Chapter Four -- Findings

Chapter Four -- Findings

4.0 Introduction

In a pragmatic approach a combination of data collection and analysis methods must be grasped upon in order to facilitate an effective understanding of such issues (Ary et al, 2009; Saunders et al, 2009). Thus, a mixed method approach is used in this study from collecting and analysing quantitative and qualitative data in line with the pragmatic approach. Quantitative data is obtained through distributing questionnaires to the selected sample, subsequently; the information and key themes is then directed to guide the design of a focus group.

This chapter addresses the quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis along with reviewing the sample characteristic for the benefit of the reader, before presenting a breakdown of the results.

4.1 Quantitative Data Collection and Analysis

The preceding chapter addressed quantitative data was obtained by means of questionnaires. The aim of quantitative data collection was to gather information by capturing key themes in order to understand employee attitudes and perceptions of organisational change.

Data Collection Instrument

Twenty questions were presented on the questionnaire, separating the questionnaire into two main sections. The first section consisted of the respondents’ information, this section aimed to assess the respondent’s demographic information, such as age, gender, ethnicity, job position, and the respondent’s length of service. It is an essential component to test the demographic sample as it can be useful to understand if the sample is biased and whether the sample can be measured to represent the population (Bradburn, Sudman & Wansink, 2004). Subsequently, eight questions based on change invited respondents to indicate whether they “strongly agree, agree, unsure, disagree or strongly disagree” with a statement (Likert scales). Additionally, five questions on change invited responses on a closed format structure (i.e. multiple choice questions). Overall, a number of questions were knowingly reversed in order to reduce bias.

Sample Characteristic

The final questionnaire sample consisted of 31 employees by means of voluntary and anonymous participation, out of a potential 36 employees; an overall response rate of 86.1%. Several questionnaires were completed individually during a visit to the company, and the others were later collected. The findings suggested that there were considerably more females (74.2%) than male employees (25.8%) (See Table 1).

Gender of Employees

4.1.1 Main Findings

The analysis of the data was obtained by using inferential and descriptive statistics. The names of the measures were given by measuring employee experiences and expectations with organisational change, as well as considering the managers role. Thus, analysing the differences between the measures and association appeared to be the most appropriate way, demonstrating correlation analysis of the measures. Primarily, the most significant correlations were found necessary to be reported.

Descriptive Statistics for all Employees

In analysing descriptive statistics for the selected variables (see Table 2), it appears that AWARENESS has a strong mean indicating that the employees are moderately aware of such changes taking place at New Look Retailers. Additionally, the mean for the variable PARTICIPATION suggests that the respondents perceive employee involvement as exceptionally important during change implementation. Table 3 shows that 45.2% of employees believe that employee involvement is essential, whereas 3.2% employees do not perceive employee participation as important (PARTICIPATION). Conversely, the mean for CO-EFFORTS suggest that the employees are influenced by the organisational efforts during the change process. The MNGT-STYLE mean suggests that employees perceive the style of new managers to be fairly weak.

Variable of all Employees: Participation

Variable of all Employees: Confidence

The frequency table on the CONFIDENCE variable (Table 4) shows that a large number of employees were unsure about their current working environment and the management approaches in which uncertainty existed among those employees (61.3% answered UNSURE), as well as the 29% of employees that suggest that uncertainty exists.

Correlations of Variables of all Employees

Table 5 suggests that there is a strong positive correlation with CO-EFFORTS and POSITION; this emphasises that the job position of the employee determines their expectations on company efforts during change implementation. Conversely, there is a strong negative correlation between TIME and CO-EFFORTS, suggesting that the expectations of company efforts are not dependent on the employees’ length of service. In other words, employees’ perception on the company’s efforts decrease as their time in the organisation increases. Company efforts during change implementation (CO-EFFORTS) were also strongly related to the feelings of employee involvement (PARTICIPATION). TIME was also negatively correlated to PARTICIPATION, signifying that the employees’ length of time in the company determines their perceptions on employee involvement.

(2) Correlations of Variables of all Employees

Table 6 shows that there is a strong positive correlation between the two variables LEARNING and PARTICIPATION, this suggests that both variables assist employees during organisational change. Additionally, there is a strong positive correlation with LEARNING and CONFIDENCE, and a moderate correlation between PARTICIPATION and CONFIDENCE, whereas there is a negative correlation between CONFIDENCE and REACTION. This suggests that as organisational learning and readiness increases (LEARNING AND PARTICIPATION) the confidence among employees also increases (CONFIDENCE). Conversely, as employee confidence increases (CONFIDENCE) their reaction level decreases (REACTION). In other words, organisational support (LEARNING) and employee involvement (PARTICIPATION) is required during organisational change to reduce employees’ negative effect (REACTION), and increase employee CONFIDENCE through organisational support.

Differences based on gender

The correlations of the sample between male and female employees are presented below to evaluate the differences and coefficients between the variables.

Correlations of Variables of all Males

Table 7 highlights the correlation between the selected variables of all male employees. Similar to the whole data set, there is positive correlation between CO-EFFORT and PARTICIPATION, and a negative correlation between CO-EFFORTS and TIME, and a particularly strong negative correlation between PARTICIPATION and TIME. Conversely, there appears to be a weak coefficient between the variables PARTICIPATION and POSITION, and TIME and POSITION as compared to the whole data set.

(2) Correlations of Variables of all Male

The above variables for all male employees followed a dissimilar pattern overall, with a less significant relationship between the variables. The table suggests that the coefficient between the selected variables were also low, signifying that the male employees did not compose a strong link between organisational learning and employee participation during organisational change (LEARNING and PARTICIPATION). Additionally, there is no significant relationship between LEARNING and REACTION as compared to the whole data set.

(1) Correlations of Variables of all Females

The correlations for all females followed the same pattern as for the whole data set. All correlations were significant, with a strong positive correlation between CO-EFFORTS and POSITION, and a moderate correlation between CO-EFFORTS and PARTICIPATION. There was a strong negative correlation between the variables CO-EFFORTS and TIME, as well as POSITION and TIME.

(2) Correlations of Variables of all Females

Table 10 suggests that the coefficient for the selected variables of all females is considerably high, as well as following the same pattern as for the whole data set. There is a strong link between LEARNING and PARTICIPATION, as well as LEARNING and CONFIDENCE. Additionally, there is a much stronger correlation (negative) between LEARNING and REACTION as compared to the whole data set. 

Differences based on length of service

The employees’ length of service analysis was conducted by dividing results into 0-3 years and 3-5+ years categories. Correlation analyses for each data set were performed after analysing the variables REACTION and RESISTANCE using a frequency table to determine employees’ attitude and perception in conjunction with their length of service.

Employees Who Have Been Working at New Look for 0 to 3 years

Table 11 highlights the variable (REACTION) on how employees would react to sudden change in an organisation (employees working 0-3 years). The frequent choice that employees made was “Go with the flow” with a percentage of 42.1%, and 26.3% of employees selected “Acceptance”, as well as the 21.1% that selected “Force yourself to deal with it”. Conversely, Table 12 highlights the choice given to the reason why employees are resistant to change (RESISTANCE). The most frequent choice was “Fear of unknown” (47.4%) and “Fear of personal impact” (21.1%).

Correlations of Variables for Employees Who Have Been Working at New Look for 0 to 3 Years

Table 13 highlights the correlations between the selected variables for employees that have worked with the company for 0 to 3 years. There is a strong positive relationship between CO-EFFORTS and POSITION, suggesting that employees that have been working less than 3 years determine their position by company efforts, as well as the readiness to participate (PARTICIPATION). However, there was no significant relationship between TIME and PARTICIPATION as compared to the whole data set.

(2) Correlations of Variables of all Employees Who Have Been Working at New Look

Furthermore, employees that have been working between 0 to 3 years at New Look showed higher correlation coefficients for the selected variables, specifically between LEARNING and PARTICIPATION, and LEARNING and CONFIDENCE. Conversely, there appears to be a fairly weak link between REACTION and CONFIDENCE as compared to the whole data set. 

Employees Who Have Been Working at New Look for 3 to 5 years plus

Employees Who Have Been Working at New Look for 3 to 5 years plus

Table 15 highlights the category in which employees (working between 3-5+ years) fall under followed by sudden change in an organisation. 57.1% selected “Become stressed”, followed by “Go with the flow” and “Force yourself to deal with it” (14.3%). The choices followed a dissimilar pattern as compared to employees working at New Look between 0 to 3 years. Conversely, Table 16 highlights the category that employees feel strongest about; a large number of employees (working between 3-5+ years) selected “Fear of personal impact” (64.3%), followed by “Fear of change” and “Previous bad experience” (14.3%).

New Look for 3 to 5 years plus

Employees that have been working at New Look for over 3 years showed a strong link between POSITION and PARTICIPATION as compared to the whole data set, suggesting that their perception of employee involvement is determined by their job position. Conversely, there was a low correlation coefficient between TIME and PARTICIPATION as compared overall. The variables for CO-EFFORTS and POSITION, and PARTICIPATION followed a similar pattern to the whole data set, with a strong positive correlation.

(2) Correlations of Variables of all Employees Who Have Been Working at New Look

Table 18 suggests a low coefficient between the selected variables for employees working over 3 years with the company as compared to the whole data set. CONFIDENCE and LEARNING are the only variables that are significantly correlated, suggesting that organisational support is required for encouragement and confidence. Conversely, there is a weak relationship between LEARNING and PARTICIPATION when compared overall, this suggests that employees that have been with the company for over 3 years perceive organisational learning and participation as considerably low during the change process.

Testing Hypotheses

Chapter 2 proposed five hypotheses; subsequently, correlation analyses were conducted based on these hypotheses tested against the variables. 

Correlations of Variables of all Employees- Testing Hypothesis 1

In analysing Hypothesis 1 (ATTITUDES and EXPERIENCES) against the selected variables it appears that there is a moderate relationship between HYPOTHESIS 1 and PARTICIPATION and CO-EFFORTS. This suggests that employee attitudes and previous bad experiences determine their role in the organisation, as well as their perceptions of organisational efforts that determines their feelings of belonging and value.

Correlations of Variables of all Employees- Testing Hypothesis 2

Correlations for Hypothesis 2 that is expressed through the variables CONFIDENCE and ATTITUDE display a strong positive correlation between H2 and LEARNING and CONFIDENCE, indicating that organisational learning results in improved employee confidence and positive attitudes towards organisational change, as well as reducing uncertainty within the organisation. Conversely, there are low levels of correlation between H2 and PARTICIPATION, REACTION and RESISTANCE variables. This was specifically displayed in dealing with uncertainty within the organisation (H2) and employee efforts to participate during the change process (PARTICIPATION).

Correlation of Variables of all Employees- Testing Hypothesis 3

The correlations for the variables shown in Table 21 display higher levels of correlation between the variables; all correlations tested against Hypothesis 3 (MNGT-STYLE and LEARNING) are significant. Strong positive correlations were found between H3 and LEARNING and CONFIDENCE, suggesting management support and attention is required to facilitate an effective change implementation through communication to increase employee confidence. The coefficients for H3 and CO-EFFORTS displayed a fairly weak correlation, as well as for the variable REACTION. The relationships suggest organisational efforts (CO-EFFORTS) are required in order to consider the fundamentals of the human element during organisational change, as well as reducing employee negativity (REACTION).

Correlations of Variables of all Employees- Testing Hypothesis 4

All correlations for the selected variables in Table 22 are significant (p<.01 and p<.05) when tested against Hypothesis 4 (PARTICIPATION and ATTITUDES). Specifically, H4 and PARTICIPATION were strongly correlated, suggesting that employee involvement and employee responsibilities are required to the effective implementation of organisational change. Additionally, there appears to be a moderate significant correlation between H5 and LEARNING, CO-EFFORTS and ATTITUDES variables. This was specifically displayed in feelings of employee involvement (H4) and organisational support and effort during the change process (LEARNING, CO-EFFORTS and ATTITUDES).

Correlations of Variables of all Employees- Testing Hypothesis 5

Table 23 displays significant correlations between the selected variables and Hypothesis 5 (COMMUNICATION and REACTION). Strong positive correlations were found between H5 and CONSISTENCY, suggesting that communication to employees is required in order to acquire consistent performance from employees through reducing negativity. Additionally, employee confidence within the organisation (CONFIDENCE) was correlated to a moderate level to organisational communication that determines the effect on employees (H5). Negative correlations were also found between H5 and PARTICIPATION and CO-EFFORTS, as well as positive moderate correlations between H5 and LEARNING. This suggests that limited communication within the organisation will decrease employee involvement through a lack of organisational support.

4.2 Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis

The aim of the qualitative data collection was to obtain a depth of information to explore the role of the manager in organisational change along with investigating their perceptions and attitudes during the change process. The discussion was based on the recent change processes at New Look, these are: organisational policy changes (i.e. contractual changes), and technological changes. Primarily, the data was collected to support the findings of quantitative data.

 

The most appropriate technique for this section of the study is recognised as the content analysis, where the main themes are distilled from the focus group (see Appendix 8), also known as the “scissor and sort”, a technique used to analyse the findings (Stewart et al, 2007).

• Data Collection Instrument

Information was obtained by means of a focus group following a guide of eight core questions, which were put across the group, as well as demographic questions. Questions were intentionally descriptive following key words such as “what” and “how” to obtain sufficient feedback.

• Sample Characteristic

A total of six members of the management team volunteered to participate in the focus group discussion from the selected store. The discussion proceeded for approximately 45 minutes in which it was audio tape recorded. 

4.2.1 Main Findings

Subsequent to following a guide of eight core questions, four main categories were recognised: 

1) management responsibilities

2) organisational measures

3) resistance

4) communication and procedures to combat challenges.

• Management Responsibilities

Questions around management responsibilities provided responses on the management teams perceptions around organisational change, these included responses such as “stress; dealing with organisational change”. Conversely, the store manager provided solid information on the management actions, these included responses such as, “plan and prepare prior to change”. Responses such as “fight to address the essential information” were provided by the store manager, as well as management responsibilities of providing employees with the advantages of organisational change, and why the change is taking place. 

• Organisational measures and communication

In obtaining managers perceptions on the Human Resources measures and communication to the store, it appears that the organisation conducts solid measures; which includes “planning and preparation through management training”, as well as HR updates, confidential meetings with regional store managers, and distributing posters. However, the store manager felt strongly about insufficient information provided to the management team before change implementation, in which the management team agreed upon. The store manager suggested that the organisation should attain input from store managers before implementing change, and further argued that “managers are the last to know about change”, which the deputy manager agreed and stated “managers should be informed first about change, as they are running the store and should be aware of such changes taking place before hand”. The store manager and the deputy manager argued that “HR has a lack of knowledge in the way the store is run”.

Additionally, organisational measures also included conference calls, which the manager and supervisors stated that it is “a waste of time”, as there information can be communicated through other sources such as instant messages and emails.

• Resistance

The questions around resistance during organisational change proved there is considerably increasing employee resistance towards changes taking place at New Look. The store manager affirmed that there is growing resentment towards changes taking place at New Look, specifically from employees that have been working with the company for a long time, suggesting that employees may fear their job role and “new ways of doing things”. Supervisor A and B further added that “employees clearly do not perceive the change to be the overall organisations decision, but however a managers decision”. 

When the group were asked the consequence of resistance among employees, the responses received were a) an effect on organisations productivity, b) a result of absenteeism, c) unmotivated individuals, d) unhappy staff, and e) low performance -“not attaining 100% from staff”. Furthermore, employees’ resistance to change provoked informal communication, such as rumours. The deputy manager added that there were increasing complaints from staff that have been working with the company for a long time, and fewer complaints from new staff. 

• Managers communication to employees and procedures to combat challenges 

The final questions required responses from the management team to draw attention to their role when dealing with resistance to change. The store manager highlighted “a procedure of consultancy with individual staff” in order to combat negativity from employees, as well as undertaking measures such as training and one-to-one meetings. Subsequently, a discussion emerged on the recent policy change (i.e. contractual changes) in which the store manager argued her duties of presenting employees with reasonable options and compromising with employees, that is “meeting in the middle with the staff before agreeing upon any decisions”. Further measures that the management team clarified were observations on employees in order to recognise resistance to change.

• Observation

Upon observation in the focus group discussion, it appears that the store supervisors had little knowledge about the internal organisation factors; there was limited input from all supervisors and mostly dominated by the store manager. In this way, it can be argued that there is a lack of communication between the store manager and supervisors.

4.3 Conclusion

This chapter has aimed to describe and discuss the results from the quantitative and qualitative stages of the study. The use of a mixed method approach has provided a triangulation of the data, thus improving the validity of the study. 

The findings of the study suggest that organisational change is over-managed rather than cultural led, that is, placing a less importance on considering the important human dimension when implementing change in organisations, thus a consequence of uncertainty within the organisation. The analysis across the selected demographic groups suggested perceptions and attitudes towards organisational change, as well as analysing descriptive statistics measuring employee perceptions around the change process, and testing the hypotheses.

The overall findings will be discussed further in the following chapter.

Chapter Three -- Methodology

Chapter Three -- Methodology

3.0 Introduction

The previous chapter analysed the literature around factors influencing organisational change, by this a research question was refined: What are the effects of organisational change on employees and the role of the manager? as well as proposing hypotheses. In order to conduct an appropriate methodology and collect the appropriate data it is essential to develop a suitable research question (Congdon & Dunham, 1999). Conversely, this chapter investigates the research paradigm that is adopted for the study, some of which may also have its limitations and this chapter will quantify all of those elements. This chapter consists of several sections and is divided into two main sections; methodology and method. The chapter will address the research design together with the appropriate research strategy used for data collection and analysis, as well as addressing the research sample, methodological soundness and ethical consideration. To begin with, the research paradigm along with the philosophical assumptions will be discussed.

3.1 Research Paradigm

A research paradigm can be defined as a researcher’s conceptual framework that forms ideas and practices (McArthur, 1992). The research paradigm consists of three elements, these are; ontology, epistemology and methodology (Dalmaris, Tsui, Hall & Smith, 2007; Healy & Perry, 2000). Subsequently, ontology refers commonly to the nature of reality and the existence in which the researchers tend to investigate (Healy & Perry, 2000). On the other hand, epistemology refers to the researcher’s relationship with the reality, this is “the relationship between the knower and what is known” (Klenke, 2008, p. 16). Additionally, methodology is formulated from ontological and epistemological assumptions; it refers to the process in which the researcher investigates to study the “reality” (Lehaney & Vinten, 1994; Klenke, 2008). According to literature on social science, there are four main types of paradigms that commonly directs researchers, these are; positivism, pragmatism, constructivism, as well as realism (Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Healy & Perry, 2000).

Pragmatic Approach

Accordingly, the paradigm that is acknowledged as the most appropriate for this research is pragmatism. This is because there is a common tendency for researchers to adopt the pragmatism paradigm when using a mixed method approach, as it supports both quantitative and qualitative data. That is to say that the complexity of the research directs one to focus on using multiple methods (Klenke, 2008). Moreover, a pragmatic approach focuses primarily on the usefulness in addressing the research questions, and placing less importance on the method used (Ethridge, 2004). Therefore, it can be argued that pragmatism primarily focuses on the problem of the knowledge that is linked to action, which in other words is being satisfied with believable information (Bauer & Brighi, 2009; Goldkuhl, 2004; Lefley, 2006).

Furthermore, pragmatism has its implications for the research of ontology, epistemology and methodology. In a pragmatic approach to ontology, researchers accept a practical reality that is formed by values such as cultural, political and economical (Klenke, 2008). Conversely, Healy and Perry (2000) advocate epistemologically, pragmatists are more subjective with knowledge that is shaped from social interactions. Methodologically, pragmatists can be referred to as “transformative individuals”, moreover, it is considered as an essential part of the research process where a dominant use of a mixed method approach is commonly used (Healy and Perry, 2000; Klenke, 2008).

Accordingly, the objective of this research gives an indication to clearly understand employees’ perception on organisational change, as well as considering the role of the manager. Therefore, the use of a mixed method approach is acknowledged as the most suitable to address the research question and test the hypotheses. Similarly, the pragmatic approach adequately supports the mixed method design, which is the use of qualitative and quantitative data, therefore this approach was found to be the best fit for this study (Klenke, 2008; Lefley, 2006). Additionally, qualitative data will assist to clearly understand the managers’ role in assisting employees in organisational change in which it will inform the quantitative part of the research. Subsequently, the motive for this study is achieved through an exploratory research, by means of additionally obtaining qualitative data. Exploratory research aims to identify what individuals concerns are; this is achieved by obtaining preliminary data to identify the problem to test and suggest hypotheses (Kotler, Armstrong, Wong & Saunders, 2008; Schutt, 2006).

3.2 Research Design

A research design is a structured plan to conduct a study that tests the hypotheses and research question (Kumar, 2005: Maxwell, 2005). A well integrated design for a study will successfully achieve the outcomes desired, through adequately addressing the research question by means of data collection, analysis and coming to a viable conclusion (Maxwell, 2005; Yin, 2003). Consequently, this research makes the most of both quantitative and qualitative methods.

Given that the use of pragmatic approach involves the use of quantitative data and qualitative data, it is essential to understand the purpose and relevance of both approaches. Therefore, it was found necessary to outline the theoretical background, as well as addressing the limitations and benefits that come along with both approaches; these are discussed below.

3.2.1 Quantitative Research

For several years, quantitative method has been a dominant approach to research. The research method originally instigated in positivism, which is a philosophical view associated with natural science, founded by Comte (1988) that goes back in the 19th century (Ary, Jacobs, Razavieh & Sorensen, 2009; Blackmore, 1972). Today, the research methods popularity has extensively continued with management researchers adopting the method (Creswell, 2007). Moreover, the positivisms’ dependence on quantitative research has had growing attention from many researchers, as the approach provides findings that are systematic and can be overall generalised (Ary et al, 2009; Miller, 2004).  Furthermore, Nykiel (2007) highlights that there is a common tendency in researchers to find that quantitative research is particularly useful in obtaining measureable data that can be followed up overtime. Researchers often use quantitative method for data collection or for data analysis, such as questionnaires, and the use of numerical data (Saunders et al, 2009; Thomas, 2003).

According to Newman and Benz (1998) quantitative research primarily refers to hypotheses testing, in which data can be measured through an exploratory research. Moreover, quantitative research method is a deductive approach, where the hypotheses are tested through scientific knowledge, in which the researcher attempts to make predictions and provide facts (Newman and Benz, 1998). The research method provides researchers several advantages in terms of reliability of the statistics, which the data is tested to acknowledge if a research is statically significant (Nykiel, 2007). Additionally, another advantage for the quantitative researchers is that the results are predictable of the population (Creswell, 2007; Nykiel, 2007). Similarly, Thomas (2003) postulates that quantitative research method provides a researcher to produce a generalisable outcome through the use careful sampling strategies, by which the analysis can be replicated by other researchers.

Furthermore, quantitative research as well has its limitations that need to be taken into consideration. There is an argument that the study to be tested may well be more suitable if the issue have been known to the research sample, as respondents may be unaware of the topic and such language presented to them (Nykiel, 2007). In addition, different from qualitative research that provides in-depth data, quantitative research lacks in providing rich descriptive data as the aim of the research focuses on primarily on predicting a large sample of the population (Bernard, 2006).

3.2.2 Qualitative Research

In recent years, there is a growing tendency in the interest of researchers to implement a qualitative method in several grounds of management sub-fields (Johnson, Buehring, Cassell & Symon, 2007). Moreover, the qualitative approach has increasing acceptance as a legitimate form of study despite the overriding in quantitative research for several years (Boje, 2001). The growing interest of qualitative research has resulted in several challenges for quantitative methodology that once dominated management research (Johnson & Duberley, 2000). Researchers that are more interested in understanding social situations tend to use qualitative research method in which non numerical data is grasped upon, such as data collection methods of interviews (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009). The research method enables researchers to study human beings, and offer such opportunities to enhance the quality of life for people, as well as affecting the public policy (Munhall & Chenail, 2008).

Qualitative research method can be in favour of observing people’s past experiences or everyday behaviour (Silverman, 2005). The use of qualitative research closely examines individuals’ attitudes and perception towards a particular issue with its naturalistic approach in rich description, as well as focusing on motives and aims of the study (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Sherman & Webb, 1988). Moreover, this type of method aims to take the reader into the observation so that they are able to capture the moment; this enables the researcher the advantages of interacting with the respondent, as well as inspiring an unanticipated discussion (Nykiel, 2007; Maxwell, 2005; Patton, 2002).

Despite the benefits of using qualitative research method there are also limitations that are apparent. Primarily, it is often found that qualitative research is time consuming in data collection and analysis, an example being an observation (Crabtree & Miller, 1999). It can be argued that the data is not instantly accessible to the researcher straight away, as the data requires processing such as editing and correcting (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Additionally, it appears that a small sample size is common when using qualitative research method, therefore this poses as a limitation in terms of generalisability and validity (Crouch & McKenzie, 2009). Nykiel (2007) similarly postulates the research method may not provide sufficient evidence for the population and may prove to be unreliable as a predictor. Nevertheless, the researcher bias has also been addressed as a limitation of the study, as well as issues relating to the data collection procedures, and relationships of power between the respondent and the researcher (Marschan-Piekkari & Welch, 2004). Therefore, the use of a mixed method approach that comprises of both qualitative and quantitative data is able to provide results that are measurable and generalisable.

3.3 Mixed Method Approach; Triangulation of the Data

As previously discussed in quantitative and qualitative research, it is apparent that both approaches comprise of limitations. Consequently, identifying the limitations and differences in both approaches provides an indication for combining both quantitative and qualitative approaches to a research; this is a triangulation of the data. In other words, it is recognising the strengths and weaknesses of both methods in which one can compensate for such bias in a research (Denscombe, 2007). Jick (1983) supports a similar view that both quantitative and qualitative methods must be seen as complementary rather than rivals. Saunders et al (2009) therefore advocates that the mixed method approach may increase the probability of an unanticipated result, as well as increasing the confidence in the researchers’ conclusion. Additionally the approach provides the researcher in-depth understanding of the study (Arora & Stoner, 2009), with verification, reliability and validity of the study (Jarret, 1996).

Grove (2005) refers triangulation to the comparison in the variation of data in order to assess the accuracy obtained from the results through the use of two different research methods. It is generally assumed that the mixed method approach facilitates a more dependable justification of the research problem than one method can provide on its own (Ary et al, 2009). Thus, there has been rapidly growing attention from researchers to adopt the mixed method approach due to the several benefits associated with the design. Moreover, there is an argument that the mixed method approach should pose as the dominant approach to research (Datta, 1994).

However, although the mixed method approach is associated with many benefits in a single study, such as the soundness and confidence of the research, it also comprises of limitations in terms of practical guidance (Ary et al, 2009; Dunning, Williams, Abonyi & Crooks, 2008). Moreover, the approach poses a challenge to the researcher, as it requires the researcher to be competent in both quantitative and qualitative approaches (Leahey, 2007). Additionally, the approach poses a challenge for researchers in acquiring access to resources in order to analyse data (Ary et al, 2009). Thus, it can be further argued that employing more the one method consists of drawbacks in terms of an increase in time and cost that may be required to commence the study (Dunning et al, 2008). Therefore, there is a need for researchers to primarily focus on such challenges that the mixed method approach may consist of; this places an emphasis on designing a robust study ensuring a generalisable outcome through both methods, which is triangulated through the utilization of both quantitative and qualitative methods.

Subsequently, in order to address the research question it was found necessary to adopt an approach that enabled a better insight into the research where both methods of quantitative and qualitative research were compatibly combined. The mixed method approach to create a triangulation of the data was chosen to avoid a weakness that may arise from one method, and to initially make use of a different research method. It can be argued that adopting a quantitative approach would not provide the researcher to obtain depth of information, therefore, in order to adequately address the research question a mixed method approach to research was assumed to be the best fit for this study.

Method

3.4 Research Methods

This section proposes the research approach that is undertaken in this study, specifically a mixed method approach; this is achieved by the use of both quantitative and qualitative research approaches, which is directed by the pragmatic paradigm. Moreover, the study is achieved accordingly to address the research question and hypotheses, by means of adopting the most appropriate data collection methods; this includes; questionnaires and focus groups. Accordingly, the methods of data collection adopted in this study are discussed below.

Quantitative Method –Questionnaires

Commonly, quantitative questionnaires are considered as a highly structured instrument used in the social sciences for data collection (Dornyei, 2003). Although questionnaires can be additionally used to obtain qualitative data; it can be argued that qualitative method must be perceived as complementary for the quantitative approach (Morrow, Jackson, Disch & Mood, 2006). Bryman and Bell (2007) postulate the two types of questionnaires that researchers tend to use, these are; interview schedule and self-completion questionnaires. Consequently, for the quantitative part of this study the self-completion questionnaire was found to be the most appropriate data collection method. Self-completion questionnaires are referred to as a structured questionnaire that requires respondents to complete individually (Dornyei, 2003). This method was used as the main data gathering for the study (see Appendix 5). Ultimately, the aim of the questionnaire was to provide an indication for a focus group discussion topic, which the focus group findings can support the questionnaire. Ultimately, in order to adequately address the research question and test the hypotheses it was found essential to conduct a pilot of the questionnaire.

Pilot Study of the Questionnaire

It is understood that a pilot study is indispensable when conducting a questionnaire (Grove, 2005). It appears a successful piece of research lies behind conducting a pilot study (Brink & Wood, 1998). A pilot study is a small version of the proposed research that is conducted before the final study to determine the study’s feasibility and effectiveness of the research instruments (Grove, 2005; Mauch & Park, 2003). Piloting a study can provide the researcher valuable feedback in terms of the instruments design, format, questions and included items (Thomas, Nelson & Silverman, 2005). Therefore, in order to measure the appropriateness of the questionnaire used in this study, a pilot study was conducted on a group of 10 potential respondents (see Appendix 3). Overall, it was found that there were a few slight adjustments to have been made on the questionnaire structure, as well as removing inappropriate items and including essential items. As a result, the modifications were corrected in the final questionnaire in order to ensure clarity to the respondents.

Qualitative Method- Focus Groups

Key topics that emerged from the questionnaire assisted to develop a discussion for the focus groups for the qualitative part of the study. This is in terms of recognising key themes, categories and viewpoints (Dornyei, 2003). The focus group was selected on the basis of obtaining the desired information by the participants to support the questionnaire findings in response to the exploratory approach (see Appendix 6).

There is a common tendency in researchers to consider focus group discussion as a valuable research method in obtaining qualitative data (Dornyei, 2003; Morrow et al, 2006). A focus group is an organised discussion in which the researcher gathers information from a selected group of individuals to evaluate how they feel and think about a particular issue (Krueger & Casey, 2000). Morgan (1997) recognises the two principles of collecting qualitative data as focus groups and open-ended interviews, which particularly involves participant observation. Subsequently, the human interaction can provide additional data for interpretation of the findings (Neuman, 2006).

3.5 Sample and Sample Size

Sampling is an approach used by researchers to select elements to represent a population (Dattalo, 2008). The choice of a research sample relies to a large degree on the feasibility and sensibility in addressing the research question (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009). The first sample in this study consists of employees that participated in completing the questionnaires anonymously, and the second sample consisted of the management team that participated in a group discussion.

This study is undertaken at New Look Retailers Ltd in the Barking store in London. This store was taken as a study of the recent management change processes and employee contractual changes which occurred throughout many New Look chains of franchises, to address the research question; ‘What are the effects of organisational change on employees and the role of the manager?’ Primary data were collected through a roll out of a questionnaire that was distributed to all 36 staff at the selected store. The final sample consisted of 31 employees at New Look Retailers in the Barking store that participated and completed the questionnaire; this was a response rate of 86.1%. Saunders et al (2009) suggests this sample is common and considers a sample size of 30 to be a minimum for statistical analysis. Conversely, a research question that does not require statistical evaluation requires a smaller sample (Dattalo, 2008). Moreover, the sample consisted of more females completing the questionnaire than male respondents.

The focus group discussion consisted of six participants, which included the management team at New Look Retailers in Barking. The focus group was conducted on the Store Manager, Deputy Manager, as well as the four Supervisors of the store; this was a total of six participants, which was used as the second case example. The number of participants was intentionally kept to a minimum, as Krueger and Casey (2000) attested that a large number of individuals can cause a focused discussion to fragment.

Although the sample size for both methods was kept to a minimum, the focus was primarily geared towards obtaining employees attitudes and perception of change in the organisation, and the role of the managers in the specific store. Goldstein (2009) suggests that gaining an insight into human behaviours provides the researcher a wide understanding into attitudes and perceptions that can be generalised. Additionally, Walden, (1996) emphasises that the size of a sample is less significant than the accuracy of those interviewed. Moreover, the sample primarily intends to reflect the population to reduce any researcher bias through the objective to test the hypotheses (Newman & Benz, 1998).

3.6 Methodological Soundness

The methodological soundness of a research design is often said to be a critical element in a study. Kumar (2005) postulates the importance in demonstrating the methodological soundness of the study to attain a quality research, which determines the internal and external validity and reliability of the research findings. The validity of a research commonly sets out to evaluate the research’s initial purpose (Babbie, 2009). It is generally debated that qualitative research may not provide the researcher with such external reliability and validity that a quantitative approach may provide (Hesse-Biber, 2010). Thus, several researchers have suggested using quantitative research in order initiate a methodological soundness of a single study, which may increase the validity and reliability (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2000; Kumar, 2005).

According to Cohen et al (2000) the validity of quantitative research can be measured by means of; face validity, content validity, and criterion-related validity, construct validity, as well as concurrent validity. The reliability of quantitative research can be measured through representative, equivalence and stability reliability (Nueman, 2006). Conversely, the meaning of reliability in qualitative research is referred to consistency and fidelity of the research findings (Cohen et al, 2007). There is considerable amount of dispute among researchers that qualitative studies must demonstrate credibility and quality (Hesse-Biber, 2010; Cohen et al, 2000). A common response to this is measures of data triangulation (Silverman, 2005). That is, selecting more than one strategy to establish accuracy in the findings, as well as clarifying such researcher biases. Considering the use of a mixed method approach was adopted for this study, it was found essential to seek validity and reliability in both qualitative and quantitative data in order to establish a methodological soundness. Accordingly, the study consisted of techniques with a clear purpose to the research design, these included; pre-testing the questionnaire, debriefing participants, and audio recording the focus group discussion.

3.7 Ethical Consideration

Throughout the research process, a number of ethical issues must be taken seriously into consideration. It is critical for the researcher to guarantee and ensure the participants’ safety throughout the research process (Deventer, 2009). Similarly, Saunders et al (2009) postulates that it is an essential component to consider the extent to which the research design should not cause the research sample any form of embarrassment or harm. Mouton (2001) defines research ethics as a set of guidelines associated with the research, which must be taken into consideration in; (a) processing of the research design, (b) applying the research design, and (c) analysing the data, as well as (d) disseminating the results. Moreover, ethically, the design or structure of the research process may well affect groups or individuals; therefore, the researcher must consider the ethical issues that may arise during the research process (Deventer, 2009). This is to say that the research design should be morally accepted before data collection is initiated (Gratton & Jones, 2004).

Prior to undertaking the research, the ethical standards were taken into consideration in concurrence with the possible risks and benefits related to the research. It was found essential to conduct an ethical study that protected the participants’ rights. Moreover, ethical considerations were emphasised with the research design, data analysis, interpretation and finally disseminating the findings. It is often said that the ethics has a huge implication for the access of organisations and individuals to obtain the data (Saunders et al, 2009). As a consequence, it was found crucial to be granted consent by the organisation in order to effectively commence the study. Hefferman (2000) suggests that a letter of introduction from the project supervisor is mandatory, as it provides assurance to the subjects’. Consequently, a formal letter was provided to the selected organisation with detailed information about the study in which it emphasised the voluntary participation of the employees (see Appendix 1). Subsequently, informed consent was granted by the participants, where signed consent was attained by the employees and management team, as well as clarifying their right to withdrawal at any point of the research (see Appendix 4). Deventer (2009) refers informed consent to individuals or groups’ that voluntarily agree to participate in the study with the acceptance of potential risks and benefits associated with the research process.

Forcing participants (i.e. compulsory participation) to take part in the study may result in a decline in validity of the findings (Hefferman, 2000). Consequently, debriefing participants is an important element of the research process as it avoids deceiving participants (Hefferman, 2000; Saunders et al, 2009). It can be argued that some individuals may not be willing to answer particular questions due to a fear of being penalised at work. Therefore, it was found necessary that the employees were informed why the information was being collected and how the results may be beneficial at work, in addition to the questionnaires remaining anonymous. The protection of the subjects’ identity is to be respected throughout the research process ensuring anonymity of the respondents with guaranteed confidentiality (Babbie, 2008). Thus, the Data Protection Act was complied with the research that ensured the data was collected in a lawful and fair manner, as well as ensuring the respondents data was stored in a secure environment maintaining anonymity of the participants.

3.8 Summary

Ultimately, the table below summarises the research methods adopted for this study (see Table 1).

Table 1:

Adoption of Research Methods

3.9 Conclusion

Overall, the chapter has aimed to address the elements in the methodology in concurrence with the research. The limitations and benefits of both quantitative and qualitative approaches have been discussed in which a mixed method approach to research has been acknowledged as the best fit for this study in conjunction with a pragmatic approach.  The mixed method approach increases the confidence in the researchers’ findings, as well as providing in-depth understanding, which reduces unanticipated results (Arora & Stoner, 2009; Saunders et al, 2009). Consequently, the mixed method approach in conjunction with questionnaires and focus groups were used for data collection and analysis in order to investigate “What are the effects of organisational change on employees and the role of the manager?” as well as testing the proposed hypotheses. The triangulation of the data enables soundness of the findings, as well as considering the validity and reliability in different stages of the study. In addition, this chapter stresses the importance of conducting an ethical study, where ethical standards were incorporated in the research design, data analysis, interpretation and disseminating the findings.

Chapter Two -- Literature Review

Chapter Two -- Literature Review

2.0 Introduction

In today’s market place organisations are constantly having to deal with the demands for change internally as well as externally, furthermore, how organisations adapt to these changes and overcome the obstacles can define how successful they are in the short and long term (Oakland & Tanner, 2007; Smith, 2005; Walker, Armenakis & Bernerth, 2007). Although, there is a common tendency in organisations to implement change and its growing literature, still many organisational change efforts fail, moreover it can be argued that an organisation’s long-term survival may depend on its ability to manage resistance to change (Beer & Nohria, 2000; Elving, 2005; Murphy, 2002). The purpose of this chapter is to critically analyse how to effectively manage the internal change processes in conjunction with the effects of organisational change on employees’. Moreover, as this paper contains a change context, it is important to gain a comprehensive perceptive and understanding of the subject matter. Firstly, a discussion will lead from defining change, as well as exploring the factors influencing change, and the resistance to change and finally how change can be effectively managed before coming to a viable conclusion.

2.1 Change Defined

It is understood that change is becoming increasingly frequent in the business environment, and is considered as a critical factor of effective management (Hussey, 2000). According to Smith (2005), change can be formulated as the method of shifting to a new state; one in which differs from the existing state. However, there may be many barriers for organisations to readily and successfully change. Vakola (2004) postulates that as an organisation endeavour to survive and maintain a competitive edge, it is apparent that they are re-engineering, reorganising, and downsizing, as well as employing new technology. This emphasises that organisations are constantly trying to change, which may not only place an organisation under much strain, but as well as individuals. Hannan and Freeman’s (1984) structural inertia theory disputed this assertion illustrating the inflexible nature of organisations where organisational change can be both complex and harmful. Additionally, Smith (2005) attested to the fact that change in an organisation can be dynamic enough to be internal or external, as well as being unpredictable enough to be planned or unplanned. Consequently, it can be argued that change does not always proceed accordingly to as planned; there are many factors that may influence change in an organisation.

2.2 Factors Influencing Change

Several researchers have highlighted that change efforts are influenced by internal and external factors (Hoag, Ritschard & Cooper, 2002; Oakland & Tanner; 2007; Walker, Armenakis & Bernerth, 2007). Weick and Quinn (1999) assume external factors as changes in technological demands or internal factors such as in key personnel. Furthermore, Armenakis et al (2007, p. 761) suggests that the change efforts are influenced by; “content, contextual, and process issues as well as the individual differences that exist among the change target”.  Consequently, Oakland and Tanner (2007) emphasises the role internal drivers have in manifesting external drivers in the process of change. Accordingly, Davidson (2002) claims that resistance to change may be ego related if imposed externally as opposed to internally.

Moreover, with planned and unplanned changes there are significant external and internal factors causing pressures within an organisation; these will be discussed below.

2.2.1 External Forces

Accordingly, Trader-Leigh (2001) and Armenakis et al (2007) postulates the key resistant factors to change, one argument was the political factors such as government legislation, regulations and policies; this is an external force of change.  Changes in government and new policies impose constraints; whereby organisations must comply and adapt to the new strategies (Trader-Leigh, 2001). Therefore, Lindblom (1994) argues that an organisation must engage in a political struggle if a change is required, and further emphasises that no important changes come without it.

Additionally, Beugelsdijk, Slangen and Herpen (2002) acknowledge market competition to be another influence of external force on organisational change. Armenakis et al (2007) advocates competitive pressures as external contextual issues, and further suggests that organisations have little control over these forces, thus, organisations must make appropriate changes in response to such demands. Thurlby (1998) and Beugelsdijk et al (2002) similarly argue that due to changes in competitors’ prices and products, organisations have to make suitable changes in response to the demands from the competition they face in the market. Consequently, Collins (2001) and Vollman (1996) also suggest that organisations that fail to adapt or respond to such changes in time may face the risk of losing market share to competitors.

Another external pressure in today’s organisations are the social factors, which has been an increasing common external force of change (Kim & Hung-Ng, 2008). Consequently, Murkherji and Mukherji (1998) argue that social change occurs due to conflict caused by differential values within cultures and societies that results in fluctuations in demand for products. Furthermore, Chelsom (1998) outlines the technological factors influencing organisational change, and further postulates it can lead to major changes for an organisation to maintain its strategic position. In contrast, Cooke (2002) hypothesises that development’s in technology manifest change in relation to the Human Resources who seek innovative ways of doing practically identical things.

2.2.2 Internal Forces

It is understood that the process issues refer to the actions undertaken in organisations during the introduction and implementation of the change. (Armenakis et al, 2007). Therefore, organisational change must be communicated readily to individuals within an organisation (Armenakis, Harris & Mossholder, 1993). Similarly, Smith (2006) assumes readiness in organisational change is essential, at both individual and organisation level, in order to prepare individuals for the proposed change. In addition, it can be argued that individual differences in organisations play a major role in influencing organisational change (Armenakis et al, 2007). Consequently, Smith (2005) outlines the people side of organisational change, and highlights that people are a vehicle for change, and further debates that people can also be an obstacle to change. Similarly, Patterson, West, Lawthom and Nickell (1997) hypothesises individuals are considered as a primary factor in organisational change. Nevertheless, it is the people who do the work of organisations that the ability to achieve the organisational change is determined by the attitude of the employees (Smith, 2005).

2.3 Resistance to Change

There is an argument that resistance to change is a core topic in change management and should be considered to achieve organisational change readily (Val & Fuentes, 2003). According to Smith (2006) and Ansoff (1990) resistance to change can be seen as a major barrier that organisations face. Ansoff (1990) further highlights that resistance can have a major affect on organisational change by delaying the process, obstructing its implementation and increasing its costs. It can be further argued that resistance to change pioneers expenses, as well as a hindrance into the change process (Lorenzo, 2000). Similarly, Kotter (1995) argues that resistance is an impediment in the organisations design or structure preventing change. However, Hoag, Ritschard and Cooper (2002) oppose that view and suggest while such aspects can influence the change process, they cannot be considered as “obstacles”.

Research highlights that change resistance has become an increasingly expected constituent in any organisational change process, and to some extent considered as a natural form (Smith, 2006). On one hand, Geisler (2001) illustrates that change resistance is acknowledged to be a significant threat affecting the successful running of strategic initiatives. On the other hand, resistance has also been considered as a source of information, as some perceive resistance as being useful in learning how to develop a better understanding and achieving a successful change process (Beer & Eisenstat, 1996; Piderit, 2000). In addition, Val and Fuentes (2003) recommend the fundamental sources of resistance as the perception of change, as well as low motivation for change and lack of creativeness when selecting appropriate change strategies. Moreover, such resistance could highlight the aspects that are not seriously considered in the change process, in order for change managers to undertake appropriate action (Waddell & Sohal, 1998).

It is generally accepted that individuals endure a reaction process with the confrontation of change (Bovey & Hede, 2001; Jacobs, 1995; Kyle, 1993). Similarly, Val and Fuentes (2003) propose that resistance to change is related to the difficulties created by deep rooted values such as cultural and political elements during the change process, along with the departmental politics and deficiencies in the required capabilities. Consequently, numerous literature reviews on resistance reveals that individuals and groups can react to change in different ways, as change can cause fear and a sense of loss of the familiar (Barnes, 1995; Morris & Raben, 1995; Smith, 2005). Similarly, according to Thomson (1990) resistance to change can occur from (a) fear of failure; (b) threats to status; (c) lack of information; and (d) lack of perceived benefits. In addition, resistance may also occur when individuals have past resentments toward a leading change (Block, 1993; Elving, 2005; O’Toole, 1995).

In contrast, King and Anderson (1995) is equivocal in noting the role played by previous indifferent experiences of change by individuals, who react negatively synthesised by a resistance to change from their normal working condition and ambience. Certainly, it may take some time for employees to understand change in an organisation and commit to the change (Armenakis et al, 1999). Therefore, due to the range of human responses to change, it holds barriers for organisations to successfully and readily achieve the change (Kotter, 2002). In fact, “altering the work setting is a potent lever for inducing change in member behaviour” Elving (2005, p. 131). However, Vakola (2004) suggests that employees’ response to change may vary from positive to negative, and can be received with excitement and happiness or anger and fear. Similarly, Smith (2005) and Scott and Jaffe (1988) argue that change for some is perceived as exciting and stimulating as they cannot wait to get to the new state of things, however, for others change can be deeply unsettling, and can be perceived to be a major threat to the individuals values, and something to be resisted at all times.

H1. Negative attitudes towards organisational change will positively relate to previous bad experiences of change.

Additionally, individuals may resist to organisational change due to uncertainty and job insecurity, this is commonly about the aim, process and the expected outcomes of the change (Buono & Bowditch, 1993). Conversely, individuals may simply resist change because they are anxious about their own personal failure (Mink, 1992). It is often found that uncertainty may result in an increase in informal communication leading to rumours within an organisation (Smith, 2006). Similarly, uncertainty can create negative attitudes in conjunction with organisational change leading to insignificant effects such as stress, low commitment and reduced job satisfaction and trust (Schweiger & DeNisi, 1991; Tsang & Kang, 2008). Moreover, Elving (2005) hypothesises that individuals that face uncertainty and job insecurity assume that the proposed change will be a threat to their job, whether that the individual will still have the job after the change, as well as having the same co-workers, and whether the individuals are able to perform the tasks in the same way as before. Despite this, resistance could also extend to the individuals personal life, in which it can extend to the work environment leading them less willing to sustain the change, as they are more focus with issues in their personal life (Palmer, Dunford & Akin, 2006).

H2. Employee uncertainty in an organisation will negatively affect the readiness for change.
Consequently, there has been increasing controversy over change managers neglecting the important human dimension when following the implementation of organisational change (Bovey and Hede, 2001; Levine, 1997). A longitudinal study conducted by Waldersee and Griffiths (1997) that consisted of a large number of Australian organisations outlined how effectively the resistance phase is managed when implementing change (Bovey and Hede, 2001). Similarly, Miyashiro (1996) places emphasis on change agents communicating the change effectively to individuals within the organisation. Furthermore, Lorenzo (2000) discusses that if an organisation has gone through a number of changes, some may resent to another change occurring. Subsequently, Self (2007) suggests that managers may be curious why they have not attained expected results from the previous change, resulting in cynical individuals, as well as frustrated managers strongly believing that the failure is due to the individuals resenting to change. Pederit (2000) similarly assumes that if external factors are not a consequence of change failures, then it must be considered the fault of individuals within an organisation resenting to change. In contrast, Miyashiro (1996) postulates this is due to the failure of management to successfully create and manage readiness.

H3. Disregarding the human element and dynamic in organisational change can have an adverse effect on the change proposition and employees.

2.4 Managing Resistance and Change

From previous discussion on resistance to change it can be argued that an effective organisational change is accomplished by “people”, this stresses the importance in the effectiveness of managing organisational change, that is, recognising the responses and reactions to change (Armenakis et al, 2007; Smith, 2005). Similarly, Smith (2006) discusses that people are an essential factor in achieving change; hence managing change within the culture of an organisation is fundamental. Conversely, it can be argued that financial pressures may be associated with achieving this (Oakland & Tanner, 2007). However, it must be stressed that understanding employee responses to change can aid management and achieve the objective of employee commitment to change (Armenakis et al, 2007). Consequently, enabling employees to participate in the change process is acknowledged as an admired strategy to avoid resistance to change (Chirico & Salvato, 2008). Greasley et al (2008) acknowledges that employees will desire becoming empowered in their role within an organisation; in effect they can resist a new idea if it compromises their role even if the idea sounds progressive enough to have a positive impact. Additionally, learning such as training and development programs is another essential factor (Hert, 1994). For instance, the involvement of external consultants can be extremely beneficial for an organisation, as they are able to provide industry expertise, skilled resources, as well as change management knowledge and experience (Oakland and Tanner, 2007).

Certainly, organisational change is perceived to be extremely difficult by many (Staniforth, 1996). Beer and Nohria (2000) cited that 70 per cent of change approaches are unsuccessful due to the deficiency in the strategy and a lack of communication and trust, as well as lack of top management skills and resistance to change. Similarly, Gravenhorst, Werkman and Boonstra (1999) agree a similar view that over half of many organisational change processes fail, and are unable to reach the anticipated results. Consequently, Smith (2006) recommends that trouble-shooting is an important factor during change implementation; instead of losing confidence, the obstacles and setbacks should be openly acknowledged and considered to primarily learn from experience. However, often, organisations implement change without any type of plan or communication to the individuals affected by the change; this is a major cause acting as a barrier to a successful change process (Chirico & Salvato, 2008).

Conversely, Crowther and Murphy (2002) advocates that organisational change programmes may fail because of lack of employee participation and decentralised management. Subsequently, by creating readiness before attempting to make the change in an organisation can largely avoid the need for later action to cope with resistance to change (Smith, 2005). Consequently, Elving (2005) suggest that when employees are having to change, low level of resistance to change within the organisation must exist, in order to achieve a successful change effort. Similarly, McCallum, Vasconcelos and Norman (2008) assume that the attempt to influence people in organisations may comprise of a structured interaction, this may include collaborative decision-making, delegation and the presence of pre-established relationships.

H4. Employees will be more inclined positively towards the implementation of organisational change if there are high levels of organisational responsibility and participation imposed on them.

Moreover, it can be argued that communication is imperative to the successful implementation of a change program, which can prove to facilitate the change process through preparing people for change (Klein, 1996). However, Moran and Brightman (2001) states that adjustment time is also vital to facilitate the change process. A study conducted in a public sector organisation by Proctor and Doukakis (2003) indicated that poor communication resulted in negative feelings among the employees, as information was acknowledged through the rumour mill and local newspapers. Indeed, when change is not communicated effectively to individuals affected by the change in the organisation, it is evident that resistance becomes a huge problem (Smith, 2006). Consequently, Elving (2005) postulates the principle of change communication, which should primarily be to inform individuals about the proposed change and possible alterations that may affect their job role. Furthermore, Elving (2005, p.131) cited Francis (1989) which highlights the two objectives of organisational communication, firstly, employees must be informed about such policies and tasks, as well as organisational issues, and secondly the “communication with the intention to create community within the organisation”. In the same way, Waddock (1999) assumes a similar view of creating a community spirit within an organisation, and an emphasises on developing a community in an organisation, which is trust, caring, and belonging, working with others, making a contribution, and allowing individuals to co-exist in an organisation. Jones and George (1998) postulates that trust leads to distinctive affects such as higher levels of collaboration leading to positive attitudes and greater levels of performance. Subsequently, one can argue that the change effort is very much dependent on the organisation to change the individual behaviour (Elving, 2005). Similarly, Goodman and Dean (1982) justify that organisation can only change when the member behaviour changes, as the members’ are dependent on the functioning of the organisation.

H5. Low levels of organisational communication will positively relate to low levels of commitment and trust within the organisation affecting the readiness for change.

Additionally, there is rapid growth of literature about organisational change and how it can be implemented in order to achieve successful change in organisations; Lewin (1951) provided a classic model of change theory, which consists of three-step change model; unfreezing, transitioning, and refreezing. The unfreezing step was described as an imperative phase in organisational change in which it is considered an essential first step in accomplishing change. Kritsonis (2004; 2005) argues a similar view that the ‘unfreezing stage’ is compulsory to overcome individuals’ resistance to change and group conformity. According to Lewin (1951) the first step was achieved by “deliberate emotional stir up in order to break open the shell of complacency and self-righteousness in organisations”. (Lewin 1951, p. 229). In comparison, Kritsonis (2004; 2005) suggests the attributes that support the unfreezing step; these include, motivating individuals through the preparation of change, recognising the need to change, as well as participating in reorganising exertion along with building trust.

In comparison, although Lewin’s model is considered as the pioneer in the understanding and the evaluation of organisational change, the model has been criticised by many for being too simplistic. Burnes (2004) criticised Lewin’s change model and argues that it is only relevant to small-scale changes in firm conditions, and further debates for ignoring issues such as organisational politics and conflict. Similarly, Orlikowski & Hofman (1997) debate that Lewin’s model perceives change as a distinct event to be managed over a limited period, and further illustrates that the model has become less appropriate due to unsteady and uncertain organisational and environmental conditions. Burnes (1996) agrees that a number of elements have changed since Lewin’s theory was originally presented, and there have been major developments in understanding of change management since Lewin’s model. On the other hand the model is yet extremely relevant as many modern change models are based on Lewin’s model, which is still used in practice (Armenakis et al, 2007; Counsell, Tennant & Neailey, 2005; Smith, 2005).

2.5 Research Model

The proposed hypotheses lead to a research model of the functioning of change managers’ measures in conjunction with the effects of organisational change of employees (see Figure 1). The hypotheses attained from this chapter emphasise employee attitudes and perception towards organisational change, which have an influence on readiness for change.

Figure 1: Conceptual model of change managers’ communication during the implementation of organisational change.

Model of Organisational Change

2.6 Conclusion

The literature highlights that organisational change has become a frequent imperative in the business environment (Hussey, 2000; Smith, 2006). After reviewing the various arguments relating to the driving force of organisational change, a number of factors have to be taken into consideration for change to be implemented in the way in which best suits the organisation, for instance, not all employees will be receptive to the notion of having to operate in a different way and will obviously want to safeguard their interest as much as the organisations interest (Ansoff, 1990; Elving, 2005; Smith, 2005). Therefore, reading between the lines, change can be effectively managed by streamlining all the internal and external forces in a way in which ensures that change will be communicated readily to employees (Armenakis et al, 1993; Oakland & Tanner, 2007).

It goes without saying however, that is easier said than done with the resistance to change an ever present barrier and the ability to facilitate and initiate change can often lead organisations down hazardous routes. Indeed, Geisler (2001) and Beer and Nohria (2000) attests to this belief that initiating change can be difficult with many organisational change programs failing due to resistance to change and poor management. Consequently, allowing people in organisations to participate in the change process, as well as training and development programs, and effective communication from change agents can prove to facilitate a change process through preparing people for change (Chirico & Salvato, 2008; Klein, 1996; Murphy, 2002; Oakland & Tanner, 2007). Furthermore, the literature review in this chapter highlights that such resistance to change can highlight the aspects that are not seriously considered in the change process, in order for change managers to undertake appropriate action, and develop a better understanding (Beer & Eisenstat, 1996; Piderit, 2000; Waddell & Sohal, 1998).

The aim of this research is to understand the importance in the role of management in implementing effective change, and combating resistance to change.

To counter that argument, a methodology discovers the research question: “What are the effects of organisational change on employees and the role of the manager?” in practice. The next chapter considers the appropriate approaches to achieve the aims of the study.