Empresa – Otros Grupos de interés:

I begin by examining various typologies or frameworks of change, then identify possible targets of change and change players (leaders, managers, agents and recipients), and finally, review steps and phases in the process of organisational change. The role emotion plays in individual responses, together with its cognitive antecedents and behavioural consequences, will be highlighted.

Typologies of Organisational Change

Change can occur in many facets of an organisation’s existence. Many typologies of macro-organisational change have been presented in the literature, mostly in management and organisational psychology, and some from other research disciplines. Within the management discipline change has generally been reviewed from a strategic perspective as the attempts of an organisation to adjust to a range of environmental factors. The approach of organisational behaviour, and specifically Organisation (or Organisational) Development (OD), seeks to understand how organisations plan and implement change, how individuals react to change and the processes by which it is designed and introduced. OD is an approach to planned change that evolved in the 1950s as a humanistic framework for improving organisational processes, and uses a number of techniques, such as training groups, sensitivity training, survey design and feedback (French & Bell, 2005). Organisational transformation is a variation of OD and involves a fundamental change in the way an organisation operates (French, Bell & Zawacki, 2005, Porras & Silvers, 1991).

A number of frameworks have been developed that analyse change in terms of nature, scope and scale, frequency, and determining factors, producing a plethora of labels (see Table 3, Typologies of Change). Watzlawick, Weakland and Fisch (1974) distinguish between first-order change as a change within a system, and second-order change, which is a change of the system itself. Golembiewski, Billingsley and Yeager (1976) identify three levels of change. Alpha change involves a variation of a state that is basically constant (which they liken to the first-order change of Watzlawick et al., 1974); beta change occurs in the use of different form of measurement or frequency of the intervals; while gamma change (similar to second-order change) involves a “redefinition or reconceptualisation of some domain, a major change in the perspective or frame of reference” (p. 135). Porras and Silvers (1991) divide gamma change into

two concepts. Gamma (A) change occurs in an existing organisational paradigm without the addition of a new variable, such as when organisation that moves within a production-driven paradigm from a focus on cost to a focus on quality. Gamma (B) change means the replacement of the paradigm itself with another that has at least one new variable, for example, the replacement of a production-driven paradigm with a customer-focus paradigm.

Theorists Types of change Nature of change Targets of change

Watzlawick, Weakland & Fisch (1974)

First-order change Second-order change

Change within the system Change of the system Golembiewski,

Billingsley & Yeager (1976)

Alpha change Existential state of a relatively stable conceptual domain Beta change Existential state and

intervals of measurement. Gamma change Reconceptualisation of

domain Tushman & Romanelli

(1985)

Convergent change

Reorientations Recreations

Incremental change and adaptation Simultaneous and discontinuous shifts Simultaneous and discontinuous shifts Strategy (products, markets, technology), power, structure, controls Strategy , power,

structure, controls Values + strategy, power, structure, controls Bartunek & Moch (1987) First-order change

Second-order change Third-order change Factors in existing schemata Schemata Employee choice of schemata

Dunphy & Stace (1988, 1990)

Finetuning

Incremental adjustment Modular transformation Corporate transformation

Changing the fit of variables Adjustments to changing environment Radical change in division Radical change in organisation Strategy, structure, people, processes Strategy, structure, management processes Many of the above within a division

Many of the above within an organisation

Nadler & Tushman (1989) Tuning Adaptation Reorientation Recreation Incremental change in anticipation of future events Incremental change in reaction to external events Strategic change in anticipation of future events

Strategic change in reaction to external events Gersick (1991) Incremental change

Revolutionary change

“Rules of the game” Deep structure/“the game”

Huy & Mintzberg (2003) Dramatic change

Systematic change

Organic change

Quick, triggered by crisis or opportunity, led from top

Slower, more orderly, led from middle and by consultants

Messy, arises from lower levels

Any of costs, structure, strategy, culture Processes

Products, services, processes

Porras & Silvers (1991) Alpha change

Beta change

Gamma (A) change

Gamma (B) change

Change in perceived variables within a paradigm

Change in perceived values about variables within a paradigm Change within a paradigm by adding variables

Change in the paradigm

Organising arrangements Social factors

Policy Technology

Porras & Robertson (1992) First-order change Second-order change Developmental (planned) Evolutionary (unplanned) Transformational (planned) Revolutionary (unplanned) Organising arrangements Social factors Policy Technology

Weick & Quinn (1999) Episodic change Continuous change

Bartunek and Moch (1987) conceptualise first-order change as modifications within schemata, second-order change as changes of schemata and third-order change as one where individuals determine their own schemata. Porras and Robertson (1992) comment only on first-order change, as being linear and continuous, and second-order change, which is discontinuous, radical and multi-dimensional. First-order change can be developmental (planned) or evolutionary (unplanned), whereas second-order can be transformational (planned) or revolutionary (unplanned).

Tushman and Romanelli’s (1985) model of punctuated equilibrium separates periods of convergent change (concerned with incremental changes to strategy, power, structure and controls), from divergent or more radical change, which is sub-divided into reorientations (simultaneous shifts in the four targets of change) and recreations (which add the complexity of change in core values to the aforementioned categories). Nadler and Tushman (1989) have elaborated on this model by distinguishing between two types of incremental change, tuning, which seeks to improve efficiency in anticipation of future events, and adaptation, which is a response to external events. Similarly, in terms of strategic change, reorientations are anticipatory while recreations are reactive.

Dunphy and Stace (1988, 1990) examine the increasing scale of change in terms of fine-tuning, incremental adjustment, modular transformation and corporate transformation. They describe four forms of transformation: developmental transitions, task-focused transitions, charismatic transformation and turnarounds, each of which should be managed differently. According to Greenwood and Hinings (1995, p. 1025), “Convergent change occurs within the parameters of an existing archetypal template”, while radical change, which is characterised by the pace and magnitude of upheaval, “occurs when an organization moves from one template-in-use to another”. Gersick (1991) analysed the punctuated equilibrium model across multiple research disciplines and differentiated between incremental change, which leaves the ‘deep structures’ or the ‘rules of the game’ intact, while revolutionary change dismantles these structures and changes the game. Using a similar line of questioning Van den Ven and Poole (1995) developed a model that seeks to explain how change occurs across a number of fields in the physical and social sciences. Reviewing different frameworks of change Weick and Quinn (1999) distinguish between episodic change, which is infrequent, slower, and more strategic, and continuous change, which in incremental and adaptive.

degree to which change is a planned and deliberate process or one that emerges. This approach incorporates an analysis of the factors that drive different types of change and the types of change players who are involved in the process. Using this approach, Kerber and Buono (2005) identify three approaches to change. Directed change is a top- down approach, planned change involves more consultation and guided change, which taps employee commitment, expertise and creativity, allows change to emerge more organically. Huy and Mintzberg (2003) focus on three types of change. Dramatic change is initiated by top management in times of crisis or opportunity, systematic change is a more planned and orderly change and often promoted by staff and consultants, and organic change arises from lower level staff, often without formal management processes. Dunphy and Stace (1988, 1990) propose that different styles of change leadership (collaborative, consultative, directive and coercive) should be employed, depending on which scale of change is being enacted. Their matrix indicates collaborative and consultative approaches are suitable to fine-tuning and incremental adjustment, labelling the change strategy participative evolution, while collaborative and consultative approaches in the context of modular or corporate transformations are charismatic transformations. Coercive and directive leadership, when applied to fine- tuning and incremental change, is termed forced evolution, whereas when the focus is on modular and corporate transformations, the change strategy is dictatorial transformation.

Most of the theorists listed in Table 3 have identified different specific facets that an organisation can target for change. For example, Dunphy and Stace (1990) refer to strategy, structure, people and processes. Huber, Sutcliffe, Miller and Glick (1995) have three broad categories and 10 types of change targets overall. Externally focused changes refer to strategy and external stakeholder relationships; internally focused changes deal with goals and culture, operational, administrative, communication and staffing issues; while changes in organisational form deal with the responsibility and resources of senior managers and people at lower levels and the addition or subtraction of a major organisational unit.

The most comprehensive approach has been developed by Porras and Silvers (1991) and Porras and Roberston (1992). They developed a table that identified four main categories of targets of organisational change with inter-connecting relationships: organising arrangements (including plans and rewards), social factors (covering culture, group processes and management style), technology (including machinery and

processes) and physical setting (which embraces design, size, space, light, etc.). In total 23 sub-categories were listed (see Table 4).

Organising Arrangements

Social Factors Physical Setting Technology

1. Goals 2. Strategies 3. Structure 4. Administrative policies and procedures 5. Administrative systems 6. Reward systems 7. Ownership 1. Culture 2. Management style 3. Interaction processes 4. Informal patterns and networks 5. Individual attributes 1. Space configuration 2. Physical ambiance 3. Interior design 4. Architectural design 1. Tools, equipment and machinery 2. IT 3. Job design 4. Work flow design 5. Technical expertise 6. Technical procedures 7. Technical Systems

Table 4: Targets of change

Source: Porras & Robertson, 1992 (Factors Constituting the Work Setting)

The various frameworks and models have several common aspects: change can be more or less radical, complex or simple, quick or slow. Changes of greater scope, complexity and speed have more impact on systems, organisations and the people that live and work within them. For the purposes of this study these typologies of macro- organisational change need to be viewed through the lens of micro-level change. What might appear to be a minor change on an organisational level may be perceived by an individual to have very radical personal implications. Some of the same terms have been used in both literatures. For example, while Bartunek and Moch (1987, p. 485) refer to organisational schemata, “which generate shared meanings or frames of reference, for the organization as a whole or for various sub-groups within it”, Lau and Woodman (1995) use the term as a cognitive mechanism for developing individual attitudes towards change. Similarly, George and Jones (2001) present a model of change at the level of the individual where the concept of schemata is used to explore resistance to change. The focus of the current study is on change experienced through the eyes (and heart) of the individual.

Little attention has been paid to emotion in most of the conceptual frameworks of macro-level change. Gersick (1991) briefly acknowledges the emotional impact of change, Porras and Robertson (1992) commented on the emotional aspects of conflict and Kerber and Buona (2005) only identify one form of change - directed change - as having emotional repercussions. While many authors have noted the emotional impacts

of change, Huy (2002) and Kiefer (2002b) suggests that radical change will provoke particularly intense emotions. Therefore, one aim of this research study is to identify what emotions are elicited by perceptions of the specific target(s) of change, and the scale, speed, frequency and timing of changes. Another is to examine how emotions are generated by people’s perceptions of the processes that are employed to create and implement change. And given that people involved in change can be classified in different ways, yet another aim is to uncover how the role people play in change elicits emotional responses.

Change Players

In any organisational change there are likely to be several categories of people who play a part. Some lead change, others are required to manage it or implement it in their departments or divisions and motivate others to do so, some play roles in facilitating or advising on change, and some will simply be affected by the change and do what is necessary or resist the change or some aspects of it.

Various authors have sought to distinguish between leadership and management, some specifically in the context of change. Reviewing various approaches to leadership Yukl (1999) found a tendency to consider leadership as oriented towards change whereas managers focus on stability and efficiency. For example, Kotter (1996) views leaders as establishing direction and aligning people by motivating and inspiring, while managers plan, budget, organise, staff, control and solve problems. Kouzes and Posner (1995, p. 30) use terms that have an emotional theme to them in defining leadership as “the art of mobilizing others to want to struggle for shared aspirations” and which usually involves change, whereas management is about order, organisation and control. According to them the role of a leader is to challenge the process, inspire a shared vision, enable others to act, model the way, and “encourage the heart”. Bennis and Nanus (1985, p. 92) suggest that “By focussing attention on a vision, the leader operates on the emotional and spiritual resources of an organization” while the manager “operates on the physical resources of the organization.” Bass’ (1985) theory of transformational leadership and Conger and Kanungo’s (1998) theory of charismatic leadership identify the leader’s ability to articulate a compelling vision of change and generate the desire for change in others. Emotion is a significant element of both theories.

seldom distinguish between different categories of people involved, yet their own reveals some ambivalence. They developed a change management competency framework with eight change competency clusters: initiation, impact, facilitation, leadership, learning, execution, presence, and use of technology (use of change tools, theories and models). Two of these competencies, however, change initiation and change leadership, clearly refer to change leadershiprather than to management. Tubbs and Schulz (2005) developed a taxonomy of 50 leadership competencies under seven headings, two of which are explicitly related to change. Innovation and creativity contain five items and leading change seven, and in the latter category is managing the change process.

Caldwell (2003) believes that the roles of change leader and manager are complementary and often overlapping, even if there are conceptual differences. Using a Delphi technique for identifying the attributes of change leaders and change managers he found that the top three attributes of change leadership were inspiring vision, entrepreneurship and integrity/honesty, whereas for change managers the top three were empowering others, team building and learning from others. He suggests that change leaders are at the most senior levels and focus on strategic change, whereas change managers tend to operate in the middle and on tactical and operational issues. However, does acknowledge that it is often difficult to separate the roles that people play in change and that at different times people need to use a blend of competencies.

A number of overlapping perspectives can be used to classify those who are affected by change. The first refers to hierarchy, the second to scope, the third to importance. If a change is initiated from those at the top, it usually involves a large section of the organisation, and deals with strategy, structure and/or culture (Huy & Mintzberg, 2003). Change roles could be simply seen in terms of hierarchical levels: change leaders are the CEO/general manager and senior managers, change managers are middle managers and first-level managers, and change recipients are non-managerial employees. Non-executive directors (Dulewicz & Higgs, 2003) and change agents (Furnham, 2000) could also be involved in the process. The typologies of change referred to earlier (e.g. Nadler & Tushman, 1989; Huber et al., 1995) indicate that strategic, radical and divergent change will in most cases be led by senior management. Huy and Mintzberg (2003) suggest that the type of change being contemplated dictates who leads it: dramatic change is led by senior management, systematic change is led by staff groups and consultants and organic change arises from the ranks of staff. While

Woodward and Hendry (2004) distinguish between change leaders, who initiate change, change managers who execute it, and those (including managers) who simply experience it. They conducted one survey of the change leaders, but surprisingly surveyed the other two in one category.

However, these generic approaches cannot be appropriately applied to every change event or related series of changes. Hierarchy alone does not always determine the roles people play, and neither do the scope or importance of the change. To use a theoretical example, in one firm developing a technologically innovative product line the change leader might be the research and development manager, who aims to persuade the CEO and others in the senior management team to agree to the change. The marketing manager may give unqualified and enthusiastic support and devote considerable energy to adding ideas to the proposed changes. Meanwhile the head of finance is extremely concerned about the financial implications of funding the change and initially actively resists it. The head of human resources is worried about how the firm will staff the expansion required in the change and procrastinates in contributing to the change plans. The CEO is ambivalent but finally backs the change. It is clear that not all of the senior management team can be called change leaders and might not support the changes. How passionately will each senior manager articulate the ‘compelling vision’? They might simply take on the role of change managers and implement the changes finally approved. Some middle and first-level managers may have no active role to play in managing some aspects of the change. Therefore, one cannot classify people simply according to their seniority, but rather according to the role they are given, or assume, in a specific change process. A wide-ranging change, such as the adoption of a new form for leave, may be initiated by one middle manager. Changes that are of strategic importance or which are radical, however, are usually led from the top (Huy, 1999).

Non-management staff can also take on the roles of change leaders. Morrison and Phelps (1999) explored the concept of extra-role behaviours and sought to understand what motivates employees to take charge and initiate constructive work changes that are beyond the expectations the organisations have of them. Those who took such action were a mixture of staff at all hierarchical levels and were found to do so when they believed management was open to employee-initiated change. Moon, Kamdar, Mayer and Takeuchi (2008) also found non-managers ‘taking charge’. The roles of emergent or informal leaders have been discussed by Pescosolido (2005) and

Druskat and Pescosolido (2006).

The term change agent has been used widely and with many differing definitions