Boundary activities and readiness for ... - Projekti-Instituutti
Boundary activities and readiness for ... - Projekti-Instituutti
Boundary activities and readiness for ... - Projekti-Instituutti
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Theoretical background<br />
organizational change has been accused of depicting organizational<br />
members merely as resisting change (Woodward & Hendry, 2004), <strong>and</strong><br />
treating human resources as passive recipients of the top management’s<br />
“empowerment” ef<strong>for</strong>ts (Willcocks et al., 1997). More recent studies<br />
acknowledge how successful large-scale change requires fundamental shifts<br />
in the ways how organizational members think <strong>and</strong> act (Woodward &<br />
Hendry, 2004).<br />
Employee participation is increasingly described as a key mechanism in<br />
encouraging a welcoming approach to change (Buchanan & Huczynski,<br />
1997; Lines, 2004; Russ, 2008). As Gill (2003: 314) describes, “change is<br />
exciting <strong>for</strong> those who do it <strong>and</strong> threatening <strong>for</strong> those to whom it is done”.<br />
Different methods <strong>for</strong> participation entail different levels of involvement.<br />
Related to the early stage of change, attendance in change-related<br />
workshops is a common method (Greenly & Carnall, 2001). Organizational<br />
members are reported to more likely assume ownership of a change<br />
program when they can have input in the planning process (Mallinger,<br />
1993). Other <strong>for</strong>ms of participation include discussion <strong>for</strong>ums, task <strong>for</strong>ces,<br />
focus groups, brainstorming sessions, opinion surveys, <strong>and</strong> feedback<br />
systems (Russ, 2008). Regardless of the method, participation in change is<br />
seldom a one-time activity. For example, Gioia <strong>and</strong> Chittipeddi (1991)<br />
describe how change initiation may involve iterative negotiation processes<br />
that consist of several rounds of sensemaking <strong>and</strong> sensegiving.<br />
Although contemporary change management models typically promote<br />
wide-scale participation, Dunphy <strong>and</strong> Stace (1993) note that participative<br />
approaches may not always be as participative as they seem. Also, Smeltzer<br />
<strong>and</strong> Zener (1993) argue that some change agendas are by nature top-down<br />
<strong>and</strong> directive, including massive lay-off programs, urgent turnarounds <strong>and</strong><br />
major restructurings. Dunphy <strong>and</strong> Stace (1993) similarly propose that the<br />
participative approach to change is not suitable in all situations, but<br />
sometimes more dictatorial trans<strong>for</strong>mation techniques may be in place.<br />
Many studies of organizational change suggest a high degree of<br />
communication. Communication during a change ef<strong>for</strong>t has many<br />
purposes. It is used to share in<strong>for</strong>mation, clarify the objectives, obtain<br />
commitment, <strong>and</strong> reduce uncertainty, anxiety <strong>and</strong> resistance (Allen,<br />
Jimmieson, Bordia, & Irmer, 2007; Goodman & Truss, 2004; Russ, 2008).<br />
Besides the content, also the process of communication is important,<br />
concerning the timing of the messages, the use of appropriate media, <strong>and</strong><br />
tailoring communication to the recipient profiles (Goodman & Truss,<br />
2004). In addition to the participative communication <strong>activities</strong> described<br />
above, typical communication methods of change include newsletters,<br />
45