Boundary activities and readiness for ... - Projekti-Instituutti

Theoretical background
change, unrealistic expectations, low priority of the change initiative, key
managers’ inconsistent actions, and misplacement (or no placement) of
responsibility. Many of the reported “failure factors” are mirror images of
the success factors, such as the lack of management support, poor
communication, unclear purpose of change, and lack of meaningful
participation. Next, each success factor listed in Table 6 is introduced in
more detail.
Establishing intent
The first three success factors directly relate to the defreezing activities (cf.
Lewin, 1947) and thus are in the core of change initiation. These three
factors are about establishing the intent for change. Firstly, one of the most
commonly reported success factors of organizational change is a visible
need and pressure for change. When organizational members understand
the rationale of the change and view it as justified, they are more likely to
commit to the change effort. Often, change leaders need to actively
convince others about the legitimacy of the change (Stjernberg & Philips,
1993). Issue selling (Dutton & Duncan, 1987; Dutton et al., 2001) is one way
to characterize such activity. Nutt and Backoff (1993) describe how the
leaders of a large-scale change effort may reframe the change individually
for each interest group by stressing the aspects of change that serve that
particular interest group.
The existence of a visible need has been reported to reduce resistance to
change, defined as the inability or unwillingness to accept organizational
changes (Buchanan & Huczynski, 1997). Resistance to change has been
identified as one of the main reasons behind failed change efforts and it has
received considerable research attention (e.g. Ford, Ford, & McNamara,
2002; Mealia, 1978; Trader-Leigh, 2002). Employees are especially likely to
resist changes that involve staff reduction (Dibella, 2007). Still, all change is
disruptive and upsets the organizational balance (Karp & Helgø, 2008). The
benefits and threats related to a change may be perceived differently by
different employee groups, and the responses can vary according to the
actors’ subjective perspectives and interests (Karp & Helgø, 2008; Spencer
& Sofer, 1964). Contrasting the traditional view, resistance to change has
also been promoted as a positive force that can be used as a resource for
change (Ford, Ford, & D’Amelio, 2008). For example, change leaders may
interpret the change recipients’ questions and complaints as a counteroffer
that can refine the change plans to be more successful (ibid.).
Many authors suggest that in addition to a visible need for change, there
should be pressure and a sense of urgency (Kotter, 1995; Leppitt, 2006;
Meyer & Stensaker, 2006). The pressure for change is related to the concept
40