Assessment
52
Copyright © 2019, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Chapter 3
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-6155-2.ch003
ABSTRACT
This chapter presents the findings of two closely related studies about a selection of premises on which some organization development (OD) practices are based. In the first study, 18 taken-for-granted as- sumptions have been held against the scientific literature using rapid evidence assessment (REA) as a method. In light of the available evidence, some of these assumptions proved to be untenable. In a second study, practitioners were confronted with these assumptions and fed back the assessments. These studies, combined together, show that practitioners are often not aware of scientific findings relevant to their field. On the other hand, despite all the reseach that has been done and published, the scientific literature often does not provide satisfactory and conclusive answers to the questions practitioners grapple with.
INTRODUCTION
Behavior change is at the core of Organization Development (OD). OD can be defined as “a system-wide application and transfer of behavioral science knowledge to the planned development, improvement, and reinforcement of the strategies, structures, and processes that lead to organization effectiveness” (Cum- mings & Worley, 2015, p. 2). OD integrates hard and soft aspects of change. In other words, it combines the perspectives of strategy-structure-systems and purpose-process-people (Ghoshal & Bartlett, 1996).
Reconsidering Essentials of Organization Development:
An Evidence-Based Change Management Perspective
Wouter ten Have Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Ernst Graamans Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Steven ten Have Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands
53
Reconsidering Essentials of Organization Development
In this chapter we reconsider important aspects and interventions of OD by scholarly assessment and an assessment by practitioners. Eighteen popular assumptions regarding behavior change are held against relevant scientific literature. In addition the results are used in a second study in which we confront prac- titioners with these assessed assumptions. Together the studies validate foundations of OD and change, and flag some common misunderstandings with regard to OD and change.
Managers and consultants fail to recognize opportunities for change and at other times cause mistakes, because they do not know or use the available scientific evidence when implementing change initiatives. They often prefer approaches to change based on more popular and appealing management concepts over less accessible scholarly knowledge. We contend, that many of the themes managers and consultants deem relevant for practice are often underresearched, especially related to methods and contingencies (see also Lewis, Schmisseur, Stephens & Weir, 2006). At the same time, those managers and consultants might not be aware of the increasing amount of relevant research that actually is available and some of the findings that go against the more popular views of what is sound practice. That is worrisome to say the least. But, by making people aware of relevant scientific evidence and by making that evidence more accessible, the profession and the actual practice can be improved substantially. Inherent in Cummings’ and Worley’s (2015) definition is the need for an evidence-based approach to OD. One might argue that without scientific evidence or knowledge, any attempt to planned change may not be called OD at all. Bridging scientific knowledge and practice is what OD stands for.
Managers and consultants champion goal-oriented, purposeful and efficient change in order to realize economic and social targets. The contexts in which they have to operate are becoming increasingly com- plex. Their organizations are facing digitalization, globalization, changing laws and regulations, issues like sustainability and compliance, conflicting stakeholder interests and more emancipated customers. This leads to a growing pressure to act and a greater susceptibility to quick fixes. A proper diagnosis of the problem and a complete picture of the specific context in which they have to act are often lacking. Managers learn on the job from the people around them, or by working with consultants. In addition, they look for knowledge offered in management books and, albeit less often, available in the form of scholarly studies. With the aim of working towards a more evidence-based approach to OD and change, the central question we try to answer in this chapter is the following:
How sound are the underlying theories, methods and ideas on which some of the prominent views on change, that managers and consultants adhere to, are based?
To contribute to evidence-based OD and change we tested the prominent views in popular manage- ment books and of leading consultancy agencies on their scholarly merits. We also asked approximately three hundred managers and consultants of both public and private organizations in the Netherlands to demonstrate how tenable they think those views are. This chapter provides an abridged report of these two studies. The good news is that, generally speaking, many of the practitioners’ views seem to correspond with the available evidence. Through acquired subject knowledge, experience and also intuitively-acquired action knowledge, they know what works and what does not. However, some prominent views appear to be unfounded given the available evidence. Caution is advised in those cases.
The Story of Change: A Tentative Version
Thinking of Holland
54
Reconsidering Essentials of Organization Development
I see broad rivers, Slow and never ending, Flowing through the lowlands, Lined with long rows … (Marsman, 1936/2012)
In similar vein as in the first lines of this Dutch realistic poem titled Remembering Holland, we, as both scientists and change management practitioners, asked ourselves how a ‘realistic’ story about change management would be like. That story is directly relevant to OD as well. In general OD is perceived as being more holistic in approach than change management (CM), and more strongly underpinned by humanistic values. However, there is considerable overlap between the two disciplines. Conceptually this distinction between OD and CM is easier to make than in actual practice. OD and CM practitioners work on similar assignments and a good change management practitioner knows that in order to succeed an integral perspective on change is warranted. Hence that in practice OD and CM cannot be meaning- fully separated as distinct disciplines, the overlap being greater than the differences. We contend that our findings are therefore unreservedly generalizable to OD. So we asked ourselves how tenable or ‘true’ that story on change actually was. Something may be familiar or appealing, but that does not mean it is tenable or true. The story we constructed is based on eighteen assumptions about behavior change. It is an ideal story based on claims by popular management books and consultants. The selection of as- sumptions is a result of an earlier study on issues managers face during change for which 262 managers from 43 organizations, including Philips, DSM and a ministry, were interviewed (ten Have, ten Have & Janssen, 2009). In terms of management books we used an idea and research by Lewis et al. (2006). We replicated and followed their approach, albeit with one difference; while they focused primarily on communication during organization change, we focused on organization change as such. We made a selection of 54 bestsellers relevant to organization change and change management. From the top 100 bestsellers in 2015 on organization change and change management (from a total of 17,559 books listed on Amazon) we selected 23 books that are relevant to the perspective of managers and other practitio- ners, such as consultants. The criteria were: (1) focus on the how instead of the what of the organization change; (2) written from a position, claim or clear convictions and assumptions instead of primarily focused on oversight; (3) giving recommendations and guidance for the actual practice (ten Have et al, 2016). Later we expanded the timespan and scope by adding a re-evaluation of the selection by Lewis et al. (2006). Based on that we added 31 books, raising the total to 54 books. A team of four independent researchers reviewed the books and marked the assumptions and claims. Through team analysis and a process of validation through consensus, a list of 18 assumptions was drawn up and selected for further review. Together these assumptions form the ‘story of change’:
Given the fact that seventy per cent of all change initiatives fail, clearly there is a need for an effective, professional framework to manage change. Since it is important to know what we are aiming for and what we want to achieve, a clear vision is of the essence. In addition, there should be a sense of urgency to nourish change and motivate people. Leaders are crucial when implementing change and so trust in them is essential. When managing change, a transformational style of leadership is more effective that a transactional one. It requires leaders with a strong emotional intelligence. Support from management is a critical condition for the success of change. A leader cannot do it alone, so a strong leading coalition is needed. Furthermore, the abilities of the employees determine the change capacity of the organiza- tion. Participation is the key to successful change, but resisting change is damaging. A fair process is
55
Reconsidering Essentials of Organization Development
important to realize change successfully. In essence, it is all about behavior. The organizational culture can also be an important tool to stimulate the desired performance, but is it difficult and it takes a lot of time to change that. Setting targets, in combination with feedback, is a powerful instrument for change leaders. Employee commitment is essential for successful change and moreover it correlates positivity with performance. Financial impulses such as variable rewards stimulate performance and encourages further improvement. When realizing change, self-managing teams perform better than teams managed traditionally (see also ten Have, ten Have, Huijsmans & Otto, 2016, pp.29).
Limited Knowledge of Behavior Change
Behavior and organization change is the basis of an international industry worth billions – as illustrated by popular management books, the convictions of leading consultancy firms (also expressed in their services), the convictions of gurus and ideas presented at conferences. We are afraid that a substantial segment of the industry is based on ideas, assumptions, models or approaches that have not been tested properly, and that do not rise above the level of quackery and the placebo effect. Renowned author and management consultant Noel M. Tichy already sounded the alarm over thirty years ago:
Over the past two decades billions of dollars were spent on management and organization development with the apparent intention of changing organizations. Examples are programmes to implement Manage- ment By Objectives (MBO), programmes for organization development, the managerial grid, leadership courses, models for strategic planning and, more recent, quality circles. Almost none of these efforts were structurally monitored or assessed. As a result, methods to improve organizations have come and gone one after the other, and yet we are none the wiser of which methods work, which ones don’t and why. (Tichy, 1983, pp. 363)
We contend this warning is still relevant today. However, we see little restraint in the field. The billion-dollar industry already described by Tichy (1983) did not come about thanks to caution, doubt and restraint. On the contrary, a great number of consultants rashly transport solutions from one sector to the next, from one culture to another; opportunistically embracing a one-size-fits-all approach to orga- nization change. Management gurus and their publishers pass on nuance and critical reflection; they sell simple solutions for complex problems. The same applies to success stories like the one of Jack Welch and GE. ‘Intuitively appealing’ and ‘quite promising’ are more important criteria that ‘durability’ and ‘context-sensitivity’. Consultancy concepts and management books also leave their mark in the field. People base far-reaching, drastic decisions on research that is questionable, context-dependent or simply incorrect. We must note that apparently we have not succeeded in positioning the available knowledge that can counteract this. Many managers and consultants most likely live and work by a story that is flawed for a significant part. They wrongly support or reject assumptions with regard to behavior change. Their frame of reference, and the certainty with which they (think they can) apply it, in part contradicts the available scholarly knowledge. The interventions designed on the basis of these untenable frames might not work, lead to unnecessary costs, can result in economic and socio-emotional damage, and obstruct better interventions, careful diagnoses and solutions that do work.
56
Reconsidering Essentials of Organization Development
THE FIRST STUDY: 18 ASSUMPTIONS SCHOLARLY ASSESSED
In the first study, eighteen assumptions with respect to organization change, selected as mentioned earlier, were studied. The eighteen assumptions are:
1. Seventy per cent of all changes fail (e.g., Maurer, 2010; Mourier & Smith, 2001) 2. A clear vision is essential for successful change (e.g., Allen, 2002; Ibarra, 2015) 3. Without a sense of urgency people do not change (e.g., Kotter, 1996, 2012) 4. Trusting the manager is necessary for successful change (e.g., Kouzes & Posner, 2012) 5. When managing change, a transformational style of leadership is more effective than a transactional
style of leadership (e.g., Collins, 2001; Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky, 2009) 6. Organization change requires managers with a high degree of emotional intelligence (e.g., Goleman,
2015) 7. Support from the immediate manager is decisive for the success of change (e.g., Larkin & Larkin,
1994; Kouzes & Posner, 2012) 8. An influential leading coalition is necessary to effect change in an organization (e.g., Hesselbein
& Johnston, 2002; Kotter, 1996/2012) 9. The ability of employees to change determines an organization’s capacity for change (e.g., Conner,
1992; Mourier & Smith, 2001) 10. Participation is the key to successful change (e.g., Connors & Smith, 2011; Watkins, 2013; Zaffron
& Logan, 2009) 11. Resistance is damaging for change to succeed (e.g. Lawrence, 1954) 12. A fair change process is important for successful change (Brockner, 2006) 13. To change the organizational culture takes a lot of time and is complicated (e.g., Davidson, 2002;
Humble, Molesky & O’Reilly, 2015; Watkins, 2013) 14. The organizational culture is related to the performance of an organization (e.g., Connors & Smith,
2011; Keller & Aiken, 2014) 15. Setting targets, combined with the giving of (periodic) feedback, is a powerful instrument for man-
agers to effect change (e.g., Novak, 2012) 16. Commitment to change is essential for the successful implementation of it (e.g., Fredberg, Beer,
Eisenstat, Foote, & Norrgren, 2008) 17. Financial rewards are effective to stimulate change and to improve performance (e.g., Heller, 1998;
Conner, 1992, 2006) 18. Self-managing teams perform better than traditionally organized teams when effecting change
(e.g., Laloux, 2014)
We have placed the 18 assumptions on which the initial ‘story of change’ is based on in the operating table. The method used was that of the Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA). The REA is a frequently-used method for the description and assessment of scholarly research. The background of a premise is clearly drawn up in a REA and it indicates how the search for relevant available insights was conducted. The results are tested on their reliability and determine the probability of a premise. Only the most relevant studies are identified and only those studies were selected that rigorously meet the quality and relevance criteria drawn up by several researchers (Higgins & Green, 2006; Petticrew & Robberts, 2006). As opposed
57
Reconsidering Essentials of Organization Development
to the customary literature list, a REA is “transparent, verifiable, reproducible, and, therefore, less biased and more relevant” (ten Have et al., 2016, p. 62). The assessments have yielded the following insights:
1. Seventy per cent of all changes fail
Scholarly research does not support this premise (e.g., Cândido & Santos, 2015; Hughes, 2011; Slater, 2015). We too recognize that change can be difficult, but no reliable study has shown that change initia- tives are doomed to fail. However, the source of this premise can be explained. Repeating and stressing this constantly appears to be a coping mechanism for managers responsible for an organization change. It is a negative success warning that can legitimize failing beforehand as well as the use of consultants.
2. A clear vision is essential for successful change
It appears that a clear vision is necessary for successful change (Baum, Locke & Kirkpatrick, 1998; Hoch, Roeding, Purkert & Lindner, 1999). Scholarly research points in that direction, although the solid- ity of that claim is not all that convincing. When a vision meets the correct requirements (such as clarity about the targets, being inspiring and being motivating), it does contribute to the successful realization of change (e.g., Farmer, Slater & Wright, 1998; Luo & Jiang, 2014). So it is recommended to clearly define and communicate the vision and related targets when managing change. This does not mean that the result of these efforts per definition must be the creation of one common vision. Employees, it turns out, paint their own picture based on their experiences. The main function of a clear vision appears to be to galvanize people and to get things moving.
3. Without a sense of urgency people do not change
Scholarly research does not support this assumption. But it appears that urgency incites people to change their behavior and, in that way, can contribute to change (Akgün, Lynn & Byrne, 2006). How- ever, when the urgency is artificially created, for example by a manager framing an event as a crisis, or when employees are not able to learn the required new behavior, it can lead employees to think in the short-term and to strive for survival (Gray, 1999).
4. Trusting the manager is necessary for successful change
Scholarly research shows that trusting management is indeed a very important factor for change to suc- ceed (e.g., Balliet & Van Lange, 2013; Colquitt, Scott & LePine, 2007; Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). Although creating trust is not a one-way street, leaders can certainly exert influence on their own trustworthiness. For instance, by promoting authenticity and integrity and by being honest about their competences and shortcomings. Showing interest in the employees also contributes to the increase of trust and in the long term can lead to better insights (Colquitt et al., 2007).
5. When managing change, a transformational style of leadership is more effective than a transactional style of leadership
58
Reconsidering Essentials of Organization Development
Scholarly research shows that transformational leaders can indeed make a positive contribution to organization change (Chiaburu, Smith, Wang & Zimmerman, 2015; Herrmann & Felfe, 2013; Lowe, Kroeck & Sivasubramaniam, 1996; Wang, Courtright & Colbert, 2011) However, that does not mean that they are per definition more effective than transactional leaders. Transactional leadership styles have also been found to positively influence certain change outcomes (Burpitt, 2008; Diab, 2014; Vaccaro, Jansen, Van Den Bosch & Volberda, 2012; Zagorsek, Dimovski & Skerlavaj, 2009). The effectivity of the style of leadership depends on the targets linked to the changes. When an accomplishment of a group or the creativity of employees are decisive for the success of the changes, a transformational style of leadership is more effective. But if the individual productivity is a crucial factor for success, then a transactional style is more effective (e.g. Wang, Oh, Courtrights & Colbert, 2011, Chiaburu, Smith, Wang & Zim- merman, 2014). In many cases, a balance between the two sides is needed to realize change successfully.
6. Organization change requires managers with a high degree of emotional intelligence
Based on scholarly research one can seriously question this premise. Emotional intelligence (EQ) is weakly linked in a positive way to work performance (O’Boyle, Humphrey, Pollack, Hawver & Story, 2011; Joseph, Jin, Newman & O’Boyle, 2015; Van Rooy & Viswesvaran, 2004) and work climate, but the premise that a high degree is required is not supported by research. So counting on leaders with a high degree of emotional intelligence does not appear to be the revolutionary solution for achieving successful change. And although EI seems to predict some outcomes its added value over intelligence (IQ) and the Big Five personality traits is close to zero according to Joseph and Newman (2010).
7. Support from the immediate manager is decisive for the success of change
According to scholarly research support from the immediate manager is an important factor to increase commitment (Edmonson & Boyer, 2013; Neves, 2011; Ng & Sorensen, 2008), satisfaction (Edmonson & Boyer, 2013; Luchman & Gonzáles-Morales; Mor Barak, Travis, Pyun & Xie 2008; Ng & Sorensen, 2008) and performance (Edmonson & Boyer, 2013). Employees especially feel insecure during times of change, so it would be wise for the manager to be accessible, to show compassion and to take the time to listen to employees and use their input whenever possible (Logan & Ganster, 2007).
8. An influential leading coalition is necessary to effect change in an organization
The effect of a leading coalition to realize change has not been sufficiently researched by schol- ars. At the same time, it appears self-evident that – based on Kotter’s (1992) description of a leading coalition – such a team with enough power (e.g. Lines, 2007), credibility and expertise (e.g., Gabris, Golembiewski & Ihrke, 2001; Posner & Kouzes, 1988), and strong leadership skills (e.g., Gilley, Dixon & Gilley, 2008) would be more effective in realizing change than one individual or a team of individuals that do not have those skills.
9. The ability of employees to change determines an organization’s capacity for change
There is insufficient scholarly support for this claim. Studies do confirm the importance of investing in the capabilities of employees, but also indicate that means such as money, time and knowledge as well
59
Reconsidering Essentials of Organization Development
as elements like systems, leadership and structure determine an organization’s capacity for change to a significant degree (Buick, Blackman, O’Donell, O’Flynn & West, 2015; Judge, Naoumova & Douglas, 2009; Soparnot, 2011).
10. Participation is the key to successful change
The many studies on the effects of participation appear to indicate that this assumption is unfounded. Scholarly research shows that participation and successful organization change are only weakly related (Wagner & Lepine, 1999). However, what is known is that participation enables managers and employ- ees to share knowledge, which improves the quality of the decision-making process. Also participative strategies are not proven to be superior to more authoritarian strategies in all instances (Kleingeld, Van Mierlo & Arenas, 2011).
11. Resistance is damaging for change to succeed
Scholarly research into the effects of resistance is scarce and the methodology is weak. Nevertheless, results do show a possible (low) negative effect on target realization (Kunze, Boehm & Bruch, 2013), job satisfaction (Oreg, 2006) and creative performance (Hon, Bloom & Crant, 2014). There are insuffi- cient studies which confirm that resistance as such is damaging to the success of change. The important question is which of the underlying factors determine the resistance and how these can be dealt with. In that framework it is important for a change manager to consider resistance an important signal and set out to unravel the underlying factors that may be the cause of that resistance such as a lack of trust in the leader, low job satisfaction and low commitment.
12. A fair change process is important for successful change
This premise is supported by scholarly research (e.g., Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Van Dieren- donck & Jacobs, 2002; Viswesvaran & Ones, 2002). A fair change process is seen as a process that is gone through consistently, accurately, without prejudice and openly, and primarily affects the degree of acceptance (Tyler & De Cremer, 2005) and commitment (Bernerth, Armenakis, Field & Walker, 2007) during the change process. A lack of time or means can hamper the implementation of a fair process, for instance due to the interests of the stakeholders. In such instances, it is advisable for the change manager to be transparent about deviating from an essentially fair process, by explaining the decisions made and putting them in perspective.
13. To change the organizational culture takes a lot of time and is complicated
Based on the many theories about culture, logic and intuition, the premise appears self-evident. However, it is only slightly supported by scarce empirical studies. These are mostly very insightful case studies that nonetheless by their very nature have to be appraised as studies with a lower level of evi- dence (e.g, Faull, Kalliath & Smith, 2004). This premise is difficult to prove or disprove, in part because organizational culture as a construct is multi-faceted and in itself already implies tenacious behavior. A potential danger is that when something is poorly understood, but tenacious problems arise, manag-
60
Reconsidering Essentials of Organization Development
ers may hide behind the construct ‘organizational culture’ and refrain from analyzing the situation any further (i.e. search for the underlying behavior patterns).
14. The organizational culture is related to the performance of an organization
Several studies show that the organizational culture has an effect on many important performance indicators (e.g., Biswas, 2009; Farley, Hoenig & Ismail, 2008). However, on the basis of these studies it is not possible to draw an unambiguous conclusion about the effect of organizational culture on the performance of organizations in general. There appears to be no agreement in the literature on what culture exactly is and how to measure it (e.g., Dauber, 2012). The fundamental question of exactly how an abstract notion like organizational culture affects concrete behavior and performance in the first place remains unanswered (Voestermans & Verheggen, 2013). And without specifically indicating the concrete behavior they are referring to, and how that is related to the desired results, it is of little use to the practi- tioner. Therefore we recommend managers not to settle for generalizations and abstractions in the guise of culture, but to get to the bottom of what people actually do (Graamans, ten Have & ten Have, 2016).
15. Setting targets, combined with the giving of (periodic) feedback, is a powerful instrument for man- agers to effect change
Based on scholarly research one could say that this assumption is most likely true. Setting specific, measurable, acceptable, realistic and time-limited targets contributes to better performance (e.g., Mento, Steel & Karren, 1987). It is important in these cases to regularly give feedback, on the process as well as the actual (interim) results (e.g., Kluger & DeNisi, 1996; Neubert, 1998). It is also important that this feedback is aimed at (a better execution of) the task or the job, because feedback on the general performance of an employee can distract him or her from the task at hand (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996).
16. Commitment to change is essential for the successful implementation of it
Commitment to change can, according to scholars, be important to successful implementation (Her- scovitch & Meyer, 2002). Because, when employees commit themselves to change targets, they will also be tempted to contribute to activities linked to the change process. At the same time, they state that this commitment is not a guarantee for successful change. Other factors, such as trusting the leader and support from/to management, appear to play a more important role (ten Have et al., 2016).
17. Financial rewards are effective to stimulate change and to improve performance
According to scholarly research, financial rewards are an effective instrument to motivate employees and improve their performance (e.g., Cerasoli, Nicklin & Ford, 2014; Garbers & Konradt, 2014; Wegge et al, 2010; Weibel, Rost & Osterloh, 2010). It is important to take a good look at the context of the change. Rewards that are directly linked to clear-cut results (such as commissions) appear to be especially effec- tive when employees have to perform less interesting tasks and are judged on quantity. However, these direct rewards have a negative effect on the intrinsic motivation of employees. Intrinsically motivated employees who are primarily judged on quality, appear to consider rewards in the form of, for instance, an education (indirect reward) a better instrument (Cerasoli et al., 2014). Finally, Garbers and Konradt
61
Reconsidering Essentials of Organization Development
(2014) state that when a team has increased its efforts the reward should be divided evenly among the team members, otherwise it could damage the individual motivation.
18. Self-managing teams perform better than traditionally organized teams when effecting change
This general premise is not supported by scholarly research. To test this assumption, the research performed so far is inadequate, in part because the term ‘self-management’ is still relatively young. What can be said is that contextual factors play a large role in the success of self-managing teams. Sometimes evidence is presented of a positive relation between self-managing teams and performance (e.g, Fausing, Joensson, Lewandowski & Bligh, 2015) and sometimes research cannot establish evidence to support it (e.g, Gupta, Huang & Niranjan, 2010). Especially in organizations with a high degree of hierarchy, regulations and procedures, self-managing teams appear to perform less effectively (Tata & Prasad, 2004). In high-tech companies where innovation plays a prominent role, self-managing teams appear to perform better (Patanakul, Chen & Lynn, 2012).
The Story of Change: A More Realistic Version
The eighteen scholarly-researched assumptions have led to a more realistic ‘story of change’ – a better and more accurate story than the story based on the more than fifty popular management books about change and organizational behavior. But better and more accurate does not mean easier or shorter. Preci- sion and nuance create a longer story. Moreover, the new story is also not finished and probably never will be. But it can keep getting better and even fuller when new and even better scholarly research and practical experiences find a place:
The conviction that 70 per cent of all change initiatives fail is a poorly researched and false starting point (e.g, Hughes, 2011). The assumption that change initiatives have a high risk of failing is mislead- ing and can be damaging. This can seriously hamper the change process, because it creates uncertainty, blocks innovation and it has a negative influence on the learning process. In addition, this widely shared conviction can become the basis for negative self-fulfilling prophecies.
During change people need a sense of direction: a vision, mission, goal or a dream that is inspiring and helps one deal with the anxiety and insecurity. Change initiatives are started for a variety of reasons and are elected, imposed or forced, by one’s own ambition or a crisis. A sense of urgency is not a necessary condition for successful change. Managers should not create an artificial crisis as a way to force change.
Trust in leaders is definitely a crucial condition to realize change successfully. The most effective style of leadership during a change process depends on the type of change and the specific context. Either a transformational or a transactional style (or a combination of both styles) can be suitable and effective. Emotional intelligence has an influence on both performance and work environment, therefore it can add a positive contribution to change processes. However, emotional intelligence as such does not provide a revolutionary approach to changing organizations and people. The support of immediate managers on the other hand definitely is a critical condition for change to be successful.
When managing change it is important to know which characteristics contribute to performance, and they should be embedded in a leading coalition or a strong leadership team. To build up the required change capacity both the employees and the organizational capacities must be developed. The main driving forces for that are strategy, structure, systems and purpose, social and collaborative processes, and the people themselves. These driving forces must form a cohesive whole.
62
Reconsidering Essentials of Organization Development
In certain situations participation in change processes can be helpful, but is not the key to successful change. Close attention must be paid to understand the resistance to change, considering the negative underlying factors that can exert influence on, for instance, target realization, job satisfaction and cre- ative performance. A fair change process is important to the successful realization of change, because when procedural fairness is included as an element it can have a positive influence on the acceptance of the results of change. Organizational culture, and its relationship with change and performance, has an intuitive appeal. Still, it is a problematical concept. Users of the concept ‘culture’ run the risk of getting entangled in metaphorical descriptions that can possibly result in damaging stereotypes. It can get in the way of an essential good analysis and the solutions based on it. The combination of goal setting and feedback is a powerful tool that change leaders can use to change the behavior of employees. Different financial rewards can be used to stimulate motivation and performance. In doing so, it is of the essence that managers have a clear idea of the desired behavior and of the various methods that stimulate this behavior, considering the damaging consequences financial rewards can have on intrinsic motivation. The commitment of employees, which can manifest in a variety of ways, is a critical factor in change processes and has a positive relationship with performance.
The current popularity of self-managing teams is not justified by available scholarly evidence. There- fore, the decision to set up self-managing teams as a tool for change should not be a self-evident one, but should be considered carefully.
With the aid of scholarly research and with gratitude to the popular literature on behavior change, our study has come up with a rich set of relevant insights. This can contribute to the design and ap- plication of better and more accurate change management. However, it also calls for more prudence, precision and a continuously searching attitude, as a companion to the responsibility managers have. We researched eighteen assumptions. We have accomplished something, but the journey continues, with additional reflections on the now completed study, undoubtedly with new research from scholars and the field of practitioners. From our side we created a first follow-up study by confronting practitioners with the eighteen assumptions.
THE SECOND STUDY: PRACTITIONERS ON THE 18 ASSUMPTIONS
In the first study the central question was: does science support the premise and the claim it makes? Based on the answers, each premise was qualified as true, mixed (or contingency dependent) or false. In some instances there was too little evidence to assess a premise on its scholarly merits (for details, see Ten Have et al., 2016). In the second study we presented the premises to 295 practitioners by way of an online questionnaire. Using a five-point scale, respondents could indicate to what extent they agreed with each premise. We also asked them to fill in their gender, age, number of years in the business, number of years in a management position, and current or most recent position. The respondents (70 per cent men, 30 per cent women) were employed primarily as managers (37 per cent), external consultants (33 per cent) and internal consultants (10 per cent). The results of the study show which views on change are and are not supported by practitioners. Based on the analyzed scholarly studies we are able to see which views of the practitioners are supported by the available evidence and which are not. The results and insights were then summarized (see also ten Have et al., 2016). These eighteen premises combined tell the initial story of change. They are a starting point for developing a theory about change. To what extent is this starting point tenable? To what extent is this theory supported by scholarly evidence? Which
63
Reconsidering Essentials of Organization Development
premises and what part of the story of change are supported by practitioners? To what extent does sci- ence support their views on change? Now follows a description in three parts. The first part focuses on the premises that have a scholarly basis and are supported by the practice. In the second part we discuss the premises that are supported by the majority of the 295 managers and consultants, but where the available scholarly knowledge leaves plenty to be desired. The third part deals with the premises that the vast majority of managers and consultants believe to be true, while the scholarly evidence mostly suggests the opposite. Due to a lack of space, for the scholarly underpinnings and references we refer readers to Barends, Rousseau and Briner (2014) and ten Have et al. (2016).
This Works and We Know It
Of the eighteen premises, five are convincingly supported by the available scholarly evidence. These five premises are also endorsed by a majority (at times a large one) of the respondents in our study.
Premise 2: A clear vision is essential for successful change
Of the respondents 87 per cent ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ with the premise that a clear vision is required for successful change. Rightfully so, because one of the things science teaches us is that orga- nizations with a clear vision perform better than organizations without a clear vision. Research shows that groups with clear and shared targets perform better than groups without clear and shared targets. Setting specific and difficult targets (instead of vague and easily attainable targets) is linked to better performance.
Premise 4: Trusting the manager is necessary for successful change
Three out of four respondents is convinced that trust is necessary for successful change. When we look at the performance or effects we see that trusting the manager and trusting the organization has a positive effect on job satisfaction, commitment, staff turnover and work performance. Trusting the other has a positive effect on the quality of the collaboration as well as a positive effect on the negotiation process and its results.
Premise 7: The support of immediate managers is decisive for a successful change
Scholarly research supports the premise endorsed by 83 per cent of the managers and consultants. First of all, this support has a positive effect on performance and a strong positive effect on job satisfac- tion and commitment. A manager’s support has a downward effect on employees’ intentions of leaving the organization. In addition, a manager’s support has a positive effect on the results of change and the commitment during change. Support also lowers employee stress levels during change.
Premise 15: Setting targets, combined with the giving of (periodic) feedback, is a powerful instrument for managers to effect change
Nine out of ten respondents assumed that setting targets combined with giving feedback is necessary during a change process. And this is true. Especially clear and challenging targets appear to lead to bet-
64
Reconsidering Essentials of Organization Development
ter performance, as opposed to easy, vague or no targets at all. Work performance increases even more when targets are set in combination with regular feedback. However, that effect varies depending on the task. When performing complex tasks setting targets combined with feedback has more of a positive impact than when performing simple tasks.
Premise 12: A fair change process is important for successful change
According to two-thirds of the respondents it is crucial that change is perceived as procedurally just. Research supports this view. Leventhal (1980) even listed the components of procedural justice and these components provide some practical tools for increasing the perceived fairness of the change process. A fair change process has a positive effect on performance, the commitment during change and job satisfaction. In terms of the commitment during change, the positive effect is actually rather large. In addition, fair change processes have a positive effect on accepting change. When employees experience unfairness, they appear to underperform and feel less job satisfaction.
We Think It Works (This Way or Another)
A number of premises require a more nuanced approach. Sometimes there simply is not enough schol- arly research available, at other times the research results are contradictory, or the results depend on the context and the situation. What is interesting is that, when it comes to a few of these premises, the practitioners as a group are less convinced about them as well.
Premise 18: Self-managing teams perform better than traditionally organized teams when effecting change
An example of this lesser consensus is the disagreement among the respondents concerning self- managing teams and change. Of the respondents 35 per cent assumes that self-managing teams perform better than traditionally organized teams; 42 per cent disagrees and 23 per cent does not know. Research especially illustrates that self-managing teams not only offer advantages; significance and effect depend on the specific context. For instance, in organizations with high levels of hierarchy, rules and regula- tions, self-managing teams appear to underperform. In innovative high-tech companies, however, self- managing teams appear to work far better. Self-managing teams have a positive effect on job satisfaction and work ethic. But studies show that self-managing teams with structural problems tend to implement dysfunctional process changes instead of solving their structural problems.
Premise 8: An influential leading coalition is necessary to effect change in an organization
In the case of the importance of leading coalitions there is not much disagreement. Three quarters of the respondents assume that a leading coalition during change works. Scholarly research does not sup- port this point of view, however it did show that factors linked to leading coalitions – such as position of power, expertise, credibility and leadership skills – do have a positive effect during change.
Premise 9: The ability of employees to change determines an organization’s capacity for change
65
Reconsidering Essentials of Organization Development
Nearly three quarters of the managers and consultants assume that the ability of employees to change determines an organization’s capacity for change. However, scholarly research does not support that wholeheartedly. Factors like organizational structures and systems also influence the change capacity of an organization.
Premise 11: Resistance is damaging for change to succeed
Aside from change capacity, the subject of resistance is never far away when it comes to change and behavior. Especially in the popular management literature we researched, resistance is blown up as a subject and is seen as problematic. Most respondents have a different opinion; when it comes to resistance the popular management books appear to have little influence on them. They believe that resistance dur- ing change is not such a big deal. Perhaps they consider resistance part of the game: no pain, no gain. Given the not-exactly-overwhelming available scholarly research, a word of caution is appropriate here. Research shows that resistance can definitely have negative effects on factors that are important to and that can influence change processes, for instance: job satisfaction, the inclination to change position, the degree of commitment, reaching targets, creativity and trusting management. The subject of resistance during change requires a nuanced approach; it is complex and the amount of proper research is limited. Science and practice would benefit from more and better research.
Premise 16: Commitment to change is essential for the successful implementation of it
Commitment also deserves more research. On that subject as well, we have to deal with limited and methodologically weak research. Nuance and restraint are especially important here, because the group of respondents is decidedly positive: 87 per cent believes that commitment to change is essential. Exist- ing scholarly studies, however, show that only a specific kind of commitment (affective) has an effect on performance, and the effect is relatively small at that. But other research does show that specific types of commitment to change, relatively speaking, can better predict support for a change initiative than a more general commitment to the organization.
We Think It Works, But It Doesn’t
It is encouraging that a number of the assumptions managers and consultants adhere to are also sup- ported by scholarly studies: a clear vision, the combination of targets and feedback and the support of the manager. However, scholarly studies also show that a number of assumptions that are quite popular among practitioners are highly debatable; that is alarming.
Premise 6: Organization change requires managers with a high degree of emotional intelligence (EQ)
The value attached to EQ is quite dubious. However, 80 per cent of the respondents believed that organization-change leaders are required to have a high EQ. The high priest of the EQ concept, psycholo- gist and science journalist Daniel Goleman, claims that “for star performance in all jobs, in every field, emotional competence is twice as important as purely cognitive abilities” (Goleman 1998, p. 34). Many believe him, while hundreds of studies have been done that did not produce any convincing evidence to support this claim. Measuring people’s EQ is certainly not any more important than measuring their
66
Reconsidering Essentials of Organization Development
IQ. Nevertheless, there is now an industry around emotional intelligence worth millions and an alleged high or low EQ can make or break careers.
Premise 3: Without a sense of urgency people do not change
Harvard professor John Kotter, quite famous among managers and consultants, sees sense of urgency as a critical condition for successful change. That probably helps to explain why two-thirds of the respon- dents are convinced that change without a sense of urgency will not work. Kotter (1996) even argued for the creation of artificial crises. Naturally, there are situations where change is stimulated by a crisis or necessity, but Kotter’s claim is not supported by scholarly research.
Premise 10: Participation is the key to successful change
Three quarters of the respondents believe that participation is the key to successful change. But scholarly research shows that participation only has a (small) demonstrable effect on productivity and employee satisfaction during the decision-making process.
Premise 17: Financial rewards are effective to stimulate change and to improve performance
A large majority of respondents disagrees with the premise that financial rewards are effective in stimulating change and improving performance. It may well be conceivable and understandable, but the evidence tells a different story. Research has shown that financial rewards can be an effective tool to improve performance, especially in connection with uninteresting tasks and work that is not obviously or intrinsically motivating. In addition, direct rewards, such as commissions, have a positive effect on the extrinsic motivation and in stimulating output, though other research also shows that financial rewards can have a negative effect on the intrinsic motivation of employees. But also that indirect rewards, such as fixed monthly wages or an education, can have a positive effect on the intrinsic motivation and the quality of performance. Indeed, all rewards can certainly be an effective tool to motivate employees and to improve their performance.
Premise 5: When managing change, a transformational style of leadership is more effective than a transactional style of leadership
And finally, we look at leadership during change. More than half the respondents think that transfor- mational leadership is more effective than transactional leadership during a change process. But scholarly research shows that both types of leadership have a positive effect on performance. Research proved that transformational leadership has a positive effect on individual creativity and team performance. But it appears that to realize more complex change tasks, a combination of both styles is more effective and may even be necessary. Whether one style or the other is more effective depends on the specific situation and goal. Creativity fares better under transformational leadership, while individual productivity fares better under transactional leadership.
67
Reconsidering Essentials of Organization Development
CONCLUSION
Changes such as mergers, reorganizations, organization restructuring, strategic reorientations, culture changes and exercises under the guise of ‘lean’ and ‘agile’ have quite an impact. There is a reason why economics professor Arjen van Witteloostuijn stated that the null hypothesis should be: change is not a must (in ten Have & ten Have, 2004). When deciding on change, the possible consequences must be taken into account. A change practitioner must be armed with the knowledge of what works and what does not, in specific contexts and supported by scientific evidence. Change practitioners must be held against the highest professional standard. We do not want to live in buildings that were built by incompetent people. Nor do we want to be operated on by someone other than a competent surgeon. So we should not want to go through a change process with people who have inadequate knowledge and skills. Change is a craft and demands craftsmanship: craftsmen who work with validated design rules, who are aware of the available knowledge and its shortcomings. There is a need for professionals who do not pretend that they are know-it-alls, who know what they do not know, who translate uncertainty into treatment methods and in bespoke approaches. And it includes a body of knowledge that is honest, honourable, with a realistic eye for possibilities and limitations. This point of view and movement are visible in the medical world, which increasingly expects doctors to practice evidence-based medicine. How unlike management, advice and change. Consultancy firms and management authors give advice on and make claims about organization development and change which are often unfounded. Or worse: a substantial portion of premises used in popular management books and consultancy agencies appear to be scientifically incorrect. Ignorance can never be an excuse. Unfounded models and practices are an inappropriate foundation for a professional practice that is in fact unscrupulous, if not corrupt, and more concerned with profits than with the profession itself.
As a result of our study, criticism is primarily aimed at the imbalance between on the one hand the claims of a great many consultants and gurus, and on the other the foundation for them. We analyzed more than fifty of the most popular management books on change and distilled eighteen premises from them. We systematically combed through scholarly magazines, compared them, carefully assessed them and came to a nuanced conclusion. The mission is to separate the wheat from the chaff in change management, which is an important and for many employees a drastic and confrontational profession, in order for the profession to grow and become more mature. Managers and consultants should not shy away from uncertainty, and be uncertain more often. Our study clearly shows that there is ample reason for that and recommends healthy doses of uncertainty. In many cases, a change process is simply very complex and unruly, and not something that is clear-cut. That makes doubt and uncertainty the starting point for a healthy and much-needed exploratory process in an organization. That exploratory process will help practitioners to open up to available knowledge, to consider the options more, to learn to appreciate sensitivity and concern, and depending on the quality of the evidence, select a responsible approach. When there is a lack of evidence, it means one should decide to try prototyping, to experiment and try out things. And when there is sufficient evidence, apply the best method of intervention with confidence and stay the course. In combination with prudence, professional awareness and the available and yet- to-be-developed scholarly evidence, we have nothing to lose and everything to gain in our profession.
Thinking of change management / we see available scholarly knowledge / translated into a more realistic story / widely streaming / through our field of work …
68
Reconsidering Essentials of Organization Development
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This chapter is based on earlier research published in ten Have, S., ten Have, W. D., Huijsmans, A. B., & Otto, M. (2016). Reconsidering change management: Applying evidence-based insights in change management practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
REFERENCES
Akgün, A. E., Lynn, G. S., & Byrne, J. C. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of unlearning in new product development teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(1), 73–88. doi:10.1111/ j.1540-5885.2005.00182.x
Allen, R. C. (2002). Guiding change journeys: A synergistic approach to organizational transformation. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass and Pfeiffer.
Balliet, D., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2013). Trust, conflict, and cooperation: A meta-analysis. Psycho- logical Bulletin, 139(5), 1090–1112. doi:10.1037/a0030939 PMID:23231532
Barends, E., Janssen, B., ten Have, W. D., & ten Have, S. (2013). Effects of change interventions: What kind of evidence do we really have? The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50(1), 5–27. doi:10.1177/0021886312473152
Barends, E., Rousseau, D. M., & Briner, R. B. (2014). Evidence-based management: The basic principles. Amsterdam: Center for Evidence-Based Management.
Baum, J. R., Locke, E. A., & Kirkpatrick, S. A. A. (1998). Longitudinal study of the relation of vision and vision communication to venture growth in entrepreneurial firms. The Journal of Applied Psychol- ogy, 83(1), 43–54. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.1.43
Bernerth, J. B., Armenakis, A. A., Field, H. S., & Walker, H. J. (2007). Justice, cynicism, and commit- ment: A study of important organizational change variables. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43(3), 303–326. doi:10.1177/0021886306296602
Biswas, S. (2009). HR practices as a mediator between organizational culture and transformational leader- ship: Implications for employee performance. Psychological Studies, 54(2), 114–123. doi:10.100712646- 009-0014-5
Brockner, J. (2006). Why it’s so hard to be fair. Harvard Business Review, 84(3), 122–129. PMID:16515160
Buick, F., Blackman, D. A., O’Donell, M. E., O’Flynn, J. L., & West, D. (2015). Can enhanced per- formance management support sector change? Journal of Organizational Change Management, 28(2), 271–289. doi:10.1108/JOCM-12-2013-0249
Burpitt, W. (2009). Exploration versus exploitation: Leadership and the paradox of administration. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 10(2), 227–246. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist. psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.597.8084&rep=rep1&type=pdf
69
Reconsidering Essentials of Organization Development
Cândido, C. J. F., & Santos, P. (2015). Strategy implementation: What is the failure rate? Journal of Management & Organization, 21(2), 237–262. doi:10.1017/jmo.2014.77
Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M., & Ford, M. T. (2014). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: A 40-year meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 908–1008. doi:10.1037/ a0035661 PMID:24491020
Chiaburu, D. S., Smith, T. A., Wang, J., & Zimmerman, R. D. (2015). Relative importance of leader influences for subordinates’ proactive behaviors, prosocial behaviors, and taks performance. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 13(2), 70–86. doi:10.1027/1866-5888/a000105
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Or- ganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 278–321. doi:10.1006/obhd.2001.2958
Collins, J. C. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap … and others don’t. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta- analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 909–927. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.909 PMID:17638454
Conner, D. R. (1992/2006). Managing at the speed of change: How resilient managers succeed and prosper where others fail. New York, NY: Random House.
Connors, R., & Smith, T. (2011). Change the culture, change the game: The breakthrough strategy for energizing your organization and creating accountability for results. New York, NY: Random House.
Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2015). Organization development and change (10th ed.). Mason, OH: Thomson/South-Western.
Dauber, D. (2012). Opposing positions in M&A research: Culture, integration and performance. Cross Cultural Management, 19(3), 375–398. doi:10.1108/13527601211247107
Davidson, J. (2002). The complete idiot’s guide to change management. Indianapolis, IN: Alpha Books.
Diab, S. M. (2014). The impact of leadership styles on selection the areas of organizational change (An empirical study on the Jordanian pharmaceutical companies). International Journal of Business and Management, 9(8), 140–154. doi:10.5539/ijbm.v9n8p140
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for re- search and practice. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611–628. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.611 PMID:12184567
Edmonson, D. R., & Boyer, S. L. (2013). The moderating effect of the boundary spanning role of per- ceived supervisory support: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Business Research, 66(11), 2186–2192. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.01.010
Farley, J. U., Hoenig, S., & Ismail, Z. (2008). Organizational culture, innovativeness, market orientation and firm performance in South Africa: An interdisciplinary perspective. Journal of African Business, 9(1), 59–76. doi:10.1080/15228910802052385
70
Reconsidering Essentials of Organization Development
Farmer, B. A., Slater, J. W., & Wright, K. S. (1998). The role of communication in achieving shared vision under new organizational leadership. Journal of Public Relations Research, 10(4), 219–235. doi:10.12071532754xjprr1004_01
Faull, K., Kalliath, T., & Smith, D. (2004). Organisational culture: The dynamics of culture on or- ganisational change within a rehabilitation center. Organization Development Journal, 22(1), 40–55. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/openview/983ac86bdcdf9febc9c9633c3225ff16/1?pq- origsite=gscholar&cbl=36482
Fausing, M. S., Joensson, T. S., Lewandowski, J., & Bligh, M. (2015). Antecedents of shared leadership: Empowering leadership and interdependence. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 36(3), 271–291. doi:10.1108/LODJ-06-2013-0075
Fredberg, T., Beer, M., Eisenstat, R., Foote, N., & Norrgren, F. (2008). Embracing commitment and performance: CEOs and practices to manage paradox. Harvard Business School. Retrieved from http:// www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/08-052_18284f5a-c48b-45e9-acfd-8b3d3242514e.pdf
Gabris, G. T., Golembiewski, R. T., & Ihrke, D. M. (2001). Leadership credibility, board relations, and administrative innovation at the local government level. Journal of Public Administration: Research and Theory, 11(1), 89–108. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a003496
Garbers, Y., & Konradt, U. (2014). The effect of financial incentives on performance: A quantitative review of individual and team-based financial incentives. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(1), 102–137. doi:10.1111/joop.12039
Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. A. (1996). Rebuilding a behavioral context: A blueprint for corporate renewal. Sloan Management Review, 37(2), 23–36. doi:10.1016/B978-0-7506-9850-4.50012-9
Gilley, A., Dixon, P., & Gilley, J. W. (2008). Characteristics of leadership effectiveness: Implement- ing change and driving innovation in organizations. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 19(2), 153–169. doi:10.1002/hrdq.1232
Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam Dell.
Goleman, D. (2015). On emotional intelligence. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Graamans, E., ten Have, S., & ten Have, W. D. (2016). Een alternatief voor opportunistisch gebruik van het begrip ‘cultuur’ in organisaties. Holland / Belgium. Management Review, 165, 32–39. Retrieved from https://www.hmr.nl/archief/een-alternatief-voor-opportunistisch-gebruik-van-het-begrip-cultuur- in-organisaties
Gray, J. R. (1999). A bias toward short-term thinking in threat-related negative emotional states. Per- sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(1), 65–75. doi:10.1177/0146167299025001006
Gupta, V. K., Huang, R., & Niranjan, S. (2010). A longitudinal examination of the relationship between team leadership and performance. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 17(4), 335–350. doi:10.1177/1548051809359184
Heifetz, R. A., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools and tactics for changing your organization and the world. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
71
Reconsidering Essentials of Organization Development
Heller, J. (1998). Essential managers: Managing change. New York, NY: D. K. Publishing.
Herrmann, D., & Felfe, J. (2013). Moderators of the relationship between leadership style and employee creativity: The role of task novelty and personal initiative. Creativity Research Journal, 25(2), 172–181. doi:10.1080/10400419.2013.783743
Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J. P. (2002). Commitment to organizational change: Extension of a three- component model. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 474–487. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.474 PMID:12090605
Hesselbein, F., & Johnston, R. (2002). On leading change: A leader to leader guide. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Higgins, J. P. T., & Green, S. (2006). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, 4.2.6. Retrieved from http://community.cochrane.org/sites/default/files/uploads/Handbook4.2.6Sep2006.pdf
Hoch, D. J., Roeding, C., Purkert, G., & Lindner, S. K. (1999). Secrets of software success: Manage- ment insights from 100 software firms around the world. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Hon, A. H. Y., Bloom, M., & Crant, J. M. (2014). Overcoming resistance to change and enhancing cre- ative performance. Journal of Management, 40(3), 919–941. doi:10.1177/0149206311415418
Hughes, M. (2011). Do 70 per cent of all organizational change initiatives really fail? Journal of Change Management, 11(4), 451–464. doi:10.1080/14697017.2011.630506
Humble, J., Molesky, J., & O’Reilly, B. (2015). Lean enterprise: How high performance organizations innovate at scale. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.
Ibarra, H. (2015). Act like a leader, think like a leader. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Joseph, D. L., Jin, J., Newman, A., & O’Boyle, E. H. (2015). Why does self-reported emotional intel- ligence predict job performance? A meta-analytic investigation of mixed EI. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2), 298–342. doi:10.1037/a0037681 PMID:25243996
Joseph, D. L., & Newman, D. A. (2010). Emotional intelligence: An integrative meta-analysis and cascad- ing model. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 54–78. doi:10.1037/a0017286 PMID:20085406
Judge, W. Q., Naoumova, I., & Douglas, T. (2009). Organizational capacity for change and firm perfor- mance in a transition economy. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(8), 1737–1752. doi:10.1080/09585190903087107
Keller, S., & Aiken, C. (2014). On performance culture. Retrieved from http://www.academia. edu/14275222/On_Performance_Culture
Kleingeld, A., Van Mierlo, H., & Arenas, L. (2011). The effect of goal setting on group performance: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1289–1304. doi:10.1037/a0024315 PMID:21744940
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254
72
Reconsidering Essentials of Organization Development
Kotter, J. P. (1996/2012). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2012). The leadership challenge: How to make extraordinary things happen in organizations. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kunze, F., Boehm, S., & Bruch, H. (2013). Age, resistance to change, and job performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28(7/8), 741–760. doi:10.1108/JMP-06-2013-0194
Laloux, F. (2014). Reinventing organizations: A guide to creating organizations inspired by the next stage of human consciousness. Brussels: Nelson Parker.
Larkin, T., & Larkin, S. (1994). Communicating change: Winning employee support for new business goals. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Lawrence, P. R. (1954). How to deal with resistance to change. Harvard Business Review, 32(3), 49–57. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/1969/01/how-to-deal-with-resistance-to-change
Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55). New York, NY: Plenum Press. doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-3087-5_2
Lewis, L. K., Schmisseur, A. M., Stephens, K. K., & Weir, K. E. (2006). Advice on communicating during organizational change the content of popular press books. Journal of Business Communication, 43(2), 113–137. doi:10.1177/0021943605285355
Lines, R. (2007). Using power to install strategy: The relationships between expert power, position power, influence tactis and implementation success. Journal of Change Management, 7(2), 143–170. doi:10.1080/14697010701531657
Logan, M. S., & Ganster, D. C. (2007). The effects of empowerment on attitudes and performance: The role of social support and empowerment beliefs. Journal of Management Studies, 44(8), 1523–1550. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00711.x
Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 385–425. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90027-2
Luchman, J. N., & González-Morales, M. G. (2013). Demands, control and support: A meta-analytic review of work charachteristics interrelationships. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18(1), 37–52. doi:10.1037/a0030541 PMID:23339747
Luo, Y., & Jiang, H. (2014). Effective public relations leadership in organizational change: A study of multinationals in mainland China. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(2), 134–160. doi:10.1080 /1062726X.2013.864241
Marsman, H. (2012). Thinking of Holland (M. Birkin, Trans.). Retrieved from http://www.stephen- spender.org/2012_prize/2012_winners.html (Original work published 1936)
Maurer, R. (2010). Beyond the wall of resistance: Why 70% of all change initiatives still fail and what you can do about it. Austin, TX: Bard Press.
73
Reconsidering Essentials of Organization Development
Mento, A. J., Steel, R. P., & Karren, R. J. (1987). A meta-analytic study of the effects of goal setting on task performance: 1966-1984. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39(1), 52–83. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(87)90045-8
Mor Barak, M. E., Travis, D. J., Pyun, H., & Xie, B. (2009). The impact of supervision on worker out- comes: A meta-analysis. The Social Service Review, 83(1), 3–32. doi:10.1086/599028
Mourier, P., & Smith, M. R. (2001). Conquering organizational change: How to succeed where most companies fail. Altlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Neubert, M. J. (1998). The value of feedback and goal-setting over goal setting alone and potential modera- tors of this effect: A meta-analysis. Human Performance, 11(4), 905–936. doi:10.120715327043hup1104_2
Neves, P. (2011). Building commitment to change: The role of perceived supervisor support and competence. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(4), 437–450. doi:10.1080/13594321003630089
Ng, T. W. H., & Sorensen, K. L. (2008). Toward a further understanding of the relationships between perceptions of support and work attitudes. Group & Organization Management, 33(3), 243–268. doi:10.1177/1059601107313307
Novak, D. (2012). Taking people with you: The only way to make big things happen. New York, NY: Portfolio and Penguin.
O’Boyle, E. H. Jr, Humphrey, R. H., Pollack, J. M., Hawver, T. H., & Story, P. A. (2011). The relation between emotional intelligence and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Be- havior, 32(5), 788–818. doi:10.1002/job.714
Oreg, S. (2003). Resistance to change: Developing an individual differences measure. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 680–693. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.680 PMID:12940408
Patanakul, P., Chen, J., & Lynn, G. S. (2012). Autonomous teams and new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(5), 734–750. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00934.x
Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Malden, MA: Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9780470754887
Posner, A. Z., & Kouzes, J. M. (1988). Relating leadership and credibility. Psychological Reports, 63(2), 527–530. doi:10.2466/pr0.1988.63.2.527
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Slater, R. (2015). Leadership genius: 40 insights from the science of leading. Abingdon, UK: Teach Yourself.
Soparnot, R. (2011). The concept of organizational change capacity. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24(5), 640–661. doi:10.1108/09534811111158903
74
Reconsidering Essentials of Organization Development
Tata, J., & Prasad, S. (2004). Team self-management, organizational structure, and judgements of team effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Issues, 16(2), 248–265. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/ stable/40604457
ten Have, S., & ten Have, W. D. (2004). Het boek verandering: Over het doordacht werken aan de or- ganisatie. Amsterdam: Nieuwezijds.
ten Have, S., ten Have, W. D., Huijsmans, A. B., & Otto, M. (2016). Reconsidering change manage- ment: Applying evidence-based insights in change management practice. New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315646015
ten Have, S., ten Have, W. D., & Janssen, B. (2009). Het veranderboek: 70 vragen van managers over organisatieverandering. Amsterdam: Mediawerf.
TEN HAVE Change Management. (2016). Verandering van gedrag en organisaties in de praktijk: Hoe beoordelen practitioners invloedrijke assumpties? [Research report]. Utrecht, The Netherlands: TEN HAVE Change Management.
Tichy, N. M. (1983). Managing strategic change: Technical, political, and cultural dynamics. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Tyler, T. R., & De Cremer, D. (2005). Proces-bases leadership: Fair procedures and reactions to organi- zational change. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(4), 529–545. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.06.001
Vaccaro, I. G., Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2012). Management innova- tion and leadership: The moderating role of organizational size. Journal of Management Studies, 49(1), 28–51. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00976.x
Van Dierendonck, D., & Jacobs, G. (2002). Survivors and victims: A meta-analytical review of fair- ness and organizational commitment after downsizing. British Journal of Management, 23(1), 96–109. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2010.00724.x
Van Rooy, D. L., & Viswesvaran, C. (2004). Emotional intelligence: A meta-analytic investigation of predictive validity and nomological net. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65(1), 71–95. doi:10.1016/ S0001-8791(03)00076-9
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2002). Examining the construct of organizational justice: A meta-analytic evaluation of relations with work attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 38(3), 193–203. doi:10.1023/A:1015820708345
Voestermans, P., & Verheggen, T. (2013). Culture as embodiment: The social tuning of behavior. Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons. doi:10.1002/9781118454114
Wagner, J. A. III, & Lepine, J. A. (1999). Effects of participation on performance and satisfaction: Ad- ditional meta-analytic evidence. Psychological Reports, 84(3), 719–725. doi:10.2466/pr0.1999.84.3.719
Wang, G., Oh, I. S., Courtright, S. H., & Colbert, A. E. (2011). Transformational leadership and perfor- mance across criteria and levels: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of research. Group & Organization Management, 36(2), 223–270. doi:10.1177/1059601111401017
75
Reconsidering Essentials of Organization Development
Watkins, M. D. (2013). The first 30 days: Proven strategies for getting up to speed faster and smarter, updated and expanded. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Wegge, J., Jeppesen, H. J., Weber, W. G., Pearce, C. L., Silva, S. A., Pundt, A., ... Piecha, A. (2010). Promoting work motivation in organizations: Should employee involvement in organizational leader- ship become a new tool in the organizational psychologist’s kit? Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9(4), 154–171. doi:10.1027/1866-5888/a000025
Weibel, A., Rost, K., & Osterloh, M. (2010). Pay for performance in the public sector-benefits and (hidden) costs. Journal of Public Administration: Research and Theory, 20(2), 87–412. doi:10.1093/ jopart/mup009
Zaffron, S., & Logan, D. (2009). The three laws of performance: Rewriting the future of your organiza- tion and your life. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Zagorsek, H., Dimovski, V., & Skerlavaj, M. (2009). Transactional and transformational leadership impacts on organizational learning. Journal for East European Management Studies, 14(2), 144–165. doi:10.5771/0949-6181-2009-2-144