Week 7 Develop a Plan to Manage Change and Analyze SC Johnson A Family Company Social Media Policies

Employee Interpretations of Change: Exploring the Other Side of the Resistance Story

Vaibhavi Kulkarni

This study examines change re­ sistance in Indian organizations by departing from change-agent perspective, and focusing on the em p lo yee in te rp re ta tio n o f change. Change ‘resistors ’ were identified based on inputs from HR m anagers im p le m en tin g change, fo llo w in g which in- depth interviews were conducted with fifty -fo u r such employees. The interviews were qualitatively analyzed to understand employee p ersp ective. Findings revealed that employees may not perceive their actions as resistance and legitim ize their behavior based on ideological reasons or their assumption that they are behav­ ing in long-term interests o f the organization. Poorly fram ed com­ munication can lead to negative resp o n se tow ards the change, even i f employees do not fin d the proposed change problematic.

Vaibhavi Kulkarni is from Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad 380015. E mail: [email protected]

Introduction

Resistance is a complex, multifaceted phenomenon that has been widely dis­ cussed in management literature, and more often than not, change scholars have identified employee resistance as a crucial factor that influences the success o f change implementation. For the last several decades change research has focused on ways to reduce or eliminate resistance, with the primary assumption that it is dysfunctional and therefore thwarts change implementation (Lewis, 2011). Most of this work has been done in the Western context, with several re­ searchers pointing towards the dearth of change management and change resis­ tance studies in the Indian context (Bhatnagar, Budhwar, Srivastava & Saini, 2010). Bezboruah(2008) called for a need to understand employee resistance in In­ dia.

The concept o f resistance was first introduced by Lewin (1947), and since then, it has been defined as a multifac­ eted phenomenon that leads to unantici­ pated delays, costs and instabilities in implementing change (Ansoff, 1988); behavior that attempts to maintain the

246 The Indian Journal o f Industrial Relations, Vol. 52, No. 2, October 2016

Employee Interpretations o f Change

status quo when the organization wants to change the status quo (Zaltman& Duncan, 1977); willingness to engage in deception (Shapiro, Lewicki& Devine, 1985); or as a reactive process that sig­ nals power relations and organizational members opposition to initiatives taken by other members (Jermier, Knights & Nord, 1994).

Needless to say, most o f the times resistance has been described in nega­ tive terms - it either prevents organiza­ tions from carrying out change imple­ m entation or creates challenges that make this process more difficult. Resis­ tance research can be broadly divided into two approaches: the first which pro­ vides a more conventional, traditional view o f resistance recognizes it as a barrier to change processes and studies it primarily from the change-agent’s per­ spective. Researchers taking a contem­ porary view of resistance question the traditional ‘change agent centric’ per­ spective o f change implementation and argue for greater focus on employee perspective. Researchers have begun to believe that resistance can provide valu­ able insights from employees and raise legitimate concerns about the change process itself. However, both these views have primarily been shaped based on Western concepts of change as well as resistance. Unfortunately, studies examining Indian perspectives regard­ ing resistance are few and far in be­ tween. This article attempts to close this gap by taking a contemporary view of resistance by examining it from the em­ ployee perspective, and doing so in the Indian context.

Since resistance has been considered problematic for change implementation, most studies focus on attempts to ‘man­ age’ resistance. In an effort to under­ stand (and prevent) resistance, significant body of resistance research has focused on identifying reasons that lead to resis­ tance and thereby managing resistance.

Factors Leading to Resistance

Schein (1993) found change resis­ tance to be a ubiquitous phenomenon in organizations. Researchers have identi­ fied a wide variety of factors that pro­ vide explanation for resistance: organi­ zational culture, organizational politics, lack of resources, lack o f commitment, insufficient information, poor timing, lack of trust, uncertainty, fear o f unpleasant consequences (Dent & Goldberg, 1999; Labianca, Gray & Brass, 2000), psycho­ logical support, gradual and flexible par­ tic ip a tio n o f change (F ernandez & Rainey, 2006), loss o f status or power, lack o f reward, disruption o f routine (Gilley, Godak& Gilley, 2009). With the emergence o f such wide variety of fac­ tors, some researchers attempted to clas­ sify them in to broad categories. Largely, literature suggests that resistance can be because of individual or organizational factors, though focus seems to be more on individual reasons for resisting change. This focus is not surprising because change researchers have acknowledged that it is not possible to change organiza-

It is not possible to change orga­ nizations in meaningful ways unless the employees change.

The Indian Journal o f Industrial Relations, Vol. 52, No. 2, October 2016 247

Vaibhavi Kulkarni

tions in meaningful ways unless the em­ ployees change (Poole & Van de Van, 2004).

In d iv id u a l F a cto rs: E ffectiv e change im plementation assumes that employees begin believing differently, thinking differently and behaving differ­ ently, thus placing emphasis on individual level acceptance of change. For instance, change acceptance and resistance has been linked to individual personality char­ acteristics (Oreg, 2003). In his study, Oreg developed a resistance to change scale based on personality attributes such as intolerance, reluctance to lose control, cognitive rigidity and dispositional ten­ dency.

Resistance literature also emphasizes understanding the cognitive processes underlying employee resistance. Lau and Woodman (1995) tried to provide a cog­ nitive explanation for employee reactions to change by using the concept o f indi­ vidual schemas. They posit that schema can help people make sense of informa­ tion in the environment and when orga­ nizations undergo change, members have some interpretations and expectations of these changes. Understanding change schema can help us examine employees’ current change orientation, anticipate expectations about future change and identify the possibility of change resis­ tance beforehand. Similarly, Labianca, Bray and Brass (2000) found that change recipients’ inability to revise old decision making schemas and enact new schemas can lead to resistance during change pro­ cess. They found that resistance was in­ stigated by employee self -interest and

was further motivated by skepticism re­ garding management’s commitment to the new change schema. Another popu­ larized assumption about resistance is that emotional responses have predominantly negative implications for change imple­ mentation and scholars have associated them with irrational resistance (Kiefer, 2005). To a large extent, negative emo­ tions such as fear, anxiety, stress and in­ security have been perceived to be an individual problem, wherein the employee lacks the maturity or ability to appreci­ ate change (Carr, 2001).

O rganizational F a cto rs: Though several scholars have argued that resis­ tance to change is also built into organi­ zational factors (Burke, 2002), there are relatively few studies looking at macro level reasons for resistance. Waddell and Sohal(1998) identify systems, processes, climate and culture as factors causing a state of inertia that leads an organization towards greater reliability and predict­ ability which, in turn, makes it difficult for agents to implement change. There has been some focus on understanding organizational culture and capabilities to anticipate and manage change resistance (Jones, Jimmieson & Griffiths, 2005).

Top management support and com­ mitment to change are expected to play a crucial role in change acceptance, since skillful and strategic leader can success­ fully bring together disparate employees and overcome obstacles (Fernandez & Rainey, 2006). Employee resistance is also likely to be high when it is perceived that organizational resources and capa­ bilities do not support the proposed

248 The Indian Journal o f Industrial Relations, Vol. 52, No. 2, October 2016

Employee Interpretations o f Change

L ack o f reso u rces can lead to higher stress levels and even ne­ glect of organizational functions.

change. Since planned change involves redeployment or redirection of resources, lack o f resources can lead to higher stress levels and even neglect o f organi­ zational functions(Burke, 2002). Finally, factors such as broken agreements, vio­ lation of trust, communication breakdown and misrepresenting o f situation have been found to be major causes of resis­ tance by scholars (Reichers et al., 1997; Ford, Ford &D’Amelio, 2008).

Embedded Assumptions

These studies mentioned in the ear­ lier sections provide ways o f preventing resistance by identifying factors that can lead to resistance, but do not truly en­ gage with the notion o f resistance in a meaningful way. There is little interest in understanding how recipients make sense o f this process; researchers are prima­ rily concerned with efficient accomplish­ ment o f management goals, leading to preventative prescriptions for overcom­ ing resistance.

During recent times, however, re­ searchers have begun to question the con­ ventional wisdom that people always re­ sist change. An oft repeated critique of negative approach towards resistance is that almost all discussions o f resistance take place from the change agent’s per­ spective. Therefore any response that is not in keeping with the change agent’s expectation is perceived as resistance

People do not resist change per se, but may resist the uncertainty as­ sociated with the unknown.

(Bartunek, 1993). This one sided approach towards understanding change resistance leads us to conceptualize resistance as a problem that is invariably caused by the recipient and it is up to the change agent to manage or overcome this problem. Such ‘change agent centric’ view, accord­ ing to Ford et al. (2008), assumes that an account of change resistance is an accu­ rate report provided by an unbiased source presenting an objective reality. Human resource managers and change scholars have paid scant attention to the perspec­ tives of those facing the change and over­ whelmingly, research takes the perspec­ tive of the management implementing the change. Further, Piderit (2000) draws our attention to managerial tendency of asso­ ciating resistance with recipient inability to accept change and fundamental attri­ bution error. Change agents responsible for implementing change are likely to blame others (in this case, change recipi­ ents) for ineffective change implementa­ tion rather than accepting their own role in this process.Dent and Goldberg (1999) suggest that people do not resist change per se, but may resist the uncertainty as­ sociated with the unknown, or the way in which change is implemented, or certain rationale behind change implementation.

Objective of the Study

This study takes a contem porary view of resistance and views resistance from the employee viewpoint through in-

The Indian Journal o f Industrial Relations, Vol. 52, No. 2, October 2016 249

Vaibhavi Kulkarni

terpretive approach. This approach is not new; Isabella (1990) argued for the need to use interpretive approach to under­ stand sense making during change pro­ cess over two decades ago. It is only recently that this perspective is gaining ground (Putnam, Grant, Grant & Cutcher, 2005). According to Isabella (1990), change processes often unfold over a long period of time, thus demanding con­ stant adjustment on the part of those in­ volved in change. She argues that the studies that have focused on cognitive shifts and schemas have viewed the pro­ cess from behavioral perspective and not interpretive perspective. Our understand­ ing o f change is restricted to a large ex­ tent to the observed behavior of the em­ ployees, but we know little about the in­ terpretations associated with these be­ haviors. This study takes the interpretive approach by examining the notion o f re­ sistance at Indian workplace by focus­ ing on the employees facing the change rath er than those im plem enting the change. In other words, it attempts to look at the employee perspective for two significant purposes: first is to move away from traditional, change agent perspec­ tive o f resistance and second is to con­ tribute to our understanding of resistance in the Indian context, since there is little knowledge o f how the change unfolds in Indian organizations. Accordingly, the study asks the following questions:

1: How do employees make sense of their own reaction to change initia­ tives?

2: How does employee interpretation of change influence their reaction and readiness towards change?

Data Collection

Data was collected through in-depth interview method. Approximately 75 HR managers present at a management con­ clave on Change Management in India were requested to share information re­ garding change implementation. They were asked to provide contact informa­ tion of the employees that fulfilled the following criteria: a) the employees were significantly affected by the change, and b) their response to the proposed change was perceived as negative by change implementers. After a 45 day gap, the employees were contacted to get their views on the change process. Eighty- seven employees were contacted on the phone and during the introductory con­ versation they were assured of confiden­ tiality regarding the interview,along with the guarantee that their conversations would not be shared with any of their organizational members, including their supervisors (Appendix 1 for preliminary telephone script). The same introductory script was repeated for all the phone calls. Out of the 87 employees contacted, 54 agreed to do the interview (Appendix 2 for participant details).

Typically two or three rounds o f in­ terviews were conducted to build trust and allow participants to open up regard­ ing their change experience (Table 1 for details). The interviews were conducted over a four-month period. Due to the manner in which participants were ap­ proached, none of the interviews were reco rd ed . A research a ssistan t was present during the interviews and was assigned the task o f taking down the in-

250 The Indian Journal o f Industrial Relations, Vol. 52, No. 2, October 2016

Employee Interpretations o f Change

terviews verbatim for purposes o f tran­ scription. Initially, a set o f open-ended guiding questions (Appendix 3) were asked to get participant perspective to­

ward change, though, as comfort level o f the participants increased, the inter­ view s led to d e e p e r n a rra tiv e s o f change.

Table 1 Details of Interview Sessions for 54 P articipants

Number o f Participants

Number o f Interviews per participant

Approximate Number o f Minutes per One Interview

27 2 120 20 3 80 5 1 180 2 1 120

Data Analysis

The data was examined using con­ tent analysis technique, defined as a “method for subjective interpretation of the content o f text data through the sys­ tematic classification process of coding and identifying them es or p a tte rn s” (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005: 1278). Content analysis requires development of coding schemes that work as translation devices and enable researchers to organize data iqto categories. Categories are themes that are either directly expressed in the text or are derived from the text by the analyst. The final step is to identify rela­ tionships among categories. For the pur­ poses o f this study, content analysis was conducted using the qualitative analysis software Atlas.ti. The tools o f the pro­ gram enable researchers identify themes, create coding schemes leading to vari­ ous categories o f data, and recognize patterns that allow for understanding of the complex relationships between vari­ ous codes. Through Atlas.ti large amounts o f data in the form o f documents and audio-visual files can be stored as herme­ neutic units (HU), which in turn contain

primary documents, field notes, interpre­ tive memos, codes and categories, direct quotations, etc. A total o f 178 primary documents were created in Atlas.ti, out o f which 121 represented interview tran­ scripts, and the rest comprised field notes in the form of observation notes, and memos created during analysis.

During the first phase o f analysis, each line of each primary document was analyzed to understand the ways in which organizational members talked about the change and resistance to change. Spe­ cific text was coded by the same label when found to be conceptually similar, and as analysis progressed, codes were further refined. The first level coding facilitated creation of themes and catego­ rized at the content level, and the second level coding led to identification of asso­ ciations and patterns through inter-link­ ages o f codes. The second level coding led to creation o f Super-codes, which aided by the use o f Co-Occurrence tool of Atlas.ti. This tool allows researchers to retrieve codes that occur in proximity to each other, which in turn facilitates recognition of connections between cer-

The Indian Journal o f Industrial Relations, Vol. 52, No. 2, October 2016 251

Vaibhavi Kulkarni

tain codes and allows for establishment of relationships.

The study found three main themes running across the notion o f resistance at workplace, namely ideological reasons, organizational good and expression of voice.

‘Ideological’ Resistance

Analysis of the interviews revealed that several employees viewed their re­

action not as resistance but as a stand taken to conserve certain principles or world views (fig. 1 ). When discussing their reactions to change, most o f them chose to term their actions not as resis­ tance but as behaviors undertaken out of sense of responsibility or obligation.

Most of them chose to term their actions not as resistance but as be­ haviors undertaken out of sense of responsibility or obligation.

Fig. 1 Atlas.ti Network View for Super-codes on Findings for Ideological Resistance

252 The Indian Journal o f Industrial Relations, Vol. 52, No. 2, October 2016

I

Employee Interpretations of Change

The reasons for the sense of respon­ sibility varied, depending on the context of change, their designations and the or­ ganizational affiliation. Further, the stand taken was either to reduce the disso­ nance between individual values/norms and the perceived changes within the organization or dissonance between or­ ganizational values /norms and perceived changes. The study found age to be a crucial factor with regard to the type of dissonance. The narrations by the older generation typically centered on per­ ceived conflict between what is, namely current organizational culture, and what will be, namely future organizational cul­ ture, due to the change implementation. One o f the participants who was faced with organizational change related to pay structure and perform ance appraisal stated: “With 20 years in this organiza­ tion, I can tell you we are going in the wrong direction. This incentive will lead to cut throat competition and inter-depart­ mental fights. It won’t matter to me be­ cause I am not interested in rising up at the cost of friends, but it is my duty to point it out. I have written to the Chief General Manager, but let’s see whether he listens.” (Participant # 7)

As mentioned earlier, those with 10 or less than 10 years o f experience typi­ cally cited how they struggled with the proposed change primarily because it clashed with their personal beliefs re­ garding what was the ‘right’ thing to do. For instance, a 32 year old corporate communications employee talked about her discom fort with the decision to outsource the design aspect o f their brand building: ’’Even if the company has

a rationale related to cost cutting or something like that, the studio employ­ ees have been hired for their creative a b ilitie s, not liaiso n w ith some ad agency. There needs to be respect for individual talent. Speaking up is the only thing one can do, and I would rather do that than keep shut and go against my beliefs.’’(Participant # 13)

Symbolic or Sacrificial

The study found that those who op­ posed change due to ideological factors did so based on certain assumptions re­ lated to how these actions would play out within the organization. One of the find­ ings was the belief that their actions would be more along the lines of sym­ bolic gestures and may not yield any con­ crete results.

Those who opposed change due to ideological factors did so based on certain assumptions related to how these actions would play out within the organization.

The undertaking was more of an at­ tempt to delegitimize the change rather than a call for action against the change implementers. The attempt to discredit the change took many forms, such as sig­ nature campaigns, emails to the business unit heads or other top management of­ ficials, refusal to participate in input so­ licitation regarding change and refusal to provide feedback during change imple­ mentation. As noted by participant # 53:”It may not make a difference in terms of outcome, but it is my duty to

The Indian Journal o f Industrial Relations, Vol. 52, No. 2, October 2016 253

Vaibhavi Kulkarni

show that there are problems here, is­ sues that have not been addressed.”

The second scenario envisaged by the participants was that they would face severe consequences because o f their viewpoint, but they saw it as an inevi­ table part o f larger context in which they were situated. This was partly due to strong b elief systems and sense o f what they perceived to be right or wrong.

Organizational Good

A n o th e r d o m in a n t th e m e th a t em erged from the interview s was the concept o f resistance as something that was perceived to be helpful for the or­

ganization. There was a b elief that the change is not going to be as beneficial for the organization as proposed by the change agents and in fact, may harm the organization if not implemented appropri­ ately. The underlying patterns between various codes revealed two significant aspects related to this b elief (fig. 2). The first one was the concern for organiza­ tional well-being, and second one was the concern for organizational team mem­ bers, which translated into a quasi- lead­ ership role undertaken by those speak­ ing up against the change. The reactions were based prim arily on the uncertainty surrounding change and the manner in which it would affect the organization in the long run.

Fig.2 Atlas.ti Network view for Super-codes on Findings for Organizational Good

254 The Indian Journal o f Industrial Relations, Vol. 52, No. 2, October 2016

Employee Interpretations o f Change

Organizational Well-being

The uncertainty or lack o f informa­ tion surrounding the nature of change and im plementation tactics emerged as a major issue for the participants. One of the frequent concerns was the dearth of information surrounding change, leading to high levels of anxiety regarding the im­ plications. One o f the participants, for instance, explained how he found the timeline problematic because the conse­ quences of the change were not clear to him: “We are changing the entire supply chain system but the timeline shared by HR does not indicate if there will be trial run or what will happen if the system crashes or whether clients are in the loop. There’s all this talk and no actual infor­ mation. We are a small unit so our rela­ tionship with vendors will take a beating if there are glitches,’’(Participant # 29)

Several participants also seerrted to be concerned about the difference be­ tween top management assumptions and field-level realities, thus implying that the proposed changes could fail because of misconceptions regarding what was hap­ pening out there in the field. Citing one such issue, a senior safety manager (Par­ ticipant # 1 ) elaborated on what he per­ ceived to be ill-thought policy change regarding travel claims and entitlements which would negatively impact the sales force: “This is a case o f change seeming to be logical or appropriate in the corpo­ rate office when a bunch o f top people discuss it but it will not work in reality. There will be unnecessary bottlenecks that negatively affect my men’s perfor­ m ance.”

Team’s Well-being

Closely associated with the idea of organizational well-being is the notion of team or peer well-being. Several par­ ticipants echoed not only the view of or­ ganization being unaware o f ground re­ alities (mentioned in the earlier quote), but were also o f the b e lie f that the change was not well-thought. This was attributed to the assumption that the or­ ganization has not taken input from the ground-level and therefore certain as­ pects of change are going to create prob­ lems for their team or themselves as well as peers. Further, interviews revealed that participants’ actions were often mo­ tivated by their concern for their team well-being along with their conviction that the change would directly affect the team perform ance levels and career growth. At times, this was translated into a sense of responsibility toward the team and the response to change was articulated as characteristics befitting a team leader. “Changes in parameters of appraisal affect all o f us. They are try­ ing to get us to run in circles but if we don’t speak up now, we can only blame ourselves later. My team expects me to provide this feedback and frankly as their supervisor I think their expectations are valid” (Participant # 49). In some cases, the impending changes related to the nature o f work and lack o f clarity regarding the way in which the change would play out, affected anxiety levels o f organizational members. The re ­ sponses to the rising anxiety levels ranged from demands for more infor­ mation to demand for modification in change policies.

The Indian Journal o f Industrial Relations, Vol. 52, No. 2, October 2016 255

Vaibhavi Kulkarni

Expression of ‘Voice’

The final theme emerging from in­ terviews was that o f response to change as a need for self-expression or making their voice salient. Analysis suggested that the way in which change was framed and announced made a significant impact on how change was perceived. Further, when organizations did not provide the em ployees an o p p o rtu n ity to clarify, make suggestions or provide input, it seemed to negatively impact employee self-worth. Several o f the participants who were senior in terms o f their desig- Fig.3 Atlas.ti Network View for Super-codes on

nations or work experience within the organization experienced anguish at the w ay in w hich the change w as being brought about (fig. 3). Two aspects domi­ nated the theme o f change resistance as need for self-expression and voice - first one was that o f employee need for vali­ dation and their b elief regarding loss o f face which resulted due to the way in which change was planned as well as announced; second was the assertion that their voice was im portant and could not be drowned by the authoritative or hier­ archical manner in which change was being implemented. Findings for Employee Voice

Authentication of Self-worth

As m entioned earlier in the article, the manner in which the change was com­

municated had a significant impact on ch ange-readiness. F irst one was the medium or channel chosen to communi­ cate change. Several participants were

256 The Indian Journal o f Industrial Relations, Vol. 52, No. 2, October 2016

I Employee Interpretations o f Change

of the belief that their position within the organization or the relationship they shared with the change implementers was such that receiving the information through a standard email or memo was patronizing and unbecoming in light of their stature. “It is a matter o f great dis­ tress. For them to tell me in such a man­ ner, without any prior consultation and then expect me to just accept it, it is sim­ ply not done.” (Participant # 25).The re­ sulting feeling of loss of pride also led some o f the employees to react nega­ tively and be defiant, even if the nature o f change per se was not found to be problematic. “I guess what’s being pro­ posed is not that bad and we could work with it. But the fact is, decisions are be­ ing made in an ivory tower and their high handed attitude is putting us all down. We might as well be nothing. We need to be heard, we need to have some self-re­ spect.” (Participant # 8)

Change Framing

The framing o f the message also made a significant impact on change- readiness of those interviewed. Several participants pointed out that change an­ nouncements and their framing affected how they anticipated the change to un­ fold. “The announcement of change was so one-sided; it just mentioned what was happening and how it was good for us. There was no mention o f why this was

The framin g o f the message also m a d e a s i g n i f i c a n t im p a c t on ch a n g e-rea d in ess o f those in ter­ viewed.

happening, how it would unfold and what we should expect regarding our job roles. It was almost as if we should be follow­ ing the top management blindly, with no in d iv id u a l th o u g h ts o f our own.’’(Participant # 3).The tone and the contents of change communication were perceived as patronizing and several par­ ticipants expressed how they felt con­ strained by the environment surrounding change implementation. This, in turn, prompted them to express their discon­ tent related to change, though deeper dis­ cussions during interviews revealed that dissonance was caused by framing of the change messages rather than the actual change itself.

Discussion & Conclusion

Change presents an organization with new realities that employees need to ac­ cept and try to meaningfully interpret. Based on recent shifts in our understand­ ing of resistance (e.g. Reissner, 2008), this study has moved away from em­ ployee actions o f resistance and focused on employee interpretations o f change. The initial finding of employee resistance due to ideological reasons can be linked to the notion o f principled dissent. Prin­ cipled dissent is the effort by employees to challenge the status quo on ethical grounds or principles (Kassing &Avtgis, 1999). Such resistance is driven by em­ ployee commitment and sincere interest in change outcomes and therefore HR p ro fe s sio n a ls and o th er change im p lem en ters need to give such dissentersa serious consideration. Fur­ ther, some of the participants in the study felt obligated to speak up against what

The Indian Journal o f Industrial Relations, Vol. 52, No. 2, October 2016 257

Vaibhavi Kulkarni

they perceived was problem atic, even when they realized that it would not im­ pact the outcome (resistance as symbolic) or would affect their career negatively (resistance as sacrifice). Engaging in dia­ logue with such employees for sense giv­ ing purposes can serve to enhance the change im plem entation process, espe­ cially if they are able to see the long term b e n e fits o f ch an g e and becom e key influencers within the organization.

Further, when employees react nega­ tively to change due to their desire to help the organization (for organizational good), it calls for change agents to examine their initiatives more closely and prevent them from taking change-related assumptions for granted. By resisting a change, em­ p lo y e e s o fte n try to b rin g to m anagem ent’s attention issues that need to be addressed for efficient functioning o f the organization and provide feedback fo r sm o o th ch an g e im p le m e n ta tio n (Gilley, Godak& Gilley, 2009). Often large scale change implem entation is an ex­ tremely complex task and it is not pos­ sible to plan for every minor contingency or every ground-level complication. Thus, employee objections may contain infor­ mation that can be used to improve the change initiative. Taking input regarding ground-level information could serve the multiple purpose o f allaying anxieties sur­ rounding change, generating a more en­ thusiastic response to the change itself and getting the opportunity to iron out glitches that may have escaped the no­ tice o f top management officials.

A s n o te d by R a m n a ra y a n and N ilakant (2006), within the Indian con­

text, organizational members are more likely to be active participants in change when they are able to contribute to the change process. In fact, management literature overwhelmingly suggests that employee involvement, specifically, em­ ployee participation in change processes, is the best way to reduce resistance.The need for em ployee p articip a tio n was brought up by Coch and French (1948) in their classic study on change process, who argued that participation increases employee commitment and therefore re­ duces resistance. Since then, participa­ tion has been widely cited as being the best way to overcome resistance (Burke, 2 0 0 2 ). A c c o rd in g to B a s in g e r an d Peterson (2008), participation helps em­ ployees prepare cognitively for future adjustments, thus leading to better out­ comes, whereas lack o f participation can lead to resistance.

Organizational members are more likely to be active participants in change when they are able to con­ tribute to the change process.

The study found that within the In­ dian context, participation may be impor­ tant not only to solicit employee feedback and prepare employees for im pending change, but also because non-involve­ ment o f certain section o f employees may lead to loss o f face and status for them. In high context cultures such as India, change implementers need to take into consideration the relationship between change agent and the recipient. An im­ personal, logical message with a sense o f objectivity regarding change may work

258 The Indian Journal o f Industrial Relations, Vol. 52, No. 2, October 2016

Employee Interpretations o f Change

in low-context cultures, but within the Indian context, the study found that the announcement o f change and rationale for change are not seen as outside and apart from communicating parties - rea­ sons by themselves are not persuasive, it is the context, the relationship and the way it is com m unicated that m atters. Further, the choice o f the medium for com m unication can carry a sym bolic m essage that goes beyond the actual content o f the message. These symbolic cues go beyond the objective features o f the m edium ; they are in terp retatio n s based on shared meaning o f a medium that has been developed over time. The medium for communication is based on continuum o f ‘richness’ i.e. the ability to accommodate two-way communication and the extent to which the medium simu­ lates actual presence o f the communica­ tors. Face to face communication is the richest medium followed by telephone, email and various forms o f formal and informal written communication. Within the Indian context, where relationships are personalized within the workplace (Sinha, 2000), the symbolic meaning as­ sociated with the medium o f communi­ cation during change announcements as­ sumes vital importance.

Finally, members o f collectivist cul­ tures have been found to dem onstrate higher commitment to work due to an ingrained sense o f duty and responsibil­ ity and therefore the popular notion is that they are less likely to engage in overt resistance. At the same time, Chatterjee & Pearson (2000) have noted that this orientation is more salient at the family and kinship level, and does not always

hold true within the organizational con­ text. In keeping with this argument, this study found that in terms o f change com­ munication, ignoring employee’s sense o f individuality could have a negative impact on their willingness to accept change.The need for self-expression is an important finding, especially since researchers of­ ten make the assumption that authority and hierarchy within Indian organizations mitigates the employee need individual expression.

In conclusion, so far, the most com­ mon way o f managing change resistance has been to ‘resist’ resistance. This pa­ per moves away from this concept and posits that resistance may not always be detrimental to change if the HR manag­ ers engage meaningfully with those react­ ing negatively to change. As found by the study, in several cases, it was not the change per se that was problematic. Em­ ployee actions were often guided by their belief that the change would lead to orga­ nizational-level problems (erosion o f val­ ues or performance issues) or team level problems (issues with employee well-be­ ing and sense o f unfairness). Many o f these perceptions resulted from lack o f information regarding change and increase in anxiety or uncertainty surrounding change. While issues related to organiza­ tional and individual uncertainty or anxi­ ety have been addressed in resistance-re­ lated research within the Western context, we need more studies to get a nuanced understanding o f how these perceptions are shaped in Indian workplace.

Other reasons for negative responses included the manner in which the change

The Indian Journal o f Industrial Relations, Vol. 52, No. 2, October 2016 259

Vaibhavi Kulkarni

was announced or the lack o f input so­ licitation during planning of change. The loss of face and self-doubt experienced by senior employees (in terms o f desig­ nation or in terms o f work experience) points to the need for more contextualized studies that can unpack how societal cul­ ture influences organizational members’ reaction to change. In a similar vein, we need more studies to understand how change framing and choice of medium can lead to greater resistance, even if the change is not problematic. There is a definite need for greater focus on em­ ployee resistance in India so that we can generate contextually relevant knowledge regarding implementation o f planned change. Finally we need to examine re­ sistance through the local and emergent dimension, instead of taking the view that resistance needs to be curbed without understanding their causes or implica­ tions. As indicated by this study, there is much to be gained by understanding how and why em ployee resistan ce takes place.

R e f e r e n c e s

Ansoff, I. (1988), The New Corporate Strategy. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Bartunek, J. M. (1993), “The Multiple Cogni­ tions and Conflicts Associated with Sec­ ond Order Organizational Change” in J.K. Murnighan (ed.), Social Psychology in Or­ ganizations: Advances in Theory and Re­ search, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bezboruah, K.C. (2008), “Applying the Congru­ ence Model o f organizational Change in Explaining the Change in the Indian Eco­ nomic Policies”, Organizational Change and Social Transformation, 5(2): 129-40.

Bhatnagar, J., Budhwar, P., Srivastava, P. & Saini, D. S. (2010),’’Organizational Change and Development in India: A Case o f Strategic Organizational Change and Transforma­ tion”, Journal o f Organizational Change Management, 23(5): 485-99.

Burke, W.W. (2002), O rganization Change: Theory and Practice, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Carr, A. (2001), “Emotion and Emotionality in a Process of Change”, Journal o f Organiza­ tional Change Management, 14(5): 421-34.

Chatterjee, S. R. & Pearson, C. A. (2000), “In­ dian Managers in Transition: Orientations, Work Goals, Values and Ethics”, MIR: M a n a g em en t I n te r n a tio n a l R eview , 40( l):81-95.

Coch, L. & French, J. R. P (1948), “Overcoming Resistance to Change”, Human Relations, 1:512-32.

Dent, E.B. & Goldberg, S.G. (1999),’’Challenging Resistance to Change”, Journal o f Applied Behavioral Science, 35(1): 25-41

Fernandez, S. & Rainey, H. G. (2006). “Manag­ ing Successful Organizational Change in the Public Sector”, Public Administration Re­ view, 66(2): 168-76.

Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W.& D ’Amelio, A. (2008), “Resistance to Change: The Rest o f the Story,” Academy o f Management Review, 33(2): 362-77.

Gilley, A., Godek, M. & Gilley, J. W. (2009), “Change, Resistance, and the Organiza­ tional Immune System”, SAM Advanced Management Journal, 74(4): 4-10.

Hsieh, H. & Shannon, S. E. (2005), “Three Ap­ proaches to Qualitative Content Analysis”, Qualitative Health Research, 15(9): 1277- 88.

Isabella, L. A. (1990), “Evolving Interpretations as a Change Unfolds: How Managers Con­ strue Key O rganizational Events”, The Academy o f Management Journal, 33(1): 7-41.

260 The Indian Journal o f Industrial Relations, Vol. 52, No. 2, October 2016

Employee Interpretations o f Change

Jermier, J.M., Knights, D. & Nord, W (1994), Resistance and Power in Organizations, London: Routledge.

Jones, R. A., Jimmieson, N. L. & Griffiths, A. (2005),’’The Impact o f Organizational Cul­ ture and Reshaping Capabilities on Change Implementation Success: The Mediating Role o f Readiness for Change”, Journal o f Management Studies, 42(2): 361-86.

Kassing, J. W. &Avtgis, T. A. (1999), “Examin­ ing the Relationship between Organiza­ tional Dissent and Aggressive Communica­ tion”, Management Communication Quar­ terly, 13(1): 100-15.

Kiefer, T. (2005), “Feeling Bad: Antecedents and Consequences o f Negative Emotions in Ongoing Change”, Journal o f Organiza­ tional Behavior. 26: 875-97

Labianca, G., Gray, B.& Brass, D. J. (2000), “A Grounded Model of Organizational Schema Change during Empowerment”, Organiza­ tion Science, 11(2): 235-57.

Lau, C.M. & Woodman, R. W. (1995), “ Under­ standing Organizational Change: A Sche­ matic Perspective”, The Academy o f Man­ agement Journal, 38(2): 537.

Lewin, K. (1947), “Frontiers in Group Dynam­ ics”, Human Relations,\: 5-41

Lewis L.K. (2011), Organizational Change: Cre­ ating Change through Strategic Communi­ cation, New York: Wiley-Blackwell.

Oreg, S. (2003), “Resistance to Change: Devel­ oping an Individual Differences Measure”, Journal o f Applied Psychology, 88(4): 587- 604.

Piderit, S. K. (2000), “Rethinking Resistance and Recognizing Ambivalence: A Multidimen­ sional View of Attitudes toward an Organi­ zational Change,” Academy o f Management Review, 25:783-94.

Poole, M. S. & Van deVen, A. H. (2004), Hand­ book of Organizational Change and Inno­ vation, New York, Oxford University Press.

Putnam, L. L., Grant, D., Grant, M.& Cutcher, L. (2005), “Discourse and Resistance: Tar­ gets, Practices, and Consequences”, Man­ agement Communication Quarterly, 19(1): 5-18

Ramnarayan, S. &Nilakant, V. (2006), “Dynam­ ics o f Reinvention”, Vikalpa, 31(1): 31.

Reichers, A. E., Wanous, J. P.& Austin, J. T. (1997), “ U nderstanding and Managing Cynicism about Organizational Change”, Academy o f Management Executive, 11(1): 48-59.

Reissner, S.C. (2008), Narratives of Organiza­ tional Change and Learning: Making Sense o f Testing Times, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.

Schein, E. (1993), “On Dialogue, Culture, and Organizational Learning”, Organizational Dynamics, 22(2): 40-51.

Shapiro, D.L., Lewicki, R.J, & Devine, P. (1985), “When Do Employees Choose Deceptive Tactics to Stop Unwanted Organizational Changtzl"Research on Negotiation in Or­ ganizations, 5: 155-84.

Sinha, J.B.P. (2000), Patterns of Work Culture: Cases and Strategies for Culture Building, New Delhi: Sage

Waddell, D.& Sohal, A. S. (1998), “Resistance: A Constructive Tool for Change Management, Management Decision, 36(8): 543-48.

Zaltman, G. & Duncan, R. (1977), Strategies for Planned Change, New York: John Wiley & Sons.

The Indian Journal o f Industrial Relations, Vol. 52, No. 2, October 2016 261 i

Vaibhavi Kulkcirni

Appendix 1 General Telephone Script to Communicate with Potential Participants

I am a US-bascd researcher, visiting India for data collection related to change management. I managed to get your contact details from an HR professional from your organization when I recently attended a Change Management conclave in India. Do you have a minute to talk?

Would you be comfortable talking to me about your experiences related to organizational change? Confidentiality will be paramount in this case and our discussion will not be shared with anyone in your organization. Anything you share will be used for research purposes only. O f course, at any given point o f time if you feel uncomfortable, we can stop talking and 1 will destroy all documentation regarding our discussion.

My information is available on my university’s website, and when we meet, I can also share with you the Dean’s contact details, so that you can be assured o f my credentials. This study has been ap­ proved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) and I will show you the approval when we meet. The approval clearly states that you have the right to stop at any time and if you find the study problem­ atic, you can address your complaints to the Board.

If you are comfortable, I would like to meet with you and discuss this further. Can we do so?

Appendix 2 Participant Information1

Number Name Sex Age Industry

1 Neeraj Male 41 Manufacturing 2 Ratnadeep Male 46 Manufacturing 3 Neera Female 33 Manufacturing 4 Yash Male 46 Manufacturing 5 Chetan Male 40 Manufacturing 6 Janak Male 45 Manufacturing 7 Kaushik Male 52 Oil & Gas 8 Deepak Male 48 Oil & Gas 9 Raj an Male 41 Oil & Gas 10 Roopkumar Male 55 Oil & Gas 11 Ashok Male 39 Oil & Gas 12 Disha Female 33 Oil & Gas 13 Preeta Female 32 Pharmaceuticals 14 Shyam Sunder Male 55 Pharmaceuticals 15 Vedika Female 40 Pharmaceuticals 16 Inder Male 48 Retail 17 Kamala Female 42 Retail 18 Bhavya Male 34 Steel 19 Gopalan Male 48 Steel 20 Ishwar Male 40 Steel 21 Hasit Male 39 Steel 22 Zarna Female 48 Telecommunications 23 Urvish Male 43 Telecommunications 24 Teja Male 35 Automobile 25 Sameer Male 51 Banking 26 Utpal Male 50 Banking

1 Pseudonyms given to the participants for reasons of confidentiality

262 The Indian Journal o f Industrial Relations, Vol. 52, No. 2, October 2016

Employee Interpretations o f Change

27 Brijesh Male 38 Banking 28 Narayan Male 33 Banking 29 Subhajit Male 36 Broking Industry 30 Jasmine Female 30 Construction 31 Hasmukh Male 44 Construction 32 Mamita Female 38 Construction 33 Navjot Male 49 Construction 34 Subramaniam Male 36 Fertilizers & Pesticides 35 Rupa Female 35 Fertilizers & Pesticides 36 Shashank Male 42 Fertilizers & Pesticides 37 Kapil Male 38 FMCG 38 Jay Male 47 FMCG 39 Geetha Female 35 FMCG 40 Subodh Male 40 FMCG 41 Amritlal Male 33 Food processing 42 Santana Female 28 Food Processing 43 Joseph Male 49 Food Processing 44 Faraz Male 36 Food Processing 45 Prasanth Male 48 Food Processing 46 Anvesh Male 31 Food Processing 47 Divya Female 28 Health 48 Shrikant Male 55 Insurance 49 Vishwas Male 35 Insurance 50 Roshan Male 53 Insurance 51 A rpita Female 51 Insurance 52 Rupa Female 44 Insurance 53 Ravikant Male 37 IT Industry 54 Arup Male 33 IT Industry

Appendix 3 Guiding Questions for In-Depth Interviews

Initial Guiding Questions

1. Can you tell me about the change that your organization implemented? 2. When did you first hear about it? 3. What is your role vis-a-vis this change? 4. What was your reaction when you heard about the change? 5. How did other members in your organization react to the change announcement? 6. Did your reaction change over time, or did you continue feeling the same way? 7. Why do you think this change was implemented? 8. What do you think o f those involved with implementing the change? 9. If you had to provide input to those involved in the change, what would you tell them? 10. Can you share some of your key experiences and key organizational events surrounding

the change communication and change implementation?

The Indian Journal o f Industrial Relations, Vol. 52, No. 2, October 2016 263

Perceptions of Territoriality in Open Office Environment: Impact on Situated Learning

Aneetha Rao Kasuganti & Pooja Purang

This study analyzed the effect o f territoriality on situated learning in open-plan offices. A cross-sec­ tio n a l study was conducted on 112 p ro fessio n a ls fro m I T and consultancy companies. Results o f hierarchical linear regression with bootstrapping indicated that territorial behavior was a signifi­ cant predictor o f situated learn­ ing in open office environments. Findings o f the study add to the existing literature on facilitators o f situated learning by identify­ ing that feelin g s o f control and belonging that territorial behav­ ior invokes allow fo r greater in­ te ra c tio n th ereb y in c re a sin g knowledge sharing and prom ot­ ing learning that occurs in ev­ eryday activities on the job. The results o f the study also provide inputs to practitioners, guiding them in the creation o f environ­ ments that support situated learn­ ing.

Aneetlia Rao Kasuganti (E-mail: aneethakasug [email protected]) is Research Scholar &Pooja Purang (E-mail: purang p @ iitb .ac.in ) is Professor, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, IIT Bombay, Mumbai 400076.

Introduction

Changing technologies, expanding markets and fierce com petition in the rapidly changing business environments have made learning a process by which organizations develop the ability to face change and gain com petitive advantage (Argote, 1999; Stata, 1989). O rganiza­ tional learning has therefore captured the interest o f both researchers and practi­ tioners; researchers attem pt to under­ stand the phenomenon and identify what promotes or facilitates learning in orga­ nizations; practitioners seek to use this knowledge to identify interventions that w ould ensure prom otion o f learning, th e re b y e n su rin g s u s ta in a b ility and growth o f the organization. The practice based view o f organizational learning considers it as a social process, em pha­ sizing its collective and situated nature. According to this perspective, learning occurs during activities and practices that are shared and rooted in m ulti-dim en­ sional organizational contexts comprising individuals, their actions, relationships, and the physical environment in which the actions take place (Brow n &Duguid, 1991; Nova, 2005). Ittelson, Franck and O ’Hanlon (1976) argue that individuals

264 The Indian Journal o f Industrial Relations, Vol. 52, No. 2, October 2016

Copyright of Indian Journal of Industrial Relations is the property of Shri Ram Centre for Industrial Relations, Human Resources, Economic & Social Development and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.