Revision for the exam Flashcards
What does Weick and Quinn (1999) talk about?
They define episodic change and continuous change. Episodic change: Unfreeze, Move, Refreeze. Continuous change: Freeze, Re-balance, Unfreeze. They also discuss the role of a change agent in both types of change: episodic - mover, interprets, influences, communicates alternative options; continuous - unblocks, enables improvisation, enables translation & learning, shows new identity.
What does Kotter (1995) talk about?
Builds on Lewin’s model of Unfreeze, Move, Refreeze and expands it to 8 steps: Establish a sense of urgency; Form a powerful guiding coalition; Create a vision; Communicate the vision; Empower others to act upon the vision; Plan and create short-term wins; consolidate improvements; Institutionalize new approaches.
What does Orlikowski and Hofman (1992) talk about?
They introduce an improvisational model for change management. It captures emergent, unplanned opportunities which is more suitable for more turbulent business environments than Kotter’s model which is based on episodic change with a beginning and the end. They introduce 3 types of change that build on each other over time - anticipated change; emergent change and opportunity based change.
What does Huy and Mintzberg (2003) talk about?
They introduce 3 types of change and their interrelationships - dramatic change; systematic change and organic change. They need to be combined, paced and sequenced over time. They describe a change triangle.
What does Dunphy and Stace (1988) talk about?
They discuss a contingency model where the types of change depend on the level of coerciveness/collaboration (mode of change) and the whether the change is discontinuous (evolution/transformation) - change strategy. This allows change managers to find an organizational fit and systematic analysis of time, environmental fit and the role of stakeholders. They do not see these 4 variables as conflicting, rather complementary.
What does Dent and Goldberg (1999) talk about?
Old and new views of resistance.
What does Ford et al. (2008) talk about?
Change agents can contribute to the occurrence of resistance through their actions or in-actions. Change agent’s sense-making - their expectations about resistance and change (self-fulfilling prophecy and self-serving explanations - labeling resistance); and how they are communicated can be a source of change. Broken agreements, communication breakdowns, resisting resistance and misinterpretation of the change agent can be the sources. Also, resistance can be a resource to the change process - the value is in the existence of resistance; in engagement it brings and in strengthening decision making.
What does Piderit (2000) talk about?
Introduces the concept of ambivalence and 3 dimensions of resistance. Individual responses to change (resistance) consist of a cognitive, emotional and behavioral states, which are important in order to generate employee support and enthusiasm to change instead of trying to overcome it. Cognitive - lack of knowledge, own beliefs are confronted, negative thoughts and lack of understanding; lack of readiness for change. Emotional - feelings caused in response to change such as fear, anxiety. Behavioral - individual’s actions towards change (can be even sabotage in extreme cases). Ambivalence is a concept where a reaction to change can be double sided across these change dimensions - one may have negative emotions towards change, however cognitively understand why it is needed. Ambivalence within a dimension is also possible - need for change understood, but more information/research is needed.
What does Raffety et al. (2013) talk about?
They talk about the importance of employee attitude and change readiness on individual and work group/organization levels to the success rate of the change. They introduce a concept of valence. They define change readiness as the capacity to undertake change activities; and also define change supportive behaviors on both individual and org. levels linking these to the cognitive and effective aspects of change readiness. Collective readiness for change influenced by: shared cognitive need for change, shared efficacy and shared valence for the group; and future oriented positive emotional responses to change. Change agents should use persuasive communication , enact participation to increase sense of control and manage information to regulate these aspects of change readiness.
How does Raffety et al. (2013) define individual change readiness?
Individual change readiness on a cognitive level: create a sense of discrepancy, show that the change response is appropriate in this situation, develop a sense of efficacy and capacity to implement it, establish principle support and establish a sense of valence - personal benefits of such change. Individual change readiness on an effective level: emotional acceptance of the change plan and an individual positive emotional response to the future.
How does Raffety et al. (2013) define group/org. change readiness?
Group cognitive beliefs include the consensual cognitive view of events and change features influenced by leaders, internal processes or rumors. It also impacts employee selection and retention processes as (potential) employees are looking for a match between their own personal characteristics and the characteristics of an org. The group effective responses are shared emotions (incl. emotional comparison and contagion - synchronize emotions) - emphasizes transformation and charismatic leadership which can create shared vision of change towards good and inspire hope & optimism. This is also influenced by org. culture which might regulate and suppress expression of emotion at work.
What does Bommer et al. (2005) talk about?
They talk about the importance of transformational leadership, its 6 dimensions and effect on reducing cynicism. Cynicism - cognitive, effective and behavioral response resulting in increasing belief of unfairness, distrust and negative actions undermining leaders and org. actions to change as it leads to loss of faith in those responsible for change. The 6 TL dimensions that reduce cynicism are: Articulating a bright vision of future (clearly communicated and benefit shown - accept and commit); fostering the acceptance of group goals (work together to a common goal; focus on what is good for the org.; challenging goals - more self efficacy; keeps people involved in important event - more control and more trust in management competency); high performance expectations (confidence in employees; high standards required - more management competence); providing intellectual stimulation (encourages re-examination of decisions taken; more empowered & involved; increased credibility and trust in management; increases self efficacy as they feel change is possible); role modelling (consistent with new values and goals; teaching new behavior; increases management competency); and providing individual support (if the change initiator shows care to the followers and respect them, value them as individuals - more likely to accept change).
What does Bordia et al. (2004) talk about?
They talk about 3 types of uncertainty and their effects. Inability to predict future. Uncertainty causes feeling of lack of control (inability to influence events) and lack of knowledge. Strategic uncertainty - reasons for change, planning and future directions of the organization, org. sustainability and nature of business. Structural uncertainty - arising from changes in the inner processes within, reporting structures, functions of units. Job-related uncertainty - job security, promotion opportunities, changes to job descriptions, etc. These 3 types are related to each other - strategy is related to structure and structure to job roles. The proposed solution is Quality of change communication and participation in decision making. QCC - timely, trustworthy and credible info to allow to deal with change and reduce uncertainty, while increasing the sense of personal control and indirectly reducing strategic uncertainty. PDM - reduces structural and job-related uncertainty, increases feeling of control and reduces anxiety.
What does Brockner (2006) talk about?
He talks about process fairness, its drivers and importance. Drivers - PDM (part. in dec. making) - are their opinions are given serious consideration (do not get what they want, but are they heard?); and how is the decision making process perceived - consistency, info accuracy, can mistakes be corrected, are decisions free of biases; how managers behave - do they treat employees respectfully , actively listening to input and empathizing with them? Process fairness allows rationale for decisions to be understood, communicated and enables feeling of employee dignity and respect. Process fairness allows employees to buy-into strategies and inspire them to change. Some companies do not make use of this (power, discomfort in being questioned). Suggestions to enable: train management as they might experience initial negative reactions from employees, make PF a top priority on the top, show example at management level.
What does Cascio and Wynn (2004) talk about?
They take the notion of process fairness further in the context of a downsizing process and how to minimize the psychological impact on employees. Strategically targeted cuts, downsizing does not give a short term performance boost, they recommend involving employees in the downsizing only under conditions: enough time to participate, issue must be relevant to employee interest, employee must be able/capable of participation. They emphasize that ‘breach in psychological contract’ results in stress, loss of satisfaction, commitment, honesty and trustworthiness. Employees need to be treated fairly and with dignity (fairness and equal treatment in process of decision making will increase satisf., commitment, but also organizational citizenship and help to each other. Before downsizing - assess all information (rationale), the need and seek input and share concerns. During - lead by example and share the pain; make sure employees understand the criteria of selection and they are fair and consistent; give victims voice. After - give survivors a reason to stay, new opportunities; communicate regularly during the process (keep everyone informed on the developments - links to Kernan & Hanges; Bordia et al.). Train employees new ways of operating and align business practice to new reality.
What does Kernan and Hanges (2002) talk about?
Survivor reactions to reorganization and 3 types of justice - procedural, interpersonal and informational. Downsizing has long lasting effects on the survivors too. Org. justice and procedural fairness has a big role for survivors. Procedural justice - decision process fair, consistent, transparent, biases suppressed, info accurate and errors can be corrected - addresses structural aspects of procedures in decision making and feeling of control. Interpersonal justice - how is everyone treated during the execution (respect, concern for one’s input, treatment with dignity). Informational justice - what is the explanation of decisions, was relevant info shared, was there sufficient advance notice, was the explanation accurate and of high quality? Procedural justice increases affection and org. commitment, reduces intentions to leave, increases satisfaction and trust in management. Interpersonal justice increases trust in management. Fairness and justice in reorg. allows to omit/reduce ‘survivor syndrome’. Antescedents: employee input - procedural; support for victims - interpersonal, quality of communic. - interpersonal and informational.
What does Venus (2013) talk about?
He talks of the importance of continuity in the vision of change. Employee reassurance of things that will not change and ensuring continuity of organizational identity. Continuity is essential for mobilizing change support and managing resistance. Changes to org. identity represent a threat to individual self-identity in the org. This affects commitment. Visions of continuity are affective visions of change. Practices and ways of working might change - but reassurance that org. self-definition will not is needed. Leaders have this role to be entrepreneurs of identity.
What does Venus et al. (2016) say?
They emphasize the importance of the vision of collective continuity. Resistance to change can be born from threat to org. ID. They propose that visions of change should assure followers that org. ID will be preserved. Reduces the feeling of self-uncertainty and affection due to collective continuity. Role of leaders - communicate collective continuity by framing change in practices with specific goals and plans, but stability in self-defining aspect that will create opportunities. Will generate acceptance. Leaders should also act as guardians of stability, as individuals tend to incorporate org. ID into their own identity and mismatched cause anxiety. Collective continuity has a function of reducing self-uncertainty.
What does Ashford and Detert (2015) say?
They emphasize that middle managers are in a good position to see opportunities, but may have a hard time selling them upwards (due to culture f.e.). They propose seven tactics to get a buy-in: tailor pitch to the values/goals of audience; frame the issue to create sense of urgency (as an opportunity); manage emotions on both sides; get the timing right; involve others and form a coalition; adhere to norms; suggest solution. Also, be tactical and choose battles to win; combine tactics and approach the real decision maker.
What does Balogun (2003) say?
Middle managers can be change intermediaries and fulfill their 4 inter-related roles during the implementation. They engage in activities to enhance their sense-making of change intent; they help others through the change (sense-giving), they help business continuity during transition, and they also implement changes in their departments. They can be the targets of change and the agents. They present two views of middle managers - MM as ‘resistance’ (due to sense-making and role juggling, can be labelled as resistance) and as ‘change supporters’ (translation downwards sense-giving, using informal communication to peers they improve sense-making, and through coordination/management they implement while keeping the business going).
What does Dutton et al. (2001) say?
They provide techniques to issue selling and emphasize the importance of relational knowledge (individual and social relations; knowledge of intentions of them, stakes, goals - helps navigating the political aspect), normative knowledge (accepted and appropriate behavior - formal and informal channels, history, norms) and strategic/contextual knowledge (org. goals, plans, priorities - needed for most bundling and business case activities) to the success of selling. The selling steps are: packaging moves (bundling, incremental, towards existing values and goals); involvement (allies created in selling issue upwards; seller determines the targets of alliancing and nature - formality, diversity); Process related moves - formal procedures of selling, preparation of info and alternatives, involving others early and timing - persistence, opportunity windows.
What does Huy (2001) say?
They say that MM can make great contributions in realizing change - they have value adding ideas (entrepreneurship), they can leverage informal networks to make change last (networking/communication, translation, involvement and subtle changes within the network), they are receptive to employee moods/needs (therapy, tailor conversations to individual needs, encourages to help each other) and that they balance between the change and business continuity (tightrope artist, flexibility and fairness needed when change is top-down, MM understand the core values to hold onto). They describe 4 roles of MM - entrepreneur, communicator, therapist, tightrope artist.
What does Jacobs et al. (2008) talk about?
They define organizational identity - acceptable features in form of formal managerial practices and culture. Central character; temporal continuity; distinctiveness. Managing stability may be as important as managing change (sense of continuity). Change initiatives can result in misalignments with existing org. culture, which produce violations of basic org. norms. This can create a perceived threat to organizational identity and create disturbances in the social system. Change projects can generate uncertainty by making currently expected future less likely. It results in a need for clearly defined change goals and effort to communicate persistently the respect towards organizational culture and identity - to bridge the future with the past. They argue that if employees are presented with excessive change - negative consequences arise; and that changes in org. identity can give unpredictable consequences. Caution is needed in assumptions or org. flexibility in changing identity in the eyes of employees. Org. identity defines a certain range of acceptable behavior and if the change initiative leads to culturally unacceptable behaviors - resistance will arise.
