Assessment

orangepink
VideoLinkingreadingstoassessment.pptx

Why involve employees in change processes?

Employee reactions are dependent on an individual perception and consideration of the impact on personal goals- what's in it for me? (Guth & MacMillan 1986)

Resistance is a likely outcome if lack of participation and change is perceived and personally negative (Hope & Pate, 1988).

change process itself influences employees’ reactions to it

procedural justice (Colquitt, 2001) the extent to which an employee feels they have been treated fairly by the organisation will influence their response to the change (Korsgaard et al., 1995).

Why is employee participation important?

The extend of employee ‘voice’ during the decision-making process will influence whether fairness is perceived by them in relation to change (Folger & Skarlicki, 1999).

change is perceived as favorable linked with positive emotions and positive attitudes towards work, affective events theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996)

negative emotions particularly anxiety, are connected to negative attitudes and behaviours such as resistance to change.

employee participation and communication is a way to reduce anxiety and uncertainty (Bordia et al., 2004; Rafferty & Griffin, 2006)

Where do we write about participation in Assignment 1 ?

This reflection is based on your experience of change in an organisational setting as an employee, manager, business owner/ employer or as a volunteer. You are required to:

Briefly describe the change, identify the other stakeholders affected by the change and explain the role you played.

Reflect on your personal cognitive, affective, and behavioural responses to the changes and the responses of one other stakeholder.

Apply 6 essential assumptions about change management from the week 1 reading (ten Have, Graamans, & ten Have, 2019) to a critical reflection on your experience described above.

Critically analyse why two approaches to change management presented in any of the course readings might have been more appropriate than the experience you described above in 1. In this section you should apply, concepts, theories, models, or frameworks to your analysis from the course readings on p6 of this study guide. To electronically access the readings, follow the online link to the required readings under the ‘course resources’ tab on blackboard in MGMT862.

Breadth of participation

Project management police –restricted range of activities, top down management breadth of participation judged low, sporadic general unclear communication about need for change and actions required, employees did not respond to managers open door policies

Lean systems housing- breadth high, broad (wide ) range of participation staff involved in problem identification, staff volunteers participated in project team, experimentation in detail staff involved in decision accelerator formal consultation on job description change and clear line manager communication during change

Dialogic sensemaking payments company - moderate breadth perceived not structured not perceived as clear by employees. Some participants unclear about the business benefits however high improvement in business performance and individual stories about business improvement led to higher employee engagement

Depth of participation involvement

Depth is quality of consultation, involvement and participation empowers employee contribution to decision making (Clarke & Higgs , 2019)

Employee participation at the dialogue at payments company was judged to offer the greatest degree of involvement and therefore greatest depth, individual change in work through participation in small groups the organisation followed by resourcing the change. Individuals experienced high levels of involvement using dialogic sensemaking

Employee participation in Lean intervention housing said to be high for some low for others long serving staff had experienced frustration by a lack of control. They were able to experiment with changes. However volunteers from front line services were viewed as separate and different, middle managers were excluded from frontline group- low participation by some- external consultants questioned restructuring and found decision making unclear

Employee participation at policing project management – weakest degree of involvement and lack of power, external consultants advised on the problem identification and solutions stages derives the recommendations …the degree of participation low consultation confined to implementation. The exclusion of employees early led to confusion about when staff should be informed resulted in mis- communication

Defining participation during change

A broad range of participation practises emerged from original research into leadership styles (Lewin, Lippitt, & White, 1939)

Practices included involving employees in decisions about how they worked,

change to work processes, shared ownership, and employee representation

Participation categorized by whether it was direct or indirect

Participation in terms of breadth or range of processes and practices and depth or quality of practices (Cox, Marchington, & Suter, 2009; Cox, Zagelmeyer, & Marchington, 2006).

Research evidence that broad range and quality of participation in change process influences employee job satisfaction and commitment.

Lean systems thinking

Elimination of waste -less waste - save costs

through culture change of behaviours

Improve quality for customers

Front-line staff training at the heart of the process

Aim is to identify what is wrong with service and how to improve

A project team is formed to drive improvements

Public process of reflection and action

Week 3 reading the case study is London Borough Housing Development

Dialogic Sensemaking Organisational Development

Seeks to embed change through dialogue and storytelling retain & build flexibility and innovation

A conversational approach – empowerment & excellence

Organisation wide conversations about peak performance

Searching for a shared vision – workshops typically held

Building empowerment and trust by collaborative sensemaking

Realisation of individual values and aspirations

Who are you as an individual?

What are your aspirations?

How can you bring value to the purpose of the organisation?

How can you best realize your own aspirations?

Inspirational players influencers identified to lead teams of 8

For example Payments company in week 3 reading

Project management

Central programme management office established to oversee

the implementation required changes to efficiencies and costs

structuring roles to provide focus for change

Recruit external consultants to review existing service

May recruit externally to build top team –change the leaders to change the culture

Structural change at lower level dependent on change process

Key stakeholders provide views on basis for working with units

Top team develops clear vision and statement of new purpose and values communicated from the center of the organisation with key participation at various groups teams' sections levels of the organisation

Top down change based on review

Roll out changes as a cascade basis ( roadshows) to minimize disruption to services

For example national policing organisation week 3 readings

Stages of change and employee participation

Problem identification

Exploring options testing solutions

Implementation

Payments company not clear stages but staff had identified change they wanted and participation was unstructured

Housing development company project team led consultation process therefore changes originated from staff with staff working on problems suggesting processes and actions for implementing change

Policing Trust in knowledge of external consultants was questioned employee participation focussed on implementation –consulting on job design etc. Perceptions of a lack of equity or fairness worked against the change