focus was on on
problem - solving and goal setting as a way of moving through the changes. Further
analysis of the change communication, suggest that the two cases differing
experiences of change communication explains the fit with the two rows as illustrated
in Table 6.3 on the next page.
4 Lifecycle, Dialectic and Evolutionary Process Theories
5 Teleogy, Dialectic and Evolutionary Process Theories
249
Table 6.3 Van de Ven & Poole’s Process Theories of Change adapted to consider
Tech D & Highsales
Interplays among Generating Mechanism
Lifecycle Teleology Dialectic Evolution
Prescribed motor within
entity
Constructive Motor within
entity
Constructive motor between
entities
Prescribed motor between entities
Immanent Program
Purposeful Enactment
Conflict & Synthesis
Competitive Selection
Tech D YES. The employees
possessed expectation that
the change process would be
a rational, ordered, linear
process and they would be told what to do.
NO The employees needed to be told what to do, and did not take responsibility for co-creating.
YES The CEO was supportive of Hegelian dialectic as a way of creating a learning organisation. The clash in expectations of the employees and the CEO resulted in conflict followed by stalemate.
YES The CEO acknowledged the competing attentions of stakeholders, and that the end state would be a result of what was happening in the environment. Variation occurred through changing industry focus, govt agendas.
Highsales NO Employees recognised experimentation could not occur within a linear fashion.
YES While the employees did not always see the competing tensions of multiple entities, they did believe they were entitled to be part of the change process and that it was necessary to make the process meaningful to them.
YES Parts of the process were challenged by key stakeholders eg Unions halted the call monitoring, the licensees resisted the KPI’s. The resulting discussions created synthesis.
YES The organisation primarily operated within these conditions. Multiple entities consisted of Minister, Board, CEO & parent company, functional groups, however the change was primarily directed. Variation occurred through seasonal fluctuation, and changing governance focus, and competitive conditions.
Further, this model can be extended to accommodate the sequencing of the
communication models within change as depicted in the following table.
250
Table 6.4 Dominant Communication Models of Change: an Extension of Van de
Ven & Poole’s 1995 Process Theories of Change
Interplays among Generating Mechanism
Lifecycle Teleology Dialectic Evolution
Prescribed motor within
entity
Constructive Motor within
entity
Constructive motor
between entities
Prescribed motor
between entities
Immanent Program
Purposeful Enactment
Conflict & Synthesis
Competitive Selection
Dominant Comm Model Implications (Sequencing)
Monologic Change Model Expectations are met with matching monologic competences. Background talk rises in response to lack of monologic change communication. Eg Tech D’s expectation of how the change process would occur.
Dialogic then Monologic Monologic is used to primarily create action. Eg Change agent initiated cross functional discussion groups. When nothing new added, then moved to monologic as action focus eg to-do list.
Dialogic Change Model Dialogic change competences required to be able to move to synthesis. If lacking in dialogic competence, then stale mate occurs Synthesis: Highsales and dialogic exchange between unions, and licensees. Stalemate: Tech D CEO and engineers.
Dialogic then Monologic The monologic emphasises hierarchy and power. First we discuss, then I tell you what to do. Some of you will be disappointed. Can’t please everyone. Eg CEO of Tech D, Business Unit Manager of Highsales.
Within a lifecycle theory of change, because of the emphasis on rational and linear
processes, the primary focus of the change communication is information provision.
Employees are told the vision, and the rationale for change, and how it is to occur.
The planned and programmed nature of the change suggests there is little need for
dialogic change communication. Indeed as evidenced in Tech D, the attempts to
create dialogue are rejected, and considered irritating. If the employees understand the
change as being rational and linear, they will possess monologic expectations. If there
251
is insufficient monologic change communication, then the background talk will rise in
volume and intensity.
The teleological perspective was demonstrated within Highsales from the interactions
between the change agent and the employees. The employees had an expectation of
involvement and understood their role as ‘co-creators’ of change. The change agent
picked up on this climate and introduced the cross-functional Business Process
Workshops to involve and generate new knowledge. During these workshops, when
she would sense that there was nothing new added, she would transition to monologic
change communication in generating action lists, and delegating tasks to those
involved. In this theoretical perspective, monologic change communication is used to
generate action, and the sequencing of the two generates positive background talk of
change.
Within a dialectical theory of change, clearly the dialogic change communication
model takes a primary role with conflict generating new understanding. Both Tech D
and Highsales provided examples of the dialectic motor in operation, but had differing
impacts on change receptivity. Poole and Van de Ven (2004) note that the
developmental trajectory of dialectic motors is not predetermined. The path towards
sythesis will vary greatly from case to case. This study provides partial explanation
for the variance in dialectic paths. In Tech D, because of the lack of dialogic
competences, the entities engaged in the conflict (CEO and employees) were not able
to reach a synthesis, instead achieving a stalemate which generated substantial
background talk of derision and cynicism. The organisation coexisted with the
tensions and dualities (Seo et al., 2004), exposed by the lack of fit between change
competences and expectations. However, within Highsales, there were regular
252
occurrences of conflict between entities (licensees and management, union and
management) which were resolved through dedicated dialogic forums. The
satisfactory synthesis limited the development of negative background talk. The
alignment of change communication competences and expectations enabled the
synthesis to occur.
Finally, the evolutionary theoretical perspective was most evident from the senior
management. Both the CEO of Tech D and the Manager of Highsales recognised the
adaptive and emergent nature of organisational change, and the importance of
satisfying multiple entities (government stakeholders, employees, licensees). In
managing these differing and competing views, the Manager of Highsales initiated the
change communication with dialogic exchanges and then transitioned to monologic
mode. Contrary to the action focus of monologic change communication in the
teleological perspective, the focus of monologic change communication in the
evolutionary perspective is power and control. Like Darwinian evolution, where the
strongest survive, the power aspect of change communication represents successful
change. The most powerful (CEO in Tech D, and Manager in Highsales) have the
final word.
As noted in Chapter 1, despite extending their 1995 framework, Poole and Ven de
Ven (2004) do not consider the communicative implications of the theories of
organisational change and innovation. The adaptation of Van de Ven and Poole’s
(1995) process theories of change to include the sequencing of the monologic and
dialogic change communication represents a major departure from both the
management and communications literature. This analysis contributes to the
development of a bimodal theory of change communication, where both instrumental
253
and constructivist models of change communication are accomodated and with
subsequent testing over a greater number of cases could provide a comprehensive
theoretical framework for communication within continuous change.
Perception of Past Change Implementation
One of the highlights of interpretive studies is that they endeavour to provide multiple
perspectives of the same phenomena and not privilege a dominant perspective of the
findings. In this sense, a lack of triangulation of data can be valuable in offering
different explanations of what is witnessed rather than a threat to validity. In this
study, the findings of the quantitative and the qualitative studies did not converge in
regards to Research Question 1 (How does communication impact on change
receptivity within a continuous change context). The previous section reported on the
qualitative results and provided answers to this question, however, the results from the
quantitative study on Hypothesis 1 provided an intriguing result and what some might
consider disconfirming evidence (Devers, 1999). The results from the tests of
correlations in both cases showed no relationship between monologic change
communication or dialogic change communication and change receptivity. The simple
diagrammatic model that was tested is as follows:
Figure 6.2 Simple Model of Change Communication and Change Receptivity
While the methodological limitations such as small sample size may be attributed to
the contradictory results, further probing in the last round of focus groups offers an
Change
communication
Change Receptivity
254
alternative explanation for the lack of relationship between change communication
and change receptivity. In both cases, focus group participants recognised that
implementation has more impact on change receptivity than change communication.
Simply put, if the employees’ previous experience with the implementation of change
was positive, then they would be more likely to be more receptive to future change.
This finding does not negate the importance of change communication; rather these
results suggest a re-ordering of the causal relationship to reflect the following:
Figure 6.3 Revision of Relationship between Change Communication and Change Receptivity
In this model, past perception of change implementation has a direct effect on change
receptivity. In addition to this relationship, the alignment of change communication
expectations and competences moderates the relationship between change
communication and change receptivity. Additionally, it poses the question of what is
change implementation if it is not a communicative act ? This concept is raised by
Grin and Van de Graaf (1996/1997) and supported by the Stewart and Kringas (2003)
study. If the composition of monologic and dialogic change communication and
background talk of change is in appropriate balance, then the likelihood of successful
Past Perception of Change Implementation
Change Receptivity Change Communication
Alignment of Expectations and Competences
255
change implementations increases. At the very least, this finding provides guidance to
practitioners and change managers in acknowledging the ‘lessons learned’ from
previous change initiatives prior to embarking on new initiatives. The ability to guide
the organisational members in reflection of what worked and what did not to reframe
the failures as learning opportunities must be highly valued.
This provides two new hypotheses to be included in further research:
The perceived success of previous change implementation will have a direct effect on receptivity to future change.
The degree of alignment between change ommunication competences and change communication expectations will moderate the relationship between change communication and change receptivity.
The reflection on the divergent findings concludes the discussion on Research
Questions 1, 2, 3 and 4 and Hypothesis 1. The next section discusses the findings in
relation to Hypothesis 2 and Research Question 5. In so doing, it investigates some of
the complexities in understanding the communicative implications of continuous
change.
SECTION 2: What were the Communicative Implications of
Continuous Change?
The previous section contributed to answering the Research Questions 3 and 4 by
establishing that change communication entails matching explicit monologic and
dialogic expectations and personal competences in monologic and dialogic change
communication. Further, change communication consists of a number of framing
discourses that form the background talk of change. This section further focuses on
the contextual dimensions of continuous change to contribute to the development of
change communication theory.
256
Uncertainty and Ambiguity
Both case-studies showed that the uncertainty of continuous change heightens
employees’ information needs. The simple response is to communicate information
continuously, though as shown in Tech D, where the IT employee reported a surge in
log-ons to recruitment sites after CEO emails, this response can heighten anxiety as
well.
Additionally, there were examples within Highsales of the dangers of information
overload with the excessive use of email as a way to communicate the changes.
During the very busy time, the employees spoke of the overwhelming use of email to
be notified of changes, yet the managers appeared to use this medium as a way of
abdicating responsibility responding with, ‘Well I sent you an email’. Like the
managers in Klein’s (1996) study, the managers were blaming the receivers for not
‘getting it’. Klein (1996) highlights the importance of redundancy of the message and
medium and efficacy of face-to-face communication and this finding was underscored
by the focus group participants desire to ‘all get together’, and exasperation with
being ‘flooded with sales alerts’.
Another consideration in reducing the overwhelming number of messages of change
is the importance of relevance. When the changes are continuous, many of the
employees do not wish to know anything but that which is personally relevant to
them. Klein (1994) reports that information concerning the company, plant or other
workers quickly tended to be forgotten. The comments regarding ‘you can talk till the
cows come home’ provides caution to those seeking to keep all organisational
members involved in visioning processes and issues of greater significance.
The emergent approach to change attempts to accommodate the unpredictability of
257
change, and to understand the complex interplay of variables that impact on the
change process by considering the political, and contextual factors of organisations
(Burnes, 1996; Dawson, 2003). While the complexity of this approach resonates at an
academic level, it appears few have an ability to accommodate it at a practical level.
The stories from those involved at Tech D suggest they never accepted the rationale
of continuous change, always expecting that there could be some rational, planned
framework that would deliver certainty. Advocates of emergent change recommend
creating open learning systems to deal with the complexities and uncertainties, and the
necessity for ‘bottom-up’ led change; however if the employees reject that, then the
difficulties for the change communicator multiply. Those advocating emergent change
stress four features that enable success: organisational structure, organisational
culture, organisational learning and managerial behaviour. The CEO of Tech D
recognised this and attempted to make substantive change in all four aspects of the
organisation, however the forces of inertia were considerable as recognised by the
manager’s description of organisational silos being made of industrial concrete, and
the admonishment of the time team member by his manager, ‘Look if you want
something to change, see your manager and follow the proper channels!’
Guidance for Tech D may be provided by Finger and Brand’s (1999) study which
suggests that is not possible to transform a bureaucratic organisation by learning
initiatives alone (Finger & Brand, 1999). In Tech D, it appeared that the CEO, who
possessed dialogic competences, expected that the employees after having read
Senge’s work would intuitively start to build and co-create a learning organisation and
thus manage the uncertainties themselves. However, given the lack of existing
dialogic competences and dialogic settings this result was highly unlikely, particularly
when none had read the book. In this sense, the observation that the creation of a
258
learning organisation is a top-down initiative has tentative support (Hughes & Tight,
1998). If the CEO had initially responded to the monologic communicative
expectations with top-down communication, he may have built up trust and credibility
with the employees and this process would have enabled the transition to more
dialogic approaches. It appears a monologic approach is necessary in order to create
and cultivate dialogic processes, particularly when the employees possessed
monologic change expectations.
Change Fatigue
One of the side-effects of the prolonged continuous improvement programs was
change fatigue. This effect was evident in both cases. In the first case of Tech D, it
appeared that the incremental nature ‘wore the staff down’. As seen in Tech D,
incremental change was not necessarily energising, and required distance to recognise
the size of the change. Part of the change fatigue could also be attributed to the
amount of energy employees were expending on resisting the changes and in seeking
out information about change. For those who displayed a low tolerance of ambiguity,
a significant amount of energy was expended in trying to make sense of the changes
and securing ‘direction’ and this effort contributed to the change fatigue. This result
supports Weick and Quinn’s (1999) contention that the change agent’s role is to make
sense of change and facilitate understanding. If the change agent is actively making
sense of the change for the employees, as was the case in Highsales, the employees
expend less energy in the same activity and are less likely to experience change
fatigue.
Change fatigue was also witnessed in the latter half of the Highsales study. After the
initial impact of the change agent and the manager’s transformative actions, the
259
employees were asked to continue to focus on meeting performance targets and effect
incremental change. However, two of the overriding considerations for the employees
were job security and career progression and these had not been addressed throughout
the change process. Acknowledging the issue of job security and career progression
would have been an opportunity to re-energise the organisation; however it was
ignored, and denied when raised. By denying or ignoring the issue during the change
process, the employees perceived a breach of psychological contract. A psychological
contract refers to employees’ perceptions of what they owe to their employer and
what their employer owes to them (Robinson, 1996). Not surprisingly, by the end of
the case-study time frame employees were resigning in larger than expected numbers,
with all going to ‘better’ jobs. While it is natural to experience a lag effect after a
major change process, it was found that the ‘little’ issues irritate and fester and
escalate when people are tired. This observation was supported by Pate et al.’s (2000)
process model of the links between contract violation, trust, cynicism and
organisational change. The Highsales case could be considered another case that
would fit this model, where the perceived breach of contract resulted in unwillingness
to cooperate in future organisational change.
Necessity to Provide Metrics to Measure Success
A common saying in Tech D was ‘You can’t improve what you can’t measure’. It was
apparent that metrics play a key communicative role in continuous change. The use of
metrics to measure change success provides two key functions. In Tech D the CEO
was embroiled in protracted negotiations for funding with a state government agency,
and then for a continued contract. The absence of change metrics made it difficult to
argue for continued resources. Contrary to this approach, in Highsales, the new
260
manager set up metrics for every department and achievement of the change goals.
These became crucial communicative symbols for use with both the employees (See!
We are doing well!), and in meetings with the CEO of the parent company and the
Board.
Second, in Highsales the metrics served as a ‘dialogic anchor’ in the meetings.
Provided the managers recognised that achieving those metrics was a common goal,
then it was safe to challenge each other with a view to improving performance as
noted by the participants’ comments regarding personal challenges and personal
attacks.
However, some businesses are easier to establish metrics within than others –
Highsales was a standard retail business, with a relatively simple service and product
delivery. Tech D’s business model was not as simple; at the time of research, the
employees were actively resisting the implementation of job costing and output
metrics.
The literature talks of the importance of creating small wins (Weick, 1984) and
Lewis’s (2000b) research on four case-studies revealed that communicating goal
achievement was a key issue in successful change programmes. The creation of
change metrics is a way of institutionalising small wins, and communicating goal
achievements, providing the change is successful. If the change is not going so well it
provides a visible motivator of what needs to be improved. Additionally, the creation
of change metrics provides a way of maintaining communicative attention with
diverse stakeholders.
261
Communicative Attention
The findings confirmed that the role of external communication and impression
management is amplified during continuous change. These external foci have the
potential to distract the change leader’s communicative attention. Lewis et al (2003a)
defines communicative attention as ‘the behaviour of organisations in intentionally
pursuing communication with stakeholders’ (p. 401). In the case of Tech D for the
first 18 months the CEO‘s communicative attention was engaged in public relations
activity and a strategic planning agenda to secure ongoing funding. This observation
raises the issue of communicative consciousness in continuous change. Clearly it is
unreasonable to expect the CEO to dismiss stakeholder concerns during continuous
change; without ministerial support the agency can cease to exist, or undertake full
privatisation (Stewart & Kringas, 2003). However, it does appear that this time was
also a period where the CEO required someone else to step into the breach and pay
attention to the communicative requirements of the organisation. None of the other
management team filled the change communication void. There is heavy emphasis on
using managers as change agents in the literature (Doyle, 2002) and the Tech D case-
study demonstrates that the learning of years of research on change have not
necessarily permeated at operational or managerial levels. Ignoring the needs and
basics of instrumental change communication led to the development of further
background talk, and this background talk served to further embed the inertia.
Tech D’s case supports Stewart and Kringas’s (2003) findings in their studies of
public sector cases undergoing change. While they initially set out to measure
successful change as how positive the employees felt about the change program, the
CEOs of the cases felt that while that was a relevant measurement, it was more
important to gauge key stakeholders perceptions of success.
262
Lewis et al.’s (2001) research suggests that change implementers within non-profit
sectors use six strategies when communicating change. When in a situation where
there is a high need for communication efficiency and a high need for consensus
building, the change implementer will most likely use the quid pro quo strategy,
whereby the stakeholder with the most resources gains the most attention. However,
as Cheney et al (2003) point out, this strategy risks alienating those left out of the
process. In essence, this strategy is a ‘zero-sum-game’. What one stakeholder receives
in communicative attention is at the cost of another stakeholder. When the secondary
stakeholder is the organisational member then the result is a decline in change
receptivity. This situation is what transpired in Tech D with the CEO focusing his
attention on the relationship with the funding agency. The strategy that Lewis et al
(2001) report as least likely to be used is the reactionary strategy where implementers
respond to concerns as they arise, and is likely to be used in response to unexpected
events such a budget cuts. This strategy was also used within Tech D to communicate
change to the employees.
While not technically a not-for-profit organisation, Lewis et al.’s (2001) work can be
applied to Highsales. Particularly conscious of the need to ‘keep everyone in the
loop’, the manager appointed the change agent, not only to instigate the business
process re-engineering, but also to bolster the communication of change. In
discussions during the change, Charles revealed that the fact that Jessica had an
organisational communication degree had factored highly in the appointment.
Highsales followed an ‘equal dissemination’ model (Lewis et al, 2001). Key to
managing the change process was identifying the many stakeholder groups and
tailoring the dissemination of information to them. However, it is necessary to note
that Highsales were large enough in revenue to be able to afford a specific change
263
communication role.
In this sense, communicative attention and consciousness is more important in
continuous change, as opposed to single episode change events. During an episodic
event, the change agent communicates the plan and this provides a blue-print for
change. In the absence of the change agent, employees can still follow the plan
independently. However, when the role of the change agent is to facilitate dialogue, in
the absence of the change agent, the change plan dissipates. This finding was evident
after the change agent and manager had left the Highsales case-study. The remaining
managers were not as strong in regards to communicative attention or consciousness.
As a result the organisation silo’d up, and the background talk rose in response to the
successive employee resignations.
Receptivity as a Process
One of the key aims of this research was to examine and analyse employee receptivity
to change when faced with continuous change. The research examined the impacts of
repeated changes on how open employees are to change. The quantitative results
allowed a ‘helicopter view’ of the phenomenon and evaluated the employees’
receptivity to change at six monthly (Highsales) and yearly (Tech D) intervals. In both
cases the results suggested that despite differing organisational contexts, differing
change focus, and implementation, a relatively high openness to change was
consistent across cases. Despite an initial decline from Time 1 to Time 2 in Tech D,
the openness change remained above 3.73, and further decline was not evident. In
Highsales, there was no significant difference in openness to change across the three
survey points.
Like the Allen et al (1995) study, these findings suggest that the type of change event
264
affects how people feel about future change. In Tech D after Time 1, significant
redundancies resulted in openness to change declining after the introduction of
redundancies. It can also be suggested that the lack of awareness of the financial
difficulties contributed to the decline in openness to change. After Time 2, the
employees were provided with more information on the reasons for redundancies and
the continuing restructuring. The provision of additional understanding of reasons for
downsizing is key to avoiding survivor syndrome (Applebaum & Donia, 2001). The
employees also operated under the assumption that the environment was stable, and
the government would continue to fund the organisation no matter what, although this
was clearly not the case.
At Time 1 in Tech D, the staff had very high expectations of change, in terms of
timing, and amount of change, and saw potential for personal gain. By Time 2 they
had realised that these expectations were unrealistic. As noted in Chapter 4, the ‘no
communication as to why there were delays’ impacted on the change receptivity.
As one staff member reasoned, with a workforce earning an median income of $80K,
the quickest way to regain fiscal stability was to lay off staff and preferably highly
paid staff (for example the managers). At Time 1 – they had no reasons to believe this
would be a strategy – the CEO’s ‘open communication style’ belied the emphasis that
was subsequently placed on downsizing. At Time 2, staff were provided with
information as to why they had progressed with change (eg financial difficulties with
stakeholders). The staff had been initially shielded from the reality of their financial
position, and therefore could see no reason why their expectations of change were not
being met. As illustrated by the comment, ‘And we have chosen continuous
improvement in our culture. And I just accept that, and that’s it’, there was a stoic
265
commitment to change – a sense of resignation, that it was going to happen and
probably would not be as fast or the way they wanted, but it was still better than prior
to Time 1.
The commitment to change was buttressed by change optimism in some sectors of the
organisation and commitment to the organisation. Despite the negativity and cynicism
evident in the engineering consultants, other employees (‘quite a remarkable
company, in my view to work in’) were satisfied with the organisation.
In Highsales, in contrast, as indicated by the comment regarding the ‘burning
platform’, employees were initially made aware of the dire need to turn the
organisation around. Contrary to the employees of Tech D, the staff at Highsales
recognised a very dynamic and volatile environment with the development of new
products and markets. This organisation, though, was further established in terms of a
commercialisation focus and recognised there would be no government ‘bail-out’.
These results draw attention to the sensitivity of change receptivity as a construct.
Quite simply, receptivity to change dips and peaks on a daily basis, depending on the
amount of information provided, the personal goals and expectations, and the levels of
commitment to the organisation. From the macro perspective, it takes a significant
event to alter the change receptivity. Even when faced with the trauma of
redundancies, the overall openness to change was still above the median score in Tech
D.
This research is not the first study to note a contradiction in the quantitative and
qualitative research. Pate et al. (2000) also found that the data from their quantitative
study suggested a high level of positive attitudes towards the company, yet their focus
266
groups did not reflect this. Similarly, Stewart and Kringas (2003) found the attitudes
towards change expressed in their interviews were more negative than the staff survey
results suggested. Stewart and Kringas (2003) suggested that this divergence could be
attributed to the survey addressing a change specific event, whereas the interviews
delved more into the employees’ job dissatisfaction. The less structured interview
format allowed for the participants to generate their own topics. Indeed one of the last
questions in the focus groups was specifically designed to prevent overemphasis on
the edic perspective, ‘Is there anything that we haven’t talked about, that you thought
we would’. Given the likelihood of job redesign, and job role change within
organisational change, the results from this current study and Stewart and
Kringas’(2003) suggest that future research on employee satisfaction with change
must include measures of job satisfaction and integration of job satisfaction within the
models explored.
Pate et al (2000) suggest that the timing of events within the organisation affected
their lack of triangulation, and this can also be the case within Tech D. By the time the
focus groups were conducted in Time 1, the employees’ early high hopes of change
were frustrated. So while they initially indicated on the survey that they were open to
change, by the time the focus groups occurred, and the employees had experienced the
subsequent lack of speed of change, their receptivity to change had declined.
Further, Pate et al (2000) question the validity of questionnaires in capturing dynamic
constructs such as breach and violation, and this too may be an issue with receptivity.
It would appear from the findings that there are a number of factors influencing the
change receptivity, from individual expectation, delivery of information from
management, political funding decreases, and job security to name but a few. The
267
results suggest that receptivity is too dynamic to be captured as a state, contrary to
Huy’s (1999) assertion. There is a third explanation for the divergence in
triangulation, not considered by Pate et al (2000). The divergence between the focus
group responses and the survey results in terms of change receptivity provides further
explanation of the dynamics of group level effects. The surveys captured ‘individual’
response to receptivity and aggregated these at an organisational level. However
recognised by Bazigos and Burke (1997, p.387), when using Lewinian theory ‘group
opprobrium restrains individual behaviour from deviating too greatly from the norm’.
Despite deliberately excluding managers and supervisors from the focus group so as
not to impact on candour of the groups, there was sufficient evidence to suggest that
‘group’ censure impacted the discussions on how people felt about change when
discussing the issue in public. This evidence was illustrated by the ‘bravado’ exhibited
by the consulting focus group in Tech D, and the participant who confided after the
focus group that she felt reluctant to speak freely in front of some her workmates. The
lack of methodological triangulation on this issue offers an alternate explanation
regarding the difference between individual and group level effects.
Future Research In order to continue providing clarity of organisational processes affecting change,
further research needs to focus on the idea of communication during change (Mills,
2003) rather than communication of change. This approach guards against continued
focus on the instrumental perspective of change communication and accommodates
multiple perspectives of change communication. Managers tend to dismiss the
background talk, or assume it is too difficult to address, and this is paralleled by a
lack of scholarly interest in the informal talk of change. This research suggests the
neglect of the background talk is to our scholastic detriment. To this end, Mills (2003,
268
2004) works in pursing the informal communication during change, and addressing
the integration of formal and informal communication is a promising and enlightening
trajectory. Whilst there is a body of work addressing gossip, grapevine activity and
the rumour mill within organisations, only Appelbaum et al.’s (2003) works considers
the implications of these forms of informal talk within a change context. This current
study advances this path by providing a model of how the formal and informal talk of
change integrates, when viewed as monologic and dialogic change communication
and the background talk of change, and the resultant impact on change receptivity.
Further research could consider managed sense-making, in relation to engaging with
the background talk. Analysis of organisational metaphors starts this process, however
this analysis had the potential to be superficial; there is safety behind metaphors as
these act as a heuristic. By using metaphors, the sense-making process may be
prematurely abbreviated, as the employees do not have to delve into deep
understanding and reflection on how they are making sense of the change. Analysis of
the change agent role within Highsales provides a foundation for future research, in
examining how change agents may identify salient features of the background talk,
and then implement successful interventions. This will be a challenging task as it
involves uncovering tacit knowledge in order to expose the cognitive processes.
One of the core assumptions underpinning this research was that communication
impacts how people feel and think about change. The results suggest a far more
complex relationship than this assumption. The complexity in the results of this
research necessitates further work on establishing causal relationships between
employees’ emotional engagement, change implementation and change
communication. The model advanced in this chapter provides a starting point for
269
future testing. However, the results also suggest a redirection towards a fully social
constructionist account of change, whereby questions enactment of change
communication can be considered, and fuller exploration of the relationships between
forms of change communication and employee openness to change may be
considered. These results also point to the salience of temporal factors (such as
nostalgia, retrospective accounts, and memories of past experiences) and continuing
to track the evolution of the relationship between change communication and
employees receptivity would be prudent.
The increase in apathy and cynicism within continuous change maybe a response to
an increase in the manipulative or pseudo-dialogic use of communication during
change. Scholars may wish to address bordering bodies of research in Public
Relations, Advertising and Political Communication to address how change managers
might transform highly cynical or apathetic organisations when faced with continuous
change. Neither of the cases in this thesis employed overt tactics of persuasion within
the change process.
There are also opportunities for further research addressing ‘How does the
monologic/dialogic/background talk model work in other organisations?’ This study
revealed that the two cases could be classified within Van de Ven and Poole’s (1995)
tri motor of change. Examples of other organisations and their use of the three change
communication models will further develop this framework. Additionally, questions
remain about the triggers for making discursive shifts between monologic and
dialogic exchanges. When and how does the change agent know it is time to switch
styles, bolster dialogic or increase monologic communication in a variety of contexts?
This exploration could lead to important learnings for management education
270
programs. From a methodological standpoint it would be fruitful to consider analysis
of videotaped or audio taped exchanges to isolate the shifting points.
The process of developing a sophisticated survey instrument measuring the
monologic, dialogic and background talk models of change has begun within this
study. The scales used in this research were created to capture opportunistic data, and
did not have the advantage of long scale development processes. Similarly, the small
sample numbers compromise the power of the analyses. Developing a more
comprehensive measurement tool will bolster understanding of the interplay of
communication models and provide change communication metrics.
Conclusion
This chapter has discussed the findings from the two case-studies Tech D and
Highsales in conjunction with the literature on change receptivity from Chapter 2, to
address the research aims made explicit in Chapter 1. To this end, the research has
shown that while each of the change communication models, monologic and dialogic
change communication, and the background talk of change, have distinct impacts on
change receptivity, they must be considered in an integrated form to understand a
theory of change communication. In unpacking the black box of change
communication, this thesis supports the concept of a bimodal theory of
communication (Taylor & Van Every, 2000) and suggests that change communication
is both instrumental (monologic change communication) and constructivist (dialogic
change communication and the background talk of change). To privilege one
perspective over the other is to deny the value implicit in the combined interplay.
This research has found that change communication consists of both monologic and
dialogic expectations and competences, as well as dialogic forums. There are also
271
more difficult elements of change communication to consider such as the background
talk of change, discursive resistance and pseudo-dialogic events. These elements are
more difficult for change agents to address as they are not immediately obvious, and
require deeper analysis to consider and address. In addressing the contextual
considerations of continuous change, this research has shown that receptivity is a
dynamic process, which, on close investigation, changes on a day to day basis. The
additional challenges introduced by continuing uncertainty and ambiguity place an
additional burden on the change communicator in terms of information overload and
communicative attention; simply communicating more is not the answer to continuous
change. Finally, this chapter has revealed a number of directions for further research
including: focusing on the integration of informal and formal communication of
change, embracing the concept of communication during change rather than of
change, critical analysis of the role of persuasive appeals during change, and the
development of a more sophisticated survey instrument. The next chapter concludes
this thesis by revisiting the findings and highlighting the major contributions.
272
CHAPTER 7
Conclusion
Introduction
This chapter starts by reviewing the original rationale for this research in relation to
change communication and change receptivity. It uses the findings from the case-
study organisations examined in Chapters Four and Five in conjunction with the
discussion in Chapter Six to make an argument that the original aims of this thesis
have been achieved. The chapter also establishes that a significant contribution to
knowledge has been made with regard to the development of a change communication
theory suitable for use within continuous change. The theoretical framework posits
that three change communication models exist within organisational change and the
sequencing of the three change communication models is determined by the alignment
of change communication competences and change communication expectations.
Theoretical Contribution
This thesis has answered the question ‘How does change communication impact on
change receptivity within a continuous change context?’ and in so doing a new theory
of change communication is advanced. Whetten (1989) suggests that for theory
development to be plausible, the researcher needs to demonstrate the what, how and
why of the theory. In unpacking the ‘black box of change communication’ and
clarifying the components of change communication, this dissertation contends that
the what of the new theory consists of sequences of monologic change
273
communication, dialogic change communication and the background talk of change.
These three constructs can be refined further to establish change communication
competences, and change communicative expectations as key to the what of change
communication theory (Whetten, 1989).
The model of the Pipeline of Continuous Change Communication introduced in
Chapter 6 advances an understanding of how the three key constructs relate within
organisational change, thus addressing Whetten’s (1989) second requirement of
theory building. The ‘how’ can be illustrated as follows:
bt
M
D
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
mm
m
d
d
d
d
dd
d
dd
d
d
BT
btbt
btbt
bt
bt
bt
bt
bt
btbt
bt
bt
d
m
bt
bt
bt
bt
d
bt
btbt
m
To recap, Monologic (M) and Dialogic (D) communication present as the ‘front-end’
process of change with the Background Talk and the informal sense-making (BT)
occurring in the absence of change communication. This interplay is depicted as an
ideal type in the model above with organisational change conceptualised as a pipeline,
where the change process flows continuously. The balance of monologic and dialogic
change communication and the background talk of change differ depending on the
organisational context. Considered separately, all three constructs have negative and
positive impacts on change receptivity and these effects are now summarised.
Monologic change communication benefits change receptivity when it provides
stability and closure in times of uncertainty and ambiguity. This situation was
specifically highlighted in the Tech D case when the employees were faced with
274
downsizing and the divisional spin offs. Similarly, when moving discussion to an
action and results orientation, monologic change communication is welcomed. This
research has found ultimately, though, monologic change communication has the
most beneficial impacts on change receptivity when there are corresponding
monologic expectations, such as an expressed desire for top-down information.
From the evidence within the two case-studies, monologic change communication is
not likely to have beneficial impacts on change receptivity when problem solving is
required, as monologic change communication prevents a dialogic forum from
occurring. Monologic change communication is also likely to have negative impacts
on change receptivity if there are already dialogic expectations evident.
The findings indicate dialogic change communication has positive impacts on change
receptivity when there is time for dialogic processes to occur, creativity, innovation
and organisational learning are required and employees have matching dialogic
competences. Further, unless the employees are dialogically competent the positive
impacts from dialogic change communication will not occur. Again, there needs to be
dialogic change expectations for employees to feel positive about change when
engaged in dialogic approaches. If the employees are not dialogically competent, or
possess monologic expectations then dialogic change communication will have
negative impacts on change receptivity.
Investigation of the background talk of change rarely revealed positive impacts on
change receptivity. The one exception was the framing discourse of naturalism which
suggests that organisational change is a normal and natural way of life. The other
framing discourses that focused on expressions of fear of the future, competing goals,
and the economic values of employees negatively impacted on the change receptivity.
275
However, in order to provide an understanding of Whetton’s (1989) final aspect, the
why of building theory, one of the highlighted findings of this research is the idea of
the appropriate sequencing and interplay of monologic, dialogic and background talk.
This discovery signifies a major departure from the previous research and contributes
to Taylor and Van Every’s (2000) understanding of a bimodal theory of
communication. Taylor and Van Every argue for acceptance of a bimodal theory of
information whereby communication is both ‘transmission’ based (eg monologic
change communication), and constructed interactively (dialogic change
communication and the background talk). Thus, change communication is both an
‘object’ that organisational members discuss (eg ‘there is poor change communication
here’) and realised as a continued enactment of the organisational members (eg
organisational change occurs through our communication). Taylor and Van Every
(2000, p.5) argue that, ‘A bi-modal theory of communication makes no attempt to
refute either of these ways of seeing, but instead perceives them as dimensions of a
complete theory of communication in language’. Thus, recognising the monologic
change communication, the dialogic change communication and the background talk
of change contributes to a more complete perspective of organisational change.
Van de Ven and Poole (1989) caution for theory development to occur, it needs to
account for the paradoxes and inconsistencies within the research. The authors
propose ‘Look for theoretical tensions or oppositions and use them to stimulate the
development of more encompassing theories’ (Van de Ven & Poole, 1989, p. 563).
One such tension grounded in the data was the divergence between the quantitative
and qualitative research. While the qualitative research provided examples of the
impact of change communication on change receptivity, the quantitative research
suggested that the relationship between change communication and change receptivity
276
is not so strong. Rather than dismissing the divergence, Van de Ven and Poole’s
(1989) advice has been followed in order to provide insight of a ‘multifaceted reality’.
Subsequent investigation of this finding in the last round of focus groups determined
that the perception of change implementation supersedes the impact of the type of
change communication. This result suggests a reconceptualisation of the causal
relationship between change communication and change receptivity to reveal the
following:
Additionally, Van de Ven and Poole (1989) advocate clarifying the level of analysis.
As noted in Chapter Six, an alternative perspective on the divergence of findings may
be attributed to group level effects in the qualitative research and individual responses
within the quantitative research. Thus, the use of mixed methodology and a staggered
cross-comparative approach has greatly enhanced this study by exposing the
complexities inherent in the research.
The theoretical contribution of this thesis is enhanced by the adaptation of Van de
Ven and Poole’s (1995) process theories of change. After first analysing both cases in
terms of the process theory motors, in Table 6.3, the study uses the data to provide
examples of how the monologic, dialogic change communication models sequence
Past Perception of Change Implementation
Change Receptivity Change Communication
Alignment of Expectations and Competences
277
and interacts with the background talk within each of the process theories of change.
This contribution demonstrates how communication is inextricably linked with
organisational change (Lewis, 1999), as it provides explanation of the movement
between the motors. In considering the sequencing of the monologic, dialogic and
background talk, Table 6.4 illustrates how a bimodal theory of change communication
can drive the processes of change. While Poole and Van de Ven (2004) claim that the
extension of their framework delineates the necessary parts of an adequate
explanation of organisational change and development, the adaptation of their work to
include the change communication models can only enhance and bolster the utility of
their framework.
This thesis has also fulfilled the second research aim, to investigate the
communicative aspects of continuous change. To this end, Chapter Six discussed the
importance of managing uncertainty and ambiguity, change fatigue, the use of change
metrics as symbolic markers, distribution of communicative attention, and change
receptivity as a process.
The conclusions of this research for practitioners are threefold. Firstly, in order to
manage the communication within continuous change, a mix of monologic and
dialogic communication is required. This balance is determined by the existing
preference of the participants of change, the existing monologic and dialogic
competences, frequency of communication, mediums used and available
communication forums. Depending on the change context, differing emphases are
required. This finding lends itself to a decision-making heuristic to determine the
optimum balance throughout the process. If the organisation needs to create more
change for example, culture change, commercialisation, managing financial
278
challenges, and is dialogically competent, then the change agents can introduce more
dialogic processes for example, problem solving groups, open inquiry, and discussion
boards. If at certain stages of the process, more stability and control is required, for
example, redundancies and anchoring new processes, then monologic change
communication is required to provide information necessary for the employees to
continue with the change agenda. The organisational change literature acknowledges a
long interest in the change/stability paradox (Greenwood & Hinings, 1988; Leana &
Barry, 2000); and this study advances the theoretical understanding within the change
communication field.
Second, sensitivity is both required in acknowledging the interplay and sequencing of
monologic and dialogic models and by the individual who can be responsible for
making the discursive shifts from one approach to another. At some point of a
dialogic exchange, closure is required and a monologic moment can take the ‘talk’
into action. Similarly, when anchoring a new process, an engagement of dialogic
processes can improve the implementation of the new process. The ability to
understand when and how to shift change communication competence becomes a
compelling competence for change managers to develop.
Finally, when considering the balance of dialogic and monologic change
communication, managers can be cognisant of the sense-making in the background
talk of change. If many of the frames of reference that change participants use to
make sense of change lead to further resistance and fatigue, then addressing these
frames would be prudent. Early steps towards minimizing the harm to the employee
and the organisation include up-skilling employees to be better able to process cues
about change and the provision of sense-givers, or managers of background talk.
279
Limitations
First, Eisenhardt (1989) advocates that for theory building to occur, it is better to have
more than four cases. She argues that any fewer compromises the ability to generate
theory with much complexity. Ultimately this research may be limited in this regard
by the use of two cases, however the eight multiple studies in each of the longitudinal
designs may be interpreted as ‘mini-cases’, and bolsters the claim to theory
development. Further, the two cases used were specific in their cultural context, in
that they both were public sector organisations. Whilst the two cases underwent
similar change events and had similar change agendas, it may transpire that these
types of changes (downsizing, learning initiatives, BPR, and commercialization focus)
possess explicit cultural change considerations not transferable to the greater
population of organisations seeking to undergo continuous change.
Second, one of the virtues of the research is the grounding of the study in real
organisations and within real time. Yet this approach can be a double-edged sword as
the ‘real’ experience of organisational change impacted on the sample sizes within the
focus groups and the survey responses. While the power of the statistical analysis was
reduced owing to the declining numbers within the organisations, there were multiple
sources of data and methods to strengthen the rigour of the study.
Third, the findings and results need to be considered within the social context of the
change program. A dominant consideration in both cases was the social context of the
organisational change. The negative consequences of downsizing and redundancies
tailor and flavour the organisational discourses, both management driven and from the
employee perspective. Given that both cases started with a period of downsizing and
redundancies, it is difficult to say how much this experiences conflated the other
280
discourses of economic rationality, industrial relations, and the naturalisation of
change.
Fourth, as noted earlier in Chapter 1, this study did not consider ‘transactional
communication’ as neither of the cases identified as undergoing ‘transformational
change’. However, to refrain from doing so dichotomises the monologic and the
dialogic change communication models, and limits the full and complete
understanding of the issues of change communication. This creates a major research
direction to pursue, in terms of answering how does Eisenberg et al’s (1999)
transactional change communication model impact on change receptivity within a
continuous change context. The future research directions are more thoroughly
explored in the next section.
Future research
One of the consequences of the further development of knowledge about change
communication and advancement of a theoretical framework for communication
during change is the expansion of other areas of research. As such, further areas for
future research include:
1. In-depth examination of communication during change rather than ‘of
change’.
2. Investigation of the role of change agents in managing the background talk of
change and identifying the salient feature of the background talk.
3. Clarification of the causal relationship between employees’ emotional
engagement, change implementation and change communication.
281
4. Critical analysis of the role of persuasive appeals during change and overlaps
with other communication fields such as political communication and public
relations.
5. A continued focus on the integration of informal and formal communication of
change to provide a more holistic and complex perspective of one of the
integral components of organisational change and testing across other
organisations.
6. Further development of a survey instrument to capture the three change
communication models.
Contributions
In conclusion, this study augments previous research by studying the change
communication processes within a new context, continuously changing organisations.
Examination of previous literature on change communication revealed a lack of
integration between the instrumental and constructivist perspective of change
communication, and this thesis has successfully integrated these perspectives to
provide additional value in understanding of what occurs within organisational change
in relation to change communication. A highlight of the integration is an empirical
analysis of the background talk of change, particularly as this study is one of the first
to consider the informal talk and the employees’ perspective of change within a
continuous change context.
From a methodological standpoint, the use of Langley’s (1999) Alternate Templates
strategy has provided an innovative perspective of the change process. This
perspective reveals the layering of the three distinct change communication models.
Additionally, a new change communication instrument was specifically designed for
282
this study and provides a platform from which to build upon. The staggering of the
two case-studies in order to allow testing of early findings and redefinition of research
questions has added considerable value to the organisational studies field.
This research traverses new territory by adapting Van de Ven and Poole’s (1995)
Process Theories of Change to accommodate the sequencing of monologic, dialogic
and background talk of change. The framework of dominant change communication
models provides valuable guidance to change managers and organisations undergoing
continuous change. The subsequent findings and discussions on practical and
theoretical contribution are evidence that the research aims have been addressed and a
significant contribution to knowledge has been made. This thesis advances the study
of change communication by presenting an integrated perspective of the process. In so
doing, the thesis reveals opportunities for management development in terms of
change communication competences, and offers guidance for practitioners in
assessing the existing change communication expectations. The resultant contribution
is a thesis that bridges a nexus between academia and practitioners, integrates
management theory and organisational communication theory to develop a new
theoretical approach to change communication, and reveals a pluralistic perspective of
the change process.
283
References
Allen, T. J., & Katz, R. (1995). The project-oriented engineer: A dilemma for human resource. R & D Management, 25(2), 129.
Allen, T., Freeman, D., Reizenstein, R, & Rentz, J (1995) Just another transition? Examining survivors’ attitudes over time. Academy of Management Journal, Best Paper proceedings, 78-82.
Alvesson, M., & Deetz, S. (2000). Doing Critical Management Research. London: SAGE Publications.
Amburgey, T. L., Kelly, D., & Barnett, W. P. (1993). Resetting the clock: The dynamics of organizational change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(1), 51.
Anouli, F. (1995). Workplace sabotage: Its styles, motives and management. The Journal of Management Development, 14, 48-66.
Applebaum, S., & Donia, M. (2001). The Realistic Downsizing Preview : A Multiple Case Study: Methodology and Results of Data Collection (Part I). Career Development International, 6(3), 128-148.
Applebaum, S., Lopes, R., Audet, L., Steed, A., Jacob, M., Augustinas, T., et al. (2003). Communication during the downsizing of a telecommunications company. Corporate Communications, 8(2), 73-96.
Armenakis, A. A., & Harris, S. G. (2002). Crafting a change message to create transformational readiness. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(2), 169.
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating readiness for organizational change. Human Relations, 46(6), 681.
Ashford, S. J. (1988). Individual strategies for coping with stress during organizational transitions. Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, 24, 19-36.
Atwater, L. E., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, D., & Cartier, P. (2000). An upward feedback field experiment: Supervisors' cynicism, reactions, and commitment ot subordinates. Personnel Psychology, 53(2), 275.
Axtell, C., Wall, T., Stride, C., Pepper, K., & al, e. (2002). Familiarity breeds content: The impact of exposure to change on employee openness and well-being. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 217.
Baden-Fuller, C., & Volberda, H. W. (1997). Strategic renewal: How large complex organizations prepare for the future. International Studies of Management and Organization, 27, 95-120.
Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2004). Organizational restructuring and middle manager sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 523.
284
Bamford, D. R., & Forrester, P. L. (2003). Managing planned and emergent change within an operations management environment. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 23(5/6), 546.
Barley, S. (1986). Technology as an occasion for structing: Evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departmnets. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 78-108.
Barrett, D. J. (2002). Change Communication: using strategic employee communication to facilitate major change. Corporate Communications, 7, 219 -231.
Beckhard, R., & Pritchard, W. (1992). Changing the Essence: The Art of Creating and Leading Fundamental Change in Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Beech, N. (2000). Narrative styles of managers and workers: A tale of star-crossed lovers. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 36(2), 210.
Bennis, W. (2003). On Becoming A Leader: The Leadership Classic--Updated And Expanded. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing.
Bohm, D. (1996). On Dialogue (R. Smith, Trans. 2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Boje, DM (1995) Stories of the storytelling organization: A postmodern analysis of Disney as "Tamara-land. Academy of Management Journal. 38(4): 997-1035.
Bokeno, R. M., & Gantt, V. W. (2000). Dialogic mentoring. Management Communication Quarterly: MCQ, 14(2), 237.
Bordia, P., DiFonzo, N., & Travers, V. (1998). Denying rumors of organizational change: A higher source is not always better. Communications Research Reports, 15(2), 189-198.
Botan, C. (1997). Ethics in strategic communication campaigns: The case for a new approach to public relations. The Journal of Business Communication, 34(2), 188.
Bourke, S., & Bechervaise, S. (2002). In search of a practical communication based theory on transformational organisational change. Paper presented at the Hawaii International Conference on Business, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Bovey, W. H., & Hede, A. (2001). Resistance to organizational change: the role of cognitive and affective processes. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 22(8), 372-382.
Brocklesby, J. & Mingers, J. (1998) 'Multimethodology: Towards a Framework for Mixing Methodologies', Omega: International Journal of Management Science, 25, 489-507.
285
Brocklesby, J.& Mingers, J.(2003) ‘Multimethodology: Towards a Framework for Mixing Methodologies’, in G. Midgley (ed), Systems Thinking - Classics and Contemporary Writings , Sage.
Brown, K. A., Ryan, N., & Flynn, C. (2000). Corporate Change in the Queensland Department of Main Roads. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology.
Brown, K., Ryan, N. and Parker, R. (2000). New Modes of Service Delivery in the Public Sector: Commercialising Government Services, International Journal of Public Sector Management, 13(2), pp206-221.
Brown, K., Waterhouse, J., & Flynn, C. (2003). Change management practices: Is a hybrid model a better alternative fro public sector agencies? International Journal of Public Sector Management, 16(3), 230-241.
Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 1.
Buchanan, D (2003) Demands, instabilities, manipulations, careers: The lived experience of driving change, Human Relations, 56 (6), 663-684.
Buchanan, D., Claydon, T., & Doyle, M. (1999). Organisation development and change: The legacy of the nineties. Human Resource Management Journal, 9(2), 20.
Buhler, P. (2000). Changing organizational structures and their impact on managers. SuperVision, 61(10), 15-17.
Burawoy, M. (1979). Manufacturing Consent. Changesin the Labour Process under Monopoly Capitalism. London: The University of Chicago Press.
Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., & Floyd, K. (2001). Does Participation Affect Deception Success? A Test of the Interactivity Principle. Hum Commun Res, 27(4), 503-534.
Burnes, B. (1996). Managing change: A strategic approach to Organisational Dynamics (2nd ed.): Pitman Publishing.
Butcher, D., & Atkinson, S. (2001). Stealth, secrecy and subversion: The language of change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 14(6), 554.
Cent, E. B., & Powley, E. H. (2002). Employees actually embrace change: The chimera of resistance. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 7(2), 56.
Cheney, G., Christensen, L., Zorn, T. E., & Ganesh, S. (2003). Organizational Communication in an age of Globalisation. Ilinois: Waveland Press.
Choo, C. W. (2001). The knowing organization as learning organization. Education & Training, 43(4/5), 197.
286
Cochran, J. K., Bromley, M. L., & Swando, M. J. (2002). Sheriff's deputies' receptivity to organizational change. Policing, 25(3), 507.
Colella, S., Cross, R., & Rieley, J. (1999). Developing critical new skills in a world of continuous change. National Productivity Review, 19(1), 43-48.
Conner, D. R. (1996). How can you survive continuous change? Medical Economics, 73(8), 109.
Copelli, P. (1998). The New Deal at Work. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Coram, R., & Burnes, B. (2001). Managing Organisational Change in the Public Sector. The international Journal of Public Sector Management, 14(2), 94-110.
Coyle-Shapiro, J. A.-M. (1999). Employee participation and assessment of an organizational change intervention: A three-wave study of total quality management. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35(4), 439.
Crampton, S., Hodge, J., & Mishra, J. (1998). The informal communication network: Factors influencing grapevine activity. Public Personnel Management, 27(4), 569-584.
Curtis, S., Gesler, W., Smith, G., & Washburn, S. (1999). Approaches to sampling and case selection in qualitative research: examples in the Geography of Health. Social Science and Medicine., 50, 1001- 1004.
D'Aveni, R. A. (1994). Hypercompetition: Managing the dynamics of strategic maneuvering. New York: The Free Press.
Dawson, P. (2003). Reshaping Change: A processual perspective. London: Routledge.
Dent, E. B., & Goldberg, S. G. (1999). Challenging "resistance to change". Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, 35(1), 25-41.
Devers, K. (1999). How Will We Know ‘Good’ Qualitative Research When We See It? Health Services Research, 35(5), 1153–1188.
Doyle, M. (2002). From change novice to change expert: Issues of learning, development and support. Personnel Review, 31(4), 465.
Doyle, M., Claydon, T., & Buchanan, D. (2000). Mixed results, lousy process: The management experience of organizational change. British Journal of Management, 11.
Eby, L., Adams, D., Russell, J., & Gaby, S. (2000). Perceptions of organizational readiness for change: Factors related to employee's reactions to the implementation of team-based selling. Human Relations, 53(3), 419-442.
287
Economo, H., & Zorn, T. E. (1999). Survivor perceptions of communication during downsizing. Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal, 1(2), 19-41.
Edelman, L. F., & Benning, A. L. (1999). Incremental Revolution. Organization Development Journal, 4(17), 79-89.
Edelmann, L. F., & Benning, A. L. (1999). Incremental revolution. Organizational Development Journal, 17(4), 79-93.
Eisenberg, E., Andrews, L., Murphy, A., & Laine-Timmerman, L. (1999). Transforming organizations through communication. In P. Salem (Ed.), Organisational Communication and Change (pp. 99-147). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case-study research. Academy of Management Reviewl, 14(4), 532-550.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (2000). Paradox, spirals, ambivalence: The new language of change and pluralism. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 703.
Faber, B. (1998). Toward a rhetoric of change: Reconstructing image and narrative in distressed organizations. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 12(2), 217.
Fairhurst, G. T. (1993). Echoes of the Vision: When the rest of the organization talks total quality. Management Communication Quarterly : MCQ, 6(4), 331-371.
Finger, M., & Brand, S. B. (1999). The concept of the “learning organization” applied to the transformation of the public sector’ in (eds.) ,. In M. Easterby-Smith, L. Araujo & J. Burgoyne (Eds.), Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization. London: Sage.
Fiol, C. M. (2002). Capitalizing on Paradox: The Role of Language in Transforming Organisational Identities. Organization Science, 13(6), 653-666.
Ford, D., Voyer, J., & Wilkinson, J. (2000). Building Learning Organizations In Engineering Cultures: A Case Study. ASCE Journal of Management in Engineering, 16(4), 72-83.
Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (1995). The role of conversations in producing intentional change in organizations. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 541.
Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & McNamara, R. T. (2002). Resistance and the background conversations of change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(2), 105.
Fossum, L. (1989) Understanding Organizational Change. Brisbane: Crop Publications.
288
Frahm, J. A., & Brown, K. A. (2002). Continuous change and change receptivity: The implications for the communicative dimensions of change. Paper presented at the ANZAM/IFSAM 2002, Gold Coast, Australia.
Frahm, J. A., & Brown, K. A. (2003). Organizational Change Communication:Lessons from Public Relations Communication Strategies. Paper presented at the ANZCA 2003, Brisbane, Australia.
Frahm, J. A., & Brown, K. A. (2004a, December 8-11). The Good, the Bad & the Reflective: Learning from cross comparative case study research on organisational change. Paper presented at the ANZAM, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Frahm, J. A., & Brown, K. A. (2004b, May 27-31). The Use of Alternate Templates Approach to Study the Change Communication in an Australian Organization. Paper presented at the International Communication Association, New Orleans.
Frese, M., Beimel, S., & Schoenborn, S. (2003). Action Training for charismatic leadership: Two evaluations of studies of a commercial training module on inspirational communication of a vision. Personnel Psychology, 56, 671- 697.
Geelan, D. R. (1997). Epistemological anarchy and the many forms of constructivism. Science & Education, 6(1-2), 15-28.
Gersick, C. J. G. (1991). Revolutionary change theories: A multilevel exploration of the punctuated equilibrium paradigm. Academy of Management Review, 16, 10-36.
Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and Sensegiving in Strategic Change Initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12(6), 433.
Gioia, D. A., & Mehra, A. (1996). Sensemaking in Organizations. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1226.
Gioia, D. A., & Thomas, J. B. (1996). Identity, image, and issue interpretation: Sensemaking during strategic change in academia. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(3), 370.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
Graetz, F. (2000). Strategic change leadership. Management Decision, 38, 550-562.
Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1988). Organizational Design Types, Tracks and the Dynamics of Strategic Change. Organization Studies, 9(3), 293.
Greenwood, R., Hinings, C. R., & Brown, J. (1994). Merging professional service firms. Organization Science, 5(2), 239.
Griffin, E. (2000). A first look at communication theory. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
289
Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, B. (1983). Ethnography Principles in Practice. London: Tavistock Publishers.
Harter, L. M., & Krone, K. J. (2001). The boundary-spanning role of a cooperative support organization: Managing the paradox of stability and change in non-traditional organizations. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 29(3), 248.
Hassard, J.(1993) Sociology and Organisation Theory: Positivism, Paradigms and Post Modernity. Cambridge, New York, Cambridge University Press
Hazlett, S. A., & Hill, F. (2000). Policy and practice: An investigation of
organizational change for service quality in the public sector in Northern Ireland. Total Quality Management, 11(4-6), S515.
Hennestad, B. (2000). Implementing participative management: transition issues from the field. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science [H.W. Wilson - SSA], 36(3), 314.
Heracleous, L., & Barrett, M. (2001). Organizational change as discourse: Communicative actions and deep structures in the context of information technology implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 755.
Hill, R., Bullard, T., Capper, P., Hawes, K., & Wilson, K. (1998). Learning about learning organizations: case studies of skill formation in five New Zealand organisations. The Learning Organization, 5(4), 184-192.
Hoag, B. G., Ritschard, H. V., & Cooper, C. (2002). Obstacles to effective organizational change: the underlying reasons. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23(1), 6-15.
House, R., Rousseau, D. M., & Thomas-Hunt, M. (1995). The Meso Paradigm: A framework for the integration of micro and macro behaviour. Research in organisational Behaviour,, 17, 71-114.
Hughes, C., & Tight, M. (1998). The myth of a learning society. In S.Ranson (Ed.), Inside the learning society. London: Cassell.
Huy, Q. N. (1999). Emotional capability, emotional intelligence, and radical change. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 325.
Ingelgard, A., Roth, J., Shani, A. B., & Styhre, A. (2002). Dynamic learning capability and actionable knowledge creation: Clinical R&D in a pharmaceutical company. The Learning Organization, 9(2), 65.
Jablin, F., & Sias, P. (2001). Communication competence. In F. Jablin & L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication (pp. 819 - 864). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Johnson, B., & Rice, R. E. (1987). Managing organizational innovation: The evolution from word processing to office information systems. New York: Columbia University Press.
290
Johnson, P., Duberly, Close, & Cassell, C. (1999). Negotiating field roles in manufacturing research: the need for reflexivity. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 19(12), 1234.
Jones, B., Worrall, L., & Cooper, C. (2003). Normalising the effects of 'management' of change, Working Paper 007/03. University of Wolverhampton Business School: www.uwbs.wlv.ac.uk/rsch.
Jones, R. A., Jimmieson, N. L., & Griffiths, A. (2002). The role of organisational culture and reshaping capabilities in creating readiness for change: implications for change implementation sucess.
Kanter, R. M. (1985). The Change Masters. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Kanter, R. M. (1999). Change is everyone's job: Managing the extended enterprise in a globally connected world. Organizational Dynamics, 28(1), 7.
Kanter, R. M., Stein, B. A., & Jick, T. D. (1992a). The Challenge of organizational change : how companies experience it and leaders guide it. New York: Free Press.
Kanter, R. M., Stein, B. A., & Jick, T. D. (1992b). The Challenge of organizational change : how companies experience it and leaders guide it. New York: Free Press.
Kennedy, C. J. (2002). The transtheoretical Model of Change: An application to individual readiness for change. Paper presented at the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management,, Denver, Colarado.
Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 28(1), 21-37.
Klecker, B. M., & Loadman, W. E. (1999). Measuring principals' openness to change on three dimensions: affective, cognitive and behavioral. Journal of Instructional Psychology [H.W. Wilson - Educ], 26(4), 213 -226.
Klein, S. M. (1994). Communication strategies for successful organizational change. Industrial Management, 36(1), 26.
Knowles, R. (1999). Continuous change: having once embarked on a process of organizational change, why is it that most organizations find themselves having to repeat the process within a few years? CA Magazine,, 132(4), 43-44.
Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading chnage: why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, May-June, 59-67.
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading Change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kotter, J. P., & Schlesinger, L. A. (1979). Choosing Strategies for Change. Harvard Business Review, 57(2), 106.
291
Kreps, G. L. (1990). Organizational Communication: Theory and Practice, (2nd ed.). Illinois: Northern Illinois University.
Kristiansen, M., & Bloch-Poulsen, J. (2000). The challenge of the unspoken in organizations: Caring container as a dialogic answer? The Southern Communication Journal, 65(2/3), 176.
Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Kunda, G. (1992). Engineering Culture: Control and Commitment in a High-Tech Corporation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Laiken, M. E. (2003). Models of organizational learning: Paradoxes and best practices in the post industrial workplace. Organization Development Journal, 21(1), 8.
Lamonthe, J. D., & Langley, A. (2001). The dynamics of collective leadership and strategic change in pluralistic organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 809-837.
Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691-710.
Leana, C. R., & Barry, B. (2000). Stability and change as simultaneous experiences in organizational life. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 753.
Leonard, D. J., & Gilsdorf, J. W. (1990). Language In Change: Academics' And Executives' Perceptions. The Journal of Business Communication, 27(2), 137.
Lewis, L. K. (1997). Users' individual communicative responses to intraorganizationally implemented innovations and other planned changes. Management Communication Quarterly : MCQ, 10(4), 455.
Lewis, L. K. (1999). Disseminating information and soliciting input during planned organizational change: Implementers' targets, sources, and channels for communicating. Management Communication Quarterly : MCQ, 13(1), 43.
Lewis, L. K. (2000a). "Blindsided by that one" and "I saw that one coming": The relative anticipation and occurrence of communication problems and other problems in implementers' hindsight. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 28(1), 44.
Lewis, L. K. (2000b). Communicating change: Four cases of quality programs. The Journal of Business Communication, 37(2), 128.
Lewis, L. K., Hamel, S. A., & Richardson, B. K. (2001). Communicating change to nonprofit stakeholders. Management Communication Quarterly : MCQ, 15(1), 5.
292
Lewis, L. K., Richardson, B. K., & Hamel, S. A. (2003a). When the " stakes" are Communicative: The Lamb's andthe Lion's Share During Nonprofit Planned Change. Human Communication Research, 29(3), 400-430.
Lewis, L. K., & Seibold, D. R. (1996). Communication during intraorganizational innovation adoption: predicting users' behavioral coping responses to innovations in organizations. Communication Monographs [H.W. Wilson - EDUC], 63, 131.
Lewis, L. K., Stephens, K., Schmisseur, A., & Weir, K. E. (2003b). Advice to practicioners: a review of the popular press literature on planned change communication. Paper presented at the International Communication Association.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills: SAGE Publications.
Mabin, V. J., Forgeson, S., & Green, L. (2001). Harnessing resistance: using the theory of constraints to assist change management. Journal of European Industrial Training, 25(2/3/4), 168.
MacIntosh, J. (1981). Focus groups in distance nursing education. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 18, 1981 - 1985.
Marshak, R.J. (1993) Managing the metaphors of change.Organisational Dynamics, 22(1), 44-56.
Marshak, R. J. (2002) Changing the Language of Change: How New Contexts and Concepts are Challenging the Ways We Think and Talk About Organizational Change, Strategic Change, 11 (5) 279-286.
Marshak, R. J. (2004). Morphing: The leading edge of organizational change in the twenty-first century, Organization Development Journal, 22(3), 8-21.
Marshak, R. J (2005) Is there a new OD, Seasonings,1 (1).
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (1999). Designing Qualitative Research (3 ed.). London: SAGE Publications.
Martin, H. H. (1975). How shall we overcome resistance. Training & Development Journal,, 29, 32-34.
Maurer, R. (1996). Using resistance to build support for change. Journal for Quality and Participation,, June, 56-63.
Maurer, R. (1997). Transforming resistance. HR Focus, 74, 9-10.
Michelson, G., & Mouly, V. S. (2002). You Didn't Hear it From Us But...Towards an Understanding of Rumour and Gossip in Organisations. Australian Journal of Management, 27, 57-65.
293
Mikaelsson, J. (2002). Managing change in product development organization: Learning from Volvo Car Corporation. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23(5/6), 301.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Miller, V. D., Johnson, J. R., & Grau, J. (1994). Antecedents to willingness to participate in a planned organizational change. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22(1), 59.
Mills, C. (2000). The interfaces of communication, sensemaking and change. Australian Journal of Communicating, 27(1), 95-110.
Mills, C. (2002). In-house perceptions of an organization's grapevine activity. Paper presented at the ANZCA 2002.
Mills, C. (2003). A unique angle on sensemaking about organisational communication during times of change. Paper presented at the ANZCA 2003, Brisbane, Australia.
Miner, A., Bassoff, P., & Moorman, C. (2001). Organizational improvisation and learning: A field study. Administrative Science Quarterly., 46, 304-337.
Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2 ed. Vol. 16): Sage Publications.
Moroz, R., & Waugh, R. F. (2000). Teacher receptivity to system-wide educational change. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(2), 159.
Morse, J. M. (1999). Qualitative generalizability. Qualitative Health Research, 9(1), 5-6.
Mossholder, K. W., Settoon, R. P., Armenakis, A. A., & Harris, S. G. (2000). Emotion during organizational transformations: An interactive model of survivor reactions. Group & Organization Management, 25(3), 220.
Mumby, D. K., & Stohl, C. (1996). Disciplining organizational communication studies. Management Communication Quarterly : MCQ, 10(1), 50.
Munford, R., & Sanders, J. (2000). Getting to the heart of the matter: making meaning--three challenges for family researchers. Qualitative Health Research, 10(6), 841 - 852.
Newton, J., Graham, J., McLoughlin, K., & Moore, A. (2003). Receptivity to change in a general medical practice. British Journal of Management, 14(2), 143.
Nutt, P., & Backoff, W. (1997). Facilitating transformational change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, 33(4), 490-508.
Palmer, I., Kabanoff, B., & Dunford, R. (1997). Managerial accounts of downsizing. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 623.
294
Parker, R., & Bradley, L. (2000). Organisational culture in the public sector: Evidence from six organisations. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 13(2/3), 125.
Pate, J., Martin, G., & Staines, H. (2000). Exploring the relationship between psychological contracts and organizational change: a process model and case study evidence. Strategic Change, 9(481-193).
Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. London: SAGE Publications.
Pierce, S.J. “Boundary crossing in research literatures as a means of interdisciplinary information transfer.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50 (3), 271-279
Peetz, D. (1998). Unions in a Contrary World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Peters, T. (1989). Thriving on Chaos. London: Pan.
Pettigrew, A. M. (1985). The Awakening Giant – Continuity and Change at ICI. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Pettigrew, A. M. (1992). The character and significance of strategy process research. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 5-16.
Pettigrew, A. M. (1997). What is processual analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 13(4), 337-348.
Pettigrew, A. M., Ferlie, E., & McKee, L. (1992). Shaping strategic change: Making change in large organizations: the case of the National Health Service. London: Sage Publications.
Pettigrew, A. M., Woodman, R. W., & Cameron, K. S. (2001). Studying organizational change and development: Challenges for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 697.
Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 783.
Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2004). Theories of Organizational Change and Innovation Processes. In M. S. Poole & A. H. V. d. ven (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Change and Innovation (pp. 374-397). New York: Oxford Press.
Pugh, S. D., Skarlicki, D. P., & Passell, B. S. (2003). After the fall: Layoff victims' trust and cynicism in re-employment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 201.
295
Putnam, L. (1999). Shifting metaphors of organizational communication: the rise of discourse. In P. Salem (Ed.), Organisational Communication and Change. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Ragin, C. (1987). The Comparative Method: Moving beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Studies. Berkely, C.A: University of California Press.
Reichers, A. E., Wanous, J. P., & Austin, J. T. (1997). Understanding and managing cynicism about organizational change. The Academy of Management Executive, 11(1), 48-59.
Rindova, V. & Kotha, S. (2001). Continuous morphing: Competing through dynamic capabilities, form, and function. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 1263-1280.
Salem, P. (1999). The changes and challenges for organizational communication in the next century. In P. Salem (Ed.), Organizational Communication and Change. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Schein, E. (1996). Three Cultures of Management: The Key to Organizational Learning. Management of Technology and Innovation, 38(1), 9-20.
Schon, D. A. (1973). Beyond the stable state : Public and private learning in a changing society. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Scott, C., Jaffe, D. & Crisp, M (1995). Managing Change at Work, Crisp Publications.
Sekaran, U. (1992). Research Methods for Business. New York: Wiley.
Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, . Boston, MA: Doubleday Currency.
Seo, M., Putnam, L., & Bartunek, J. (2004). Dualities and tensions of Planned Organizational Change. In M. S. Poole & A. H. V. d. Ven (Eds.), handbook of Organizational Change and Innovation (pp. 73-107). New York: Oxford University Press.
Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). Shannon, C.E. & Weaver, W. (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana: University of Illinois. Urbana: University of Illinois.
Sitkin, S. B., Sutliffe, K. M., & Weick, K. E. (1998). Organizational learning. In R. Dorf (Ed.), The technology management handbook. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Smith, V. C., Sohal, A. S., & D Netto, B. (1995). Successful strategies for managing change. International Journal of Manpower, 16(5,6), 22.
296
Spiker, B. K., & Lesser, E. (1995). We have met the enemy. Journal of Business Strategy, 16, 17-21.
Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant Observation. New York: Holt, Rinehardt and Winston.
Stevens, J. (1996). Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Stewart, J., & Kringas, P. (2003). Change management-strategy and values in six agencies from the Australian Public Service. Public Administration Review, 63(6), 675.
Stohl, C., & Cheney, G. (2001). Participatory processes/paradoxical practices: Communication and the dilemmas of organizational democracy. Management Communication Quarterly : MCQ, 14, 349 - 407.
Strebel, P. (1996) Why Do Employees Resist Change? in: Harvard Business Review, May-June, pp. 86-92.
Taylor, J., & Van Every, E. (2000). The emergent organization: Communication as its site and surface. Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum and Associates, Inc.
Tushman, M., & O'Reilly, C. (1996). Ambidextrous Organizations: Managing Evolutionary and Revolutionary Change. California Management Review, 38(4).
Tushman, M. L., & Romanelli, E. (1985). Organizational evolution: A metamorphosis model of convergence and reorientation. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 171-222). Greenwich,CT: JAI Press.
Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (1995). Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20, 510-540.
Vogt, W. (1999). Dictionary of Statistics and Methodology: A Nontechnical Guide for the Social Sciences. California: Sage Publications.
Waddell, D., Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2004). Organisation Development and Change. Melbourne: South-Western Thompson Learning.
Waddell, D., & Sohal, A. S. (1998). Resistance: a constructive tool for change management. Management Decision, 36(8), 543.
Waldersee, R., & Griffiths, A. (1997). The changing face of organizational change. In C. f. C. Change (Ed.), CCCPaper no.065. Sydney: The University of New South Wales, .
Wales, S. (2003). Why Coaching. Journal of Change Management, 3, 275-283.
297
Wanberg, C. R., & Banas, J. T. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of openess to changes in a reorganizing workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 132 - 142.
Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Austin, J. T. (2000). Cynicism about organizational change. Group & Organization Management, 25(2), 132.
Watson, T. J. (1995). Rhetoric, discourse and argument in organizational sense making: A reflexive tale. Organization Studies, 16(5), 805.
Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J., & Jackson, D. (1967). Pragmatics of Human Communication. New York: W. W. Norton.
Waugh, R., & Godfrey, J. (1995). Understanding teachers' receptivity to system-wide educational change. Journal of Educational Administration, 33(3), 38.
Waugh, R. F. (2000). Towards a model of teacher receptivity to planned system-wide educational change in a centrally controlled system. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(4), 350.
Weber, M. (1949). The methodology of the social sciences (E. Schils & H. Finch, Trans.). New York: The Free Press.
Weber, P. S., & Weber, J. E. (2001). Changes in employee perceptions during organizational change. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22(5/6), 291.
Weick, K. E. (1984). Small Wins: Redefining the scale of social problems. American Psychologist, 39, 40-49.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sense-making in organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 361.
Whetten, D. A. (1989). What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 490 - 495.
Witherspoon, P. D., & Wohlert, K. L. (1996). An approach to developing communication strategies for enhancing organizational diversity. The Journal of Business Communication, 33(4), 375.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research Design and Methods (3rd ed.) (2nd ed.). London: SAGE Publications.
Zammuto, R. F., & O'Connor, E. J. (1992). Gaining Advanced Manufacturing Technologies' Benefits: The Roles of Organization Design and Culture. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review, 17(4), 701.
Zikmund, W. (1997). Business Research Methods. Fort Worth: Dryden.
298
Zorn, T., & Ruccio, S. (1998). Motivational communication in college sales teams. Journal of Business Communication, 35, 468 - 499.
Zorn, T. E., Christensen, L., & Cheney, G. (1999). Constant change and flexibility: Do we really want constant change? (Vol. 2). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Zorn, T. E., Page, D. J., & Cheney, G. (2000). Nuts about change: Multiple perspectives on change-oriented communication in a public sector organization. Management Communication Quarterly : MCQ, 13(4), 515.
299
Appendix 1: Subscales of the Inventory of
Change in Organisational Culture
Factor 1 Affective Reaction to Change
Item 3 I would resist the changes in Organisation X
Item 4 I don’t like the changes that have been suggested
Item 7 The changes would frustrate me if they happened in Organisation X
Item 12 I would suggest something like these changes Organisation X
Item 13 Most of the changes are irritating
Item 18 I would hesitate to press for such changes.
Factor 2 Cognitive Reaction to Change
Item 1 I would look forward to such changes in Organisation X
Item 2 The changes would benefit Organisation X
Item 5 Most employees in my organisation would benefit from the changes
Item 6 I would be inclined to try the changes in Organisation X
Item 9 I would support the changes if applied to Organisation X
Item 11 Other people in my organisation would think that I would support the changes
Factor 3 Behavioural Reaction to change
Item 8 The changes would help me to perform better at work
Item 10 The changes would tend to stimulate me
Item 14 The changes would help improve unsatisfactory situations at Organisation X
Item 15 I would do whatever possible to support the changes.
Item 16 I feel I would look forward to these changes
Item 17 I feel that I would benefit from these changes
(Source: Dunham et al, 1989,p.11, adapted in Klecker & Loadman (1999)
300
Appendix 2: Confidentiality Statement
Consent / Information form Study Title: An investigation of organisational change processes Investigator: Jennifer Frahm, Faculty of Business, School of Management, ph. 3864 9415 You are invited to participate in a research project that is investigating organisational change processes. If you agree to participate in the focus group, the interview will consist of questions asking you about how you perceive your organisational change is going. The interviews will last approximately 45-90 minutes and will be recorded on tape, unless you wish not to do so. The researcher will ensure confidentiality and anonymity. In the focus groups, no record will be kept of your name after your research component is completed. No individual names or firm name will be used in papers deriving from this research. All research material will be kept in locked filing cabinets. Your participation is voluntary and you are able to discontinue your involvement in this study at anytime without explanation or penalty. Your confidentiality will be preserved and no identifying information will be made public. Any personal information disclosed during the study will remain confidential and will be used for aggregating purposes only. Copies of the research reports will be available if you are interested. This study is being conducted as part of a doctoral research thesis for Business Management conducted by Jennifer Frahm. You may contact Jennifer during the study if any matter of concern arises on the phone number above. You may also contact the secretary of the QUT Research Ethics Committee (ph 3864 2902) if you have any further concerns about the ethical conduct of this research I, (Name) consent to participate in the research described above. I have read the information provided above, I understand the procedures and possible risks involved, and I have had the opportunity to ask questions. I also understand that I am able to withdraw from this study at any time without explanation, and that any information I provide is treated as confidential. Signature of participant Date Researchers Name Signature of Researcher Date Thank you for your consideration of participation in this study. Your help is greatly appreciated in the completion of my PhD degree.
301
Appendix 3: Research Protocol
Question Schedule: Tech D Focus groups. Thank you for coming. This is the 3rd research focus group round held over three years. I’ll just recap on what we are going to do over the next 45-60 minutes. These focus groups are concerned with gathering your perspectives on organisational change at TECH D. I have a series of guiding questions to ask, and I would appreciate your frank responses. There are no right or wrong answers and if you wish to challenge or questions others in the group about their response that is fine. The focus group is being tape recorded, however that is for the purpose of creating transcripts for me to analyse, so I don’t rely on memory. You will not be identified in any reports that come from this research. After I have analysed the information, I will prepare a record sheet that comes back to you to check and sign that I have interpreted your responses correctly. I do need you to sign this permission form first. Questions 1) In terms of the organisational change process – how are you feeling about organisational change in TECH D For those who can, think back to a year ago – what do you feel differently? How do you feel about the process that has been used? 2) What are your feelings about the goal of continuous improvement? 3) What are your thoughts about change communication?
• Collaborative • Listening • Suspending • Voicing • New meanings? • Conflict? • Information transfer • Top down
For those who can, think back to a year ago – how has the communication changed? 4. What changes have you noticed about leadership over the last 12 months? Finally, is there anything that hasn’t come up in this group that you thought would in a focus group about change process at TECH D.?
302
Appendix 4: The Vignettes Tech D – Time 1
Australian Technology Transfer (ATT) traditionally has operated with a strong silo organisational structure, with separate divisions responding to stakeholder requests. The engineers are used to operating within their own divisions and reporting back to the executive team. Recently, Tom was appointed as the new CEO. Tom is enthusiastic about initiating some changes in the organisation and brought together several staff members to brainstorm ideas to change the organisation.
One of the changes proposed is to ‘blow up the silo’s’ and create a unified organisation that works towards the one purpose. This involves improving communication, and developing better relationships between divisions. This may involve organisation restructure and certainly will involve significant culture change.
Another important change demands an increased commitment to commercialisation – whereby groups operate under commercial conditions, and decisions are made according to project viability regardless of level of government funding. Another important change is to create a ‘goldfish bowl effect’ – where ATT is visibly an example of world best practice. This would require an ongoing commitment to continuous improvement principals. Tom is excited about the changes. Tom believes the changes will enhance ATT’s purpose as provider of competitive advantage through the uptake of new technologies and business processes.
Tech D – Time 2 Xenon Industries (XI) traditionally has operated with a strong silo organisational structure, with separate divisions responding to stakeholder requests. The engineers are used to operating within their own divisions and reporting back to the executive team. Recently, John was appointed as the new CEO. John is enthusiastic about initiating some changes in the organisation and brought together several staff members to brainstorm ideas to change the organisation.
One of the changes proposed is to ‘blow up the silos’ and create a unified organisation that works towards the one purpose. This involves improving communication, and developing better relationships between divisions. This may involve organisational restructure and certainly will involve significant culture change.
Another important change demands an increased commitment to commercialisation – whereby groups operate under commercial conditions, and decisions are made according to project viability regardless of level of government funding.
303
Another important change is to create a ‘goldfish bowl effect’ – where XI is visibly an example of world best practice. This would require an ongoing commitment to continuous improvement principles
John is excited about the changes. John believes the changes will enhance XI’s purpose as provider of competitive advantage through the uptake of new technologies and business processes
Tech D – Time 3
After two years of continuous change in the form of experimental restructurings, a move to teams, a relocation, downsizing, the spin off of one of the business departments, and the introduction of financial controls and reporting, John sits back to pause and reflect...his initial intent to transform Xenon Industries (XI) into a learning organisation had been hijacked by more pressing matters of survival. Recent meetings with stakeholders indicated much longer term support. The previous initiatives had created much progress and the current round of strategic planning was near completion. The next 6 months will be a journey, he thought. Internally, it’s about building capabilities for a learning organisation, and externally it’s aligning the stakeholders with a vision of manufacturing excellence in Queensland. This would involve the creation of the Centre of Manufacturing Excellence, focus on picking winners from the SME community, the introduction of quality metrics to gauge the success of SMEs and XI in the eyes of its own people and other stakeholders. He would take the nearly completed plan to the staff next week and canvass opinions. The feedback might be useful before going to the board.
Highsales Time 1
Barrybucks (a division of PowerPlus) has traditionally operated with a shared services structure with low integration between the divisions. The staff are used to operating within their own divisions and reporting back to the executive team. Recently, John was appointed as the new Division Manager. John is enthusiastic about initiating some changes in the organisation and brought together several staff members to brainstorm ideas to change the organisation. One of the changes proposed is to reinforce Barrybucks by taking small teams from the shared services structure to work as one division. The will create a unified organisation that works towards the one purpose. This involves improving communication, and developing better relationships between teams. This may involve organisational restructure and certainly will involve significant culture change. Another important change demands an increased commitment to efficiency and profitability – whereby teams proactively seek out opportunities to improve existing processes. John is excited about the changes. John believes the changes will enhance Barrybucks’ purpose through:
304
o creating a common focus amongst the teams, o generating some good ideas about how to improve efficiency and profitability, o and gaining commitment to generating ideas and enable the conversion of the
good ideas into results.
Highsales Time 2 John (the manager of New Solutions a division of Power Plus) leaned back in his chair and reflected on the last six months. It had been a very successful year with many challenges overcome and some outstanding results achieved for the business. The performance during 2003 had definitely put us on the path to greater things during 2004. The staff were all on the same floor now, the focus on process efficiency y meant that gross margins and profitability had improved considerably. The General Manager of Power Plus Retail has state that ‘As good as the best’ was what he was hoping to achieve So what did that mean exactly, John mused? How do we maintain the rage and build the business further. It certainly meant continuous improvement across all the areas. It would probably be incremental though, rather than any great transformation. There were still ambitious growth targets to meet, so that would no doubt mean the introduction of new products, new markets and channels. The focus needed to stay on margins profitability for the financial year. Staff had been remarkably honest in their annual survey and the follow-up focus groups about employment conditions so it would be likely these would be reviewed and some ideas like job rotations introduced. John wondered, would this bring them to ‘As good as the best”.
Highsales Time 3 Elizabeth (the acting manager of New Solutions, division of PowerPlus) walked back into her office and thought about the meeting she was to have with the General Manager of PowerPlus Retail. The progress over the last 6 months was solid, with New Solutions creating significant attention with their successes. It was critical at this point to focus on compliance issues and focus on the licensees. In-field performance would clearly be the centre of attention whilst also focusing on continuous improvement across whole the business. The next six months would mean revisiting our processes, focus on growing the business, and focusing on the customer experience. The success of the next six months would be based on growing market share with the current products. “Focus, and more focus” she thought out aloud.
305
Appendix 5: Exploratory Factor Analysis: Total Variance Explained (Highsales)
Total Variance Explained
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 7.725 42.914 42.914 7.725 42.914 42.9142 2.646 14.698 57.612 2.646 14.698 57.6123 1.393 7.736 65.348 1.393 7.736 65.3484 1.138 6.323 71.671 1.138 6.323 71.6715 1.041 5.785 77.456 1.041 5.785 77.4566 .792 4.402 81.858 7 .675 3.752 85.610 8 .542 3.012 88.623 9 .456 2.535 91.158 10 .401 2.227 93.385 11 .352 1.958 95.342 12 .268 1.488 96.830 13 .214 1.187 98.017 14 .136 .753 98.771 15 .133 .738 99.508 16 .047 .260 99.768 17 .033 .185 99.953 18 .009 .047 100.000
306
Appendix 6: Exploratory Factor Analysis: Total Variance Explained (Tech D)
Total Variance Explained
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 8.863 49.240 49.240 8.863 49.240 49.2402 1.808 10.045 59.285 1.808 10.045 59.2853 1.048 5.822 65.107 1.048 5.822 65.1074 .900 5.002 70.109 5 .768 4.266 74.375 6 .655 3.640 78.015 7 .621 3.449 81.464 8 .561 3.119 84.584 9 .527 2.926 87.510 10 .468 2.602 90.111 11 .359 1.992 92.103 12 .315 1.748 93.852 13 .292 1.621 95.473 14 .239 1.326 96.799 15 .209 1.158 97.958 16 .153 .850 98.807 17 .136 .754 99.562 18 .079 .438 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
307
Appendix 7: Perception of Organisational Capacity to Change
Nev
er
Rar
ely
Som
etim
es
Ofte
n
Alw
ays
Don
’t kn
ow
Questions 1 2 3 4 5 DK
Did the Senior Management team take action quickly enough when new opportunities could help the organisation:
Comparative to other organisations, is TECH D a leader: a) in technology diffusion
b) in business practices
c) in adopting emerging technologies
Does the organisation adapt well to changes in funding level
Are the Senior Management team decisions innovative
308
Appendix 8: Perception of Change
Communication
Nev
er
Rar
ely
Som
etim
es
Ofte
n
Alw
ays
Don
’t kn
ow
Questions 1 2 3 4 5 DK
Most of the information about change in this organisation comes from the top
7. Management use communication as a tool to get their own way
8. My colleagues really listen to what I have to say about the changes
9. My manager really listens to what I have say about the changes
10. My colleagues demonstrate a lot of respect for other peoples’ opinions
about change
11. My manager demonstrates a lot of respect for other people’s opinions
about change