Content uploaded by Michael S. Cole
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Michael S. Cole on Nov 07, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
For Peer Review
ATop Management Team's Reactions to Organizational Transformation:
Evidence for Five Key Change Sentiments
Journal: Human Relations
Manuscript ID: HR-2007-0076
Manuscript Type: Standard Manuscript
Keywords:
Organizational transformation, Change assessment criteria,
Organizational change recipients' beliefs, TMT, Organizational
change recipients' beliefs
ScholarOne support: (434) 817-2040 ext. 167
Human Relations
TMT Reactions 1
2007 3 20
Running head: TMT Reactions
A Top Management Team’s Reactions to Organizational Transformation:
Evidence for Five Key Change Sentiments
Page 1 of 38
ScholarOne support: (434) 817-2040 ext. 167
Human Relations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
TMT Reactions 2
2007 3 20
Abstract
From research dating to the 1940s, we identified five-precursor criteria found to
be important by organizational scientists studying reactions of organizational change
recipients. The collective criteria constituted a framework, labeled the five-sentiment
typology. We then investigated the validity and utility of the typology of criteria for
assessing the progress of an organizational change. Using this typology, we analyzed
qualitative interview data collected from a top management team as part of an assessment
of a major change. We demonstrate that the five-sentiment typology provided a useful
and reliable tool for coding interview responses. In addition, the data, thus coded,
provided very useful insight into the underlying concerns regarding the change.
Page 2 of 38
ScholarOne support: (434) 817-2040 ext. 167
Human Relations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
TMT Reactions 3
2007 3 20
A Top Management Team’s Reactions to Organizational Transformation:
Evidence for Five Key Change Sentiments
Being vigilant about their organization’s effectiveness requires the top
management team (TMT) to conduct periodic organizational assessments and, when
necessary, implement organizational changes. Once an organizational change has been
implemented, continuous assessment of the change is important so that remedial actions
to improve change implementation can be planned and executed. Broadly, an
organization needs to know if changes are having the intended consequences. In
addition, barriers to realizing these intended consequences including technical issues
(e.g., the software is incompatible with our computing systems) and employee attitudes
(e.g., resistance) should be identified. Theory and research highlights the critical role of
the attitudes of those required to implement and accept the changes.
Recently, we had the opportunity to engage in a two year action research project
with a newly created strategic business unit (SBU) of a larger parent corporation. The
focus of the project was to help the TMT design, evaluate, and improve on the SBU
organizational structure. Toward the end of the project and in response to effectiveness
concerns, we had the opportunity to interview TMT members concerning their thoughts
about the organization’s successes and struggles. We analyzed their responses using a
traditional content analysis whereby we identified the themes capturing their major
concerns and satisfactions. When we met with the TMT group to discuss the results of
the interviews and help them evaluate and respond to the problems identified, we were
inundated with requests to provide insight into the nature of the sentiments underlying
each theme. For example, when respondents complained about the SBU’s strategy, was it
Page 3 of 38
ScholarOne support: (434) 817-2040 ext. 167
Human Relations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
TMT Reactions 4
2007 3 20
because they thought it unlikely to work or threatening to their turf or some other reason?
Later, after the project was over, we reflected on our experience and began to wonder if a
framework capturing key change sentiments might have provided a useful heuristic
against which our interview data might have been analyzed and reported back. It is this
reflection that motivated this paper.
Many change failures result from employee resistance and lack of support.
Obviously, it is in the interest of organizations to be able to focus their change
assessments on uncovering attitudes that are detrimental to change success. However, it
is also important that assessments make it possible to identify the key sentiments
underlying those attitudes so that suitable attitude improvement efforts can be planned
and undertaken. A typology of the key change sentiments or beliefs that underlie
supportive or resistive change attitudes would be very useful in accurately focusing
change attitude assessments. Such a framework would benefit organizational change
practitioners, researchers, and educators. Practitioners would benefit from a more
complete and complex understanding of the foundations of change support or resistance.
Such understanding would serve to better focus change planning, implementation, and
assessment. Organizational researchers would benefit from the comprehensive
framework and corresponding hypotheses suggested by such a framework. Educators
could improve the training of change agents by designing pedagogy around the criteria
included in the framework.
Armenakis, Harris, and Feild (1999) proposed a set of five key change sentiments
that they argued were essential to encourage readiness for change, change support, and
change implementation. However, to date, little research has emerged regarding the
Page 4 of 38
ScholarOne support: (434) 817-2040 ext. 167
Human Relations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
TMT Reactions 5
2007 3 20
validity of their typology. This paper addresses this shortcoming in two ways. First, we
review six decades of organizational change and innovation diffusion literature to
examine the extent to which each of the 5 key sentiments is reflected in the research and
writing on change. If the sentiments identified by Armenakis et al. (1999) are truly key,
one would expect them to show up in one form or another in the literature on change.
Second, we examine the extent to which the five sentiments offer a useful framework for
analyzing the reflections of those experiencing change. Specifically, we go back to our
data from the SBU’s TMT interviews and attempt to use the sentiments as a framework
for a qualitative coding of interview responses. To the extent that such coding is deemed
reliable and the results provide useful insight into the change attitudes of respondents,
further evidence of the validity and usefulness of the change sentiment typology is
provided.
Change Sentiment Typology
In conducting an assessment of a recently implemented organizational change,
practitioners need to know what types of criteria are most suitable for analysis.
Numerous models of organizational effectiveness (cf. Lewin & Minton, 1986) can be
used to guide assessment and change activities. While profitability and related bottom-
line results are important, criteria that can be assessed in the short term to gauge change
recipients’ reactions to an organizational transformation may be preferred because they
can produce richer and more descriptive information. Furthermore, these criteria not only
can serve as markers for longer term outcome criteria, they can also serve as objectives
during planning and implementation.
Page 5 of 38
ScholarOne support: (434) 817-2040 ext. 167
Human Relations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
TMT Reactions 6
2007 3 20
In 1999, building off earlier work on creating readiness for change (Armenakis,
Harris, & Mossholder (1993), Armenakis et al. (1999) proposed a typology of five key
beliefs/sentiments that supported employees attitudes necessary to promote change
institutionalization. To develop their model, Armenakis et al. reviewed a variety of
publications in the organizational science literature by both researchers and practitioners
that dealt with planning, implementing, and evaluating change initiatives. Included were
classic studies in innovation diffusion (Ryan & Gross, 1943) and organizational change
(Coch & French, 1948). From a content analysis of these studies, they identified five
sentiments that the researchers described as salient in explaining the reactions of the
change recipients and labeled them discrepancy, appropriateness, efficacy, principal
support, and valence.
To follow-up on Armenakis et al.’s work and to further investigate the validity of
the 5 sentiments, we surveyed other historic publications plus articles published during
the period 1997 through 2006 in 12 scholarly journals, known to publish organizational
change research, to identify those for which at least one of the five sentiments, in one
form or another, was the focus in explaining reactions to change. Our review identified
42 publications in which at least one of the 5 change sentiments was addressed. These 42
publications and the change sentiments addressed by each are summarized in Table 1.
-----------------------------
Insert Table 1 about here
-----------------------------
Discrepancy
Discrepancy is the term used when describing a deviation from acceptable
performance. Discrepancy captures the sentiment that a need for change exists. Among
practitioners discrepancy may be referred to as the “burning platform” that Kotter (1995)
Page 6 of 38
ScholarOne support: (434) 817-2040 ext. 167
Human Relations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
TMT Reactions 7
2007 3 20
suggests establishes a sense of urgency for change. Discrepancy is consistent with social
accounts theory which stipulates that information should be provided by change agents to
explain why an organizational change is needed (Bies, 1987; Rousseau & Tijoriwala,
1999). Thus, a change agent should execute strategies and tactics that illustrate the need
for change.
Numerous organizational scientists (cf. Coch & French, 1948; Bandura, 1986;
Lewin, 1946; Pettigrew, 1987; and Nadler & Tushman, 1989) have demonstrated the
necessity of change recipients believing a discrepancy exists. Thirty-eight percent of the
studies identified in Table 1 addressed the importance of discrepancy in some way. Coch
and French (1948) described how management created readiness for an organizational
change by showing employees two identical pairs of pajamas produced one year apart by
the organization. However, the group was informed that the most recently produced pair
of pajamas sold in the marketplace for half the price of the pajamas produced in the
previous year. An obvious discrepancy between the type and value of garment the
company produced and the amount it could recover from the marketplace existed. Thus,
in order to be competitive, some organizational change was needed.
Appropriateness
In addition to believing a discrepancy exists, if employees are to support change,
they must also believe that the specific organizational change being proposed will
effectively address the discrepancy. This second sentiment is labeled appropriateness.
This sentiment is also consistent with social accounts theory (Bies, 1987) and is used to
describe whether the proposed or implemented change is/was the correct one for the
Page 7 of 38
ScholarOne support: (434) 817-2040 ext. 167
Human Relations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
TMT Reactions 8
2007 3 20
present situation. Forty-five percent of the studies in Table 1 addressed the importance of
confidence in the suitability of the change being implemented.
In the Coch and French experiment described earlier, the organizational change
proposed by management was an increase in the production standard in an attempt to
lower the production cost per unit and increase competitiveness by allowing the
manufacturer to lower the sales price of the plant’s pajamas. Clearly, employees might
see a need for change (discrepancy) but disapprove (appropriateness) of the proposed
change.
Early work by organizational scientists (e.g., Kepner & Tregoe, 1965) was aimed
at sharpening diagnostic skills of decision makers. One requirement of effective problem
solving is to realize the uniqueness of a given situation. Thus, a corrective action should
be matched to a given situation. An early understanding of the importance of matching
was provided by Harrison (1970) who argued that change agents should choose the
proper depth of interventions in implementing change. Depth referred to the extent to
which individual emotional involvement (i.e., value laden, emotionally charged and
central to the individual’s sense of self) is required of the participants. For example,
operations analysis is relatively shallower than task-group therapy. The rationale for
matching strategies to organizational change issues is to intervene at a level sufficient to
produce enduring solutions. Bowers, Franklin, and Pecorella (1975) complemented
Harrison’s work by explaining the importance of matching problems, precursors, and
interventions. More recently, Abrahamson (1996) and Ghoshal and Bartlett (1996) have
researched the practice of implementing managerial fads. Template diagnosis is a term
used to describe the unsystematic process of implementing a course of action without
Page 8 of 38
ScholarOne support: (434) 817-2040 ext. 167
Human Relations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
TMT Reactions 9
2007 3 20
recognizing the organization’s uniqueness. Fads are often attractive to managers who are
seeking some quick fix. If a change initiative is appropriate, there should be some
definitive evidence indicating why it is the correct one. Employees must be convinced
that the change being implemented is appropriate for the organization’s context.
Efficacy
The third sentiment is labeled efficacy and is defined as confidence in one’s
ability to implement the organizational change. In an organizational change effort, the
question to be addressed is “do I/we believe that I/we can successfully implement the
proposed change?” Efficacy was addressed by 29% of the studies listed in Table 1.
A sense of efficacy, in the form of expectancy (effort will lead to successful
accomplishment), is a central tenet of most motivation theories (e.g., Vroom, 1964). To
be motivated to support a change, individuals must feel like they can succeed in
implementing the change. If a change is viewed as being personally or collectively
impossible or of dubious likelihood of succeeding, support will be scant. Efficacy is also
included in Bandura’s (1982) social learning theory, which indicates that employees who
feel comfortable with their skill set must believe that a different skill (required to
successfully execute the new job requirements) can be mastered, such that they will be
able to regain the comfort feeling prior to the change. In the Coch and French
experiment, managers provided evidence to employees that their competitors were
successfully working at the desired pace. For a change that has been implemented,
evidence may be offered that others are successfully accomplishing their new jobs,
suggesting that “if they can do it, so can you.”
Principal Support
Page 9 of 38
ScholarOne support: (434) 817-2040 ext. 167
Human Relations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
TMT Reactions 10
2007 3 20
The sentiment of principal support was addressed in 45% of the articles outlined
in Table 1, and is defined as the belief that change agent(s), organizational leaders, one’s
immediate manager, and one’s respected peers demonstrate that they support the
organizational change. Support for change is undermined by the sentiment that leaders
are not serious about fully supporting change implementation or by the thought that those
I respect do not support the change. The salience of principal support is found in the
social-information processing (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978) and social-learning (Bandura,
1986) theories. These theories explain the role of interpersonal networks within an
organization that influence the beliefs of employees, primarily about the organization’s
functioning. Evidence may be offered that people have or have not bought-in to the
change. Change leaders may or may not be “walking the talk.” Behavioral integrity
(Simons, 2002), a label associated with word-deed alignment, is the perception others
have of whether a leader’s behavior is consistent with her/his spoken word. Simons’
concept of behavioral integrity involves observing a pattern of word-deed alignment over
time.
Furthermore, principal support includes the influence of respected colleagues as
an important source of information. In other words, “who supports this change?” Those
who are supposed to be changing their behaviors are interacting with change leaders and
respected peers and are searching for evidence that support for the change exists.
Observing that others are behaving in ways that are consistent with the organizational
change is likely to have a positive effect. For example, in Ryan and Gross’s (1943) study
of the adoption of hybrid-seed corn, the rate of adoption increased when neighbor farmers
started supporting the shift to the new seed.
Page 10 of 38
ScholarOne support: (434) 817-2040 ext. 167
Human Relations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
TMT Reactions 11
2007 3 20
Valence
Valence refers to the perceived personal benefit (or personal loss) one may
reasonably expect as a result of an organizational change. This “what’s in it for me”
sentiment was addressed in 43% of the studies in Table 1. Valence for an organizational
change may be a function of extrinsic, as well as, intrinsic outcomes. The importance of
valence as a factor in motivation originated with the work of Vroom (1964) and refers to
the attractiveness of the outcome (perceived or real) associated with an organizational
change initiative. Similarly, Bandura (1986) emphasized that extrinsic incentives (e.g.,
financial compensation) may be used to entice individuals to change their behaviors, at
least until the intrinsic value becomes apparent. Incentive systems like gain-sharing
programs (cf. Bullock & Tubbs, 1990) provide extrinsic rewards and can be integrated
with change initiatives. The valence component is also related to Rousseau’s (1989)
psychological contract theory. Recently, Van Dam (2005) found that attitudes toward job
changes were related to the beliefs about expected outcomes.
Application of the Framework
We believe that these five sentiments, synthesized from across the change and
motivation literature, are crucial to the ultimate success of any organizational change.
This framework can serve two related purposes. One is to help change practitioners to
take the necessary actions during the readiness, adoption, and institutionalization phases
of a change effort to ensure change recipients develop these beliefs. Another is the
framework can be used to guide monitoring of the progress of a change effort. Through
assessment of these criteria, practitioners can consider whether or not to revise some
aspect of the organizational change.
Page 11 of 38
ScholarOne support: (434) 817-2040 ext. 167
Human Relations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
TMT Reactions 12
2007 3 20
In the remainder of the manuscript, we examine the utility of the five sentiments
for providing a framework for assessing an organizational change. We applied content
analysis from qualitative data previously collected from a TMT, by coding the
information from the interview transcripts into the five sentiments.
Method
Organizational Context
The research described in this manuscript was conducted in a newly formed IT
company (referred to here as “ITC”) that operated as an autonomous SBU of a large
multinational corporation. ITC was formed approximately one year prior to our data
collection by combining several distinct sales and service-oriented units that had
previously been dispersed throughout the parent corporation. ITC’s primary mission was
to provide computer-system services to organizations that relied on sophisticated
information technology systems and to sell one line of hardware manufactured by a
company with which ITC had a strategic alliance. In an interesting twist arising from the
complexity and consolidation of the IT industry, a separate business unit of the parent
corporation was responsible for selling the parent’s hardware which competed with the
hardware ITC sold.
The creation of ITC was an example of top-down change, emanating from the
parent corporation. The ITC’s appointed CEO, already an executive of the parent
corporation, was charged with selecting the remainder of ITC’s TMT and key
subordinates from other organizations within the parent corporation. Prior to ITC’s
official launch, in several off-site meetings, the TMT designed ITC’s structure and
Page 12 of 38
ScholarOne support: (434) 817-2040 ext. 167
Human Relations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
TMT Reactions 13
2007 3 20
supporting systems to be consistent with the organization’s assigned strategy. Projected
sales were about $500 million with a workforce of over 1500 employees.
As part of the formal launch of ITC, several members of its TMT made speeches
as part of the readiness program that were transmitted live to some employees located in
the corporate office and electronically to the remaining employees located in North
American and European offices. Armenakis and Harris (2002) described the steps taken
by ITC to create readiness for the transformation by explicitly focusing on the five
change sentiments.
Subsequent to the formation of ITC, the IT market experienced a significant
downturn (cf. Clark, Bransten, & Gomes, 2002, May 2) compounded by the September
11, 2001 (9/11) terrorists’ events. Therefore, several months after its launch, ITC was not
meeting its objectives. To evaluate the strategy and structure of the nascent ITC, its CEO
felt that he needed to have the confidential reactions of the TMT. Therefore, we were
asked, as part of an action-research approach to the assessment, to interview each TMT
member (except the CEO) regarding their opinions of the progress of the SBU.
Qualitative Research Strategy
For the assessment, we chose a qualitative research methodology. Hammersley
and Atkinson (1983) indicate that the progressive steps in this methodology resemble a
funnel structure (p. 175). Figure 1 depicts the steps we executed, beginning with data
collection and ending with our interpretation of the findings. As illustrated by the shape
of the funnel, the data collected were responses to relatively broad questions that can be
described as nondirective. Thus, the interviewees were allowed to structure their
responses in accordance to their unique frames of reference. After all responses were
Page 13 of 38
ScholarOne support: (434) 817-2040 ext. 167
Human Relations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
TMT Reactions 14
2007 3 20
recorded by the interviewers, we began the process of analyzing their responses to
determine the meaning of the data collected and coding the data into a set of themes. In
our original work with the client, we coded the data based on the major content themes
suggested in the responses. It is quite common in qualitative research for “the themes to
be driven by the data” (cf. Glaser, 1965; Locke, 2001) as we did in our initial analysis for
the action-research project. However, for the purpose of exploring the utility of the five
sentiment framework in this paper, we reanalyzed responses in terms of the five
sentiments. A measure of coder reliability was then computed to determine the extent of
agreement between the coders. Then, the coded data were interpreted and conclusions
drawn. Therefore, through the methodological steps, we progressively narrowed the
meaning of the data resulting in a concise interpretation of the findings. The following
narrative explains the steps depicted in Figure 1.
-----------------------------
Insert Figure 1 about here
-----------------------------
Data Collection. We contacted each of the 18 TMT members by telephone and
after providing a short explanation of our purpose, requested information on five
questions. Our questions were intended to provide a balanced analysis. That is, we
wanted to capture information about positive incidents, as well as, negative incidents.
Each interview lasted approximately 60 minutes and the following questions were asked:
1. How would you describe your job?
2. What are you having successes with and why?
3. What are you struggling with and why?
4. What changes do you think need to be made?
Page 14 of 38
ScholarOne support: (434) 817-2040 ext. 167
Human Relations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
TMT Reactions 15
2007 3 20
5. Do you have any final comments?
These questions were open-ended, conversational-style questions that allowed the
respondents to structure their responses as they preferred and in their own words and to
discuss the aspects of their jobs that were most crucial to them. Therefore, each
respondent provided answers to the five questions using terminology that reflected their
own interpretation and underlying paradigms.
The first question, which dealt with a description of their job, was helpful to us in
understanding the internal and external context and the respondent’s perspective. The
main content for our action-research analyses were provided by answers to the questions
dealing with successes (i.e., question 2), struggles (i.e., question 3), and changes (i.e.,
question 4). The last question was intended to allow the interviewee an opportunity to
offer any other comments and as a way for us to terminate the interview. We did not
electronically record any of the conversations. After each interview was conducted, the
interviewer prepared a transcript of the notes taken during the interview. Notes were
taken manually and served as the permanent record. The transcripts of the interviewer
notes amounted to over 30 single-spaced typed pages.
Each interview transcript was prepared as a set of paragraphs. Each paragraph
(sometimes comprising more than one statement) was numbered to facilitate the coding
process. It was common for one or more interviewers to interject questions
spontaneously that were not planned as part of the interview schedule. However, these
spontaneous questions were not consistent across interviewers. They were intended to
contribute to the conversational flavor established between the interviewer and
interviewee and responses to these sideline questions were not included in the present
Page 15 of 38
ScholarOne support: (434) 817-2040 ext. 167
Human Relations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
TMT Reactions 16
2007 3 20
analysis. We discovered that the responses to the question on changes included
redundant information that was already included in the struggles question. Therefore,
only responses to the specific questions about successes and struggles were considered
for coding for the present study.
The recorded comments to the questions on successes and struggles were
“unitized” (cf. Krippendorff, 2004). That is, each paragraph of the interview transcript
was reviewed to determine whether or not the paragraph contained more than one issue.
In some instances, when an interviewer recorded the interviewees’ responses, a paragraph
of the transcript included more than one issue. In these cases, the contents of the
paragraph were separated into discreet issues. One issue may be comprised of two or
more statements. The result of this preparation step produced 121 discrete issues across
the 18 interviews. Exactly 49 were from the success question while 72 were from the
struggles question.
Analysis. We analyzed the 121 discrete issues by coding each into one of the five
change sentiments. Two independent coders, who were trained in qualitative research
methods and who were knowledgeable of the typology but who had not previously been
involved in the action-research project or data collection, were charged with reviewing
the transcripts and classifying each discrete issue into one of six categories: discrepancy,
appropriateness, efficacy, principal support, valence or neither. Each coder was provided
a set of definitions, contained in Table 2, for each of the five criteria (see Table 2). We
reasoned that one measure of relevance of the five sentiment framework would be the
percentage of discrete issues classified as neither. Each coder classified each of the 121
issues, independently.
Page 16 of 38
ScholarOne support: (434) 817-2040 ext. 167
Human Relations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
TMT Reactions 17
2007 3 20
-----------------------------
Insert Table 2 about here
-----------------------------
Reliability. We assessed coder reliability using two methods. A crude measure of
agreement (i.e., total number of agreements/total number of statements) was used,
although it is considered by some to be too lenient (cf. Krippendorff, 2004). Therefore,
Krippendorff’s alpha (Krippendorff, 2004; pp. 221-229) was also employed. Alpha has
been shown to produce a uniform reliability standard for a wide variety of data and it is
suggested to be more uniform than other coder reliability indices (Krippendorff, 2004,
pp. 244-250). Krippendorff argues that alpha reflects a scientifically rigorous index of
coder agreement.
Results
We tested the suitability of categorizing the 121 comments into the five
sentiments. When the coding task was completed and before the coders were allowed to
compare and discuss their coding differences, the crude agreement index was computed
to be 76% (of the 121 comments, the coders disagreed on 29). Krippendorff’s alpha
(Krippendorff, 2004) was computed to be .689. Krippendorff indicates that for tentative
conclusions, the minimum alpha level that should be achieved is .667 (cf. Krippendorff,
2004, p. 241). Thus, the classifications of the comments from the 18 interview transcripts
were concluded to be internally consistent. In addition to being internally consistent, we
argue that the classification of comments into the change sentiment themes achieved a
degree of content validity. That is, only 2 comments out of 121 (i.e., 1.7%) were
categorized by a coder as “neither.” We consider this to be an indication that the
sentiments and the respective definitions represented the comments very well.
Page 17 of 38
ScholarOne support: (434) 817-2040 ext. 167
Human Relations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
TMT Reactions 18
2007 3 20
Furthermore, the task of classifying the comments into the sentiments was relatively
simple and straightforward. Also, importantly, when the coders were allowed to discuss
the 29 comments whose coding they disagreed on, they were able to come to agreement
very easily.
The coding of the transcripts is summarized in Table 3. The final frequencies and
percentages of the comments classified into the five criteria for both successes and
struggles are reported. An analysis of the information summarized in Table 3, revealed
evidence of some positive and some negative beliefs about the new organization and its
strategy. It is obvious that there were more negative statements and issues raised than
positive ones. About 59% of the comments were coded as struggles, while
approximately 40% were coded as successes. Specifically, the percentage of responses
categorized in the appropriateness component for the “struggles” question is twice as
large as the appropriateness component for the “successes” question. There were very
few comments offered to the successes and struggles questions classified as discrepancy,
principal support, and valence. That is, the TMT was primarily focused on
appropriateness and secondarily concerned with efficacy.
-----------------------------
Insert Table 3 about here
-----------------------------
It is interesting to note that over 32% of the TMT’s comments were about
struggling with the appropriateness of the change. Associated with their struggles were
comments about lacking the capability (i.e., 14% of the struggles comments were about
efficacy) to accomplish the stated objectives. In contrast, almost 16% of the comments
were about how the strategy was appropriate and that there was evidence of success.
Page 18 of 38
ScholarOne support: (434) 817-2040 ext. 167
Human Relations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
TMT Reactions 19
2007 3 20
Furthermore, over 14% of the “successes” comments were that the respondents had the
capability to implement the strategy.
To provide a flavor for the content and coding of the interview comments,
examples are provided in Tables 4 and 5. Listed in Table 4 are example issues addressed
by five different respondents to the question “What successes are you having?”
Collectively, these respondents indicated (a) they had a clear vision and people were
focused on that vision (i.e., discrepancy); (b) they were a confident and happy team (i.e.,
efficacy); and (c) the CEO was providing strong leadership (i.e., principal support).
Furthermore, the primary and supply chain functions were now integrated in the new
organization--the consequences being a synergistic relationship and better
communication (i.e., appropriateness). The final issue, valence, was that the current
conditions in the marketplace/economy made it easier to retain qualified people.
-----------------------------
Insert Table 4 about here
-----------------------------
-----------------------------
Insert Table 5 about here
-----------------------------
Table 5 contains the examples from four different respondents (no comments
were coded as valence) to the question “What are you struggling with now?” One
respondent indicated that she/he thought the employees did not think they needed to
change—integration was difficult because they had operated independently for so long
(i.e., discrepancy). The company was not achieving sales targets. The example comment
that reflected this fact was “Must have more sales successes. Haven’t generated high
Page 19 of 38
ScholarOne support: (434) 817-2040 ext. 167
Human Relations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
TMT Reactions 20
2007 3 20
volumes. Not closing large sales deals. Not where we had hoped to be” (i.e.,
appropriateness; see Table 5).
The issue of efficacy was described by one respondent who indicated the
company had so little business in the Microsoft area because there were too few qualified
personnel to sell those products. Prior to forming this new organization, the personnel
sold the company’s computer—which they discontinued at about the same time the new
company (with the new strategy) was formed. One respondent indicated that the
headquarters’ office was so focused on “next year” that the current needs were being
ignored (i.e., principal support).
Our data suggested that most TMT members felt ITC’s strategy was no longer a
sound business model. These executives understood the context within which they
operated. Indeed, they not only were experienced in the IT industry, but they had been
employed by the parent corporation in other organizations and were assembled in this
organization. Close inspection of the information in Table 3 permits one to conclude the
issues recorded from the interviews did not concern valence, principal support, or
discrepancy. By and large they did not question the original idea for this organization.
Furthermore, they did not express concerns about whether they would personally benefit
from the transformation. And, finally, they supported the strategy by applying their
expertise to make it work. We do not characterize their reactions as containing a high
degree of emotion. The responses were matter of fact. In our assessment, the criteria
indicated that the TMT was not simply expressing their resistance to the strategic
transformation. We concluded quite easily that the TMT was in effect issuing a warning
that the strategy did not fit the external environment. The basic conclusion that can be
Page 20 of 38
ScholarOne support: (434) 817-2040 ext. 167
Human Relations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
TMT Reactions 21
2007 3 20
drawn from these data is that the TMT no longer felt the strategy was appropriate, given
the current external environment.
Discussion
In order for organizations to prosper, their leadership teams should be vigilant
about the need for organizational change. Typically, organizational changes are planned
and implemented in order to establish and maintain the proper fit between the
organization and its external environment. The extent to which organizational change
initiatives accomplish their stated objectives is a function of what and how changes are
implemented within a given context. Thus, leaders should periodically initiate action
research to determine whether or not modification of change content and/or process is
necessary. Change catalysis is the term which describes fundamentally modifying an
organizational change to increase the fit between the organization and its environment.
Catalysis inquiry exhibits learning by reflecting about the impact of external context on
actions intended to make the organization congruent with its environment (Naveh et al.,
2006). However, monitoring the progress of an organization change requires an
assessment using criteria considered to be precursors to organizational effectiveness. In
this manuscript, we have provided preliminary evidence of the validity of five key change
sentiments--discrepancy, appropriateness, efficacy, principal support, and valence--for
serving such an assessment role.
We argue the five-sentiment typology can be useful to change agents and change
scholars for several reasons. First, the typology is consistent with themes captured in
research by organizational scientists, spanning a period of at least six decades. These
criteria have been traced to the 1940s, when some of the pioneering research on adoption
Page 21 of 38
ScholarOne support: (434) 817-2040 ext. 167
Human Relations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
TMT Reactions 22
2007 3 20
of innovation and change was being conducted (cf. Coch & French, 1948; and, Ryan &
Gross, 1943). Furthermore, more recent publications by organizational scientists
demonstrate the continued importance of these criteria in a change context. Thus, they
are consistent with theory and practice.
Second, change agents must sell an organizational change to employees who are
expected to embrace new ways of functioning. The five change sentiments constitute a
set of beliefs about an organizational change which are the building blocks for behavior
(e.g., supportive and resistance behaviors; see Ajzen, 1991; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; and,
Piderit, 2000). Thus, knowing what sentiments change recipients are trying to form
during an organizational change will benefit change agents in designing programs
intended to establish commitment to an organizational change. The typology also
provides the foundation for understanding why an organizational change may not be
adequately progressing. That is, the five sentiments help answer the question “why.”
A third reason and related to addressing the question why is that the five-
sentiment typology incorporates a broad spectrum of sentiments about an organizational
change. It is important to note, that resistance to change as an actual, potential, or
anticipated result has received considerable attention since the pioneering work of Lewin
(1947; cf. Coch & French, 1948; Zander, 1950; Lawrence, 1954; Marrow, Bowers, &
Seashore, 1967). More recently, Dent and Goldberg (1999), Piderit (2000), and Ford,
Ford, and D’Amelio (in press) have proposed that change practitioners can benefit by re-
conceptualizing what has been labeled resistance (i.e., change recipients not embracing
an organizational change). Rather than inferring that the lack of acceptance by change
recipients is the traditional negative reaction termed resistance to change, change agents
Page 22 of 38
ScholarOne support: (434) 817-2040 ext. 167
Human Relations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
TMT Reactions 23
2007 3 20
should search more broadly and consider other interpretations of the reluctance to
embrace change. In our interpretation of the TMT’s reactions, we explicitly stated that
this group of executives was issuing a warning rather than simply expressing sentiments
that represented resistance to change. The TMT expressed their opinions that the strategy
was no longer appropriate for the external context and that relevant skills were lacking.
There was no evidence of emotionally charged resistance to change. Our interpretation
was made possible by using the five-sentiment typology used to categorize the interview
comments. Thus, it should be apparent that the application of this typology will enable
those responsible for assessing organizational change to broaden the possible
interpretations of change recipients’ reactions.
Fourth, we demonstrated that the sentiments could be both positive and negative
in tone. Specifically, responses to both struggles and successes were coded into the
sentiments. These bi-polar comments can facilitate the discovery of answers to how
certain aspects of the transformation can be perceived both favorably and unfavorably.
Thus, group discussion and analysis of the comments within each criterion can add a
clearer understanding of what needs to be done to address the unfavorable beliefs about
the change. We did not ask any direct question about any one of these criteria. The
executives offered comments to nondirective questions and we interpreted the meaning
and categorized the comments into these criteria. For an executive team, or for that
matter any management team, who is fed back their own information, organizing the
information along these lines will enable them to answer an important question: “what do
we need to do to make our beliefs about these five criteria positive?” Feeding back their
comments organized into these five criteria and charging a group of individuals to discuss
Page 23 of 38
ScholarOne support: (434) 817-2040 ext. 167
Human Relations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
TMT Reactions 24
2007 3 20
them and address why they feel this way and what can be done offers benefits not
typically afforded to a set of themes not supported by research. The corrective actions
may range from modifying the content of the change to modifying the strategies and
tactics (i.e., process) used to implement the change.
Finally, the typology presented here offers a generalizable approach to assessing
change efforts. It is quite common in action-research projects in which qualitative data
are collected to let the data drive the themes. That is, comments are grouped according to
the similarity of their content, thus forming themes. This procedure results in a set of
themes unique to the organization. However, our analysis suggests that using the change-
sentiment typology can provide another useful way of organizing the information. In
addition, the typology is something that is not unique to any one organization but reflects
attitudes that are crucial for any change.
In sum, we believe the five-sentiment typology holds lots of promise for both
change agents and scholars. In particular, when used to guide change planning and
assessment, the typology can help target key attitudes that shape behavioral orientations
toward the change. Obviously, the present research is preliminary and based only on a
single organizational example. Future research would benefit from including more
organizations and more respondents in each.
Page 24 of 38
ScholarOne support: (434) 817-2040 ext. 167
Human Relations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
TMT Reactions 25
2007 3 20
References
Abrahamson, E. (1996). Management fashion. Academy of Management Review, 21(1),
254-285.
Amiot, C., Terry, D., Jimmieson, N., & Callan, V. (2006). A longitudinal investigation of
coping processes during a merger: Implications for job satisfaction and organizational
identification. Journal of Management, 32, 552-574.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
Armenakis, A. & Harris, S. (2002). Crafting a change message to create transformational
readiness. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(2), 169-183.
Armenakis, A., Harris, S., & Feild, H. (1999). Making change permanent: A model for
institutionalizing change. In W. Pasmore and R. Woodman (eds.) Research, in
Organization Change and Development, Volume XII (pp. 97-128). Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press, Inc.
Armenakis, A., Harris, S., & Mossholder, K. (1993). Creating readiness for
organizational change. Human Relations, 46(6), 681-703.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist,
37(2), 122-147.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Bartunek, J., Rousseau, D., Rudolph, J. & DePalma, J., (2006). On the receiving end:
Sensemaking, emotion, and assessments of an organizational change initiated by
others. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42(2), 182-206.
Page 25 of 38
ScholarOne support: (434) 817-2040 ext. 167
Human Relations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
TMT Reactions 26
2007 3 20
Bean, C., & Hamilton, F. (2006). Leader framing and follower sensemaking: Response to
downsizing in the brave new workplace. Human Relations, 59(3), 321-349.
Bies, R. J. (1987). The predicament of injustice: The management of moral outrage. In
L. Cummings, & B. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, Volume 9
(pp. 289-319). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Bowers, J., Franklin, J., Pecorella, P. (1975). Matching problems, precursors, and
intervention in OD: A systemic approach. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
11, 391-410.
Bullock, R. & Tubbs, M. (1990). A case meta-analysis of gainsharing plans as
organization development interventions. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
26, 383-404.
Christensen, C., Marx, M., & Stevenson, H. (2006). The tools of cooperation and change.
Harvard Business Review, 84(10), 73-80.
Clark, D., Bransten, & Gomes, L. (2002, May 2). Sun microsystems president resigns.
The Wall Street Journal, pp A3, A10.
Coch, L. & French, J. (1948). Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relations, 1(4),
512-532.
Cunningham, C., Woodward, C., Shannon, H., MacIntosh, J., Lendrum, B., Rosenbloom,
D., & Brown, J. (2002). Readiness for organizational change: A longitudinal
study of workplace, psychological and behavioral correlates. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 377-392.
Page 26 of 38
ScholarOne support: (434) 817-2040 ext. 167
Human Relations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
TMT Reactions 27
2007 3 20
Daly, J., & Geyer, P. (1994). The role of fairness in implementing large-scale change:
Employee evaluations of process and outcome in seven facility relocations.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 623 - 638.
Dent, E., & Goldberg, S. (1999). Challenging “resistance to change.” Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 35(1), 25-41.
Eby, L., Adams, D., Russell, J., & Gaby, S. (2000), Perceptions of organizational
readiness for change: Factors related to employees’ reaction to the
implementation of team-based selling. Human Relations, 53(3), 419-442.
Edmondson, A. (2002). The local and variegated nature of learning in organizations: A
group-level perspective. Organization Science, 13(2), 128-146.
Fedor, D., Caldwell, S., & Herold, D. (2006). The effects of organizational change on
employee commitment: A multilevel investigation. Personnel Psychology, 59, 1-
29.
Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An
introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Folger, R., & Skarlicki, D. (1999). Unfairness and resistance to change: Hardship as
mistreatment. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(1), 35-50.
Ford, J., Ford, L., & D’Amelio, A. (in press). Resistance to change: The rest of the story,
Academy of Management Review.
Fugate, M., Kinicki, A., & Scheck, C. (2002). Coping with an organizationalmerger over
four stages. Personnel Psychology, 55, 905-930.
Ghoshal, S. & Bartlett, C. (1996). Rebuilding behavioral context: A blueprint for
corporate renewal. Sloan Management Review, Winter, 23-36.
Page 27 of 38
ScholarOne support: (434) 817-2040 ext. 167
Human Relations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
TMT Reactions 28
2007 3 20
Glaser, B. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social
Problems, 12, 436-445.
Harrison, R. (1970). Choosing the depth of organization interventions. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science. 6(2), 181-202.
Hammersley, M. & Atkinson, P. (1983). Ethnography: Principles in practice. New York,
NY: Tavistock Publications.
Jansen, K. (2004). From persistence to pursuit: A longitudinal examination of momentum
during the early stages of strategic change. Organization Science, 15, 276-294.
Jimmieson, N., Terry, D., & Callan, V., (2004). A longitudinal study of employee
adaptation to organizational change: the role of change-related information and
change-related self-efficacy. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9(1),
11-27.
Kepner, C. & Tregoe, B. (1965). The rational manager. Princeton, NJ: Kepner-Tregoe,
Inc.
Kernan, M., & Hanges, P. (2002). Survivor reactions to reorganization: Antecedents and
consequences of procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87(5), 916-928.
Kilmann, R. (1984). Beyond the quick fix. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.,
Publishers.
Kotter, J. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business
Review, 73(2), 59-67.
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Page 28 of 38
ScholarOne support: (434) 817-2040 ext. 167
Human Relations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
TMT Reactions 29
2007 3 20
Lam, S. & Schaubroeck, J. (2000). A field experiment testing frontline opinion leaders as
change agents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 987-995.
Lawrence, P. (1954). How to deal with resistance to change. Harvard Business Review,
32(3), 49-57.
Lewin, A., & Minton, J. (1986). Determining organizational effectiveness: Another look,
and an agenda for research. Management Science, 32(5), 514-538.
Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2,
34-46.
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics. Human Relations, 1, 5-41.
Locke, K. (2001). Grounded theory in management. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Marrow, A., Bowers, D., & Seashore, S. (1967). Management by participation: Creating
a climate for personal and organizational development. New York, NY: Harper
& Row.
McGuire, D., & Hutchins, K. (2006). A Machiavellian analysis of organizational change.
Journal of Organizational Change Management, 19(2), 199-209.
Mishra, A., & Spreitzer, G. (1998). Explaining how survivors respond to downsizing:
The role of trust, empowerment, justice, and work redesign. Academy of
Management Review, 23, 567-588.
Morrison, E., & Phelps, C. (1999) Taking charge at work: Extra role efforts to initiate
workplace change.Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 403-419.
Morse, N., & Reimer, E. (1956). The experimental change of a major organizational
variable. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 52(1), 120-129.
Page 29 of 38
ScholarOne support: (434) 817-2040 ext. 167
Human Relations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
TMT Reactions 30
2007 3 20
Nadler, D., & Tushman, M. (1989). Organizational frame bending: Principles for
managing reorientation. Academy of Management Executive, 3(3), 194-204.
Naveh, E., Meilich, O., & Marcus, A. (2006). The effects of administrative innovation
implementation on performance: An organizational learning approach. Strategic
Organization, 4(3), 275-302.
Nutt, P. (1986). Tactics of implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 29(2), 23-
261.
Pettigrew, A. (1987). Context and action in transforming the firm. Journal of
Management Studies, 24(6), 649-670.
Piderit, S. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multi-
dimensional view of attitudes toward an organization change. Academy of
Management Review, 25(4), 783-794.
Rafferty, A., & Griffin, M. (2006). Perceptions of organizational change: A stress and
coping perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1154-1162.
Rousseau, D. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee
Rights and Responsibilities Journal, 2, 121-139.
Rousseau, D., & Tijoriwala, S. (1999). What's a Good Reason to Change? Motivated
Reasoning and Social Accounts in Promoting Organizational Change. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 84(4), 514-528.
Ryan, B., & Gross, N. (1943). The diffusion of hybrid seed corn in two Iowa
communities. Rural Sociology, 8, 15-24.
Salancik, G., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job
attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224-253.
Page 30 of 38
ScholarOne support: (434) 817-2040 ext. 167
Human Relations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
TMT Reactions 31
2007 3 20
Scheck, C., & Kinicki, A. (2000). Identifying the antecedents of coping with an
organizational acquisition: A structural assessment. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 21, 627-648.
Simons, T. (2002). Behavioral integrity: The perceived alignment between managers’
words and deeds as a research focus. Organization Science, 13(1), 18-35.
Strebel, P. (1996). Why do employees resist change? Harvard Business Review, 74(3),
86-92.
Szamosi, L., & Duxbury, L. (2002). Development of a measure to assess organizational
change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(2), 184-201.
van Dam, K. (2005). Employee attitudes toward job changes: An application and
extension of Rusbult and Farrell’s investment model. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 78, 253-272.
Vroom, V. (1964). Work and motivation. New York, NY: Wiley.
Wanberg, C., & Banas, J. (2000). Predictors and outcomes to changes in a reorganizing
workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 132-142.
Zander, A. (1950). Resistance to change—Its analysis and prevention. Advanced
Management, 4(5), 9-11.
Page 31 of 38
ScholarOne support: (434) 817-2040 ext. 167
Human Relations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
TMT Reactions 32
2007 3 20
Figure 1
The Qualitative Research Funnel
DATA COLLECTION
Criteria
ANALYSIS
Interpretation
Reliability
Page 32 of 38
ScholarOne support: (434) 817-2040 ext. 167
Human Relations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
TMT Reactions 33
2007 3 20
Table 2
Definitions of Criteria
Definitions:
Discrepancy is the term used when describing a deviation in acceptable performance.
The reported discrepancy or new/revised company objectives serve as justification for
why some change was deemed necessary. One indication of discrepancy may be that
people in an organization were not executing some desired action/function. One may
ask “was some organizational change needed?” That is, does the respondent believe a
change was necessary? It is possible that a respondent may not believe any change was
necessary.
Appropriateness is the term used to describe whether or not the change that is proposed
or implemented was the “right one” for the situation faced by the organization. If it is
appropriate, there may be some stated evidence that the change is having the desired
effect on the organization. If the change is not appropriate, opinions may be offered that
the change was not right for this organization. In other words “is the specific change
being introduced an appropriate reaction to the discrepancy?”
Efficacy is defined as confidence in one’s ability to complete a task or accomplish a goal.
An opinion may be offered such as “we will be successful in implementing the proposed
or implemented changes.” Also, for a change that has been implemented, evidence may
be offered that people are successfully accomplishing their new jobs. In contrast,
evidence may also be offered that the employees lack the skill-level to successfully
perform in the new jobs. In an organizational change effort, the question to be answered
is do I/we believe that I/we “can successfully implement the change?”
Principal support is defined as the extent to which the top leaders, one’s immediate
manager, and one’s respected peers demonstrate that they support the organizational
change. Evidence may be offered that people have or have not bought in to the change.
Leaders may or may not be “walking the talk.” In other words, “who supports this
change?”
Valence refers to the perceived personal benefit (or personal loss) one may reasonably
expect as a result of an organizational change. People may state that the changes benefit
them or do not benefit them in some way, either extrinsically or intrinsically. The
question that someone will likely ask during a change effort may be “what’s in it for
me?”
Page 33 of 38
ScholarOne support: (434) 817-2040 ext. 167
Human Relations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
TMT Reactions 34
2007 3 20
Table 3
Percentages and Frequencies of Responses Classified into the Five Sentiments1
Discrepancy Appropri
ateness
Efficacy Principal
Support
Valence Neither Total
% # % # % # % # % # % # % #
Successes 2.523 15.7 19 14.9 18 5.0 6 .8 1 1.7 2 40.5 49
Struggles 5.8 7 32.2 39 14.0 17 7.4 9 0.0 0 0.0 0 59.5 72
Total 8.3 10 47.9 58 28.9 35 12.4 15 .8 1 1.7 2 100.0 121
1The percentage (%) and frequency (#) in a cell represent the final classifications of
interview responses by the coders.
2Percentages were computed as a proportion of the total number of responses (n=121).
Page 34 of 38
ScholarOne support: (434) 817-2040 ext. 167
Human Relations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
TMT Reactions 35
2007 3 20
Table 4
Examples of Issues Classified into Five Criteria
by Two Independent Coders: Successes
Component Example
Discrepancy … we have a clear vision and people are focused on that
vision—something that wasn’t there in the past (17:2a).
Appropriateness Primary and supply chain organization. In the past, these
two functions were separate. Now we have pulled
together, developed synergy, eliminated communication
issues. Collective input of staff contributed to this result.
This developed during early planning meetings (7:2a)
Efficacy We are a confident and happy team (3:2d)
Principal Support CEO is providing strong leadership (10:2b)
Valence The marketplace/economy has changed. There is a new
stability regarding the workforce. We used to be at the
bottom in terms of pay, and benefits but now folks are
seeing what’s going on in the marketplace. They have a
job, and they have more confidence in this company as a
place to work. Turnover is down and it is easier to retain
people. Because of stability, morale is up (17:2d)
Note: The notation following each issue represents a code number for the
interviewee, the question number posed by the interviewer, and the unit classified
by each coder.
Page 35 of 38
ScholarOne support: (434) 817-2040 ext. 167
Human Relations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
TMT Reactions 36
2007 3 20
Table 5
Examples of Issues Classified into Five Criteria
by Two Independent Coders: Struggles
Component Example
Discrepancy Getting rid of history. People don’t think we need to
change. We are having difficulty integrating because we
have been operating in a segregated way for so long
(20:3a)
Appropriateness Must have more sales successes. Haven’t generated high
volumes. Not closing large sales deals. Not where we had
hoped to be. (2:3a)
Efficacy Delivering Microsoft solutions. The idea was at the end of
the year to transplant into the field. At this point, we are
not where we need to be due to sales people lacking
experience and the economy has played a factor. This is
an important struggle for my division (8:3c)
Principal Support HQ [operations] has scant resources. HQ is focusing on
next year. Our needs are now! We need to build the North
American market to focus on the immediate needs. The
CEO knows about this—he got briefed over 1.5 days
about 2 weeks ago (11:3e)
Valence None
Note: The notation following each issue represents a code number for the
interviewee, the question number posed by the interviewer, and the unit classified
by each coder.
Page 36 of 38
ScholarOne support: (434) 817-2040 ext. 167
Human Relations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Reference
Discrepancy
Appropriateness
Efficacy
Principal Support
Valence
Abrahamson (1996)
Amiot et al. (2006)
Bandura (1986)
Bartunek et al. (2006)
Bean & Hamilton (2006)
Bies (1987)
Bowers et al. (1975)
Bullock & Tubbs (1990)
Christensen et al. (2006)
Coch & French (1948)
Cunningham et al. (2002)
Daly & Geyer (1994)
Eby et al. (2000)
Fedor et al. (2006)
Folger & Skarlicki (1999)
Fugate et al. (2002)
Ghoshal & Bartlett (1996)
Harrison (1970)
Jansen (2004)
Jimmieson et al. (2004)
Kepner & Tregoe (1965)
Kernan & Haynes (2002)
Kilmann (1984)
Kotter (1995)
Lam & Schaubroeck (2000)
Lewin (1946)
McGuire & Hutchins (2006)
Mishra & Spreitzer (1998)
Morrison & Phelps (1999)
Morse & Reimer (1956)
Nadler & Tushman (1989)
Nutt (1986)
Pettigrew (1987)
Sentiments Identified in Selected Organizational Science Publications (1943 - 2006)
Table 1
TMT 2007 3 16
Page 37 of 38
ScholarOne support: (434) 817-2040 ext. 167
Human Relations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Reference
Discrepancy
Appropriateness
Efficacy
Principal Support
Valence
Rafferty & Griffin (2006)
Rousseau & Tijoriwala (1999)
Ryan & Gross (1943)
Salancik & Pfeffer (1978)
Scheck & Kinicki (2000)
Simons (2002)
Strebel (1996)
Szamosi & Duxbury (2002)
van Dam (2005)
Vroom (1964)
Wanberg & Banas (2000)
Sentiments Identified in Selected Organizational Science Publications (1943 - 2006)
Table 1 (cont'd)
TMT 2007 3 16
Page 38 of 38
ScholarOne support: (434) 817-2040 ext. 167
Human Relations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
