Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 1 March 2009
Received in revised form 1 September 2009
Accepted 1 November 2009
Available online 19 January 2010
Keywords:
Organizational change
Change management practices
a b s t r a c t
Management literature frequently proposes the use of a set of managerial practices in order to facilitate the
management of organizational change processes. This paper analyses differences in perception in the use of
such practices, between change strategists and change receptors, and the impact these practices have on the
outcomes of organizational change programs and on organizational results, in a sample of 90 organizations
in Chile. Results show that, for the same change processes, change strategists report a higher use of change
management practices than change receptors. Results also show that, during organizational change processes,
rms use more frequently practices related to the change preparation stage in comparison to practices related
to the change implementation stage. Finally, results show that, after controlling for organizational size, change
program intensity, and service versus manufacturing industries, the use of change management practices
has a signicant impact on the accomplishment of the change program objectives and deadlines, but results do
not show an impact on perceived organizational outcomes (changes in sales, nancial results of the rm,
operational productivity, and employee performance).
2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Today's organizations experience frequent, diverse and intense
change through practices such as processes redesign, restructuring,
mergers, acquisitions and total quality programs. Organizations put
these programs into practice in an attempt to anticipate or adapt to
external forces such as new technologies, markets or legislations,
or internal forces such as changes in staff, or tuning of policies and
procedures. Academic and professional literature propose a set of
managerial practices that better support the enactment of organizational change processes (Armenakis and Bedeian, 1999; Buchanan
et al., 2005; Casio, 2002; Jones et al., 2004; Kanter, 2001; Kotter, 1996;
Meyer and Stensaker, 2006; Nadler, 1998; Whelan-Berry et al., 2003,
among others). Nevertheless signicant gaps in the understanding of
both how these practices work, and in their effectiveness exist (Doyle
et al., 2000; Lewis et al., 2006). This study is an empirical research on
change management practices (CMPs) which expands current
literature in three ways. First an analysis is made of the differences
in the perceptions of two groups of employees about the use of CMPs
during organizational change processes: Those in charge of planning
the change program (change strategists) and those employees who
receive the impact of the change program (change receptors). Second,
previous research results (Raineri, 1998), that show that rms use
more frequently CMPs related to the change preparation stage rather
than CMPs more closely related to the implementation stage of
change processes, are tested. Third and nally, the paper assesses the
267
268
results showed that the items better load on a set of four factors for
the change strategists' data set similar to the four original topics for
which items were developed. The factor analysis of the change
receptors' data set loaded on a set of factors very similar to the four
factors in the strategists' data set and very similar to the four original
areas of item development. The main difference in the factor structure
of the change receptors' data set, is that in the latter group, change
receptors perceived items related to communication and items
related to leadership as being part of the same factor. A possible
explanation for this difference in both factor structures is that the
change receptors' main sources of information are their leaders
and managers, therefore their perceptions of communication and
leadership during the change process might be highly interrelated.
Given the similarity in the factor structure of both data sets with
the intended areas of item development, and the need to compare
perceptions of CMPs between both groups, the author conducted
further statistical analysis for both data sets using the original four
dimensions of CMPs that were dened when items were constructed:
diagnosis and alignment of the organization, communication within
the change process, presence of leadership in the change program,
and alignment of compensation and incentives with the new objectives stated in the change program. The items' factor loadings for the
269
Table 3
Paired t-tests between indexes, for independent variable indexes of CMPs within each
data set.
Change strategists
Index 2 Index 3
Index 1: Diagnosis 3.31***
and alignment
Index 2:
Communication
Index 3:
Leadership
Index 4:
Compensation &
incentives
Change receptors
Index 4 Index 2 Index 3
3.91***
6.35***
Index 4
9.52***
8.20***
9.94***
***p b 0,001.
change strategists' factors ranged from 0.83 to 0.87 and for the change
receptors' factors ranged from 0.87 to 0.93. The researcher deleted
three items from any further analysis in both data sets because either
they did not comply with the minimum established standard of an 80%
agreement among the judges rating their membership into one of the
four intended categories of CMPs, and/or because they showed high
factor loadings with more than one factor. The author grouped the
resulting items into indexes averaging the items in each of the four
nal dimensions. Table 2 shows the mean, standard deviation and
Cronbach's alpha for both data sets. Table 2 also shows the correlations
for the four indexes between the strategists and receptors' data sets,
and paired sample t-tests results for the comparisons of the means
of the four indexes between the two data sets. The Cronbach's alpha
scores showed a strong internal consistency of the indexes in both data
sets. The correlations of CMP indexes between both data sets show that
change strategists and receptors have a moderate agreement about the
use of CMPs in their organizational change processes. The comparisons
in Table 2 show that change strategists report a higher rate of use of
CMPs in all four indexes when compared to change receptors. These
results conrm Hypothesis 1.
The t-tests in Table 3 compare the means between index averages
of all four factors within each data set. These comparisons support
Hypothesis 2: in both data sets rms showed a higher rate of use
of change preparation practices when compared to use of change
implementation practices. The t-test comparisons show that the
diagnosis and alignment and leadership indexes show the highest
scores, a signicantly lower score in the communication index and the
lowest score in the compensation and incentive indexes.
Table 4 presents the basic statistics about the outcomes of the
change program and organizational results attributable to the change
program as perceived by the change strategists. Table 4 shows that the
dependent variable scores present a bias towards successful organizational change programs. These results would be inconsistent with the
claim of some authors (Beer and Nohria, 2000; Doyle et al., 2000) who
have estimated that up to 70% of organizational change programs fail.
Other authors argue that the use of a convenience sample might lead to
an overrepresentation of the successes and an underrepresentation of the
failures of organizational behavior events (Becker and Gerhart, 1996).
Table 2
Means, standard deviations and Chronbach's alpha for all four CMPs indexes for change strategists and change receptors data sets. (This table also shows the correlations and paired
t-tests for comparison of means between data sets for the four indexes.)
Change strategists
Index
Index
Index
Index
1:
2:
3:
4:
***p b 0,001.
Change receptors
Mean
Std. Dev.
Chronbach''s alpha
Mean
Std. Dev.
Chronbach's alpha
3.84
3.61
3.93
3.01
0.75
0.78
0.86
0.92
0.83
0.86
0.85
0.87
3.41
3.21
3.54
2.57
0.74
0.66
0.66
0.84
0.87
0.90
0.83
0.93
0.39***
0.50***
0.51***
0.45***
4.80***
5.19 ***
4.67 ***
4.56 ***
270
Table 4
Dependent variables maximum scores, minimum scores, means and standard deviation.
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Degree of attainment of change program objectives and deadlines [Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (completely)]
Degree in which the objectives pursued by the change program were attained
2.0
5.0
Degree in which the deadlines pursued by the change program were attained
1.0
5.0
Percentage in which the following organizational outcomes increased/decreased due to the change program
The company's sales increased/decreased
30%
The company's prots increased/decreased
17.5%
The company's operational performance increased/decreased
20%
The company's employees performance increased/decreased
30%
210%
100%
100%
100%
3.83
3.57
19.4%
14.4%
20.7%
19.2%
Standard deviation
0.73
0.89
0.379
0.238
0.243
0.243
Table 5
Regression coefcients, F for R2, Beta coefcients and their standard error for the regression analyses using the indexes of CMPs use as predictors of perceptions of change in
organizational result variables and accomplishment of change program objectives and deadlines. Standard errors for beta coefcients in parenthesis. (*p b 0,05; **p b 0,01; n/s: not
signicant).
Constant
Ln of number of employees
Industry dummy
Change Magnitude dummy
Index 1: Diagnosis & Alignment
Index 2: Communication
Index 3: Leadership
Index 4: Compensation & incentives
R2
Adjusted R2
F for R2
Sales
Prots
Operational performance
Employee performance
Program objectives
accomplished
Program deadlines
accomplished
Beta
Beta
Beta
Beta
Beta
Beta
3.08** (0.45)
0.07 n/s (0.05)
0.01 n/s (0.15)
0.01 n/s (0.07)
0.45** (0.15)
0.06 n/s (0.21)
0.18 n/s (0.15)
0.19* (0.09)
0.20
0.13
2.79*
2.33** (0.58)
0.06 n/s (0.06)
0.03 n/s (0.18)
0.01 n/s (0.08)
0.43* (0.19)
0.08 n/s (0.25)
0.10 n/s (0.19)
0.33* (0.13)
0.20
0.13
2,87**
practices not always reaches those to whom they target. One possible
explanation for this difference in perceptions is the existence of a selfserving bias: change strategists are accountable in their organizations
for using CMPs, therefore they will tend to report a higher use of them,
especially if their superiors exercise control, or if social desirability
exists for the use of these practices (Ganster et al., 1983). Second, this
paper conrms previous research results that rms use more frequently CMPs relating to the change preparation stage in comparison
to CMPs used in later stages of change implementation. Several
arguments could help explain this nding. First, failure rates at the
rst stages of the change process (i.e. developing a new vision)
might make harder or impossible to execute later stage practices
(i.e. communication of change plan). Second, since change strategists
are primarily responsible for preparing the change program, and they
also control most resources in a rm, they could have a bias towards
allocating a disproportionate amount of the rms' resources (i.e.
human and capital) to the rst stages of the change process, and be
less sensitive to the resources needed for later stages, which other
employee groups, such as change receptors, might execute. Finally,
change preparation practices (i.e. organizational diagnosis), emphasize the use of analytical skills, for which managers are usually highly
trained, while implementation practices, such as communicating the
change plan or understanding and managing a variety of social and
interest groups, require an emphasis on the use of interpersonal and
political skills. Managers show a more irregular distribution of these
latter skills (Higgins et al., 2002; Groves, 2005).
Finally, one of the most important contributions of this paper, is the
evidence that suggests that the use of these CMPs has an impact on the
outcomes of organizational change programs but not on perceptual
measures of organizational performance. After controlling for organizational size, change program intensity and industry sector, the use
of CMPs has a positive relation with the accomplishment of change
program objectives and deadlines, and no impact on perceived
organizational outcomes (changes in sales, nancial results of the
rm, operational productivity, and employee performance). One
possible explanation for the lack of relation between CMP use and
perceived organizational results, is that CMPs are intentionally executed
to impact the change program and not necessarily the organizational
results. If the change program is the adequate response to organizational
needs, and its implementation is successful, the program should
impact organizational results. But if a successfully implemented change
program is not the adequate response to organizational needs, the
program might not produce better organizational results. In the same
manner, the impact of a change program on organizational results might
occur only in the long run (i.e. development of new products).
Multiple limitations to this study exist. Some limitations have
relation with the sample, others with the instrument of data collection
and others with the scope of the results. Limitations due to the sample
come from the convenience origin of the surveyed companies. In spite
of the diversity of industries included, the sample derives from the
availability of contact with the companies. In this sense the sample
prevents generalizing these ndings to other rms. Stronger restrictions come from the fact that all rms in the sample were operating in
Chile thus allowing for the existence of non controlled local cultural
biases.
Another limitation comes from the selection of CMPs included in
the survey. As stated earlier literature discusses a wide variety of
CMPs and there is no consensus upon a denitive set of practices.
Even though this paper included a wide variety of CMPs suggested in
literature, plenty of space exists to improve in the renement and
classication of CMPs. The study includes deleting item number 5
(appropriate use of training) because of statistical reasons (high
correlation with all indexes). But this item is conceptually different
from all indexes resulting from the factor analyses here executed.
Future research should consider and study the relevance of training as
a practice that helps in the success of change programs.
271
272
McGartland Rubio D, Berg-Weger M, Tebb SS, Lee ES, Rauch S. Objectifying content
validity: conducting a content validity study in social work research. Soc Work Res
2003;27:94-104 [June].
Meyer CB, Stensaker IG. Developing capacity for change. J Chang Manag 2006;6:21731
[June].
Nadler D. Champions of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1998.
Nguyen Huy Q. Time, temporal capability, and planned change. Acad Manag Rev 2001;26:
60123 [October].
Podsakoff P, MacKenzie S, Lee J, Podsakoff N. Common method biases in behavioral
research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl
Psychol 2003;88(5):879903.
Porter LW. A decade of change in the business school: from complacency to tomorrow.
Selection 1997;13(2):18.
Powell TC. Organizational alignment as competitive advantage. Strateg Manage J 1992;13:
11934.
Raineri A. Habilidades Gerenciales: Anlisis Emprico de una Muestra de Administradores
y Profesionales en Chile. Rev Abante 1998;1(2):21334.