6 Human Dimensions: Readiness, Time

Perspectives, Communication, Power,

Politics and Resistance

Many of the books on organizational change are dedicated to describing

what change looks like, what instigates it, how it develops over time,
and how it can and should be managed. The perspective in these books
tends to be that of management, will little attention being given to what
change looks and feels like for employees in the organization, or how
they can be effectively engaged in change initiatives. Yet change is all
about people, as all change affects someone … People play a key role
in determining the potential for change to succeed. Yet they also
represent the greatest challenge to the mastery of change. (Hodges,
2016: 2)
Learning Outcomes
After reading this chapter, you will be able to:

Gain an appreciation of how change is perceived and experienced by those on the

receiving end of change.
Understand the concept of readiness for change.
Discuss and assess the implications of Zimbardo’s time perspective for how individuals
respond to the present in relation to their temporal orientation (past, present and future).
Appreciate the importance of communication, especially with regard to leading change,
gaining commitment and promoting employee involvement.
Recognize the importance of social processes and group dynamics in the way people make
sense and give sense to their experiences of change.
Examine power and politics in the management of change.
List the main reasons why individuals/groups resist change and critically reflect on the
appropriateness of conventional concepts of resistance.
Introduction
The opening quotation from Hodges (2016), taken from her book Managing
and Leading People through Organizational Change, spotlights a tendency
to focus on the management of change, planning and system requirements
without giving adequate attention to ‘what change looks and feels like for
employees in the organization’. In drawing on the work of Woodward and
Hendry (2004: 164), she notes how the people aspects of change are often
ignored by senior managers. The emphasis on managing change is seen to rest
largely on achieving measurable indicators of success – those things that are
tangible, can be quantified and often referred to as the ‘hard’ side of change
– rather than on individuals and their interests, aspirations, capabilities,
motivation and personalities (Hodges, 2016: 3). These ‘soft’ or human
dimensions to change are often viewed as ungraspable, difficult to measure,
intangible, vague and woolly. Hodges is critical of this technical dominance
in developing strategies and plans for change. She argues that: ‘No change
will work if employees are not involved in the effort, as change is not
possible without people, changing their behaviours and the way that they
work’ (ibid.). The way that change is implemented, the degree of
communication and involvement for individuals and groups, and the space
for dialogue in shaping change, all influence people’s perceptions and
attitudes to change. These human processes of change raise a number of
interrelated issues, the four main ones discussed here are as follows:

Readiness: a concept that relates to the extent to which people are

positively inclined to accept the need for change and where the
resources are available to support it.
Time perspectives: in relation to how individual time perspectives
influence the way people react to change in drawing on memories of the
past, experiences of the present and expectations of the future.
Communication: in the strategies used and developed by those leading
change and the way that messages are sent from one person or group to
others who then interpret the message (in ways intended and
unintended), as well as with the various forms of sensemaking and
sensegiving that occur during times of change.
Resistance: in terms of the opposition to change by individuals and
groups, and the ways in which people’s perceptions and interpretations
of change help explain the reasons why people question and/or resist
change.
Readiness and Time Perspectives for Change
In a grounded theory approach that examines aspects of change readiness and
the persistent efforts required to secure change, Green and Binsardi (2014)
use the term ‘trenchant’ to refer to the personal energy and effort needed to
maintain the impetus for effective change. They argue that energy,
decisiveness and doggedness for change also needs to be infused in the way
change is managed, for example, in conveying enthusiasm and vigour and
encouraging active participation in supporting change. Trenchant remedying
and the concept of directional disturbance is seen to provide a useful counter
to some of the deficiencies apparent in Lewinian type approaches (see
Chapter 7), that they claim do not attend to these energetic and vigorous traits
required to support prolonged change. In discussing a range of grounded
concepts that emerge from their data, the authors identify two concern-
resolving behaviours around communication and readiness. First, awareness
of a difference, an initial sense of change that the authors argue can heighten
receptivity and readiness for change but when missed results in change
commencing in a type of catch-up mode that can impede the process. Second,
communication that needs to extend beyond conventional concerns – they
refer to the notion of the ‘harbinger of change’ in the messages of what is
occurring and what lies ahead – in being extensive and illustrative, providing
repeated reinforcements to ensure that there is no mismatch between changes
identified and how they are portrayed. The authors conclude that (ibid.: 39):
‘In the absence of clear and extensive communication, supported by
illustration to provide focus and repeated reinforcement sufficient change
impetus may not be generated. The existing literature fails to sufficiently
emphasise the type of language that supports harbingering.’ An activity that is
seen to commence with: ‘acts of signaling to others through communication of
focused messages, undertaking forecasting, and anticipating what lies ahead
for the organization [where] behaviours move beyond routine and gaining
attention to ensuring priority is given to the imminent change’ (ibid.: 35).

The need to raise awareness and move beyond an understanding of

‘readiness’ from Lewin’s (1951) notion of ‘unfreezing’ is central to the
argument presented in a well-cited article on readiness by Armenakis et al.
(1993). For them: ‘Readiness … is reflected in organizational members’
beliefs, attitudes, and intentions regarding the extent to which changes are
needed and the organization’s capacity to successfully make those changes.
Readiness is the cognitive precursor to the behaviours of either resistance to,
or support for, a change effort’ (ibid.: 681–2). Twenty years later, in a
special issue of the Journal of Change Management, Holt and Vardaman
(2013) forward a conceptual frame for understanding the concept of
readiness in examining individual (cognitive) and organizational (structural)
contingencies. They identify the extent to which the organization – the
structural circumstances under which change is occurring –and individual
and collective attitudes, intentions and beliefs – psychological factors
associated with those being asked to change – affords or constrains (through
levels of readiness) purposeful organizational change. Drawing on Prochaska
and DiClemente’s (1982) transtheoretical model of change that proposes five
cognitive stages, comprising, precontemplation, contemplation, preparation,
action and maintenance, the authors equate readiness to change with the
preparatory stage. They suggest that individual attitudes to change will be
influenced by broader views on the appropriateness of change and the degree
of management support, claiming that both individual and structural factors
occur at individual and organizational levels (Holt and Vardaman, 2013: 10–
11). They summarize their proposed conceptual framework for understanding
readiness in tabular form (see Table 6.1).

The authors suggest that, whilst the lists in the table are not exhaustive, they
do draw on data from two systematic literature reviews. At the individual
psychological level the main factors are seem to comprise: appropriateness,
principal support and change efficacy; whereas at the organizational level it
is the shared belief and collective commitment, collective efficacy and
collective trust. On a structural level, individuals are seen to need the
appropriate knowledge, skills and abilities; whilst at an organizational level,
climate support, facilitation strategies and an understanding of the
performance gap between where they are and where they need to go (what
they term discrepancy) – are all key elements in creating an environment
ready for change. However, Caldwell (2013), in the same special edition,
points to the limitations of such a model and in particular, the way it is linked
with episodic change (see Chapter 7) rather than with multiple and
processual change (see Chapters 8 and 9). Vakola (2014) is critical of the
tendency to collapse together individual and organization readiness for
change and argues that more attention needs to be given to individual
differences. In her analysis, she highlights the importance of these differences
stating that:
 Source: Holt and Vardaman (2013: 12).

Some employees welcome organizational change, viewing it as a

change to benefit and improve their status, whereas others are bothered
by the change and tend to continue their working practices as before or
perceive it as a threat and formulate negative attitudes toward it. This
pluralism in reactions to change can be explained by change recipients’
characteristics such as personality traits, coping styles, motivational
needs and demographics. (2014: 196)

In drawing on data from a 183-employee questionnaire carried out in a

technology company based in Greece, Vakola stresses the need for more
person-oriented approaches to change, concluding that people who are
confident in their abilities generally experience higher levels of readiness
and that managers who are able to effectively communicate with employees
and create a climate of trust are likely to influence employees readiness for
change in a positive direction.

In an article that builds on her earlier influential work on readiness for

change, Armenakis with co-authors Rafferty et al. (2013) provide a
multilevel review of change readiness in which they identified two major
limitations with existing studies. First, that whilst the cognitive and
psychological dimensions to readiness are understood the importance of
affect has been neglected; and second, that the tendency to focus on particular
aspects rather than take a broader multilevel view is restrictive. As they
state:

While the level of theory and measurement when studying change

readiness has overwhelmingly been at the individual level, researchers
often use these data to make statements about an organization’s
readiness for change. This is problematic because relationships that
hold at one level of analysis may be stronger or weaker at a different
level of analysis and may, in fact, even reverse. We develop a
multilevel framework outlining the antecedents and consequences of
individual, work group, and organizational change readiness. Adopting
 a multilevel perspective reveals a range of insights that have been
overlooked. In particular, our analysis suggests that the processes that
contribute to the emergence of change readiness at the individual and
collective levels differ at the individual, group, and organizational
levels. (Rafferty et al., 2013: 112)

In the framework that they develop of the antecedents and consequences of

readiness for change attention is given to affective change readiness at a
group and individual level that they argue was absent in Armenakis et al.’s
original work. They argue for the need to exclude behavioural intentions as a
component of change readiness in focussing on the cognitive and affective
elements (ibid.: 114), claiming that:

An individual’s overall evaluative judgment that he or she is ready for

organizational change is influenced by (1) the individual’s beliefs (a)
that change is needed, (b) that he or she has the capacity to
successfullyundertake change, and (c) that change will have positive
outcomes for his or her job/role and by (2) the individual’s current and
future-oriented positive affective emotional responses to a specific
change event (ibid.: 116).

At the collective level, they highlight the importance of the socialization

process, culture and the affective tone of the work group; whilst at the
organizational level it is the policies and practices specifically set by the
organization that are seen to limit emotional expression or enable employees
to effectively deal with emotions during times of change. They conclude that
different antecedents of change readiness will emerge at different levels and
in drawing on the work of Oreg (2006), that these findings equate with
studies on resistance to change, conclude that: ‘Overall, this research
suggests that affective change readiness may be a more powerful predictor of
change outcomes when intense individual or collective emotions develop in
response to organizational change events’ (Rafferty et al., 2013: 126).

Interestingly, time is an aspect that remains surprisingly absent in these

discussions of readiness as it does within the change management literature
as a whole (Dawson and Sykes, 2016). On this count, Isabella (1990), in a
study on how managers construe organizational change processes as they
unfold over time, suggests that there are four main categories that capture the
temporal dimension of interpretation. Her concern is not simply with the
readiness stage but with the whole process of change identifying the four
stages of: anticipation, when rumours are rife and speculative information
abounds on what may or may not happen; confirmation, associated with
conventional explanations, links to similar events in other organizations and
references to similar events that have occurred in the past; culmination,
when people change their views in the light of what is happening and in
adapting to change through hands-on experimentation; and aftermath, where
the consequences of change are assessed and evaluated (Isabella, 1990: 16–
26). She maintains that her findings have significant implications for the
managers and leaders of change who can influence the interpretations of
others during the process of change. As she states (1990: 34):

If the interpretational role of managers is to influence the interpretation

of others, these research findings imply that such a role would vary as a
change unfolded. In the anticipation stage, managers might focus on
managing the rumours and concrete information individuals have.
Although top managers may themselves be uncertain, providing as much
information as possible to subordinates could increase the likelihood
that they will fit reasonable pieces of the puzzle together. In the
confirmation stage, leaders might manage the standards against which
individuals measure the upcoming event. This would require leaders to
be aware of possible and alternative conventional explanations and to
communicate the unlikeliness of feasibility of those alternatives when
necessary. In the culmination stage, leaders might manage symbols,
especially the management symbols that communicate what is important
to the organization. Finally, in the aftermath stage, managers may
manage the assessments that individuals create by suggesting
reasonable, if not right, overall perspectives.

Isabella’s research suggests that a different focus on the provision of

information is required at different stages during the process of change (a
finding we shall return to later in discussing the change kaleidoscope). In
taking up this temporal dimension to change, there is some interesting work
that has been developed and has been gaining increasing attention among
psychologists on individual time perspectives (although they do not directly
relate this to the change management literature). But as Lewin articulated in
his pioneering work:

The life-space of an individual, far from being limited to what he

considers (sic) the present situation, includes the future, the present, and
also the past. Actions, emotions, and certainly the morale of an
individual at any instant depend upon his total time perspective. (Lewin,
1942: 103–4)

This early and important insight by Lewin has largely been lost in studies and
research into organizational change where time tends to be a background
concept (implied rather than explicitly stated) and is largely assumed to be
self-evident (the unspoken assumption is that time is as represented in
conventional clock-time), even though there is considerable debate on the
meaning of time among social psychologists, philosophers, scientists and
sociologists (see Dawson and Sykes, 2016). For example, the social
psychologist Levine (2006) captures some of the ways that time is
experienced differently in different cultures, noting how people who live
close to the equator tend to be more present-orientated due to the consistency
of climate (that changes very little over the seasons); whereas people living
in settings with distinct seasons tend to have a greater sense of change and
transition. The self-explanatory title of his book A Geography of Time: The
Temporal Misadventures of a Social Psychologist or How Every Culture
Keeps Time Just a Little Bit Differently, takes him on an interesting journey
in which Western countries were far more conscious of punctuality to clock-
time and of not wasting time (also working and walking at a far faster pace)
than people living in less industrialized parts of the world. He shows how
‘slowness’ in countries like Brazil seemed to seep into the very fabric of
social life:

I found that Brazilians not only expected a casual approach to time, but
had abandoned any semblance of fidelity to the clock … For a lunch
 appointment, Brazilians said they would wait for an average of 62
minutes. Compare this to the United States, where people rarely allot
more than one hour for lunch. On a workday, at least, typical Americans
would need to be back at their office two mintues before the tardy
Brazilian lunch was just getting ready to begin. (Levine, 2006: 136)

In the context of change, there is a sense of time compression, that the world
is getting faster and that time is getting scarcer. These perceptions of time
(whether real or not) influence our attitudes and beliefs. They may also cause
stress and concern over change initiatives that place yet another time
required activity on tight schedules where time is scarce. There are a number
of commentators who have indicated the paradox and irony of how
developments in technology aimed to make tasks and activities more
efficient, have added to our sense of time poverty (see Adam, 2004;
Wajcman, 2015). Psychologist and broadcaster Claudia Hammond notes:

Despite all the new technology we have, many of us still feel there
aren’t enough hours in the day, and that if only there were, life would be
easier. There is some evidence that the number of hours when we feel
forced to rush has more influence than age does over the perception that
time is moving fast. In an internet study of more than 1,500 people in the
Netherlands, the psychologist William Friedman found that those who
felt they spent a lot of their time racing to do everything they need to,
also believed time went very fast. The consciousness of not having
enough hours draws our attention to time slipping away making it feel
faster. (ibid. 2012: 281)

Over the last decade, there has been a noticeable resurgence in interest in
psychological and social psychological approaches to time and temporality
following the work of Zimbardo and Boyd (2008) and their development of
the Zimbardo Time Perspective Index (ZTPI). This highly influential work is
usefully brought together in their popularized book The Time Paradox
(2008). Their essential argument is that time is a central yet too quickly
ignored aspect of living that influences behaviour and if managed properly
can lead to well-being and health but if left to its own devices may result in
deviant and anti-social behaviour. Zimbardo and Boyd (2008) note how most
people pay more attention to how they spend their money rather than to how
they spend their time. This devaluation of time is seen as endemic to modern
Western societies (studies have largely focused on Western society but an
increasing number of followers are extending research into a range of
different cultural areas). Zimbardo and Boyd argue that our perspective on
time governs our lives and that we carry around our psychology of time
perspective in our minds in which the fluid flow of human experience
becomes embedded into temporal timeframes. When we are faced with a
situation requiring us to make a decision (such as change), our temporal
perspective shapes this process. Our temporal frame is seen to be influenced
by our present-orientation (how far we like being in the present, being in the
moment, the now), our future orientation (the way we may anticipate
happenings and events in the future) and our past-orientation (the way our
memories and our interpretations of past experiences influence our decisions
in the present). In addition, there are several biases influencing our time
perspective including: class, culture, education, religion, geography, and the
political and economic stability of a country/region. In forwarding their
concept of a time perspective Zimbardo and Boyd identify five different
temporal frames that consist of:

1. Past positive: This is when one is positive about the past things that
have happened in one’s life, there are happy, good memories that build
self-esteem and friendliness in the present. It is argued that too much
living in the past can have detrimental effects on our capacity to live a
full life in the present.
2. Past negative: This occurs when people constantly revisit past
nightmares or events and situations they deeply regret or feel
embarrassed, ashamed or angry about. Memories often capture thoughts
of all the things that could have been done but were not. Too much past
negative can lead to aggressive behaviours, depression and anxiety.
According to this theory, people who suffer from high past negative are
generally unhappy, sad individuals, with low energy levels.
3. Present hedonistic: These are novelty-seeking individuals who have
lots of energy and are often highly creative. There is sensation-seeking,
some aggression and a desire to engage in pleasurable activities. The
main problem is the tipping point, where the pursuit of pleasure
 becomes addictive and people make decisions on the spur of moment
without thinking about future consequences.
4. Present fatalistic: Under this category, people exhibit high aggression
and there is a tendency towards high levels of anxiety and depression,
for example people do not care about the future because, in their view,
nothing works out anyway.
5. Future oriented: Those high on this element tend to resist temptations
and get work done (high achievers). They tend to be conscientious, live
longer and are quick to follow advice on healthy living.

If we map this time-perspective index onto the notion of readiness to change,

then individuals who score a high past negative on change experiences
combined with a high present fatalistic attitude are unlikely to actively resist
change. In such cases their negative memories of past experiences of change
combined with their fatalistic beliefs (that no matter what they do they have
no control over the outcomes of change) are likely to cause stress and
anxiety, generating more passive forms of resistant behaviours. Individuals
with a past-negative time perspectives may suffer from low energy levels,
lack motivation and show signs of depression through placing too much
significance on past negative or painful events associated with previous
experiences of change.

In contrast, those with an intensive present orientation tend to be risk-takers

and are generally hedonistic. However, Zimbardo and Boyd would likely
advise caution and care in moderating hedonism that might jeopardise
longer-term objectives by conversations and dialogue that provides them
with a hearty ‘dose of the holistic present’ (2008: 303). Finally, individuals
who are found to be future-oriented are generally driven to achieve, will
embrace the challenge of change that will be seen to open up opportunities
for further achievement. However, such individuals can also become so
absorbed in an endless competitive pursuit for more innovative, efficient,
competitive futures that they eventually find themselves isolated from other
work colleagues, family and friends. In summing up ZTPI, Zimbardo and
Boyd conclude:

Given the research we have done – and acknowledging our inherent

bias as residents in the Western world – we believe that the optimal
 time perspective profile is:

High in past-positive time perspective

Moderately high in future time perspective
Moderately high in present-hedonistic time perspective
Low in past-negative time perspective
Low in present-fatalistic time perspective

This blend offers three critical advantages: A sense of positive past

gives you roots … With a future perspective, you can envision a future
filled with hope, optimism, and power … A hedonistic present gives
you energy and joy about being alive. That energy drives you to explore
people, places, and self (Zimbardo and Boyd, 2008: 297–8).

Although their conclusion relates to gaining a balanced behavioural life,

there is also a possible mapping of these findings onto the notion of readiness
for change in which a sense of organizational belonging and belief in the
changes that have occurred in the past (we have experienced change before
and the outcomes have worked), effective communication through metaphors
and stories that engage employees in a compelling future (the future is
optimistic if we can achieve these changes), and an engagement in the
ongoing present (this is an exciting and good place to work). The question of
whether there is value in pursuing this notion of time perspective in relation
to change readiness remains open to question (for those interested in seeing
what their time perspective is go to:
http://www.thetimeparadox.com/surveys/), yet clearly time and temporality
is central to understanding change and is in need of further study (see
Dawson and Sykes, 2016).
Communication and Change

Effective communication connects the hearts and minds of the people in

an organization. Stories, metaphors and analogies are powerful ways to
communicate complex information in compelling ways. Stories are
narratives with plots, characters and twists that are full of meaning.
Telling stories can often be the catalyst for momentum behind a change
initiative. Metaphors and analogies are inferential techniques to transfer
the meaning of something that is known to another thing that is unknown.
Since organizational change requires people to try something new or
move into the unknown, then communication that relies on stories,
metaphors and analogies can make the unknown more attractive and
understandable. (Hodges, 2016: 214)

Communication is generally recognized as one of the most important factors

that influence change outcomes (Jackson and Callon, 2001). For example,
Hayes (2010) argues that the features of communication networks and the
effects of interpersonal relations can have a major influence on the process
and outcomes of organizational change. Particular attention is given to the
notion of ‘effective’ communication, which informs employees, enables
feedback and promotes wide-scale consultation. Many writers in this area
assume that effective communication will overcome resistance to change
(resistance is often seen to stem from natural anxiety, ignorance and
misunderstanding) through stimulating interest, generating understanding and
engaging employee commitment (see for example, Paton and McCalman,
2008).

But what do we understand by the term ‘communication’? Communication is

certainly a rather large ubiquitous concept, it pervades all aspects of life but
here our interest lies in the communication that occurs around company
change. It is about formal internal communication as well as the informal
forms of communication that take place among individuals and groups during
processes of organizational change. These include the storytelling among
individuals and groups, the informal chats, corridor discussions, rumours and
‘scandalous’ tales that ebb and flow in the organization. While most of the
discussions on change management and communication centre on how
managers (or those involved with managing change) can most effectively
communicate with recipients of change, when change is on the organizational
agenda informal processes of communication become highly active. Thus, we
already have here another interesting conundrum. On the one hand, effective
communication strategies seek to control and regulate information flows to
maintain some sensemaking order. On the other hand, change recipients seek
to second-guess ulterior motives, and interpret what is said and not said in
ways never intended by those managing change. In short, the formal channels
of communication cannot control the informal flow of information, stories
and interpretations that lie close to the heart of those on the receiving end of
change.

So, where does this leave us? From a managing change perspective,
communication is generally seen as a central component, especially to the
development of strategies that seek to involve employees in new initiatives,
in building trust (Proctor and Doukakis, 2003) and in engaging staff (Agenti,
2009). As Quirke (2008: 3) states:

Traditionally, internal communication has focused on the announcement

of management conclusions and the packaging of management thinking
into messages for mass distribution to the ‘troops’. However, its real
place is at the leading edge of change. The value that it can add is
immense – faster change, more flexibility and innovation, better quality
decisions, better knowledge sharing and a more motivated workforce …
Internal communication is vital to success and when done well can
provide strategic advantage through aligning employee efforts, sharing
knowledge and engaging their passion.
Communication Skills and Competencies for
Change
Hersey and Blanchard (1988) argue that communication is perhaps the key
process skill required of change agents to get others to understand and accept
change. Drawing on the work of Bennis (1969), Carnall (2007) argues that
this involves an ability to communicate clear objectives, to be consistent and
to ensure that others understand, and to be aware of the reasons and intentions
of change. These three competencies Carnall labels as: the management of
attention, the management of trust and the management of meaning. In
identifying a number of guidelines on effective communication, Paton and
McCalman (2000) emphasize the need to:

Customize the message to ensure that it is set at an appropriate level to

be understood by the intended audience.
Set the tone of the message so it does not offend or seem patronizing.
Recognize that communication is a two-way process and that feedback is
essential.
Do as you say (practise what you preach).
Use the appropriate medium to ensure penetration, so that the message
reaches those it is intended to reach in the time required.

Kotter (1996) also draws attention to the importance of communication. For

him, communicating a change vision is critical to leading successful change
(see also Kotter and Cohen, 2002). He argues that change leaders should
communicate their vision in many different forums over and over again if they
wish to develop an effective implementation strategy, noting that:

Communication comes in both words and deeds. The latter is generally

the most powerful form. Nothing undermines change more than behavior
by important individuals that is inconsistent with the verbal
communication. And yet this happens all the time, even in some well-
regarded companies. (Kotter, 1996: 10)
Kotter claims that a major reason why change initiatives fail is because of
ineffective communication, arguing that this takes three main forms:

Communication is limited to only a few memos.

The head of the company makes many speeches but everybody else
remains silent.
There is effort in communicating the vision but the behaviour of some
highly visible individual(s) conflicts with the message communicated,
and employee cynicism results.

Figure 6.1 The communication process (© W. Schramme 1954)

Communication: Process and Strategies
Mass communication theorist Wilbur Schramm (see McQuail, 2010; Schramm,
1955; Schramm and Roberts, 1971; Westley and MacLean, 1957) presents the
process of communication as an ongoing dialogue in which messages are
decoded, interpreted and encoded in a continuous symmetrical flow as parties
set out to achieve some mutual understanding. This is represented in Schramm’s
(1954) model of the communication process (see Figure 6.1 above).

Poor and inappropriate change communication strategies are often seen to be the
prime cause for employee resistance and conflicts over change. These are seen
as the medium through which change agents can allay the natural fears and
anxieties of employees awaiting the unknown (Paton et al., 2016). Within the
mainstream literature, it is often assumed that by providing clear communication
through appropriate mediums at a tone and pitch suitable to the audience, and in
practising what is preached, a programme of effective communication in the
‘successful’ management of change can be put into place (see Carnall, 2007;
Kotter, 1996). Russ (2008) refers to these type of ‘telling and selling’
approaches as programmatic change communication strategies where
implementers are seen to hold the power to gain the compliance of recipients to
the message of change. Such programmes can be characterized as a planned
effort to minimize potential resistance through sending the ‘right’ message
through the ‘right’ medium at the ‘right’ time (Russ, 2008: 200–4). the focus is
on downward communication in helping employees make sense of the change
vision. These are seen to contrast with participatory change communication
strategies (associated with organizational development approaches, see
Cummings and Worley, 2008) that encourage input and the active participation of
employees in the change process (see also Hayes, 2010). Although there is more
involvement and dialogue, the focus remains on building consensus to galvanize
support and minimize disruptions to change. For Russ (2008), the key decision
centres on which approach to use under which circumstances as they both have a
number of limitations and advantages (see Table 6.2).

In examining the choice of communication methods (timing and media),

Goodman and Truss (2004) advocate using the change communication wheel
(see Figure 6.2). They argue that the ‘best method’ – in terms of the message,
approach, media and channel – is dependent on context, the purpose of the
communication, employee response and the characteristics of the change
programme. They conclude that the main challenge is the effective alignment of
these elements (although we are not told how exactly to achieve this). Common
to all these approaches is the notion that change presents a communicative
challenge that if managed correctly can smooth the transition process, but if
managed badly can result in disruption and resistance. What is missing in these
approaches is a more critical awareness of the alternative stories that emerge as
individuals and groups seek to make sense of what is going on. Ignoring the
significance of power in action, of the competing vested interests among
stakeholders, of the use of authority and power-relations in allowing certain
messages to be heard whilst silencing the voices of others – all serve to mask
the ‘realities’ of change behind a rationalist view in which commitment and
compliance are the natural order of events.

Source: Adapted from T.L. Russ (2008) Communicating change: a review and critical analysis of
programmatic and participatory implementation approaches. Journal of Change Management 8 (3–
4): 199–211. © Taylor & Francis.

Once decisions are made on when to release certain pieces of information and
who should know what, as well as assessments on the content, timing and
medium of communication (the channel, message, media and approach), then
communication becomes part of the political process of managing change. Those
who hold the more senior positions in organizations may actively seek to
influence the views of others in moving an organization from an existing state to
a new desired state. In taking a more critical approach, communication can be
viewed as an essential feature of the politics of change management as powerful
implementers use their positions to communicate a course of events that moves
people to change in ways that they would not otherwise do (Pfeffer, 1981). The
techniques and tools of communication used by change agents to push change in
certain directions is what Buchanan and Badham (2008) refer to as ‘power-
assisted steering’. They question apolitical perspectives, arguing that change
agents often use communication as a key political tool in the tough contact sport
of ‘winning the turf game’. The politics of change is viewed as a part of
organizational life (Dawson, 2000), in which power plays and the management
of meaning are critical to the way others view and experience change (Collins,
1998; Itzin and Newman, 1995; Pettigrew, 1985). For McClellan (2011),
recognizing that communication is a power-laden political process – ‘power in
action’ – opens up opportunities for meaningful dialogue that brings to the fore
conflicts of meaning and uncertainty. He argues that many of the problems with
change stem from the suppression of alternative meanings and that
communication could equally be used to disturb institutionalized meanings and
provide opportunities for new meanings to emerge (McClellan, 2011: 471–2).

Figure 6.2 The change communication wheel

Source: Adapted from J. Goodman and C. Truss (2004) The medium and
the message: communicating effectively during a major change initiative.
Journal of Change Management 4 (3): 217–28, p. 225. © Taylor & Francis.
Communication for Gaining Commitment and Not
Compliance to Change

The degree to which people will be committed to an act is a function of

the degree to which they have been involved in determining what the act
will be. (Burke, 2011: 113)

Hodges (2016) examines the effects of change on individuals, looking at

issues such as emotional affects (positive and negative) and the importance
of culture in the way people are able to express their feelings or feel
compelled to bottle up their emotions. She argues that, in order to engage
people emotionally in change, you need to provide them with a sense of
ownership in the need for change and that this can only be accomplished
through effective communication that provides the right type of information in
a channel appropriate to the indented audience. Tailoring communication to
different audiences is key as is the tone, structure and content of the message,
as well as the choice of language used, as these can all influence the way
people make sense and engage with change. Dialogue is at the heart of this
process as it is through changing daily conversations that people begin to
think differently and engage with others on the journey to change. On this
count, Hodges suggests that the use of images, metaphors and compelling
stories in appealing to people’s emotions provide powerful vehicles for
achieving fuller engagement (ibid.: 200–2). She also draws attention to non-
verbal forms of communication, which, as Wharton, quoting Erving Goffman,
notes: ‘A wagging tongue … proves to be only one part of a complex human
act whose meaning must also be sought in the movement of the eyebrows and
hand,’ and how:

Sentences are rarely uttered in a behavioural vacuum. We colour and

flavour our speech with a variety of natural vocal, facial and bodily
gestures, which indicate our internal state by conveying attitudes to the
propositions we express or information about our emotions and
feelings. Though we may be aware of them, such behaviours are often
 beyond our conscious control: they are involuntary or spontaneous.
Almost always, however, understanding an utterance depends to some
degree on their interpretation. Often, they show us more about a
person’s mental/physical state than the words they accompany;
sometimes, they replace words rather than merely accompany them.
(Wharton, 2009: 1)

Non-verbal communication occurs in all human interaction and is very

important if often understated in the change management literature. These
wordless cues can send powerful communicative signals through, for
example, the tone of speech, facial expressions, eye contact, posture and
body movements, space (whether one moves physically close or moves
away) and colour (for example, looking pale or turning red). A humorous
illustrative example of this is provided by a series of clips taking from the
popular TV series Friends (just search on YouTube for: The Importance of
Nonverbal Cues as told by ‘Friends’). There are plenty of books on what is
now more commonly referred to as body language (see Wilson, 2012) that
explain how poor posture, prolonged eye contact, nervous gestures like
handwringing or foot jiggling, excessive sighing or throat clearing and round-
the-clock frowning can make others uncomfortable and make you look
unsure, uninterested or simply abrasive. On this count, Hodges (2016) warns
that body language must align with the messages being conveyed as people
become anxious and confused when non-verbal messages conflict with
verbal messages.

In examining leadership and how different styles of leadership can help lead
people through change, Hodges advocates a people-centred approach calling
for strategies and techniques that are not simply effective and sustainable but
that are also highly ethical. In a series of articles (Burnes, 2009; 2011; By et
al., 2012, 2015) and a book (By and Burnes, 2014), Burnes and colleagues
also highlight the importance of maintaining ethical values and point out how
‘leaders may intend to implement a course of action but actually act in a
contrary manner [resulting] in unethical outcomes’ (By et al., 2015: 3). They
bemoan the increase in unethical management, illustrating how many
organizations have entrenched practices that are deeply unethical, calling for
a return to Lewinian values in emphasizing that ‘ethical and socially-
responsible behaviour is becoming more important than profit maximization
and self-interest’ (Burnes, 2009: 359). They advocate a turn from decision-
making that ignores any sense of social and community responsibility in
profit maximizing behaviours towards engagement in more ethical and
participative change processes in a concern for well-being and the human
conditions of work. As By and colleagues (By et al., 2012: 3–4) state:

Organizations have to move beyond general statements of ethics, such as

those found in CSR statements and policies, and actually evaluate the
ethical values of leaders and their actions and determine whether they
are compatible with the wider interests of the organization and its
stakeholders. This requires an understanding of ethics both in policy and
practical terms, and clarity about the ethical basis of different
approaches to leadership and change … We need to highlight the
importance of promoting the ethical dimension of change as a means of
ensuring that leaders and their followers act in the interests of the many
rather than the few. If followers and other stakeholders are not to be so
dazzled by the attraction of charismatic–transformational leaders that
any change is seen as good change, they need to ensure that leadership
and change are underpinned by a clear and transparent system of ethics
and accountability. That is to say, leaders must be instilled with a moral
compass fitting the organization of which they are in charge. Leaders of
tomorrow must indeed be expected to make decisions in the interest of
the many … and refrain from abusing the faith that is placed in them.

In managing change, Hodges argues that there is a decision to be made on

whether to engage in more participative approaches (based on values of
involvement and engagement), or whether to impose a more authoritative
approach based on compliance. Whilst she advocates the uptake of a more
ethically based participative approach, she does not reject the need for more
compliant strategies under certain circumstances (see also, Dunphy and
Stace, 1990 and Chapter 7). As she explains:

Commitment is where people actively want to change, whereas

compliance is where they will change because they are instructed to do
 so. If the change initiative involves introducing a new system, work
procedure or changes to legislation then compliance may be all that is
needed. But if the initiative depends on changing attitudes, for example,
improved customer service or cross-functional co-operation, then the
aim must be to get commitment. Without it, individuals might quickly
revert to their old ways of working as soon as the change is
implemented and the spotlight is off them … The starting point is when
individuals are made aware of the change. At this point, they need to
understand what will happen and why. They will either engage with the
change and see its implication for themselves, or have a negative
perception of it. If they engage with the change they will see it as an
opportunity, move on to testing the proposed change, implement it, and
then be committed to embedding and sustaining it. If individuals choose
instead to avoid the change, then managers may be forced to get them to
comply with it. Both routes require investment. The compliance route
requires investment in processes to administer, monitor and, if
necessary, enforce compliance. Approaches for gaining commitment
include managing stakeholders, engaging in dialogue, team building,
recognizing the emotional responses to change and addressing them, and
building capability for change. (Hodges, 2016: 157).

For Hodges, the commitment approach requires a considerable time and

effort to be put into building high-trust relationships, in open communication
and responding to employees and any feedback they may offer in order to win
overs ‘hearts and minds’. She outlines two major routes to change: first, the
compliance route where there is a requirement to comply with the changes
being proposed and implemented; second, the commitment pathway where
attention is given to engaging people in the change and enabling them to take
ownership. In selecting the appropriate route for change, consideration needs
to be given to the type of change being introduced and the level of
commitment that is necessary among employees for the change to be
successful. Hodges argues that both pathways can incur costs, for example,
there is a high initial cost with commitment in the time and resources needed
to engage people in the initiative that enables them to get involved and take
ownership; whereas with compliance the longer-term (post-change) costs can
be particularly heavy if people return to old ways of doing things and the
required changes are not sustainable.

In charting these different pathways to change, Hodges (2016: 157)

illustrates the different initial steps between the two before they both come
together in the final stages of change. The compliance route is seen to
commence with:

1. Compliance: ‘I have to do it this new way.’

2. Reaction: ‘I will react to this change if I must.’
3. Avoidance: ‘I must avoid this change.’
4. Negative perception: ‘I feel threatened by this change.’

Whereas the commitment pathways is seen to commence with:

1. Commitment: ‘I want to do it this new way.’

2. Action: ‘I will act to achieve this change.’
3. Experimenting and testing: ‘I will experiment with this change and
check that it really works.’
4. Positive perception: ‘I see the opportunity in this change.’

Both are seen to finish with:

1. Engagement: ‘I see the implications for me/us.’

2. Understanding: ‘I know what will change and why.’
3. Awareness: ‘I am being told about something.’

Central to Hodges (2016), individual approach is the need for open dialogue
in meaningful engagement enabling people to take ownership and be
committed to change. She criticizes best-practice approaches for ignoring
context (see also, Capozzi et al., 2012), and being unable to accommodate
local conditions and needs. For Hodges, change is always unique and never
routine, and as such, simple cut-and-paste approaches which promote a ‘one-
size fits all’ are unhelpful as tools and techniques need to adapt to context
whether at the level of the individual, group, department or organization
(2016: 9). Consider Case 6.1 below and take particular notice of notions of
commitment, compliance and collaboration, as well as the strategies for
change and the context within which these changes take place.
Case 6.1
A Question of Communication? A Change
Project in A Local Government Agency in New
Zealand Hafsa Ahmed
A local government agency in New Zealand (henceforth referred to as Acres) set about
improving the quality of advice they provided to governance members who were responsible for
making important community decisions on the provision of services, infrastructure projects,
maintenance programmes and so forth. Local government plays a crucial role in New Zealand in
supporting local business and commercial activities that contribute to the economy as a whole.
Following an external annual review in August 2014, an internal quality improvement project was
created to develop and implement changes that would: (a) improve assessment scores in the
following year’s annual review; and (b) develop the skill capabilities of staff in the writing of
quality advice papers.
The Team
The initial team comprised two members, a principal advisor and a programme manager, who
proposed a change initiative with two key strands; first, rolling out a series of pre-developed tools;
and, second, introducing a compulsory peer review process for all advice papers. The approach
was to be communicated to all staff via portfolio directors and relevant reporting managers. It
aimed to set requirements for peer reviews through the agency’s performance appraisal system
and, hence, any failure to follow the new process would directly impact on the annual appraisal of
individual performance. This idea faced significant resistance from senior staff in the policy team
who viewed the proposal as a direct challenge on the capabilities and skills that they had built up
through years of experience. The policy team, consisting of five staff, had a combined work
experience of over a hundred years and a significant amount of it was gained at central
government agencies. Due to these internal tensions the project suffered delays and did not
progress.

In late November 2014, the programme manager appointed two new members to the project team
which now included a senior advisor and a new policy advisor with experience in change
management (whom we shall refer to as Agent). The project team met regularly to try to
progress matters but conflicts between the two experienced staff stalled change. However, it was
agreed that Agent be given the opportunity to lead the initiative – a big challenge for someone
who had just joined the organization – he quickly reaffirmed the main aim, allocated
responsibilities for team members and set a clear timeframe for project goals.
Managing Change
The next hurdle was initiating the project to ensure positive results were delivered throughout the
organization. Agent decided to get the ‘voice of the customer’ by getting the executive (for whom
the advice papers are written) to fill in an anonymous survey. Among other things, the results
from the survey provided a clear mandate for proceeding with change and added legitimation to
Agents role in leading change through their clear support. In an attempt to secure wider
engagement, Agent initiated a series of workshops across the organization. These workshops not
only enabled Agent to gather information about the key issues faced by staff, but it also provided
important opportunities for generating ideas and in establishing more inclusive conversations. By
doing this, staff were made to feel part of designing the solution, of being a collaborative
participant in the change. Change was no longer seen as something that was being done and
communicated to them but instead, there was acknowledgement of the role of staff in generating
ideas and informing the process and outcomes of change. Taken as a whole, the workshops
received good attendance and staff who attended, were highly appreciative of the project’s
undertaking and supported this collaborative approach to change.

Wider engagement and collaboration was facilitating change but there were still sensitive issues
that needed addressing. Peer review was one of these and Agent approached this by providing
training sessions that highlighted illustrative examples of the positive benefits that peer review can
have on improving advice papers. The training workshops were designed to enable staff to gain
hands-on experience with issues and develop their skills in improving the quality of advice
provided in their written submissions. These training sessions, which began in late February 2015,
gained a lot of support and positive feedback from staff and were delivered fortnightly. In
addition, nominated champions were identified for each section to further assist staff in developing
their skills and capabilities, and the intranet was used to provide an easily accessible resource
where staff could get access to all tools, training material, sample papers and key contacts within
Acres.
The Aftermath
The change initiative had only been running for four months by the time the next annual review
was due. Agent adjusted their strategy and instead of self-selecting and submitting ten advisory
reports for review, they used a selection panel of three different staff who held different positions
within the organization to choose ten out of 20 shortlisted papers. The chosen ten papers were
submitted in July 2015 for the review. The results were released in August, showing a significant
improvement on the previous year but the feedback also indicated other areas where further
improvements could be made. However, whilst the project team was broken up following these
review results, Agent maintained responsibility for leading this quality improvement initiative
(without the aid of other staff). Training was upgraded every quarter to assist staff with tools and
techniques to help them overcome challenges they had identified in feedback sessions. This
continual listening to the concerns of staff gained the trust and support of staff across the
organization. Agent’s regular interaction with the champions across different sections also helped
reinforce a sense of openness and collaboration in working with staff rather than directing them to
use an approach designed elsewhere without their involvement. The success of this approach in
bringing about change and building staff capability has worked but the question of sustainability
into 2017 and beyond remains to be seen.
Questions
1. What does this case study tell us about communication and change?
2. Identify reasons for resistance and evaluate the appropriateness of the responses made?
3. What were the strengths and weaknesses of the approach adopted by Agent and what
would you have done differently?
4. Do you feel that Acres were right to disband the change team after the annual review?
Explain and justify your answer.
5. Is this a collaborative approach to change? Discuss.
Communication as Conversations in Making Sense
of Change
Julia Balogun (2006) also highlights the importance of employee
interpretations in shaping change. She argues that managing change is not
simply about implementing decisions and monitoring actions, but also about
aligning understanding between change agents and change recipients.
Although communication often occurs down the hierarchy from senior
managers to employees, the way that change recipients make sense of change
generally occurs through lateral communication, that is, via stories, informal
conversations, social practices and gossip. She argues that whilst the need
for extensive communication is now readily accepted in the change
management literature, the focus remains on formal vertical communication
rather than on informal lateral communication (see Balogun, 2001, 2006;
Balogun and Johnson, 2004 and 2005; Rouleau and Balogun, 2011). For
Balogun, communication should not be seen as the straightforward
transmission of information but as a process that enables new knowledge to
be created and shared meanings achieved. A mismatch in understanding can
bring about unintended consequences and hence there is a need for those
tasked with implementing change (often middle managers) to engage more
fully with change recipients through lateral, informal and ad hoc
communications (Balogun, 2006: 45–7). The need for broader conversations
and dialogue among participants of change is also emphasized by McClellan,
who argues that:

Change requires a type of conversation that challenges taken-for-granted

understandings, while enabling productive conflicts to reshape the
meanings guiding organizational life … Change can be enabled if we
can find ways to create open, discursive spaces for organizational
participants to collaboratively generate new organizing resources to
engender alternative organizational realities. (2006: 477)

The importance of information and the way that individuals and groups make
and give sense to unfolding events are especially evident in a growing
number of studies that examine stories and storytelling in organizations (see
Boje, 2008; Dawson and McLean, 2013; Gabriel, 2000). Attention moves
beyond the formal flow of information to the way that people give and make
sense of what is occurring around them. On this, Weick’s (1995) work
highlights the importance of sensemaking, especially in times when
organizations face changing or ambiguous situations. He outlines seven
components that consist of: identity construction as people make sense of
events, retrospection, to reflect back on the past, enactment in producing
part of the environment they face, within a social and ongoing process, that
is influenced by extracted cues and driven by plausibility rather than
accuracy (ibid.: 61–2). For Weick, sensemaking is an ongoing social activity
in which plausible stories (the concern is not with accuracy) help people
make sense of experiences and enact the environment they face (ibid.). In
examining studies on change, Rouleau and Balogun (2011) refer to
sensemaking as a social process by which people construct and reconstruct
meanings in attempting to understand, interpret change and give sense for
themselves and others about what is occurring. In building on other studies
they create an image of:

individuals engaging in intertwined cycles of interpretation and action,

where interpretation shapes action and vice versa in a reciprocal
relationship through time, which is also intertwined with, and
influenced by, the simultaneous cycles of interpretation and action of
others … [emphasizing] … that this sensemaking occurs in a relational
context. Intertwined and mutually reinforcing multiple acts of individual
sensemaking shape the processes and outcomes of organizational
sensemaking. (Rouleau and Balogun, 2011: 255)

Whilst we would generally support this description of sensemaking, we

would advocate an understanding of sensemaking as an individual and
collective social process (rather than organizational) and in relation to
change, include the temporal dimension of past, present and future in making
a distinction between whether sensemaking is retrospective (the conventional
Weikian backward-glance conception of sensemaking), is located in the here-
and-now (present sensemaking), or entails forward looking prospective
sensemaking (Weibe, 2010) in more future-oriented ways of making sense
(see Dawson and McLean, 2013).

These broader sensemaking/context-sensitive perspectives, widen our

understanding of communication beyond the formal transmission of
information about change to the way individuals and groups make and give
sense to their experiences through their interpretations and actions, thereby
highlighting the importance of engaging ‘the “voices” of all participants –
those implementing change and those on the receiving end – through
promoting more open dialogue’ (for a discussion of Jabri’s dialogic model
see Chapter 8). Lewis (2011) also develops a broader approach in
combining stakeholder and communication perspectives. He is critical of the
tendency for change writers to overly focus on implementers’ strategies and
recipients’ responses that downplay the input of all stakeholders. This limits
the flow of information and in the case of wrong-headed change can have
disastrous consequences. Those not directly involved in implementing
change are viewed as being part of a passive audience rather than being
active stakeholders with considerable interests tied up with the organization.
This turns the attention to the way in which communication strategies are
often used to overcome reactions to change (for example, in overcoming
forms of resistance) that portray recipients as reactive and irrational, when
they may have justified concerns and strategic interests that are being
ignored. Taking a more process perspective, Lewis argues for the need to
move away from snapshot understanding to a more ongoing approach that
accommodates the social dynamics of sensemaking. Through looking at the
way that reality is enacted through interaction (the communication process)
and the way that different stakeholders make and give sense to what is
occurring over time (the stakeholder perspective), a more holistic model is
presented that draws on all participants and examines change not as a single
moment in time but as an ongoing dynamic (ibid.).

The differences between sequential stage modes of change and more

process-oriented and dialogical approaches to change are examined in more
detail in Chapters 7, 8 and 9. Our attention here continues around the people
aspects of change and, in particular, power, politics and resistance, and the
relationship between the implementers and recipients of change.