the impact of change communication on change receptivity ...the impact of change communication on...

1

The impact of change communication on change receptivity: Two cases of

continuous change

Jennifer Frahm

Bachelor of Business (Comm. with Distinction) Honours in Management

(Queensland University of Technology)

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Management)

Work and Industry Futures Research Program

School of Management Queensland University of Technology

February 28 2005

2

Abstract

Communication is inextricably linked with the process of organisational change

(Lewis, 1999). However, managers report that communication of organisational

change is challenging, particularly with the advent of continuously changing

organisations (Buchanan, Claydon & Doyle, 1999). Continuously changing

organisations are those that seek to be more flexible, more innovative and more

responsive to the dynamic external environment. One of the problems associated with

continuous change is the resultant impact of successive downsizings, re-engineering

efforts and culture changes on employee receptivity to change. Despite the

unquestioning adoption of continuous change efforts (Zorn, Christensen, & Cheney,

1999) there is a paucity of research on communication during this type of change. This

thesis addresses this knowledge gap by situating the research within a continuous

change context. The primary research question is ‘how do change communication

models impact on employee receptivity to change within a continuous change context’,

and this question considers issues pertaining to how accurately previous change

communication models reflect and explain what occurs within change processes. This

topic is examined within two case-study organisations through the use of multiple

methods. The analysis occurs through an interpretive framework and utilises Langley’s

(1999) alternate templates as a strategy to manage the process based research. A model

of change communication during continuous change is presented, with the central

constructs of the model being monologic change communication, dialogic change

communication and the background talk of change. Further, Van de Ven and Poole’s

(1995) Process Theories of Change are extended to consider the sequencing of the three

constructs. The findings suggest that the sequencing of the dominant change

communication models is informed by an alignment of individual communication

competences and change communication expectations.

3

Dedication

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

4

Acknowledgments I wish to acknowledge the support and encouragement received during the course of completing this doctorate. In particular I would like to express my deep gratitude to:

• Associate Professor Kerry Brown for your enthusiasm and energy in direction of the PhD process

• Dr Lisa Bradley for continued patience, good cheer and commitment to methodological rigour

• Dr Namrata Malhotra for earlier guidance on parts of this research A number of the academic community within the School of Management, Faculty of Business, QUT have been greatly influential along the process and I am thankful for your interest and guidance: Dr Barbara Pini, Professor Neal Ryan, Professor Boris Kabanoff, Dr Jennifer Waterhouse, and Dr Cheryl Rivers. Professor Neal Ryan was instrumental in organising a study leave with the Department of Sociology at Princeton University, New Jersey, USA, and for that I am most grateful. I also would like to acknowledge the stellar academics who allowed me to audit their classes: Professors Bruce Western, Paul Di Maggio, Viviana Zelizer and Alexandro Portes. Thanks also go to the Princeton cohort. Still miss you. I have been told by many of my peers that the PhD journey can be a lonely one, isolating and alienating. I have been fortunate to find the opposite, with many, many wonderful folk accompanying me on the journey. In particular, I would to thank the following: The Cubies and Bish. Matt, it is true – you are all knowing, and all seeing, and the true guru of SOM. I am privileged in having shared a cubie with you. WejyWoman – I look forward to further adventures, and working with you both within the academic sector and beyond. You’re a bloody star. Adelle – your abundance of grace and humour make life within Marg St much easier. The Bringers of Joy: Mary, Meeta & Tash. You have been the unexpected joys of the PhD process. Thank you. KJ & Owlet – thank you for your continued love, support and interest. Deeply indebted to you both for the genes! An abundance of social support and reality checks were provided by some of the most fab folk I know: JVD, SJD, Bec, Sam, Fi, Catrina, Deb and of course the Loveys. Thank you all. And finally, I am deeply grateful to the two organisations that supported this research. Thank you for your trust and acceptance.

5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2

TABLE OF CONTENTS----------------------------------------------------------------------5

List of Figures -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13

List of Tables---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14

Statement of original authorship -------------------------------------------------------- 15

CHAPTER 1----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16

Introduction ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16

Background to the research..............................................................................................16

Research problems and questions...................................................................................19

Methodology ......................................................................................................................22

Outline of the thesis...........................................................................................................23

Conclusion ..........................................................................................................................26

CHAPTER 2----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27

Review of the Literature ------------------------------------------------------------------- 27

Introduction........................................................................................................................27

Theoretical Frameworks of Change ................................................................................31

Change Communication...................................................................................................38

Organisational Communication: The Debates ..........................................................40

What is Change Communication?...............................................................................41

Monologic Change Communication...........................................................................42

Dialogic Change Communication ...............................................................................44

6

Instrumental Change Communication – Model 1 ....................................................49

Constructivist Change Communication – Model 2 ..................................................52

Integration of Instrumental and Constructivist change communication ..............55

Informal Change Communication ..............................................................................56

Methodological implications of previous change communication research.........59

Change Receptivity ...........................................................................................................61

Change Readiness..........................................................................................................65

Change Resistance .........................................................................................................68

Change Cynicism...........................................................................................................69

Change Openness ..........................................................................................................71

Methodological implications of change receptivity studies ....................................73

Summary.........................................................................................................................73

Continuous Change Organisations – what do they look like?....................................74

Conclusion ..........................................................................................................................80

CHAPTER 3----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 83

Methods and Research Design ----------------------------------------------------------- 83

Introduction........................................................................................................................83

Objectives of Study............................................................................................................85

Research Paradigm-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 86

Research Design ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 88

Development of Case-Study Methodology....................................................................90

Development of Longitudinal Design ............................................................................92

7

Sampling and Data Sources--------------------------------------------------------------- 95

Selection of Research Sites................................................................................................95

Sampling within case. .....................................................................................................100

Data Collection------------------------------------------------------------------------------101

Methods ............................................................................................................................102

Tech D Focus groups...................................................................................................102

Tech D Survey ..............................................................................................................104

Survey Administration ...............................................................................................104

Tech D Observation.....................................................................................................106

Highsales Focus groups..............................................................................................106

Highsales Survey .........................................................................................................108

Highsales Observation................................................................................................109

Measures ...........................................................................................................................110

Rationale ...........................................................................................................................114

Ethnographic Observation .........................................................................................115

Organisational Surveys...............................................................................................117

Data Analysis--------------------------------------------------------------------------------117

Procedures ........................................................................................................................118

Surveys..........................................................................................................................120

Ethnographic Observation .........................................................................................120

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................121

CHAPTER 4----------------------------------------------------------------------------------123

8

Tech D Findings & Results ---------------------------------------------------------------123

Introduction......................................................................................................................123

The Case............................................................................................................................124

Time 1 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------124

Study 1: Survey, January 2002 .......................................................................................124

Study 2: Focus groups, February 2002..........................................................................126

Monologic Change Communication.........................................................................126

Dialogic Change Communication .............................................................................128

The Background Talk of Change...............................................................................130

Study 3: Ethnographic Observation, January – September 2002 ..............................133




Time 2 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------143


Study 5: Focus Groups, February 2003 .........................................................................145




Study 6: Ethnographic Observation, January – December 2003 ...............................152



9


Time 3 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------163


Study 8: Focus Groups, February 2004 .........................................................................165




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



Background Talk of Change.......................................................................................179

Study 3: Ethnographic Observation, June – December, 2003 ....................................181



10


Time 2 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------192


Study 5: Focus groups, February 2003..........................................................................193




Study 6: Ethnographic Observation, January – June 2004 .........................................199




Time 3 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------207

Study 7: Survey, July 2004 ..............................................................................................207

Study 8: Focus groups, July 2004...................................................................................209




Conclusion ........................................................................................................................215

CHAPTER 6----------------------------------------------------------------------------------217

Discussion------------------------------------------------------------------------------------217

SECTION 1-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------217

How did Change Communication impact on Change Receptivity? -----------217

The impact of Monologic Change Communication on Change Receptivity ..........218

11

Expectations .................................................................................................................218

Competences ................................................................................................................220

The impact of Dialogic Change Communication on Change Receptivity...............224

Expectations .................................................................................................................224

Competences ................................................................................................................226

Forums ..........................................................................................................................229

Pseudo- Dialogic Change Communication (the wolf in sheep’s clothing)..........231

Impact of the Background Talk of Change on Change Receptivity .........................234

Language ......................................................................................................................236

Framing Discourses.....................................................................................................237

The Presence of Sense-givers .....................................................................................241

The Sequencing and Interplay of the Three Templates..............................................243

SECTION 2: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------255

What were the Communicative Implications of Continuous Change?--------255

Uncertainty and Ambiguity ...........................................................................................256

Change Fatigue ................................................................................................................258

Necessity to Provide Metrics to Measure Success ......................................................259

Communicative Attention..............................................................................................261

Receptivity as a Process ..................................................................................................263

Future Research-----------------------------------------------------------------------------267

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................270

CHAPTER 7----------------------------------------------------------------------------------272

12

Conclusion -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------272

Introduction......................................................................................................................272

Theoretical Contribution ................................................................................................272

Limitations........................................................................................................................279

Future research ................................................................................................................280

Contributions ...................................................................................................................281

Appendix 1: Subscales of the Inventory of Change in Organisational Culture--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------299

Appendix 2: Confidentiality Statement -----------------------------------------------300

Appendix 3: Research Protocol ---------------------------------------------------------301

Appendix 4: The Vignettes ---------------------------------------------------------------302

Appendix 5: Exploratory Factor Analysis: Total Variance Explained (Highsales) -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------305

Appendix 6: Exploratory Factor Analysis: Total Variance Explained (Tech D)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------306

Appendix 7: Perception of Organisational Capacity to Change ----------------307

Appendix 8: Perception of Change Communication ------------------------------308

13

List of Figures

Figure 2.1 Structure of Literature Reviewed………………………………………………. ..28

Figure 2.2 Process Theories of Organisational Development and Change…………………..33

Figure 3.1 Process Map of the Comparative Case Study Process……………………………93

Figure 6.1 The Pipeline of Continuous Change Communication…………………………...244

Figure 6.2. The Simple Model of Change Communication and Change

Receptivity………………………………………………………………………….……….253

Figure 6.3 Revision of Relationship between Change Communication

and Change Receptivity…………………………………………………………………….254

14

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Significant Change Communication Studies in the Last 10 Years…………….….46

Table 3.1 Comparative Case Similarities…………………………………………………….98

Table 3.2 Tech D Reliabilities………………………………………………………………113

Table 3.3 Highsales Reliabilities…………………………………………………………....113

Table 3.4 Demographics of the Two Case-Studies………………………………………….113

Table 4.1 Means of Key Variables at Time 1……………………………………………….125


Table 4.3 Correlations between Openness to Change and Communication Variables……...145


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 5.3 Correlations between Openness to Change and Communication Variables……...193


Table 5.5 Summary Table of ANOVAs within Highsales………………………………….208

Table 5.6 Means of Key Variables at Time 3…………...…………………………………..208

Table 5.7 Correlations between Openess to Change and Communication Variables……….208

Table 6.1 Framing Discourse within Tech D………………………………………………..240

Table 6.2 Framing Discourse within Highsales……………………………………………..240

Table 6.3 Van De Ven & Poole’s Process Theories of Change Adapted …………………..249

Table 6.4 Dominant Communication Models of Change………………………………...…250

15

Statement of original authorship

The work contained in this dissertation has not been previously submitted for a degree

or diploma at any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and

belief this dissertation contains no material previously published or written by another

person except where due reference is made.

Signed Date

16

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Background to the research The advent of continuous change as a fundamental ‘truism’ of organisational

life presents intriguing challenges to those seeking to manage organisations. The

last thirty years has witnessed increasing emphasis on organisational

development (OD), whereby the importance of the employee is elevated within

change (Beckhard & Pritchard, 1992). However, much of the field has

maintained a focus on the ‘planned’ and ‘episodic’ aspect of organisational

change (Seo, Putnam, & Bartunek, 2004). Many managers suggest that the

contemporary experience of change is rarely rational and planned (Doyle,

2002). Thus, the value of diagnostic tools, models and approaches derived from

the field of OD is diminished in the context of organisations that change

continuously.

Alongside the unquestioning adoption of continuous change efforts (Zorn et al.,

1999) there is now a burgeoning body of research on continuous change as

opposed change as a discrete event. Brown and Eisenhardt (1997) agree on the

need for such research, suggesting that many firms change, not by a rare

episodic event, but rather through a continuous process. Despite this promising

trajectory, current research sheds little light on the change communication of

organisations aspiring to achieve continuous change. This thesis addresses this

17

knowledge gap by situating the research within a continuous change context,

and thus contributes to the advancement of change management knowledge.

The practical import of managing continuous change is highlighted in

Buchanan, Claydon and Doyle’s (1999) study of change practitioners. They

suggest that within this continuous change environment, communication of

change, and issues pertaining to change receptivity, such as cynicism, fear, and

resistance prove most challenging. Change receptivity is a central issue within

continuous change. Huy (1999) defines change receptivity as an interpretive,

attitudinal state (both cognitive and emotional) to accept the need for proposed

change. Various dimensions of change receptivity include openness to change,

change fatigue, change resistance, change cynicism, and change contempt

(Frahm & Brown, 2002). Managers have long struggled with managing

employees during change (Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979), and the emergence of

continuous change elevates the difficulty.

One of the more popular remedies to the difficulties of managing organisational

change is to bolster the organisational communication. This thesis uses the term

change communication to denote organisational communication that is specific to

change efforts (Zorn, Page, & Cheney, 2000). Zorn et al (1999) have used the term to

refer to change-related communication and this description is consistent with the use

of the term within the content of this thesis.

Previous research suggests that the value of change communication in organisational

change lies in improving change receptivity of employees (Kanter, 1999; Kotter &

Schlesinger, 1979). Change communication scholars perceive organisational change

as a communication problematic (Bourke & Bechervaise, 2002; Faber, 1998). In this

sense, problems with managing change are a result of poor communication and

18

improving the quality of the communication enhances the quality of the change effort.

It is argued that organisational change efforts fail in part due to ill considered, or mis-

used organisational communication strategies and tactics (Frahm & Brown, 2003).

Traditionally, popular management theorists have advocated the importance of

communication in achieving successful organisational change (Kanter, Stein, & Jick,

1992b). However, recent studies indicate that despite being recognised as a critical

area of change implementation, change communication is one of the most difficult

aspects of change management to implement (Buchanan, Claydon, & Doyle, 1999;

Doyle, 2002).

Previously, change agents managed change as a discrete event and co-ordinated

the communication strategies and plans accordingly. Some argue that today’s

change agents find communicating change incredibly difficult as the contextual

factors of organisations render the ‘textbook recipes’ on managing change

impotent (Doyle, Claydon, & Buchanan, 2000). The difficulty exists despite the

best practice advice derived from the works of change management gurus

(Bennis, 2003; Kanter, 1985; Kotter, 1996; Senge, 1990). Buchanan et al (1999)

report that accompanying the increasing frustration with change

communication, there is an escalation of frustration with continued ‘fashion

driven’ reforms and change programs. It is surprising then that only a few

studies have investigated the link between change communication and change

receptivity, for example, Economo and Zorn (1999).

Buchanan et al (1999) found that although managers reported they were aware

of the importance of communication and well-supported change agents, the

reality often did not match the rhetoric. Within the management literature

‘communication’ is considered a monolithic entity, the ‘black box’ of

19

organisational studies (Barrett, 2002). Despite the recognition that

communication is an integral component of organisational change, only a small

body of change communication specific research exists (Lewis, 1999; Mills,

2003). A considerable number of organisational change studies note

‘communication’ as an outcome in their research (for example, Brown &

Eisenhardt, 1997; Stewart & Kringas, 2003), but few focus on communication

processes per se. There is a need for change communication to be more clearly

defined, and understood, particularly within continuous change contexts. This

research agenda becomes more salient when considering the underdeveloped

link between change receptivity and change communication within the

management literature.

Research problems and questions From the initial discussion outlined above, it is clear that an opportunity exists

for a research study that offers the potential to make a significant contribution to

change management knowledge. Thus, this research addresses the following

questions:

Empirical Research Question 1: How does change communication impact on change receptivity within a continuous change context?

Theoretical Research Question 2: What is change communication?

Empirical Research Question 3: How does unpacking the ‘black box’ of change communication inform our understanding of change receptivity?

Eisenberg, Andrews, Murphy and Laine-Timmerman (1999) assist in improving our

understanding of change communication by attempting to align communication

models with organisational change models. They consider the different applications of

monologic change communication, transactional change communication and dialogic

20

change communication. While the authors recognise ‘transactional change

communication’ as a third model of change communication, this thesis adopts only

the monologic and dialogic models of change communication in order to illustrate

their instrumental and constructivist properties in change communication, and to also

manage the size and scope of the research project. Further, Eisenberg et al (1999)

argue that ‘transactional change communication’ is the primary model of

transformational change. As already noted, this thesis is concerned with continuous

change as opposed to discrete episodic change, not transformational change. For this

additional reason, ‘transactional change communication’ is not addressed.

Eisenberg and Goodell (1993) introduce us to the idea of organizations consisting of

monologues or dialogues. Monologic change communication is identified as top-

down, one-way, instrumental communication (Botany, 1997). There is emphasis on a

unified voice, with power centralised in a dominant discourse (Boje, 1995). Dialogic

change communication is constructive, and based on relational communication that

emphasises trust, symmetry of power between those involved and empathy. It

emanates from a dialogic understanding of organisations, which reflects multiple

voices, plurality of positions and diversity of counter cultural perspectives (Boje,

1995). Much of the management literature accommodates the instrumental

perspective in which communication is used as a managerial tool of control to manage

change (Bourke & Bechervaise, 2002; Mumby & Stohl, 1996). This constitutes a

monologic approach to communication. Monologic themes reflect unilateral action,

where deviation from the norm requires a corrective and controlling communicative

response (Bokeno & Gantt, 2000). By employing monologic communication,

managers seek to stabilise the organisation by communicating vision and educating

employees on the benefits of the intended change (Frahm & Brown, 2003). Using

21

Ford and Ford’s (1995) framework, monologic change communication creates

initiative conversations by way of directives and declarations, and conversations for

performance such as requests and promises to create action, and get things done. The

focus is one-way, reflected in speech acts or written directives that suggest a one-way

direction from senior management.

In contrast, some argue that dialogic change communication is more appropriate for

continuous change contexts (Eisenberg, Andrews, Murphy, & Laine-Timmerman,

1999; Weick & Quinn, 1999). Dialogic change communication includes speech acts

or texts that suggest a constructive and relational dialogue. It is argued the ability to

engage with genuine care and respect, to generate reflective discussion and to speak

authentically has positive impacts on innovation and organisational change efforts

(Bokeno & Gantt, 2000). The nature of dialogic communication is about creating new

meaning, processes, or products out of the conversations. Ford and Ford (1995)

discuss the conversations for understanding, suggesting that these conversations

include three key by products; conditions of satisfaction, opportunities for

participation, and potential for interpretation of decision makers statements. In this

sense, the purpose of communication is to instigate change through the use of dialogic

processes, in dialogic settings, and by people who are dialogically competent (Bokeno

& Gantt, 2000).

As described above, both terms monologic and dialogic change communication

suggest purposeful and deliberate uses of formal communicative action within

organisational change. However, for those in organizations that undergo continuous

change, the real communication of change is rarely as structured, formal or considered

as the two approaches identified above. Yet this reality of change is not reflected in

academic literature (Mills, 2003). Many narratives of change occur through the

22

grapevine, by the water cooler, and within the corridors conversations (Buchanan,

2003). Individual sense-making of change can dominate and produces the

‘background talk of change’. The background talk can serve as a barometer of the

employees’ receptivity to change. In managing employees’ receptivity of change,

managers need to be aware of the impact of the organizational members’ interpretive

schemes and sense-making (Gioia & Thomas, 1997). Sense-making is an interpretive

process in which the individual seeks to reduce ambiguity and uncertainty through

selective interpretation of information and cues (Weick, 1995), and thus reflects a

more private conversation for understanding (Ford & Ford, 1995).

Consideration of these factors builds on Research Question 1 to generate Research

Question 4.

Empirical Research Question 4: How do the different communication models (instrumental/monologic and constructivist/dialogic) inform our understanding of the impact of change communication on change receptivity within a continuous change context?

The final research question is derived from the observation of the difficulty of

managing change receptivity in a continuous change context. While much research

has looked at the effect of organisational change on those involved, there is much less

known about the implications of repeated change efforts and prolonged change on

individuals. Thus Research Question 5 asks:

Empirical Research Question 5: What happens to openness to change over time in the context of continuous change?

Methodology A constructivist epistemology informs this thesis and is grounded in subjective,

interpretivist origins. In this way the socially constructed nature of understanding is

acknowledged and is incorporated into the research process, as is the individual’s

interpretation of their experience. From a research perspective, interpretivism presents

23

a qualitative, phenomenographic, post positivistic and naturalistic approach to

conducting research (Patton, 1990). While constructivist epistemology is seldom used

in management research (Alvesson & Deetz, 2000), it is more common to find work

done from this perspective in organisational communication (Salem, 1999). Because

the research question sought to understand how change communication impacts on the

participant’s receptivity to change, it was considered important to take into account

the subjective meanings that participants attribute to their experience of organisational

change.

To do so, the research was conducted on a longitudinal basis, using multiple methods

including focus groups, surveys and ethnographic observation for data collection.

Langley’s (1999) Alternate Templates strategy was used to classify and categorise the

data, and thematic analysis deployed to generate the findings. The research aims were

to examine how change communication impacts on change receptivity and to provide

a deeper investigation of the communicative implications of continuous change.

Outline of the thesis Chapter One provides an introduction to the thesis and establishes the background to

the development of the central research question, ‘How does change communication

impact on change receptivity in the context of continuous change?’. It introduces

some key issues in relation to change communication and continuous change. In

particular, it is noted that there are clear gaps in the theoretical knowledge of change

communication and change receptivity. Further, the lack of research on continuous

change organisations creates a justification for undertaking contextual studies such as

this one.

Chapter Two presents an overview of the literature that encompasses the bodies of

research surrounding the research question. The chapter starts with a review of the

24

literature on change communication as this is the primary phenomena of interest. As

there are so few studies specifically addressing change communication and change

receptivity, the chapter moves to the literature on the second construct of interest in

the research question ‘change receptivity’ and looks for potential overlap or utility

with the change communication literature. Finally, the chapter reviews the research on

continuous change in order to establish research priorities and a sampling frame.

Chapter Three details the methodological approach undertaken to address the research

questions and subsequent hypotheses. A comparative case-study design is explained

and justified. In this study, the two cases are run concurrently after an initial period of

sole focus on the first case-study. The running of the cases in parallel provides

opportunities for testing emergent findings from the first case within the second case.

Cross-case comparison is a useful strategy to develop analytical insights and the

power of the strategy is enhanced when the cross comparison occurs in real time,

rather than retrospectively after the research has finished. In this situation, the

researcher is able to check emergent analysis with case-study participants as events

unfold. In this chapter, justification is also provided for the use of multiple methods

including surveys, focus groups and ethnographic observation.

Chapter Four presents the findings of the first case-study in the format of eight studies

in chronological order of the field study. The ‘Alternate Templates’ (Langley, 1999)

strategy is used to ground the data and, as such, the findings are reported using the

monologic and dialogic models and background talk as organising constructs. The

first case-study is a two year study of a public sector technology diffusion agency

attempting to become a ‘learning organisation’ with the Chief Executive Officer

(CEO) intent on creating a continuous change organisation.

25

Chapter Five uses the same strategy as Chapter Four to analyse the second case-study.

The second case-study is a 12 month study of a business unit within a Government

Owned Corporation (GOC) concerned with the provision of utilities and identified as

a continuously changing organisation.

Chapter Six takes the findings reported in Chapters Four and Five and refers back to

the literature in Chapter Two to address the initial research aims expounded in

Chapter One. The research aims were to answer how change communication impacts

on change receptivity and to provide a deeper investigation of the communicative

implications of continuous change. The first section of the chapter addresses how each

of the alternate templates; ‘monologic change communication’, ‘dialogic change

communication’, and an emergent template from the data, ‘the background talk’

impact on change receptivity within the two cases studies. Then the separate templates

are integrated to advance a model of a pipeline of continuous change communication.

Further, Van de Ven and Poole’s (1995) Process Theories of Change are adapted to

include the dominant sequencing of the three change communication models. The

second section reviews the specific contextual demands of continuous change on

change communication. Chapter Six concludes by offering implications for theory and

further research, as well as providing recommendations for practice.

Chapter Seven concludes the thesis by outlining some limitations of the study, and

proposes a number of areas of future research. The findings and major contributions

of the study are proffered. The ultimate contribution of the study is the advancement

of a model of continuous change communication and the subsequent adaptation of

Van de Ven and Poole’s (1995) Process Theories of Change. This contribution

represents a major addition to the theoretical knowledge of change communication

26

and is of practical import to those seeking to manage change receptivity in

organisations undergoing continuous change.

Conclusion This chapter has outlined the key questions this thesis seeks to address. Of particular

note is the underdeveloped area of knowledge surrounding change communication,

change receptivity and the continuous change context provided in the background to

the research. The chapter presented an overview of the methodology employed. An

outline of the thesis has been provided to show how the research question is answered.

The following chapter develops these themes further by presenting a review of the

literature applicable to the key research questions posed above. First, the literature

review provides a theoretical overview of continuous change and then addresses

change communication. Next, the literature review looks for overlap within the

literature on change receptivity and concludes by elaborating on the nature of

continuous change organisations. Through this exposition, research gaps will be

highlighted in order to demonstrate the need for further research on change

communication and change receptivity within a continuous change context.

27

CHAPTER 2

Review of the Literature

Introduction Chapter One outlined the background to the development of this dissertation’s central

research question, ‘How does change communication impact on change receptivity

within a continuous change context?’. In order to develop a rigorous research study

that will provide a framework within which to answer this question, the literature and

research studies encompassing the three key constructs of the thesis topic need to be

explored. The three core constructs are change communication, change receptivity

and continuous change. The analysis of these bodies of literature informs further

development of the case-study methodology and initiates further research questions to

be addressed. From this literature review, it is established that there are clear gaps in

the theoretical knowledge of change communication and change receptivity including

a lack of overlap within empirical studies. While there is a significant body of

research on organisational change, the lack of research on the specific context of

continuous change justifies further examination of the unique properties of continuous

change. Figure 2.1 outlines the structure of the chapter. The chapter starts with a

review of the literature on change communication as this is the primary phenomena of

interest. The instrumental and constructivist models of change communication are

reviewed. Additionally, the review recognises the emerging literature on informal

communication within organisations. There are very few studies specifically

addressing change communication and change receptivity from which to glean insight

into future research developments. Accordingly, the chapter moves to examine the

literature on ‘change receptivity’ and looks for potential overlap or utility with

28

Continuous Change – theoretical overview

Organisational Change Communication

Constructivist model

Instrumental model

Informal

Change Receptivity

Change resistance

Change Cynicism

Change readiness

Change Openness

Continuous Change Organisations

literature on change resistance, change readiness, openness to change and change

cynicism. Finally, the chapter reviews the research on continuous change in order to

establish research priorities and a sampling frame. The arrows within the diagram do

not represent causal relationships between the constructs, rather the direction of the

literature review.

Figure 2.1 Structure of Literature Reviewed

Along with accelerated changes in social systems, political arenas, and of

technological platforms, organisational change is purportedly the ‘core of

organisational life’(Coram & Burnes, 2001). Within the organisational studies

literature, there is an overwhelmingly insistent discourse surrounding change

that argues organisations need to change continuously (Zorn et al., 1999).

Environments are changing rapidly and unpredictably; competition is

29

increasing, and alongside the escalation of technological development and

customer demands, organisations must change continuously in order to remain

competitive, or even survive (D'Aveni, 1994; Hoag, Ritschard, & Cooper, 2002;

Tushman & O'Reilly, 1996). This discourse is rarely questioned, and

accordingly has now permeated both the private and public sector (Cheney,

Christensen, Zorn, & Ganesh, 2003). In response to the escalation of

environmental pressures and the pervasive discourse of continuous change,

taxpayers and funding sources are insisting that both governance and not-for-

profit organisations need to meet the challenge of doing more for less. In

addressing the challenge, it is recommended to organise for continuous change

(Zorn et al., 2000). Certainly the industry press suggest that organisations have

fully embraced the exhortation to continuously change (Buhler, 2000; Colella,

Cross, & Rieley, 1999; Conner, 1996; Knowles, 1999).

In parallel with the unquestioning adoption of continuous change efforts (Zorn et al.,

1999), and the plethora of research on planned episodes of change, there is an

emergent body of research on continuous change that is attracting significant

academic interest. One of the most cited researchers in organisational change is Kurt

Lewin (1951). In assisting planned change, Kurt Lewin’s (1951) Field Force Theory

has generated a body of change models utilising three step models of the ‘unfreeze-

change-refreeze’ variety (Bamford & Forrester, 2003; Weick & Quinn, 1999). The

Field Force Theory presents forces for change opposing forces for stability, with the

greater force affecting equilibrium. In this model, a period of refreezing occurs where

the new pattern of behaviour is locked into place, after a change takes place (Lewin,

1951). However, in continuous change there is no ‘refreezing’ and therefore the

workforce struggles to create norms. In this sense, Weick and Quinn (1999, p. 363)

30

state the majority of organisational change models can be attributed to an underlying

three-step process of the Lewin (1951) ‘ Unfreeze-Change-Refreeze’ type. In the face

of a change driven by inertia, the three steps make sense as the change process

follows a rational and linear forward momentum. However, continuous change is not

driven by inertia – rather as the organisations are engaging in competition on the

‘edge of chaos’ (Peters, 1989), and using both reactive and proactive strategies to deal

with emergent change, the change is driven by disequilibrium. Building on Marshak’s

(1993) Confucian concepts of organisational change, Weick and Quinn (1999, p. 361)

suggest a more useful process is the ‘freeze, rebalance and unfreeze’. This process

however means that the workforce is in a heightened state of transition. During freeze

– they are aware that something is about to change, rebalance requires change, and

unfreeze, requires greater change again. This is a tiring process for all (Abrahamson,

2004), and necessitates further understanding in how employees respond to

continuous change efforts.

More recently, Punctuated Equilibrium (PE) (Gersick, 1991; Tushman &

Romanelli, 1985) has provided a robust and reliable framework within which to

analyse organisational change. Punctuated Equilibrium is a theory of

organisational change based on the premise that organisational change is an

event with a discrete beginning and end, and interventions reflect this. Thus,

studies based on discrete change reflect a body of work where issues of

implementation, interventions, communication during change and change agent

roles are geared towards planned change (Huy, 1999). The assumption that

follows is that organisations that undergo continuous change should simply use

the available wisdom from studies of discrete episodes of change on a

continuous basis. As Marshak (2004, p. 8) notes ‘many organizational

31

development models implicitly assume that organizational change is something

that can be started and then stopped or stabilized’. Yet, this assumption is

untested, and as noted in Chapter One, there is cause to be cautionary about

using repeated planned change interventions in continuous change contexts.

Marshak (1993, 2002, 2004, 2005) has observed that the nature of

organisational development has changed significantly and the changing nature

of the field needs to be accommodated in the interventions used. Whereas once,

change management involved episodic change that focused on the parts and

segments, now change practitioners are grappling with continuous change

efforts. The difficulty is amplified as the change efforts have focus on two

levels, the parts and segments (such as Kaizen and TQM) and continuous

change that addresses a focus on the patterns and whole of organisation (such as

morphing) (Rindova & Kotha, 2001). In support of these observations, Weick

and Quinn (1999) recognise there is a small but important body of work that is

developing on the concept of continuous change. Continuous change is deemed

to be evolving, incremental, adaptive, emergent and far from the rational and

linear event as previously described. The reason for the move to identifying and

understanding newer models of change is that existing models and interventions

offer little to firms operating under conditions of rapid growth and change

(Edelmann & Benning, 1999). As Marshak (2004) notes, a theoretical

perspective of continuous change is not provided and review and expansion of

change theories are required.

Theoretical Frameworks of Change Pettigrew, Woodman and Cameron (2001) suggest that for scholarly

development of organisational change theory, there needs to be consideration of

32

history, context and processes. New theories of organisational change need to

explain continuity, and in this sense, examinations of the processes of

organisational change are necessary, and indeed are lacking. Specifically,

Pettigrew et al (2001) urge change researchers to focus on six interconnected

analytical issues: 1) examination of multiple contexts and levels of analysis in

studying organisational change, 2) the inclusion of time, history, process and

action, 3) a focus on change processes and organisational performance

outcomes, 4) international comparative research on organisational change, 5)

the study of receptivity, customisation, sequencing, pace, and episodic versus

continuous change processes, and 6) engagement between scholars and

practitioners (Pettigrew et al., 2001, p.697). A research question concerned with

organisational change processes and change receptivity in the context of

continuous change embraces a number of these analytical issues flagged for

further study and thus can be considered at the forefront of the organisational

change theory development.

Earlier, Van de Ven and Poole (1995) had recognised the need to explain the

processes of change within organisations. After conducting an interdisciplinary

literature review, Van de Ven and Poole (1995) advanced four basic theories

that may assist in explaining process of change in organisations. The theories

are evolutionary, dialectic, lifecycle and teleological.

33

Figure 2.2 Process Theories of Organizational Development and Change

These theories focus on life cycle, teleology, dialectics, and evolution and offer

explanations of the different sequencing of change within organisations. The

fundamental characteristics of these process models are the motors that drive the

change and the levels at which they operate.

Van de Ven and Poole (1995) propose that further research needs to consider the

multiple motors of change processes and how they interplay. Thus, the authors offer

16 possible combinations of change models generated from the change literature.

These types accommodate either one, two, three or four motors of change. However,

at least two of the possible combinations of these motors are unaccounted for

theoretically. Given the early stage of emerging empirical studies in continuous

change (Pettigrew et al., 2001), this is not surprising. Without in-depth longitudinal

processual research it is unlikely to observe all motors. In their more recent work,

Poole and Van de Ven (2004) extend their framework to consider the interplay of the

motors that drive the change process. The complexities of change processes are

explained by whether the motors nest, entangle or aggregate within and with each

EVOLUTION

LIFE CYCLE

DIALECTIC

TELEOLOGY

Variation Selection Retention

Population scarcity Environmental selection

Thesis

AntithesisConflict Synthesis

Pluralism (Diversity)

Confrontation

Conflict

Stage 4 (Terminate)

Stage 3 (Harvest)

Stage 2 Growth

Stage 1

(Start -up)

Immanent program Regulation Compliant Adaptation

Multiple Entities

Unit of Change

Single Entity

Prescribed Mode of Change Constructive

Dissatisfaction

Search/Interaction

Set/EnvisionGoals

ImplementGoals

Purposeful Enactment

Social construction

Consensus

Process Theories of Organizational Development and Change*

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

EVOLUTION

LIFE CYCLE

DIALECTIC

TELEOLOGY

Variation Selection Retention

Population scarcity Environmental selection Competition

Thesis

AntithesisConflict Synthesis

Pluralism (Diversity)

Confrontation

Conflict

Stage 4 (Terminate)

Stage 3 (Harvest)

Stage 2 Growth

Stage 1

(Start -up)

Immanent program Regulation Compliant Adaptation

Multiple Entities

Unit of Change

Single Entity

Prescribed Mode of Change Constructive

Dissatisfaction

Search/Interaction

Set/EnvisionGoals

ImplementGoals


Social construction

Consensus

Process Theories of Organizational Development and Change*

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

34

other. Further, they extend their framework to consider: 1) whether the end state of

the process can be predicted at the outset, 2) if the path of development is

predetermined, 3) if the process is convergent or divergent, and 4) if time is based on

events or cycles. (Poole & Van de Ven, 2004). It is interesting to note that there is no

consideration of communication processes within this framework, despite the widely

accepted contention that organisational change is dependent on communication

(Kanter, Stein, & Jick, 1992a; Lewis, 1999; Mills, 2000). Van de Ven and Poole’s

model will be used in this study as a classification device of the case studies, rather

than a theoretical framework that informs the research design.

Continuous change as described by Weick and Quinn (1999) is constant, evolving and

cumulative. With an emphasis on long-run adaptability, change is dependent on

recurrent interactions, response repertoires, emergent patterns and learning (Weick &

Quinn, 1999, p. 366). Using this description, there is a strong similarity between

Weick and Quinn (1999)’s continuous change and Van den Ven and Poole’s (1995)

Evolutionary Change. This model also features recurrent, cumulative and repetitive

sequences of variation, selection and retention events amongst entities in a given

population. The organisation ‘evolves’ in an adaptive form, as a learning response to

emergent patterns and competitive threats.

While Weick and Quinn (1999) distinguish between episodic and continuous

change, Van de Ven and Poole’s (1995) typology is not restricted to either

episodic or continuous change. However it could be argued that if episodic

change is based on the linear Lewinian change intervention (Weick & Quinn,

1999, p.366) then episodic change may be considered a Lifecycle theory of

change (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995). Lifecycle theories of change recognise

prefigured sequences and linear models. Change is linear and occurs through an

35

irreversible sequence of prescribed stages. Van de Ven and Poole (1995)

contend that the dialectic and the teleological theories of process change occur

in discontinuous sequences. This situation would suggest they are examples of

episodic change rather than continuous change. However, Van de Ven and

Poole (1995) also make the case that change is an event. With this logic,

continuous change can be considered a series of events and therefore, it could be

argued that the dialectic and the teleological theories of change are micro views

of part of the continuous change process. Poole (2004) notes that the distinction

between episodic and continuous change is not always possible; indeed it is

often a matter of perspective.

Brown and Eisenhardt (1997) agree, suggesting many firms change, not by a

rare episodic event, but rather by a continuous process. They contend current

research sheds little light on how firms actually achieve continuous change. The

evolving body of research on continuous change focuses on repeated acts of

improvisation, translation and learning. This is contrary to the large body of

work on single episode change that seeks to identify variables critical to

successful change implementation such as participative work practices

(Buchanan et al., 1999; Coyle-Shapiro, 1999), information processing (Miller,

Johnson, & Grau, 1994) and overcoming resistance to change (Lewis, Stephens,

Schmisseur, & Weir, 2003b). There is little consideration of these variables in

the context of continuous change.

The neglect of these variables is raised by Buchanan et al’s (1999) study of

managers involved in repeated change experiences. They suggest that within

this continuous change environment, issues of change communication and the

emotive responses to change such as cynicism, fear and resistance, are daunting.

36

While some studies (Fairhurst, 1993; Johnson & Rice, 1987; Lewis, 1997) have

addressed the importance of communication in implementation of planned

organisational change, only a few have investigated the relationship between

communication and how people respond to change (Ashford, 1988; Economo &

Zorn, 1999; Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979; Lewis, 1997).Those that have

consider: communication as a coping response to change (Ashford, 1988, Lewis

& Seibold, 1996), what constitutes helpful corporate communication in a

downsizing (Economo & Zorn, 1999), and communication as a tool in

overcoming resistance (Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979). Responses to change are

numerous. For example, Reichers, Wanous and Austin (1997) discuss the

multiple factors that induce change cynicism (for example, history of

unsuccessful change, inadequate information about change, and a predisposition

towards cynicism). Strebel (1996) discusses resistance in terms of misaligned

personal compacts between management and employees, and Folger and

Skarlicki (1999) recognise resistance as occurring when employee’s sense of

organisational fairness is violated. Whilst all three of these scholars recognise

the importance of communication in managing these responses, none explicitly

investigate the communication or discuss in detail. In considering responses to

change, the positive connotations of organisational change (openness,

enthusiasm) must also be acknowledged. Thus change receptivity can be

considered an umbrella term for the myriad of responses to change. Not one of

the studies reviewed address communication and change receptivity within a

continuous change context. This observation provides the guiding and

overarching empirical research question of this thesis:

RQ1: How does communication impact change receptivity within a continuous change context?

37

Lewis (1999) suggests that communication and change are inextricably linked.

However, the contextual anchor of the question suggests there may be issues

specific to continuous change that are different to those covered in the previous

literature that recognises change as a discrete event.

Buchanan et al (1999) found that although managers reported they were aware

of the importance of communication and well-supported change agents, the

reality often did not match the rhetoric. As noted in Chapter 1, Barrett (2002)

reports that the management literature communication is a conglomeration of

factors; the generalisation of the topic has not assisted managers. At worst

communication becomes lumped with ‘miscellaneous’ on studies of obstacles to

change (Hoag et al., 2002). In a study designed to identify the main obstacles to

change of 146 human resources professionals, Hoag et al (2002) chose to code

any response relating to communication as ‘other’, with other responses not able

to be coded under ‘cost’, ‘workload’ and ‘legislation’. There is a transparent

need for change communication to be more clearly defined. This recognition

produces two further research questions. Research Question 2 is a theoretical

question and best answered by exploring the existing literature in order to

inform the operational aspects of the study.

RQ 2 What is change communication?

RQ 3 How does unpacking the ‘black box’ of communication inform our understanding of change receptivity?

To provide a more comprehensive understanding of the independent variable,

the change communication literature is now reviewed. In so doing, the literature

38

assists in answering Research Question 2 and operationalising Research

Question 3.

Change Communication

Despite the recognition that communication is an integral component of

organanisational change, only a small body of change communication specific

research exists (Mills, 2003, Lewis, 1999). As noted in Chapter 1, while many

organisational change studies note ‘communication’ as a factor deriving from their

research (for example, Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997; Stewart & Kringas, 2003), there

are very few that focus specifically on the communication processes. Brown and

Eisenhardt (1997) examine how firms manage continuous change and determine

successful firms have frequent and regular opportunities for communication. Stewart

and Kringas (2003) examine six public sector agencies undergoing change and find

that communication to stakeholders is crucial in successful change. From the studies

in which communication is an incidental outcome it is known that communication

plays an important role in implementation (Lewis, 2000b) and establishing support for

change (Stewart & Kringas, 2003). Others recognise communication as important in

creating vision (Nutt & Backoff, 1997) and educating participants of the need for

change (Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979).

However, this body of work is limited in its assistance to change managers owing to

the incidental nature of the findings and lack of a dedicated focus on the change

communication. One such research program that addresses communication as factor is

the research conducted by UK researchers (Buchanan et al, 1999; Doyle et al, 2000).

In an initial study of 34 change managers, they found that despite recognition of

communication as being a critical area of change implementation issues, the rhetoric

39

of communication does not meet the reality of their experiences. These findings were

followed up in a larger survey and it appears the problems they experienced with

vertical and cross functional communication, diminished relationships, and employee

involvement resulted in only nine percent of the sample believing they have best

practice change communication. Interestingly, they also reported increased levels of

resistance, fear and cynicism. The disconnect between reality and rhetoric in change

communication was earlier noted by Ford and Ford (1995), and this finding clearly

suggests a need for deeper investigation of the concept and import of change

communication and the resulting impact on change receptivity.

Doyle et al (2000) and Ford and Ford (1995) contend the change literature does not

elaborate on the ‘how to’ aspect of communicating change and produces prescriptive

findings unable to be actioned. Arguably, the lack of empirical research on change

communication processes perhaps has resulted in practitioners having limited success

in achieving change communication goals as recognised by Doyle et al (2000) and

Ford and Ford (1995). As previously noted by Barrett (2002), organisational

communication is frustratingly ‘either everything in the organisation (vision, strategy,

business planning, management meetings, information flow, knowledge management,

etc.) or it is nothing more than publications intended to keep the communication staff

busy and the employees informed of the company news’ (p. 219). It is not surprising

then that communication during change becomes confusing for change managers.

Popular management theory (Kanter et al., 1992b; Kotter, 1995) repeatedly raises

‘communication’ as critical to the success of organisational change, yet neglect to

elucidate what exactly is the ‘communication’ that is aligned with successful

implementation, or explain why after much communication, implementation still fails.

40

Kotter (1995) cites ‘under-communication’ as one of the main reasons why companies

do not have successful change programs, yet does not clarify what level of

communication needs to be achieved to avoid the problems of under-communication.

At best, it is argued that communicating vision, and involving employees is key to

‘good communication’ (Nutt & Backoff, 1997). While this is promising as general

statements about ‘communication’ start to become more specific, there is still

considerable progress to be made in unpacking ‘the black box’ and producing a

change communication framework that both informs theory and is useful to the field

of change management. The generalisation of communication clearly demonstrates a

need for specific studies of change communication that provides specific guidance to

change managers not afforded in the change communication research. As many have

made the case (Ford, Ford, & McNamara, 2002; Kreps, 1990; Lewis & Seibold, 1996)

it is difficult to separate organisational communication from organisational change.

Thus it is necessary to pursue further knowledge about change communication, in

order to advance the field of organisational change research.

Organisational Communication: The Debates

While a wide body of organisational communication research exists, Salem (1999)

observes integration of organisational communication research remains a primary

challenge. The organisational communication field has grown substantially in the last

20 years and theoretical and methodological approaches abound. Salem (1999)

contends that researchers are challenged to develop explanations of greater depth and

richness, and to work with non-academic professionals to share ideas about their

studies. This observation is not confined to the field of organisational communication,

Pettigrew et al (2001) also make the claim that organisational change research needs

to bridge the gap between practitioners and theory. The lack of integration of

41

practitioner and academic perspectives makes it difficult to translate the studies of the

last 20 years into a cohesive body of work that can assist organisational

communicators in successfully implementing change programmes.

In synthesising the organisational communication field, Mumby and Stohl (1996)

acknowledge the appearance of a fractured field. They suggest the appearance of a

fractured field can be attributed to the fundamental identity of organisational

communication scholars. Teaching students practical skills to deal with

communication problematics is secondary to the primary purpose of providing them

with analytic and critical skills to understand their organisations from a

communicative perspective (Mumby & Stohl, 1996). When students progress beyond

concepts of fractured fields, they master a variety of research approaches and

theoretical perspectives. In so doing they use the pre-requisite analytical skills to

integrate fractured organisations. Integration of a variety of approaches assists in

understanding the multi-faceted nature of organisations. Accordingly, this research

project will employ multiple approaches and theoretical perspectives to further

understanding of contemporary organisations.

What is Change Communication?

In understanding change communication, a debate exists about the ontological nature

of change communication. The instrumental perspective views change communication

as an instrument used to effect change (Eisenberg et al., 1999). Much of the published

research in the management and business field reflects this understanding with

researchers studying a linear process of communication (Putnam, 1999). The conduit

model embodies the linear process with emphasis on transmission of information

between sender and receiver. Analysis of the exchange occurs to determine

42

organisational effectiveness. The instrumental approach is exemplified in Laurie

Lewis’ body of work that examines communication during change (Lewis, 1997,

1999, 2000a, 2000b; Lewis, Hamel, & Richardson, 2001; Lewis, Richardson, &

Hamel, 2003a; Lewis & Seibold, 1996; Lewis et al., 2003b). In the majority of her

research, Lewis aids communication knowledge development by detailed

investigation of the communication processes within change utilising the Shannon and

Weaver (1946) model of information transmission. Within her studies, there is a focus

on information dissemination, conduits of negotiations, message exchange

characteristics, channels of communication, and sources of information. Lewis’s work

initiates the much sought change communication specific studies and tests existing

communication theory within change contexts.

Similarly, more recently, Timmerman (2003) proposes a framework for assessing the

most effective media use in change; that also focuses on the most effective

dissemination of information in change. In so doing he takes Daft and Lengle’s (1986)

seminal work and applies it in a change specific context. The aforementioned studies

represent the application of general communication theory within a change context,

and provide an example of the instrumental perspective of change communication.

The next section introduces change specific studies that exemplify the monologic

model of communication.

Monologic Change Communication

Eisenberg et al (1999) label communication that is used as a tool and where change is

an event as a ‘monologic change model’. Citing Deetz (1995), they state that ‘in a

monologic change model, communication is the process of information transfer from

the top down or an informational orientation, and is best suited to first order changes

(Eisenberg et al., 1999, p.133). The instrumental approach is a manifestation of the

43

underlying assumptions of a monologic change model (Eisenberg et al., 1999).

Monologic themes reflect unilateral communicative action, where deviation from the

norm requires a corrective and controlling communicative response (Bokeno & Gantt,

2000). Managers seek to stabilise the organisation by communicating vision and

educating employees of the benefits of the intended change. For this reason, it has

been noted that the monologic voice represents a unitarist model of power sharing,

whereby the management communication of change is centralised in a dominant

discourse (Boje, 1995). The focus is reflected in speech acts or written directives that

suggest a one-way direction. This unilateral trajectory establishes monologic

expectations. The monologic change communication model has dominated planned

change efforts as implementers focus on the instrumental dissemination of

information. Lewis (1999) suggests that change implementers rely on a top-down

approach to communicating change that focuses on disseminating information:

Implementers appear to associate successful outcomes with use of channels to disseminate information…but they may perceive participation of staff in implementation as less critical to success.

(Lewis, 1999)

In essence, implementers expect to use monologic change communication to achieve

change goals, and the employees expect to receive information from above.

The constructivist perspective views change communication as a site of constructing

new understanding, new knowledge, and therefore new organisations (Taylor & Van

Every, 2000). When change is considered as an event, then the communication

approach is instrumental and the communication is used as a tool to effect change, and

is represented in the one way transmissions. However, in times of continuous change,

communication is considered constitutive, in that it is the ‘communication’ that

creates further change. This represents a dialogic change communication model and is

44

further described in the next section.

Dialogic Change Communication

Eisenberg et al (1999) discuss the constructivist approach to organisational change.

Here the constructivist approach is based on the human system being proactive

meaning makers and language users (Botella, 1995). Communication scholars Jeffrey

and Laurie Ford have amassed a body of conceptual work that has influenced much of

the current research in communication and organisational change. Firmly positioned

within in the constructivist paradigm, Ford and Ford (1995) posit that organisational

change is a product of organisational conversations, as opposed to change

communication coming out of the organisational change. The challenge for change

agents is to take a role in ‘authoring’ the conversations and intentionally shifting the

conversations to create new organisations (Ford & Ford, 1995). The basis of

organisational change is the ability to shift the conversations that shape change (Ford,

1999). Thus, the conversations within organisations both shape the change process

and are the way that reality is constructed within organisations.

Some of the more difficult conversations within changing organisations are those of

resistance. Conversations of resistance, complacency and cynicism occur within the

background of the organisation (Ford et al., 2002). A background conversation is ‘an

implicit, unspoken ‘back drop’ or ‘background’ against which explicit, foreground

conversations occur’ (p.108). The foreground conversations consist of four types of

committed conversations: those that initiate change, those that seek to gain

understanding, those that call for action, and those that provide closure (Ford et al.,

2002). The main limitation to Ford and Ford’s work is a lack of empirical research.

Despite widespread currency within the change communication literature, the authors

45

do not provide primary research to substantiate their themes and concepts. They

suggest that some conversation sequences are more effective than others and thus

further research is clearly needed to understand the contribution of conversational

sequences to organisational change (Ford & Ford, 1995).

As earlier noted, continuous change is often a result of the adaptive and emergent

responses to external stimulus and unable to be planned in a rational and linear

fashion. Thus, it is argued that dialogic change communication is more appropriate for

continuous change contexts (Eisenberg et al., 1999; Weick & Quinn, 1999).

Originating from Buber’s seminal work (1923, 1924) and later Bohm’s (1996) related

work, dialogic change communication includes speech acts or texts that suggest a

constructive and relational dialogue (Bohm, 1996). Distinctly different to the usual

patterns of management communication, the ability to engage with genuine care and

respect, to generate reflective discussion and to speak authentically is seen to have

positive impacts on innovation and organisational change (Bokeno & Gantt, 2000).

The nature of the communication is about creating new meaning, processes, or

products out of the conversations from multiple stakeholders, and listening to the

pluralvocality (Boje, 1995, Eisenberg & Goodall, 1993). By using dialogic processes

within dialogic settings, and by people who are dialogically competent, further change

is constructed (Bokeno & Gantt, 2000).

There is some cross-over between organisational communication and the management

studies. Weick and Quinn (1999) suggest the role of the change agent in planned

change is that of prime mover (i.e. sends a message to change behaviour) and this is

indicative of a monologic, instrumental approach. The dialogic, constructivist

approach is illustrated by Weick and Quinn’s (1999) consideration of the sense-

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

46

the ascent of the discursive research highlights the constructivist perspective (Putnam,

1999). The rise of the constructivist perspective may provide answers to the dilemmas

faced by Buchanan et al’s (1999) managers regarding the mismatch of reality and

rhetoric. Not only does the field require integration, there appears to be a polarised

treatment of the ontological approaches, as the field takes an ‘either/or’ focus, rather

than addressing the relative benefits of the findings of both constructivist and

instrumental research. Indeed, Eisenberg et al (1999)’s continuum aligns the differing

change communication models with types of change, and continues to promote an

either/or position. Change is either an event and requires monologic change

communication or it is continuous and should use dialogic change communication.

Integration of the field requires the consideration of how the two change

communication approaches may work in tandem, or using Ford and Ford’s (1995)

consideration, how the change communication approaches may sequence.

As noted previously, empirical studies that focus on communication during change

are scarce. The following table presents some of the major change communication

studies, their focus, and further research questions.

Table 2.1 Significant Change Communication Studies in the Last 10 years.

Author YEAR Instrumental Constructivist Research implications

Planned Change

Sample

Formal Informal

Lewis & Seibold

1993 User receptivity to planned change

Dissemination dominates change communication

Yes

Fairhurst 1993 How managers frame communication about TQM

Further research required on the framing discourse of

Yes Multi-national organisation

5 sites,

47


Planned Change

Sample

Formal Informal

change 132 routine conversations

Ford & Ford 1995 The role of conversations in producing intentional change

Identify and propose different sequences of conversations and test effectiveness

Not clear Not empirical

Could work with cont change

Witherspoon & Wohlert

1996 Flow of communication linear perspective

Alternative meanings and perceptions can enable organisational change

How do alternative meanings contribute to change processes

Yes

14000 employee state-wide public agency (US)

Lewis 1997 Users’ individual communicative responses to organisational innovation

Antecedents of users’ responses to innovations further area of research

Yes

University post grad students n = 142

Non academic career staff workers n = 40

US

Ford 1999 Organisational change as shifting conversations

Not clear Not empirical

Could work with cont change

Economo & Zorn

1999 What constitutes effective communication during a downsizing

How do employees construct effective communication

Further studies required in Asia Pacific organisations

No – Reactionary

16 org. members + 4 focus groups US branch

Lewis 1999 Targets, sources and channels

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

Yes

N=76

Cross sector

US

48


Planned Change

Sample

Formal Informal

Kellet 2000 Dialogue and dialectics – underlying tensions

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

Yes

School - committee members, staff, board members and parents

US

Lewis 2000b Barriers to effective communication of change

Yes 4 cases: hospital,

Mills 2000 Grapevine activity

Informal communication of change

Sense making tied to emotional engagement

Food processing plant

n = 48

Zorn, Page & Cheney,

2000 Alternative perspectives on change related discourse

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

yes

Business Services Department of a large public sector organisation.

Lewis, Hamel & Richardson, 2001 (model)

Lewis, Richardson & Hamel, 2003 (test)

2001

2003

Communicating change to non profit stakeholders

Characteristics of message exchange

Test validity of framework within different contexts

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

Yes

n =66

Non profit orgs (US)

Armenakis & Harris

2002 Relationship between messages and readiness

Change message shapes the sentiments that determine reactions to

Yes

Single case-study – large multi -national corporation /

49


Planned Change

Sample

Formal Informal

change business unit

Zorn 2002 Receptivity to ICT introduction: the role of emotion in managing the transition

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

Yes Not for profit organisation NZ

Mills 2003 Interpretative discourses of chaplains to communication of change

Yes and unplanned

n-14 WSW within NZ

Frahm & Brown

2004a Monologic change communication


Background talk of change

Interplay of the three change models

No State technology diffusion agency

Frahm & Brown

2004b Monologic change communication


Background talk of change

Interplay of the three change models

No Business Unit within a GOC

The studies and theoretical approaches in Table 2.1 that have had significant impact

on the field are now reviewed to expose the research limitations of the field. This

review can inform the development of a study that will contribute new knowledge

within the field of change communication.

Instrumental Change Communication – Model 1

Planned change and single episodes of change are often analysed using a monologic

instrumental framework with a transmission theoretical model of sender-message-

receiver-feedback-interference (Shannon & Weaver, 1949). Amenakis and Harris’s

(2002) study on crafting a change message to create transformational readiness is an

example of the instrumental approach to change communication. Here success of the

50

change effort is argued to be dependant on how well the message is crafted and sent

(Armenakis & Harris, 2002). In a single case-study they found that the message

conveying strategies of active participation, persuasive communication, and

management of information helped an organisation create readiness for a major

transition. However, the authors reveal that they were less involved in the later stages

of the change process, so crucial knowledge on the dynamic of these change strategies

and change receptivity over time is lacking.

Lewis (1999) found that a dissemination focus dominates change communication

within organisations. Implementers do not perceive ‘participation of staff’ as critical

as ‘getting information out to the employees’ (p.66-67). In her later work, using a

multiple case-study design, Lewis (2000b) investigated the implementation of quality

programs and the key communication problems in an education department, a

hospital, a university and a messaging technology company. Her findings suggest that

implementers struggle with creating and communicating vision, sense making and

feedback, establishing legitimacy, and communicating about goal achievement.

Because of the planned nature of these changes, this study is typical of monologic and

instrumental communication research, with the change communication conceived as a

linear process. Research directions deriving from a study by Lewis (2000a) suggest

more research is required on understanding how implementers and lower-level

employees in the organisational hierarchy create vision for the future. Echoing Ford

and Ford’s (1995) concern about the lack of knowledge about the relative sequencing

of conversations, Lewis (2000b) opines such systematic research about the relative

effectiveness of communication strategies about change is scant.

Later with Richardson and Hamel (2001, 2003), Lewis continues to focus on

information dissemination, but this time within the not-for-profit sector. In this study

51

the researchers investigate the strategies that not-for-profits use to communicate with

key stakeholders during change. They find that implementers generally follow a quid

pro quo ‘matching rule’, where those stakeholders that possess the most valuable

resources gain the most communicative attention. This directional focus of

communicative attention implies that there are key stakeholders who will be neglected

at times, and it is unclear the impact this will have on change receptivity, or the

strategies to use when the communicative attention is spread too thin. Further, they

call for further longitudinal studies that will provide evidence of how not-for-profits

communicate with stakeholders over time.

Evidence of the instrumental perspective of change communication is found in

Witherspoon and Wohlert’s (1996) research on a statewide public agency consisting

of 14000 employees. Their action research study sought to foster and maintain

diversity within the employment practices of the agency. Their study had a dual focus;

investigating both the communication flows within change and the management of

meaning to overcome different frames of reference. They state:

‘Communication is the process on which the initiation and maintenance of organisational change depends … Ultimately the success of any change effort depends on how effectively the strategy for and the substance of the change is communicated to those who are the targets of change [emphasis added].’

(Witherspoon & Wohlert, 1996)

Understanding employees as ‘targets of change’ suggests a singular focus of change,

and does not consider the proactive and ‘driver’ like roles of change those employees

pursue in continuous change efforts. Witherspoon and Wohlert (1996) found that

information is distributed downward and differentially. Managers and supervisors

viewed information as a commodity to be brokered, and a scarce resource to be

guarded. The study found that the flow of information stopped at supervisor level

52

(Witherspoon & Wohlert, 1996). The treatment of communication as an information

commodity emphasizes a managerialist perspective that is characteristic of the

instrumental studies. In this sense, communication is a tool that enhances

management’s capacity to ‘command and control’(Bourke & Bechervaise, 2002;

Eisenberg et al., 1999). The use of information theory in these studies is informative

in terms of flows of communication during change, and message quality, yet there is

no attempt to align with change receptivity or organisational change theory,

particularly in relation to the more challenging demands of continuous and emergent

change.

Constructivist Change Communication – Model 2

Contrary to the focus on effectiveness displayed by the instrumental approach, the

constructivist approach considers how organisational knowledge is created though

performance, voice and discourse (Putnam, 1999). Communication becomes the site

of new knowledge construction, where the organisation emerges out of

communication (Taylor & Van Every, 2000). Thus change management is a practice

that generates new products, processes, and organisations out of the organisational

discourse.

As noted previously, there has been little attempt to integrate the instrumental and the

constructivist approaches. One research study that did attempt the integration was

Witherspoon and Wohlert (1996)’s work. They extended their instrumental study to

accommodate the constructivist perspective, to explore how alternative meanings and

the reframing of perceptions can enable organisational change. Their research ceased

prematurely when the senior management of the case-study organisation resigned, and

then subsequent cuts in research funding ended the research program (Witherspoon &

Wohlert, 1996, p. 393). The interruption of their study creates a research imperative –

53

to finish what they had begun in order to assess how alternative meanings can

contribute to organisational change processes.

On a similar trajectory as Ford and Ford’s (1995, 1999) body of work, Butcher and

Atkinson (2001), in a theoretical paper, argue that the active management of language

in the context of change has not received enough attention. ‘Reframing’ of meaning is

a key characteristic of dialogic communication approaches. Within dialogic change

communication, participants actively manage the language and reframe their

perspectives to encourage further dialogue. Language norms and taboos can be a key

anchor to maintaining the status quo when the organisation undergoes continuous

change. Several researchers highlight ‘framing’ and language as a potential area to

pursue in change management research as a result of their studies (Butcher &

Atkinson, 2001; Eisenhardt, 2000; Gioia & Mehra, 1996; Leonard & Gilsdorf, 1990;

Palmer, Kabanoff, & Dunford, 1997; Watson, 1995; Witherspoon & Wohlert, 1996).

However, this body of research reflects a managerial emphasis with the focus on

managers ‘reframing’ their language for the benefit of change. The literature is silent

on what happens when employees reframe the language of change.

Zorn et al (2000) present a study of three different perspectives of change

communication within a business services department of a large local government

department in New Zealand. They found that within the longitudinal study,

managerial discourse is both ‘pervasive and persuasive’ (Zorn et al, 2000, p.555),

with both the functional perspective of change communication and the romantic

perspective creating an intoxicating level of commitment to change and positive

receptivity to change. They highlight the concertive control that the active

participation within dialogic change communication processes creates, and caution

against the camouflage of control as ‘non-control’, or what might be considered

54

‘pseudo dialogic’ practices. Stohl and Cheney (2001) further explore this paradox,

citing a number of illustrative examples of how the dialogic practice may be

manipulated inadvertently or not.

In a later study of a not-for-profit organisation in New Zealand, Zorn (2002) looks at

the relationship between emotions and Information Communication Technology

(ICT) introductions. His work highlights the deliberate use of emotions on the part of

change agents to influence others’ receptivity to change. The use of humour and

shared emotional experiences also serve to enhance the working relationships. While

Zorn’s (2002) study revealed that an employee’s expression of frustration acts as a

signal function of the employee’s receptivity, Kramer and Hess (2002) have found

that it is more likely to mask negative emotions such as frustration in the workplace.

The difference in finding may be explained by the small size of the New Zealand

organisation, whereby it is easier to develop trust in workplace relationships.

Additionally, Kramer and Hess’s (2002) research was based on evaluation of

hypothetical scenarios, whereas Zorn’s (2002) findings were predicated upon

observational data of actual behaviours. The implications here for future research are

to consider how those in more powerful positions (for example, change agents) may

impact on the receipt, delivery or sense-making of change communication.

In an ethnographic study of a school developing a mission statement within a series of

dialogue sessions, Kellet (2000) reports on the multiple dialectic tensions evident in

the sessions (for example the limits of public schools versus the opportunity of private

schools). His findings suggest that part of managing change is creating dialogic space

for the oppositional dialectics to be addressed. When opportunity is provided for these

tensions to be addressed, collective sense-making of the change goals occur.

From a constructivist perspective, these studies demonstrate that there has been little

55

engagement with an instrumental use of communication, however there has been

more consideration of the employee’s receptivity to change. There has been an

emphasis on the managerial perspective, and it is surprising, given the emphasis on

discourse, that there is limited consideration of power other than Zorn et al’s (2000)

work. The lack of engagement between instrumental and constructivist models of

change communication leads to an opportunity for integration of theoretical

approaches. This opportunity supports Taylor and Van Every’s (2000) thesis of a

‘bimodal theory of communication’ where no attempt is made to refute either of these

ways of seeing, but instead perceives they are dimensions of a complete theory of

communication in language (p. 5).

Integration of Instrumental and Constructivist change communication

Consideration of both the monologic and dialogic communication activities during

change leads to questions of the potential utility of integration of instrumental and

constructivist models of communication. Rather than address the styles as either/or,

consideration of the integration of communication models may contribute to

managing the paradox of change and stability (Harter & Krone, 2001; Leana & Barry,

2000; Tushman & O'Reilly, 1996). While Tushman and O’Reilly (1996) recognise the

ability to manage the dual tensions of capability and change as an ambidextrous

capability, they fall short of addressing the communicative aspects of this

ambidexterity. Leana and Barry (2000) argue that it is inevitable to experience a level

of tension between stability and change in organisational life and that research on

work and organisation must consider these tensions. Eisenberg et al (1999) establish

that monologic change communication serves a purpose of control, and thus is a force

for stability. Conversely, dialogic change communication is about creating more

56

change; it then could be said an ambidextrous organisation is one that accommodates

both change communication models. It is this speculation that influences the fourth

empirical research question,

RQ 4: ‘How do the different communication models (instrumental/monologic and constructivist/dialogic) inform our understanding of the impact of change communication on change receptivity within a continuous change context?’

There is an alternate consideration of the integration of monologic and dialogic

communication. Some warn against the overly eager embracing of dialogic exchange,

cautioning the potential for collective forums of ‘manufactured consent’ (Burawoy,

1979; Stohl & Cheney, 2001), concertive control and team tyranny (Bokeno & Gantt,

2000; Cheney et al., 2003). Once management ‘allow’ forums for dialogic exchange,

and control who is allowed to participate, the power imbalance creates a pseudo-

dialogic exchange. In this sense, the dialogic change communication takes on an

instrumental and controlling focus, previously considered the terrain of monologic

change communication.

Informal Change Communication

The previous section addressed the formal instrumental and constructivist models of

change communication. However, as noted in Table 2.1, the latest studies by Colleen

Mills (Mills, 2000, 2002, 2003) suggest that change communication is rarely as

structured, formal or considered as the monologic and dialogic change communication

models contend. Her qualitative studies cover a number of settings (for example, blue-

collar workers in a food processing factory, a study of industrial chaplains) and reveal

that the informal sense-making of change occurs within the organisational grapevines.

Sense making ‘is a conversational and narrative process through which people create

and maintain their intersubjective world’ (Balogun & Johnson, 2004). Through

57

selective interpretation of informational cues, organisational members seek to reduce

ambiguity, cognitive dissonance, and uncertainty (Weick, 1995). Organisational

grapevines are not solely about information transmission, they are also sites of

identity construction. Mills (2000) found that the emotional engagement of the

employee affects the sense-making and is reflected in differentiated framing

discourses within this informal communication. Conditions of ambiguity and

uncertainty flourish during continuous change, providing fertile ground for individual

sense-making (Frahm & Brown, 2004b; Klein, 1994). Yet most studies of sense-

making address the formal cues used, and very few address sense-making in a change

setting. The exceptions (other than Mills) are Lewis, (1999 & 2000b) and Gioia and

Chittipedi (1991, 1999).

In a cross sectional study of 89 change implementers, Lewis (2000a) found that

change implementers perceive communication as challenging and problematic to start

with, and thus they ‘enact’ resistance. This finding means that the implementers’

sense-making process ‘constructs’ problems with organisational change. Later,

Lewis’s (2000b) study of four cases of quality management programs found that

employees’ sense-making is potentially problematic as the sense made may deviate

from the intended messages of change (Lewis, 2000b). This finding hints at a

relationship between informal communication and receptivity of change. Gioia and

Chitapeddi’s (1991) ethnographic study of change within a university setting

identified distinct sequential and reciprocal stages of sense-giving and sense-making.

During the phases of sense-making, understanding is attempted, and during the phases

of sense-giving, influence is created. Further publications derived from this study, and

subsequent testing (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991; Gioia & Mehra, 1996; Gioia &

Thomas, 1996) suggest top management’s perception of image and identity are

58

critical to team members’ issue interpretations. It appears that these two factors may

influence the sequencing of sense-making and sense-giving within change.

Thus, while the monologic and dialogic models address the formal communication of

change, the literature on sense-making hints at the potential utility in studying the

informal communication of change. The analysis of gossip, rumour and grapevines

has dominated the study of informal communication, and has crossed both the

management and the organisational communication literature (Applebaum, Lopes,

Audet, Steed, Jacob, Augustinas, & Manolopoulos, 2003; Bordia, DiFonzo, &

Travers, 1998; Crampton, Hodge, & Mishra, 1998; Michelson & Mouly, 2002). Few

studies though, address the topic in context of organisational change with notable

exceptions being Bordia et al (1998), Applebaum et al (2003) and Mills (2000). Even

less attention have been paid to the more mundane, yet instrumental discourses that

exist within organisational change as characterized by Mills’ (2000) framing

discourses, particularly in context of how they intersect with the formal

communication models. Therefore, by addressing monologic communication, dialogic

communication and the emerging issues of informal communication, a more

integrative perspective is acknowledged.

The other omission from the field is clearly the absence of consideration of change

other than as a one off event. All but one of the studies reviewed examined planned

change and as Dawson (2003) highlights, the literature on planned change does not

consider adequately the complexities of the change process. It is unclear whether the

findings of the previous studies reviewed remain applicable when faced with some of

the complexities of multiple change processes. Situating a study of change

communication within a continuous change context extends the research field and

contributes to new knowledge development.

59

Methodological implications of previous change communication research

The chapter so far has reviewed the ontological focus of the change communication

literature, and suggests the differentiation of ontological focus is part of the reason

why integration remains challenging (Salem, 1999). However, the divergence of the

field can also be attributed to the multitude of methodological approaches. Existing

research studies on change communication cover quantitative surveys, qualitative

case-studies, discourse analysis and content analysis. The studies using surveys

(Doyle et al., 2000; Lewis, 1999, 2000a) as their primary source of data collection

provide substantial orientation to the multiple factors that require further investigation

such as linkage of organisational change implementation to organisational learning

mechanism, management – employee distrust, content priorities of change

implementers. However, as Lewis (2000a) herself notes, the use of surveys is limited

in their ability to provide more than a snapshot of organisational life, and do not

adequately offer insight into communication processes. She argues for more

longitudinal analyses to determine relative effectiveness of communication strategies

over the course of a change effort (Lewis, 1999).

A substantial proportion of the research on organisational change uses a single case-

study approach (Beech, 2000; Bourke & Bechervaise, 2002; Heracleous & Barrett,

2001; Smith, Sohal, & D Netto, 1995; Witherspoon & Wohlert, 1996; Zorn et al.,

2000). The case-study approach offers greater rigour in its triangulation of multiple

sources of data collection including ethnographic observation, in-depth interviews,

focus groups, and archival analysis. Subsequently, triangulation of multiple methods

provides further clarity of the organisational processes covered. However, the

limitation in this research applies to the single case-study approach. While single

60

case-studies are necessary in early exploratory work, theoretical development requires

multiple case-studies for comparative purposes and increased transferability of

findings (Yin, 2003). Lewis (2000b) and Graetz (2000) provide examples of strong

multiple case research that address comparative cases over time. Consequently, the

research informing this thesis will use a similar research strategy of multiple cases and

multiple methods to enhance theoretical development.

A review of the change communication literature uncovers several research directions

to be explored, and addresses Research Questions 2 and 3. In order to contribute to

knowledge on the relative effectiveness and sequencing of communication strategies,

both monologic change communication and dialogic change communication should

be considered within longitudinal studies to allow time to observe the effects of the

different sequencing. Other researchers (Butcher & Atkinson, 2001; Eisenhardt, 2000;

Gioia & Mehra, 1996; Leonard & Gilsdorf, 1990; Palmer et al., 1997; Watson, 1995;

Witherspoon & Wohlert, 1996) argue the importance of framing, management of

meaning and language in change management research. Mills (2000) and Lewis

(1999) both provide promising initial studies on informal communication and sense-

making and this aspect needs to be developed further. Ultimately, integration of these

three different models is needed in order to provide clarity to practitioners (Salem,

1999) and situating this integration within a continuous change context provides

necessary theoretical insights into the problems faced by managers today when

communicating change (Doyle et al, 2000).

After reviewing the extant literature specifically focusing on change communication,

and the methodological implications of this body of work, this section has highlighted

the areas for further research derived from the change communication literature and

61

addresses the first part of the central research question. The second part of the

research question raises the issue of change receptivity, and in order to establish how

the two bodies of literature (change communication and change receptivity) may

inform the study, the following section addresses the empirical research on change

receptivity.

Change Receptivity

The primary research question informing this thesis is ‘how do different change

communication models impact on change receptivity in the context of continuous

change?’ The previous section addressed the change communication models, and this

section reviews the literature on change receptivity.

Although related concepts such as change resistance have a long research history

within the management literature, the specific term ‘change receptivity’ is most

recently used in the educational reform literature (Moroz & Waugh, 2000; Waugh &

Godfrey, 1995; Waugh, 2000). Despite initial work by Pettigrew, Ferlie and McKee

(1992), very few management scholars have addressed the construct of receptivity.

This means a deficit of existing scales that specifically measure receptivity. Cochran,

Bromley and Swando (2002) use an openness to change instrument to measure

receptivity, as do Klecker and Loadman (1999). Change readiness has also risen in

prominence in the literature on responses to change and so in this study the

quantitative aspects utilise the existing change openness scales and change readiness

scales from the literature to measure change receptivity, but in keeping with Piderit’s

(2000) plea for more multidimensional considerations of responses to change, this

chapter uses the related literature to develop considerations for the qualitative studies

which can explore the nuances of change receptivity. Thus, this section includes

62

related concepts such as change resistance, change openness, change readiness and

change cynicism in consideration of operationalising the research. The studies in the

educational sector found sector specific variables conducive to improving change

receptivity. Specifically, the variables are: 1) perceived cost benefit to the teacher, 2)

perceived practicality in the classroom, 3) alleviation of fears and concerns, 4)

participation in school decisions on aspects affecting the classrooms, 5) perceived

support from senior staff, and 6) feelings toward the previous system compared to the

new system (Moroz & Waugh, 2000). The results suggest that the variables can be

tailored to specific reform within the education sector, though the specificity of the

variables limits the generalisability. More recently, the community policing reform

literature (Cochran, Bromley, & Swando, 2002) addresses change receptivity and

found that for police officers, a service orientation and a belief that the agency has

attained an appropriate level of preparedness (readiness and organisational capability)

positively influence their receptivity to change (Cochran et al., 2002). Again, these

studies seem specific to a particular work sector, and this means that other studies of

change receptivity need to be broadened to larger sectors in order to test Cochran et

al’s (2002) findings. Hence, the first hypothesis was formulated:

H 1: There would be a positive relationship between openness to change and perceptions of organisational change capability

Waugh and Godfrey’s (1995) qualitative study of 549 teachers within Western

Australia also addressed six key variables leading up to an implementation phase

(Waugh & Godfrey, 1995). Without data from later stages of the change (which

neither of the previous, nor many other, studies have addressed) the predictive utility

of the receptivity measures is low. However, the rationale is clear – employees must

be receptive to change for purposive organisational change to be successful

(Amburgey, Kelly, & Barnett, 1993). What is less clear is the role of change

63

receptivity within emergent or continuous change.

As evidenced by Pettigrew et al’s (2001) call for further research on change

receptivity, it is a relatively new concept in the management literature. Few scholars

are studying the concept explicitly other than Pettigrew, Ferlie and McKee (1992) and

Huy (1999). Pettigrew et al (1992) initiated the interest in the field with a study of the

long-term processes of strategic service change in eight ‘high-change’ District Health

Authorities (DHAs) in the UK's National Health Service (NHS). They found eight

features of receptivity that are accompanied by an acceleration of change. The

features are: 1) the quality and coherence of policy-analytic and process components,

2) the availability of key people leading change, 3) environmental pressure, 4) a

supportive organisational culture, 5) effective managerial-clinical relations, 6)

cooperative interorganisational networks, 7) simplicity and clarity of goals and

priorities, and 8) a good fit between the change agenda and the locale. Despite this

solid examination, the authors caution that even in highly receptive contexts, change

can still be very complex. This research study addresses that very complexity.

The growing interest in continuous change can be attributed to the rising recognition

of the importance of studying change as a process (Dawson, 2003; Pettigrew, Ferlie,

& McKee, 1992). Huy (1999) defines change receptivity as an interpretive, attitudinal

state (both cognitive and emotional) to accept the need for proposed change and notes

that it is both a state and a process. The process perspective of change receptivity

recognises that receptivity to change is a dynamic state subject to fluctuations as

different contextual factors emerge. The conceptualisation of change receptivity as a

process highlights the difficulties for change agents in managing how employees feel

about change. In a dynamic succession of events, there can be little differentiation

64

between openness to change and change cynicism. The employee who is open to

change can quickly become cynical if disappointed (Wanous, Reichers, & Austin,

2000). As the contextual demands of continuous change can increase the dynamic

nature of change receptivity, it is critical to place a study of change receptivity in a

process framework, and thus avoid over-reliance of interpretation of the data based on

measuring states.

While there is relatively limited literature on change receptivity, there is a long list of

studies that address a number of the aspects, or subsets, of change receptivity. Change

readiness (Armenakis & Harris, 2002; Armenakis, Harris & Mossholder, 1993,

Beckard & Harris, 1987; Eby, Adams, Russell, & Gaby, 2000; Holt, 2001; Jones,

Jimmieson, & Griffiths, 2005; Jimmieson, White & Peach, 2004, Wanberg & Banas,

2000; Weber & Weber, 2001) is one such aspect and is defined as ‘the cognitive

precursor to the behaviours of either resistance to, or support for a change effort’

(Armenakis et al, 1993 pp.681-2). More commonly studies have addressed change

readiness as a response to change resistance (Bovey & Hede, 2001; Dent & Goldberg,

1999; Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979; Mabin, Forgeson, & Green, 2001; Piderit, 2000;

Waddell & Sohal, 1998). More recently, the researchers have turned their focus to the

topic of change cynicism (Buchanan et al., 1999; Pugh, Skarlicki, & Passell, 2003;

Reichers, Wanous, & Austin, 1997; Wanous et al., 2000). It has been noted that

research on employees’ response to change has focused on the negative aspects such

as change resistance and change cynicism (Mabin et al, 2001), and the studies on

change openness (Cent & Powley, 2002; Klecker & Loadman, 1999; Miller et al.,

1994) are a welcome alternative. Select studies from these four constructs are now

reviewed to develop the multi-dimensional aspects of change receptivity.

65

While change receptivity is argued to incorporate all of these responses to change,

there are subtle but key differences between the ways the terms are used within the

management literature. An overview of the research concerning attitudes and

responses to organisational change suggest that there are weaknesses in the existing

empirical work, and room for further theory development. Jones et al (2005) notes

that much of the previous work has focused on individual factors such as personality

attributes and cognitive processes. While clearly valuable from an organisational

psychology perspective in understanding individual responses, the previous research

contributes little to understanding the roles of groups in change receptivity or larger

institutional change processes. Therefore, future research needs to accommodate

consideration of change attitudes and responses at the group level of analysis, and

organisational processes to further develop understanding of change receptivity as a

process. In order to advance the research agenda on change receptivity, the four

constructs associated with change receptivity studies are now reviewed.

Change Readiness

Armenakis et al’s (1993) definition of change readiness suggests that to be receptive

to change, the employee is required to be change ready. Change readiness can be

considered an existing organisational capability. Change readiness denotes ‘the

cognitive precursor to the behaviours of either resistance to, or support for a change

effort’ (Armenakis et al, 1993, p.681). Organisational change scholars have recently

embraced the concept of ‘change readiness’ with most of the published work being

conceptual (Armenakis, Harris, & Mossholder, 1993). Despite much of the cited

literature on readiness being conceptual, there is an important emergent group of

scholars conducting empirical study on the topic (Eby, Adams, Russell, & Gaby,

2000; Jones, Jimmieson, & Griffiths, 2002; Weber & Weber, 2001). Eby et al (2000)

66

and Wanberg and Banas’s (2000) work concentrated on individual characteristics

such as personality attributes and cognitive processes. Their research indicates that the

opportunity to participate in the change effort is positively related to change readiness

(Eby et al., 2000; Wanberg & Banas, 2000) and information about change is

positively associated with change readiness (Wanberg & Banas, 2000). The findings

about participation and information hints at an underlying communicative perspective

yet falls short of making a direct link to how communication impacts on change

receptivity. Both studies also considered a single planned change not multiple change

processes or continuous change efforts.

Jones et al (2005) notes a focus on individual factors is inconsistent with the general

change literature, which addresses multiple level phenomena (individual, group and

organisational). The necessity for other levels of analysis, other than individual, is

recognised by Bazigos and Burke (1997, p.387) who note that when using Lewinian

theory ‘group opprobrium restrains individual behaviour from deviating too greatly

from the norm’ and therefore, the group is the target level of choice. Addressing this

criticism, Jones (2001) situates change readiness in the context of organisational

capabilities and addresses other macro phenomena such as organisational culture. In

her study of Information Systems (IS) implementation in a public sector organisation,

she found that change readiness mediates the relationship between a ‘human relations’

culture and one measure of implementation success (system usage). Furthermore,

change readiness mediates the positive relationship between organisational reshaping

capabilities and system usage. This study is valuable in using a meso-theory (House,

Rousseau, & Thomas-Hunt, 1995) approach to understand what change readiness

mediates, however, there is a need to investigate what mediates change readiness.

67

Given the early stage of change readiness empirical work, a deeper understanding of

the construct is required before examining how it affects organisational success

measures. Holt (2000) criticises the readiness literature for the diversity of

instruments to measure the construct and the lack of a common instrumentation being

used in the field. The plethora of instruments leads to many different concepts of what

change readiness is, and a lack of definitional clarity amongst researchers. Weber and

Weber (2001) used an organisational level scale to measure organisational readiness

for change (based on flexibility and innovation items) including perceptions for

organisational readiness for change. Using a sample of 90 fire fighters, they found that

goal clarity had a positive relationship with perceived ability of the organisational

readiness for change. Like the domination of single case-study work in the

organisational communication field, the work on change readiness tends to

concentrate on single case-study research, and caution is advised in the interpretation

of results.

Another shortcoming of the existing change readiness research is that there is an

assumption that employees are at the same stage of readiness and the results do not

allow for differentiation (Kennedy, 2002). This approach produces a ‘one size fits all’

response to using the findings. In order to redress this criticism, a focus on the

multiple perspectives about change readiness is required. While Armenakis and Harris

(1993) make the case for integrating change communication with change readiness by

considering messages for change, their work is seldom tested. However, like Eby et al

(2000) and Wanberg and Banas (2000), Weber and Weber (2000) imply a link to

communication. For example, goal clarity requires clear message transmission from

appropriate communication (Weber & Weber, 2001). Clearly, change readiness could

benefit from explicit understanding of communication models. For most of the

68

studies, change readiness is addressed as a way of avoiding change resistance. The

research on change resistance is further explored in the next section.

Change Resistance

It is suggested that change readiness may pre-empt the likelihood of resistance to

change (Armenakis et al., 1993). Resistance studies date back to Coch and French’s

(1948) seminal work, followed by Lewin’s work (1951) on force field analysis.

Resistance to change has received much interest with Kotter and Schlesinger (1979)

producing six techniques to overcome resistance. Their work is indicative of the

research that shows that resistance is a barrier to overcome. However, there is a

growing body of research that suggests viewing resistance to change as a barrier is

short-sighted (Piderit, 2000; Waddell & Sohal, 1998). Resistance need not always be a

negative aspect of change implementation; rather it possesses constructive utility

within change (Waddell & Sohal, 1998, p. 544). Indeed as Bovey and Hede (2001)

indicate, resistance is a natural part of the change process and to be expected. The

importance of change resistance to management theory is the contention that failure of

many large-scale corporate change programs can be attributed to employee resistance

(Martin, 1975; Maurer, 1996, 1997; Spiker & Lesser, 1995; Waldersee & Griffiths,

1997), and thus to overcome resistance is to improve the success of change efforts.

Others (Piderit, 2000; Waddell & Sohal, 1998) suggest that the link to failure is in

conceptualising resistance as a barrier to be overcome, as opposed to feedback of

change efforts.

More recently, researchers contend that the notion of employee’s change resistance

has been the scapegoat for managers, intent on finding someone to blame for poor

implementation of change effort (Dent & Goldberg, 1999; Piderit, 2000; Waddell &

69

Sohal, 1998). However, there is also a strong likelihood that in the research deriving

from employees’ perspective, the managers will be blamed for failed change (Piderit,

2000). The literature on change resistance is also limited in that it considers change

resistance in conditions of single episodic, not continuous change. If practitioners are

using traditional theory on change resistance such as Kotter and Schlesinger’s (1979)

tactics such as coercion, manipulation, education and facilitation on a repeated basis,

they may find contrary results than would occur in a one-off event. As a subset of

change resistance, change or initiative fatigue has so far received limited empirical

attention and clarification (Buchanan et al., 1999), yet provides insights to the impact

of continued change efforts. The authors further suggest change fatigue may relate to

the disillusionment and cynicism in the face of forthcoming initiatives, i.e BOHICA

1& ‘rolling eyeballs’ syndrome occurring specifically as a result of past experience

with change (Buchanan et al, 1999, p. 25)

Change Cynicism

The third construct related to change receptivity is change cynicism. It is particularly

important given the growing prevalence of the phenomena in organisational settings

and accordingly is starting to receive more academic attention (Atwater, Waldman,

Atwater, & Cartier, 2000). Any consideration of change receptivity should consider

change cynicism as Buchanan et al (1999) note in their research that many managers

now report cynicism amongst employees. Organisational change cynicism is defined

as a:

pessimistic viewpoint about change efforts being successful because those responsible for making change are being blamed for being unmotivated, incompetent or both (Wanous et al., 2000, p. 133).

1 Bend Over Here It Comes Again

70

Reicher et al’s (1997) study of 120 participants of change in a large US Midwestern

plant initiated the development of a cynicism about change construct. The results

indicated that employees on an hourly rate were more cynical than managers owing to

the lack of information provision and participation. The authors suggest that cynicism

may be a sense-making device, as it is an attempt to make sense of disappointing

results and further, can create a self-fulfilling prophesy whereby the cynicism about

change sets up a path towards failure. The ensuing failure creates further cynicism

about change. Their further work (Wanous et al., 2000) confirmed that Cynicism

About Change (CAC) is a legitimate construct and results from organisational factors

such as little previous change, ineffective leadership practices and lack of

participation in decisions, more so than personal attributes. However, the employees

in the sample studied had been working at the plant for 19 years. This observation

leaves an opening to understanding the transitory notion of cynicism, for example,

new employees coming in to an organisation with cynicism about change.

The prevalence of cynicism to change appears to increase when employees are

subjected to continuous change. It is argued that cynicism is a response to a history of

unsuccessful change efforts (Reichers et al., 1997). Pugh et al (2003) found that the

phenomenon of downsizing violates the employees’ trust in the employer. As the

downsized employee moves on to new places of employment, they take with them

feelings of mistrust and a cynical response to change. However, it is not clear if the

continued cynicism occurs with other more benign change experiences such as

Business Process Re-engineering, or the introduction of learning organisation

initiatives, that are not associated with the emotionally charged experience of layoffs

and redundancies (Mossholder, Settoon, Armenakis, & Harris, 2000).

71

Change Openness

The final construct captures a more positive perspective on change receptivity.

Change openness is an attitudinal state in response to proposed change. Miller et al.

(1994) investigation of openness to change within an insurance company found that

employees were more open to change when they received ‘quality’ information and

possessed a high need for achievement. In contrast to the pessimistic findings

advanced by the resistance literature, some contend that people are often much more

open to change than managers assume (Hoag et al., 2002). Cent and Powley (2002)

conducted an exploratory study by interviewing people undergoing change in

organisations. They found that, overall, respondents made 1.9 positive statements

about change for every negative statement. In looking for data to support evidence of

change receptivity, researchers need to consider the positive aspects of change as well

as the negative and also need to explore the implications of openness to change over

time. Allen et al (1995) suggest that, in the context of downsizing and restructure,

there will be an initial decline in openness to change after the downsizing event. Other

literature points to declining receptivity to change after successive change events

(Pate, Martin, & Staines, 2000). The literature is inconclusive about the effects of

other types of change on receptivity to change. This lack of clarity necessitates an

exploratory empirical research question:

RQ 5: What happens to openness to change over time in the context of continuous change?

Studies within the education literature have identified ‘openness to change’ as one of

the key characteristics that principals require to manage the educational reform and

propose that openness to change covers three dimensions (affective, cognitive and

behavioural). Klecker and Loadman (1999) measured 307 building principals’

72

openness to change in a studying using an adaptation of Huang’ (1993) doctoral

research. The instrument originally developed by Dunham, Grube, Gardner,

Cummings and Pierce (1989) measures three factors, cognitive, affective and

behavioural response to change. Dunham et al (1989 cited in Klecker & Loadman,

1999) define openness to change as ‘a person’s cognitions about change, affective

reactions to change, and behavioural tendency to change’ (p. 215).

Klecker and Loadman (1999) found there was an inverse relationship between

affective subscales and the cognitive and behavioural subscales. This was interpreted

as: ‘No matter how much we dislike the school restructuring changes, we recognise

that the changes will be good for schools and we will take action to facilitate the

changes’ (p.222). While this provides a useful way of measuring openness to change,

the face validity of the subscales can be challenged, as many of the items do not

reflect the factor it is loaded under (see appendix 1). For example the ‘I would resist

the changes’ and ‘I would hesitate to press for such changes’ could be interpreted as

behavioural factors as they indicate action, yet in the study they are factored in the

affective (emotional) scale. Clearly further work on change receptivity needs to

consider whether openness to change is indeed multi-dimensional or one factor.

Ultimately though, none of the these studies investigated the impact of

communication on openness to change despite the implied link between change

communication and change receptivity noted by Eby et al, 2000; Wanberg and Banas,

2000; Weber and Weber, 2001. Thus, the second hypothesis is generated:

H 2: There will be a positive relationship between monologic and dialogic change communication and openness to change.

The next section addresses the methodological implications of the change receptivity

studies.

73

Methodological implications of change receptivity studies

Methodologically, the studies on change receptivity depend on surveys, and while

useful in establishing baseline data and measuring change in states, the over reliance

on surveys limits the ability to understand the processes around change receptivity. As

already noted the field is deficient in multiple case-studies. Very few studies have

gathered longitudinal empirical data on changes in these critical attitudes before and

after an organisational change (Weber & Weber, 2001). Di Pofi (2002) states that

organisational researchers have begun to recognise the value of integrated methods,

and suggests that relying on one method alone results in an incomplete view.

Considering the lack of processual research, and the static nature of using surveys at

one time only, a methodological imperative exists to employ a combination of

quantitative and qualitative methods in order to provide a more complete explanation

of the phenomena of change receptivity, and thus a complete view of its entirety.

Summary

In order to fully consider the multiple considerations of change receptivity, the

literature was divided into change readiness, change resistance, change cynicism and

change openness. While these studies found that information provision, participative

work practices, and past experiences of change (Axtell, Wall, Stride, Pepper, & al,

2002; Buchanan et al., 1999; Miller et al., 1994) may inform the change receptivity

process, there is little research on the process of change receptivity over time. Like the

literature review on change communication, a major limitation with the change

receptivity literature is the lack of studies considering organisations that undergo

continuous change. This deficit renders much of the accepted knowledge about the

receptivity and change communication ineffective within contemporary organisations.

The following section addresses the characteristics of continuously changing

74

organisations in order to highlight selection conditions of ‘ideal types’ (Weber, 1949)

to inform the case-study design of this research.

Continuous Change Organisations – what do they look like?

In order to study organisations undergoing continuous change, the literature offers

some clues for identifying ideal cases. Key drivers of continuous change are ‘rapidly

changing’ and ‘hyper competitive’, turbulent environments (D'Aveni, 1994).

Typically, firms that are operating in these conditions rely on rapid new product

development, or new service development for competitive advantage. Additionally,

these conditions can be attributed to changing technology, increased globalisation of

markets and increasing pressure on public sectors to undergo private sector reform

(Baden-Fuller & Volberda, 1997). It appears that much of the literature refers to

external conditions as drivers of continuous change, (Baden-Fuller & Volberda, 1997;

Burnes, 1996; D'Aveni, 1994) rather than internal capabilities such as organisational

communication processes.

Continuous change is considered emergent because the outcomes emerge from what

appear to be trivial small scale and adaptive changes (Edelman & Benning, 1999).

The emergent dynamic is strategic, in that it is as much a strategic response to

constantly changing environments, with choices to be made on how to manage chaotic

and turbulent environments. Accordingly, continuous change organisations adapt by

using small, uninterrupted adjustments, in an evolving and cumulative fashion which

creates substantial change (Pettigrew et al., 2001, p. 704). Typical of continuous

change organisations are those that create entrepreneurial organisations like Ericsson

Australia (Graetz, 2000). Spurred on by technological change and government

industry policy changing the competitive framework, Ericsson Australia sought to

75

create a more responsive, customer-oriented organisation. For Pilkington Australasia,

the change strategy evolved from improving operations to redefining business strategy

and culture (Graetz, 2000, p. 551). As evidenced by both these cases (Pilkington

Australasia and Ericsson Australia), the size of change does not determine the

continuous change. Continuous change can be either incremental or transformational

change. Edelman and Benning (1999) assert that large-scale organisational

realignment can occur from continuous small scale adjustments.

From a micro perspective, some studies (Miner, Bassoff, & Moorman, 2001; Sitkin,

Sutliffe, & Weick, 1998) indicate how the individual may be assisted in managing

continuous change with improvisation, continuous adaptation, editing and learning

featuring as frameworks for coping with continuous change. These studies imply a

positive perspective on individuals’ receptivity to change, however others suggest that

the downside of continuous change is aligned with high levels of change fatigue

(Hazlett & Hill, 2000). This contradiction is why it is important to understand change

receptivity in the context of continuous change, particularly in understanding how

employees make sense of change, either positively as suggested by Miner et al.,

(2001) or negatively such as Hazlett and Hill (2000).

The case-studies used thus far can be classified as either public sector organisations

with a focus on continuous improvement, or firms engaged in New Product

Development (NPD) (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997; Buchanan et al., 1999; Hazlett &

Hill, 2000; Hill, Bullard, Capper, Hawes, & Wilson, 1998; Miner et al., 2001; Sitkin

et al., 1998). A review of this literature suggests that the level of change receptivity

varies across these contexts yet is least understood in the public sector (Coram &

Burnes, 2001).

76

For example, much of what has been undertaken uses New Product Development

(NPD) Teams as the unit of analysis (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997, Miner et al., 2001).

These studies interpret continuous change as innovation, and consequently focus on

NPD, and accordingly the samples have consisted largely of firms employing

technically-oriented employees. Brown and Eisenhardt (1997) and Miner et al (2001)

have highlighted the necessity to create semi-structures that allow flexibility and order

to co-exist in order to facilitate continuous change. Brown and Eisenhardt (1997)

point to the importance of frequent communication during change particularly in

cross-functional teams.

By focusing on NPD as a research context, the authors noted above are studying a

population that is pro-innovation and therefore quite positive about continuous change

as their role is to be innovative. It is also important to note that in these studies, the

product/product lines and supporting technology are continuously changing, not

necessarily the structure of the organisation. Indeed, evidence from Pate et al., (2000)

suggests that the frequent introduction of change programmes, rather than signal to

employees an innovative climate, actually creates a reaction where the employees

view the managers as incompetent. This situation creates a research need to balance

this initial work with a research agenda that focuses on organisational innovation.

Mikealsson (2002) addresses this need in his study of the Volvo Car Corporation. He

investigated how people who work within NPD units can use the same NPD processes

to create continuous change of the organisation. Indeed, by using the same change

mechanisms for the overall organisation as the employees do in their own NPD teams

(vertical and lateral communication and real-life experimentation), they created a

change organisation in which ‘multiple perspectives could be exchanged and new

knowledge created in many directions and dimensions’ (Mikaelsson, 2002). While a

77

strong case-study for understanding how communication strategies affect continuous

change, it neglected to address change receptivity. This deficit is highlighted in

Mikaelsson’s future research directions to explore the possibilities of dealing with the

anxiety levels of people exposed continuously to non-routine based change in non-

routine systems (2002).

Change receptivity is alluded to in studies from Hazlet and Hill (2002) and Baden-

Fuller and Volberda (1997). These authors suggest different organisational settings

(i.e public sector organisations) may produce different receptivity responses to

different triggers. The type of continuous change discussed includes changing

political environments and the move towards economic rationalism. Their studies

showed that in the public sector context, continuous change is associated with high

levels of change fatigue. Another study of a state government department with a

large-scale culture change program (Brown, Ryan, & Flynn, 2000) finds similar issues

with change fatigue. There is much to suggest that the public sector organisations are

unique and distinctly different to other private sector organisations in their cultural

dimensions (Parker & Bradley, 2000; Waterhouse, 2004). Yet this cultural distinction

is rarely accounted for when considering the frequent changes embarked on in the

public sector (Sinclair, 1991). In their survey research on six public sector

organisations, Parker and Bradley (2000) found that despite a change agenda that

promotes commercialisation, empowerment, entrepreneurialism, the public sector

remains heavily skewed to bureaucratic values and a hierarchical organisational

culture. They pose the question whether the adoption of private sector practices leas to

an organisational culture in transition, and this query is pertaining to the research

informing the thesis. Brown, Waterhouse and Flynn (2003) study of a large state

public sector organisation leads to observations of structural appropriateness with

78

reform agendas. The consideration of a hybrid model of New Public Management

initiates a departure from the concept of a unified culture within the public sector.

This example presented offers a carefully considered combination of both

bureaucracy and egalitarian values, reminiscent of Martins (yr) differentiation of

culture (Waterhouse, 2004).

Brown, Ryan and Parker (2000)’s study of three public sector cases draws on the

importance of human resources issues when extending a commercialisation agenda.

Further, Maddock (2002) also reports on the difficulty of making ‘modernisation’

work in the public sector. Using examples from public sector partnerships, Maddock

also makes the argument for a greater focus on people management in public sector

reform, and a need for greater leadership. This early work suggests there is much

opportunity to explore what continuous change may mean in specific contexts such as

public sector cultures, and then to identify the factors that enables continuous change,

and facilitates receptivity of change. What is interesting, that despite observations of

difficulty in managing public sector reform, and highlighting the people management

aspects of change, none of these studies specifically raise the issue of communication

of change.

The link between communication and continuous change is rarely made empirically

with an exception being Lewis et al’s (2003) study of not-for- profit firms. They

highlight the tumultuous state of fiscal instability in which non-profit organisations

reside, as their dependence on external sources needs to accommodate political shifts.

Their study on the communicative stakes during not-for- profit change, found

implementers generally follow a quid pro quo ‘matching rule’, wherein the

importance and desirability of the stakeholder’s resources serves as the basis on which

79

they are awarded communicative attention (Lewis et al., 2003a). While valuable in

addressing how not-for-profit organisations communicate during change to

stakeholders, it lacks clarification of how this impacts on their receptivity.

One of the more pervasive concepts associated with continuous change is the learning

organisation. Originating from Schon’s (1973) concepts of a ‘learning society’ as a

way to manage the continuous processes of transformation within our society and

institutions, the learning organisation presents as an ideal type. It is noted as a

systematic response to the pressure of globalisation (Schon, 1973). The learning

organisation is defined as:

Learning organisations [are] organisations where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning to see the whole together. (Senge, 1990)

The literature on learning organisations regards continuous change as part of the

sense-making and knowledge development cycle (Choo, 2001; Ingelgard, Roth,

Shani, & Styhre, 2002; Laiken, 2003). Their findings concur with Bokeno and Gantt

(2000) that learning organisations encourage experimentation, risk taking, openness,

systems thinking, creativity, authenticity, imagination and innovation (Bokeno &

Gantt, 2000). These studies present a communication perspective of change in terms

of knowledge dissemination and communicative forums in which employees can

negotiate change, but like Lewis et al’s (2003a & b) research, the aforementioned

studies do not address employee receptivity to change.

The literature concerning organisations that undergo continuous change has been

reviewed in order to identify potential organisational types to situate the central

research question within. In summary, these organisations may demonstrate a

80

commitment to the learning organisation, be a public sector organisation undergoing

reform, and are most often organisations that focus on innovation. Of the studies of

organisations that undergo continuous change, most have been within high technology

fields. The dominance of high technology samples makes it imperative to study

different types of organisations where less is known, particularly those such as public

sector organisations which are having difficulty with change receptivity. As none of

the studies on continuously changing organisations have addressed change

communication and change receptivity, this will be an exploratory study.

Conclusion

This chapter has reviewed the body of literature on change communication to

expound the research questions that inform this study. It has been established that

many organisations have moved towards a model of change that accommodates

continuous, adaptive, recurrent changes without empirical validation of the associated

interventions and ways of managing this change model. The lack of research has

resulted in the use of change models and interventions generated from episodic

change being used on a continuous basis. Accompanying this development, there is a

growing recognition of the necessity for and the lack of process theories of change.

Van de Ven and Poole (1995) provide the exception to this, and thus their work

provides the descriptive framework for considering continuous change within this

study. One such crucial process within change is organisational communication.

While some studies have addressed organisational communication and change

receptivity, none have done so in the context of continuous change and very few have

specifically focused on change communication.

Change communication is a very small field with the majority of studies polarised by

81

the ontological perspective taken. Change communication is considered either

instrumental or constructivist. A review of the change communication literature

reveals that there are two primary change communication models; monologic change

communication and dialogic change communication. While the management literature

relies on the instrumental perspective, the more recent organisational communication

literature has been dominated by constructivist perspectives. Integration of these

models is a rarity, yet a clear need exists for the integration of the two, which is why

the thesis employs a bimodal theory of change communication (Taylor & Van Every,

2000) as it utilises both instrumental and constructivist change communication

approaches. Specifically, the findings of the change communication studies signify

further research directions in the way of group level understanding of change

communication processes, clear explication of what change communication is, an

interest in the conversational sequencing of change, and the relative effectiveness of

different change communication strategies. Additionally, there is interest in how

alternate meanings, and employees’ reframing of change initiatives contribute to

change processes and how dialectic tension may contribute to an understanding of the

change process. Consideration of power should also be included in future research.

Methodologically, there is a clear imperative for multiple case-studies and preferably

in longitudinal designs.

Change receptivity is an emergent management concept that encompasses change

resistance, change readiness, change cynicism and change openness. The literature on

change receptivity indicates a need for a broader understanding of change receptivity,

with some pointing to multidimensional responses, which consider readiness,

openness and cynicism as well as resistance. Again a process perspective is needed as

well as multiple cases.

82

The lack of research on public sector organisation driven towards increased

flexibility, commercialisation and entrepreneurship suggests that this would be a

valuable setting to situate the study in, particularly as public sector receptivity to

change appears to be a contentious issue.

This chapter has made the research question and aims explicit and identified research

gaps to be filled. The literature review has revealed some compelling research

directions. The next chapter outlines and justifies the methodology employed. First,

the research objectives are made explicit and the research design described. The

sampling decisions and data sources are detailed and justified, and the data collection

methods explained. The rationales for these choices in methods are provided, as are

the analytical procedures.

83

CHAPTER 3

Methods and Research Design

Introduction

Chapter One provided an overview of the research background, discussed the

necessity for empirical investigation of the impact of change communication on

change receptivity within a continuous change context and outlined the structure and

content of this thesis. In Chapter Two, the literature on continuous change, change

communication, and change receptivity was reviewed to establish several research

gaps and imperatives. Amongst these was the need for longitudinal case-studies that

provide a deeper and integrative understanding of the complexities of communication

during continuous change. Of particular interest is an in-depth understanding of what

change communication entails, and how the different change communication models

may impact on change receptivity within organisations that undergo continuous

change. The research questions originating from the literature reviews are as follows:

Empirical RQ 1 How does communication impact change receptivity within a continuous change context?

Theoretical RQ 2 What is ‘change communication’?

Empirical RQ 3 How can unpacking the ‘black box’ of communication inform our understanding of change receptivity?

In Chapter 2, the literature review revealed that change communication could be

considered a combination of both instrumental and constructivist approaches.

Within the instrumental model, monologic change communication was the

dominant model, and within the constructivist approach the dialogic model was

84

primary. Thus, the literature review contributes to “unpacking” the black box”

of communication within change, and leads to the development of empirical

research question 4.

Empirical RQ 4 How do the different communication models (instrumental/monologic and constructivist/dialogic) inform our understanding of the impact of change communication on change receptivity within a continuous change context?

Empirical RQ 5 What happens to openness to change over time in the context of continuous change?

While the lack of empirical research on change communication produces exploratory

research questions, careful consideration of the literature relating to change receptivity

yields two hypotheses for testing.

H 1: There will be a positive relationship between openness to change and perceptions of organisational change capability.

H 2: There will be a positive relationship between monologic and dialogic

change communication and openness to change.

This chapter details the methodological approach undertaken to address the research

questions and test the hypotheses. A comparative case-study design is explained and

justified. In this study, after an initial period of sole focus on the first study, the two

cases are run in tandem. The parallel management of cases provides opportunities for

testing emergent findings from the first case within the second case. While cross-case

comparison is a useful strategy to develop analytical insights, the power of the

strategy is enhanced when the cross comparison occurs in real time, rather than

retrospectively. In this situation, the researcher is able to check emergent analysis

with case-study participants as events unfold. Justification is also provided for the use

of multiple methods including surveys, focus groups and ethnographic observation.

85

Objectives of Study

As noted in Chapter Two, there are very few studies specifically dedicated to the

investigation of change communication (Lewis, 1999; Mills, 2003). Similarly, despite

widespread acceptance of the concept of continuous change, there is scant research on

the topic (Pettigrew, Woodman, & Cameron, 2001). The paucity of research dedicated

to change communication compounds the difficulty in using the knowledge derived

from the change communication studies. While the link is often made between change

communication and implementation, it is not made so often between change

communication and change receptivity. However, some suggest one of the more

salient features of continuous change is the demand made on change receptivity

(Doyle et al., 2000; Hazlett & Hill, 2000; Stewart & Kringas, 2003). There are dual

objectives of the research. This research is an exploratory study aiming to acquire a

fundamental understanding of the processes and interactions of change

communication and change receptivity in order to construct new theory about change

communication. The literature review reveals there is a significant body of research

existing on change receptivity, yet what remains unclear are the implications of this

research within continuous change. Thus, the second objective is to test some of the

existing assumptions about change receptivity and change communication within a

continuous change context. These objectives are further grounded in understanding

how change communication contributes to change receptivity in the context of

continuous change. Anchoring the research questions within continuous change

necessitates a processual design, as this allows for study of the dynamics of

continuous change ‘as they happen’ (Pettigrew et al., 2001, p. 6). The next section

defines processual research and explains how the processual research approach is used

in this study.

86

Research Paradigm When determining what research approach to use, the researcher has several heuristics

available. For example, if the literature is insufficient to permit a deductive approach,

then an exploratory and descriptive approach (inductive) is recommended

(Desphande, 1983). If a deductive approach is applied then it needs to be committed

to the subject’s perspective to offer an interpretation that is credible, dependable and

confirmable (Lincoln & Guba, 1990; Wass & Wells, 1993). Interpretivist (qualitative)

research suits particular research questions, and is evaluated using specific criteria,

with both research question and criteria being different to those experienced in

positivist (quantitative) research (Jean, 1992). Table 3.0 illustrates the inherent

differences between the two research approaches.

Table 3.0 Differences Between Quantitative and Qualitative Research

Differences Quantitative Qualitative

Ontological Assumption Objectivity Subjectivity

Epistemological assumption Positivism Phenomenology

Aims of Inquiry Universality Particularity

Role of Researcher Outsider Insider

Researcher- respondent Relationship Detachment Involvement

Research Methods Statistics Description

Source: Jean, 1992, p. 89.

As discussed in Chapter 2, the objectives of this study are exploratory in nature,

aiming to acquire a fundamental understanding of the processes and interactions of

change communication and change receptivity in order to construct new theory about

change communication. This understanding requires descriptive data and this basic

research can be conducted through qualitative inquiry. The use of qualitative research

87

provides rich descriptions and explanations of processes (Miles & Huberman, 1994)

and can be justified on several accounts.

First, Bennet (1991) suggests that the research paradigm chosen should reflect the

nature of the study conducted. When discussing appropriate research approaches in

innovation studies, Van de Ven and Rogers (1988) argue that for innovation and

change research to be useful it needs to focus on the process, and that this shift

requires more qualitative and in-depth methods rather than quantitative methods. This

does not imply that the previous literatures covered in Chapter 2 need be ignored.

Rather the literature reviewed in Chapter 2 forms an important link in the retroductive

process (Blaikie, 1993) used in this study.

Retroduction is the activity of deductively applying ideas from certain bodies of knowledge and emerging frameworks to case studies and then inducing from findings of the case studies the extent to which (and the manner in which) the bodies of knowledge and emerging frameworks should be altered.

(Turow, 1984, cited in Potter, 1996, p. 157)

By combining retroductive logic and inductive processes, the researcher

acknowledges that there may be extant theory or phenomena in similar fields that may

be useful or adapted to create new theory and build on past work.

Further, the paradigmatic implications of this study involve ‘crossing boundaries’

(Brocklesby & Mingers, 1998, Hassard, 1993). In this sense, the study utilises a

positivist framework which assumes that there is an objective relationship between

communication and change receptivity, and seeks to capture this within the

quantitative studies. However, as the phenomena of change communication is little

understood, the study commits to an exploratory design, and an inductive

methodology in order to access the subject’s perspective to offer an interpretation that

is credible, dependable and confirmable (Lincoln & Guba, 1990; Wass & Wells,

88

1993). Whilst studies that cross paradigms are not plentiful they are not without

precedent particularly when there is cross-over of discipline as in this study

(management and communication). Ultimately this places the research within a

objective constructionist field (Geelan, 1997). My ontological position is that whilst I

believe that there are ‘facts’ out there, I believe that the establishment of those facts

are a socially constructed process of negotiation and interaction.

Research Design This research uses Langley’s (1999) Alternate Templates as a theoretical framework

to guide the research design. One of the central challenges to researcher investigating

processes is the inherent messiness, as the complexities of temporal embeddedness,

multi–level data and analysis, and dynamic emergent themes interplay and obfuscate

the analysis. In 1999, The Academy of Management Review published an article by

process researcher Ann Langley on how to build theory from process data. Her work

analyses the impact of seven generic strategies of theory building in conjunction with

three of Weick’s (1989) criteria of good theory (accuracy, parsimony, and general).

The seven strategies each act to bound the data and provide structure for the

untidiness of the data collected. These strategies include: the Narrative, the

Quantification, the Alternate Templates, Grounded Theory, Visual Mapping;

Temporal Bracketing and the Synthetic. The emphasis on each strategy changes

depending on what phase of theory building is occurring. This study has used the

alternate templates to ground the data (categorise and classify) with the use of

theoretical constructs (monologic, dialogic) and emergent constructs (background

talk). One of the benefits of using the ‘Alternate Templates’ is that the use of the

multiple templates can overcome the trade-offs usually associated with accuracy,

89

generalisability and simplicity. While each template provides simplicity but limited

accuracy, the use of multiple perspectives of the same phenomena, or theoretical

triangulation (Yin, 2003) generates the much needed accuracy.

A processual research design is one that captures multiple realities and experiences of

change in context over time (Dawson, 2003). Further, there are four key

methodological dimensions to the processual approach. These include the use of

competing narratives to develop a critical understanding of the change process, the

acknowledgement of multiple histories in understanding the impact of power and

politics in change, the substance of change composing of time and place, and finally

practical advice and relevance which assumes that the processual studies of change

produce practical lessons (Dawson, 2003). Pettigrew (1997) contends that processual

research involves studying a ‘sequence of individual and collective events, actions

and activities unfolding over time in context’ (Pettigrew, 1997). Processual research

approaches are eminently suited to a study of continuous organisational change. There

is substantial support for the necessity of researchers to study change with a process

perspective to avoid the normative and prescriptive accounts of change (Dawson,

2003). In considerations of Weick’s (1989) criteria of good theory development, the

first criteria, accuracy of the theory development, is enhanced by accounting for the

multiple realities and experiences of those undergoing change.

To enhance generalisability, which is Weick’s (1989) second criteria, the design

employs a comparative case-study approach, with data collection occurring through

the use of multiple methods such as surveys, focus groups and ethnographic

observation. One of the notable limitations in case-study research is the diminished

capacity to generalise from a single case, or through the use of a single method of data

90

collection. The use of both multiple methods and cross case comparison ameliorates

these limitations (Weick, 1989). Eisenhardt (1989) advocates the use of case-studies

in constructing new theory. The use of case-study research is further justified as the

research question addresses ‘how change communication impacts on change

receptivity’. When a research question addresses ‘how’, researchers suggest that case-

studies are an appropriate methodology (Eisenhardt, 1989; Patton, 1990; Yin, 2003).

The research question is not the sole influence on choice of methodology; the state of

prior knowledge on the topic also impacts selection of methodology.

Development of Case-Study Methodology

This research utilises a part deductive and part inductive approach. The benefit of this

approach is that it allows inspiration from the data, without denying existing concepts

that are useful to the study (Lamonthe & Langley, 2001). An inductive process is

advised to develop and build theory when the topic has been exposed to little previous

scrutiny through empirical studies (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Miles & Huberman, 1994;

Yin, 2003). Inductive processes involve developing concepts, insights and

understanding from patterns that emerge from the data and the purpose of inductive

theory is to explain rather than to generalise (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The limited

theory linking change communication to change receptivity is compounded by the

lack of empirical research on continuous change contexts. Eisenhardt (1989) suggests

that where a well-developed set of theories regarding a research problem does not

exist, theory building can best be done through case-study research. Thus, case-study

research provides in-depth insights that form a platform for theory development

(Eisenhardt, 1989).

As earlier noted, single case research can be limited in the ability to develop analytic

91

generalisability (Yin, 2003). While this research study does not make claim to

statistical generalisability, it uses comparative case analysis to improve analytic

generalisability, as well as to improve both particularity and transferability of results.

Multiple-case-study analysis allows ‘replication logic’ to occur (Yin, 2003) which

treats the collective cases as a succession of independent case-studies, in order to

confirm or disconfirm emergent findings and bolsters external validity (Yin, 2003).

This methodological approach assists researchers in perceiving patterns more easily

and helps to eliminate chance associations (Eisenhardt, 1989).

While the growth of dual case-studies for comparative purpose is growing in

popularity (Miles & Huberman, 1994), it appears to be most commonly used in a

sequential fashion (Greenwood, Hinings, & Brown, 1994; Lamonthe & Langley,

2001; Lewis, 2000b; Stewart & Kringas, 2003). Few researchers have conducted

comparative case-studies simultaneously or made explicit in their methodology the

order in which the case-study research was conducted. One of the few studies that did

was the research undertaken by Bamford and Forrester (2003) which tracked multiple

change initiatives across two sites with an UK manufacturing company. Within this

thesis, staggering the two case-studies over time allowed for testing of findings and

emergent theory from the first case-study within the second case-study in real time,

rather than retrospectively (Frahm & Brown, 2004a).

While Dawson (2003) suggests that within processual research a single case-study is

significant, the use of more than one case allows for testing of emergent theoretical

insights, and for improving the operational aspects of the case-study. The lessons

learnt from previous stages of the study could be introduced to subsequent stages in

order to improve knowledge development. Chapter Six will demonstrate that the

92

learning derived from the cross-case analysis contributed to a much richer

understanding of the change processes. Conducting two case-studies concurrently

presents very real time demands and cannot be managed in short time frames. Thus a

longitudinal design is required to provide enough time to conduct the research,

observe, report and test emergent theoretical insights. In summary, the use of

concurrent and comparative case-study design was novel, eliciting opportunities to

test earlier findings. The rigour of the study was strengthened by using multiple

methods, and usefulness (Weick, 1989) resulted from investigating the impact of

change communication on change receptivity within context of continuous change in

two cases over time.

Development of Longitudinal Design

The design is both longitudinal and interpretive, as it takes into account the research

subjects’ interpretation of change communication and continuous change, and the two

case-studies span the period 2002-2004. The longitudinal design allows for the

changes in change communication and the change receptivity to be observed over

time, and draws attention to the triggers or drivers of change within the process of

continuous change subject of interest (Yin, 2003). Van de Ven and Huber (1990)

argue an appreciation of the dynamics of organisational life is not afforded by static

data collection methods. This assertion establishes a mandate to examine

organisational change over time. The research purpose is to understand how change

communication contributes to change receptivity in the context of continuous change.

It is imperative to use a longitudinal case design in order to study the communication

processes implicit in continuous change, and to be able to explain the observed

sequences of events as they occur over time.

93

Dawson (2003) explains longitudinal research may refer to many different types of

study such as quantitative studies that seek to identify the temporal relationship

between two variables, cohort studies from which general trends can be identified,

and the processual accounts. This research identifies with the latter and is depicted in

the following diagram (Figure 3.1). The longitudinal element of the study is illustrated

with the time-frame on the left side. The arrows in the diagram show how successive

iterations of data collection inform the analysis, and then that analysis then informs

the next data collection. The diagram also depicts how the staggering of the two case-

studies enabled the researcher to use the findings from case-study one to inform the

data collection and analysis and conduct cross-case analysis. The analysis from the

first 14 months in the first case-study, Tech D, was used to inform the planning of the

second case-study, and to improve both the operational aspects and analytical inquiry.

By August 2003, it was possible to revisit some of the issues emerging from the

second case, Highsales, within Tech D. Thus, not only did the experience from the

first case inform the data collection within the second case, the experience from the

second case also informed the latter stage of research within the first case.

Both cases began with a quantitative study to establish baseline data on openness to

change, and organisational demographics. The first research stage was then followed

up by a round of focus groups, and ethnographic observation. This sequence was

repeated until the final survey and focus group. The Tech D case-study started in

January 2002 and by the time access was permitted with the second case-study, a

working model of the first 14 months findings had been developed. This lag effect

provided opportunities within the second case to test applicability and seek

disconfirming evidence about the initial findings. The findings of the second study

provided opportunity to revisit issues within the first case-study, and seek

94

explanations of absence of confirmatory evidence and strengthen the developing

framework through recursive scrutiny (Barley, 1986; Ragin, 1987).

Figure 3.1 Process Map of the Comparative Case-study Process

Jan 02

Feb 02

Mar 02

Apr 02

May 02

Jun 02

Aug 02

Jul 02

Aug 02

Sep 02

Oct 02

Nov 02

Dec 02

Jan 03

Feb 03

Mar 03

Apr 03

May 03

Jun 03

Jul 03

Aug 03

Sep 03

Oct 03

Nov 03

Dec 03

Jan 04

Feb 04

Mar 04

Apr 04

May 04

Jun 04

Jul 04

Tech D Highsales

Survey

Survey

Survey

Survey

Survey

5 x Focus Groups

4 x Focus Groups

4 x Focus Groups

4 x Focus Groups

4 x Focus Groups

Analysis & report informs focus groups

Analysis & report to all staff

Participant Observation

& Document analysis

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


Participant Observation

& Document analysis

(PO)

Analysis & report to all staff

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


PO & Document analysis

PO & Document analysis

Analysis

Analysis

Analysis

Analysis

Analysis

Cross case analysis

4 x Focus Groups

Survey

95

This design links the quantitative and qualitative data as a Type 2 study (Miles &

Huberman, 1994, p.41). This type of study presents a multi-wave survey conducted in

parallel with the fieldwork. The first survey draws attention to issues the fieldworker

may address in the qualitative studies, and indeed may lead to revisions of the second-

wave quantitative study. The overlapping of these studies allows for the iterative

interrogation between data collection and analysis that occurs within theory

development. The next section elaborates on the decisions made with regard to

sampling and selection of data sources by making the decision making process

explicit and justifying the choices made.

Sampling and Data Sources

Selection of Research Sites

When designing an inductive research design, researchers are faced with decisions

based on sampling strategy and case selection. Convention suggests that cases should

be purposive and theoretically useful (Patton, 1990). Yet, within this directive,

tensions exist in terms of case selection such as the trade-offs associated with decision

making(Curtis, Gesler, Smith, & Washburn, 1999). Dion (1998) provides a qualified

defence for selecting cases on the illustrative properties of the dependent variable

(change receptivity). Change receptivity is a dynamic process and is constantly

negotiated (Cochran et al., 2002; Huy, 1999; Newton, Graham, McLoughlin, &

Moore, 2003). Every organisation has members who experience differing levels of

receptivity, and this reduces the attraction as a selection criteria for case-study, as the

opportunities for maximum variation sampling (Patton, 1990) are diminished.

Pettigrew (1988, in Eisenhardt, 1989, p.537) suggests selecting cases in which the

process of interest is ‘transparently observable’. The strong recognition of

96

communication as a key element of organisational change (Kanter et al., 1992a;

Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979) suggests that every organisation undergoing change

should provide ample opportunity to witness the communication processes. However,

surveys of change agents suggest that change communication is difficult, even when

the change agents know the best practice principles of change communication

(Buchanan et al., 1999; Doyle et al., 2000). Thus, finding transparently observable

processes of change communication may not be so easy, and increases the difficulty

in identifying an organisation by its change communication processes. By focusing on

organisations that have a known formal change communication plan, the research

engages with a very select and unique body, one that perhaps is not representative of

the difficulties and complexities identified by managers (Buchanan et al., 1999). Thus,

the sample selection decision-making process rejected identification of organisations

based on change receptivity and change communication. The search for ‘good

subjects’ also presents practical considerations such as access to case-study

organisations and researcher reciprocity (Johnson, Duberly, Close, & Cassell, 1999).

However, Becker (1998, p.87) urges the reader to ‘identify the case that is most likely

to upset your thinking and look for it’. Strauss and Corbin (1998) remind us that

knowledge is often linked with time and place. The current focus on continuous

change presents a case that is most likely to upset our thinking, and anchor the

theoretical constructs of change receptivity and change communication in time and

place. Ultimately, using continuous change as the criteria for sampling strategy

satisfies the logic of sufficient and necessary conditions (Ragin, 1987). While cases of

change communication and /or cases of change receptivity are sufficient, those that

exist within continuous change contexts are necessary for comparative analysis. Not

only is there a lack of empirical work on continuous change, it appears that the

97

concept of such limits the application of existing models of change communication

such as top-down visionary statements, education and participation.

Therefore, to be theoretically purposive (Patton, 1990) and to determine what would

be an appropriate organisation to study, a list of characteristics was drawn from the

literature on continuous change. The continuous change literature reveals three

themes; innovation, learning and public sector change (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997;

Buchanan et al., 1999; Hazlett & Hill, 2000; Miner et al., 2001; Sitkin et al., 1998).

Underlying these three themes, there is an implied emphasis on the employees being

responsible for the continued evolution and success of the firm. However, it is clear

from Chapter 2 that the existing research on public sector organisations has largely

neglected the crucial aspects of communication. This neglect creates a research

imperative to address. Thus, the two organisations were selected based on a Weberian

(1949) ‘ideal type’ developed from the literature. Both organisations were government

funded, and under ‘increasing pressure to do more with less and become more

flexible’ (Zorn et al., 2000). There were also issues of public sector / private sector

receptivity, such as when a public sector organisation needs to change to a private

sector orientation (Parker & Bradley, 2000). Structurally, both organisations presented

as similar cases with around 70 employees and four functional divisions.

Accordingly, the first organisation approached was a public sector technology

diffusion agent, with a CEO intent on creating a learning organisation and

commercialising divisions of the business. The selection of the second site occurred as

the result of the first CEO’s recommendation and personal contacts, six months into

the first study. This case presented as a business unit of a comparable size to the first

case-study within a large public sector organisation also measured on private sector

98

metrics such as gross margin, profitability, and service Key Performance Indicators’

(KPIs). The willingness of both organisations to accommodate a researcher on site for

a period of one to two years was also a major factor in the decision. On initial

investigation, it appeared that there were considerable similarities within the cases for

replication logic to be used. The following table illustrates the similarities.

Table 3.1 Comparative Case Similarities

Similarities Tech D Highsales

Timeline February 2002 – February 2004 June 2003 – June 2004

Size Started with 74 employees 4 departments

Started with 72 employees 4 departments

Continuous change rationale

Government pressure to privatise, commercialise CEO’s intent to create a learning organisation.

Has already undergone commercialisation focus. Continued market reform, and creating new markets.

Type of employees

Technology focus Dominated by engineers, public sector background.

Retail focus. Business unit dominated by marketing retail employees, public sector background

Types of cumulative change

Restructure Downsizing Culture change Business process improvement

Restructure Downsizing Culture change Business process improvement

Tech D is a public sector organisation chartered with technology diffusion. The new

CEO has stated that he aims to achieve a ‘continuously changing, a learning

organisation of the Senge [CEO’s reference to ‘The Fifth Discipline by Peter Senge,

1990] type’. Starting with 74 employees, the occupations of staff ranged from foundry

workers and engineers to model finishers and business consultants.

The organisation is operating under seemingly volatile conditions, subject to political

change, both in terms of state and federal budgetary decision-making as well as

technological obsolescence. The case-study organisation’s charter requires it to source

high capital cost, new technology, in order to facilitate uptake within state and

99

national firms in the manufacturing sector. This means that they operate within the

boundaries of ‘market failure’ servicing Small to Medium Enterprises (SMEs) that are

not developed enough to afford state of the art technology. The CEO is under

considerable pressure from the key financial stakeholder, a state government

department. The firm is undergoing a directed change effort. Some of the changes

introduced over the 24 months studied include: a commercialisation focus, team

working, organisational restructure, downsizing, culture change, continuous

improvement, 360-degree feedback, spinning-off a business unit, introduction of a

new Customer Relationship Management System (CRMS) and introduction of new

financial reporting arrangements. Given the turbulent environment in which the

organisation is situated, the CEO is adopting an emergent approach to the change

plans; – the change effort is being adapted as new information is presented.

Highsales is a three year old business unit, within the Retail division of United

Utilities, a large public sector organisation concerned with provision of utility

services. Highsales focuses on selling a range of home products through their sales

call centre, and contracts to six licensees to undertake the installation of the products.

Originally Highsales was managed by an entrepreneurial marketing manager who

initiated the venture. After three years of declining profits, the CEO of Utilities United

introduced a new manager whose mandate was to halt the losses, improve gross

margin, and in so doing, turn the business around within the next 12 months. This

manager brought an external consultant in to assist in this venture. At four months

into the initiative, the new Highsales manager was informed that he had succeeded in

arresting financial decline, and was now responsible for an ambitious growth target.

Three months later, the manager was seconded to an urgent transformational project

of the parent company and one of the middle managers was promoted to the new

100

position. Some of the changes introduced over the 12 months include business process

re-engineering, new product introduction, performance management and culture

change.

Accordingly as illustrated in Table 3.1, both cases shared a number of similarities,

being size, structural orientation, change goals, and public sector orientation. The

main difference that occurred was the type of business (eg retail versus service

provision) and the way the change process was managed.

Sampling within case.

On entry to a research setting, further decisions need to be made regarding the

sampling strategy. Within this study, the decision on whom to sample primarily

concerned the data collection from surveys and focus groups. In establishing the

boundaries for the focus group data collection, a purposive sampling strategy (Patton,

1990) was used. Participation in the focus groups was voluntary, and the number of

focus groups was determined by the number of dominant functional groups. Selection

of participants was weighted by the considerations of how accessible and agreeable

each participant was, and the vertical representation within the organisation. For

example, within one of the functional groups in Highsales the employees were

represented in a number of positions, and rather than overweight the focus group with

all of the employees at one level, representative stratified sampling was used to ensure

that someone from each position was represented. Highsales was also stratified in

terms of employment status (casuals, contractors, and permanent) and this was taken

into account in focus group participation. Direct reports (or line supervisors) were

excluded from the focus groups in order for the participants to feel free to discuss all

issues without censure. It was considered better to select participants who were

101

willing to participate than to interview someone either reluctant or hostile. Despite

this, the reality of conducting focus groups with voluntary participants in a time

pressured context, and within environments that were downsizing meant that some of

the focus groups did not achieve optimum size (6-10) participants (MacIntosh, 1981).

However, Kitzinger (1995) and Hollander (2004) acknowledge that focus groups may

exist with as few as four participants, and there was sufficient synergy generated out

of the conversations within smaller groups to include their discussions.

As the research population was small and therefore easily manageable, it was decided to

conduct a census sampling strategy for the questionnaire which obtains the responses of

the whole population (Vogt, 1999; Zikmund, 1997). The census sampling strategy was

necessary to maximise response rates for the surveys. Likewise, the small size of the

research population meant that the overall population of the organisations was considered

in the ethnographic observation stages. Having access to all of the common areas and

permission to join any meeting allowed for opportunities to participate in all of the

organisational activities.

Data Collection

As noted by Yin (2003), the quality of case-study research is enhanced by multiple

methods of data collection. The methods used in data collection in this research

project were focus groups, ethnographic observation, and surveys. First the

operational issues are described and then the justification for the use of the data

collection method made explicit.

102

Methods Tech D Focus groups

Requests for participation in the focus groups were directed to the team / department

meetings, and a contact staff member was responsible for organising final numbers.

During April and May 2002, five focus groups were conducted. A total of 28 staff

members participated (40% of the organisation) with the smallest focus group

consisting of two participants and the largest involving nine, and covered the major

work divisions in the organisation. Prior to participating each member was provided

with a confidentiality statement (see Appendix 2). This statement assured the

participants of the confidentiality of their responses. Their names and identifying

statements were excluded from any reports derived from the research. The duration of

each focus group varied from 45 minutes to 90 minutes, and the focus groups were

conducted in a meeting room on site. All but one focus group were audio-taped and

transcribed before analysis. One focus group had a follow-up meeting with the CEO

the next day and the group used the main findings and the preliminary analysis as an

agenda for the meeting. This approach enabled the researcher to confirm and further

clarify points in the meeting with the CEO. The remainder of the participants were

provided with a research summary page of their focus group discussion, to ensure an

accurate representation of the focus group’s dialogue. All groups agreed with the

representations.

In order to keep track of the organisational change process over time, the focus groups

were then repeated during March 2003 (n =20, 44% of organisation) and February

2004 (n = 22, 60% of organisation). Owing to a subsequent restructure, and

downsizing that occurred during the previous 12 months, by the time the next round

103

of focus groups was due, only four functional groups remained. Thus four focus

groups were conducted, with a total of 20 staff members involved. After each focus

group, the analysis was written up as an interpretive matrix complete with segments

of the transcripts that provided illustrations of the codes. These were then provided to

the group to assess accuracy of the interpretation, and guard against inadvertent

exposure about issues sensitive to the individual participants. The continued

presentation of the researcher’s interpretation of what was discussed for member

feedback was a fundamental mechanism in ensuring quality of the interpretive

research.

While Miles and Huberman (1994) do not advocate that substantial instrumentation is

required when conducting inductive research, it was necessary to develop a guiding

framework in order to set parameters to avoid ‘scope creep’ of the research, and avoid

being overwhelmed with data and superfluous information. Four main questions were

used to elicit the group’s understanding of what type of change was occurring, how

employees felt about that, and how they believed the communication of change was

being handled. Additionally, as there is a lack of empirical study on ‘continuous

change’, and the emphasis of senior management on the concept, it was necessary to

obtain the perceptions of the work groups about continuous change. This approach

would enable management to have a better understanding of the impact of their

change initiatives as well as provide a clearer understanding of what ‘continuous

change’ is. The interview protocol can be found in Appendix 3. The four key

questions remain consistent in all rounds; however the prior analyses of the

ethnographic observation data, the surveys and the previous focus group enabled the

researcher to probe in different directions during the subsequent round(s) of focus

group.

104

After the interpretative summaries were signed off by the focus group participants, a

research report including aggregated findings was prepared for Tech D. The report

was released on the intranet and copies were provided in the tea room. This protocol

provided the employees with the opportunity to alert the researcher to contradicting

interpretations. While much of the qualitative literature suggests that transcripts

should be returned (Morse, 1999; Munford & Sanders, 2000) the justification for

doing so is in establishing reciprocity within the research setting. Returning the

transcripts does not allow the researcher to test or confirm the findings and address

the truth value (Marshall & Rossman, 1999) of the interpretation. By returning the

interpretive summaries to the participants, the researcher can test for agreement on a

higher level of inference. It also acts as a reflective device which generates further

discussion.

Tech D Survey

Very few studies have gathered empirical data on changes in critical attitudes before

and after an organisational change effort has been initiated (Weber & Weber, 2001).

In particular, it is noted that studies often neglect the pre-implementation phase (Jones

et al., 2002), where employee attitudes and perceptions may play an important role in

determining the successful transition of change, and measure change perceptions after

the change has taken place. For this reason, and in order to test the hypothesis, data

measuring change receptivity was collected throughout the change process within

both organisations as illustrated in figure 3.1.

Survey Administration

The questionnaires were administered to all organisational members not on leave, and

with the exception of the CEO, 69 questionnaires were administered. Each

105

questionnaire was attached to a self-addressed reply paid envelope and the response

rate was 44 (64%). Employees were asked to return the survey directly to the

researcher. Additionally, they were informed that no individual would be identifiable

in the results, and that participation was voluntary and they could withdraw at any

stage during the research. They were also told that it was the first of three surveys,

and that the summary results would be fed back to them after analysis. Employees

were reminded to complete the questionnaire by a follow-up email a week later, and at

a whole-of-staff meeting the following week.

This process was repeated in April, 2003. This time the questionnaire was provided to 52

staff with a response rate of 29 (55%). The second and third surveys contained an

additional item on Perception of Change Communication to allow for testing of

Hypothesis 2. Prior to survey distribution, the CEO introduced the researcher to the

organisation at team meetings, and followed up with an email encouraging participation

in the research.

In order to address content validity of the questionnaire, the items were pre-tested by

one manager, a lower-level employee, and with a colleague external to the case. The

manager inside the organisation recommended some wording changes in the item

scale to improve understanding of the questions. These recommendations were

adopted in the final version of the survey. The colleague external to the case was able

to complete the survey without difficulty. Negative worded items were reverse coded

prior to the analysis. The final survey was administered in February, 2004. By this

stage the organisation had undergone significant staff changes, and so the final

response rate was 55% (n=19). The next section details the operational issues of the

ethnographic observation study within Tech D.

106

Tech D Observation

Throughout the two change processes, the researcher adopted the dual role of active

participant and observer of activities (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1983; Spradley,

1980). In Tech D, the researcher participated in the change team meetings, was

present at the management meetings, and attended team meetings. It was common for

the CEO to introduce the researcher to visitors as his ‘academic mentor’ and to use the

researcher as a sounding board and reflective counsel. On the days the researcher was

on site, there was use of ‘hot desking’ spaces, as desk space was of a premium. This

provided the opportunity to experience many different views of the organisation

through chatting with ‘neighbours’. During the meetings it was commonplace for

participants to have notepads and be taking notes, so the researcher was free to write

down statements verbatim concerning change communication, without making the

participants conscious of being recorded. This approach was more difficult in the

informal settings such as the tea room, or chats in the corridor, and so the researcher

would often make excuses to disappear and quietly note what had been said regarding

change communication and change receptivity.

The CEO used the researcher to assist in strategic level planning and evaluative

exercises, and when on site the researcher would assist the technology diffusion team

in their strategic planning activities. As part of the ethnographic observation activities,

the researcher had access to the email system, intranet and organisational documents

such agendas, meeting minutes and memos. This process allowed for the cross-

matching of organisational events with observed reactions towards change.

Highsales Focus groups

During July and August 2003, four focus groups were conducted. A total of 21 staff

107

members participated (38% of the organisation) with the smallest focus group

consisting of three participants and the largest involving eight, and covered the four

departments in the organisation. Like the procedures in Tech D, managers were

excluded from the focus groups in order to enable people to participate in full and

frank discussion about the change issues. The duration of each focus group varied

from 45 minutes to 70 minutes, and the focus groups were conducted in meeting

rooms on site. All focus groups were audio-taped and transcribed before analysis. One

focus group was delayed owing to a difficulty in organising focus group composition.

The group’s team leader was demonstrating resistance to both the changes and the

focus group and resigned during the first four weeks of the field study. This focus

group was delayed six weeks to allow for the new team to settle.

Again, after the tapes were transcribed, interpretive summaries were presented back

to all of the participants. All groups agreed with the representations, with one

participant asking for a quote to be deleted as it may have identified her. This process

was repeated during February 2004 (n= 20, 30% of the organisation), and later in July

2004 (n = 16, 32% of the organisation). The existence of Scheduled Days Off (SDOs)

and reduction of permanent workers made it increasingly difficult to acquire larger

numbers within the focus groups.

The same four questions used in Tech D were used in Highsales in order to bolster the

replication logic across the cases; however the probe questions differed depending on

the emergent ideas from the first case. By the time the focus groups were being

conducted in the Highsales, the researcher had the benefit of the knowledge of what

happened in the first case-study and so was able to test emergent ideas from Tech D

within Highsales. Once the focus group participants signed off the interpretative

108

summaries, the researcher provided a verbal report to all the team briefs on the

aggregated findings. The responses from these briefings provided opportunity to

check on the validity of the analysis, and the confirmatory responses and continuing

interest from the participants suggest that the research interpretation was both

plausible and representative of the subjects’ understanding of their experiences.

Highsales Survey

The same process was followed on entry to Highsales. An email from the manager of

the business unit was distributed to all staff asking for co-operation, and the internal

newsletter featured a segment on the research. The survey was sent to 53 employees

with a response rate of 66% (n=35). Again in order to address content validity of the

questionnaire, the items were pre-tested within the organisation by two employees.

The employees inside the organisation recommended some wording changes in the

item scale to improve understanding of the questions. These recommendations were

adopted in the final version of the survey and thus construct validity enhanced (Yin,

2003).

This survey was repeated in January 2004, (64% response rate, n=33) and in July

2004 (response rate 54%, n = 27). On both occasions, repeated reminders were sent

using the email system. By the second wave, participants had commented on the

wastefulness of stamps and envelopes in using the mail-back envelopes. It was agreed

to use the internal envelopes. The researcher attached one to each survey with her

name on the internal envelope. The staff member responsible for collecting the

internal mail to be distributed to the internal mail department was alerted to hold all

envelopes addressed to the researcher. This approach appeared to work well. While

mail-out surveys are usually characterised by low response rates (Sekaran, 1992;

109

Zikmund, 1997), within Tech D the responses ranged over the three years from 54%

to 64%, and within Highsales the response range was 55% to 65%. The higher rate of

returns may be attributed to the beneficial effects of the increased rapport driven by

the ethnographic observation activity.

Highsales Observation

In Highsales, the researcher worked within the process improvement team and was

involved with creating process maps, and documenting changes in the business

processes. The researcher also participated in call monitoring of the sales center,

creating communiqués and training material for the change consultant, ‘spiked calls’

(took messages from the call centre queue), participated in the management meetings,

and facilitated the employee improvement team. Again, desk space was at a premium,

so the researcher was nomadic, and this provided greater access to the employees in

natural settings. Having possessed a background in retail and marketing, the

researcher was able to undertake more activity within the second case-study. The

additional activity may also be attributed to increased comfort with the research

procedures after having already spent 18 months within Tech D. The previous

experience and developed understanding of the research question ameliorated

concerns of ‘am I capturing enough data or the right data’. Working concurrently

within two organisations also allowed for a continual refreshing of the cognitive state

of the researcher and served as a daily ‘reality check’. Swapping organisational ‘hats’

acted as a deterrent to complete immersion, and the analysis being compromised by

subjectivity.

110

Measures

As noted in Chapter 2, it was difficult to find a specific receptivity to change survey

instrument within the literature. Thus, this survey utilised two dimensions – change

openness and change readiness (as measured by capacity to change) within the

quantitative studies. Within the survey instrument three variables were measured: 1)

Perception of organisational capacity to change, 2) Openness to change, and 3)

Perception of change communication. These shall now be described.

Perception of Organisational Capacity to Change. There is a body of literature that

suggests successful change implementation may be dependent on a work environment

that reflects innovative practice (Zammuto & O'Connor, 1992). Perception of

organisational capacity to change was assessed using a set of items adapted from

Gordon and Cummings (1979). The 4-item questionnaire measured employees’

perceptions of organisational capacity to change using a 5- point Likert scale (1 =

never, 5 = always) and the questions can be found in Appendix 7. Question one asked

whether senior management responded to new opportunities. Question Two asked

whether the respondent considered the organisation ‘a leader’ comparative to other

organisations. The senior management within Tech D perceived that this question

would be ambiguous as the employees would differ on their understanding of what

‘leadership’ meant. Thus it was adapted to included ‘Comparative to other

organisations is Tech D a leader in a) technology diffusion, b) in business processes,

and c) in adopting emerging technologies. Question Three examined the

organisation’s ability to respond to changes in funding and Question Four asked

whether the senior management team’s decisions were innovative.

111

Openness to Change. As one of the goals of the research is to measure change

receptivity over time, it was necessary to capture the data about receptivity to change.

Openness to Change was assessed using a set of items adapted from Klecker and

Loadman’s (1999) study measuring Principal’s Openness to Change. This scale was

originally adapted from Dunham et al.’s (1989) Inventory of Change in

Organisational Culture.

The 18-item questionnaire measured respondents’ attitudes to change with a 5-point

Likert scale (1=strongly disagree; 5=strongly agree) in response to a hypothetical

vignette. The adaptation involved developing a new vignetter specific to the case

studies. The vignette was developed in conjunction with the CEO of Tech D, and the

Manager of Highsales to describe the change priorities over the next six months and

can be found in Appendix 4. This approach was taken by Huang (1993) and then

replicated in Klecker and Loadman, (2000). In Dunham et al.’s (1989) original study

using the Inventory of Change in Organisational Culture measure, the principal axis

factor analysis revealed three factors, (affective, cognitive, and behavioural reaction to

change) each with six items. The three factor scales used by Klecker and Loadman

(1999) incorporating the adaptations used in this study are reported in appendix 1.

Factor 1 items measure affective reactions to change, factor 2 items measure cognitive

responses to change, and factor 3 items measure the respondent’s behavioural

intentions to change (Klecker & Loadman, 1999). Klecker and Loadman (1999)

assessed the reliability of the measures by using Cronbach’s (1951) alpha coefficient,

and all subscales used in their research were considered to have adequate internal

consistency (.82-.92). The reliability coefficients of each of the factors of change

112

receptivity scale within this study utilising Cronbach’s (1951) alpha was .65

(affective), .74 (cognitive), and .90 (behavioural).

However, as noted in Chapter Two, doubt is cast on the justification for the three

factors. In this study, the 18 items were subjected to an exploratory factor analysis.

The extraction method of principal axis factoring and an orthogonal (Varimax)

rotation was employed on the combined samples of returned surveys (Tech D n = 95;

Highsales n = 92).

Within Highsales, the initial number of factors extracted was five, determined by the

number of eigenvalues greater than one and they accounted for 77.5% of the variance.

However, 42.9% of the variance loaded on one factor (eigenvalue 7.72), and

subsequently all 18 items were averaged as the one factor (Appendix 5).

Using the same process with the Tech D data, three factors were extracted that

accounted for 65% of the variance. One factor accounted for 49.2% of the variance

(eigenvalues 8.86, Appendix 6). Subsequent analyses using openness to change used

an averaged mean of the 18 items, rather than the three factors noted in Klecker and

Loadman’ (1999) work.

Perception of Change Communication was assessed using a set of items developed for

this study from the deductive theoretical frames (monologic and dialogic change

communication) and can be found in Appendix 8. The 5-item questionnaire evaluated

characteristics of dialogic and monologic change communication. Monologic change

communication was assessed using two items, one question on top-down

communication, and another on the instrumental use of communication (Eisenberg et

al., 1999). The dialogic change communication was assessed both at peer level and

113

supervisory level on questions about listening and respect. The reliabilities of the

three scales described thus far are presented in Table 3.2 and 3.3.

Table 3.2 Tech D Reliabilities

Variable January 2002 January 2003 January 2004

Openness to change (OC) a =.92 a =.95 a =.84

Perception of organisations capacity to change (POCC)

a =.85 a =.81 a =.89

Dialogic change Communication (MEANDIAL)

Not available2 a =.72 a =.59

Table 3.3 Highsales Reliabilities

Variable June 2003 January 2004 July 2004

Openness to change (OC) a =.84 a =.90 a =.89

Perception of organisation’s capacity to change (POCC)

Not available * Not available Not available

Mean dialogic (MEANDIAL) a =.76 a =.67 a =.67 * Management declined permission to include this question

The scale for monologic change communication consisted of two items, (instrumental

communication and top-down communication). As neither of these items correlated,

the analysis occurred at item level. Finally, demographic information was collected in

relation to age, tenure, and gender and is presented in Table 3.4.

Table 3.4 Demographics of the Two Case-Studies (Range in Brackets)

Demographics Tech D

T1 T2 T3

Mean age 34.5 (23-59) 35.2 (24 – 58) 34.2 (20 – 56)

Mean tenure 3.13 (.25-10) 4.14 (.30 – 12) 3.95 (.50 – 14)

Gender

8 female, 34 male 6 female, 22 male 4 female, 12 male

2 This construct emerged from the first focus group and could be integrated into the Time 2 &

3 surveys

114

Demographics Highsales

T1 T2 T3

Mean age 32.80 (20-49) 31.10 (21-49) 33.28 (20-50)

Mean tenure 2.30 (.25 -13) 2.19 (.40 – 5.5) 1.98 (.10 – 6)

Gender 18 female, 17 male 15 female, 17 male 8 female, 16 male

Rationale

Now that the method procedures have been established, this section examines the

reasons for using the methods chosen. It is common to use in-depth interviewing and

participant observation in conducting process research (Dawson, 2003); however this

study replaces in-depth interviewing with focus groups and supplements the study

with surveys. The rationale for these choices will now be made explicit.

There were a number of reasons for choosing to undertake focus groups within this

study. The primary consideration was obtaining rich data necessary in answering the

research questions and the research aims. Focus groups provide the opportunity to

observe the interaction of the specific working groups (Morgan, 1997) and

additionally, offers an indication of the dialogic processes in action. One of the

hallmarks of process based research is the exposure of the multiple perspectives, and

certainly scholars have argued to diminish the one-dimensional aspect of change

receptivity (Piderit, 2000). The use of focus groups enabled the collection of several

perspectives about the same topic and highlights the communicative dimensions of

change. As Chapter Two notes, there has been very little research on change

receptivity at a group level, and the transcripts from the focus groups provided

opportunities to scrutinise pronoun usage (‘we’ talk as opposed to ‘I’ talk).

Additionally, focus groups allow the interviewees to be more in control and gives the

participants the opportunity to comment on what they feel is most important rather

than being prompted by the interviewer (Krueger, 1994), and this approach improves

115

the rigour of the study. Finally, the use of focus groups allows for the efficient

collection of greater quantities of rich data. The quality of such data is aided in this

case by conducting the focus groups in the employees' environment (Morgan, 1997),

and the necessity of rich data for theory construction has already been expounded.

From a pragmatic perspective, the use of focus groups was necessary. In Tech D,

many of the staff were involved in external consulting or project work; logistically,

the co-ordination of individual interviews would have been time intensive, and

impractical. The use of focus groups contributed to a more open sharing of

information, as in both cases they had their friends and colleagues around them and

interacted naturally with each other, as opposed to being conscious of the researcher

in a one-on-one interaction.

Ethnographic Observation

In this study, the researcher was an ‘overt’ ethnographic observant in both cases. All

of the employees were aware of the researcher’s status, and the nature of the research.

Data collected by ethnographic observation answers the research questions by

anchoring findings to observed or documented behaviour in context, as opposed to

general statements of attitude (Pettigrew, 1992) and assisted in identifying crucial

communicative implications of continuous change. In this way, the researcher was

able to search for incongruence between the ‘official story’ told in the focus group

and the ‘unofficial way’ (for example scrutiny of emails within the ethnographic

observation stages). With participant observation the researcher is immersed in the

experience, collapsing the traditional separation between subject and object of study

(Yin, 2003). In both case-studies, the researcher was provided unfettered access to the

organisations and was present at both formal and informal meetings, in order to study

116

the prevailing cultural symbols and artefacts such as organisational documents. Such

access allows for the improvement of internal validity through triangulation of data

between the interviews, focus groups, formal correspondence, internally conducted

surveys and observations. This type of ethnographic observation has elements of the

ethnographic tradition and this ensures the capture of the rich data required for new

theory construction.

Not only did the ethnographic observation provide data from which the research

questions could be answered, it also accelerated the rapport building necessary for the

conducting of the focus groups. For example, as a socialised participant of the second

case organisation, the researcher knew that ‘important meetings’ were signified by the

quality of food provided. Hence, it was imperative to provide enticing food (for

example, pizza, and muffins) to establish the importance of attending the focus

groups. However, the provision of food would have been incongruent with the

cultural norms of the first case-study, as adherence to time and schedules was a more

important organisational cultural value than eating in meetings.

The primary concern in regard to such close association within a case is the potential

for capture or ‘going native’ (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1983), where the researcher

becomes so immersed in the research setting that they are unable to provide any level

of objectivity in both reporting and analysis. The secondary concern is the ethical

considerations of observing individual behaviour. However, as noted earlier, working

in the two organisations concurrently (eg Mondays Tech D, Tuesdays, Highsales)

allowed for daily refreshment of the mental state. Further efforts were made to

minimise this concern through the recording of chronologically ordered field notes

and the keeping of a research diary to maintain objectivity. Additionally, like others

before (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991), the involvement of experienced researchers

117

external to the study (such as the supervisory team) as detached investigators assisted

the researcher with regard to issues of objectivity and provided a method of

overcoming such threats to validity. Ethical concerns were addressed through

informing staff within the work area of the aims of the research. The research had

approval from the QUT Research Ethics Committee. So while the ethnographic

observation work was deeply time intensive, and subject to potential capture, it was

also rewarding in important rapport building, the search for incongruence and

convergence amongst multiple data, and rich data on change processes.

Organisational Surveys

As already noted, few studies have gathered empirical data on changes in critical

attitudes before and after an organisation change effort has been initiated (Weber &

Weber, 2001). For this reason it was determined that data could be collected to

measure change receptivity over the process of change and provide ‘temporal

bracketing’(Langley, 1999). This strategy assisted in cross-comparative analysis.

These data collection points (Time 1, Time 2 & Time 3) created a temporal boundary

to contain the other data collected. One of the main strengths of using surveys is that

information can be gathered about what people are thinking, with less effort and

expense than many other data collection methods (Sekaran, 1992). The benefits of a

self-administered questionnaire are that these are easily distributed to large numbers,

and they also allow anonymity, which in turn indicates a more valid data set.

Data Analysis In order to organise the data, the data was collated in an in-depth narrative for each

case. A narrative uses the raw data to construct a detailed story (Langley, 1999) and

often provides context for the analysis (Pettigrew, 1985). The in-depth narrative is

118

high in accuracy, but usually used as an intermediate step in developing analysis. In

order to assist in cross-case and within-case comparison and analysis the quantitative

data points were used as temporal brackets. The temporal brackets provided a

structure to the process data, which was useful, both in being able to compare phases

of the change, but also to report back to the organisations. The next section expounds

the analytical tactics used with each data collection activity.

Procedures

In keeping with the alternate templates strategy (Langley, 1999), following

transcription of audio tapes, the focus group discussions were analyzed through the

use of deductive first order and second order codes and emergent codes, and reflective

comments (Miles & Huberman, 1994). As all the coding was conducted by the

researcher, there was no need to conduct tests of inter-coder reliability. It was

necessary to test the interpretation of the data with the subjects and this process is

explained further on.

The first order coding occurred by using the key words from the research question

(continuous change, receptivity, and change communication). This technique allowed

the further elaboration on sub codes within these categories. These were displayed

using a matrix with illustrative comments. The second order codes comprised of the

three alternate templates (monologic, dialogic and background talk) used to elaborate

on what was occurring within the change communication. The transcripts were

scrutinised for evidence of monologic change communication and dialogic change

communication (Eisenberg et al, 1999). To analyse the monologic themes, text that

contained themes of ‘top down’, ‘instrumental’, ‘one-way exchange’, concerned with

‘managerial control’, intent on ‘providing stability’, focussed on the ‘provision of

119

information’ were included. These segments of text were underlined with red pen. A

clean printout of the transcripts was then scrutinised for evidence of dialogic change

communication. This process included text that contained themes of ‘relational, rather

than hierarchical’, ‘creating change’, ‘constructing new realities’, ‘two-way’, ‘

concerned with a ‘spirit of inquiry’, intent on producing more change, based on

principles of ‘risk’, ‘vulnerability’, ‘empathy’, and ‘conflict’. These pieces of text

were underlined and highlighted in green pen.

Early analysis of the Tech D transcripts revealed little in the way of either green or

red coding, and therefore a ‘surfacing’ code (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) emerged. A

surfacing code identifies new categories within the data. From the communications

perspective one cannot ‘not’ communicate (Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967). In

the absence of monologic and dialogic themes, another communicative process had to

be occurring. This surfacing code was the ‘background talk’ or the dominant frames

of reference within the informal talk occurring in the background. The Background

Talk consisted of the ways that the employees made sense of the change in light of

little monologic and dialogic change communication. This became the third Alternate

Template following Langley’s (1999) strategy. Accordingly, another clean printout

was produced to analyse in terms of what were the dominant frames of reference in

use for the change process. Codes were developed to label how the participants were

making sense of the changes. Much of this text revealed phrases and close proximity

parsing concerning or prefaced by terms such as ‘grapevine’, ‘gossip’, ‘rumour’, ‘did

you hear’ and ‘somebody said’. This work was conducted with a purple pen. It was

important to work from clean transcripts each time, as the three theoretical frames

were not mutually exclusive, that is, in an interpretive study the same piece of text

may be able to be labelled with multiple codes.

120

Once the three versions were completed, the colour coding was integrated onto the

same document in order to uncover overlaps and clear examples of each template, and

look for relationships. The overlaps provided opportunities to examine ‘disconfirming

evidence’, and further interrogate the data for examples of negative cases and

alternate explanations (Devers, 1999). Again these codes were collated using a matrix.

Within Tech D, the first order matrix was presented back to the focus group

participants for integrity checking, and within Highsales, an interpretive summary was

written that incorporated the information from the first and second order matrices.

Surveys

The survey data was analysed using SPSS after each collection. Descriptives were run

to check for incorrectly entered data, and missing data was coded. One-way ANOVAs

(Stevens, 1996; Vogt, 1999) were conducted to determine the change in the openness

to change, perception of organisation’s capacity to change, dialogic change

communication and monologic change communication between Times 1, 2 and 3

within both organisations. Post Hoc Tukey’s were conducted on the results that

displayed a significant result. Tests of binary correlations were performed to evaluate

the relationship between perception of organisation’s capacity to change and openness

to change, dialogic change communication and openness to change, and monologic

change communication and openness to change.

Ethnographic Observation

The researcher created a table to log the ethnographic observation notes and emails.

The table consisted of three columns: date, data, and label/coding. The label/ coding

column represented a label given to a document collected, or codes based on the

theoretical frames used. The table provided a chronologically ordered log of change

121

communication such as emails, memos, newsletters, discussions, discourse, language

and expressions pertinent to the communication during change at the case-study. The

researcher log was then scrutinised for individual and group level findings, as well as

sweeping through for evidence of communication during change that could be

classified using the three alternate templates. The ethnographic observation phase was

critical as it provided access to non-public documents. Being embedded in the

organisations allowed for observation of the frequency and timing of the

communication of change and experiencing the employees’ responses to the change

communication as it occurred.

Conclusion

This chapter has detailed the research objectives and outlined and explained the

research methodology. The development of the case-study design and the necessity

for longitudinal research was explained and justified. The sampling and data sources

were made explicit to explain how these strategies would yield the best data to answer

the research questions. The data collection procedures and justification for doing so

were detailed. In order to demonstrate the trustworthiness (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) of

the research process, the analytical procedures were expounded.

One of the key aspects of this chapter has been the development of methodological

rigour through the use of multiple methods to enhance the construct validity (Yin,

2003), and the adoption of the ‘Alternate Templates’ strategy (Langley, 1999) in

building process theory, the return of interpretive focus group summaries, and the

concurrent cross- comparative research design to bolster external validity (Yin, 2003).

The last two strategies have seldom been reported, and provide an example of

122

research exemplars when conducting interpretive research, in areas where little is

known.

The next chapter provides an in-depth focus on the analysis from the findings from

the Tech D case-study. It presents a series of narratives that address the contextual

issues of the change process and uses the alternate templates as a framework for

reporting the results. The qualitative studies are integrated with the quantitative

studies in chronological order as illustrated in Figure 3.1.

123

CHAPTER 4

Tech D Findings & Results

Introduction

The previous chapter detailed the methodological approach undertaken in order to

examine how change communication impacts on change receptivity in a continuous

change context. This chapter presents the findings of the first case-study in the format

of eight studies in chronological order of the fieldwork. The succession of individual

studies was previously illustrated in Figure 3.1. Congruent with Dawson’s (2003)

process studies, the case-study is described in order to provide a contextual

perspective. All names within the findings have been changed to preserve

confidentiality of the subjects. Within each time period the survey results are reported

first to establish what happens to openness to change over time and the relationships

between the key variables of change communication, and change receptivity measured

as openness to change. Then, in order to obtain rich data on the processes of change,

the focus groups results are reported. Finally, the findings from the ethnographic

observation study are reported in order to offer data triangulation and alternative

explanations within the case-study. Langley’s (1999) ‘Alternate Templates’ strategy is

used to ground and analyse the qualitative data and thus the findings are reported

using the monologic change communication, dialogic change communication and

background talk of change as organising constructs. This framework will enable the

findings from the second case-study in Chapter Five to be compared with this chapter

in the Discussion chapter (Chapter Six). The next section describes the access to the

124

organisation.

The Case

As noted in Chapter Three, Tech D is a public sector organisation established to assist

in improving SMEs with the introduction of new technology. The researcher began

just after the entry of a new CEO to the organisation. Strongly influenced by Peter

Senge’s (1990) work, the CEO’s explicit goal was to create a learning organisation.

He believed a researcher on site would assist in developing the learning culture and

would be useful in providing feedback in relation to evaluation of the change effort. In

keeping with continuous improvement concepts, the researcher was the ‘check’ part

of the ‘plan – do – check – act’ cycle. The next section reports on the findings from

the first survey, the first round of focus groups and the ethnographic observation

activity within Time 1 (January, 2002 – September, 2002) to elicit information

regarding change communication, change receptivity and the contextual demands of

continuous change

Time 1

Study 1: Survey, January 2002

The first survey was conducted prior to the main change process commencing. There

was a 64% response rate (n = 44) to the survey. The average age of respondents was

35.4 years. The organisation was predominantly male, so the mix of females to males

(8 females, 34 males) was proportionate to the overall population. The respondents

possessed an average tenure of 3.13 years with the company. The means of the key

variables of the study are reported below.

125

Table 4.1 Means of Key Variables at Time 1

Variable Mean SD

1. Openness to change 4.16 .50

2. Perception of organisational capability to change

3.11 .68

3. Dialogic change communication not collected at T1

not collected at T1

4.a. Instrumental change communication not collected at T1

not collected at T1

4. b. Top Down change communication not collected at T1

not collected at T1

Results

Research question five asked what happens to openness to change over time. In order

to answer this, data was collected in order to compare at Time 2 and Time 3. The

survey results indicated a reasonably high openness to change (4.16) at Time 1.

Hypothesis 1 suggested there would be a positive relationship between openness to

change and the perception of organisational change capability. Contrary to previous

literature (Cochran et al., 2002; Weber & Weber, 2001), there was no correlation

between perception of the organisation’s capacity to change and openness to change

(r =.026, p = .860, n =44) and thus no support for Hypothesis 1. As this finding

contradicted previous research, the issue was highlighted as a finding that would need

to be explained in subsequent ethnographic observation activity.

Data was not collected on change communication in this first study as the construct

was not developed until after the first round of focus groups. Thus Hypothesis 2 could

not be tested until the second survey was conducted and reported. The next study

reports on the findings of the focus groups conducted in February 2002.

126

Study 2: Focus groups, February 2002

The first set of focus groups was conducted to ascertain what was occurring

regarding organisational change, the participants’ perspectives on the change

communication and the participants’ feelings about the process. The findings of the

first focus group were initially perplexing for the lack of monologic and dialogic

change communication evident in the transcripts. This result initiated a deeper

analysis to understand what was occurring in the absence of monologic and dialogic

change communication. Further analysis led to the detection of an emergent third

template, the background talk of change. The construct consisted of the different

frames of reference and framing discourses the participants used to make sense of the

change in the absence of monologic and dialogic change communication. This third

template emerged as a critical element of the communicative process and thus was

used in the rest of the research protocol. As noted in Chapter Three, the data was

subjected to thematic analysis using the monologic and dialogic models as deductive

templates, and the background talk as an inductive template. These are now reported

on separately to outline the impact each model had on change receptivity and the

change process.


The monologic themes evident centred primarily on the normative expectations of

monologic change communication and the absence of monologic change

communication. The primary focus of employees’ perceptions of change

communication was what ‘should’ occur with transmission of information. All of the

groups stated that there were insufficient and ineffective formal channels to relay

information about change.

127

There are intended formal channels, but people come back from a meeting and say ‘not much happened’. A lot did, but it’s not communicated, therefore more work is required on the formal channels, they’re not working.

(Focus Group A, Time 1)

The lack of use of the formal channels for information dissemination left some

participants unsettled with the early changes such as the redundancy of the entire

marketing department.

My only thought on that would be the departure of the marketing department. It wasn’t really explained to us. Well I suppose [the CEO] did send out an email – but it wasn’t really explained to us what was happening, like the marketing department, it was gone.

(Focus Group B, Time 1)

Yet, the findings indicated there were very clear expectations that monologic

communication was necessary and the characteristics of the linear perspective of

communication dominated. Despite the concern that there was insufficient monologic

change communication, it transpired there definitely was some top-down, one-way

communication occurring.

Given up [trying to provide feedback] - it’s a one way valve. (Focus Group A, Time 1)

It seems to be totally restructuring at the moment. Getting rid of some staff members, not really entirely sure of which way it is going, from the information that has come down to us…we’ve been told that TECH D is a series of silos and that is going to change.

(Focus Group C, Time 1)

One of the focus groups provided an interesting display of monologic competences

and censure. A debate began on the role that employees should have within change

and to what extent they should be involved in the strategic direction of the

organisation. The debate was ended abruptly when the Personal Assistant (PA) /

Human Resources (HR) adviser to the CEO declared, ‘And staff aren’t involved and

nor should they be as far as I’m concerned’. After the focus group, one of the younger

and newer employees confided to the researcher that she was reluctant to speak her

mind openly when the PA was around. The PA’s demonstrated monologic

128

competence prevented further discussion on the topic.

The overwhelming impression from this round of focus groups was there had been

very little in the way of top- down, one-way, instrumental communication, much to

the chagrin of the participants. The lack of information on change was proving

counter to improved change receptivity, as anxiety about the uncertainty in relation to

the strategic direction of the organisation increased. The participants were very clear

on what they expected in terms of change communication, for example, frequent

information about the change process from the top management. Unsatisfied

communication expectations led to an escalation of the discontent with change. The

delivery of monologic communication was not aligned with the monologic

communication expectations.


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


Aligned with expectation of the feedback and the trust necessary in dialogic change

communication was the concept of listening and voice.

129

I wouldn’t expect then to make a democratic decision but at least considered … I think it is positive to voice our opinions, cause basically we don’t get a say in anything.


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.


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


The Information Technology (IT) staff were keen to use the intranet to generate

discussion, and launch innovative initiatives from within, yet were frustrated by the

lack of use of the potentially dialogic forum.

People should make an effort. It works both ways, y’know

(Focus Group E, Time 1)

Overall, there was scant evidence of the dialogic change communication in the first

focus group other than reports of the CEO’s intent and attempts at initiating dialogic

forums. However, intent and attempts were not sufficient to create dialogic change

communication. The lack of dialogic competences of the employees prevented this

from occurring. There were some dialogic expectations in terms of listening, feedback

130

and honesty, but these were not as forceful, or frequent as the monologic expectations.

One of Watzlawick et al’s (1967) axioms of communication is ‘one cannot not

communicate’, so despite the protests of the focus groups participants of ‘ there is no

communication’, the data was scrutinised further to ascertain what was happening in

the absence of monologic and dialogic change communication.

The Background Talk of Change

The use of the term ‘background talk’ in this thesis emerged within the Tech D case-

study. It was observed that the informal talk (gossip, grapevine and rumours) going on

in the background of the change efforts was taking prominence over the conversations

at the foreground of change. With the lack of foreground conversations, employees

were relying on the background talk to make sense of what was happening. The

primary site of sense-making was the grapevine activity.

We’re pretty much out of the loop most of the time, the only time we hear anything is when we bump into somebody in the corridor.

(Focus Group E, Time 1) Our main source is the staff morning teas.


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!


The participant, who revealed his concern about being the next to be made redundant,

above, quickly retreated behind bravado, and the others joined in.

131

Prior to that [starting 3 months] I’ve been self employed, so it doesn’t really worry me. Doesn’t worry me either, if they don’t want me, I don’t want to be working here. I’m much the same, doesn’t worry me. Absolutely not that it bothers me, but I could see how it might bother others.


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.


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.


132

These framing discourses provided a strategy to manage their change receptivity.

When survival influenced the framing discourse the participants responded with a

stoic acceptance of the changes. Another strategy to improve the change receptivity

was to reframe the change as continuous improvement. Most rejected the use of

continuous change in the research as the term had negative connotations.

I don’t think of continuous change, I think change just for the sake of changing, y’know change for change sake…personnel turnover.


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.


Some saw continuous change as ‘looking at everything to see how they might do it

better’. For others, continuous improvement was preferred as ‘everyone can work

with continuous improvement cause you are making things better’ (Focus Group A,

Time 1).

In summary, while the analysis of the monologic and dialogic templates revealed

limited evidence of either change communication model in the data, it was established

that the employees possessed monologic expectations, and the lack of information

about change was negatively affecting the change receptivity in terms of increased

discontent, and cynicism about management’s ability to manage the change process.

The primary initiator of dialogic change communication was the CEO, and there was

a low level of dialogic expectations emerging from the staff. The CEO’s dialogic

competences were appreciated by the employees, but those competences were not

evident in other managers. In the absence of these two change communication

models, the background talk filled the void. The primary framing discourses were of

133

fear surrounding job loss, naturalism of change, and the reframing of the language of

change.

Study 3: Ethnographic Observation, January – September 2002

The next section provides a contextual narrative designed to provide political and

contextual orientation to the organisation at the beginning of the study. It is a

summary of the major events that occurred during the first ethnographic observation

period. Prior to commencement of the field study, Tech D received a new CEO, who

was previously a director of the Tech D Board. With an entrepreneurial background

spanning forty years, he had transformed a number of private sector manufacturing

companies. Inspired by organisational development ‘gurus’ such as Senge (1990) and

Katzenbach and Smith (1994), the CEO had previously successfully accomplished

major transformations through the use of process improvement, teamwork, and

participative work practices. The CEO was also a ‘captain of industry’, with extensive

experience leading a large industry association, a dominant interest group responsible

for contributing to Federal and State policies on innovation, technology, and

manufacturing. While not inexperienced with political liaison and negotiation in terms

of the public sector, the CEO was primarily used to leading private sector companies.

In the beginning of the change process, the CEO was clear on what he wanted to

achieve during his contract. The first objective was to drive the organisation towards a

commercialisation focus - ‘I know where you need to go and I’m not telling, you

have to get to that yourself…commercialisation’ (field notes, 3/3/02). He wanted a

purpose that was ‘harsh and clear’ and decided that a strategic review workshop was

the appropriate place to start in testing the environment, purpose, and opportunities.

134

Other key initiatives were to make the organisation an ‘exemplar to industry’, one that

is ‘continuously learning’. He understood Tech D to be ‘a boat at sea that required

some of the planks to be changed, with no time to come into dry dock and make the

changes’ (field notes, 16/02/02). Tech D had to make the changes in difficult

circumstances, while moving forwards.

He personally selected the participants to the strategic review weekend in order to get

a cross-section of the staff, ‘vertically mobile participants’. In some cases he asked

subordinates to come without asking their managers, and this was distressing for some

of the managers used to strong bureaucratic vertical structures. The CEO’s style was

transformational, and intent on open communication, and this was a stark contrast to

the earlier CEO who had led the organisation for the previous 10 years. The CEO,

however, possessed a very rapid decision making cycle. He processed ideas by talking

about them and this cognitive style was confusing and stressful for the staff as they

were often left confused by each iteration of his thought processes. ‘It’s a bit all over

the place, [the CEO] is indecisive and bouncing ideas off others – but I think he’s just

about hit it now’ (field notes, 5/3/02). Clearly the organisation was embarking on a

journey of continuous change, and the setting valuable for analysis of the multiple

perspective of the change process. The next section uses the three change

communication models to review the field notes from the ethnographic observation

and the documents collected over the first nine months.


Congruent with the focus group findings, the findings from the ethnographic

observation found low levels of monologic communication initially. With a

background in using high participative work practices, and empowering employees,

135

the new CEO claimed not to see managerial control as a high priority. The effect of

the lack of monologic communication in the early days was that it heightened

curiosity, tension and excitement about the upcoming changes, as evidenced by the

excited chatter in the tea room. Initially, the uncertainty produced by a lack of

communication about change was liberating for most of the staff, given their previous

experience with a controlling bureaucratic style of manager and lack of change.

However, as this situation continued, the lack of information appeared to stress the

staff and this led to many staff members casting doubts as to the effectiveness of the

new CEO. The consulting engineers, in particular, had expectations of monologic

communication, preferably in a step-by-step plan, yet were highly sceptical of

management’s ability to deliver this. The PA told the story that after one meeting, as

the consultants walked out of the room, they shook their heads laughed and said

‘management had no [expletive] idea’ (field notes, 03/02/02). Yet, by the beginning of

March, there had only been one CEO briefing, and two emails to all staff, bolstering

the consulting engineers’ beliefs.

The first all-staff briefing was in March, after the strategic workshop. While the CEO

was clear on the vision ‘everything we do is exemplar – what I mean is a commercial

culture and true excellence’, his visual aids were poor, the speech rushed and the

message was not clear. Some redundancies were announced and the staff were visibly

shocked, quietly cynical and not trusting. In May, the CEO met with all the staff again

to reveal a restructure. Again it was rushed, and the room remained silent when asked

if there were other questions. It was six months before another official staff briefing

took place: this, too, was to announce another new structure and further redundancies.

However, the organisation was not totally devoid of monologic communicators. Two

136

key participants stood out. The PA/HR advisor to the CEO had a very strong

monologic style. This was necessary in many cases, as it was her role to send out

information that was clear and unequivocal. However, her continued reliance on

monologic change communication possibly ran counter to the intended aims of the

CEO. It was very difficult to access the CEO with ideas of a new organisation, when

the gate keeper spoke of stability. She identified that other middle managers were

acting as restrictive gatekeepers and preventing change; ‘The problem is with middle

managers, they are not passing on information, its management’s fault – not filtering

down’ (field notes, 5/03/02).

In April 2002, when one of the more popular staff was made redundant, the PA sent

an announcement email to all staff. However, the tone of the email was terse and it

arrived five hours after the staff member made redundant had sent his own farewell

email. The subsequent discussion in the tea room revealed that the gap between the

announcement from the redundant staff member and the organisational announcement

did not impress the staff. It appeared to be crisis management and this aspect

highlighted the importance of timeliness of monologic change communication.

Another monologic communicator was a young, ambitious, Consulting Engineer

(Jonathon). He was initially earmarked by the CEO for a leadership role in the change

early on. Jonathon was quick to criticise and condemn, having worked for other global

MNCs, and was very concerned with being seen to be powerful. In his first two weeks

as leader of the change team, he was very concerned with who should be able to be

involved in the time team; ‘We should have the power to say who speaks at our

meetings and when’. After the April redundancies, he was in ‘telling mode’ within the

cross-functional change team; ‘You need to say….’ (field notes, 19/04/02). The team

responded indifferently to his commands, preferring to discuss the issues associated

137

with job loss more fully.

In August there was still discontent with the lack of communication with one of the

Time Team [change team] members noting,

‘Currently there seems to be a lack of a quick and easy way to communicate information to all staff. There are several channels available to provide information but is [sic] either under utilised or involve a time delay before the information is distributed. What is needed is central area where staff can be notified of any new information or news quickly and efficiently.’ (email, 24/08/02).

The proposed solution was an active desktop management tool. However, this

initiative petered out.

In a bid to increase the channels for information dissemination, the Time Team

initiated a staff newsletter in September. These were known as the Time Team Times

(TTT) and were sent out monthly. The only other formal channel of information

dissemination was the infrequent whole-of-staff gatherings. In November, the CEO

gathered all the staff in the conference room, to announce the dissolution of the

central sales team. The sales team had been given the opportunity to reach their

budget, however this was not achieved. This speech included the news of more

redundancies.

In the December TTT, it was noted that it was still necessary for management to

address all staff more regularly. However, it was noted by a number of staff that

because the CEO addresses were about redundancies, whole-of-staff meetings were

associated with the negative consequence of change. Thus, while the employees had

demanded more top-down information, the content of that communication was

inevitably bad news.

The focus groups revealed there was little in the way of dialogic change

138

communication occurring. One of the reasons for conducting ethnographic

observation studies is the opportunity to search for incongruence between the ‘official

story’ told in the focus groups and the ‘unofficial way’ within the case. In this case,

while there was certainly limited dialogic change communication occurring, there was

perhaps more than the focus groups revealed. The next section examines to what

extent the dialogic change communication was apparent.


The CEO was acutely aware of power symmetry in communication exchanges. Even

when he sent out an email to inform staff of the upcoming Strategic Review Weekend,

he tried to alleviate the asymmetry by saying:

‘I am sure some of you will be disappointed at not being able to participate directly in the workshop. I apologise for not being able to make the group larger but feel the group selected is able to represent your views.’ (email, 29 /1/02 ).

The very next day, one of the consulting engineers (Thomas) sent an email to the

CEO and cc’d to all staff offering his resignation based on the fact that he believed he

was being fraudulent as an officer of Tech D in promising things to clients that he did

not believe that Tech D was capable of doing. The email served to highlight a number

of problem areas within the organisation; in so doing, others spoke of being slighted

by his condemnation. However, this action initiated a dialogue. The CEO responded

to the email by inviting Thomas along to the initial Strategic Planning workshop. The

workshop did not prove as useful as the CEO would have hoped. It was in essence a

dialogic process, but the participants were not dialogically competent, for example

able to respect each other’s position, actively listen, tolerate risk, and or empathise

with others. They perceived they had too much at risk politically to admit to what they

did not know. The CEO asked the email author to speak to the group regarding his

139

email, the CEO then thanked him and said, ‘I didn’t have a problem with anything

that you said, I thought the way you delivered it was a little unusual’. The CEO then

spoke to the importance of focussing on being a learning organisation, of focussing on

communication and how the lessons from the Senge’s Fifth Discipline could be

applied to the different sectors.

At drinks after the planning workshop, the CEO says of the email:

‘It was immature, it was inappropriate, it was career limiting, it wasn’t worth wrapping your neurones around, well except three neurones to say the bloody shit’s right.’(field notes, 3/2/02)

The CEO continued the exchange and sent a clear message to those present that it was

acceptable to take risks and express dissent. On return, the CEO gathered all staff

together, and detailed what the outcomes of the workshop were in the form of an

action plan and task list. He followed this up with an email announcing the creation of

a cross-functional change team.

The CEO intended the Time Team to be a dialogic forum. It was a cross functional

team designed to drive change through the organisation from the bottom up. Their

role was to understand the whole picture and communicate an ‘in full on time’

approach to their business services. The CEO instated ‘Jonathon’ as leader of the

team. Being very task orientated, and possessing a monologic style, Jonathon

presented a tension within the team.

Jonathon said: ‘There’s certain things that will be scary, and we shouldn’t talk too

much about that’ (field notes 11/03/02). Others protested that the team was not about

censure, it was about opening up discussions, questioning and gathering feedback in

informal settings. In other meetings, team members wanted to bring in one of the

managers to discuss progress of a particular initiative. This manager wanted to stay

140

for the whole meeting, yet the monologic leader protested: ‘We should have the

power to say who speaks at our meetings and who doesn’t’ (field notes, 20/03/02).

However, the remainder of the group was sensitive to power considerations and

recognised the potential for the group to be perceived as an elite task force and not

accessible by others. By May, there was a change in leadership of the change team

and Thomas (the author of the dissenting email) was appointed as the new leader. This

change signified a greater focus on the people considerations of the change, the

anxiety, the guilt, and the anger experienced as a result of the changes. Thomas also

introduced a code of conduct which explicitly stated procedures for conflict

resolution: ‘Conflict resolution is at first conducted through thorough and open

explanation (and listening) of points of view’, and ‘we will not personally criticise

individual employees’ (TT minutes, 21/06/02). However, the TT maintained an

ordered task focused agenda, rather than a site of conversations that created change.

Towards the end of the month, a leadership discussion was attempted off site. It was

facilitated by an OD (organisational development) consultant engaged by the CEO in

previous transformations. However, the lack of dialogic competences of those in the

organisation prevented true engagement. Instead, the consulting engineers became

increasingly agitated at the ‘waffly’ nature of the day, and were very uncomfortable

with open-ended process. Again, the CEO implored staff to read Peter Senge’s’ work

and Katzenbach and Smith so they could get on board with the concept of a learning

organisation. Nobody did. Apart from these aspects, there was little other evidence of

dialogic themes.

141


Owing to the lack of information coming through about the changes and the lack of

opportunities to clarify what was occurring, the sense-making of change was largely

influenced by peers and interpretations of symbols of change such as the resignation

letter and the organisational silos.

Actually [manager x] took the time to spend an hour with me explaining it all, and once he did that, it made a lot more sense, where we were supposed to be going (field notes, 13/12/02).

Thomas’s resignation letter was a major symbol of the change process. Many staff

reported feeling belittled by what he said and resented the ‘finger pointing’. Others

concurred with the sentiment and stated ‘the problem is with the middle management

– they’re not passing things down’. One of the members of the first change team

noted ‘A lot of people don’t believe in us internally and that will require a lot of

culture change’ (field notes, 11/03/02).

Another key symbol of change was the ‘silos’ formed by the different functional

divisions within the organisation. Many of the changes were seen as either reducing

power or as power gain for the silos. The sales team and consulting engineering staff

were heard crowing over the demise of the marketing team. As one senior manager

commented, ‘organisational silos are as durable as industrial concrete – easy to put

together but hard to break down’ (field notes, 19/11/04). The organisational silos

created ‘them and us’ discussions with strong identification with the original

functional groups and was most notable with the consulting engineers.

The strategic planning weekend was one of the first events to discuss change, but

some things were ‘undiscussable’ in the formal sessions. Concerns about

redundancies were nervously joked about around the dinner table, and others openly

142

challenged other colleagues about their value to the organisation over drinks. A

number of staff were heard loudly proclaiming their love of change. After the

weekend, one tried to understand the nature of continuous change:

‘I know it is horrible to keep saying everything is on hold - but feeling like everything should be halted until it is even more relevant. I don’t mind continuous change but you can’t put your life on hold’ (field notes, 4/3/02).

Others openly debated the tension between commercial intention and public service

charter. ‘Just because we are not for profit doesn’t mean we are not commercially

slick’. Yet this comment agitated a number of the older staff, who argued that they

worked for Tech D out of an altruistic purpose, to serve the faltering small to medium

firms within the manufacturing service. Again, the lack of dialogic competences left

these tensions unresolved.

However, by May, there were several managers made redundant, and with no

information going out about redundancies, for example the reason or the timing, there

were rising feelings of mistrust and betrayal. Though as one employee pointed out,

‘with an average income of $80,000 a year, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work

out the quickest way to fiscal stability’ (field notes, 31/05/02).

The disquiet with the redundancies gave way to confusion and anger as teams were

restructured and people changed roles. The OD consultant brought in to run the

workshop bore the brunt of the frustrations. The purpose of the workshop was to

establish a common vocabulary of change and smooth the process of restructuring.

Nevertheless, in discussions afterwards at a drinks session, the external consultant was

castigated over his process orientation and lack of structure by the consulting

engineers. Ironically, the importance of word choice and the language of

organisational change became very apparent once the employees started to reframe

143

the change effort. Purportedly, the insistence on using the term continuous

improvement was to maintain their commitment to the change goal. In an email

(3/9/02) to the change team it was argued:

In TTT [a change newsletter] it says the purpose of the Time Team is to help the organisation in its Continuous Change goal. Can I propose that we endeavour to have the goal changed to Continuous Improvement? The reason why should be self-evident.

However, in so doing, the use of the continuous improvement terminology restricted

the scale of change. By refusing to engage with the concepts associated with

continuous change, the employees ensured that the organisation maintained a very

steady, slow and incremental pace of change.

In conclusion, the findings of the ethnographic observation study concurred with the

findings from the focus groups. While the initial survey indicated a high openness to

change, the evidence gathered from the focus groups and ethnographic observation

study suggests it was so not as high, with many examples of change cynicism,

disappointment, concern and resistance. In the absence of monologic and dialogic

change communication, the background talk provided opportunities to clarify and

provide information through the provision of sense-makers and interpretation of the

symbols of change, regardless of the validity of the interpretation of some of the

symbols. The next section reports on studies 4, 5 and 6 encompassed in the second

time period of the study.

Time 2


In January 2003 the survey was distributed to 52 staff and the respondents were asked

to mail back the survey in self-addressed envelopes. The response rate was 29,

comprising 55% of the population. The respondents had an average age of 35.29, six

144

were female, 22 were male, and one did not identify gender. The earlier fear

expressed about ‘last on, first off’ may have been correct with the average tenure

increasing from 3.13 to 4.14 years. The means of the key variables are reported in

Table 4.2.


Variable Mean SD


2. Perception of Organisational Capability to change

2.78 .62

3. Dialogic change communication 3.51 .56

4.a Instrumental change communication

3.09 .75

4. b Top Down change communication

3.31 1.03

Hypothesis 1

Like the first survey results, there continued to be no relationship between the

subjects’ perceptions of organisational capability to change and openness to change (r

=.239, p = .212, n =29). The evidence from the ethnographic observation study

suggests that this can be explained by the consulting engineers believing themselves

to be above the management team in terms of competence and delivery. In this way

their sense of self efficacy is tied to sub-culture, not organisational capability.

This was the first survey where questions regarding the change communication were

able to be used. The monologic items consisted of instrumental communication and

top-down communication. Hypothesis 2 proposed that there will be a positive

relationship between both monologic and dialogic change communication and

openness to change. It was interesting to note there was no significant correlation

between either of the communication measures and the openness to change as

145

illustrated in the following table.

Table 4.3 Correlations of Change Communication Variables with Openness to

Change

1 2 3 4

1. Openness to change 1

2. Top Down Change Communication (Monologic) .081 1

3. Instrumental Use of Change Communication (Monologic) -.001 .355 1

4. Dialogic Change Communication .237 .112 .159 1

N = 29.

Given the implied link between communication and organisational change, this was

surprising, and needs to be explored further in the qualitative study. The next section

reports on the findings from the second round of focus groups.

Study 5: Focus Groups, February 2003

The findings of the second focus group continued to concentrate on the background

talk of change as there was still little in the way of monologic and dialogic change

communication occurring. Like Study 2 and Study 3, the Alternate Templates are

used to order and categorise the findings.


Similar to the findings of Study 2, there was a continued lack of monologic themes

with a corresponding expectation of monologic change communication. This situation

intensified the frustration with the implementation of change.

For me at that point in time, it was a place full of hope. Everyone had a spring in their step cause [the CEO] did. There were lot of promises being made then, and we’ve gone through this high, just through disappointment and frustration cause of the things we’ve mentioned.

146

So there were high expectations developed but no follow though, and no communication as to why there were delays so it was frustrating.


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.


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.


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.


147

One such institutional process was the Time Team. Despite being established to

generate change, the employees saw it more instrumental in passing on messages of

change and as a ‘useful tool for pumping communication channels back down to

people on the ground’. However, the responsibility of ‘controlling’ the flow of

information was disturbing to some of the team members: ‘[the CEO] tells us in the

time team, he says you know that’s between us, don’t filter it down yet’. Thus the

time team (a dialogic process) was commandeered for monologic purpose.

In summary, the monologic template in the second round of focus groups revealed

that there were high expectations of stability and information. The requirement for

information was more likely to be met by individual managers, rather than the cross-

functional change team, despite their reflection on how useful it could be in

disseminating information.


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.


148

The substantive considerations of change also impacted on dialogic exchanges. Fear

of redundancies prevented staff from entering into exchanges with the CEO.

I mean I can send him an email, but not everyone in the organisation wants to put their hand up, especially when they have laid off 15 people in the last two months.


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…


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.


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…


149

Honesty and secrecy were two factors preventing dialogic engagement. Several of the

group members were unhappy with the amount of confidentiality that had to occur

within the Time Team, and this had a silencing effect on dialogic communication. As

one group member pointed out: ‘As long as there’s real honesty people accept bad

news more readily’ (Focus group D, Time 2).

Despite participants recognising there was a void in information, and a lack of

feedback mechanisms, it was paradoxical that they continued to recognise that the

CEO was very accessible and open. Again, the change communication was dependent

on individuals, not institutional processes.

I have found that [the CEO] is prepared to walk, he seems to make a point of sending you an email, and then you’ll see him flitting around, chatting about the weekend, but what he is doing is making sure that he’s there to get feedback, and he’s making himself available, so if you have an issue or a comment, you’ll get it to him, so he is actively collecting.


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 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.


150

Survival. Well I guess they realise if they don’t pull together, no-ones going to be

here tomorrow…we’re in a repair situation.


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.


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.


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.


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.


It was common to see competing tensions between frames of reference such as

strategic versus operational issues, then and now, and public service duty versus

commercial tension. Participants debated with each other as to how to make sense of

the problems of change.

It’s a pity that operational staff, which is what we are, don’t make a dollar, so to speak, have to worry about…I get the feeling that you are all worried about the big

151

picture, like the big vision, like the operation unit should have their own objectives. And it’s a pity that you carry this weight on your shoulders of the company. We don’t have a choice though. Why? Because we carry the weight and you carry the company’s success on your shoulders because if the companies not successful, you don’t have a job. That’s what a lot of people will always see; they’ll always look at the bigger picture. But it’s a pity that that is your day to day concern, like why isn’t the… Well maybe if there’s more communication from the senior management down and saying ‘yes, we are doing okay, yes we don’t need to worry about this stuff’.

(Focus group E, Time 2)

Others clearly wanted no engagement with higher level strategic issues.

A lot of it has got to do with [government funding body] funding, which for me, I don’t feel I have to worry about that side of it. That’s not my job to get funding. That’s what their guys do. And I know that we benefit from it. But as Jerry said, we just get in and do our work. So when he talks about the getting all the funding and everything… We don’t need to know the mechanics of it. No. We just need to know that it’s going to come through, or not going to come through. Yeah, that’s right, so sometimes if he talks about funding and that, and I don’t understand, I just stand and listen. Smile and nod.


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…


In summary, the analysis of the monologic and dialogic templates continued to reveal

little of either change communication model evident. The employees’ monologic

expectations had escalated to a need of stability and information, and they offered

examples of dialogic barriers. The CEO remained the primary source of dialogic

change communication. The major framing discourses were of survival, financial

status and competing tensions between strategic and operational orientation, and

152

public service duty and commercial inclinations. The import of the language of

change remained a key consideration.

Study 6: Ethnographic Observation, January – December 2003

This section addresses the findings from the ethnographic observation data from

January 2003 to December 2003. As in the first study of ethnographic observation, the

substantive and contextual issues of the change process are summarised and then the

findings from the alternate templates are reported.

January was quiet with many staff on holidays. On their return in February, the

employees relocated to the ‘west wing’ of the premises. The move was primarily a

cost cutting exercise, as the top floor and front reception area could now be leased out

for income generation. The secondary consideration was that by situating all of the

staff in an open plan area, communication and relationship building would naturally

occur. February brought dissatisfaction amongst staff and a lowering of morale as a

result of continued changes. Two of the staff resigned. A management meeting was

convened to discuss the issue of declining staff morale.

In March, a major piece of capital equipment was sold due to its being obsolete

technology. This sale was a highly symbolic event as it signposted the importance of

commercial considerations and operating at a profit.

During the months of February to May the organisation was in a state of flux. One of

the divisions was being sold, and the PA was adamant that there was no point in doing

core work until it was sold. Despite her frustration, changes continued to be

introduced. In May, the CEO met with another OD consultant to address the soft side

153

of change such as the people issues and cultural change, in his own words the

employees were described as ‘the walking dead’ (field notes, 29/05/03). The

emotional state of the company was not helped by the announcement of the

resignation of Thomas. This time the resignation was more than a protest. Despite

being framed as a positive change, and with management blessing, the change

unnerved a number of staff (field notes 03/06/03).

Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 14:11:15 +1000 From: ‘the CEO@Tech D.com.au> Subject: Congratulations Thomas Thomas has been offered an outstanding opportunity to join the executive team at [company x] to assist in their exciting growth plans. While very sorry to loose [sic] Thomas, who has been an integral part of Tech D for many years, it is a pleasure to see people moving through Tech D to become part of the best and brightest companies in our region… …Thomas will be leaving us at the end of June. Congratulations, The CEO.

There were a number of conversations in the lunch room over the implications of this

staff member leaving. Most of the staff were concerned that the ‘writing was on the

wall’, if long serving staff members were leaving then there must be real problems.

During June, the organisation continued to look at different structures and what they

would have to do to continue to receive funding. The contract of one manager was not

renewed when this came up, and one of the younger staff was promoted to his

position.

By July, the new team responded by developing a mission statement for themselves.

Discussion within the organisation continued via email, despite the organisation

numbering less than 35, and all being situated in a small area. The operational angst

was further compounded by uncertainty over the CEO’s position. In an unexpected

move, the state department responsible for Tech D advertised the CEO’s position and

reduced the original tenure of the role. The CEO had to reapply for his position, and

154

there were a few of the middle managers who applied for the same position. However,

in being successful with renewing his contract, it also signified a cognitive shift for

the CEO: ‘I can now go forward as a builder of Tech D’ (email, 23/08/03). The

impact of the redundancies had weighed heavily on the CEO.

The other focus in September was the introduction of a new Customer Relationship

Management (CRM) software program. This was a project that had been stalled and

started, and stalled and started for a number of years. Previously, when a product and

implementation was decided on, someone blocked the project claiming they had more

knowledge about CRM’s than those deciding, and it was held over for review.

October saw substantial resistance and blocking tactics to the CRM, the introduction

of job costing, and the new office layout. Many people continued to use spreadsheets

unrelated to the package as ways of working around it. Others noted an increasing

lack of inclusiveness in decision-making with the office layout being one particular

example. The working team did not approach anyone else for contribution. In

December there was a continued focus on the CRM implementation and the Time

Team was disbanded. The year ended with the PA resigning to go to another job after

being totally exasperated with the uncertainty of the organisation’s future: ‘Look you

just have to understand, these people need to be left alone to do their jobs – they have

had enough of change’ (field notes, 05/12/03). The next section examines the

prevalence of monologic change communication within this time period.


The majority of communication concerning change occurred via email as information

provision. While there were a few staff with strong monologic competences, the most

powerful, eg the CEO and the second in charge, stayed away from top-down,

155

unilateral information provision. Part of the reason for his avoidance of top-down

communication was that it was not congruent with the CEO’s natural style of

communication, and secondly, he did not feel he had information to give, given the

environmental uncertainty with policy stakeholders. As the middle managers were

also acting as gatekeepers of this information, a vacuum was created during the

change process and this contributed to the morale problems and discontent. The one

exception was within the division to be sold off. This division was led by Jonathon,

the previous leader of the time team, who possessed very strong monologic

competences. While this was perceived as aggressive and bullying by others, in

context of this work group who knew they were probably going to be sold off, his

direct provision of information assisted in their need for knowledge about what was

going to happen to them and thus improved their receptivity to change.

In February, a management meeting was called to discuss the problem of low staff

morale. As one division manager was going to be absent, he emailed the PA/HR

officer with a list of concerns his staff had to be taken to the meeting. Her response

was terse and swift and indicated that the management team should not be bothered

with petty considerations. The company was in trouble and as a manager he should be

managing his people better. The exchange prevented any further discussion and

devastated the group. Later that week, one of that team members said, ‘The managers

don’t want to hear about morale, when the bomb drops the bomb drops – you just

have to ride through it’ (field notes, 20/02/03).

Email was being used by the CEO to communicate congratulations.

‘Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:31:17 +1000

From: ‘The CEO’ <the CEO@Tech D.com.au> Subject: FW: testimonial This new product has some great potential. A lot of work has gone into its development. The consulting team is powering on. CEO

156

The message was unilateral, and the purpose to provide stability. Likewise, other

emails encouraged commitment to change in a unilateral sense

Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 08:19:42 +1000 From: ‘The CEO’ <.the CEO@Tech D.com.au> Subject: RE: Time Sheets Folks, I have made a commitment to our board that we will get this process under control v quickly. We currently have external accountants reviewing our systems and TIME SHEETS ARE A KEY FOCUS. Please don't let this slip.

These emails were typical of the types of information being sent ‘down’, and any

formal communication of change was invariably by email. One such formal

communication was the announcement of the sale of one of the divisions.

Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 13:16:07 +1000 From: ‘The CEO’ <.the CEO@Tech D.com.au> Subject: [division] sale/license Last week the Audit review committee signed off on the process we will follow in the sale or license of the [division] facility. I expected to be able to circulate the draft advertisement on Thursday last but the minister needs to briefed on the final documents before this can be released. As soon as I have the ok I will circulate info to you. This has all taken at least a month longer than planned but we are still hoping to have the tendering process completed towards the end of June. The CEO

After the sale, the CEO set about addressing the physical workspace in order to

improve communication. Though the email was one-way and top-down, the tone

reflected a spirit of inclusion and uncertainty, and it was apparent he still struggled

with pure monologic change communication.

----Original Message----- > From: The CEO > Sent: Thursday, 7 August 2003 1:37 PM > To: _Tech D-staff > Subject: making us comfortable at [location] You may have heard that it is likely that the area we occupy at the Western end will be redeveloped around 2007or 2008. Perhaps we will move back to the Eastern wing or a new site at [location]. But that's at least 4 years away and in the mean time, now that we have secured working capital to support growth, from the sale of RP &T, it’s time to re-structure the area we occupy so as to make us, and the new people we will need to recruit, as comfortable as possible. I would like to put a working group of 3 or 4 people together to manage this process and while I have not given this detailed thought, the only parameters we should not

157

consider changing are the outside walls. (But of course it makes sense to utilise existing offices as appropriate)… … First thing is to form the working group and have it develop the terms of reference.

So in summary, the CEO increased the use of email as a way of increasing top-down

information to employees, but only when he was positive about the content of the

emails. These were satisfying to the employees as evident in the focus group where

they mentioned that the CEO had improved his communication. However, this was

not his sole approach – he continued to include dialogic themes in his top-down

communiqués. The next section addresses the dialogic change communication evident

in the second ethnographic observation study.


There continued to be little in the way of true dialogic change communication, which

would have allowed further change and enabled the CEO to be a ‘builder’ of the

organisation. The main potential for dialogic action was the Time Team (TT) – the

cross-functional change team. However, according to the examples provided, what

transpired could be considered more as barriers to dialogic change communication.

Members of the second TT were increasingly frustrated and chasing separate agendas.

One member stated at the time of resigning from the team that ‘my sole goal was to

get the web site up and running’ (yet that reason for joining the team was never

disclosed in any meeting) (field notes, 15/05/03). By mid May the members of the TT

were depressed and negative about the future. One argued that the organisation had

become too flexible and too creative and the lack of structure meant there was no

consistent effort at change. After the sale of the division spun off and Thomas’s

departure, the second Time Team was disbanded and a new team was called for.

158

The result was a group with an interesting composition and, contrary to the previous

two groups, possessed no clear leader. Those who had been previously vocal in their

discontent of change joined. One member advanced Kotter’s (1995) eight points for

successful change on the Time Team and the expectation of planning and structure

continued. The new team responded by developing a mission statement for

themselves. Discussion continued via email, despite members often sitting within

metres of each other. The Time Team shifted to a focus on task completion and the

meeting minutes were addressed in a sharp perfunctory manner. It was rare to have

genuine discussion, though one that did occur was about the continued lack of

communication about change. Debate ranged on whether it was a cultural aspect or

whether it should be the management’s responsibility. It was clear a schism between

managers and workers existed.

One member commented, ‘I wouldn’t want to be the one who communicates to

management ‘you don’t value communication’’ , and as one member pointed out,

‘When you think about it, you say management needs to take responsibility, then they

are only going to communicate it down the line for others to do’(field notes 17/07/03).

The schism between management and employees appeared to be getting deeper.

Despite the discontent, the TT tried to resurrect the TTT [a newsletter] as a way of

improving communication and generating conversation about the change within the

organisation. However, the success of this effort was dependent on people

contributing to it and they did not.

By the end of July, the frustration boiled over in the TT in a debate over the

difference between first order and second order change. Phillip and Maree were

focused on time and task completion and they were reluctant to engage in discussion

159

of more difficult issues of change. Other members remained silent and non-committal.

Finally, one of the team (Sean) challenged, ‘I’m taking issue with the attitudes of the

people on this team not embracing continuous improvement’.

Phillip: ‘I take issue with that – you shouldn’t change for change sake!’ Sean: ‘I was very careful not to use the word change, it’s very different. I just don’t think the Time Team is prepared to tackle the big things’.

While this exchange may have had the potential to spark new understanding of what

change should be attempted, the team members chose to ‘agree to disagree’ (field

notes, 31/07/03).

The following month, the TT did not meet again, all avoiding the conflict that had

occurred at the previous meeting. The CEO was disappointed with this, but reluctant

to intervene. He felt if the TT was not able to stand on ‘its own legs’, then it should

not exist. Despite this belief, the TT asked him to attend to help them regain some

energy. At the meeting the CEO spoke of renewed commitment to the learning

organisation principles and that the current morale was ‘part of the ebb and flow of

the dark days’. He implored the staff, ‘Let’s try not to find another word’ [referring to

the refusal to use the word change]. One of the quieter members burst forth – ‘For

Tech D to work, and to make it work, we need to be given direction’. The CEO

acknowledged with ‘we will be an exemplar, we are spending on people development,

and we need to be a learning organisation. Most important is our culture – it needs to

be an exemplar and full of openness’. However, this caused further derision

afterwards. The change team was fighting the concept of the learning organisation

every step of the way (field notes, 9/9/03). The time team members eventually

reported they no longer wished to be part of it as the team was not respected or

empowered to do anything. Indeed, one of the time team members was told by their

manager, ‘Look if you want something to change, see your manager and follow the

160

proper channels!’ (field notes, 29/10/03). Despite being initiated and empowered by

the CEO, the middle management team were frustrating the efforts.


The shift of the company to the west wing was made for both economic reasons and

to improve communication. However, not all staff saw the move in that way, and

certainly it was not explained as such. The receptionist was despondent: ‘It feels like

we have been shifted away to a corner and not where we should be…but if that’s what

we have to do to survive’.

The term market failure was being openly discussed in the lunch room, as one of the

divisions was aggravated by the use of the term. They perceived they were being

made to look like poor performers. The persistent use of the term ‘market failure’ was

inflaming negative responses to change.

One of the more curious discussions was that the CEO was too generous with

redundancy packages. Employees were resentful of the fact that staff leaving were

being given their work laptops, or allowed to use the work car in order to find other

jobs. Though as one manager commented, ‘The place is a mess. People’s attitudes to

change are affected by their love of material things, y’know, worried they’ll lose the

house’ (field notes, 20/02/03). Despite earlier insisting that ‘all you need to know

about change is control and planning’, he concluded, ‘Look, business needs to be

flexible and adaptive’.

However, for the most part, silence dominated the vacuum for the first three months

of the year. The after-effects of the sales team being made redundant had everybody

in shock, and there was a decline in the rumours: ‘so much change, too much to keep

161

up with. Everyone is paranoid about losing jobs’ (field notes, 6/3/03). The IT manager

reported that during these months, whenever the CEO sent out an email updating staff

on what the current funding status was, there would be a corresponding surge of

internet activity on recruitment sites (eg seek.com) (field notes, 20/02/03). At this

point the government cuts were uniformly being blamed for the redundancies, not the

management team.

However, many of the employees continued to talk of expectations that everything

would be clear soon and ‘we can resume normal programming’. Very few recognised

that continuous change was to be the norm. As the PA/HR officer said, ‘There’s not

much point doing core work until they sell’. This response assumed that after the sale

there would be ‘normal conditions’. In this sense, a refusal to engage with the idea of

continuous change was paralysing the change process.

In May, the new time team understood itself to be the ‘primary voice for change and

accountability’; however by the end of the year, the TT was recognised as a

‘Toothless Tiger’ (field notes, 7/11/03).

The employees divided into two camps. One camp were those who chose to endure

the changes in silence, and continue to do what they were told as an expression of

organisational stoicism. The other camp chose to be more involved, and critical of the

changes. Typical of the changes sought were better distribution of company cars and

keeping the front of the building clean. By speaking the language of continuous

improvement (for example ‘5 S’ and TRAC3), the employees actively resisted and

prevented the large scale organisational transformation required. Cynicisms and

3 continuous improvement programs sold to the SME’s to improve the manufacturing

industry

162

disinterest remained – with one conversation in the tea room heard discussing the role

of a new OD consultant introduced to the organisation.

So what’s she doing? Don’t know. Issues and stuff A big fat nothing – they have a whole bucket of dollars and they just have to spend it. Oh. Okay.

(Field notes, 17/11/03)

Yet a unique perspective on the role of management in change was afforded after the

new OD consultant ran a weekend workshop. The OD consultant involved preferred

the weekend not be under scrutiny and so the episode was not directly observed, but

relayed by one of the participants.

Well she was trying to get across the idea that we should be in partnership with the managers, not treating them as parents. And Ricky (consulting engineer) challenges her. He’s says ‘no, I want Jerry (manager) to tell me when I have to do something, how I’m going to do something, and if I’m going off track then he has to pull me up’. And so she (OD facilitator) says ‘Ok, well can you see how that might be an example of parent/child relationship’ and he says ‘Yes! – That’s what a good manager should be!’ Unbelievable, the fact that he is a highly paid professional seems to completely escapes him …but it’s so typical of how they think, there were others nodding!

This story highlights how far the consulting engineers were from dialogic engagement

and the development of dialogic competences. In conclusion, the findings of the

second ethnographic observation study again concurred with the findings from the

second round of focus groups and provided an explanation for the decline in openness

to change. After initially having high expectations about change, many were

disappointed with the speed and scope of the changes that occurred, as well as being

traumatised by the redundancies. The next section reports on the final two studies 7

and 8 encompassed in the third period of the study.

163

Time 3


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.


Variable Mean SD


2. Perception of Organisational Capability to change 2.82 .64

3.Dialogic Change Communication 3.41 .79

4.a Instrumental change communication 3.14 .77

4. b Top Down change communication 3.89 1.19

Research Question 5 asked what happens to openness to change over time. The results

of the ANOVA conducted revealed that there was a significant decline F (2, 89) =

6.31, p < .05. Post hoc Tukey tests revealed the significant difference occurred

between Time 1 and Time 2 and Time 1 and Time 3 . A summary of the ANOVA

statistics is provided in Table 4.5 below.

164

Table 4.5 Summary of ANOVA statistics within Tech D

between Time 1, Time 2 and Time 3

Variable Source of Variation

Df F P

Measured at Time 1, Time 2 & Time 3

Openness to change Between Groups (2, 89) 6.13 .003

Perception of organisation’s capacity to change

Between Groups (2, 88) 2.71 .072

Only measured Time 1 & Time 2

Dialogic change communication Between Groups (1, 44) 1.036 .314

Instrumental change communication

Between Groups (1, 34) .04 .842

Top down change communication Between Groups (1, 45) .057 .813

There continued to be no support for a relationship between Openness to change and

perceptions of organisational capability (r =.045, p =.844, n =19). In terms of

Hypothesis 2, there continued to be no correlations between the communication

variables and the openness to change thus rejecting H 2. Had there been a greater

response rate, there may have been support for a significant relationship between

instrumental use of communication and openness to change.

Table 4.6 Time 3 Correlations of Change Communication Variables with

Openness to Change

1 2 3 4

1. Openness to change Pearson Correlation 1

2. Top Down Change Communication

Pearson Correlation .255 1

3. Instrumental use of Change Communication

Pearson Correlation .508 -.216 1

4. Dialogic Change Communication

Pearson Correlation -.024 -.026 -.113 1

165

N = 18

The next section reports on the final qualitative study.

Study 8: Focus Groups, February 2004

The findings of the final focus group indicated that after a heightened escalation of

monologic communicative demands, attempts to meet the needs by management were

rejected. This result may have occurred because at the same time the employees had

started to shift towards more dialogic change communication.


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.


There’s disorganisation and communication doesn’t get funnelled through.


Frustration existed with the issue of control, in terms of who had it, and who didn’t

have control, reflecting the parent/child relationship highlighted in the previous

166

section of the second ethnographic observation study.

Nobody has been allocated, like you are the person in charge of making this a better organisation.

Someone who can kick when it’s required and praise when it’s not (Focus group E, Time 3)

These sort of things need to be driven from the top. You will do this on such and such a day and everybody will take four days to do this

(Focus Group G, Time 3)

However, another participant pointed out that this expectation was inconsistent with

the CEO’s ability to deliver.

I don’t think that’s [the CEO’s] style. It’s not bureaucratic and [the CEO’s] door is always open.


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.


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?


I don’t like being the recipients of thou shalt not do this, and thou shalt not do this.


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.


In summary, by the time of the third focus groups, the discontent with the lack of

information in the change communication had escalated the communicative

167

expectancies to demands and needs. The resulting discontent with the change

communication meant that any of the initiatives to meet those needs with matching

monologic change communication were not received well. It may be that the CEO’s

dialogic orientation was starting to ‘seed’ within certain groups as evidenced by the

groups requiring ‘discussion’, and wanting involvement around major changes, and

consciousness of control.


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.


[the CEO’s] been very good at getting a lot of people involved in the planning.


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…


168

There was some concern that management was being instrumental in the change

communication, and creating a pseudo-dialogic approach.

I just thought shit that’s a good idea and suggested it to [the CEO] that we get flu vaccinations and he’s just given straight away that sounds OK, find out how much it costs, let me know. I did that, sent it back to him, [he] sent me back today ‘how can’, I think the question was, ‘how can we make this look like its come through consultation in a learning organisation?’, so I’m currently writing his email for him.


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?


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.


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.


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.


Many were able to empathise with other team members and the CEO.

169

Must be difficult for those actually involved in it. Yeah you guys just had more work thrown on you and you were already busy to start with.


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 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.


The vacuum created by the lack of monologic and dialogic change communication

continued to contain a number of rumours, primarily about staff leaving.

A comment came out yesterday, by a few people was, what happened to Victor? Why has Victor left? Yeah that didn’t get communicated. Why did he leave? There’s a thousand science fiction stories going around.

170

Is [department x] still around? There’s another question. (Focus Group E, Time 3)

You hear a little, few filtered down remarks through the management committee, but it might directly affect you but you’re still waiting to find out what the latest is. I’d say communication is still an issue.… and it’s funny finding out something from someone in a group completely unrelated to you… finding information out that’s related to you from someone who is completely unrelated to the project or task that you are actually doing so the communication channels are very adhoc as well.


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.


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?


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.


In summary, by the beginning of the third year of continued change initiatives, the

171

analysis of the monologic and dialogic templates revealed an intensification of the

monologic expectations, and an attempt by management to meet some of those

expectations. At the same time, there was a tentative shift to dialogic change

communication, yet there was not sufficient monologic or dialogic change

communication to suppress the background talk of change. The key themes of

background talk of change suggested that employee receptivity to change was

declining with an increased cynicism towards change and concern about job security.

Conclusion

This chapter has used a chronologic ordering of the eight studies to describe the

change processes with a state funded technology diffusion agency over two years. The

results from the surveys conducted annually suggested that the employees’ receptivity

to change when aggregated from individual responses was quite high at Time 1 and

experienced a decline to Time 2 and stayed stable for the next time period. There was

no correlation between change communication and the receptivity to change. The

ethnographic observation studies converged with the findings of the qualitative

studies and showed that for the most part of the two years there was a deficit of

monologic and dialogic change communication. In the change communication void

that ensued, the background talk of change dominated.

Rarely did the central themes of the background talk enhance or improve the change

receptivity, with the notable exception being the discourse of naturalism. Towards the

end of the study the employees started to display more dialogic expectations, at the

same time as the managers moved more to monologic change communication. The

next chapter uses the same analytic process to explore the impact of change

communication on change receptivity within a business unit of a GOC.

172

CHAPTER 5

Highsales Findings & Results

Introduction Similar to Chapter Four, this chapter presents the findings and the results of the

second case-study in the format of eight studies in chronological order as previously

illustrated in diagram 3.0. The chapter resumes with the ‘Alternate Templates’ as an

analytic strategy, and therefore, the findings continue to be reported in terms of

monologic and dialogic change communication and the background talk of change as

organising constructs. The framework of the eight studies allows the process of

change to be investigated over time. The use of the multiple methods provides

opportunity for data triangulation and the development of multiple perspectives of

change communication and change receptivity.

The Case-study

Highsales was created three years ago with Utilities United, in response to a

commercialisation agenda with State Government, and an attempt to be more

‘business like’. Highsales focuses on selling a range of related products through their

sales call centre, and contracts to six licensees to do the installation of the products.

Originally, Highsales was managed by the entrepreneurial marketing manager who

initiated the venture. After three years of declining profits, the CEO of Utility United

introduced a new manager, (Charles), whose mandate was to halt the financial losses,

improve gross margin, and in so doing, turn the business around within the next 12

months. This manager brought in an external consultant (Jessica) to act as change

173

agent and assist in achieving these aims. At four months into the initiative, Charles

was informed that he had succeeded in arresting financial decline, and was now

responsible for an ambitious growth target. Some of the changes introduced over the

12 months included redundancies, business process re-engineering, and culture

change. At seven months, Charles was seconded to a larger, more urgent project, and

one of the middle management team (Mary) was promoted to manager of the business

unit.

Time 1

Study 1: Survey, June, 2003

The first study was conducted after a round of redundancies and five weeks after four

divisions were moved to the one location. There was a 66% response rate, with the

respondents having an average age of 32.8 years. Of the 35 respondents, 18 were

female and 17 were male. The respondents possessed an average tenure of 2.3 years

with the Government Owned Corporation. The survey results indicated a reasonably

high openness to change (M 4.01, SD .38). As noted in Chapter Three, the question

regarding the organisation’s capability to change was not asked on account of

management veto. The initial score on openness to change will be revisited in Study 4

and Study 7 to answer Research Question 5.

Like the first case-study, there was no support for Hypothesis 2. It can be noted that

one of the monologic change communication items (instrumental change

communication) was close to being significant at .05 (at r = .325, p = .056). This

result suggests that the more managers use communication as a tool to get their own

way, the more open to change the respondents are. While this may initially appear

surprising, as it implies that the respondents recognise the utilitarian nature of the

174

change communication, it may simply be recognised as empirical evidence of the

effectiveness of instrumental communication. There is a positive correlation noted

between the two monologic (r = .382, p = .023, n = 35) items which provides some

support of reliability. The mean of top-down communication was 3.82, (SD .82).

There is a further significant negative correlation noted between dialogic change

communication (M = 3.51, SD = .66) and instrumental change communication

(r = -.359, p = .037, n = 34) and this suggests that the more instrumental the

communication, the less dialogic change communication occurs, although caution is

urged with interpretation of small sample sizes. This is not surprising; if managers are

using communication to ‘get their own way’, then trust and respect (principles that

underpin dialogic change communication) will be compromised. The correlations are

provided in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1 Correlations between Openness to Change and Communication

Variables Time 1

1 2 3 4

1. Openness to change

Pearson Correlation 1

2. Top Down Change Communication (Monologic)

Pearson Correlation -.066 1

3. Instrumental Use of Change Communication (Monologic)

Pearson Correlation .325 .382(*) 1

4. Dialogic Change Communication Pearson Correlation .000 -.104 -.359(*) 1

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

N = 35

The next table provides the means of the key variables of interest at Time 1.

175


Variable Mean SD

1. Openness to change (OC) 4.01 .38


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 themes evident in the first focus group transcripts were asymmetrical

exchanges of communication (up/down), unilateral message transmission from

management to lower level employees, managerial control of information and change

processes, and a focus on the change media used for information transfer and

dissemination.

176

Prior to the arrival of the new manager, the employees possessed high expectations of

monologic change communication. The expectations were evident in every focus

group, and demonstrated by participants observations of what had not happened

earlier, such as information about redundancies, relocations and new job roles. There

was a clear understanding that this communication needed to come from above by the

repeated use of the word ‘down’.

The other thing that’s affected us with the change is the redundancies, that’s made a lot of people feel very insecure and should have perhaps been explained a lot more thoroughly to the staff…again a download to all staff.


Communication of management has to be passed down the lines.


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…


The asymmetrical nature of monologic change communication was also noted by the

Marketing group: ‘But we are not necessarily at that level and privy to that type of

thinking’. Additionally, they highlighted themes of unilateral transmission and

control. They noted that previously Highsales had been driven by one person, and

they lamented, ‘The thing is he didn’t necessarily let go of it…I felt he definitely felt

threatened but he was reluctant to give up control’. The previous manager engaged a

large consulting firm to assist in the initial strategic review which initiated the change

process. However, the employees perceived that they were subject to a one-way

inquisition and the participants were left ‘exhausted and drained, because there was no

177

feedback’. The strategic review left many staff feeling very isolated. Participants of

all of the focus groups concurred on this point: ‘You were never told anything…

there’s all these big hoo has, big bells and whistles and nobody ever explains what we

do’, to ‘it was not communicated and that was very stressful’, and finally, ‘we would

just get yelled at a lot’. Clearly, there was an expectation that in providing this

knowledge to the consulting firm, they deserved a level of reciprocity. The initial sole

use of monologic change communication and then withdrawal of information had

devastating effects on change receptivity.

However, once the new manager arrived, all of the groups noted satisfaction with the

delivery of information. The monologic change communication improved the change

receptivity by increasing the transfer of information. As a result, the employees felt

more positive about change. Prior to the new manager commencing, the lack of

monologic communication and information led to feelings of isolation, insecurity,

frustration, despair, cynicism and anger. Further, the lack of monologic change

communication impacted on the sense-making and the background talk of change. As

one participant noted the lack of information ‘lent itself to rumours’. Other

participants backed this response and noted the rise of gossip in response to lack of

information about change. The finding regarding the expectation of reciprocity with

the consulting firm hinted at dialogic expectations within the group. This is elaborated

further in the next section.


Dialogic themes such as listening, inclusiveness, empathy, and a spirit of inquiry

emerged within the focus groups after discussion turned to the impact of the new

managers Charles’s arrival. One of the key principles in a dialogic exchange is that of

178

active listening (Bokeno & Gantt, 2000). All of the focus groups acknowledged that

Charles was notable in his ability to listen.

[the new manager]’s first week in, ‘right tell me a story what needs to be changed’ and unlike that particular person you were talking about, he takes it all in, and he is working through the changes you can see it and then you don’t get frustrated…. It helps me have confidence in, OK when I say something, if I say an idea that I’m listened to. Yeah, new ideas are being heard and considered and trialled and if it works then great.


It was a breath of fresh air!


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.


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.


Others voiced concern at the facilitators of the forums, suggesting they could be more

productive or indeed constructive if the ‘correct questions’ were asked.

179

My criticism is that they actually come and ask you a question about the process and then they ago away, they’re not asking you to currently evaluate the process that they are currently …

They go away but don’t come back…

Yes I agree… Yes, what happens is they say ‘I’m doing this’, I’m just using a very silly example but ‘I’m doing this - is what I have written down right? And you go ‘yes’, they go ‘thank you very much’ and it’s ‘a process’. They don’t say to you, ‘have a look at this, analyze this, take your team away debate it, work it through, find out where are we going wrong, what additions can we do, what can we take out, in other words mince it up and come up with something new’.


So, while some questioned the implementation of some of the dialogic forums and

highlighted the potential ‘tokenism’ of dialogic forums, the impact of the dialogic

change communication was generally positive. The increased management listening,

and opportunities to clarify understanding of change initiatives resulted in staff feeling

more inclusive and valued, and it renewed their enthusiasm and faith in the change

efforts. The next section examines the inductive template, the background talk of

change.

Background Talk of Change

Chapter Four described the vacuum effect that occurs when monologic and dialogic

change communication are lacking. This case-study confirmed the dynamics of a

change communication vacuum. It was noted in the discussion about the lack of

change communication before the arrival of Charles that the absence of any

communication, either monologic or dialogic, led to an increase of rumours, gossip

and grapevine activity. The outside smoking area became the central site of

information about change, dubbed the ‘Utilities United Post Office’ by employees.

This informal change communication provided opportunities for the staff to make

sense of the changes. Provided the sense making was grounded in plausibility, it

quickly became ‘truth’.

180

And it’s never explained to us who they are, never introduced, what they are doing so people kinda make it up or feed off what they are doing, or hear half a story and suddenly that becomes fact.


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.


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.


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.


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.


181

This comment started to hint at possible explanations for the lack of support for

Hypothesis 2 found in Tech D and in the first survey of this case-study. When faced

with change communication, some of the employees are comparing the ‘hype’ to

experience of the past change and evaluating their response to future change.

In summary, the analysis of the monologic and dialogic templates revealed evidence

of both change communication models in action. In particular, the employees

possessed monologic expectations, and the extent to which these were satisfied

impacted on their receptivity to change. The new manager displayed strong dialogic

competences in terms of listening, and the provision of dialogic forums were

welcomed. While the background talk was loudest at times when the monologic

information delivery waned, the receptivity of change was enhanced by a continuing

background conversation of the merits of innovation and not stagnating. The next

section compares the findings from the first survey and round of focus groups to the

ethnographic observation activity.

Study 3: Ethnographic Observation, June – December, 2003

At the time of entry to Highsales, the researcher had already conducted 14 months of

research within the first case-study organisation, Tech D. The early findings from that

case suggested that rather than consider monologic and dialogic change

communication separately there was value in considering the interplay of the two

communication models. Additionally, it appeared that there were direct relationships

between the background talk and the monologic and dialogic change communication.

The staggering of the case-studies allowed the researcher to test these observations

within Highsales. The findings over the first six months with Highsales confirmed a

dynamic interplay of monologic, dialogic and background talk approaches to change,

182

but highlight several differences in the effect owing to the different context. First a

summary of the substantive and contextual issues of the change process deriving from

the ethnographic observation study are presented, then the data analysis is presented

using the three templates.

It was evident in discussions that there was a clear delineation of change processes

before Charles (BC), and after Charles (AC). Historically, the business unit had been

managed with an excess of pseudo-dialogic processes. These were seen as ‘talk fests’,

and highly creative interactions. However, a number of the employees were scornful

of this management style, as it did not appear to be genuine in inviting input, nor of a

symmetrical nature. Only the privileged were invited to participate, and ultimately it

was considered ‘all talk no action’. There were no mechanisms to provide feedback or

input to the change processes.

There’s a lot of good ideas floating around as well. As you said there was obviously no channels before that people could’ve said well I think we should be doing this, let’s try. That wasn’t accommodated before, whereas now it is, and that’s exactly right, cause we have had people like [finance manager] who have been screaming about things for months and months and months and there hasn’t been anything done about it.

(field notes, 19/6/03)

The majority of change occurred through a focus on business process re-engineering

by Jessica. Charles made explicit his expectations of the managers in communicating

to staff, and initiated a number of breakfasts and work social events to build

awareness of other members of the team. Previously, all the teams had been

geographically distributed in other buildings. The last of the original management

team left within a month of Charles arriving, their departures managed with dignity.

Any acrimony over the redundancies was covert and not observable in the workplace.

183

Every month saw a number of changes introduced, the majority surrounding process

improvement and improving quality indicators (for example, call monitoring of the

sales centre, improving the credit check process, and customer feedback surveys).

Within three months, the seasonal demands of the business were having full impact,

and the workload had escalated. This change was also accompanied by the

introduction of a new General Manager (GM) of the Retail division of Utilities

United. Charles initiated weekly management meetings designed to touch base across

the business, and to make sure all were aware of what was happening in other areas.

The findings from Study 2 were reported back to the management team. In response

to the finding that the employees valued being listened to, an employee improvement

team was instigated known as the HIT team (Highsales Improvement Team).

Staff continued to leave at the rate of one or two a month, with the exception of those

in the sales centre. The sales centre continued to be a contentious employment site

with a high churn rate. Some of the movement was attributed to poor recruiting and

lack of performance, but others sought more permanent work, free of the insecurity of

casual contracting. Towards the end of this period, Jessica took on an additional

marketing and communication role. The BPR role was reducing after the initial

implementation phase, and the mix of process improvement and marketing appeared

to be useful enough to the organisation to extend her contract.

Towards the end of December, the parent company released the results of the annual

staff climate study, and requested that the results be discussed with a selection of each

business divisions. One of the most significant findings discussed at that forum was

the lack of career progression and security within the division. The calendar year

finished on a positive note with Charles acknowledging how much had been gained in

184

the last six months. The next section now looks further at the themes of monologic,

dialogic change communication and sense-making evident during the ethnographic

observation study.


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 .


The lower-level employees provided the most evidence of the vacuum, with frequent

references to ‘information downloads’ (field notes, 28/09/03). Three months into the

new business unit manager’s command he released a power point presentation that

evaluated the change process so far and provided a score out of ten on each change

priority. The format of each slide was simple and clear: ‘What have we done so far?’

and ‘What do we need to do better?’ His introductory email departed from traditional

monologic themes of control in the implementation of this release, by letting the

middle management know he was open to input from them.

-----Original Message----- From: [Business Unit Manager]

Sent: Friday, 10 October 2003 2:04 PM To: [Management team, PA], Cc: FRAHM Jennifer Subject: presentation for staff team briefs

All - as discussed in our recent management meeting I have produced a presentation for delivery to all staff. Attached is the draft. While I am fairly comfortable with it, I would welcome any comments that you have. If there are any changes I will re-issue the presentation, otherwise I will assume that you will talk it through with your staff

185

at the next team briefs. I would be more than happy to come along and talk to it or participate in any discussions as you wish.

This example illustrated how the manager was adroit at switching from monologic to

dialogic communication mode. His message was unequivocal, included justifications

for the changes and what it meant for the employees. In so doing, he provided much

needed stability and security. However, many slides of the presentation included a call

for input, ‘what do you think?’, ‘more ideas appreciated’, and these slides were then

discussed within teams, keeping open a climate of inquiry. When one of the

department managers was asked how the teams felt about the presentation, he

expressed surprise at the response: ‘It was good, I used the PowerPoint slides Charles

provided. It was a good wake up call – I just assumed that everyone knew what we

working towards, but they didn’t!’ (Field notes, 21/10/03).

Jessica also introduced monologic communication to the processes, and signified a

departure from the previous ‘all talk, no action’ culture. Jessica possessed a degree in

organisational communication and had five years experience within the change

management competency of a ‘Big 5’ consulting firm, and was primarily focussed on

action. As she left one meeting, one of the younger managers who had been in the unit

for five years, shook his head, and with a somewhat reverent tone commented, ‘You

gotta watch her – she throws action items as she walks out the door’ (field notes,

23/06/03). Her monologic change communication reflected the traditional themes of

control and unilateral management. She was more concerned with control than

Charles, making it explicit in one email to managers how communication to the

licensee group needed to be managed: ‘At this stage, any changes that need to be

communicated to the Licensees should be ‘held onto’. I would like us to communicate

any changes in a controlled way so as not to inundate them with many small changes

186

at many different points’ (19/6/03). Thus, the monologic change communication

observed in the first six months was welcomed by staff as it provided closure on

uncertainty, and was recognised as a sign of action.


One of the focus groups in the earlier section noted the opportunity for token dialogic

processes. While the ethnographic observation period recognised substantial dialogic

change communication, there was also evidence of what could be considered pseudo–

dialogic change communication. After the initial HIT team was shown to be

successful, the Sales Manager was quick to initiate a series of ‘focus groups and

advisory teams’ concerned with call monitoring. Call monitoring was a quality

indicator process whereby management staff would conduct silent listening to the

Customer Service Representative’s phone calls and evaluate the quality indicators.

The reports were used for evaluating training and development needs. However, the

process had attracted significant union opposition, and the staff were uncomfortable

with managers not known to them conducting ‘surveillance’.

When the sales manager was asked the purpose of the focus groups, and what he

hoped to achieve, he responded, ‘Well nothing really. But it’s a great way to keep the

unions on the back foot – they can’t complain if their own members have sanctioned

the process in their focus group. And the staff feel like they have contributed too’.

If the two relevant unions wanted to object to excessive call monitoring, then the sales

manager could point to the union’s own members being part of the employee

involvement group that negotiated the terms.

One of the more unique examples of change communication was the ‘switching

competences’ displayed by Charles and Jessica. Both could take a dialogic moment

187

and move it into action or stability through monologic change communication. Both

Charles and Jessica were applauded for their ability to listen to multiple view points,

synthesise the differing perspectives and then create action plans that were monitored

and measured. This approach was complemented by a culture, which, for the most

part, viewed change as positive and was open to dialogue. The provision of a number

of mechanisms to facilitate the listening and the inclusion also assisted the switching

competences.

Three months into his arrival, Charles instigated weekly management meetings on a

Wednesday morning. The purpose of these was to go around the table and have a

quick snapshot of what was happening in each department. The climate appeared

collegial with much good humoured ribbing of all at the table evident. Managers at

the table did not hesitate to say when things were not going well within their

departments. Over a period of six months, Charles never raised his voice or publicly

criticised a manager. At one point the marketing department had to acknowledge a

costly error in a campaign. While clearly annoyed, Charles sat back from the table,

breathed deeply and returned with ‘Is there learning in this that we can harness?’

(field notes, 12/11/03). Reframing the error in terms of learning led to the

development of a new process in managing print campaigns, and this highlights the

constructivist nature of dialogic change communication.

Likewise, in her first week, Jessica went around all the departments and asked a

number of open-ended questions such as ‘so tell me what‘s been going on for you’. A

list of issues was generated and these were then prioritised in conjunction with

management team. The focus was the areas that had the most potential to impact

negatively on the gross margin of the business. Once she had the priorities, she called

188

for a number of cross-functional process workshops. ‘There’s no point in writing

processes if the people don’t know about them so we’ve really tried to get them

involved right from the beginning’ (field notes, 18/9/03). Beyond lowering resistance

to the impending change, this style of workshop had additional benefits. In working

through process charts with members of different departments, it became evident

there were many fundamental misunderstandings about other’s roles and

responsibilities. Typical of the exchanges were:

But you can’t do that – if you do that we are not able to bill the customer for 30 days. What do you mean? I thought it was account’s role to bill the customer once the system registers a closed action.


This exchange exemplified how the business process reengineering forums were safe

spaces to take risks in acknowledging what was not known in order to create new

processes. At the same time it assisted in diffusing knowledge formerly specific to

individual departments. Both Charles and Jessica completed the dialogic forums with

action plans and schedules. These were monitored at the weekly meetings with

management and measured with the monthly budget review meetings. They both had

the ability to engage in a dialogic process until new understanding was constructed

then switch to a more unilateral command style. Another example of the dual

utilisation of monologic and dialogic communication was found in Charles’s email to

all staff prior to Christmas. He used a monologic medium and message (one way, top-

down) to reinforce dialogic principles (commitment to learning, support, and

teamwork) (email, 23/12/03).

This section has described the dialogic highlights of the first six months at Highsales.

The key findings were the use of a pseudo-dialogic process to achieve compliance

189

with stakeholders, and the integration of monologic and dialogic change

communication by Charles and Jessica.


There were two main conversations occurring in the background of the change

process: one was the historical path, and the second, the potential for further

redundancies. The impact of past experience of change could not be understated, as it

continued to punctuate the successes of the change process for the next six months.

For some, this retrospective caution served to highlight how far they had come with

the changes, for others it acted as a barrier to embracing new processes. Many team

members were not able to separate past experience of change with the current

processes. This led to expressions of cynicism, and disbelief about impending change

processes. In some cases, it affected the actions as well. After three weeks of

conducting a system transaction in the ‘new way’, one employee would revert to the

‘old way’. When asked why she was not following the new process, she would look

surprised and say, ‘But that’s the way we’ve always done it…oh that’s right, that’s

changed now’. It was a ‘reversion problem’ according to Jessica (field notes, 18/9/03).

The resilience of the past was countered with increased monologic communication by

Jessica, to reinforce the present. The ‘reversion problem’ was not as visible at a

management level with the management team seemingly committed to the new

processes.

The other event that influenced the background talk was the prolonged and secretive

implementation of the redundancies prior to Charles’ arrival. The parent company had

recently received unflattering media coverage for another division’s redundancies and

endured a protracted legal battle with substantial union involvement. This reaction

190

meant that the senior management took much longer in announcing the Highsales

redundancies, while they worked to ‘get it right’.

Look we’re not good communicators anyway, so not ignoring that cause that is a big problem, but honestly 90% of the problem were IR issues.

Manager, 19/06/03

The subsequent restructuring was shrouded in silence, with no communication, either

monologic or dialogic occurring. As a result, a change communication vacuum was

created and gossip, rumour, and innuendo filled the vacuum. As noted in the findings

from the focus groups, the main site of sense-making was the smokers’ area, a

covered external entertainment area buttressing the communal tea room. It was

customary to gather there before shifts, in breaks, and after shifts. In the scheduled

breaks the employees would tell of the insecurity that surrounded the time, and how

the temporary and contract staff were completely ignored.

If you were a temp staff, you just felt like crap, cause how where you going to get a full time job if the full timers were being offered voluntary redundancies. If you were a temp, you weren’t even considered at all.


Despite the main round of redundancies being over within four weeks of the

researcher starting in the business unit, the experience still coloured the subsequent

sense-making of staff regarding change. One of the marketing staff remarked she

would like to move to a particular office that was now vacant. ‘Are you sure Carol?

That’s a big call; it’s not called the ‘departure lounge’ for nothing…’ (field notes,

04/07/03)

Indeed, the nomenclature surrounding change, whether it was informal such as the

staff appointed ‘Departure Lounge’, or formal, such as the naming of the Customer

Relationship Management (CRM) project ‘SIMPLE’ or the New Product

Development (NPD) process ‘SPEEDI’, also highlighted the importance of language

191

during change. Once it was apparent that the CRM implementation was far from

‘easy’ and the NPD process really quite slow, managers were quick to realise the

potential for further derision and ridicule in future change efforts. Jessica thought long

and hard before naming the employee involvement improvement team ‘HIT’

(Highsales Improvement Team).

In summary, like the first case-study, a vacuum was created by the lack of

communication about redundancies and employee departures. This vacuum was filled

by gossip, rumours and the background talk of change. In the context of continuous

change, monologic communication, which is best illustrated by top-down, unilateral

messages about change, was appreciated as it meant direction, action, and closure on

dialogic exchanges. Rather than reflect the conventional themes of managerial control

and coercion, monologic change communication was welcomed, as it represented

stability and security: ‘Finally, we know what we are doing now’ (field notes,

01/07/03).

The arrival of Charles and Jessica signified a major communication transition for the

business unit. Both Charles and Jessica were highly competent at switching from

dialogic to monologic styles and complemented these interpersonal skills with

monologic and dialogic mechanisms such as morning teas with addresses to all staff,

power point information cascades, cross functional management meetings, cross-

functional business process workshops, and a cross-functional employee improvement

team.

Despite the presence of these two change communication models, the background talk

of change continued to have an impact on change receptivity in the way of cynicism

and disbelief about future change. The primary conversations were related, the impact

192

of the redundancies in the past and the potential for further in the future. Neither of

these conversations enhanced the change receptivity. The next section reports on

studies 4, 5 and 6 encompassed in the second time period of the study.

Time 2


The second survey achieved a 64% response rate. The sample possessed an average

age of 31.1 and consisted of 15 females and 17 males. The average tenure with the

parent company was 2.2 years.

Hypothesis 2 continued to have no support. The change communication variables

remained uncorrelated with openness to change. However the discussions from the

first round of focus groups within Highsales provides a tentative explanation as to

why this was the case. The past experience of change was acting as a moderator of the

relationship between change communication and change receptivity. Like the first

study, a significant negative correlation was noted between dialogic change

communication (M = 3.48, SD = .68) and the instrumental change communication (M

=2.75, SD = .93), (r = -.557, p = .001, n = 33) and the outcome continues to suggest

that the more instrumental the communication of change, the less likely dialogic

change communication is to occur. The correlations are provided in Table 5.3.

193

Table 5.3 Correlations between Openness to Change and Communication

variables, Time 2

1 2 3 4


2. Top Down Change Communication (Monologic)

Pearson Correlation -.020 1

3. Instrumental Use of Change Communication (Monologic)

Pearson Correlation -.303 .143 1


Pearson Correlation .227 .151 -.557(**) 1

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). N = 35 The means of the key variables of interest in Time 2 are presented below.


Variable Mean SD

1. Openness to change (OC) 3.84 .47


3. Instrumental change communication 2.75 .93

4. Top Down change communication 3.78 1.00

The next section discusses the second round of focus groups to establish what was

occurring regarding change, communication and change receptivity six months into

the study.

Study 5: Focus groups, February 2003 Monologic Change Communication

The monologic themes evident in the focus group transcripts were the continued

value of information transfer, and of passive communiqués and managerial control.

Traditionally, the literature eschews the concept of management control in

194

communication during organisational change, favouring a more participative practice

(Waddell, Cummings, & Worley, 2004). Yet this study found otherwise. As noted in

studies 2 and 3, there were expectations of monologic change communication, and the

lack of ‘shoulds’ and ‘needs’ in this round indicated that both Charles and Jessica had

been successful in meeting these expectations. When discussing what makes good

communication during change, the focus group participants repeatedly referred to

instances of information transfer.

Yes we sort of are, pretty much are, so we pretty much are following their process now, so we’ve got one point or one conduit of message dissemination for want of a better word, everything for Highsales should go through me, and I send out who it’s gotta go to . But I think those meetings were, had a good purpose to them cause we find out what what’s going on in the joint, we download from the exec which is a lot of times stuff you don’t find about.


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.


The information transfer continued to meet a need for clarity and stability, removing

ambiguity about staff changes and other organisational changes. There was

satisfaction with the passivity of communication mediums. The emailed sales alerts

and presentations cascade were one-way, and there was not the opportunity to engage

with those doing the communication, yet this was not noted as a problem.

Equally, when discussing examples of poor change communication the participants

referred to circumstances when information transfer was lacking or there was an

oversupply of information.

There was the [utility] issue for instance on Monday morning, we all came in eagerly to the first phone calls and not one of us had been notified that by close of business on Friday night, [utility] prices had gone up.

195

I mean if you’re flooded, if you flooded with sales alert every day it’s just you know… Yeah it’s… You end up going ‘oh it’s another one, click’, and it might actually be something quite important. Because if you get too many you tend to ‘oh no not another one’ you don’t really… Exactly …read it


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.


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.


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.


The primary dialogic themes arising from the second round of focus groups were an

intensified emphasis on group problem solving, increased symmetrical exchange, and

increased empathy across the organisation. The findings from study 2 suggested that

196

Charles had introduced dialogic change communication to the organisation via

empathetic listening, and the provision of dialogic forums. After six months, this had

increased with all focus group participants discussing the use of cross-functional

problem solving groups as a preferred approach. Cross-functional teamwork had

become part of the Highsales language, to the extent that the employees now expected

it.

Cross team networking – like breakfast here, lunch here, would you say the Christmas party? Would you say that? Just constantly meeting with other people, team members and within the floor and having a chat with them, um the HIT team that sort of thing. I find that the more I get to talk with them on a personal level them more you can appreciate what they are going through.


This cross-functional approach was also accompanied by devolution of managerial

authority signified by increased involvement of staff at all levels, and better access to

management.

In previous [jobs] I’ve had, never saw the CEO or what, not that we get to see [the CEO] much here but what I’m suggesting is your immediate sales manager is very, very accessible and the team leaders and management is in general, I think we have that accessibility. And through these changes that’s been incredibly beneficial in amalgamating and keeping people together through difficult times. It does, it does, it is a big driver. If you’re, if you’re the anonymous entity that’s sitting there in your pod all day and management, they’re there but they, you know, you see them everyday in the lift for six months and they still ask you ‘do you work here?’ (laughter) …

(Focus Group A, Time 2) Alongside the acknowledgement of increasing symmetry of communicative action

was the recognition that employees needed to take responsibility for asking for the

opportunities for better communication. It was considered that dialogic processes are

not a managerial bestowment. Unless there is joint commitment, they will not

proceed.

To a degree. There are some aspects [of discontent with management communication] but I think it’s also a two-way street in that management does, does communicate it, they may be able to communicate it better, but a lot of staff as well don’t necessarily listen, like look out for it… But, it’s, you’ve got to [ask] sort of does the, does the staff sit back and wait for it to come in or should they actively ask as well, so…

197


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.


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.


The next section further analyses the background talk of change to reveal how the

employees were making sense of the changes.


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.


There were a number of frames of reference occurring. One was the industry specific

nature of change. Comparative analysis was common whether it was comparing the

198

changes to past experience both within the organisation and other places of

employment.

If you remember back where we were. Natalie, when you started compared to now, I think we saw the worst of it back then so it’s changed a lot hasn’t it? Oh god I tell you, when we first started, oh my god!


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.


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.


In summary, the analysis of the monologic and dialogic templates continued to reveal

there was evidence of both change communication models. The monologic change

communication appeared sufficient to meet expectations, with the exception being an

excess of emailed information that overwhelmed the staff involved and prevented

them focussing on the change process. It was evident that dialogic change

communication was occurring through the growing awareness of empathy, cross-

199

functional communication and increased symmetry of relationship between

employees and managers. Thus, the framing discourses in the background were not as

vocal as the previous focus group, yet focused on people leaving, comparative

analysis, and the unsanctioned sources of information.

Study 6: Ethnographic Observation, January – June 2004

This section addresses the findings from the ethnographic observation data from

January 2004 to June 2004. First, the substantive and contextual issues of the change

process are described and then the findings from the alternate templates are reported.

The beginning of 2004 saw Jessica frustrated and despondent about the limited

amount of embedding of change lamenting, ‘It’s not resistance, it’s forgetfulness’

(field notes, 6/1/04). Despite being able to name a number of areas of success, the

dissatisfaction with lack of ‘uptake’ was aggravating to her. The management

meetings continued in a collegial style. January signified a major business crisis in the

advent of adverse weather affecting service delivery. This situation placed a major

strain on the parent company and all divisions were required to take up the slack. The

strain of this environmental crisis was compounded by a legislative oversight that

occurred in the following month. A misinterpretation of existing legislation came

perilously close to closing the business down, and again the management team was

caught up in crisis management. At this point both Charles and Jessica were starting

to voice concerns that the change was too incremental to meet the change goals, and

that part of the fundamental business model was flawed. This problem was reflected

in continuing angst over control and performance of the licensees. Not surprisingly,

under such pressure, the sales centre started to report high levels of sick leave and

fatigue, and the employee improvement team saw lower attendance than at the

200

previous meetings. The organisation was too lean to cope with the volume of work

and two unexpected crises in a row. In a surprise move, the CEO terminated Charles’s

involvement with the case-study organisation in order to redirect his efforts to a

project critical to the parent company’s performance. The appointment was seen as

good internal move, but the remaining staff were somewhat bereft. Charles had made

a good impression, particularly with the middle management team. One middle

manager told the story of how they appreciated Charles frankness:

When Charles came in, he made it clear to us that there was a burning platform. We had 12 months to turn this business around. There was not going to be any leniency on our financial targets. It didn’t matter whether we liked him or not. But we did. (field notes, 17/12/03)

One of the middle management team stood in as acting manager and was later

appointed to the permanent position (field notes, 10/05/03). However, as the

recruitment of this position was not transparent and based on the conversations

outside of the management meetings, the appointment rankled with the other middle

managers. This event coincided with what appeared to be ‘musical chairs’ in the

workplace. The sales manager was seconded to an acting position in a higher role, and

together with a maternity leave vacancy, there were eight employees changing roles to

fill the ensuing vacancies. There was little time for handovers, yet, for the most part,

staff coped as they remained committed to the organisation.

At the same time, the new GM introduced a major behavior change program. It started

with a series of workshops with management and at the time of the research

concluding was yet to be cascaded down to the front line employees. The new

manager Mary had a different style to Charles. Whereas Charles would lean back and

allow the managers time to discuss issues, Mary introduced a ‘program of work’ and

focused on timely task completion. She also introduced pre-meetings to plan larger

201

meetings, so that all external communication was carefully controlled. This level of

control created a daunting environment for new staff, and those lacking in confidence

admitted they were anxious over the ‘micro management’, and tended to perform

poorly. Regardless, the financial results continued to be good, and by the end of the

financial year the organisation was in a very strong position and was considered a

very successful turnaround. The next section looks further at the themes of

monologic, dialogic change communication and sense-making evident during the

second ethnographic observation study.


It appeared that in the second six month study, monologic change communication was

dominating the communication during change. In discussions surrounding the overall

employee satisfaction survey, it was apparent that the employees felt that feedback

was lacking and they were not involved in the decision making – ‘Well we just get

told!’ Certainly Jessica’s admission that she was drip feeding the staff with

progressive information confirmed the increased monologic communication to assist

in bedding down the changes. When she was discussing the problems she was facing,

she said, ‘It’s difficult to get everyone communicated to’. This statement was a clear

indication of the message dissemination model that was occurring. The transition

from dialogic change communication to monologic change communication was

quicker than the previous six months. There was much less reliance on cross-

functional problem solving to generate new processes. The primary medium of use

was email, with some official ‘briefings’.

Mary possessed strong monologic competences and appeared comfortable in a

command and control role

202

‘Please ensure all your team members have been presented the Highsales planning update by COB Wednesday 17/3.’ I am giving a presentation to various teams today at 3pm - and I am happy to attend other sessions and present - my diary is up to date - so just book me in

thanks Mary

(email, 12/3/04)

However, the focus on task completion came at a cost to relationship building within

the middle management team. Mary’s focus on tasks diminished the climate of

empathetic listening and inquiry.

While there were frequent email notifications of new staff, there was little

communication to explain or announce who was leaving or why. This was particularly

evident in the sales centre. The one-way direction of communication only occurred

with new staff starting. Staff leaving was cloaked in silence. The exception was an

email from the sales manager regarding the departure of a long serving staff member

(email, 26/02/04).

While Charles requested that certain business information be ‘deployed down the

line’, Mary preferred to take responsibility for passing information on and developed

a Key Performance Indicator (KPI) tree to present to all the teams. She also sent

regular monthly emails announcing the financial KPIs.

Good Morning Congratulations to everyone for achieving a great May result May Results were: Revenue (Sales) target was $[x] and we achieved $[x] Net Contribution (profit) result was $[x] above target (a fantastic result!!) The target for June is: Revenue (sales) - target of $[x]

203

Over the last few weeks you should have been taken through the Highsales Plan for next financial year by your manager and me. As part of this plan I went through a ‘KPI Tree’ (Key Performance Indicator). From July, this tree will be used to communicate our results. If you have any questions - please feel free to ask your manager or me. Once again - a great May result - well done Now we need to focus on June Many thanks Mary

(email, 7/6/04)

While the employees commented on being surprised by the notifications of results,

they appreciated the stabilising effect of these congratulatory emails (‘Things are

settling down now’ - field notes, 15/06/04). The majority of the monologic messages

resulted in emails announcing new products, promotions and new processes. Yet

discussions with staff in the tearooms suggested that these emails were being missed;

So did you see that sales alert about the staff discounts? No – where was that? Oh it was emailed this morning. Hmmph – we don’t have time to check emails.


The increase in one way emails could be attributed to the escalation of workload. As

the managers workload increased, they complained there was not the time to have

meetings with teams during busy times. As a default action, they sent multiple emails

to manage the increased information needs of the staff.

I have outlined the changes to the new Complaints Process. The full outline of the complaints process can be viewed in [internal web page]. If you require me to send you all the documentation please advise me ASAP. These changes will active immediately.

(email, 11/03/04)

It was common to sign off the emails with ‘Any questions let me know’, yet it

appeared that this phrase became redundant. Employees did not have time to process

the information let alone question and clarify issues.

204


The final email for 2003 illustrated the unique switching ability of Charles. While the

email was one-way, the message content reinforced the dialogic principles and

elements

Hello everyone…

I would also take the opportunity to thank you for your efforts during 2003. In my mind it has been a very successful year, with many challenges overcome and some outstanding results achieved for the business. I believe that our performance during 2003 has put us onto a path to achieve great things during 2004. I have learned a lot in a very short time at Highsales and probably the most important learning is the power of the team that we have here at Highsales - it is outstanding! The changes we have made have been supported and great ideas and initiatives continue to come from all areas. Give yourselves a big pat on the back. Again, while there will be challenges in 2004 the business is in great shape to continue to grow and prosper.

We are taking very seriously the feedback that you have given regarding the staff survey - thanks for your honesty. One common theme is to make sure that we provide staff with as many opportunities for advancement as possible.

(email, 23/12/03)

‘Highjinks’ was an internal newsletter designed to notify staff of changes. Jessica

turned the internal newsletter into a dialogic collaboration.

Hello HIT-ters It's time for another edition of highjinks. So get those stories in about fascinating feats occurring in your part of the Highsales world. I want to start including a ‘team of the month’ section - Rupert, Casey said Finance might be interested in being this month's highlighted team. Can someone from Finance put a little blurb together for me? I would like to put the truth out next week, so please get me your ideas/stories by the end of this week. Thanks Jessica

(email, 6/1/04) However, for the most part, the dialogic progress of the previous six months

dissipated and this was reflected in a reduced commitment to the change initiatives.

Jessica lamented, ‘But people don’t take it seriously’. Once the business workload

205

became intense, time was not allowed for the existing dialogic processes. While one

employee took the initiative of raising this as a problem, the rest lacked agency.

Just some feedback....

I felt yesterday's meeting was very rushed, particularly when it came to discuss the issues in our sub-groups. I also felt that it is important that in the HIT meeting people are allowed to express their ideas freely without being dismissed (following the principles of brainstorming). I think it is important that everyone in that room is allowed to discuss their ideas and finish their sentences. I understand time constraints, but I believe the HIT team members will feel more valued and will speak more freely if this is the case.

Not having a go at anyone, it’s just some feedback that you can do with what you wish.

Thanks for allowing me to be part of the team.

(email, 13/1/04)

Other employees did not appear to feel empowered to raise the same complaints with

their managers, preferring to deflect the responsibilities to others.

sounds like you have some good ideas coming out of these meetings, and once again I apologise I couldn’t make it. I noticed you mentioned a problem of attendance of hit members. This is the sixth meeting you have done, and I have only been able to attend 3. May be someone needs to look at allowing for these sort of meetings in the rosters, as it isn’t that busy at the moment anyway. If you could raise this issue with the powers that be, that would be great.

(email 2/03/04)

Mary also showed evidence of switching ability, however in a different direction.

Whereas Charles moved from dialogic to monologic change communication, Mary

moved from monologic to dialogic as evidenced by emails that told the employees

what was going to occur, and then promised opportunity for feedback later. The

monthly forums with the licensees which were in essence dialogic forums became

very asymmetrical. Mary instituted ‘practice’ meetings before the forums, so that

managers would know what to say.

206


Again the increased volume of work and the sufficient supply of monologic change

communication prevented much of the background talk from dominating. The key

topic of conversation was the high volume turnover of staff in the sales centre with

many staff speculating as to the cause and what was involved. The employees were

not provided with information to make sense of the turnover, and so they relied on

plausible understanding, ranging from financial insecurity, performance management,

to management incompetence. It affected the change initiatives, as some noted they

were too worried about people coming and going to focus on new processes. The

earlier commitment to staff progression highlighted in the Christmas email was

ignored.

The turnover of staff also meant that many of the ‘sense-givers’ had moved on and

this meant that there was a lack of people with enough historical understanding of the

company to make sense. It also transpired that many of the employees did not have

the knowledge necessary to make sense of certain statements.

[New General Manager] did a muffin afternoon tea yesterday with staff, at which he told staff about last years [$ x] loss and the fact that we had an exit strategy in place. [sales manager] raised this as he had heard people talking about it... as staff were not aware of this loss. I spoke with Sarah and she said that Berneise phoned her last night to discuss the possibility of people being made redundant. I spoke to Sara and Josh as my feelers and told them this was bollocks and every business should have an exit strategy.

(email, 26/05/04)

The morning tea would have been the first time many employees had heard the term

exit strategy and clearly it generated a lot of background talk. What is key here is

Jessica’s use of ‘feelers’ and her active managing of the background talk. It was also

interesting that Mary chose to ignore the background talk. When asked the reason for

the high staff turnover in the unit, she denied it was occurring, conceding some staff

207

had left on account of performance management issues, and they were looking at a

better system of using casual staff (field notes, 4/6/04).

The second round of research with Highsales is concluded with the following

observations. While the survey revealed no change in the openness to change, the

second round of focus groups provides a more complex understanding of the

relationship between monologic communication, dialogic communication and the

background talk. It appeared that in response to the increased dialogic and monologic

change communication, the background talk dissipated. However, these focus groups

were at the beginning of the time period studied and by the end of the second round of

ethnographic observation; it was shown that the change in leadership impacted on

how employees felt about the change process. The next round of studies captures

more details on that impact.

Time 3

Study 7: Survey, July 2004

The final survey was distributed in June 2004 to 50 staff and the response rate was 27

(54%) of the population. The respondents had an average age of 33.2, eight were

female, 16 were males and three did not disclose gender. The average tenure of the

respondents was 1.98 years with the parent company. Research Question 5 asked what

happens to openness to change over time. The results of the ANOVA on the third

round of surveys revealed that there was no change within any of the time periods of

the openness to change measure (F (2, 90) = 1.39, p = .253). The summary table of

ANOVAs are reported below.

208

Table 5.5 Summary Table of ANOVAs within Highsales

Variable Source of Variation

Sums of Squares

Df F P

Openness to change Between Groups

.501 (2,90)

1.396 .253


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.


Variable Mean SD


2. Dialogic Change Communication 3.39 .53

3. Instrumental Change Communication 3.24 .83

4. Top Down Change Communication 3.60 .64

The correlations between the change communication variables and openness to

change are reported below.

Table 5.7 Time 3 Correlations of Change Communication Variables with Openness to Change

1 2 3 4


2. Top Down Change Communication

Pearson Correlation .169 1

3. Instrumental use of Change Communication

Pearson Correlation -.101 .275 1


Pearson Correlation .103 .416(*) .284 1

N = 26, * = <.05

209

Hypothesis 2 proposed there would be a positive relationship between change

communication and openness to change. Yet, like all of the results reported in relation

to this hypothesis, there continued to be no relationship between change

communication and openness to change. The contrary result on Hypothesis 2 is

further discussed in the next focus group summary. The survey revealed a significant

positive correlation between top down communication and dialogic change

communication (r = .416, p = .039, n = 25), however, caution should be advised in

interpreting this owing to the small sample size. One possible explanation for this

finding is that top-down change communication is inextricably linked to information

provision. Dialogic change communication can be a clarification activity, and when

information is provided, dialogue can occur. This section concludes the reporting of

the final survey. The next section provides the results of the final focus groups.

Study 8: Focus groups, July 2004 Monologic Change Communication

In the final set of focus group transcripts, there was an emphasis on information

transfer as change communication. The employees understood the change

communication to be problematic when the information delivery did not meet the

employees’ expectations.

The combination of continued incremental change and an increase in staff turnover

exacerbated the need for reliable, timely and consistent information and this was a

challenging goal for management.

Some of the things haven’t been communicated all that well… (Focus Group D, Time 3)

210

Part of the reason for this was a continued over-reliance on email for information

dissemination, and reluctance to engage in face-to-face meetings for emotionally

complex messages (such as the staff turnover).

It’d be better to rather than send an email around and rely on team briefs [which were not occurring], would be to say ‘right we all going to get together…just a really quick message.


I mean if you are flooded, if you are flooded with sales alerts every day, it’s just you know [shrug of hopelessness].

(Focus Group A, Time 3) Two of the focus groups also raised the importance of relevant information in order to

manage the information overload. There was a tendency to broadcast changes

regardless of the relevance to stakeholders.

You can communicate it but when it’s no relevance to you, you can talk till the cows come home and you won’t grasp it at all.


It appeared that management were focusing on the ‘big picture’ issues and this focus

led to the ‘little things’ being neglected.

From a, it’s the little things that they don’t communicate well, you know ah just when people leave or whatever like, here we are Oscar’s leaving tomorrow and nobody’s, there’s been no official ‘what’s happening’.


This round of focus groups saw a new monologic approach with Mary sending regular

one-way messages of congratulations as monthly updates. These were well received.

You know she sends out an email every two weeks to let us know how well we have done and to congratulate us.


While the use of email for broadcasting the financial achievements was welcomed by

many of the participants of the focus groups, the monologic competences of this

manager were not appreciated by all. Some noted the suppressing effect on raising

new ideas.

211

You, at first you tend to feel ok, yeah, yeah so you stick your head out a little bit and it’s negative reaction you pull your head back in and y’know, I’ll just sit here and so you know.


In summary, by the time of the third focus groups there was a recognition that the

information delivery had waned, particularly about the seemingly ‘little’ changes. The

employees appreciated the use of the email to deliver the financial achievements,

however some felt that Mary’s strong emphasis on the monologic delivery of change

communication prevented innovative practice, particularly when they had become

used to Charles’ Dialogic -Monologic sequencing.


The third round of focus groups differed from the dialogic themes in the previous

focus groups as the respondents now presented examples of what was lacking

dialogically. Contrary to previous focus groups there was little discussion on cross-

functional teamwork, or dialogic forums. While individuals in the focus group

displayed dialogic competences such as empathy and recognition for others, there was

a silo effect at a group level. All of the groups contained their discussion to their

department only, and not other departments, which illustrated a decline in the

previous cross-functional teamwork focus.

At an individual level, it was apparent that many of the participants possessed dialogic

competences.

I don’t know if you agree [acknowledging differences] I thought, but maybe I’m wrong… [consciousness]


I don’t want to put words into your mouth… I’m not wanting to talk for anyone else (Focus Group D, Time 3)

212

However, at a group level, it was apparent that the departments had closed ranks and

the ‘whole of business’ teamwork evident in the earlier focus groups had declined.

Look I mean and I think we probably may have potentially gone a little bit backwards from where we were last time. I don’t get the feeling that there is a good strong team.


A number of participants noted that communication needed to flow across the groups

again. In a seemingly innocent lament, one participant revealed one group’s

perception of identity as being more important than any other group.

The most important people [their work group] are the last to find out. (Focus Group A, Time 3)

There were few forums available to create dialogue about change, and it was noted

that more were required.

More Highsales forums, speak up people! Pipe up! What’s going on? What’s the feelings that are happening with change and be open to all ideas?


I think we need more buy in on the original set of processes…The cross-functional is not happening.


One of the groups recognised that other key stakeholders (licensees) were deprived as

they did not have the opportunity to clarify and discuss the changes occurring. In

terms of what had to improve, one member of this focus group suggested that the

licensees needed more support: ‘Give them a bit of love, cause some, I mean they

don’t feel it!’ This department was the only department where there was a sense that

they had successfully imbedded the changes and they were content with the change

process.

Three of the groups noted that when Mary arrived as Business Unit Manager, she had

worked hard at building rapport and relationships with employees at the ‘coalface’.

213

She wants to build up rapport with the staff so that’s certainly a bonus, that personal touch.


Not only was Mary accessible, the focus groups noted continued accessibility of the

team managers. However, just because the team managers were accessible, it did not

necessarily mean they were listening.

Your immediate sales manager is very accessible and the team leaders and management in general. Yeah, I’d say look, look at better communication between perhaps [sales manager] and the staff, like even though the HIT meetings, they sound fantastic. Or just you know feedback. Like say, once every two weeks a meeting with [sales manager]. I think that would be good.

(Focus Group A, Time

Finally, the next section further examines the background talk of change.


The staff turnover dominated the background talk of change within all of the focus

groups. It was noted that rumors and grapevine activity possessed strong purchase.

Did you hear in the corridor? [about the sales trainer leaving]. Sometimes the grapevine is the most efficient.

(Focus group D, Time 3).

The other background talk consisted of a changing appreciation of what continuous

change was about. In the last six months of the study the parent company had

launched a large change initiative, named ‘Utilities X Understanding’, with

motivational speakers, posters on the walls, and teaser promotions in the pay slip

envelopes. The large fanfare launch of Utilities X Understanding had mixed response.

One group was completely disengaged from it, cynically noting the ‘beautiful

posters’, and another group begrudgingly noting that, ‘Utilities X Understanding is the

hype that has been done reasonably well’ after diminishing the campaign with, ‘Well

that’s just two words with a multiplication sign’.

214

Despite all groups defining continuous change as ‘continuously evolving,

improvement’, it was clear that some understood the change process more

pessimistically. ‘It’s been sort of batten down the hatches and tighten up the

processes’, and ‘We are still fighting fires’ (field notes, 29/06/04).

Constant comparison remained a dominant frame of reference with staff referring to

other positions and past work experience as a way of making sense of the current

changes. For the most part this was not a favourable comparison and resulted in

apathy and scepticism.

You know someone puts up their hand and goes let’s try this and ahm we go to that and then it all turns nasty and then we come back to originally where we were. And because of the conglomeration of so much change all the time everyone just goes change, so? It just, it’s, you know, we just become neutral about it all.


I, I’d have to say it’s been, previous to Utilities United being with [name omitted] for [x] years and we had a re-organisation every 12 to 24 months. You just, you just you know get with your, your job and you just you know, you just get used to all the, you know change is going to happen and ah, a lot of times it does a full circle and comes back exactly, exactly where it was five years ago.

(Focus Group D, Time 3) The constant comparison was also part of the explanation of why the change

communication may not be directly related to the way the employees felt about

change. Under circumstances of continuous change, employees were always thinking

back to the last change to evaluate how likely it was they would support the next. If

their perception was that the previous change was poorly implemented, and the next

change was being managed by the same people, in the same way, the impact of the

ensuing change communication was diminished, thus providing further explanation of

why Hypothesis 2 was not supported.

Like, to me anyway, from what I’ve seen like a lot of us here like, unless like we’ve all talked about the things that we really wanted to see changed but there’s a certain level of helplessness to a degree on the sales floor. We’re going well, we want this change but we’re not seeing anything. So, the more that we, no matter how much

215

more you, you receive information, you become very apathetic and yeah sceptical to the whole thing and just go well, oh well oh it’s just another email that gets sent out to us, are we actually going to see that.


In summary, by the end of the first year of continued change initiatives, the analysis

of the monologic and dialogic templates revealed an intensification of the monologic

expectations, with the response being an escalation of the use of email. It was noted

that some of the dialogic principles had declined and the work groups had closed

ranks, and thus the benefits of cross-functional teamwork were ignored. It was

difficult to continue dialogic change communication amongst the silos. The key

themes of background talk of change suggested that the positive employee receptivity

to change was being compromised by the continued staff turnover, and sceptism about

future change.

Conclusion

This chapter has reported the findings from a twelve month study of continuous

change in a business unit of a GOC, Highsales. Results from the surveys conducted at

six month intervals suggest that the employees’ receptivity to change did not change

over the study. There was also no correlation between the change communication and

change receptivity. The ethnographic observation studies converged with the findings

of the qualitative studies and showed initially the case-study possessed enough

monologic and dialogic change communication to suppress the detrimental effects of

the background talk of change.

At six months into the study, the dialogic change communication has led to an

increased awareness of others, and the championing of cross- functional processes.

However, after the departure of Charles and Jessica, the case-study defaulted to higher

levels of monologic change communication, and this did not always benefit the

216

change receptivity. The background talk of change mainly centred around the issue of

redundancies, and staff turnover. The surprising result from the survey regarding the

lack of relationship between change communication and change receptivity was

explained by the participants of the last round of focus groups who suggested that

perception of previous change efforts acted as a moderating variable on the

relationship between change communication and change receptivity.

The next chapter analyses the findings of the cases reported in Chapter Four and

Chapter Five. It also engages with the extant literature in Chapter 2 to examine the

central research question, ‘How does change communication impact on change

receptivity within a continuous change context?’

217

CHAPTER 6

Discussion

SECTION 1 How did Change Communication impact on Change

Receptivity?

This chapter takes the findings reported from Tech D and Highsales, and consults the

literature in Chapter Two to respond to the guiding research questions and aims of the

thesis. The research aims were to answer how change communication impacts on

change receptivity and to provide a deeper investigation of the communicative

implications of continuous change. The first section addresses how each of the

alternate templates, monologic change communication, dialogic change

communication, and the background talk impact on change receptivity within the two

cases studies. The second section reviews the specific contextual demands of

continuous change on change communication. The chapter concludes by establishing

that while each of the change communication models, monologic and dialogic change

communication, and the background talk of change, has distinct impacts on change

receptivity, they must be considered in an integrated form to develop a theory of

change communication. In this sense, a bimodal theory of change communication

comprising both the instrumental and constructivist approach is supported.

Additionally, recommendations are provided in aligning the competences and

expectations of employees within change in order to better manage continuous

change.

218

The impact of Monologic Change Communication on Change Receptivity

The findings in Chapters Four and Five demonstrated that within the change process,

monologic expectations need to be aligned with monologic competences in order for

receptivity to change to improve or to stay positive. A misalignment will create a

decline in change receptivity. The overall purpose of monologic change

communication is to provide stability and closure. The stabilising change

communication can provide rewarding impacts on change receptivity when it reduces

uncertainty. However, this only occurs if there are existing monologic expectations; if

there are not, monologic change communication can create resentment in employees

as they feel dismissed and undervalued. Further, if employees are used to monologic

change communication, their expectations for more intensifies.

Expectations

In both cases, it was evident that monologic change communication was expected,

though in Tech D, this expectation was expressed more as a demand or need. The

escalation of intensity from expectation to need / demand in this case-study can be

attributed to two factors; the lack of fulfilment of the expectation and secondly, the

level of resistance to organisational transformation. The resulting impact on change

receptivity was an escalation of frustration, cynicism and ambivalence.

This response could be considered in terms of an extension of Burgoon’s Expectancy

Violations Theory (1978). While EVT was initially concerned with non-verbal

communication and the violations of personal space, since the 1990’s it has

encompassed a broader field of study incorporating verbal communication (Griffin,

2000). The essence of EVT is that people possess expectations regarding interactions

with other people (how close they will stand, how they will be greeted, the tone of

219

voice used). When these expectations are not met, the outcome will be either positive

or negative depending on the communicator’s reward valence, and how great the

violation valence is. Tech D’s CEO was too new to have developed a positive

personal impression which relates to the communicator’s reward valence. Thus when

he violated the employees expectations of what should occur (high violation valence),

they reacted negatively (derision). In Highsales, after the arrival of Charles, the

employees were satisfied with the level of monologic change communication and the

satisfaction provided a corresponding sense of comfort and support that enabled the

staff to be more accepting of change with little violation of expectations.

Second, as Eisenberg et al (1999) explain, monologic change communication is useful

in addressing first-order changes or incremental changes that occur within a constant

framework; and continuous or transformational change necessitates more of a dialogic

approach.

Accordingly, it appeared from their focus on the language of continuous improvement

that the employees of Tech D wished only to consider first -order change, and this

stance explained their expectations of monologic change communication. The

possession of dialogic expectations requires an acknowledgement of the need for

transformation and continuous change. By not acknowledging the need for continuous

change, the employees demonstrated a form of resistance to change. As noted in

Chapter 2, change resistance has dominated much of the past literature on change

receptivity. Within Tech D, resistance manifested in the lack of fit between the CEO’s

dialogic change communication competence and the employee’s monologic

expectation. The resulting impact was that the employees of Tech D possessed strong

monologic expectations of change communication which would be top-down, one-

220

way, and heavy on information provision. The lack of matching monologic

competences led to increased cynicism and derision. The resistance to continuous

change within Tech D is addressed further in this chapter when discussing language in

the background talk of change. The concept of monologic competences is further

examined to determine the impact on change receptivity.

Competences

The need for specific change management competences has been established in prior

literature. It has been argued that managers need to develop competences in change

management that accommodate continuous change efforts (Buchanan et al., 1999).

The managerial literature recognises a competence as a specific range of skill,

knowledge or ability. In terms of practical import, the development of ‘soft skills’

remains a key focus in the management development literature (Copelli, 1998).

However, the change management literature is yet to acknowledge the role of

communication competences in organisational change. Managers are urged to develop

communication competences to minimise occurrences of workplace sabotage (Anouli,

1995) and to develop competences in inspirational communication (Frese, Beimel, &

Schoenborn, 2003), however there is no clear direction for managers of change.

Methods of communication development beyond workshops and training seminars

include action training (Frese et al, 2003), coaching (Wales, 2003), and concentrating

on ‘in context’ practice (Doyle et al, 2000). Vecchio and Appelbaum (1995) suggest

techniques for improving communication in organisations including: using

appropriate language, practicing empathic communication, encouraging feedback,

developing a climate of trust and using effective listening. The findings from this

thesis suggest that in order to develop communication competence for organisational

221

change, managers can consider developing monologic communication competences as

part of the skill set.

The origins of communication competences can be traced to Habermas (1984) theory

of communicative competence in which he suggests in an ideal speech act successful

communication is dependent upon five claims. The five claims are that the utterance

is true, that the speaker is sincere or truthful, that the utterance responds to the

appropriate values, that it is fitting to the relation between speaker and listener, and

that it is comprehensible. The communications literature deviates from the

management literature’s skills and resources based usage of the term competences to

also include ‘attributional’ properties (Jablin & Sias, 2001). The organisational

communication literature has generally divided the ‘competence’ research into two

conceptual orientations (behavioural and cognitive). The behavioural focus of

competence addresses issues of appropriate communication behaviour in a given

situation. The cognitive orientation is more attuned to the management perception,

whereby communicative competence consists of cognitive resources and social

knowledge (Jablin & Sias, 2001) In recognising the dual understanding of

communication competence, some posit that the behavourial and cognitive

approaches to change communication competences do not necessarily converge (Zorn

& Ruccio, 1998).

This thesis suggests that within context of organisational change, it is insufficient to

simply possess either monologic or dialogic communication competences, to be

considered communicatively competent. This thesis puts forward that ‘communicative

competence’ during organisational change is determined by the purpose of the

communicative act. Within change there will be a need for monologic competences

222

and dialogic competences. Those who are communicatively competent know not only

how to use these competences separately, but also when to integrate the two, or switch

competence, thus demonstrating ‘fit for purpose’.

The idea of dialogic competences is developed by Kristiansen and Bloch-Poulsen

(2000), however the literature is rather silent on monologic competences. From the

data reported in Chapters 4 and 5 it can be deduced that those with monologic

competences will be good at providing stability through their communication, seek to

control the communication exchange, and thus manage change as smoothly as

possible for the employees. Those with dialogic competences are good at creating

further change. In this sense, this study extends Habermas’ (1984) understanding of

communicative competence to include ‘fit for purpose’. Consideration of the

appropriate usage of monologic and dialogic competences reflects the behavioural

orientation with the literature.

One of the key findings from the inductive analysis was the impact of specific

monologic competences in the change process. In Tech D, there were few who

possessed monologic change competences. One was the Personal Assistant to the

CEO, and it appears that her monologic competences ran counter to the CEO’s

dialogic intentions and actions. It was very difficult to create further change when the

PA (or gatekeeper to the CEO) was actively quashing attempts at dialogue, by

exerting control and seeking to stabilise the organisation as indicated by the

exasperated admonishment about leaving the people alone to do their jobs. The result

was a sense of helplessness experienced by the employees within the organisation as

the overemphasis on control and stability ran counter to the change trajectory set by

CEO. Likewise, in the episode in which the financial controller ‘told’ his staff that

223

one of the departing staff was not being replaced, his monologic delivery proved

inflammatory, as the employees felt entitled to be part of the reorganisation, and their

expectations had shifted to the dialogic change communication.

However, these findings should not be interpreted as an indication that all monologic

competences are negative or inappropriate for change. In context of the cross-

functional change team with Tech D, Jonathon’s monologic ‘power’ focus was

inappropriate, yet in context of leading a team through a spin-off process it was most

welcome. At this time the employees were very shaken and insecure about impending

job loss. This monologic communicator was able to lessen the anxiety and stress by

providing one-way information, on a frequent basis.

While the PA, the financial controller and Jonathon within Tech D, discussed in

Chapter 4, all appeared to operate with monologic change communication as a sole

approach, both the initial manager and change agent in Highsales were competent at

introducing monologic change communication as a way of moving dialogic

communication to action, and transitioning between monologic and dialogic change

communication. In the first half of the study of Highsales, monologic change

communication was more likely to be well received as it meant closure on

uncertainty, and evidence of action and therefore, results. After the ‘ambidextrous’

manager and change agent left, the new manager was responsible for the majority of

the monologic change communication. Like the staff discussed in Tech D, the

manager did not demonstrate transitionery or ambidexterity of communication

competences. Employees reported being appreciative of the frequent updates of

progress, although some in the management team recognised a suppressing effect on

innovation when there was an overwhelming emphasis on control as noted by the

224

comment ‘you pull your head back in’.

Unlike Highsales, there was very little in the way of monologic change

communication from senior management in Tech D and the deficit of monologic

change communication exacerbated the anxiety and information needs of the

employees, thus heightening the monologic expectations to demands. In summary, the

existence of monologic competences will enhance change receptivity if there are

corresponding monologic expectations. However, if the organisation is in need of

further change, the use of monologic competences may frustrate the participants or

make the employees feel undervalued. The next section reviews the implications of

the second template, dialogic change communication on change receptivity.

The impact of Dialogic Change Communication on Change Receptivity

This section continues the examination of the expectations and competences observed

in both cases with relation to the dialogic change communication. Specifically, it is

observed that the change communication expectations and competences exist in a

dynamic process. Both cases showed shifts in the monologic / dialogic states over

time.

Expectations

In Highsales, there was strong sense of recognition of the need for continuous change.

Employees celebrated the innovative climate, rejecting stagnant states, and thus

reflected Miner, Bassof and Moorman’s (2001) improvisational perspective of

continuous change. Part of this recognition could be attributed to a natural inclination

towards innovation as evidenced by the recognition of the turbulent environment that

retail can provide with product development.

225

In acknowledging the need and desire for continuous change, it was not surprising to

find that the staff possessed dialogic expectation. This expectation was strengthened

by a sense of entitlement of involvement within the staff. They believed that they

possessed many skills and expertise and should be involved in discussions about the

change. The main focus of the dialogic expectations was listening as noted by ‘It

helps me have confidence in, OK when I say something, if I say an idea, that I’m

listened to.’ One of the reasons for this may be the long history of union involvement

with the company. The presence of union involvement is a constant reminder of

‘entitlement’ and this pervades throughout all the levels of the organisation (Peetz,

1998). Stohl and Cheney (2001) contend that participation has become a ‘fundamental

social right of the people in the workplace’ (p. 351). In Highsales, it appears that the

employees exercise that right in the form of dialogic expectations.

There was a subtle difference in what was observed with the Tech D staff. While there

was evidence of some expectation of opportunities of involvement, it was

accompanied by mistrust and lack of symmetry between employees and the

management team. Expectations of involvement were tied to an underlying

assumption that management was wrong, and the employee was correct. There was

also the contradiction evident that when provided with opportunities for participation,

many employees did not believe the overtures to be genuine, and this lack of trust

compromises a dialogic exchange. The mistrust of management may be explained by

the dominance of an engineering culture (Ford, Voyer, & Wilkinson, 2000; Schein,

1996).

The engineers exhibited highly individualistic behaviours, and a strong belief in their

own capabilities and like the engineers in Ford et al. ’s (2000) study mistrusted

226

management. The PA’s story of the meeting where the consulting engineers walked

out and laughed at the management (see p.137) illustrated how nothing management

could do would have a positive impact on their openness to change. The professional

arrogance of the consulting engineers permeated the organisational culture and

hampered attempts at symmetrical exchange and genuine engagement, empathy and

mutuality (Kent & Taylor, 2002). Here, the plea to management to engage with

employees on levels of mutuality and reciprocity is inverted as the employees believe

that managers are not worthy partners of dialogue. Curiously, the consultants were the

group most vocal in their assertion that ‘we don’t take our own medicine’ in

recognising that their role was to consult to other companies and tell them how to

change. There is a body of research that acknowledges the difficulty of managing

change within engineering cultures (Ford et al., 2000; Kunda, 1992; Schein, 1996).

This thesis extends this body of work by providing guidance in the difficulty of

managing change. Establishing the communicative expectations of the workforce is a

crucial step in managing organisational change. This also represents a major area of

future research, in understanding the different communicative expectations of

organisational sub-cultures.

Competences

Dialogic competences are rather broadly defined as ‘particular ways of being’

(Kristiansen & Bloch-Poulsen, 2000). The authors further refine this definition to

explain that dialogic competences encompass a ‘combination of humour,

observations, emotional expressions with the checking of notions and willingness to

reflect on perspective’ (2000, p.182). There were very few staff within Tech D who

were dialogically competent. Two of the lower level employees stood out for their

frequent facilitative styles within meetings, and it was typical for them to demonstrate

227

all of Kristiansen and Bloch-Poulsen’s (2000) dialogic competences. However,

neither was in a position of influence or leadership, and thus their dialogic

competences remained isolated expressions. In contrast, it was not unusual for

individuals in the focus groups session to make long monologues on what they saw

‘wrong’ with the organisation, seemingly unaware that the rest of the group was

shifting in chairs, and disinterested. The exception, however, was the CEO, who

rejected notions of managerial control and power, preferring to establish a dialogue of

change.

Eisenberg et al (1999) discuss the importance of ‘stewardship’ as a way that

managers can move away from a ‘parental role’ to that of a partner in dialogue. The

authors argue, ‘This change characterises the dialogic approach and distinguished it

most clearly from the monologic and the transactional’ (Eisenberg et al 1999, p.145 ).

Here the literature exhorts with the managers to change their style, yet the case of

Tech D again inverts that plea. The story of the weekend away with the OD consultant

trying to explain the difference between stewardship and parental management

provides one of the clearest illustrations of dialogic incompetence or ‘pre-

competence’ (Jablin & Sias, 2001).

It is evident from the Tech D case that the introduction of dialogic principles can have

contrary impacts on change receptivity, beyond what is to be expected in the benefits

of increased participation (Hennestad, 2000). The CEO operated almost exclusively in

a dialogic orientation, eschewing one-way exchanges of management control. Yet as

there was not a reciprocal level of engagement, he was frequently misunderstood. A

willingness to reflect on perspective was interpreted by the employees as

indecisiveness and a lack of strong leadership. This observation illustrates one of the

228

differences between monologic and dialogic change communication. The literature in

Chapter 2 has highlighted how monologic change communication is the primary

orientation of change communication models. This can be explained as it is the easiest

of the orientations. It only requires one-way transmission. Provided there is a recipient

available with corresponding information needs it is relatively effortless to achieve.

However, one cannot engage in dialogic exchanges without substantial effort and

energy on behalf of all concerned. There needs to be reciprocity of dialogic

competences for the dialogic exchange to occur as well as the dialogic expectations

for the dialogic exchange to progress. In Tech D, there were neither the dialogic

expectations nor sufficient levels of dialogic competences for a dialogic engagement

to occur.

Within Highsales, not only were the manager and the change agent dialogically

competent, many of the participants within the focus group’s demonstrated dialogic

competences as they acknowledged differences and were conscious of interactions

within the focus groups. The matching competences meant that the employees were

responsive when the Highsales manager and change agent initiated dialogic

interactions. Further, as time progressed between T1 and T2, it was found that the

dialogic competences within the employees developed. By the second round of focus

groups there was a stronger emphasis on relationships, empathy for others, and

awareness of individual’s opinions on others. Within Highsales, the manager

demonstrated strong displays of empathetic listening, and initiated a focus on

relationships. The dialogic principles were embraced by the employees and evident in

the second round of focus group. The participants spoke of relationships and empathy,

and this could be linked to their satisfaction and confidence with the change process.

229

Underscoring the tenuous development trajectory of dialogic competences, after the

manager and the change agent had left the business unit, despite still demonstrating

some dialogic competences within group, the third round of focus groups displayed a

decline in the willingness to accommodate other perspectives. Without strong dialogic

competences evident in the leadership, the teams had ‘siloed up’. Within the groups,

they demonstrated competences such as humour and willingness to reflect on

perspective, however these competences did not permeate the team boundaries and it

appears the cross-team relationships have declined. As Kristiansen and Bloch-Poulsen

(2000) warn, dialogic competences are often absent within organisations and need to

be constantly learned and trained. Within Highsales, the decline of dialogic

competences indicated a need for retraining and more development.

Forums

A primary consideration for enabling dialogic change communication is the provision

of dialogic containers (Kristiansen & Bloch-Poulsen, 2000) or forums in which

dialogue or constructive change communication can occur. There were very few

formal forums available for dialogic change communication to occur within Tech D.

One that had the potential was the Time Team, the cross-functional change team.

However, the team never quite realised its potential. It was not enough to provide time

and place for dialogic change communication; without dialogically competent

participants, the power of constructive change communication is lessened. The

reasons for this appeared to be the lack of dialogic competences within the team, and

that many were operating with specific agendas separate to the joint goals of the

change team.

Eisenberg et al (1999, p.143) offer a summary of the ground rules of dialogue from

230

Bohm and Edward’s (1991) book Changing Consciousness, and Senge’s (1990) Fifth

Discipline. One of the ground rules is that:

Having no leader, no hierarchy, and no predetermined agenda enhances spontaneity. Imposing a question on the group is unnecessary – questions will grow out of dialogue.

Evidence from Tech D and Highsales counters this ground rule. Only one of the Time

Teams (Mark 2) was led by a person who understood some of the principles of

creating an environment for open discussion. By establishing ground rules for the

meeting, he was carving out a dialogic field. As much as the CEO may wish this

group to be reflective, and to not impose a direction, the members were acutely aware

of the cost of their time in meetings and the need to show results. In the second time

team within Tech D, the leader established a semi-structure that enabled to the

participants to be innovative. Placing dialogically incompetent participants in a

position of dialogic inquiry can prove a fruitless task. Ultimately, the team was not

championed by the CEO. He believed he had empowered them to make a difference,

but as the participants had not previously experienced an employee-led team, they

were unable to understand what ‘empowerment’ meant, and insisted on waiting for

approval to do things. Complicating this lack of understanding was the middle

management team blocking their attempts at empowerment: ‘If you want something to

change, see our managers and follow the proper channels’.

Contrary to this, in Highsales, the change agent instigated cross-functional business

process teams on her entry and these proved very successful in creating conversations

that enabled both learning and the development of new processes and ways to

improve implementation. These, too, included a semi-structured facilitative leader,

and were able to create new ideas and processes. The management meetings in the

first half of the year could also be considered dialogic forums, the tone being relaxed

231

and collegial and the emphasis on thinking across the organisation rather than just

about each team’s performance objectives. The outcomes of these meetings often

resulted in managers providing solutions for other managers and the teamwork flowed

on to the individual teams.

The creation of the Highsales Improvement Team also created a container for dialogic

communication. This team was set up after the cross-functional BPR teams had been

disbanded. One of the main purposes of the HIT team was to improve listening across

the organisation in that management needed to continue to listen to staff, and the

teams needed to listen to their representatives, and vice versa. The initial meetings

were very successful, however once the ‘busy season’ started, there was a lack of

middle management support for the HIT team, and this meant staff were not permitted

to attend. Thus, from both cases, it is evident that the continuance of dialogic forums

requires management support and commitment. The very nature of this support and

commitment implies some level of imposition of a ‘results focused’ application and

this deviates from Bohm and Edward’s (1991) and Senge’s (1990) application of

dialogue and contributes to some of the structural paradoxes of participative work

practices (Stohl & Cheney, 2001) expounded in the next section.

Pseudo- Dialogic Change Communication (the wolf in sheep’s clothing)

Caution has been advised in the literature about the potential for dialogic exchanges to

be manipulated for controlled communication (Kent & Taylor, 2002) and thus

misrepresenting true dialogic change communication. One of the questions that arises

from this study is whether the attempt to control dialogue is an example of the

integration of monologic and dialogic approaches or something more manipulative

232

such as concertive control (Cheney et al., 2003) and manufactured consent (Burawoy,

1979). A recent study on the success of deceptive interaction suggest that dialogic

communication is more successful in deceiving the participants, as there is already an

existing trust in their partners (Burgoon, Buller, & Floyd, 2001). In this sense, the

change communication that is purportedly constructivist is actually quite instrumental.

The Highsales case-study provided two examples of the darker side of dialogic

change communication, or what is hereafter termed the ‘pseudo dialogic’.

A Big Risk

The incident in which the sales manager in Highsales introduced the employee

involvement team to thwart union action against the silent call monitoring was clearly

a case of manipulating a potential dialogic forum for managerial control. While

successful in managing the unions, it appeared that the potential for this episode to

cause extreme distrust of management and cynicism about dialogic change

communication was high. This was a risk the sales manager was prepared to take. The

recent research by Burgoon et al (2001) suggests, though, that the risk is not so high.

It is indeed easier to deceive if there is an established trusting relationship such as that

existing between the sales manager and his staff. From the manager’s perspective, the

exercise enhanced the employees’ receptivity to the performance management

activity, and certainly there was a reduction in concern about the ‘surveillance’. For

all intents and purposes, the pseudo-dialogic process enhanced change receptivity of

the employees.

Dialogica Interruptus

A second risk inherent in building dialogic expectations is the inability to deliver

through the over control of the dialogic experience. This situation creates an

233

interrupted dialogic exchange and potential for frustration to arise. Once employees

have become used to dialogic environments, they resent having that time reduced.

This was illustrated with the frustration felt by one of the HIT team members when

the meeting was scheduled for an hour, rather than two. Stohl and Cheney (2001)

describe this as a ‘paradox of punctuation’ (p.360), whereby the democratic process is

abbreviated and the point of the process is lost. The example of Highsales suggests

that this paradox becomes a double bind; not only is the constructive element of the

communication lost, the receptivity to change is also detrimentally affected.

The last sentence of the email from the employee in Highsales HIT team (‘thanks for

letting me be involved’) provides a poignant reminder that, in this instance, the

dialogic forum is controlled to the extent of who may join the dialogue, and the

participant is acutely aware of the privilege. This sentence provides an example of

paradox of design (Stohl & Cheney, 2001, p.360) where the participation is imposed

or mandated from the top.

Like the examples provided by Stohl and Cheney (2001), the withdrawal of dialogic

space was also referred to when the management meetings transitioned to a focus on

‘Work in progress’ and performance indicators. The lack of open conversations and

opportunities to learn made some employees resentful. This finding represents a

formalization paradox (Stohl & Cheney, 2001), whereby the formalising of the

dialogic space in structures, ground rules, and codes of conduct prevents the very type

of engagement it is meant to create. Resolution of this paradox can be attributed to the

existence of matching competences with expectations. In the example provided in the

section on dialogic forums, the removal of the semi-structures put in place by the

leader of the time team in Tech D would have stymied full open exploration of the

234

issues, as the employees were acutely aware of time, and productivity, and dismissive

of the dialogic intent. In contrast, the management team in Highsales possessed

expectations of dialogic engagement within the management meeting. Accordingly,

when these dialogic expectations were met with monologic competences from the

second manager, and the intense structuring of the agenda, they were dismayed.

In summary, this section suggests that the impact of dialogic change communication

on change receptivity is dependent on matching expectations and competences, and

availability of dialogic forums. The utility of dialogic change communication is

enhanced when the communicator is able to transition appropriately between

monologic and dialogic forms of communication. If there are matching competences

and expectations, change communication will have a positive impact on the change

receptivity. However, caution is acknowledged in the application of pseudo-dialogic

change communication, as there is potential for damaging the change receptivity.

Impact of the Background Talk of Change on Change Receptivity

This section addresses the impact of the background talk on change receptivity. While

the construct ‘background talk’ originated from a conversation within the first case-

study, the concept is not without precedent. Ford et al (2002) posit that there are three

background conversations of change: complacency, resignation and cynicism (Ford et

al., 2002). The authors posit that a background conversation is an ‘implicit, unspoken

‘back drop’ or ‘background’ against which explicit, foreground conversations occur’

(Ford et al., 2002, p.108). The foreground conversations consist of four types of

committed conversations, those that initiate change, those that seek to gain

understanding, those that call for action, and those that provide closure (Ford & Ford,

1995).

235

The ‘background talk’ emerged as an important element within the early analysis

from Tech D. It was observed that the informal talk (gossip, grapevine and rumours)

going on in the background of the change efforts, was taking prominence over the

conversations that were going on at the foreground of change. With the lack of

foreground conversations, employees were relying on the background talk to make

sense of what was happening. Thus analysis of the background talk within this study

extends the previous research conducted on rumours, gossip and grapevine activity as

it also considers how the employees were making sense of the organisational changes

through the varying organisational discourses.

Sense-making is an ongoing process for individuals undergoing change, whether it be

in response to monologic change communication, dialogic change communication or

within the background talk of change. The difference between the sense-making that

occurs within monologic and dialogic change communication is that these approaches

offer ‘guided’ sense-making, whereby the sense-giver is providing formal, sanctioned,

and hopefully relevant cues from which the organisational member can derive a

plausible explanation of what is occurring. The research demonstrated that in the

absence of these formal cues, the diversity of sense-making is more spontaneous and

random as organisational members draw from a wide array of symbols and cues

represented in the informal communication in the background talk of change. This

section addresses some of the sense-making that occurs in the background talk of

change and explores and analyses the impacts the background talk has on change

receptivity.

The key aspects of this section relates to the management of meaning through the

language of change, the disparate frames of reference used to make sense of change,

236

and the deliberate provision of sense-givers.

Language

Both case-studies possessed examples of how the nomenclature of change initiatives

could impact on change receptivity. In Highsales, there were examples of how the

acronyms used to label the new complex financial software (SIMPLE) amplified the

discontent with the initiative. Likewise the new product development process was

named ‘SPEEDI’; the process was renowned for its slowness. In this sense the names

provided cues to how the implementation of the change should occur, and this

inflamed the participants and created substantial derision when there was dissonance

between the name of the program and the experience. These names then became

shorthand ‘cues’ for the retelling of stories about organisational change. As new

members started, and joined in conversations about change, they would inquire as to

what the others were talking about, and the acronyms were used with greater

emphasis each time. Butcher and Atkinson (2001) caution that if the language used in

change lacks in credibility, it risks being perceived as ‘empty rhetoric’ and thus

inhibits change (p.556).

In general, the employees of Highsales were comfortable with the use of the term

continuous change, as for the most part, they recognised it to be innovative,

evolutionary, and always improving. A few cautioned that it might also be considered

to be change for change’s sake, but this caution was pre-emptive rather than

descriptive of actual circumstances. Contrary to this perspective, the employees of

Tech D regularly took issue with the language used in the change process. In the first

year, the employees insisted on references to continuous change be changed to

continuous improvement, as it was more palatable to the participants.

237

Similarly, in the second year, Tech D employees took issue with the term ‘market

failure’, perceiving this to be a slur on one of the divisions. The continued employee

control of the language of change became a powerful form of resistance within the

change, particularly as on the surface it was undertaken in order to be more accepting

of change. However, by implementing this discursive change of speaking the

language of continuous improvement, (a language that is a legitimate discourse in

change), they prevented substantive second-order change and organisational

transformation occurring. It has been suggested that first-order changes are those that

the system practices to avoid the second-order changes (Cheney et al., 2003). This

appeared to be a clear example of this occurring with the language of change.

Likewise, by rejecting the term ‘market failure’ (even after it was explained what was

meant by the term), the employees were in denial of their raison d’etre. If the

employees are in denial as to their identity, transformation is very difficult to achieve

(Fiol, 2002). The aversion to the existing language of change had not gone unnoticed

as evidenced by the CEO’s plea to the Time Team regarding the learning

organisation: ‘let’s not try and find another word for it’. Sense-making is grounded in

identity construction (Weick, 1995), and the employees could not possibly make sense

of the transformation if they were rejecting their substantive identity. Despite

rejecting the need for continuous change, they were active in constructing a number of

differing frames of reference for the change process.

Framing Discourses

Colleen Mills’ (2003) work on the ‘framing discourses’ within the informal talk of

organisational change establishes a useful framework to analyse the background talk

of change. Within both cases there were specific framing discourses evident in the

238

background talk. There were three repetitive framing discourses within Tech D;

change as a ‘survival process’, the economic value of individuals and teams and the

likelihood of redundancies, and a dialectic tension between the goals of public service

and commercialisation. In the absence of monologic change communication to

provide information and dialogic change communication to clarify understanding,

these frames of references provided sense-making cues.

With the exception of ‘survival’, when employees made sense of conditions with the

other two frames, their receptivity to change decreased, resulting in change contempt

and low morale. Inevitably, the employees made negative comparisons of themselves

with others when trying to justify economic value. The competing nature of the two

differing goals of public service and commercialisation prevented any movement

towards a unified goal. However, when they understood and recognised actions as

part of ‘survival’, the employees’ resolve strengthened and greater acceptance of the

change goals was evident. Some suggest that when organisational members refer to

themselves as survivors they are ‘normalizing’ the change management process by

equating it with natural disasters over which they have no control (Jones, Worrall, &

Cooper, 2003). It then follows that making sense of change as survival frames the

experience as noble, natural, even courageous, and self affirming.

Highsales also evidenced three main frames of reference impacting the employee

sense-making; history of redundancies, industrial relations and economic value. The

prolonged implementation of the redundancies prior to the new manager’s arrival left

lasting impressions of secrecy. The parent company had recently received unflattering

media coverage for other divisions’ redundancies and endured a protracted legal

conflict with substantial union involvement. Under these circumstances, Highsales

239

took much longer in announcing the redundancies, while they worked to ‘get it right’.

This downsizing process was shrouded in silence, with no communication, either

monologic or dialogic occurring. This approach advances an alternate explanation of a

lack of change communication where the Industrial Relations environment silences

the change communication. It is feasible that in this instance the management ‘simply

couldn’t’ communicate the changes, as the risk of public scandal and union action was

too high. As a result, as in Tech D, a change communication vacuum was created and

gossip, rumour and innuendo filled the vacuum. The smokers’ area or the unofficial

‘Utilities United Post Office’ provided opportunity for the sense-making to be

augmented by colleagues’ opinions, and the employees’ knowledge of industrial

relations in terms of the legalities of redundancies dominated.

Despite the main round of redundancies being completed within four weeks of the

researcher starting in the business unit, it still coloured the subsequent sense-making

of staff regarding change as noted by the ‘departure lounge’ quip. One of the more

distressing frames of reference was the economic value of employees. Staff were

debating the relative value that they offered to the business. The only canon of proof

required in this debate is ‘plausibility’. Provided the gossip is plausible, it can have

more purchase than an officially sanctioned ‘message’. It appears that this was one of

the silent conversations of change with no observable attempt made by managers to

address or counter the negative impact of this conversation. Using Mill’s (2000)

framework, the frames of references identified in the two case-studies are presented

below in Table 6.1 and Table 6.2.

240

Table 6.1 Framing discourse within Tech D

Discourse Attitude and position

General features Phrases and metaphors

Naturalisation of change

Positive, accepting of change Stoic acceptance

Group view, high engagement, identification with others as a system rather than a team

Survival, ‘fire fighting’, pruning trees, getting rid of deadwood, a natural part of life

Economic Implications

Negative Fearful

Economic implications provide logical cues Physical symbols provide emotional cues Low identification with others High engagement

Redundancies Value adding

Schizoid Neutral or negative Limited engagementDetached, indifferent view Requires reconciliation of goals before engaging in change.

Tension between public service goals and commercialisation intent

Table 6.2 Framing discourse within Highsales

Discourse Attitude and

position General features Phrasing and

Metaphors

Industrial Relations

Negative Legal implications provide logical cues Physical symbols provide emotional cues Low identification with others High engagement

casual v permanent staff

Economic value Negative attitude Marginalised individual

Low identification with others High engagement Comparative process

Numerical metaphors Probabilities

Historical Neutral or negative Contemptuous

Limited engagementDetached, indifferent view

In the past, Remember when

241

The Presence of Sense-givers

Gioia and Chittipeddi (1991) have reported that sense-givers can ameliorate the

negative affects of individual sense-making during change. There was only one

manager who acted as a sanctioned sense-giver within Tech D, and many of the staff

reported feeling better about changes after he spoke with them about the

organisation’s history and what was occurring at other levels.

However, within Highsales, the sense-giving activities were much more controlled

and directed. Prior to the Charles’ arrival, the absence of information about the

changes meant the change communication vacuum was filled with individual sense-

making. Rarely did this sense-making contribute to the achievement of change goals.

The subsequent use of monologic change communication for providing information

assisted in reducing the references to the past and the dialogic change communication

reduced the anxiety about further redundancies without having to rely on grand

statements such as, ‘There will be no more redundancies.’ The change agent’s use of

‘feelers’ to disseminate better information, and correct misunderstanding to provide

positive sense-making, departs from much of the literature noted earlier (Lewis,

2000b; Mills, 2000). These studies focus on how the sense-making activities prove

difficult for employees and the change agents. The evidence from Highsales provides

guidance on how it is possible to manage the employees’ sense-making. The first step

in being able to do this is engaging with the background talk of change, and to know

how the employees are making sense of the change.

Like the Miller et al (2000) study findings that nurses rely on peers for information

during change, so did the participants of both the cases, underscoring the social nature

of sense-making (Weick, 1995). This study also supported Boyce’s (1995)

242

observation that individuals bring unique experiences, motivations and perspectives to

the sense-making process as captured in the exchange within one of the Tech D focus

groups about the tension between operational focus and strategic focus.

In summary, Research Questions 2 and 3 posed the questions ‘What is change

communication?’ and ‘how does unpacking the ‘black box’ of communication inform

our understanding of change receptivity?’. This section has examined each of the

three templates separately to conclude that communication within change consists of

monologic and dialogic expectations and monologic and dialogic competences. For

employees to be receptive to change, it necessary to align the competence and

expectation. Further, a crucial aspect of change communication is the background talk

of change, and the background talk of change will rise if there is a lack of fit between

the change competences and expectations. The ‘black box’ of communication within

change is further deconstructed to establish that dialogic forums are necessary for

dialogic communication to occur. Additionally, communication during change also

entails a level of pseudo-dialogic expression. The background talk within change

encompasses a focus on language usage, framing discourses and sense-givers. The

findings on the pseudo dialogic communciation, the language use, framing discourse

and sense-givers have important implications for managing change receptivity during

continuous change. It must be noted, though, that these results do not accommodate

the interplay of the three frames, which is necessary to provide a more accurate

perspective of what occurs with communication during change. The next section does

integrate the three frames to answer Research Question 4: How do the different

communication models (instrumental/monologic and constructivist/dialogic) inform

our understanding of the impact of change communication on change receptivity

within a continuous change context?

243

The Sequencing and Interplay of the Three Templates

The previous section addressed how each of the separate templates could answer the

question ‘How does change communication impact upon change receptivity within a

continuous change context?’ This section now weaves the three templates together to

reveal a more holistic and dynamic perspective of change communication. The

relationships between monologic and dialogic change communication and the

background talk are intrinsically related to the conditions for sense-making. Sense-

making is an on-going process; however it is amplified in times of uncertainty and

ambiguity. Monologic change communication is required in order for employees to

receive information so that they can then make sense of the changes. Second, dialogic

processes allow for collective sense-making and opportunities to clarify meaning and

consider alternate explanations to reduce ambiguity. The background talk is both a

product of the sense-making, but also a critical sense-making process, where

employees voice concerns, opinions and thoughts about change and test for veracity

amongst peers.

The use of Langley’s (1999) Alternate Templates has enabled three change

communication orientations to provide a more complex, and correspondingly

advanced, representation of what occurs in continuous change. Each theoretical

perspective on its own offers some insight, but the theoretical triangulation offers a

holistic interpretation of change.

The findings suggest that monologic (M) and dialogic (D) communication present as

the ‘front-end’ process of change with the background talk and the informal sense-

making (BT) occurring in the absence of change communication. Figure 6.1 depicts

this dynamic with organisational change conceptualised as a pipeline, where the

244

change process flows continuously.

Figure 6.1: The Pipeline of Continuous Change Communication

bt

M

D

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

mm

m

d

d

d

d

dd

d

dd

d

d

BT

btbt

btbt

bt

bt

bt

bt

bt

btbt

bt

bt

d

m

bt

bt

bt

bt

d

bt

btbt

m

It must be noted that while Putnam (1999) critiques the conduit perspective of

communication, the use of the pipeline metaphor proposed in this study does not

reflect the conduit perspective of communication. The pipeline represents a container

of continuous change, within which there are differing levels of monologic and

dialogic change communication and background talk. It is argued that the mix or

balance of the three elements determines the change receptivity.

In Tech D, for the full two years of study there was little in the way of monologic and

dialogic change communication up front. The lack of either model created a vacuum

and allowed the background talk to flow back up the pipeline of change and dominate

the change effort. There was little in the way of positive effects on change receptivity.

However, in Highsales, after the change consultant and the new business unit manager

began, there was substantial monologic change communication and dialogic change

communication at the front end of change. As the monologic and dialogic change

communication filled the pipeline, it left little room for the background talk of change

,in order to make sense of the changes. Of this background talk of change, three main

frames of reference were identified and two were countered with increased change

245

communication from the front end of change. Understanding organisational change as

a dynamic interplay of these three communicative approaches allows change

communicators a more specific approach to tailoring change communication. The use

of multiple perspectives also deviates from an understanding of change

communication as purely a function of management, and suggests a

reconceptualisation of change communication as creating change, and shaping the

change process.

As highlighted in Chapter 2, there is a need to know more about the sequencing of

conversations of change (Ford & Ford, 1995) and the relative effectiveness of

communication strategies (Lewis, 2000b). This research contributes to this knowledge

by positing that monologic and dialogic change communication sequence in response

to the level of alignment of expectations and competences. The level of misfit

between the competences and expectations has a direct result on the background talk

of change.

In Highsales, both the manager and change agent were adroit at switching from

dialogic to monologic to strong effect. They possessed an innate ability to sense when

the organisation required stability and when the organisation required further change

and then use the appropriate change communication competence. Kristiansen and

Bloch-Poulsen’s (2000) concept of dialogic rhythm provides a framework for

understanding how they knew when to switch competences.

Kristansen and Bloch-Poulsen (2000) discuss the implications of dialogic rhythm,

where dialogic rhythm progresses throughout the conversational sequence, and

something new is added all the time. In acknowledging the interplay between the two

models and the need for discursive shifts from one model to another, managers are

246

offered further guidance in managing continuous change. In relation to Highsales, part

of the manager and the change agents’s success in this regard can be attributed to the

timing and sensitivity to the points in the process where the exchange ceased to add

something new. At this point, both the manager and the change agents would

transition to monologic models of communication.

The Tech D CEO also led with dialogic change communication; however, owing to

the lack of dialogic competences and forums, nothing new was added. During this

time, the background talk filled the empty space, and by the time the CEO chose to

switch models, the background talk was ‘too loud’ for the monologic change

communication to get through. In Highsales in the last six months, the new manager

demonstrated a sequencing of monologic to dialogic; however initial results indicate

that this order is more difficult to manage in terms of change receptivity. Given the

level of control and power initiated in the monologic transmission, it is difficult for

employees to open up and ‘add something new’ after being ‘told’ what will occur.

The use of sequencing represents a major area for further research, and yet seemingly

a difficult area to enter as recognising transition points represents codification of tacit

knowledge.

At some point in a dialogic exchange, closure is required and a monologic moment

can take the ‘talk’ into action. Research that can expose the triggers of discursive

shifts would identify a critical change communication competence. Conversely, when

anchoring a new process, an engagement of dialogic processes can improve the

implementation of the new process, or indeed construct new processes and

understanding.

The consideration of sequencing of the change communication strategies greatly

247

enhances Van de Ven and Poole’s (1995) process theories of change. Using their

classification of change, Tech D and Highsales presented an intriguing confluence of

at least three of the motors of change. In Tech D, the CEO subscribed to an

evolutionary understanding of change by recognising the multiple entities within the

change process. These involved the government stakeholders, the client base and the

functional ‘silos’ existing within the organisation. The CEO recognised that change

had to be directed, and subscribed to the view that change naturally occurred as an

accumulation of small individual events that gradually changes the nature of the

organisation. There was no predetermined ‘end state’, indeed he envisioned that the

organisation would take on many different identities as they jointly explored the

opportunities exposed on the journey. His commitment to learning and risk taking

suggested an appreciation and/or tolerance of constructivist motors. He was

comfortable with the conflict required to create synthesis, and expected conflict as

part of moving forward in the change process.

However, the refusal of the employees to acknowledge the environmental turbulence

meant that many of the employees understood change from a lifecycle perspective.

They believed that they were a single entity, and that if provided with the logical, and

rational stages of change, they would comply. This belief was most evident in their

expectations that they should be told what to do within change, and their pique that

change was still continuing. It can be argued that the lifecycle motor of change nested

within the evolutionary motor (Poole & Van de Ven, 2004). Not a comfortable

interaction, the clash in understanding of what the change process should be initiated

the dialectic motor, with the lack of synthesis on this issue creating a stalemate. The

stalemate did not prevent change occurring continuously; rather it slowed the process

down, narrowed the focus to continuous improvement and made the experience more

248

uncomfortable for the participants. This combination of motors for change could be

considered to be one of the combinations as yet unaccounted for in Van de Ven and

Poole’s (1995) Table 3 ‘Logically Possible Theories of Organisational Change

Development’4.

The other combination not yet described in Van de Ven and Poole’s (1995) Table 35

can be illustrated using the second case-study. Highsales primarily subscribed to an

evolutionary theoretical foundation. As a business unit in a government owned

corporation, there were ministerial stakeholders and customers to satisfy and the

business unit had a number of licensees and functional groups to accommodate. The

change in product lines led to a natural process of variation. However, the constant

negotiations with the unions and other business entities suggested that the dialectic

motor was in full operation. Finally, the employees were comfortable with the

adaptive nature of the organisation and believed they had a role in determining the

progress, rather than just being told what to do. The change agent’s focus was on on

problem - solving and goal setting as a way of moving through the changes. Further

analysis of the change communication, suggest that the two cases differing

experiences of change communication explains the fit with the two rows as illustrated

in Table 6.3 on the next page.

4 Lifecycle, Dialectic and Evolutionary Process Theories

5 Teleogy, Dialectic and Evolutionary Process Theories

249

Table 6.3 Van de Ven & Poole’s Process Theories of Change adapted to consider

Tech D & Highsales

Interplays among Generating Mechanism

Lifecycle Teleology Dialectic Evolution

Prescribed motor within

entity

Constructive Motor within

entity

Constructive motor between

entities

Prescribed motor between entities

Immanent Program


Conflict & Synthesis

Competitive Selection

Tech D YES. The employees

possessed expectation that

the change process would be

a rational, ordered, linear

process and they would be told what to do.

NO The employees needed to be told what to do, and did not take responsibility for co-creating.

YES The CEO was supportive of Hegelian dialectic as a way of creating a learning organisation. The clash in expectations of the employees and the CEO resulted in conflict followed by stalemate.

YES The CEO acknowledged the competing attentions of stakeholders, and that the end state would be a result of what was happening in the environment. Variation occurred through changing industry focus, govt agendas.

Highsales NO Employees recognised experimentation could not occur within a linear fashion.

YES While the employees did not always see the competing tensions of multiple entities, they did believe they were entitled to be part of the change process and that it was necessary to make the process meaningful to them.

YES Parts of the process were challenged by key stakeholders eg Unions halted the call monitoring, the licensees resisted the KPI’s. The resulting discussions created synthesis.

YES The organisation primarily operated within these conditions. Multiple entities consisted of Minister, Board, CEO & parent company, functional groups, however the change was primarily directed. Variation occurred through seasonal fluctuation, and changing governance focus, and competitive conditions.

Further, this model can be extended to accommodate the sequencing of the

communication models within change as depicted in the following table.

250

Table 6.4 Dominant Communication Models of Change: an Extension of Van de

Ven & Poole’s 1995 Process Theories of Change

Interplays among Generating Mechanism

Lifecycle Teleology Dialectic Evolution

Prescribed motor within

entity

Constructive Motor within

entity

Constructive motor

between entities

Prescribed motor

between entities

Immanent Program


Conflict & Synthesis

Competitive Selection

Dominant Comm Model Implications (Sequencing)

Monologic Change Model Expectations are met with matching monologic competences. Background talk rises in response to lack of monologic change communication. Eg Tech D’s expectation of how the change process would occur.

Dialogic then Monologic Monologic is used to primarily create action. Eg Change agent initiated cross functional discussion groups. When nothing new added, then moved to monologic as action focus eg to-do list.

Dialogic Change Model Dialogic change competences required to be able to move to synthesis. If lacking in dialogic competence, then stale mate occurs Synthesis: Highsales and dialogic exchange between unions, and licensees. Stalemate: Tech D CEO and engineers.

Dialogic then Monologic The monologic emphasises hierarchy and power. First we discuss, then I tell you what to do. Some of you will be disappointed. Can’t please everyone. Eg CEO of Tech D, Business Unit Manager of Highsales.

Within a lifecycle theory of change, because of the emphasis on rational and linear

processes, the primary focus of the change communication is information provision.

Employees are told the vision, and the rationale for change, and how it is to occur.

The planned and programmed nature of the change suggests there is little need for

dialogic change communication. Indeed as evidenced in Tech D, the attempts to

create dialogue are rejected, and considered irritating. If the employees understand the

change as being rational and linear, they will possess monologic expectations. If there

251

is insufficient monologic change communication, then the background talk will rise in

volume and intensity.

The teleological perspective was demonstrated within Highsales from the interactions

between the change agent and the employees. The employees had an expectation of

involvement and understood their role as ‘co-creators’ of change. The change agent

picked up on this climate and introduced the cross-functional Business Process

Workshops to involve and generate new knowledge. During these workshops, when

she would sense that there was nothing new added, she would transition to monologic

change communication in generating action lists, and delegating tasks to those

involved. In this theoretical perspective, monologic change communication is used to

generate action, and the sequencing of the two generates positive background talk of

change.

Within a dialectical theory of change, clearly the dialogic change communication

model takes a primary role with conflict generating new understanding. Both Tech D

and Highsales provided examples of the dialectic motor in operation, but had differing

impacts on change receptivity. Poole and Van de Ven (2004) note that the

developmental trajectory of dialectic motors is not predetermined. The path towards

sythesis will vary greatly from case to case. This study provides partial explanation

for the variance in dialectic paths. In Tech D, because of the lack of dialogic

competences, the entities engaged in the conflict (CEO and employees) were not able

to reach a synthesis, instead achieving a stalemate which generated substantial

background talk of derision and cynicism. The organisation coexisted with the

tensions and dualities (Seo et al., 2004), exposed by the lack of fit between change

competences and expectations. However, within Highsales, there were regular

252

occurrences of conflict between entities (licensees and management, union and

management) which were resolved through dedicated dialogic forums. The

satisfactory synthesis limited the development of negative background talk. The

alignment of change communication competences and expectations enabled the

synthesis to occur.

Finally, the evolutionary theoretical perspective was most evident from the senior

management. Both the CEO of Tech D and the Manager of Highsales recognised the

adaptive and emergent nature of organisational change, and the importance of

satisfying multiple entities (government stakeholders, employees, licensees). In

managing these differing and competing views, the Manager of Highsales initiated the

change communication with dialogic exchanges and then transitioned to monologic

mode. Contrary to the action focus of monologic change communication in the

teleological perspective, the focus of monologic change communication in the

evolutionary perspective is power and control. Like Darwinian evolution, where the

strongest survive, the power aspect of change communication represents successful

change. The most powerful (CEO in Tech D, and Manager in Highsales) have the

final word.

As noted in Chapter 1, despite extending their 1995 framework, Poole and Ven de

Ven (2004) do not consider the communicative implications of the theories of

organisational change and innovation. The adaptation of Van de Ven and Poole’s

(1995) process theories of change to include the sequencing of the monologic and

dialogic change communication represents a major departure from both the

management and communications literature. This analysis contributes to the

development of a bimodal theory of change communication, where both instrumental

253

and constructivist models of change communication are accomodated and with

subsequent testing over a greater number of cases could provide a comprehensive

theoretical framework for communication within continuous change.

Perception of Past Change Implementation

One of the highlights of interpretive studies is that they endeavour to provide multiple

perspectives of the same phenomena and not privilege a dominant perspective of the

findings. In this sense, a lack of triangulation of data can be valuable in offering

different explanations of what is witnessed rather than a threat to validity. In this

study, the findings of the quantitative and the qualitative studies did not converge in

regards to Research Question 1 (How does communication impact on change

receptivity within a continuous change context). The previous section reported on the

qualitative results and provided answers to this question, however, the results from the

quantitative study on Hypothesis 1 provided an intriguing result and what some might

consider disconfirming evidence (Devers, 1999). The results from the tests of

correlations in both cases showed no relationship between monologic change

communication or dialogic change communication and change receptivity. The simple

diagrammatic model that was tested is as follows:

Figure 6.2 Simple Model of Change Communication and Change Receptivity

While the methodological limitations such as small sample size may be attributed to

the contradictory results, further probing in the last round of focus groups offers an

Change

communication

Change Receptivity

254

alternative explanation for the lack of relationship between change communication

and change receptivity. In both cases, focus group participants recognised that

implementation has more impact on change receptivity than change communication.

Simply put, if the employees’ previous experience with the implementation of change

was positive, then they would be more likely to be more receptive to future change.

This finding does not negate the importance of change communication; rather these

results suggest a re-ordering of the causal relationship to reflect the following:

Figure 6.3 Revision of Relationship between Change Communication and Change Receptivity

In this model, past perception of change implementation has a direct effect on change

receptivity. In addition to this relationship, the alignment of change communication

expectations and competences moderates the relationship between change

communication and change receptivity. Additionally, it poses the question of what is

change implementation if it is not a communicative act ? This concept is raised by

Grin and Van de Graaf (1996/1997) and supported by the Stewart and Kringas (2003)

study. If the composition of monologic and dialogic change communication and

background talk of change is in appropriate balance, then the likelihood of successful

Past Perception of Change Implementation

Change Receptivity Change Communication

Alignment of Expectations and Competences

255

change implementations increases. At the very least, this finding provides guidance to

practitioners and change managers in acknowledging the ‘lessons learned’ from

previous change initiatives prior to embarking on new initiatives. The ability to guide

the organisational members in reflection of what worked and what did not to reframe

the failures as learning opportunities must be highly valued.

This provides two new hypotheses to be included in further research:

The perceived success of previous change implementation will have a direct effect on receptivity to future change.

The degree of alignment between change ommunication competences and change communication expectations will moderate the relationship between change communication and change receptivity.

The reflection on the divergent findings concludes the discussion on Research

Questions 1, 2, 3 and 4 and Hypothesis 1. The next section discusses the findings in

relation to Hypothesis 2 and Research Question 5. In so doing, it investigates some of

the complexities in understanding the communicative implications of continuous

change.

SECTION 2: What were the Communicative Implications of

Continuous Change?

The previous section contributed to answering the Research Questions 3 and 4 by

establishing that change communication entails matching explicit monologic and

dialogic expectations and personal competences in monologic and dialogic change

communication. Further, change communication consists of a number of framing

discourses that form the background talk of change. This section further focuses on

the contextual dimensions of continuous change to contribute to the development of

change communication theory.

256

Uncertainty and Ambiguity

Both case-studies showed that the uncertainty of continuous change heightens

employees’ information needs. The simple response is to communicate information

continuously, though as shown in Tech D, where the IT employee reported a surge in

log-ons to recruitment sites after CEO emails, this response can heighten anxiety as

well.

Additionally, there were examples within Highsales of the dangers of information

overload with the excessive use of email as a way to communicate the changes.

During the very busy time, the employees spoke of the overwhelming use of email to

be notified of changes, yet the managers appeared to use this medium as a way of

abdicating responsibility responding with, ‘Well I sent you an email’. Like the

managers in Klein’s (1996) study, the managers were blaming the receivers for not

‘getting it’. Klein (1996) highlights the importance of redundancy of the message and

medium and efficacy of face-to-face communication and this finding was underscored

by the focus group participants desire to ‘all get together’, and exasperation with

being ‘flooded with sales alerts’.

Another consideration in reducing the overwhelming number of messages of change

is the importance of relevance. When the changes are continuous, many of the

employees do not wish to know anything but that which is personally relevant to

them. Klein (1994) reports that information concerning the company, plant or other

workers quickly tended to be forgotten. The comments regarding ‘you can talk till the

cows come home’ provides caution to those seeking to keep all organisational

members involved in visioning processes and issues of greater significance.

The emergent approach to change attempts to accommodate the unpredictability of

257

change, and to understand the complex interplay of variables that impact on the

change process by considering the political, and contextual factors of organisations

(Burnes, 1996; Dawson, 2003). While the complexity of this approach resonates at an

academic level, it appears few have an ability to accommodate it at a practical level.

The stories from those involved at Tech D suggest they never accepted the rationale

of continuous change, always expecting that there could be some rational, planned

framework that would deliver certainty. Advocates of emergent change recommend

creating open learning systems to deal with the complexities and uncertainties, and the

necessity for ‘bottom-up’ led change; however if the employees reject that, then the

difficulties for the change communicator multiply. Those advocating emergent change

stress four features that enable success: organisational structure, organisational

culture, organisational learning and managerial behaviour. The CEO of Tech D

recognised this and attempted to make substantive change in all four aspects of the

organisation, however the forces of inertia were considerable as recognised by the

manager’s description of organisational silos being made of industrial concrete, and

the admonishment of the time team member by his manager, ‘Look if you want

something to change, see your manager and follow the proper channels!’

Guidance for Tech D may be provided by Finger and Brand’s (1999) study which

suggests that is not possible to transform a bureaucratic organisation by learning

initiatives alone (Finger & Brand, 1999). In Tech D, it appeared that the CEO, who

possessed dialogic competences, expected that the employees after having read

Senge’s work would intuitively start to build and co-create a learning organisation and

thus manage the uncertainties themselves. However, given the lack of existing

dialogic competences and dialogic settings this result was highly unlikely, particularly

when none had read the book. In this sense, the observation that the creation of a

258

learning organisation is a top-down initiative has tentative support (Hughes & Tight,

1998). If the CEO had initially responded to the monologic communicative

expectations with top-down communication, he may have built up trust and credibility

with the employees and this process would have enabled the transition to more

dialogic approaches. It appears a monologic approach is necessary in order to create

and cultivate dialogic processes, particularly when the employees possessed

monologic change expectations.

Change Fatigue

One of the side-effects of the prolonged continuous improvement programs was

change fatigue. This effect was evident in both cases. In the first case of Tech D, it

appeared that the incremental nature ‘wore the staff down’. As seen in Tech D,

incremental change was not necessarily energising, and required distance to recognise

the size of the change. Part of the change fatigue could also be attributed to the

amount of energy employees were expending on resisting the changes and in seeking

out information about change. For those who displayed a low tolerance of ambiguity,

a significant amount of energy was expended in trying to make sense of the changes

and securing ‘direction’ and this effort contributed to the change fatigue. This result

supports Weick and Quinn’s (1999) contention that the change agent’s role is to make

sense of change and facilitate understanding. If the change agent is actively making

sense of the change for the employees, as was the case in Highsales, the employees

expend less energy in the same activity and are less likely to experience change

fatigue.

Change fatigue was also witnessed in the latter half of the Highsales study. After the

initial impact of the change agent and the manager’s transformative actions, the

259

employees were asked to continue to focus on meeting performance targets and effect

incremental change. However, two of the overriding considerations for the employees

were job security and career progression and these had not been addressed throughout

the change process. Acknowledging the issue of job security and career progression

would have been an opportunity to re-energise the organisation; however it was

ignored, and denied when raised. By denying or ignoring the issue during the change

process, the employees perceived a breach of psychological contract. A psychological

contract refers to employees’ perceptions of what they owe to their employer and

what their employer owes to them (Robinson, 1996). Not surprisingly, by the end of

the case-study time frame employees were resigning in larger than expected numbers,

with all going to ‘better’ jobs. While it is natural to experience a lag effect after a

major change process, it was found that the ‘little’ issues irritate and fester and

escalate when people are tired. This observation was supported by Pate et al.’s (2000)

process model of the links between contract violation, trust, cynicism and

organisational change. The Highsales case could be considered another case that

would fit this model, where the perceived breach of contract resulted in unwillingness

to cooperate in future organisational change.

Necessity to Provide Metrics to Measure Success

A common saying in Tech D was ‘You can’t improve what you can’t measure’. It was

apparent that metrics play a key communicative role in continuous change. The use of

metrics to measure change success provides two key functions. In Tech D the CEO

was embroiled in protracted negotiations for funding with a state government agency,

and then for a continued contract. The absence of change metrics made it difficult to

argue for continued resources. Contrary to this approach, in Highsales, the new

260

manager set up metrics for every department and achievement of the change goals.

These became crucial communicative symbols for use with both the employees (See!

We are doing well!), and in meetings with the CEO of the parent company and the

Board.

Second, in Highsales the metrics served as a ‘dialogic anchor’ in the meetings.

Provided the managers recognised that achieving those metrics was a common goal,

then it was safe to challenge each other with a view to improving performance as

noted by the participants’ comments regarding personal challenges and personal

attacks.

However, some businesses are easier to establish metrics within than others –

Highsales was a standard retail business, with a relatively simple service and product

delivery. Tech D’s business model was not as simple; at the time of research, the

employees were actively resisting the implementation of job costing and output

metrics.

The literature talks of the importance of creating small wins (Weick, 1984) and

Lewis’s (2000b) research on four case-studies revealed that communicating goal

achievement was a key issue in successful change programmes. The creation of

change metrics is a way of institutionalising small wins, and communicating goal

achievements, providing the change is successful. If the change is not going so well it

provides a visible motivator of what needs to be improved. Additionally, the creation

of change metrics provides a way of maintaining communicative attention with

diverse stakeholders.

261

Communicative Attention

The findings confirmed that the role of external communication and impression

management is amplified during continuous change. These external foci have the

potential to distract the change leader’s communicative attention. Lewis et al (2003a)

defines communicative attention as ‘the behaviour of organisations in intentionally

pursuing communication with stakeholders’ (p. 401). In the case of Tech D for the

first 18 months the CEO‘s communicative attention was engaged in public relations

activity and a strategic planning agenda to secure ongoing funding. This observation

raises the issue of communicative consciousness in continuous change. Clearly it is

unreasonable to expect the CEO to dismiss stakeholder concerns during continuous

change; without ministerial support the agency can cease to exist, or undertake full

privatisation (Stewart & Kringas, 2003). However, it does appear that this time was

also a period where the CEO required someone else to step into the breach and pay

attention to the communicative requirements of the organisation. None of the other

management team filled the change communication void. There is heavy emphasis on

using managers as change agents in the literature (Doyle, 2002) and the Tech D case-

study demonstrates that the learning of years of research on change have not

necessarily permeated at operational or managerial levels. Ignoring the needs and

basics of instrumental change communication led to the development of further

background talk, and this background talk served to further embed the inertia.

Tech D’s case supports Stewart and Kringas’s (2003) findings in their studies of

public sector cases undergoing change. While they initially set out to measure

successful change as how positive the employees felt about the change program, the

CEOs of the cases felt that while that was a relevant measurement, it was more

important to gauge key stakeholders perceptions of success.

262

Lewis et al.’s (2001) research suggests that change implementers within non-profit

sectors use six strategies when communicating change. When in a situation where

there is a high need for communication efficiency and a high need for consensus

building, the change implementer will most likely use the quid pro quo strategy,

whereby the stakeholder with the most resources gains the most attention. However,

as Cheney et al (2003) point out, this strategy risks alienating those left out of the

process. In essence, this strategy is a ‘zero-sum-game’. What one stakeholder receives

in communicative attention is at the cost of another stakeholder. When the secondary

stakeholder is the organisational member then the result is a decline in change

receptivity. This situation is what transpired in Tech D with the CEO focusing his

attention on the relationship with the funding agency. The strategy that Lewis et al

(2001) report as least likely to be used is the reactionary strategy where implementers

respond to concerns as they arise, and is likely to be used in response to unexpected

events such a budget cuts. This strategy was also used within Tech D to communicate

change to the employees.

While not technically a not-for-profit organisation, Lewis et al.’s (2001) work can be

applied to Highsales. Particularly conscious of the need to ‘keep everyone in the

loop’, the manager appointed the change agent, not only to instigate the business

process re-engineering, but also to bolster the communication of change. In

discussions during the change, Charles revealed that the fact that Jessica had an

organisational communication degree had factored highly in the appointment.

Highsales followed an ‘equal dissemination’ model (Lewis et al, 2001). Key to

managing the change process was identifying the many stakeholder groups and

tailoring the dissemination of information to them. However, it is necessary to note

that Highsales were large enough in revenue to be able to afford a specific change

263

communication role.

In this sense, communicative attention and consciousness is more important in

continuous change, as opposed to single episode change events. During an episodic

event, the change agent communicates the plan and this provides a blue-print for

change. In the absence of the change agent, employees can still follow the plan

independently. However, when the role of the change agent is to facilitate dialogue, in

the absence of the change agent, the change plan dissipates. This finding was evident

after the change agent and manager had left the Highsales case-study. The remaining

managers were not as strong in regards to communicative attention or consciousness.

As a result the organisation silo’d up, and the background talk rose in response to the

successive employee resignations.

Receptivity as a Process

One of the key aims of this research was to examine and analyse employee receptivity

to change when faced with continuous change. The research examined the impacts of

repeated changes on how open employees are to change. The quantitative results

allowed a ‘helicopter view’ of the phenomenon and evaluated the employees’

receptivity to change at six monthly (Highsales) and yearly (Tech D) intervals. In both

cases the results suggested that despite differing organisational contexts, differing

change focus, and implementation, a relatively high openness to change was

consistent across cases. Despite an initial decline from Time 1 to Time 2 in Tech D,

the openness change remained above 3.73, and further decline was not evident. In

Highsales, there was no significant difference in openness to change across the three

survey points.

Like the Allen et al (1995) study, these findings suggest that the type of change event

264

affects how people feel about future change. In Tech D after Time 1, significant

redundancies resulted in openness to change declining after the introduction of

redundancies. It can also be suggested that the lack of awareness of the financial

difficulties contributed to the decline in openness to change. After Time 2, the

employees were provided with more information on the reasons for redundancies and

the continuing restructuring. The provision of additional understanding of reasons for

downsizing is key to avoiding survivor syndrome (Applebaum & Donia, 2001). The

employees also operated under the assumption that the environment was stable, and

the government would continue to fund the organisation no matter what, although this

was clearly not the case.

At Time 1 in Tech D, the staff had very high expectations of change, in terms of

timing, and amount of change, and saw potential for personal gain. By Time 2 they

had realised that these expectations were unrealistic. As noted in Chapter 4, the ‘no

communication as to why there were delays’ impacted on the change receptivity.

As one staff member reasoned, with a workforce earning an median income of $80K,

the quickest way to regain fiscal stability was to lay off staff and preferably highly

paid staff (for example the managers). At Time 1 – they had no reasons to believe this

would be a strategy – the CEO’s ‘open communication style’ belied the emphasis that

was subsequently placed on downsizing. At Time 2, staff were provided with

information as to why they had progressed with change (eg financial difficulties with

stakeholders). The staff had been initially shielded from the reality of their financial

position, and therefore could see no reason why their expectations of change were not

being met. As illustrated by the comment, ‘And we have chosen continuous

improvement in our culture. And I just accept that, and that’s it’, there was a stoic

265

commitment to change – a sense of resignation, that it was going to happen and

probably would not be as fast or the way they wanted, but it was still better than prior

to Time 1.

The commitment to change was buttressed by change optimism in some sectors of the

organisation and commitment to the organisation. Despite the negativity and cynicism

evident in the engineering consultants, other employees (‘quite a remarkable

company, in my view to work in’) were satisfied with the organisation.

In Highsales, in contrast, as indicated by the comment regarding the ‘burning

platform’, employees were initially made aware of the dire need to turn the

organisation around. Contrary to the employees of Tech D, the staff at Highsales

recognised a very dynamic and volatile environment with the development of new

products and markets. This organisation, though, was further established in terms of a

commercialisation focus and recognised there would be no government ‘bail-out’.

These results draw attention to the sensitivity of change receptivity as a construct.

Quite simply, receptivity to change dips and peaks on a daily basis, depending on the

amount of information provided, the personal goals and expectations, and the levels of

commitment to the organisation. From the macro perspective, it takes a significant

event to alter the change receptivity. Even when faced with the trauma of

redundancies, the overall openness to change was still above the median score in Tech

D.

This research is not the first study to note a contradiction in the quantitative and

qualitative research. Pate et al. (2000) also found that the data from their quantitative

study suggested a high level of positive attitudes towards the company, yet their focus

266

groups did not reflect this. Similarly, Stewart and Kringas (2003) found the attitudes

towards change expressed in their interviews were more negative than the staff survey

results suggested. Stewart and Kringas (2003) suggested that this divergence could be

attributed to the survey addressing a change specific event, whereas the interviews

delved more into the employees’ job dissatisfaction. The less structured interview

format allowed for the participants to generate their own topics. Indeed one of the last

questions in the focus groups was specifically designed to prevent overemphasis on

the edic perspective, ‘Is there anything that we haven’t talked about, that you thought

we would’. Given the likelihood of job redesign, and job role change within

organisational change, the results from this current study and Stewart and

Kringas’(2003) suggest that future research on employee satisfaction with change

must include measures of job satisfaction and integration of job satisfaction within the

models explored.

Pate et al (2000) suggest that the timing of events within the organisation affected

their lack of triangulation, and this can also be the case within Tech D. By the time the

focus groups were conducted in Time 1, the employees’ early high hopes of change

were frustrated. So while they initially indicated on the survey that they were open to

change, by the time the focus groups occurred, and the employees had experienced the

subsequent lack of speed of change, their receptivity to change had declined.

Further, Pate et al (2000) question the validity of questionnaires in capturing dynamic

constructs such as breach and violation, and this too may be an issue with receptivity.

It would appear from the findings that there are a number of factors influencing the

change receptivity, from individual expectation, delivery of information from

management, political funding decreases, and job security to name but a few. The

267

results suggest that receptivity is too dynamic to be captured as a state, contrary to

Huy’s (1999) assertion. There is a third explanation for the divergence in

triangulation, not considered by Pate et al (2000). The divergence between the focus

group responses and the survey results in terms of change receptivity provides further

explanation of the dynamics of group level effects. The surveys captured ‘individual’

response to receptivity and aggregated these at an organisational level. However

recognised by Bazigos and Burke (1997, p.387), when using Lewinian theory ‘group

opprobrium restrains individual behaviour from deviating too greatly from the norm’.

Despite deliberately excluding managers and supervisors from the focus group so as

not to impact on candour of the groups, there was sufficient evidence to suggest that

‘group’ censure impacted the discussions on how people felt about change when

discussing the issue in public. This evidence was illustrated by the ‘bravado’ exhibited

by the consulting focus group in Tech D, and the participant who confided after the

focus group that she felt reluctant to speak freely in front of some her workmates. The

lack of methodological triangulation on this issue offers an alternate explanation

regarding the difference between individual and group level effects.

Future Research In order to continue providing clarity of organisational processes affecting change,

further research needs to focus on the idea of communication during change (Mills,

2003) rather than communication of change. This approach guards against continued

focus on the instrumental perspective of change communication and accommodates

multiple perspectives of change communication. Managers tend to dismiss the

background talk, or assume it is too difficult to address, and this is paralleled by a

lack of scholarly interest in the informal talk of change. This research suggests the

neglect of the background talk is to our scholastic detriment. To this end, Mills (2003,

268

2004) works in pursing the informal communication during change, and addressing

the integration of formal and informal communication is a promising and enlightening

trajectory. Whilst there is a body of work addressing gossip, grapevine activity and

the rumour mill within organisations, only Appelbaum et al.’s (2003) works considers

the implications of these forms of informal talk within a change context. This current

study advances this path by providing a model of how the formal and informal talk of

change integrates, when viewed as monologic and dialogic change communication

and the background talk of change, and the resultant impact on change receptivity.

Further research could consider managed sense-making, in relation to engaging with

the background talk. Analysis of organisational metaphors starts this process, however

this analysis had the potential to be superficial; there is safety behind metaphors as

these act as a heuristic. By using metaphors, the sense-making process may be

prematurely abbreviated, as the employees do not have to delve into deep

understanding and reflection on how they are making sense of the change. Analysis of

the change agent role within Highsales provides a foundation for future research, in

examining how change agents may identify salient features of the background talk,

and then implement successful interventions. This will be a challenging task as it

involves uncovering tacit knowledge in order to expose the cognitive processes.

One of the core assumptions underpinning this research was that communication

impacts how people feel and think about change. The results suggest a far more

complex relationship than this assumption. The complexity in the results of this

research necessitates further work on establishing causal relationships between

employees’ emotional engagement, change implementation and change

communication. The model advanced in this chapter provides a starting point for

269

future testing. However, the results also suggest a redirection towards a fully social

constructionist account of change, whereby questions enactment of change

communication can be considered, and fuller exploration of the relationships between

forms of change communication and employee openness to change may be

considered. These results also point to the salience of temporal factors (such as

nostalgia, retrospective accounts, and memories of past experiences) and continuing

to track the evolution of the relationship between change communication and

employees receptivity would be prudent.

The increase in apathy and cynicism within continuous change maybe a response to

an increase in the manipulative or pseudo-dialogic use of communication during

change. Scholars may wish to address bordering bodies of research in Public

Relations, Advertising and Political Communication to address how change managers

might transform highly cynical or apathetic organisations when faced with continuous

change. Neither of the cases in this thesis employed overt tactics of persuasion within

the change process.

There are also opportunities for further research addressing ‘How does the

monologic/dialogic/background talk model work in other organisations?’ This study

revealed that the two cases could be classified within Van de Ven and Poole’s (1995)

tri motor of change. Examples of other organisations and their use of the three change

communication models will further develop this framework. Additionally, questions

remain about the triggers for making discursive shifts between monologic and

dialogic exchanges. When and how does the change agent know it is time to switch

styles, bolster dialogic or increase monologic communication in a variety of contexts?

This exploration could lead to important learnings for management education

270

programs. From a methodological standpoint it would be fruitful to consider analysis

of videotaped or audio taped exchanges to isolate the shifting points.

The process of developing a sophisticated survey instrument measuring the

monologic, dialogic and background talk models of change has begun within this

study. The scales used in this research were created to capture opportunistic data, and

did not have the advantage of long scale development processes. Similarly, the small

sample numbers compromise the power of the analyses. Developing a more

comprehensive measurement tool will bolster understanding of the interplay of

communication models and provide change communication metrics.

Conclusion

This chapter has discussed the findings from the two case-studies Tech D and

Highsales in conjunction with the literature on change receptivity from Chapter 2, to

address the research aims made explicit in Chapter 1. To this end, the research has

shown that while each of the change communication models, monologic and dialogic

change communication, and the background talk of change, have distinct impacts on

change receptivity, they must be considered in an integrated form to understand a

theory of change communication. In unpacking the black box of change

communication, this thesis supports the concept of a bimodal theory of

communication (Taylor & Van Every, 2000) and suggests that change communication

is both instrumental (monologic change communication) and constructivist (dialogic

change communication and the background talk of change). To privilege one

perspective over the other is to deny the value implicit in the combined interplay.

This research has found that change communication consists of both monologic and

dialogic expectations and competences, as well as dialogic forums. There are also

271

more difficult elements of change communication to consider such as the background

talk of change, discursive resistance and pseudo-dialogic events. These elements are

more difficult for change agents to address as they are not immediately obvious, and

require deeper analysis to consider and address. In addressing the contextual

considerations of continuous change, this research has shown that receptivity is a

dynamic process, which, on close investigation, changes on a day to day basis. The

additional challenges introduced by continuing uncertainty and ambiguity place an

additional burden on the change communicator in terms of information overload and

communicative attention; simply communicating more is not the answer to continuous

change. Finally, this chapter has revealed a number of directions for further research

including: focusing on the integration of informal and formal communication of

change, embracing the concept of communication during change rather than of

change, critical analysis of the role of persuasive appeals during change, and the

development of a more sophisticated survey instrument. The next chapter concludes

this thesis by revisiting the findings and highlighting the major contributions.

272

CHAPTER 7

Conclusion

Introduction

This chapter starts by reviewing the original rationale for this research in relation to

change communication and change receptivity. It uses the findings from the case-

study organisations examined in Chapters Four and Five in conjunction with the

discussion in Chapter Six to make an argument that the original aims of this thesis

have been achieved. The chapter also establishes that a significant contribution to

knowledge has been made with regard to the development of a change communication

theory suitable for use within continuous change. The theoretical framework posits

that three change communication models exist within organisational change and the

sequencing of the three change communication models is determined by the alignment

of change communication competences and change communication expectations.

Theoretical Contribution

This thesis has answered the question ‘How does change communication impact on

change receptivity within a continuous change context?’ and in so doing a new theory

of change communication is advanced. Whetten (1989) suggests that for theory

development to be plausible, the researcher needs to demonstrate the what, how and

why of the theory. In unpacking the ‘black box of change communication’ and

clarifying the components of change communication, this dissertation contends that

the what of the new theory consists of sequences of monologic change

273

communication, dialogic change communication and the background talk of change.

These three constructs can be refined further to establish change communication

competences, and change communicative expectations as key to the what of change

communication theory (Whetten, 1989).

The model of the Pipeline of Continuous Change Communication introduced in

Chapter 6 advances an understanding of how the three key constructs relate within

organisational change, thus addressing Whetten’s (1989) second requirement of

theory building. The ‘how’ can be illustrated as follows:

bt

M

D

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

mm

m

d

d

d

d

dd

d

dd

d

d

BT

btbt

btbt

bt

bt

bt

bt

bt

btbt

bt

bt

d

m

bt

bt

bt

bt

d

bt

btbt

m

To recap, Monologic (M) and Dialogic (D) communication present as the ‘front-end’

process of change with the Background Talk and the informal sense-making (BT)

occurring in the absence of change communication. This interplay is depicted as an

ideal type in the model above with organisational change conceptualised as a pipeline,

where the change process flows continuously. The balance of monologic and dialogic

change communication and the background talk of change differ depending on the

organisational context. Considered separately, all three constructs have negative and

positive impacts on change receptivity and these effects are now summarised.

Monologic change communication benefits change receptivity when it provides

stability and closure in times of uncertainty and ambiguity. This situation was

specifically highlighted in the Tech D case when the employees were faced with

274

downsizing and the divisional spin offs. Similarly, when moving discussion to an

action and results orientation, monologic change communication is welcomed. This

research has found ultimately, though, monologic change communication has the

most beneficial impacts on change receptivity when there are corresponding

monologic expectations, such as an expressed desire for top-down information.

From the evidence within the two case-studies, monologic change communication is

not likely to have beneficial impacts on change receptivity when problem solving is

required, as monologic change communication prevents a dialogic forum from

occurring. Monologic change communication is also likely to have negative impacts

on change receptivity if there are already dialogic expectations evident.

The findings indicate dialogic change communication has positive impacts on change

receptivity when there is time for dialogic processes to occur, creativity, innovation

and organisational learning are required and employees have matching dialogic

competences. Further, unless the employees are dialogically competent the positive

impacts from dialogic change communication will not occur. Again, there needs to be

dialogic change expectations for employees to feel positive about change when

engaged in dialogic approaches. If the employees are not dialogically competent, or

possess monologic expectations then dialogic change communication will have

negative impacts on change receptivity.

Investigation of the background talk of change rarely revealed positive impacts on

change receptivity. The one exception was the framing discourse of naturalism which

suggests that organisational change is a normal and natural way of life. The other

framing discourses that focused on expressions of fear of the future, competing goals,

and the economic values of employees negatively impacted on the change receptivity.

275

However, in order to provide an understanding of Whetton’s (1989) final aspect, the

why of building theory, one of the highlighted findings of this research is the idea of

the appropriate sequencing and interplay of monologic, dialogic and background talk.

This discovery signifies a major departure from the previous research and contributes

to Taylor and Van Every’s (2000) understanding of a bimodal theory of

communication. Taylor and Van Every argue for acceptance of a bimodal theory of

information whereby communication is both ‘transmission’ based (eg monologic

change communication), and constructed interactively (dialogic change

communication and the background talk). Thus, change communication is both an

‘object’ that organisational members discuss (eg ‘there is poor change communication

here’) and realised as a continued enactment of the organisational members (eg

organisational change occurs through our communication). Taylor and Van Every

(2000, p.5) argue that, ‘A bi-modal theory of communication makes no attempt to

refute either of these ways of seeing, but instead perceives them as dimensions of a

complete theory of communication in language’. Thus, recognising the monologic

change communication, the dialogic change communication and the background talk

of change contributes to a more complete perspective of organisational change.

Van de Ven and Poole (1989) caution for theory development to occur, it needs to

account for the paradoxes and inconsistencies within the research. The authors

propose ‘Look for theoretical tensions or oppositions and use them to stimulate the

development of more encompassing theories’ (Van de Ven & Poole, 1989, p. 563).

One such tension grounded in the data was the divergence between the quantitative

and qualitative research. While the qualitative research provided examples of the

impact of change communication on change receptivity, the quantitative research

suggested that the relationship between change communication and change receptivity

276

is not so strong. Rather than dismissing the divergence, Van de Ven and Poole’s

(1989) advice has been followed in order to provide insight of a ‘multifaceted reality’.

Subsequent investigation of this finding in the last round of focus groups determined

that the perception of change implementation supersedes the impact of the type of

change communication. This result suggests a reconceptualisation of the causal

relationship between change communication and change receptivity to reveal the

following:

Additionally, Van de Ven and Poole (1989) advocate clarifying the level of analysis.

As noted in Chapter Six, an alternative perspective on the divergence of findings may

be attributed to group level effects in the qualitative research and individual responses

within the quantitative research. Thus, the use of mixed methodology and a staggered

cross-comparative approach has greatly enhanced this study by exposing the

complexities inherent in the research.

The theoretical contribution of this thesis is enhanced by the adaptation of Van de

Ven and Poole’s (1995) process theories of change. After first analysing both cases in

terms of the process theory motors, in Table 6.3, the study uses the data to provide

examples of how the monologic, dialogic change communication models sequence

Past Perception of Change Implementation

Change Receptivity Change Communication

Alignment of Expectations and Competences

277

and interacts with the background talk within each of the process theories of change.

This contribution demonstrates how communication is inextricably linked with

organisational change (Lewis, 1999), as it provides explanation of the movement

between the motors. In considering the sequencing of the monologic, dialogic and

background talk, Table 6.4 illustrates how a bimodal theory of change communication

can drive the processes of change. While Poole and Van de Ven (2004) claim that the

extension of their framework delineates the necessary parts of an adequate

explanation of organisational change and development, the adaptation of their work to

include the change communication models can only enhance and bolster the utility of

their framework.

This thesis has also fulfilled the second research aim, to investigate the

communicative aspects of continuous change. To this end, Chapter Six discussed the

importance of managing uncertainty and ambiguity, change fatigue, the use of change

metrics as symbolic markers, distribution of communicative attention, and change

receptivity as a process.

The conclusions of this research for practitioners are threefold. Firstly, in order to

manage the communication within continuous change, a mix of monologic and

dialogic communication is required. This balance is determined by the existing

preference of the participants of change, the existing monologic and dialogic

competences, frequency of communication, mediums used and available

communication forums. Depending on the change context, differing emphases are

required. This finding lends itself to a decision-making heuristic to determine the

optimum balance throughout the process. If the organisation needs to create more

change for example, culture change, commercialisation, managing financial

278

challenges, and is dialogically competent, then the change agents can introduce more

dialogic processes for example, problem solving groups, open inquiry, and discussion

boards. If at certain stages of the process, more stability and control is required, for

example, redundancies and anchoring new processes, then monologic change

communication is required to provide information necessary for the employees to

continue with the change agenda. The organisational change literature acknowledges a

long interest in the change/stability paradox (Greenwood & Hinings, 1988; Leana &

Barry, 2000); and this study advances the theoretical understanding within the change

communication field.

Second, sensitivity is both required in acknowledging the interplay and sequencing of

monologic and dialogic models and by the individual who can be responsible for

making the discursive shifts from one approach to another. At some point of a

dialogic exchange, closure is required and a monologic moment can take the ‘talk’

into action. Similarly, when anchoring a new process, an engagement of dialogic

processes can improve the implementation of the new process. The ability to

understand when and how to shift change communication competence becomes a

compelling competence for change managers to develop.

Finally, when considering the balance of dialogic and monologic change

communication, managers can be cognisant of the sense-making in the background

talk of change. If many of the frames of reference that change participants use to

make sense of change lead to further resistance and fatigue, then addressing these

frames would be prudent. Early steps towards minimizing the harm to the employee

and the organisation include up-skilling employees to be better able to process cues

about change and the provision of sense-givers, or managers of background talk.

279

Limitations

First, Eisenhardt (1989) advocates that for theory building to occur, it is better to have

more than four cases. She argues that any fewer compromises the ability to generate

theory with much complexity. Ultimately this research may be limited in this regard

by the use of two cases, however the eight multiple studies in each of the longitudinal

designs may be interpreted as ‘mini-cases’, and bolsters the claim to theory

development. Further, the two cases used were specific in their cultural context, in

that they both were public sector organisations. Whilst the two cases underwent

similar change events and had similar change agendas, it may transpire that these

types of changes (downsizing, learning initiatives, BPR, and commercialization focus)

possess explicit cultural change considerations not transferable to the greater

population of organisations seeking to undergo continuous change.

Second, one of the virtues of the research is the grounding of the study in real

organisations and within real time. Yet this approach can be a double-edged sword as

the ‘real’ experience of organisational change impacted on the sample sizes within the

focus groups and the survey responses. While the power of the statistical analysis was

reduced owing to the declining numbers within the organisations, there were multiple

sources of data and methods to strengthen the rigour of the study.

Third, the findings and results need to be considered within the social context of the

change program. A dominant consideration in both cases was the social context of the

organisational change. The negative consequences of downsizing and redundancies

tailor and flavour the organisational discourses, both management driven and from the

employee perspective. Given that both cases started with a period of downsizing and

redundancies, it is difficult to say how much this experiences conflated the other

280

discourses of economic rationality, industrial relations, and the naturalisation of

change.

Fourth, as noted earlier in Chapter 1, this study did not consider ‘transactional

communication’ as neither of the cases identified as undergoing ‘transformational

change’. However, to refrain from doing so dichotomises the monologic and the

dialogic change communication models, and limits the full and complete

understanding of the issues of change communication. This creates a major research

direction to pursue, in terms of answering how does Eisenberg et al’s (1999)

transactional change communication model impact on change receptivity within a

continuous change context. The future research directions are more thoroughly

explored in the next section.

Future research

One of the consequences of the further development of knowledge about change

communication and advancement of a theoretical framework for communication

during change is the expansion of other areas of research. As such, further areas for

future research include:

1. In-depth examination of communication during change rather than ‘of

change’.

2. Investigation of the role of change agents in managing the background talk of

change and identifying the salient feature of the background talk.

3. Clarification of the causal relationship between employees’ emotional

engagement, change implementation and change communication.

281

4. Critical analysis of the role of persuasive appeals during change and overlaps

with other communication fields such as political communication and public

relations.

5. A continued focus on the integration of informal and formal communication of

change to provide a more holistic and complex perspective of one of the

integral components of organisational change and testing across other

organisations.

6. Further development of a survey instrument to capture the three change

communication models.

Contributions

In conclusion, this study augments previous research by studying the change

communication processes within a new context, continuously changing organisations.

Examination of previous literature on change communication revealed a lack of

integration between the instrumental and constructivist perspective of change

communication, and this thesis has successfully integrated these perspectives to

provide additional value in understanding of what occurs within organisational change

in relation to change communication. A highlight of the integration is an empirical

analysis of the background talk of change, particularly as this study is one of the first

to consider the informal talk and the employees’ perspective of change within a

continuous change context.

From a methodological standpoint, the use of Langley’s (1999) Alternate Templates

strategy has provided an innovative perspective of the change process. This

perspective reveals the layering of the three distinct change communication models.

Additionally, a new change communication instrument was specifically designed for

282

this study and provides a platform from which to build upon. The staggering of the

two case-studies in order to allow testing of early findings and redefinition of research

questions has added considerable value to the organisational studies field.

This research traverses new territory by adapting Van de Ven and Poole’s (1995)

Process Theories of Change to accommodate the sequencing of monologic, dialogic

and background talk of change. The framework of dominant change communication

models provides valuable guidance to change managers and organisations undergoing

continuous change. The subsequent findings and discussions on practical and

theoretical contribution are evidence that the research aims have been addressed and a

significant contribution to knowledge has been made. This thesis advances the study

of change communication by presenting an integrated perspective of the process. In so

doing, the thesis reveals opportunities for management development in terms of

change communication competences, and offers guidance for practitioners in

assessing the existing change communication expectations. The resultant contribution

is a thesis that bridges a nexus between academia and practitioners, integrates

management theory and organisational communication theory to develop a new

theoretical approach to change communication, and reveals a pluralistic perspective of

the change process.

283

References

Allen, T. J., & Katz, R. (1995). The project-oriented engineer: A dilemma for human resource. R & D Management, 25(2), 129.

Allen, T., Freeman, D., Reizenstein, R, & Rentz, J (1995) Just another transition? Examining survivors’ attitudes over time. Academy of Management Journal, Best Paper proceedings, 78-82.

Alvesson, M., & Deetz, S. (2000). Doing Critical Management Research. London: SAGE Publications.

Amburgey, T. L., Kelly, D., & Barnett, W. P. (1993). Resetting the clock: The dynamics of organizational change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(1), 51.

Anouli, F. (1995). Workplace sabotage: Its styles, motives and management. The Journal of Management Development, 14, 48-66.

Applebaum, S., & Donia, M. (2001). The Realistic Downsizing Preview : A Multiple Case Study: Methodology and Results of Data Collection (Part I). Career Development International, 6(3), 128-148.

Applebaum, S., Lopes, R., Audet, L., Steed, A., Jacob, M., Augustinas, T., et al. (2003). Communication during the downsizing of a telecommunications company. Corporate Communications, 8(2), 73-96.

Armenakis, A. A., & Harris, S. G. (2002). Crafting a change message to create transformational readiness. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(2), 169.

Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating readiness for organizational change. Human Relations, 46(6), 681.

Ashford, S. J. (1988). Individual strategies for coping with stress during organizational transitions. Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, 24, 19-36.

Atwater, L. E., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, D., & Cartier, P. (2000). An upward feedback field experiment: Supervisors' cynicism, reactions, and commitment ot subordinates. Personnel Psychology, 53(2), 275.

Axtell, C., Wall, T., Stride, C., Pepper, K., & al, e. (2002). Familiarity breeds content: The impact of exposure to change on employee openness and well-being. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 217.

Baden-Fuller, C., & Volberda, H. W. (1997). Strategic renewal: How large complex organizations prepare for the future. International Studies of Management and Organization, 27, 95-120.

Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2004). Organizational restructuring and middle manager sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 523.

284

Bamford, D. R., & Forrester, P. L. (2003). Managing planned and emergent change within an operations management environment. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 23(5/6), 546.

Barley, S. (1986). Technology as an occasion for structing: Evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departmnets. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 78-108.

Barrett, D. J. (2002). Change Communication: using strategic employee communication to facilitate major change. Corporate Communications, 7, 219 -231.

Beckhard, R., & Pritchard, W. (1992). Changing the Essence: The Art of Creating and Leading Fundamental Change in Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Beech, N. (2000). Narrative styles of managers and workers: A tale of star-crossed lovers. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 36(2), 210.

Bennis, W. (2003). On Becoming A Leader: The Leadership Classic--Updated And Expanded. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing.

Bohm, D. (1996). On Dialogue (R. Smith, Trans. 2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

Boje, DM (1995) Stories of the storytelling organization: A postmodern analysis of Disney as "Tamara-land. Academy of Management Journal. 38(4): 997-1035.

Bokeno, R. M., & Gantt, V. W. (2000). Dialogic mentoring. Management Communication Quarterly: MCQ, 14(2), 237.

Bordia, P., DiFonzo, N., & Travers, V. (1998). Denying rumors of organizational change: A higher source is not always better. Communications Research Reports, 15(2), 189-198.

Botan, C. (1997). Ethics in strategic communication campaigns: The case for a new approach to public relations. The Journal of Business Communication, 34(2), 188.

Bourke, S., & Bechervaise, S. (2002). In search of a practical communication based theory on transformational organisational change. Paper presented at the Hawaii International Conference on Business, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Bovey, W. H., & Hede, A. (2001). Resistance to organizational change: the role of cognitive and affective processes. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 22(8), 372-382.

Brocklesby, J. & Mingers, J. (1998) 'Multimethodology: Towards a Framework for Mixing Methodologies', Omega: International Journal of Management Science, 25, 489-507.

285

Brocklesby, J.& Mingers, J.(2003) ‘Multimethodology: Towards a Framework for Mixing Methodologies’, in G. Midgley (ed), Systems Thinking - Classics and Contemporary Writings , Sage.

Brown, K. A., Ryan, N., & Flynn, C. (2000). Corporate Change in the Queensland Department of Main Roads. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology.

Brown, K., Ryan, N. and Parker, R. (2000). New Modes of Service Delivery in the Public Sector: Commercialising Government Services, International Journal of Public Sector Management, 13(2), pp206-221.

Brown, K., Waterhouse, J., & Flynn, C. (2003). Change management practices: Is a hybrid model a better alternative fro public sector agencies? International Journal of Public Sector Management, 16(3), 230-241.

Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 1.

Buchanan, D (2003) Demands, instabilities, manipulations, careers: The lived experience of driving change, Human Relations, 56 (6), 663-684.

Buchanan, D., Claydon, T., & Doyle, M. (1999). Organisation development and change: The legacy of the nineties. Human Resource Management Journal, 9(2), 20.

Buhler, P. (2000). Changing organizational structures and their impact on managers. SuperVision, 61(10), 15-17.

Burawoy, M. (1979). Manufacturing Consent. Changesin the Labour Process under Monopoly Capitalism. London: The University of Chicago Press.

Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., & Floyd, K. (2001). Does Participation Affect Deception Success? A Test of the Interactivity Principle. Hum Commun Res, 27(4), 503-534.

Burnes, B. (1996). Managing change: A strategic approach to Organisational Dynamics (2nd ed.): Pitman Publishing.

Butcher, D., & Atkinson, S. (2001). Stealth, secrecy and subversion: The language of change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 14(6), 554.

Cent, E. B., & Powley, E. H. (2002). Employees actually embrace change: The chimera of resistance. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 7(2), 56.

Cheney, G., Christensen, L., Zorn, T. E., & Ganesh, S. (2003). Organizational Communication in an age of Globalisation. Ilinois: Waveland Press.

Choo, C. W. (2001). The knowing organization as learning organization. Education & Training, 43(4/5), 197.

286

Cochran, J. K., Bromley, M. L., & Swando, M. J. (2002). Sheriff's deputies' receptivity to organizational change. Policing, 25(3), 507.

Colella, S., Cross, R., & Rieley, J. (1999). Developing critical new skills in a world of continuous change. National Productivity Review, 19(1), 43-48.

Conner, D. R. (1996). How can you survive continuous change? Medical Economics, 73(8), 109.

Copelli, P. (1998). The New Deal at Work. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Coram, R., & Burnes, B. (2001). Managing Organisational Change in the Public Sector. The international Journal of Public Sector Management, 14(2), 94-110.

Coyle-Shapiro, J. A.-M. (1999). Employee participation and assessment of an organizational change intervention: A three-wave study of total quality management. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35(4), 439.

Crampton, S., Hodge, J., & Mishra, J. (1998). The informal communication network: Factors influencing grapevine activity. Public Personnel Management, 27(4), 569-584.

Curtis, S., Gesler, W., Smith, G., & Washburn, S. (1999). Approaches to sampling and case selection in qualitative research: examples in the Geography of Health. Social Science and Medicine., 50, 1001- 1004.

D'Aveni, R. A. (1994). Hypercompetition: Managing the dynamics of strategic maneuvering. New York: The Free Press.

Dawson, P. (2003). Reshaping Change: A processual perspective. London: Routledge.

Dent, E. B., & Goldberg, S. G. (1999). Challenging "resistance to change". Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, 35(1), 25-41.

Devers, K. (1999). How Will We Know ‘Good’ Qualitative Research When We See It? Health Services Research, 35(5), 1153–1188.

Doyle, M. (2002). From change novice to change expert: Issues of learning, development and support. Personnel Review, 31(4), 465.

Doyle, M., Claydon, T., & Buchanan, D. (2000). Mixed results, lousy process: The management experience of organizational change. British Journal of Management, 11.

Eby, L., Adams, D., Russell, J., & Gaby, S. (2000). Perceptions of organizational readiness for change: Factors related to employee's reactions to the implementation of team-based selling. Human Relations, 53(3), 419-442.

287

Economo, H., & Zorn, T. E. (1999). Survivor perceptions of communication during downsizing. Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal, 1(2), 19-41.

Edelman, L. F., & Benning, A. L. (1999). Incremental Revolution. Organization Development Journal, 4(17), 79-89.

Edelmann, L. F., & Benning, A. L. (1999). Incremental revolution. Organizational Development Journal, 17(4), 79-93.

Eisenberg, E., Andrews, L., Murphy, A., & Laine-Timmerman, L. (1999). Transforming organizations through communication. In P. Salem (Ed.), Organisational Communication and Change (pp. 99-147). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case-study research. Academy of Management Reviewl, 14(4), 532-550.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (2000). Paradox, spirals, ambivalence: The new language of change and pluralism. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 703.

Faber, B. (1998). Toward a rhetoric of change: Reconstructing image and narrative in distressed organizations. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 12(2), 217.

Fairhurst, G. T. (1993). Echoes of the Vision: When the rest of the organization talks total quality. Management Communication Quarterly : MCQ, 6(4), 331-371.

Finger, M., & Brand, S. B. (1999). The concept of the “learning organization” applied to the transformation of the public sector’ in (eds.) ,. In M. Easterby-Smith, L. Araujo & J. Burgoyne (Eds.), Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization. London: Sage.

Fiol, C. M. (2002). Capitalizing on Paradox: The Role of Language in Transforming Organisational Identities. Organization Science, 13(6), 653-666.

Ford, D., Voyer, J., & Wilkinson, J. (2000). Building Learning Organizations In Engineering Cultures: A Case Study. ASCE Journal of Management in Engineering, 16(4), 72-83.

Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (1995). The role of conversations in producing intentional change in organizations. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 541.

Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & McNamara, R. T. (2002). Resistance and the background conversations of change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(2), 105.

Fossum, L. (1989) Understanding Organizational Change. Brisbane: Crop Publications.

288

Frahm, J. A., & Brown, K. A. (2002). Continuous change and change receptivity: The implications for the communicative dimensions of change. Paper presented at the ANZAM/IFSAM 2002, Gold Coast, Australia.

Frahm, J. A., & Brown, K. A. (2003). Organizational Change Communication:Lessons from Public Relations Communication Strategies. Paper presented at the ANZCA 2003, Brisbane, Australia.

Frahm, J. A., & Brown, K. A. (2004a, December 8-11). The Good, the Bad & the Reflective: Learning from cross comparative case study research on organisational change. Paper presented at the ANZAM, Dunedin, New Zealand.

Frahm, J. A., & Brown, K. A. (2004b, May 27-31). The Use of Alternate Templates Approach to Study the Change Communication in an Australian Organization. Paper presented at the International Communication Association, New Orleans.

Frese, M., Beimel, S., & Schoenborn, S. (2003). Action Training for charismatic leadership: Two evaluations of studies of a commercial training module on inspirational communication of a vision. Personnel Psychology, 56, 671- 697.

Geelan, D. R. (1997). Epistemological anarchy and the many forms of constructivism. Science & Education, 6(1-2), 15-28.

Gersick, C. J. G. (1991). Revolutionary change theories: A multilevel exploration of the punctuated equilibrium paradigm. Academy of Management Review, 16, 10-36.

Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and Sensegiving in Strategic Change Initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12(6), 433.

Gioia, D. A., & Mehra, A. (1996). Sensemaking in Organizations. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1226.

Gioia, D. A., & Thomas, J. B. (1996). Identity, image, and issue interpretation: Sensemaking during strategic change in academia. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(3), 370.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.

Graetz, F. (2000). Strategic change leadership. Management Decision, 38, 550-562.

Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1988). Organizational Design Types, Tracks and the Dynamics of Strategic Change. Organization Studies, 9(3), 293.

Greenwood, R., Hinings, C. R., & Brown, J. (1994). Merging professional service firms. Organization Science, 5(2), 239.

Griffin, E. (2000). A first look at communication theory. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

289

Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, B. (1983). Ethnography Principles in Practice. London: Tavistock Publishers.

Harter, L. M., & Krone, K. J. (2001). The boundary-spanning role of a cooperative support organization: Managing the paradox of stability and change in non-traditional organizations. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 29(3), 248.

Hassard, J.(1993) Sociology and Organisation Theory: Positivism, Paradigms and Post Modernity. Cambridge, New York, Cambridge University Press

Hazlett, S. A., & Hill, F. (2000). Policy and practice: An investigation of

organizational change for service quality in the public sector in Northern Ireland. Total Quality Management, 11(4-6), S515.

Hennestad, B. (2000). Implementing participative management: transition issues from the field. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science [H.W. Wilson - SSA], 36(3), 314.

Heracleous, L., & Barrett, M. (2001). Organizational change as discourse: Communicative actions and deep structures in the context of information technology implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 755.

Hill, R., Bullard, T., Capper, P., Hawes, K., & Wilson, K. (1998). Learning about learning organizations: case studies of skill formation in five New Zealand organisations. The Learning Organization, 5(4), 184-192.

Hoag, B. G., Ritschard, H. V., & Cooper, C. (2002). Obstacles to effective organizational change: the underlying reasons. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23(1), 6-15.

House, R., Rousseau, D. M., & Thomas-Hunt, M. (1995). The Meso Paradigm: A framework for the integration of micro and macro behaviour. Research in organisational Behaviour,, 17, 71-114.

Hughes, C., & Tight, M. (1998). The myth of a learning society. In S.Ranson (Ed.), Inside the learning society. London: Cassell.

Huy, Q. N. (1999). Emotional capability, emotional intelligence, and radical change. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 325.

Ingelgard, A., Roth, J., Shani, A. B., & Styhre, A. (2002). Dynamic learning capability and actionable knowledge creation: Clinical R&D in a pharmaceutical company. The Learning Organization, 9(2), 65.

Jablin, F., & Sias, P. (2001). Communication competence. In F. Jablin & L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication (pp. 819 - 864). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Johnson, B., & Rice, R. E. (1987). Managing organizational innovation: The evolution from word processing to office information systems. New York: Columbia University Press.

290

Johnson, P., Duberly, Close, & Cassell, C. (1999). Negotiating field roles in manufacturing research: the need for reflexivity. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 19(12), 1234.

Jones, B., Worrall, L., & Cooper, C. (2003). Normalising the effects of 'management' of change, Working Paper 007/03. University of Wolverhampton Business School: www.uwbs.wlv.ac.uk/rsch.

Jones, R. A., Jimmieson, N. L., & Griffiths, A. (2002). The role of organisational culture and reshaping capabilities in creating readiness for change: implications for change implementation sucess.

Kanter, R. M. (1985). The Change Masters. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Kanter, R. M. (1999). Change is everyone's job: Managing the extended enterprise in a globally connected world. Organizational Dynamics, 28(1), 7.

Kanter, R. M., Stein, B. A., & Jick, T. D. (1992a). The Challenge of organizational change : how companies experience it and leaders guide it. New York: Free Press.

Kanter, R. M., Stein, B. A., & Jick, T. D. (1992b). The Challenge of organizational change : how companies experience it and leaders guide it. New York: Free Press.

Kennedy, C. J. (2002). The transtheoretical Model of Change: An application to individual readiness for change. Paper presented at the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management,, Denver, Colarado.

Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 28(1), 21-37.

Klecker, B. M., & Loadman, W. E. (1999). Measuring principals' openness to change on three dimensions: affective, cognitive and behavioral. Journal of Instructional Psychology [H.W. Wilson - Educ], 26(4), 213 -226.

Klein, S. M. (1994). Communication strategies for successful organizational change. Industrial Management, 36(1), 26.

Knowles, R. (1999). Continuous change: having once embarked on a process of organizational change, why is it that most organizations find themselves having to repeat the process within a few years? CA Magazine,, 132(4), 43-44.

Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading chnage: why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, May-June, 59-67.

Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading Change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Kotter, J. P., & Schlesinger, L. A. (1979). Choosing Strategies for Change. Harvard Business Review, 57(2), 106.

291

Kreps, G. L. (1990). Organizational Communication: Theory and Practice, (2nd ed.). Illinois: Northern Illinois University.

Kristiansen, M., & Bloch-Poulsen, J. (2000). The challenge of the unspoken in organizations: Caring container as a dialogic answer? The Southern Communication Journal, 65(2/3), 176.

Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Kunda, G. (1992). Engineering Culture: Control and Commitment in a High-Tech Corporation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Laiken, M. E. (2003). Models of organizational learning: Paradoxes and best practices in the post industrial workplace. Organization Development Journal, 21(1), 8.

Lamonthe, J. D., & Langley, A. (2001). The dynamics of collective leadership and strategic change in pluralistic organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 809-837.

Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691-710.

Leana, C. R., & Barry, B. (2000). Stability and change as simultaneous experiences in organizational life. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 753.

Leonard, D. J., & Gilsdorf, J. W. (1990). Language In Change: Academics' And Executives' Perceptions. The Journal of Business Communication, 27(2), 137.

Lewis, L. K. (1997). Users' individual communicative responses to intraorganizationally implemented innovations and other planned changes. Management Communication Quarterly : MCQ, 10(4), 455.

Lewis, L. K. (1999). Disseminating information and soliciting input during planned organizational change: Implementers' targets, sources, and channels for communicating. Management Communication Quarterly : MCQ, 13(1), 43.

Lewis, L. K. (2000a). "Blindsided by that one" and "I saw that one coming": The relative anticipation and occurrence of communication problems and other problems in implementers' hindsight. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 28(1), 44.

Lewis, L. K. (2000b). Communicating change: Four cases of quality programs. The Journal of Business Communication, 37(2), 128.

Lewis, L. K., Hamel, S. A., & Richardson, B. K. (2001). Communicating change to nonprofit stakeholders. Management Communication Quarterly : MCQ, 15(1), 5.

292

Lewis, L. K., Richardson, B. K., & Hamel, S. A. (2003a). When the " stakes" are Communicative: The Lamb's andthe Lion's Share During Nonprofit Planned Change. Human Communication Research, 29(3), 400-430.

Lewis, L. K., & Seibold, D. R. (1996). Communication during intraorganizational innovation adoption: predicting users' behavioral coping responses to innovations in organizations. Communication Monographs [H.W. Wilson - EDUC], 63, 131.

Lewis, L. K., Stephens, K., Schmisseur, A., & Weir, K. E. (2003b). Advice to practicioners: a review of the popular press literature on planned change communication. Paper presented at the International Communication Association.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills: SAGE Publications.

Mabin, V. J., Forgeson, S., & Green, L. (2001). Harnessing resistance: using the theory of constraints to assist change management. Journal of European Industrial Training, 25(2/3/4), 168.

MacIntosh, J. (1981). Focus groups in distance nursing education. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 18, 1981 - 1985.

Marshak, R.J. (1993) Managing the metaphors of change.Organisational Dynamics, 22(1), 44-56.

Marshak, R. J. (2002) Changing the Language of Change: How New Contexts and Concepts are Challenging the Ways We Think and Talk About Organizational Change, Strategic Change, 11 (5) 279-286.

Marshak, R. J. (2004). Morphing: The leading edge of organizational change in the twenty-first century, Organization Development Journal, 22(3), 8-21.

Marshak, R. J (2005) Is there a new OD, Seasonings,1 (1).

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (1999). Designing Qualitative Research (3 ed.). London: SAGE Publications.

Martin, H. H. (1975). How shall we overcome resistance. Training & Development Journal,, 29, 32-34.

Maurer, R. (1996). Using resistance to build support for change. Journal for Quality and Participation,, June, 56-63.

Maurer, R. (1997). Transforming resistance. HR Focus, 74, 9-10.

Michelson, G., & Mouly, V. S. (2002). You Didn't Hear it From Us But...Towards an Understanding of Rumour and Gossip in Organisations. Australian Journal of Management, 27, 57-65.

293

Mikaelsson, J. (2002). Managing change in product development organization: Learning from Volvo Car Corporation. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23(5/6), 301.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Miller, V. D., Johnson, J. R., & Grau, J. (1994). Antecedents to willingness to participate in a planned organizational change. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22(1), 59.

Mills, C. (2000). The interfaces of communication, sensemaking and change. Australian Journal of Communicating, 27(1), 95-110.

Mills, C. (2002). In-house perceptions of an organization's grapevine activity. Paper presented at the ANZCA 2002.

Mills, C. (2003). A unique angle on sensemaking about organisational communication during times of change. Paper presented at the ANZCA 2003, Brisbane, Australia.

Miner, A., Bassoff, P., & Moorman, C. (2001). Organizational improvisation and learning: A field study. Administrative Science Quarterly., 46, 304-337.

Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2 ed. Vol. 16): Sage Publications.

Moroz, R., & Waugh, R. F. (2000). Teacher receptivity to system-wide educational change. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(2), 159.

Morse, J. M. (1999). Qualitative generalizability. Qualitative Health Research, 9(1), 5-6.

Mossholder, K. W., Settoon, R. P., Armenakis, A. A., & Harris, S. G. (2000). Emotion during organizational transformations: An interactive model of survivor reactions. Group & Organization Management, 25(3), 220.

Mumby, D. K., & Stohl, C. (1996). Disciplining organizational communication studies. Management Communication Quarterly : MCQ, 10(1), 50.

Munford, R., & Sanders, J. (2000). Getting to the heart of the matter: making meaning--three challenges for family researchers. Qualitative Health Research, 10(6), 841 - 852.

Newton, J., Graham, J., McLoughlin, K., & Moore, A. (2003). Receptivity to change in a general medical practice. British Journal of Management, 14(2), 143.

Nutt, P., & Backoff, W. (1997). Facilitating transformational change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, 33(4), 490-508.

Palmer, I., Kabanoff, B., & Dunford, R. (1997). Managerial accounts of downsizing. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 623.

294

Parker, R., & Bradley, L. (2000). Organisational culture in the public sector: Evidence from six organisations. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 13(2/3), 125.

Pate, J., Martin, G., & Staines, H. (2000). Exploring the relationship between psychological contracts and organizational change: a process model and case study evidence. Strategic Change, 9(481-193).

Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. London: SAGE Publications.

Pierce, S.J. “Boundary crossing in research literatures as a means of interdisciplinary information transfer.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50 (3), 271-279

Peetz, D. (1998). Unions in a Contrary World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Peters, T. (1989). Thriving on Chaos. London: Pan.

Pettigrew, A. M. (1985). The Awakening Giant – Continuity and Change at ICI. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Pettigrew, A. M. (1992). The character and significance of strategy process research. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 5-16.

Pettigrew, A. M. (1997). What is processual analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 13(4), 337-348.

Pettigrew, A. M., Ferlie, E., & McKee, L. (1992). Shaping strategic change: Making change in large organizations: the case of the National Health Service. London: Sage Publications.

Pettigrew, A. M., Woodman, R. W., & Cameron, K. S. (2001). Studying organizational change and development: Challenges for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 697.

Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 783.

Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2004). Theories of Organizational Change and Innovation Processes. In M. S. Poole & A. H. V. d. ven (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Change and Innovation (pp. 374-397). New York: Oxford Press.

Pugh, S. D., Skarlicki, D. P., & Passell, B. S. (2003). After the fall: Layoff victims' trust and cynicism in re-employment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 201.

295

Putnam, L. (1999). Shifting metaphors of organizational communication: the rise of discourse. In P. Salem (Ed.), Organisational Communication and Change. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Ragin, C. (1987). The Comparative Method: Moving beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Studies. Berkely, C.A: University of California Press.

Reichers, A. E., Wanous, J. P., & Austin, J. T. (1997). Understanding and managing cynicism about organizational change. The Academy of Management Executive, 11(1), 48-59.

Rindova, V. & Kotha, S. (2001). Continuous morphing: Competing through dynamic capabilities, form, and function. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 1263-1280.

Salem, P. (1999). The changes and challenges for organizational communication in the next century. In P. Salem (Ed.), Organizational Communication and Change. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Schein, E. (1996). Three Cultures of Management: The Key to Organizational Learning. Management of Technology and Innovation, 38(1), 9-20.

Schon, D. A. (1973). Beyond the stable state : Public and private learning in a changing society. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Scott, C., Jaffe, D. & Crisp, M (1995). Managing Change at Work, Crisp Publications.

Sekaran, U. (1992). Research Methods for Business. New York: Wiley.

Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, . Boston, MA: Doubleday Currency.

Seo, M., Putnam, L., & Bartunek, J. (2004). Dualities and tensions of Planned Organizational Change. In M. S. Poole & A. H. V. d. Ven (Eds.), handbook of Organizational Change and Innovation (pp. 73-107). New York: Oxford University Press.

Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). Shannon, C.E. & Weaver, W. (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana: University of Illinois. Urbana: University of Illinois.

Sitkin, S. B., Sutliffe, K. M., & Weick, K. E. (1998). Organizational learning. In R. Dorf (Ed.), The technology management handbook. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Smith, V. C., Sohal, A. S., & D Netto, B. (1995). Successful strategies for managing change. International Journal of Manpower, 16(5,6), 22.

296

Spiker, B. K., & Lesser, E. (1995). We have met the enemy. Journal of Business Strategy, 16, 17-21.

Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant Observation. New York: Holt, Rinehardt and Winston.

Stevens, J. (1996). Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Stewart, J., & Kringas, P. (2003). Change management-strategy and values in six agencies from the Australian Public Service. Public Administration Review, 63(6), 675.

Stohl, C., & Cheney, G. (2001). Participatory processes/paradoxical practices: Communication and the dilemmas of organizational democracy. Management Communication Quarterly : MCQ, 14, 349 - 407.

Strebel, P. (1996) Why Do Employees Resist Change? in: Harvard Business Review, May-June, pp. 86-92.

Taylor, J., & Van Every, E. (2000). The emergent organization: Communication as its site and surface. Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum and Associates, Inc.

Tushman, M., & O'Reilly, C. (1996). Ambidextrous Organizations: Managing Evolutionary and Revolutionary Change. California Management Review, 38(4).

Tushman, M. L., & Romanelli, E. (1985). Organizational evolution: A metamorphosis model of convergence and reorientation. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 171-222). Greenwich,CT: JAI Press.

Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (1995). Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20, 510-540.

Vogt, W. (1999). Dictionary of Statistics and Methodology: A Nontechnical Guide for the Social Sciences. California: Sage Publications.

Waddell, D., Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2004). Organisation Development and Change. Melbourne: South-Western Thompson Learning.

Waddell, D., & Sohal, A. S. (1998). Resistance: a constructive tool for change management. Management Decision, 36(8), 543.

Waldersee, R., & Griffiths, A. (1997). The changing face of organizational change. In C. f. C. Change (Ed.), CCCPaper no.065. Sydney: The University of New South Wales, .

Wales, S. (2003). Why Coaching. Journal of Change Management, 3, 275-283.

297

Wanberg, C. R., & Banas, J. T. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of openess to changes in a reorganizing workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 132 - 142.

Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Austin, J. T. (2000). Cynicism about organizational change. Group & Organization Management, 25(2), 132.

Watson, T. J. (1995). Rhetoric, discourse and argument in organizational sense making: A reflexive tale. Organization Studies, 16(5), 805.

Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J., & Jackson, D. (1967). Pragmatics of Human Communication. New York: W. W. Norton.

Waugh, R., & Godfrey, J. (1995). Understanding teachers' receptivity to system-wide educational change. Journal of Educational Administration, 33(3), 38.

Waugh, R. F. (2000). Towards a model of teacher receptivity to planned system-wide educational change in a centrally controlled system. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(4), 350.

Weber, M. (1949). The methodology of the social sciences (E. Schils & H. Finch, Trans.). New York: The Free Press.

Weber, P. S., & Weber, J. E. (2001). Changes in employee perceptions during organizational change. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22(5/6), 291.

Weick, K. E. (1984). Small Wins: Redefining the scale of social problems. American Psychologist, 39, 40-49.

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sense-making in organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 361.

Whetten, D. A. (1989). What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 490 - 495.

Witherspoon, P. D., & Wohlert, K. L. (1996). An approach to developing communication strategies for enhancing organizational diversity. The Journal of Business Communication, 33(4), 375.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research Design and Methods (3rd ed.) (2nd ed.). London: SAGE Publications.

Zammuto, R. F., & O'Connor, E. J. (1992). Gaining Advanced Manufacturing Technologies' Benefits: The Roles of Organization Design and Culture. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review, 17(4), 701.

Zikmund, W. (1997). Business Research Methods. Fort Worth: Dryden.

298

Zorn, T., & Ruccio, S. (1998). Motivational communication in college sales teams. Journal of Business Communication, 35, 468 - 499.

Zorn, T. E., Christensen, L., & Cheney, G. (1999). Constant change and flexibility: Do we really want constant change? (Vol. 2). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Zorn, T. E., Page, D. J., & Cheney, G. (2000). Nuts about change: Multiple perspectives on change-oriented communication in a public sector organization. Management Communication Quarterly : MCQ, 13(4), 515.

299

Appendix 1: Subscales of the Inventory of

Change in Organisational Culture

Factor 1 Affective Reaction to Change

Item 3 I would resist the changes in Organisation X

Item 4 I don’t like the changes that have been suggested

Item 7 The changes would frustrate me if they happened in Organisation X

Item 12 I would suggest something like these changes Organisation X

Item 13 Most of the changes are irritating

Item 18 I would hesitate to press for such changes.

Factor 2 Cognitive Reaction to Change

Item 1 I would look forward to such changes in Organisation X

Item 2 The changes would benefit Organisation X

Item 5 Most employees in my organisation would benefit from the changes

Item 6 I would be inclined to try the changes in Organisation X

Item 9 I would support the changes if applied to Organisation X

Item 11 Other people in my organisation would think that I would support the changes

Factor 3 Behavioural Reaction to change

Item 8 The changes would help me to perform better at work

Item 10 The changes would tend to stimulate me

Item 14 The changes would help improve unsatisfactory situations at Organisation X

Item 15 I would do whatever possible to support the changes.

Item 16 I feel I would look forward to these changes

Item 17 I feel that I would benefit from these changes

(Source: Dunham et al, 1989,p.11, adapted in Klecker & Loadman (1999)

300

Appendix 2: Confidentiality Statement

Consent / Information form Study Title: An investigation of organisational change processes Investigator: Jennifer Frahm, Faculty of Business, School of Management, ph. 3864 9415 You are invited to participate in a research project that is investigating organisational change processes. If you agree to participate in the focus group, the interview will consist of questions asking you about how you perceive your organisational change is going. The interviews will last approximately 45-90 minutes and will be recorded on tape, unless you wish not to do so. The researcher will ensure confidentiality and anonymity. In the focus groups, no record will be kept of your name after your research component is completed. No individual names or firm name will be used in papers deriving from this research. All research material will be kept in locked filing cabinets. Your participation is voluntary and you are able to discontinue your involvement in this study at anytime without explanation or penalty. Your confidentiality will be preserved and no identifying information will be made public. Any personal information disclosed during the study will remain confidential and will be used for aggregating purposes only. Copies of the research reports will be available if you are interested. This study is being conducted as part of a doctoral research thesis for Business Management conducted by Jennifer Frahm. You may contact Jennifer during the study if any matter of concern arises on the phone number above. You may also contact the secretary of the QUT Research Ethics Committee (ph 3864 2902) if you have any further concerns about the ethical conduct of this research I, (Name) consent to participate in the research described above. I have read the information provided above, I understand the procedures and possible risks involved, and I have had the opportunity to ask questions. I also understand that I am able to withdraw from this study at any time without explanation, and that any information I provide is treated as confidential. Signature of participant Date Researchers Name Signature of Researcher Date Thank you for your consideration of participation in this study. Your help is greatly appreciated in the completion of my PhD degree.

301

Appendix 3: Research Protocol

Question Schedule: Tech D Focus groups. Thank you for coming. This is the 3rd research focus group round held over three years. I’ll just recap on what we are going to do over the next 45-60 minutes. These focus groups are concerned with gathering your perspectives on organisational change at TECH D. I have a series of guiding questions to ask, and I would appreciate your frank responses. There are no right or wrong answers and if you wish to challenge or questions others in the group about their response that is fine. The focus group is being tape recorded, however that is for the purpose of creating transcripts for me to analyse, so I don’t rely on memory. You will not be identified in any reports that come from this research. After I have analysed the information, I will prepare a record sheet that comes back to you to check and sign that I have interpreted your responses correctly. I do need you to sign this permission form first. Questions 1) In terms of the organisational change process – how are you feeling about organisational change in TECH D For those who can, think back to a year ago – what do you feel differently? How do you feel about the process that has been used? 2) What are your feelings about the goal of continuous improvement? 3) What are your thoughts about change communication?

• Collaborative • Listening • Suspending • Voicing • New meanings? • Conflict? • Information transfer • Top down

For those who can, think back to a year ago – how has the communication changed? 4. What changes have you noticed about leadership over the last 12 months? Finally, is there anything that hasn’t come up in this group that you thought would in a focus group about change process at TECH D.?

302

Appendix 4: The Vignettes Tech D – Time 1

Australian Technology Transfer (ATT) traditionally has operated with a strong silo organisational structure, with separate divisions responding to stakeholder requests. The engineers are used to operating within their own divisions and reporting back to the executive team. Recently, Tom was appointed as the new CEO. Tom is enthusiastic about initiating some changes in the organisation and brought together several staff members to brainstorm ideas to change the organisation.

One of the changes proposed is to ‘blow up the silo’s’ and create a unified organisation that works towards the one purpose. This involves improving communication, and developing better relationships between divisions. This may involve organisation restructure and certainly will involve significant culture change.

Another important change demands an increased commitment to commercialisation – whereby groups operate under commercial conditions, and decisions are made according to project viability regardless of level of government funding. Another important change is to create a ‘goldfish bowl effect’ – where ATT is visibly an example of world best practice. This would require an ongoing commitment to continuous improvement principals. Tom is excited about the changes. Tom believes the changes will enhance ATT’s purpose as provider of competitive advantage through the uptake of new technologies and business processes.

Tech D – Time 2 Xenon Industries (XI) traditionally has operated with a strong silo organisational structure, with separate divisions responding to stakeholder requests. The engineers are used to operating within their own divisions and reporting back to the executive team. Recently, John was appointed as the new CEO. John is enthusiastic about initiating some changes in the organisation and brought together several staff members to brainstorm ideas to change the organisation.

One of the changes proposed is to ‘blow up the silos’ and create a unified organisation that works towards the one purpose. This involves improving communication, and developing better relationships between divisions. This may involve organisational restructure and certainly will involve significant culture change.

Another important change demands an increased commitment to commercialisation – whereby groups operate under commercial conditions, and decisions are made according to project viability regardless of level of government funding.

303

Another important change is to create a ‘goldfish bowl effect’ – where XI is visibly an example of world best practice. This would require an ongoing commitment to continuous improvement principles

John is excited about the changes. John believes the changes will enhance XI’s purpose as provider of competitive advantage through the uptake of new technologies and business processes

Tech D – Time 3

After two years of continuous change in the form of experimental restructurings, a move to teams, a relocation, downsizing, the spin off of one of the business departments, and the introduction of financial controls and reporting, John sits back to pause and reflect...his initial intent to transform Xenon Industries (XI) into a learning organisation had been hijacked by more pressing matters of survival. Recent meetings with stakeholders indicated much longer term support. The previous initiatives had created much progress and the current round of strategic planning was near completion. The next 6 months will be a journey, he thought. Internally, it’s about building capabilities for a learning organisation, and externally it’s aligning the stakeholders with a vision of manufacturing excellence in Queensland. This would involve the creation of the Centre of Manufacturing Excellence, focus on picking winners from the SME community, the introduction of quality metrics to gauge the success of SMEs and XI in the eyes of its own people and other stakeholders. He would take the nearly completed plan to the staff next week and canvass opinions. The feedback might be useful before going to the board.

Highsales Time 1

Barrybucks (a division of PowerPlus) has traditionally operated with a shared services structure with low integration between the divisions. The staff are used to operating within their own divisions and reporting back to the executive team. Recently, John was appointed as the new Division Manager. John is enthusiastic about initiating some changes in the organisation and brought together several staff members to brainstorm ideas to change the organisation. One of the changes proposed is to reinforce Barrybucks by taking small teams from the shared services structure to work as one division. The will create a unified organisation that works towards the one purpose. This involves improving communication, and developing better relationships between teams. This may involve organisational restructure and certainly will involve significant culture change. Another important change demands an increased commitment to efficiency and profitability – whereby teams proactively seek out opportunities to improve existing processes. John is excited about the changes. John believes the changes will enhance Barrybucks’ purpose through:

304

o creating a common focus amongst the teams, o generating some good ideas about how to improve efficiency and profitability, o and gaining commitment to generating ideas and enable the conversion of the

good ideas into results.

Highsales Time 2 John (the manager of New Solutions a division of Power Plus) leaned back in his chair and reflected on the last six months. It had been a very successful year with many challenges overcome and some outstanding results achieved for the business. The performance during 2003 had definitely put us on the path to greater things during 2004. The staff were all on the same floor now, the focus on process efficiency y meant that gross margins and profitability had improved considerably. The General Manager of Power Plus Retail has state that ‘As good as the best’ was what he was hoping to achieve So what did that mean exactly, John mused? How do we maintain the rage and build the business further. It certainly meant continuous improvement across all the areas. It would probably be incremental though, rather than any great transformation. There were still ambitious growth targets to meet, so that would no doubt mean the introduction of new products, new markets and channels. The focus needed to stay on margins profitability for the financial year. Staff had been remarkably honest in their annual survey and the follow-up focus groups about employment conditions so it would be likely these would be reviewed and some ideas like job rotations introduced. John wondered, would this bring them to ‘As good as the best”.

Highsales Time 3 Elizabeth (the acting manager of New Solutions, division of PowerPlus) walked back into her office and thought about the meeting she was to have with the General Manager of PowerPlus Retail. The progress over the last 6 months was solid, with New Solutions creating significant attention with their successes. It was critical at this point to focus on compliance issues and focus on the licensees. In-field performance would clearly be the centre of attention whilst also focusing on continuous improvement across whole the business. The next six months would mean revisiting our processes, focus on growing the business, and focusing on the customer experience. The success of the next six months would be based on growing market share with the current products. “Focus, and more focus” she thought out aloud.

305

Appendix 5: Exploratory Factor Analysis: Total Variance Explained (Highsales)

Total Variance Explained

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 7.725 42.914 42.914 7.725 42.914 42.9142 2.646 14.698 57.612 2.646 14.698 57.6123 1.393 7.736 65.348 1.393 7.736 65.3484 1.138 6.323 71.671 1.138 6.323 71.6715 1.041 5.785 77.456 1.041 5.785 77.4566 .792 4.402 81.858 7 .675 3.752 85.610 8 .542 3.012 88.623 9 .456 2.535 91.158 10 .401 2.227 93.385 11 .352 1.958 95.342 12 .268 1.488 96.830 13 .214 1.187 98.017 14 .136 .753 98.771 15 .133 .738 99.508 16 .047 .260 99.768 17 .033 .185 99.953 18 .009 .047 100.000

306

Appendix 6: Exploratory Factor Analysis: Total Variance Explained (Tech D)

Total Variance Explained

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 8.863 49.240 49.240 8.863 49.240 49.2402 1.808 10.045 59.285 1.808 10.045 59.2853 1.048 5.822 65.107 1.048 5.822 65.1074 .900 5.002 70.109 5 .768 4.266 74.375 6 .655 3.640 78.015 7 .621 3.449 81.464 8 .561 3.119 84.584 9 .527 2.926 87.510 10 .468 2.602 90.111 11 .359 1.992 92.103 12 .315 1.748 93.852 13 .292 1.621 95.473 14 .239 1.326 96.799 15 .209 1.158 97.958 16 .153 .850 98.807 17 .136 .754 99.562 18 .079 .438 100.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

307

Appendix 7: Perception of Organisational Capacity to Change

Nev

er

Rar

ely

Som

etim

es

Ofte

n

Alw

ays

Don

’t kn

ow

Questions 1 2 3 4 5 DK

Did the Senior Management team take action quickly enough when new opportunities could help the organisation:

Comparative to other organisations, is TECH D a leader: a) in technology diffusion

b) in business practices

c) in adopting emerging technologies

Does the organisation adapt well to changes in funding level

Are the Senior Management team decisions innovative

308

Appendix 8: Perception of Change

Communication

Nev

er

Rar

ely

Som

etim

es

Ofte

n

Alw

ays

Don

’t kn

ow

Questions 1 2 3 4 5 DK

Most of the information about change in this organisation comes from the top

7. Management use communication as a tool to get their own way

8. My colleagues really listen to what I have to say about the changes

9. My manager really listens to what I have say about the changes

10. My colleagues demonstrate a lot of respect for other peoples’ opinions

about change

11. My manager demonstrates a lot of respect for other people’s opinions

about change

the impact of change communication on change receptivity ...the impact of change communication on...

Documents