The impact of change communication on change ... - QUT ePrints

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

1

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.

2

Dedication This thesis is dedicated to Ken Porter a man of courage, conviction and connections.

3

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.

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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 10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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 17

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 misused 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 18

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

19

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 topdown, 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

20

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 21

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

22

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 23

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.

24

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

25

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.

26

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 27

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

Continuous Change – theoretical overview Organisational Change Communication Instrumental model Constructivist model Informal

Change Receptivity Change resistance

Change readiness

Change Openness

Change Cynicism

Continuous Change Organisations 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

28

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-forprofit 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 ‘unfreezechange-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)

29

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

30

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 31

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.

32

Figure 2.2 Process Theories of Organizational Development and Change Process Theories of Organizational Development and Change*

EVOLUTION Variation

Selection

DIALECTIC

Retention

Thesis

Multiple Conflict

Entities

Synthesis

Antithesis Population scarcity Pluralism (Diversity)

Environmental selection Competition

Confrontation

Unit of

Conflict

Change

LIFE CYCLE

TELEOLOGY Dissatisfaction

Stage 4 (Terminate) Stage 3 (Harvest)

Stage 1

Implement

(Start -up)

Goals

Search/ Interaction

Single Stage 2

Entity

Set/Envision

Growth Immanent program

Goals Purposeful Enactment

Regulation

Social construction

Compliant Adaptation Prescribed

Consensus Mode of Change

*Arrows on lines represent likely sequences among events, not ca

Constructive

usation between events.

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

33

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 34

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. 35

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? 36

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

37

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

38

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.

39

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 40

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

41

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 42

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 43

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

44

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 sensemaking change agent in continuous change. In the change communication literature,

45

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

Formal Lewis & Seibold

1993

Fairhurst

1993

Research implications

Planned Change

Dissemination dominates change communication

Yes

Further research required on the framing discourse of

Yes

Sample

Informal

User receptivity to planned change

How managers frame communication about TQM

46

Multinational organisati on 5 sites,

Author

YEAR

Instrumental

Constructivist

Formal

Research implications

Planned Change

Informal change

Ford & Ford

1995

Witherspoon & Wohlert

1996

Flow of communication linear perspective

Lewis

1997

Users’ individual communicative responses to organisational innovation

Sample

132 routine conversati ons

The role of conversations in producing intentional change

Identify and propose different sequences of conversations and test effectiveness

Not clear

Not empirical

Alternative meanings and perceptions can enable organisational change

How do alternative meanings contribute to change processes

Yes

14000 employee state-wide public agency (US)

Antecedents of users’ responses to innovations further area of research

Yes

University post grad students n = 142

Could work with cont change

Non academic career staff workers n = 40 US

Ford

1999

Not clear

Organisational change as shifting conversations

Economo & Zorn

1999

What constitutes effective communication during a downsizing

Lewis

1999

Targets, sources and channels

How do employees construct effective communication

47

Not empirical Could work with cont change

Further studies required in Asia Pacific organisations

No – Reaction ary

16 org. members + 4 focus groups US branch

need more longitudinal analyses to determine the degree that implementers make adjustments in their strategies

Yes

N=76 Cross sector US

Author

YEAR

Instrumental

Constructivist

Formal Kellet

2000

Research implications

Planned Change

Sample

Private and public communication affects the dialogue. How can people live with dialectic tensions

Yes

School committee members, staff, board members and parents

Informal

Dialogue and dialectics – underlying tensions

US Lewis

2000b

Mills

2000

Yes

Barriers to effective communication of change Grapevine activity Informal communication of change

Zorn, Page & Cheney,

2000

Lewis, Hamel & Richardson, 2001 (model)

2001 2003

Lewis, Richardson & Hamel, 2003 (test)

Armenakis & Harris

2002

4 cases: hospital,

Food processin g plant

Sense making tied to emotional engagement

n = 48

Both concertive control and romantic framing has positive impacts on change receptivity.

yes

Business Services Departme nt of a large public sector organisati on.

Communicating change to non profit stakeholders

Test validity of framework within different contexts

Yes

n =66

Characteristics of message exchange

How do organisations carve up available time and communicative resources to interact with various stakeholder groups

Relationship between messages and readiness

Change message shapes the sentiments that determine reactions to

Alternative perspectives on change related discourse

48

Non profit orgs (US)

Yes

Single casestudy – large multi -national corporatio n/

Author

YEAR

Instrumental

Constructivist

Formal

Research implications

Planned Change

Sample

Informal change

Yes

Not for profit organisati on NZ

Yes and unplanne d

n-14 WSW within NZ

Interplay of the three change models

No

State technolog y diffusion agency

Interplay of the three change models

No

Business Unit within a GOC

Ambiguity of emotions within change and the role of the change agent

Zorn

2002

Receptivity to ICT introduction: the role of emotion in managing the transition

Mills

2003

Frahm & Brown

2004a

Monologic change communication

Dialogic Change Communicatio n

Background talk of change

Frahm & Brown

2004b

Monologic change communication

Dialogic Change Communicatio n

Background talk of change

business unit

Interpretative discourses of chaplains to communication of change

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-messagereceiver-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

49

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 50

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

51

(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 – 52

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

53

‘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

54

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

55

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 pseudodialogic 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, bluecollar 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

56

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 sensemaking 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

57

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.

58

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 casestudy 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

59

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 sensemaking 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

60

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

61

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 62

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

63

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.

64

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) 65

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.

66

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 67

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 & 68

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

69

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).

70

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’ 71

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.

72

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 73

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 74

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).

75

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 76

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 nonroutine systems (2002).

Change receptivity is alluded to in studies from Hazlet and Hill (2002) and BadenFuller 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 77

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

78

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

79

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

80

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. 81

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.

82

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 83

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.

84

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.

85

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

86

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,

87

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,

88

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

89

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 casestudies 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

90

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

91

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.

92

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 casestudies 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 93

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

Tech D

Highsales

Feb 02 Mar 02 Apr 02

Survey

Analysis & report informs focus groups

5 x Focus Groups

May 02 Jun 02

Analysis & report to all staff

Aug 02 Jul 02 Aug 02 Sep 02 Oct 02 Nov 02 Dec 02

Participant Observation & Document analysis (PO)

Jan 03

PO notes and analysis with previous FG analysis informs the next survey.

Cross case analysis

Feb 03 Mar 03

Survey

Apr 03 May 03

4 x Focus Groups

Analysis & report informs focus groups Survey

Jun 03

Analysis

Jul 03

4 x Focus Groups

Aug 03 Sep 03 Oct 03 Nov 03

Participant Observation

Dec 03

& Document analysis

Jan 04

(PO)

Feb 04 Mar 04 Apr 04

Analysis & report to all staff

PO notes and analysis with previous FG analysis informs the next survey.

Analysis PO & Document analysis

Analysis

Survey Analysis 4 x Focus Groups

Survey 4 x Focus Groups

Analysis & report informs focus groups

May 04

PO & Document analysis Survey

Jun 04 4 x Focus Groups

Jul 04

94

Analysis

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 secondwave 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 95

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 96

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

97

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

98

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 99

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 100

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.

101

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

102

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. 103

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 104

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.

105

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 crossmatching 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 106

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

107

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;

108

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.

109

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.

110

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

111

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

112

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

113

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 114

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

115

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 116

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

117

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

118

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. 119

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 120

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

121

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.

122

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 123

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.

124

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.

125

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.

126

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

127

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.

128

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

129

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 casestudy. 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.

130

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)

131

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 132

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.

133

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,

134

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 135

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 136

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 137

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

138

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 139

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.

140

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 141

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

142

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 143

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

2. Perception of Organisational Capability to change

2.78

3. Dialogic change communication

3.51

4.a Instrumental change communication

3.09

4. b Top Down change communication

3.31

.56 .62 .56 .75 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

144

illustrated in the following table. Table 4.3 Correlations of Change Communication Variables with Openness to Change 1 1. Openness to change

2

3

4

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.

145

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)

146

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 crossfunctional 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)

147

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)

148

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)

149

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

150

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

151

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

152

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

153

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, 154

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’

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 155

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’ 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’ 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 156

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.

157

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

158

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 159

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

160

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

161

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.

162

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

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

.64

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.

163

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

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

Only measured Time 1 & Time 2

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

164

1

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 165

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 166

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)

167

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.

168

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. 169

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

170

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.

171

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 172

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 173

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

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(*)

* 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.

174

4

1

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.

175

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

176

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

177

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.

178

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’. 179

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)

180

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, 181

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.

182

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

183

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 184

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

185

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 186

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

187

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, topdown) 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

188

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

189

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 190

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, crossfunctional 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

191

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.

192

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(**)

** 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 193

1

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.

194

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 195

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… 196

(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

197

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, cross198

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 199

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

200

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 crossfunctional 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

201

‘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]

202

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. 203

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

204

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.

205

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

206

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.

207

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 1. Openness to change

Pearson Correlation

2. Top Down Change Communication

Pearson Correlation

3. Instrumental use of Change Communication

Pearson Correlation

4. Dialogic Change Communication N = 26, * =