A Correlational Study Examining Project Management Leaders Implementation of Lessons Learned Practices that Increases Organizational Revenue

Chapter One – Introduction

The 21st century has posed several challenges to how organizations operate to

retain their competitive advantage (Chung & Hsu, 2010). To keep pace in a constantly

evolving business world, organizations often have found it necessary to implement major

organizational changes that affect their processes, products, and people (Chung & Hsu,

2010). As organizations have examined how they can improve their competitiveness,

project management has become accepted as a “primary candidate in executing business

strategy” (Shenhar, Milošević, Dvir, & Thamhain, 2007, p. 3). Project management is

the knowledge, skills, tools, and techniques to execute organizational change initiatives

(Kerzner, 2003; Lientz & Rea, 2002). Organizations that have successfully utilized

standard project management practices have realized improved organizational

performance and other tangible and intangible results (Kerzner, 2003; Thomas &

Mullaly, 2008).

The implementation of project management practices has constituted a significant

organizational change initiative because it has affected business processes, organizational

structures, and even the required skills of the workforce (Bredillet, Yatim, & Ruiz, 2010;

Kwak & Anbari, 2009). In spite of substantial research supporting the benefits of project

management practices, effective implementation of these practices within organizations

has remained elusive (Kwak & Anbari, 2009; Martinsuo, Hensman, Artto, Kujala, &

Jaafari, 2006). What organizational leaders have found has been that the complex nature

of organizational change initiatives can be “extremely difficult to achieve” (Aldhfayan,

2008, p. 2).

According to Armenakis, Berneth, Pitts, and Walker (2007), a possible source of

failure has been a lack of understanding the organizational change recipients’ beliefs that

determine the degree of acceptance. Organizational change recipients have developed a

certain attitude toward change through a “process of individual reflection and collective

sense-making that comes from a series of interactions with their colleagues”

(Bouckenooghe, 2010, p. 519). As social information processing model, an individual’s

change beliefs may have also be shaped by the beliefs of others (Armenakis, Bernerth, et

al., 2007; Bouckenooghe, 2010; Rogers, 2003). To successfully plan and execute

organization change initiatives, such as implementing project management practices,

organizational leaders have needed to assess and understand the organizational change

recipients’ beliefs to aid in the implementation of project management practices

(Armenakis, Bernerth, et al., 2007).

This chapter presents the background of the problem, statement of the problem,

research questions, purpose of the study, and the theoretical proposition of the study as

well as the significance of the study, nature of the study, definition of the terms,

assumptions, and limitations of the study.

Background of the Problem

Changing market demands, advances in technological innovations, and their

effect on business practices and processes have been the focus of many organizational

change initiatives (Aldhfayan, 2008; Chung & Hsu, 2010). A study conducted by the

Society for Human Resource Management (Benedict, 2007) found that “more than four

out of five organizations (82%) had implemented or planned to implement new

processes, products, services and/or policies requiring organization-wide change

management initiatives” (p. 1).

With costs of organizational change initiatives ranging up to hundreds of

thousands to hundreds of millions of dollars, the need for a successful change initiative

has become vital to the financial health of a company (Calogero, 2000). In spite of

substantial research supporting the benefits and value of project management practices,

effective implementation of these practices within an organization has been difficult to

achieve (Martinsuo et al., 2006). While recognition of the value of project management

has existed, research on the implementation of project management practices has

contended that the cultural change required within an organization has been a major

barrier in the implementation (Bredillet et al., 2010; Kwak & Anbari, 2009). The change

of an organization’s existing business processes has introduced many challenges for an

organization and its members (Bredillet et al., 2010; Shenhar et al., 2007).

The complex nature of adopting a new management approach has presented

numerous risks resulting from organizational resistance, communication breakdown, and

insufficient time devoted to training, but many organizations have believed that the

expected benefits outweigh these risks (Benedict, 2007; Martinsuo et al., 2006).

Supplemental research has provided additional evidence that the implementation

resulting from corporate cultures has been slow or may not have occurred at all

(Christensen, Marx, & Stevenson, 2006; Kwak & Anbari, 2009). However, the

underlying reasons for these failed change initiatives have not been fully explained

(Christensen et al., 2006; Kwak & Anbari, 2009).

Armenakis, Bernerth, et al. (2007) expressed that in “any organizational

transformation, change recipients formulate precursors (e.g. cognitions, emotions, and

intentions), which become part of their decision processes that result in resistance or

supportive behaviors” (p. 482). Armenakis, Bernerth, et al. (2007) stated that a

fundamental aspect of change initiatives is “the change message needed for successful

change implementation” (p. 482). Organizational change recipients have developed

certain beliefs toward change through interpersonal exchanges with their colleagues

(Bouckenooghe, 2010; Vishwanath, 2009). A belief has been defined as “an opinion or

conviction about the truth of something that may not be readily obvious or subject to

systematic verification” (Armenakis, Bernerth, et al., 2007, p. 483).

Armenakis, Bernerth, et al. (2007) argued that failing to measure and understand

the organizational change recipients’ beliefs that determine the degree of acceptance as a

possible source of failure. Armenakis, Bernerth, et al. (2007) contended that five change

beliefs—discrepancy, appropriateness, efficacy, principal support, and valence—

determine the degree of acceptance among the organizational change recipients regarding

an organizational change initiative.

Statement of the Problem

To effectively plan and implement an organizational transformation,

organizational leaders “need to be able to assess crucial precursors to behavioral

reactions” (Armenakis, Bernerth, et al., 2007, p. 483). Limited empirical information has

been available in understanding important organizational change recipients’ beliefs in the

process of organizational change (Bouckenooghe, 2010; Vishwanath, 2009). The

challenge for organizational leaders has been to understand the change recipients’ beliefs

about the proposed change and consequently plan strategies for resolving any

deficiencies (Armenakis, Bernerth, et al., 2007).

Organizational change initiatives have posed many challenges particularly in

generating support of the organizational members (Bouckenooghe, 2010). Despite the

importance of members’ participation in the implementation of changes, management of

proposed change initiatives have concentrated more on the tangible aspects such as

scope, cost, and time required to implement the change (Weaver, 2007). Although these

factors have been important, organizational leaders often have not considered the

intangible aspects such as the change recipients’ beliefs as a factor in the implementation

of organizational change (Vishwanath, 2009).

Research Questions

The research questions for this study measured the organizational change

recipients’ beliefs and provided understanding of why the change recipients report those

stated beliefs. These beliefs were examined quantitatively and qualitatively for the

purpose of assessing both what organizational change recipients believe in terms of the

organizational change and why they report those stated beliefs. The research questions

for this study are as follows:

Research Question #1: What are organizational change recipients’ beliefs

regarding the adoption of project management as an organizational change?

Research Question #2: Why do the organizational change recipients’ hold the

beliefs they do about the adoption of project management as an organizational change?

The first research question used a survey to measure the prevalence of the

phenomenon (Yin, 2009). The second research question was explanatory and led to the

use of a case study approach (Yin, 2009). These research questions provided a justifiable

rationale for conducting a single case study in order to understand the phenomenon in

depth and within its real-life context (Yin, 2009). In addition, an explanatory sequential

mixed methods approach allowed the qualitative results to explain the quantitative results

through elaboration, rather than statistical frequencies or incidence (Creswell & Plano

Clark, 2011; Yin, 2009).

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to measure the organizational change recipients’

beliefs on the adoption of project management practices as an organizational change

initiative and understand why the change recipients report those stated beliefs.

Armenakis, Bernerth, et al. (2007) contended the five change recipient beliefs—

discrepancy, appropriateness, efficacy, principal support, and valence—can determine the

degree of acceptance among the organizational change recipients. According to

Armenakis, Bernerth, et al. (2007), understanding these beliefs was relevant to the

“adoption and institutionalization of organizational change” (p. 482). Research has been

needed to provide organizational leaders with information that can be used for planning

and executing successful organizational change initiatives (Armenakis, Bernerth, et al.,

2007).

Theoretical Proposition

The theoretical basis for this research study was the diffusion of innovation.

According to Rogers (2003), innovation was defined as “an idea, practice, or object that

is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption” (p. 12). In the context of

this study, innovation was the adoption of project management practices. Diffusion

research was a “particular type of communication research” (Rogers, 2003, p. 47). The

diffusion of innovation looked at how participants exchange information with one

another in order to reach mutual understanding (Rogers, 2003; Vishwanath & Barnett,

2011). A classic diffusion study conducted by Columbia University established that

diffusion of an innovation was a social process (Rogers, 2003). “The most noted impact

of the Columbia University drug study was to orient future diffusion research toward

investigating the interpersonal networks through which subjective evaluations of an

innovation are exchanged among the individuals in a system” (p. 65).

The innovation-decision process referred to the intellectual process by which an

individual: (1) becomes knowledgeable about an innovation (knowledge stage), (2) forms

an attitude toward the innovation (persuasion stage), (3) reaches a decision to adopt or

reject the innovation (decision stage), (4) implements the new innovation

(implementation stage), and (5) confirms the decision (confirmation stage) (Rogers,

2003). Rogers (2003) stated the innovation-decision process is used to gather

information about an innovation in order to reduce uncertainties about its advantages and

disadvantages. This study utilized the persuasion stage of the innovation-decision

process to examine the organizational change recipients’ beliefs about a proposed

organizational change.

Previous diffusion research has shown that most individuals do not evaluate an

innovation on the basis of scientific studies but on the subjective evaluation that is

conveyed to them from other individuals like themselves (Rogers, 2003). Rogers (2003)

described it as “the social power of peers talking to peers about the innovation that led to

adoption of the new idea” (p. 68). According to Rogers’ diffusion of innovation theory,

the subjective evaluation by individuals within a social system has led to a decision to

either adopt or reject an innovation. Within the innovation-decision process, the

organizational change recipients have developed a certain attitude toward an innovation

from a series of interactions with their colleagues (Bouckenooghe, 2010; Rogers, 2003).

When the innovation-decision process has been made by an organization, rather than by

individuals, the “decision process becomes more complicated” (Rogers, 2003, p. 22). As

a social system, the interpersonal communication among the organizational change

recipients’ beliefs may have also been shaped by the beliefs of others (Rogers, 2003;

Armenakis, Harris, & Mossholder, 1993).

This study investigated the persuasion stage of the innovation-decision process,

which allows an individual to exhibit a belief about the innovation (Vishwanath, 2009;

Rogers, 2003). Whether an individual adopts or rejects an innovation has been based on

their beliefs that influence their decision toward the innovation (Rogers, 2003).

Understanding why they chose to make their decision would improve understanding

about the innovation-decision process (Rogers, 2003). According to Rogers (2003),

asking “why questions about adoption have seldom been probed effectively by diffusion

researchers” (p. 115).

Significance of the Study

A change in an organization’s processes and systems has required leadership to

plan for the changes the new system will bring (Aldhfayan, 2008; Calogero, 2000). All

levels of an organization should have been informed of the change and how it will affect

them personally because it has been believed that the change is perceived differently at

each level (Bouckenooghe, 2010). The change message has played an important role

because it “provides insight into how the sense-making and perception may differ

between stakeholder groups” (Bouckenooghe, 2010, p. 517). Research has been needed

to provide information for decision makers on how to effectively communicate the

necessary change messages to successfully adopt an innovation into an organization.

Measuring the degree of acceptance may aid organizational leaders with an

understanding of the persuasion stage of the innovation-diffusion process to adequately

plan and successfully execute the change into an organization.

Nature of the Study

The philosophical assumptions guiding the research approach, design, and

procedures for this study were built on a pragmatic worldview (Creswell & Plano Clark,

2011). A pragmatic worldview relies on “many ideas including employing what works,

using diverse approaches, and valuing both objective and subjective knowledge”

(Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011, p. 43). Within this context, a single case study was used

with the intention that the case represents a situation where “meaningful characteristics of

real-life events” need to be understood (Yin, 2009, p. 4).

This study used a single case utilizing an explanatory sequential mixed methods

research design with an embedded unit of analysis aimed at examining the five change

beliefs of members of an organization regarding a given organizational change (Yin,

2009). According to Yin (2009), understanding a research topic can be facilitated with a

case study approach in order to study individuals in their natural settings. The case study

method was chosen to understand the real life phenomenon in depth by understanding

important, contextual conditions (Yin, 2009).

This single case study utilized an embedded design. An embedded design

consisted of subunits of analyses, which “add[ed] significant opportunities for extensive

analysis, enhancing the insights into the single case” (Yin, 2009, p. 52). In the context of

this study, executive management, change agents, project managers/project leaders, and

project management practitioners of a selected organization were the embedded unit of

analysis. A growing body of scholars has called for more research that fosters a

multisource data collection method because it has provided insight into how the sense-

making and perception may differ between stakeholder groups (Poole & Van de Ven,

2004). A multisource data collection method also has contributed to the external validity

of the study’s findings (Bouckenooghe, 2010; Yin, 2009). Multisource data collection

encompassed an approach to knowledge that attempts to consider multiple viewpoints,

perspectives, and positions (Bouckenooghe, 2010). The multisource data collection

method for this study included conducting a survey to measure the organizational change

recipients’ beliefs regarding the adoption of project management as an organizational

change and then following up with interviews to determine why the participants held the

beliefs they did about the adoption of project management as an organizational change.

The study used a mixed methods design to reduce potential biases and weakness

of either a quantitative or qualitative design (Yin, 2009). A mixed methods design

“forces the research methods to share the same research questions, to collect

complementary data, and to conduct counterpart analyses” (Yin, 2009, p. 63). Mixed

methods studies have permitted researchers to address more complicated research

questions and collect a richer, stronger array of evidence than can be accomplished by

any single method alone (Yin, 2009).

This study was implemented in two distinct phases. The first phase involved

collecting quantitative data using the Organizational Change Recipients’ Belief Scale

(OCRBS) to assess the five change beliefs—discrepancy, appropriateness, efficacy,

principal support, and valence—as defined in the definition of terms (Armenakis,

Bernerth, et al, 2007). The quantitative portion of this study used a stratified purposeful

sampling of 50 employees from a selected organization. The stratification of the

quantitative sample represented four subgroups consisting of executive management,

change agents, project managers/project leaders, and project practitioners. The

qualitative portion of this study was randomly selected from the four subgroups. This

combined methodology was appropriate since both the quantitative and qualitative

portions of the research design added the requisite depth and rigor to answer the research

questions (Yin, 2009).

The quantitative and qualitative phases of the study had different priorities

because each phase had a specific emphasis in addressing the research questions

(Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). The timing of when the two research phases were

conducted was sequential with the quantitative phase occurring first (Creswell & Plano

Clark, 2011). In regard to interpreting the data, Creswell and Plano Clark (2011)

suggested mixing the data during data analysis. Using an “interactive strategy of

merging,” (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011, p. 66) this research brought the quantitative

data and qualitative data together through combined analysis.

Definitions of Terms

The following terms were used throughout the study and were defined to establish

a foundation of meaning and understanding.

Belief – “An opinion or a conviction about the truth of something that may not be

readily obvious or subject to systematic verification” (Armenakis, Bernerth, et al., 2007,

p. 483).

Change agent – An individual whose influence can affect another individuals’

innovation-decision in a direction deemed desirable by the organization; a categorical

variable used as an embedded unit of analysis (Rogers, 2003).

Change beliefs – “Precursors of cognitions, emotions, and intentions that

determine buy-in in the paradigms and behaviors of those who will be affected by the

change” (Armenakis, Bernerth, et al., 2007, p. 482). The five change beliefs considered

significant in determining the reactions of change recipients to an organizational change

were:

 Discrepancy – The belief that some change is needed.

 Appropriateness – The belief that a specific organizational change is necessary to

eliminate the discrepancy.

 Efficacy – The belief that the organization has the capability to implement the

organizational change.

 Principal support – The belief that the support, or lack of support, can influence

the reaction of organizational change recipients’ behaviors and actions to the

proposed organizational change.

 Valence – The belief that individuals will adopt new behaviors based on their

perceived reward or benefits of the change (Armenakis, Bernerth, et al., 2007).

Change recipients – Individuals impacted, positively or negatively, by the

outcome of the organizational change initiative (Armenakis, Bernerth, et al., 2007).

Executive management – Members of an organization who have the authority to

authorize the expenditure of financial and human resources; a categorical variable used as

an embedded unit of analysis (Crawford, 2006).

Organizational change – Modification of an organization’s structure or processes

to improve performance, communication, decision-making, and problem-solving

capabilities (Burke, 2008).

Organizational change initiative – Activities that achieve various organizational

strategic goals or objectives and expend financial, capital, and human resources of an

organization (Burke, 2008).

Opinion leader – An individual who is able to influence other individuals’

attitudes or beliefs informally in a desired way with relative frequency (Rogers, 2003).

Project manager/project leader – Organizational member designated to manage or

lead others (or both) within a project environment to expected project outcomes based on

defined and accepted objectives; a categorical variable used as an embedded unit of

analysis (Crawford, 2006).

Project management – “The application of knowledge, skills, tools, and

techniques to project activities to meet project requirements” (Project Management

Institute, 2008, p. 6).

Project management practices – Individualized, discrete knowledge, skills, tools,

and techniques (Project Management Institute, 2008).

Project practitioner – Organizational member who performs various activities

within a project environment that leads to project outcomes based on defined and

accepted objectives; a categorical variable used as an embedded unit of analysis

(Crawford, 2006).

Assumptions

The organization described in this research study sought to adopt and

institutionalize project management practices was an initial assumption and was based on

the belief that the organizational leaders perceived that adopting project management

practices may result in some form of tangible or intangible value (Thomas & Mullaly,

2008). The external environment in which the organization operated along with the

organization’s internal structure and practices may have influenced the adoption and

implementation of project management practices was another assumption (Kwak &

Anbari, 2009). In the case of the selected organization for this study, an example of an

external factor that required project management practices was the result of increasing

governmental regulations to ensure compliance. An organization’s culture may influence

the adoption and implementation of project management practices (Project Management

Institute, 2008).

The definition of project management in organizations has continued to evolve in

terms of meaning and complexity (Project Management Institute, 2008). Achieving a

common definition for what is known as project management may not be the same across

and within organizations (Thomas & Mullaly, 2008). An assumption made, for this

study, was that the term project management is understood to be the same across all

organizations (Thomas & Mullaly, 2008). Project management has been defined broadly

to include all processes and practices to manage projects (Project Management Institute,

2008).

Another assumption concerned the various factors that affect the population and

sample size of the research study. Authorization by executive management and the

availability of adequate numbers of organizational change recipients determined the final

selection of the organization that participated in this study. Participation in the study was

voluntary. The study assumed that participants provided honest accounts of their beliefs

on the implementation of organizational change.

Limitations

A single case study approach was a limitation for the study. Making causal

conclusions from case studies is difficult due to the generality of the findings. This case

study involved the change beliefs of one organization and the findings of this study

cannot be applied to similar organizations. To offset this limitation, a single case study

design can be strengthened by using a mixed methods design to allow researchers to

address more complicated research questions and collect a richer, stronger array of

evidence than can be accomplished by any single method alone (Yin, 2009).

The second limitation was the sample size of the study. Yin (2009) argued that

subunits of analyses and can “add significant opportunities for extensive analysis,

enhancing the insights into the single case” (p. 52). In the context of this study, the

embedded units of analysis included executive management, change agents, project

managers, and project management practitioners of a selected organization. Because of

the small sample size of the quantitative phase, descriptive statistics was used to describe

the quantitative data of the four subgroups and the organization.

To compensate for this limitation, the qualitative phase did utilize the embedded

units of analysis, which allowed for extensive analysis and greater insight into the case.

A growing body of scholars has called for more research that fosters a multisource data

collection method because it provides insight into how the sense-making and perception

may differ between stakeholder groups (Poole & Van de Ven, 2004). A multisource data

collection method also has contributed to the external validity of the study’s findings

(Bouckenooghe, 2010). Mixed method approaches to research have made a valuable

contribution whereby research questions can be asked and answered from different

perspectives (Bryman, 2008). This research approach has improved the significance of

the findings by increasing the richness of the data available for interpretation and thereby

improving the usefulness of the findings (Bryman, 2008).

Contribution to the Field of Organizational Leadership

“Getting a new idea adopted, even when it has obvious advantages, is difficult”

(Rogers, 2003, p. 1). So has been the case for the adoption of project management

practices. As project management has been used increasingly as a means to achieve an

organization’s strategic objective, organizational leaders have needed to know and

understand that the adoption of project management practices constitutes in and of itself

an organizational change initiative. Research has become increasingly important as

evidence shows that most change initiatives result in failure, which has continued to

increase, and researchers have pointed to the readiness-for-change as a possible source

(Porras & Robertson, 1991). Given this assertion, change management experts have now

advocated a greater focus on planning for change to effectively manage the change

process to improve the adoption and sustainability of the change initiative (Lawler &

Worley, 2006).

The findings of this study, which explored the dimensions of organizational

change recipients’ beliefs, add to the body of knowledge for organizational leadership by

providing insights on the readiness-level for adopting project management practices.

Benefits of the study included: (a) a deeper understanding of organizational adoption of

standards and methods; (b) insight into change recipients’ beliefs about change; and (c) a

greater awareness of planning and executing the implementation plan to successfully

introduce change into an organization.

Summary

As organizations and management of organizations evolved together with the

changes in the global working environment (Aldhfayan, 2008), the importance of project

management as a modern management and business solution for effective performance of

the organization has been recognized (Kerzner, 2003; Lientz & Rea, 2002). The change

from an organization’s current business processes to implementing project management

practices has presented many challenges to the members of the organization (Bredillet et

al., 2010). Armenakis, Bernerth, et al. (2007) argued that organizational leaders need to

understand the organizational change recipients’ beliefs because these change beliefs are

“implicitly linked to employee behaviors and organizational effectiveness” (p. 502).

Understanding the perception of the organizational change recipients may significantly

affect the performance and effectiveness of the organizational change (Armenakis,

Bernerth, et al., 2007).

This study utilized the diffusion of innovation theory to examine the

organizational change recipients’ beliefs about a proposed organizational change, and the

purpose of this research study was to examine five organizational change beliefs of an

organization regarding a given organizational change (Armenakis, Bernerth, et al., 2007).

These beliefs were examined quantitatively and qualitatively for the purpose of assessing

what organizational change recipients believe in terms of the organizational change and

why the respondents reported those stated beliefs. Chapter Two of the study examines

the literature on organizational change, project management, and the diffusion of

innovation. Chapter Three presents the philosophical basis for the study and concludes

with the choice of research methods to allow the reader to judge the rigor of the research

design. Chapter Four presents the quantitative and qualitative results of the study.

Chapter Five discusses the results and provides conclusions about the study.

Chapter Two – Literature Review

Creswell (1998) stated, “The strongest and most scholarly rationale for a research

study follows from a documented need in the literature for increased understanding and

dialogue about an issue” (p. 94). The purpose of this study was to discover and

understand organizational change recipients’ beliefs on the adoption of project

management practices as an organizational change initiative. According to Armenakis,

Bernerth, et al., (2007), a lack of understanding the organizational change recipients’

beliefs that determines the degree of acceptance has been a possible source of failure of

implementing an organizational change initiative. This chapter examines key literature

on organizational change management, diffusion of innovation, and project management

that are relevant in understanding the adoption of project management practices in an

organization as an organizational change initiative.

Organizational Change Management

“Implementing strategic change is one of the most important undertakings of an

organization” (Sonenshein, 2010, p. 477). Successful implementation of strategic change

can reinvigorate an organization, but failure can lead to catastrophic consequences

including the death of the organization (Sonenshein, 2010). Today, virtually every

organization has faced significant change (Chung & Hsu, 2010; Kerzner, 2010).

Organizations in all industries have encountered some form of global competition,

technological change, product obsolescence, or downsizing (Chung & Hsu, 2010).

Organizational change management has supported the members of the

organization to effectively manage the change towards organizational success (De Graaff

& Kolmos, 2009). Change is a process, not an event (Fullan, 2001), which takes time yet

has a deep impact and does not occur quickly (Fullan, 2001). Change management has

been a method that was developed to address required changes in procedures, individuals,

companies, and societies—enabling the change from the current state to a preferred

future state (De Graaff & Kolmos, 2009).

The framework of the organizational change management has been grounded,

almost without exception, from the construct developed by Lewin’s (1976) seminal work

(Oreg & Berson, 2009). A common characteristic of many theoretical models of

organizational change management has been that they explicitly or implicitly utilize

Lewin’s (1976) basic three-stage theory of change (Oreg & Berson, 2009). Lewin (1976)

identified three phases that most people went through when introduced to change. The

first stage, called unfreezing, included the introduction of change and the process of

working through the defense mechanisms a person may have had in place to resist

changing his or her beliefs (Lewin, 1976). The second stage of the process was when

actual change occurred (Lewin, 1976). A person may have experienced confusion during

the second stage while learning to accept the new reality of the change (Lewin, 1976).

The final stage was called the refreezing when a person’s comfort level returned to its

previous level before change was first introduced (Lewin, 1976).

Most of the research covered in previous organizational change focused on how

organizations prepare for, implement, and react to organizational change (Oreg, Vakola,

& Armenakis, 2011). However, the main determinant to which any organizational

change can succeed has been how change recipients react to organizational change (Oreg

et al., 2011). Although the reaction of the change recipients’ has been embedded within

many of the works on organizational change, the focus in most has been at the

organizational level (Oreg et al., 2011). Recently, research has emerged where the focus

has been on reactions of the individuals (i.e., change recipients) to organizational change

(Oreg et al., 2011). Numerous studies have been conducted with the aim of identifying

the characteristics and conditions that antecede successful organizational change (Oreg &

Berson, 2009). Most of these works have adopted a macro perspective, focusing on

factors such as the organization’s structure, environment, and strategy (Oreg & Berson,

2009).

Although researchers have cited diverse obstacles to change, including

organizational culture and the process of implementing change, scholars have been

emphasizing attitude-related human behavior as a primary obstacle to organizational

change (Szabla, 2007). Despite the claim that human behavior may be the main

perpetrator of organizational change failure, organizational researchers and practitioners

have known little about the multifaceted attitude-related nature of change (Szabla, 2007).

Theory and research have argued that a response to a change in an individual’s

environment comprises all three dimensions—cognition, emotion, and intention (Szabla,

2007).

Organizational Resistance to Change. Whether large or small organizational

change initiatives have been undertaken, executive management has created the

expectation that organizational members should be able to continuously adapt to these

changes (Caldwell, Herold, & Fedor, 2004). Due to the increasing amount and

complexity of organizational changes, substantial literature has emerged that examines

various change phenomena (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999). However, much of the

literature has failed to understand an organization’s resistance to change to determine if

adoption of the proposed change will succeed (Porras & Robertson, 1991).

Literature related to resistance to organizational change goes back to Lewin

(1943) and Coch and French (1948). Scholars viewed resistance to change as any set of

intentions and actions that slowed or hindered the implementation of an organizational

change (Bouckenooghe, 2010). Early studies discussed diverse aspects of organizational

change and resistance, but subsequent studies have been more limited (Balogun,

Bartunek, & Do, 2010).

Over the last decade, interest in the psychological processes involved in

employees’ experiences of organizational change has grown (Van Dam, Oreg, & Schyns,

2008). While the failure of an organizational change may be due to many factors, few

have been as important as employees’ reactions to the change (Coch & French, 1948;

Van Dam et al., 2008). Empirical research on the psychological processes involved in

organizational change has only been recent (Van Dam et al., 2008). Until the 1990s,

research dealing with organizational change typically took a macro, systems-oriented

approach (Oreg & Berson, 2009).

Only in the last decade have researchers begun to study the change-related

attitudes using a variety of approaches to understanding employees’ reactions to change

(Van Dam et al., 2008). Some researchers focused on employees’ resistance to

organizational changes, while others focused on readiness for change (Van Dam et al.,

2008). Van Dam et al. (2008) presented that both reactions to change to be a

multidimensional attitude consisting of cognitive, affective, and behavioral components.

Recently, some attempts to explore group or relational effects on resistance to

change have begun (Balogun et al., 2010). Research on how leader-member relationships

influence resistance to change has reflected an increasing awareness of relationships in

organizational change (Balogun et al., 2010). However, underlying relational group

dynamics in organizational change have not been explored, either within change recipient

groups or between change recipient and change agent groups (Balogun et al., 2010).

When preparing for change, an organization needs to first identify from where

resistance to the change may come (Michelman, 2007). The second step is to determine

who has influencing power (Michelman, 2007). Influential people typically have

influenced their own area and other parts of the organization (Michelman, 2007). Finally,

the organization needs to identify the strength of the resistance to any change

(Michelman, 2007). These actions can help organizations develop an approach to

implementing change (Michelman, 2007).

Organizational change has been difficult and most attempts to initiate and

implement change have failed (Black & Gregersen, 2003). One problem, identified by

Black & Gregersen (2003), has been the tendency of companies to look for the

convenient way to reduce resistance to change, rather than addressing root causes of the

failure. Kaliprasad (2006) found that resistance to change has been prevalent in a culture

built on tradition and stability rather than a focus on responsiveness and flexibility.

Kaliprasad communicated that a company must create an environment that is comfortable

with change. Earlier studies suggested that organizational change requires an adaptive

behavior and frequent modification of the change management plan to ensure that

resistance to change will be addressed (Kaliprasad, 2006).

Organizational Readiness for Change. Organizational change began by

changing the attitudes of individuals (Black & Gregersen, 2003). According to Black and

Gregersen (2003), organizational change required some individual early adopters to

achieve traction or momentum. Moving organizational members to the point of adopting

change has been the role of the change agent (Lawler & Worley, 2006) who should have

been actively engaged in the design and implementation of the organizational change and

should have guided the implementation activities with the organizational employees

(Armenakis, Harris, Cole, Fillmer, & Self, 2007). The effectiveness of the change agent

has depended on the readiness-level of the organization (Lawler & Worley, 2006).

Lawler and Worley (2006) proposed that organizations must become comfortable with

adopting change – so comfortable that adopting change was an expected mode of

conducting business.

Organizational change management research provided evidence that most change

initiatives were unsuccessful, and a possible cause for this failure has been directed

toward the readiness for change (Porras & Robertson, 1991). Given this assertion,

change management experts have advocated a greater emphasis on planning for change to

effectively manage the change process, as well as improving the adoption and

sustainability of the change initiative (Lawler & Worley, 2006).

Drawing on Lewin's three-stage model of change, change management experts

have proposed various strategies to create readiness by unfreezing existing mindsets

(Weiner, 2009; Armenakis, Harris, et al., 2007). The three stages were “unfreezing” an

existing state, moving to a new desirable state, and then “refreezing” that new state

(Weiner 2009). These strategies included highlighting the discrepancy between current

and desired performance levels, creating a vision of a future state, and fostering

confidence that this future state can be achieved (Weiner 2009). While these strategies

have seemed reasonable and useful, the scientific basis for these recommendations has

been limited (Weiner, 2009). Unlike individual resistance to change, organizational

readiness for change has not been subject to extensive empirical study (Armenakis,

Harris, et al., 2007; Weiner, 2009).

Existing research has overlooked the dynamic interplay between managers’ and

employees’ meaning constructions (Sonenshein, 2010). Scholars have taken a

predominately managerial perspective on how senior managers engage in activities that

constitute the constructing and sense making of what the new change means to

employees (Sonenshein, 2010). Yet, scholars have largely overlooked employees’

subsequent reinterpretations of these meanings (Sonenshein, 2010).

Eby, Adams, Russell, and Gaby (2000) stated, “…Perceptions of the

organization’s readiness for change are based on an individual’s unique interpretation of

the organization’s context” (p. 422). Moreover, Eby et al. (2000) asserted that individual

perceptions of organizational readiness generally evolved over time and that management

intervention such as communication, solicitation of participation, and active support can

help shape those perceptions. Readiness for change has been comprised of an

individual’s beliefs and attitudes that have arisen from one’s perception of an

organization’s ability to effect change (Armenakis et al., 1993; Eby et al., 2000).

Readiness has been a critical precursor to successfully implementing a change

initiative (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999; Weiner, 2009). More specifically, an

organization must first have been unfrozen from the status quo in order to implement

change (Lewin, 1943). Armenakis and Bedeian, (1999) argued that an important

distinction has been made by discriminating between readiness and resistance “by

considering readiness as a cognitive, emotional state and resistance as a set of resultant

behaviors” (p. 18). Armenakis and Bedeian suggested that the change recipient’s beliefs

were a critical precursor for one’s support for or resistance to a particular change.

Furthermore, Armenakis and Bedeian claimed that an individual’s state of readiness can

be influenced by management actions. For instance, management could have increased

individual readiness levels by consistently communicating five core messages – the

change was needed, it was appropriate, it was doable, it was supported, and it had

personal value for the change recipient (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999).

Readiness has been an important factor that can facilitate or undermine the

effectiveness (Eby et al., 2000) of proposed organizational changes. Readiness has been

a key component in building momentum and creating organizational acceptance for

change initiatives (Eby et al., 2000). As a result, management should have been able to

accurately gauge and appropriately influence organizational readiness through strategies

that have been designed to increase the likelihood of organizational acceptance of change

and ultimately its success (Eby et al., 2000).

Existing change management research has represented an unnecessarily narrow

view of the types of meanings that have been constructed during change by

predominately focusing on positive (readiness for change) or negative (resistance to

change) meanings of change (Sonenshein, 2010). Organizational readiness for change

was a multi-level construct (Weiner, 2009). Readiness has been more or less present at

the individual, group, unit, department, or organizational level (Weiner, 2009). Scholars

have found that senior management exerts downward influence on the meanings of

change, yet it has been less clear what theoretical process explains how change recipients

respond to these efforts, how they might reconstruct these meanings of change, and how

this reconstruction might impact their responses when implementing change (Sonenshein,

2010). This study utilized an inductive approach to organizational change by

incorporating a variety of meanings beyond the change-related attitudes of either

resistance to change or readiness for change.

A strong consensus about the content of readiness for change and the working

definition of attitudes has existed. This readiness for change has been best defined by

Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999) as “organizational members’ beliefs, attitudes, and

intentions regarding the extent to which changes are needed and the organization’s

capacity to successfully make those changes” (p. 681).

Organizational Leadership

To meet the demands of organizational change, organizational leaders have

utilized project management to effectively manage projects to achieve the organization’s

strategic goals for competitive advantage (Smith, 2005). Organizational change

management research provided evidence that most change initiatives have been

unsuccessful, and a possible cause for this failure has been directed toward the readiness

for change (Porras & Robertson, 1991). As part of the organizational change, project

failures have been a result of overlooking the need to address employee adoption and

resistance to change (Hornstein, 2012). Hornstein (2012) stated, “Whether or not a

project is successful has much to do with whether or not employees adopt the inevitable

changes that are advocated” (p. 31). The decision to adopt or not adopt the change was

based on good communication to provide understanding about the change and to guide

and motivate employees regarding the change (Merrell, 2012).

The diffusion of innovation has looked at how participants exchange information

with one another in order to reach mutual understanding (Rogers, 2003; Vishwanath &

Barnett, 2011). Diffusion research has been a “particular type of communication

research” (Rogers, 2003, p. 47). Rogers (2003) stated the innovation-decision process is

used to gather information about an innovation in order to reduce uncertainties about its

advantages and disadvantages.

It has been in the interest of organizations to be able to focus their change

assessments on uncovering sentiments that offer insights into the successes and

shortcomings of the organizational change effort (Armenakis, Harris, et al., 2007).

Utilizing a framework of the key change beliefs that identify supportive or resistive

behaviors would be very useful in planning and executing the organizational change

(Armenakis, Harris, et al., 2007).

Armenakis, Berneth, et al. (2007) contended that five change beliefs—

discrepancy, appropriateness, efficacy, principal support, and valence— determined the

degree of acceptance among the organizational change recipients regarding an

organizational change initiative. Such a framework benefitted organizational leaders and

change management practitioners (Armenakis, Berneth, et al., 2007). As part of the

communication about the change, principal support has looked at how organizational

members exchange information with one another in order to reach a mutual

understanding (Rogers, 2003; Vishwanath & Barnett, 2011). If the individuals believed

principal support among the opinion leaders and change agents was adequate, then this

belief could have influenced whether the change initiative was embraced (Armenakis,

Berneth, et al., 2007).

This study utilized the persuasion stage of the innovation-decision process to

examine the organizational change recipients’ beliefs about a proposed organizational

change. Measuring the degree of acceptance aided organizational leaders with an

understanding of the persuasion stage of the innovation-diffusion process to adequately

plan and successfully execute the change into the organization.

Diffusion of Innovation

The theoretical basis for this research study has been the diffusion of innovation,

which explored beyond the change-related attitudes of either resistance to change or

readiness for change in regard to adopting an innovation (Rogers, 2003). Introduced by

Everett Rogers in 1962, the diffusion of innovation was defined as "the process by which

an innovation is communicated through channels over time among the members of a

social system" (p. 11). The diffusion of innovation has been an extensive psycho-

sociological theory that describes the patterns of adoption, explains the method, and

predicts the successful implementation of a new invention (Rogers, 1995, 2003). The

diffusion of innovation has made significant contributions to the understanding and

promotion of behavioral change (Haider & Kreps, 2004).

Diffusion research did not emerge from a single discipline or a single event;

instead, different disciplines led to the development of this theory (Rogers, 2003).

Rogers’ diffusion of innovation, originally used in sociology and agriculture, was adapted

for use in areas such as communication, psychology, public health, and education (Haider

& Kreps, 2004). Diffusion research has been a specific type of communication research

(Vishwanath & Barnett, 2011) and has looked at how participants exchange information

with one another in order to reach a mutual understanding (Vishwanath & Barnett, 2011;

Rogers, 2003). Rogers (1995, 2003) categorized diffusion of innovation into four

components:

1. the innovation

2. the communication channels

3. time

4. the social system

Innovation. Innovation is an “idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by

an individual or other unit of adoption” (Rogers, 2003, p. 12). Rogers (2003) stated that

if an idea, practice, or process seems new to the individual, then it is considered an

innovation. An innovation may have been previously invented, but if an individual

perceives it as new, then it may be considered as an innovation for them (Sahin, 2006).

In the case for this study, the adoption of project management practices within an

organization was the innovation.

Communication Channels. Diffusion involves a specific type of communication

in which the message content that is exchanged is concerned with a new idea (Haider &

Kreps, 2004). Rogers (2003) defined communication channels as “a process in which

participants create and share information with one another in order to reach a mutual

understanding” (p. 5). A communication channel is the means by which the messages get

from one individual to another (Haider & Kreps, 2004).

Diffusion is a social process that involves interpersonal communication

relationships (Rogers, 2003). Interpersonal channels are those communications

transmitted between two or more individuals. Past diffusion studies have shown that

“most individuals do not evaluate an innovation on the basis of scientific studies of its

consequences …most people depend mainly upon a subjective evaluation of an

innovation that is conveyed to them from other individuals” (Rogers, 2003, p. 18). These

subjective evaluations can create or persuade an individual’s attitudes or beliefs regarding

the adoption of an innovation (Bouckenooghe, 2010; Vishwanath, 2009). These

subjective evaluations have been used to create meaning about the innovation in an effort

to influence others (Sonenshein, 2010).

Time. The time component is a unique aspect of diffusion research. Diffusion is

a process that occurs over time, rather than an event, with different concerns being

dominant at different stages throughout the process (Greenhalgh, Robert, MacFarlane,

Bate, & Kyriakidou, 2004). The decision to adopt an innovation takes time because of

the inherent uncertainty to adopt an innovation (Greenhalgh et al., 2004). Cognitive and

affective actions must be taken in order to evaluate the new idea and decide whether or

not to put the innovation into practice (Greenhalgh et al., 2004). The time component

consists of innovation-diffusion process, adopter categorization, and rate of adoptions

(Rogers, 2003).

Innovation-decision process. Rogers (2003) described the innovation-decision

process as “an information-seeking and information-processing activity, where an

individual is motivated to reduce uncertainty about the advantages and disadvantages of

an innovation” (p. 172). The innovation decision process (see Figure 1) refers to the

process by which an individual experiences the first knowledge of an innovation

(knowledge stage) to form an attitude toward the innovation (persuasion stage), to make a

decision to adopt or reject the idea (decision stage), to implement the new idea

(implementation stage), and to confirm the decision (confirmation stage (Sahin, 2006).

The innovation-decision process provides a framework to successfully plan and sustain

the adoption and implementation of an innovation (Vishwanath & Barnett, 2011).

Knowledge stage. The innovation-decision process starts with the knowledge

stage where information about the innovation is learned (Rogers, 2003). The knowledge

phase involves the dissemination of information about the innovation (Haider & Kreps,

2004). During the knowledge stage, the potential adopter seeks information about the

innovation to determine what the innovation is and how and why it works (Vishwanath &

Barnett, 2011).

Persuasion stage. Rogers (2003) differentiated the knowledge stage from the

persuasion stage in that the knowledge stage targets cognition while the persuasion stage

targets affection of an individual. In the persuasion stage, individuals form attitudes

based on their beliefs about the innovation, which then form their perceptions regarding

the adoption of the innovation (Rogers, 2003). The attitudes and beliefs are the results of

Knowledge

Stage Persuasion

Stage Decision

Stage 

Implementation

Stage 

Confirmation

Stage

Figure 1. The innovation-decision process. This figure illustrates the five stages of the

innovation-decision process. Adapted from Rogers, (2003). p. 170.

the information acquired by the individual about the innovation resulting from the

knowledge stage (Vishwanath, 2009).

The persuasion stage begins with the assumption that the individual has neither a

negative or positive attitude of the innovation (Vishwanath, 2009). The opinions and

beliefs of an individual on the innovation are influenced by colleagues and peers

(Bouckenooghe, 2010; Vishwanath, 2009). Subjective evaluation from peers is more

credible, in shaping the decision to adopt the innovation, than the evaluation of experts

(Bouckenooghe, 2010; Vishwanath, 2009). According to Rogers (2003), “it is at the

persuasion stage that a general perception of the innovation is developed” (p. 175). The

persuasion stage was an important aspect to this study on the adoption of project

management practices within an organization because in the persuasion stage individuals

form attitudes based on their beliefs about the innovation (Rogers, 2003).

Decision stage. While the persuasion stage forms the beliefs and opinions of an

individual to the innovation, the decision stage is where the individual decides to either

adopt or reject the innovation (Rogers, 2003). During the decision stage, the individual

engages in decision-making activities that lead to the adoption or rejection of the

innovation. Adoption of the innovation refers to the use of an innovation while rejection

means not to adopt an innovation (Rogers, 2003). Rogers (2003) contended that

throughout the innovation-decision process, the decision to reject the innovation is

possible in every stage.

Implementation stage. In the implementation stage, the innovation is

implemented. The implementation stage occurs when an adopter puts the innovation to

use. A significant amount of failures in organizational change have been attributed to

ineffective implementation (Robertson, Sorbello, & Unsworth, 2008; Surry & Ely, 2001;

Vishwanath, 2009). Because of these failures, a growing trend in diffusion research away

from the adoption stage towards implementation stage has started (Surry & Ely, 2001).

In spite of substantial research supporting the benefits of utilizing project management

practices, effective implementation of these practices has remained elusive (Martinsuo et

al., 2006).

The actual implementation of an innovation in a specific organizational setting

has been influenced by external and internal environmental factors (Surry & Ely, 2001).

According to Surry and Ely (2009), the implementation stage should consist of a

comprehensive organizational change management plan that includes both the cognitive

(what they know about the innovation) and affective (how they feel about the innovation)

aspects of dealing with activities, structures, and practices that are new to the people

involved.

Confirmation stage. The confirmation stage seeks reinforcement and support for

the decision to the adoption of the innovation (Rogers, 2003). The attitudes and beliefs

based on the subjective evaluations of peers become crucial at the confirmation stage

(Bouckenooghe, 2010; Vishwanath, 2009). Rogers (2003) communicated that the

decision to reject the innovation may result if the change recipient is not satisfied with the

innovation. Another reason for this type of discontinuance decision may be that the

innovation does not provide a perceived relative advantage (Rogers, 2003).

Throughout the innovation-decision process, the importance of the change agents,

opinion leaders, and a social network are crucial to the adoption of the innovation

(Greenhalgh et al., 2004). Change agents are often responsible for creating the necessary

message for change and its meaning within the organization (Sonenshein, 2010). The

opinion leaders are able to informally influence the change recipient’s attitude or belief

with relative frequency (Vishwanath, 2009). Opinion leaders increase the rate of

adoption and transfer innovation information across various diffusion networks (Smith,

2009). Social network is the notion that people are networked to friends and colleagues

and that these networks form channels of communication and influence (Greenhalgh et

al., 2004). The adoption of innovations by individuals is powerfully influenced by the

structure and quality of their social networks (Greenhalgh et al., 2004).

Rate of adoption. The rate of adoption is the second dimension of the time

component. According to Rogers (1995), individuals have different levels of willingness

to adopt innovations. The innovativeness of an individual has been categorized as

innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards (Rogers, 1995).

Based on the 1943 study of Ryan and Grossman , innovators consisted of 2.5% of the

social system, early adopters accounted for 13.5%, the early and late majority for 34%,

and the laggards for 16% (as cited in Rogers, 1995, 2003). The rate of adoption is

measured as the number of members of the social system that adopt the innovation in a

given period (Rogers, 1995, 2003). These categories defined the relative rate with which

members of a social system adopt an innovation (Rogers, 1993, 2003).

According to Greenhalgh et al. (2004), people are not passive recipients of

innovations. Rather, they seek information about the innovation, experiment and

evaluate with it, find or fail to find meaning in the innovation, or develop positive or

negative feelings based on their beliefs about the innovation and through dialogue with

other change recipients (Sonenshein, 2010). When introducing the innovation in a social

system, senior management and change agents should take into consideration how these

different adopter categories reconstruct meaning about the innovation (Sonenshein,

2010). Sonenshein (2010) found that the meaning of the innovation for the intended

adopter has a powerful influence on their adoption decision. If the meaning attached to

the innovation by individual adopters matches the meaning attached by top management,

change agents, and other opinion leaders, the innovation is more likely to be assimilated

(Sonenshein, 2010).

Bouckenooghe (2010) argued how these meanings are constructed and should be

studied and planned when introducing an innovation or change. The meaning attached to

an innovation by change recipients is generally not fixed and can be reframed with the

type of change message that is communicated to the change recipients (Greenhalgh et al.,

2004). The rate of adoption was an important aspect to this study because the beliefs on

the adoption of project management practices were captured from executive

management, change agents, and other opinion leaders.

Social System. The last component for the diffusion of innovation is the social

system. A social system is composed of members or units such as individuals, informal

groups, organizations, and/or subsystems (Rogers, 1995, 2003). Critical mass is an

important concept in understanding the social system and can affect the rate of adoption

within a social system to adopt or implement an innovation (Greenhalgh et al., 2004).

The social system’s influence on diffusion is that it spreads knowledge of innovations to

a large audience rapidly (Haider & Kreps, 2004). Gladwell (2005) referred to critical

mass as the tipping point which is the point at which a system is displaced from a state of

stable equilibrium into a different state (Gladwell, 2005).

Critical mass occurs at the point where a sufficient number of individuals have

adopted an innovation to where the innovation's adoption rate becomes self-sustaining

(Greenhalgh et al., 2004). This implies that change efforts should be directed to those

using the innovation to create the point of critical mass (Greenhalgh et al., 2004). As

such, the efforts should concentrate on the early adopters who constitute 13.5 % of the

individuals in the social system to adopt an innovation (Greenhalgh et al., 2004; Rogers,

1995, 2003). According to Smith (2009), early adopters are often opinion leaders who

serve as role models for the members of the social system and are influential in getting an

innovation to the point of critical mass and subsequently contribute to the innovation’s

rate of adoption.

Regardless of whether a social system consists of a small group or a large

organization, the social system and communication channels of that system can facilitate

or impede the diffusion of innovations in the system (Greenhalgh et al., 2004). The

degree of influence upon an individual to adopt or reject an innovation is greater in a

social system with higher degrees of interpersonal and informal communication

networking (Greenhalgh et al., 2004). Strong interpersonal ties are usually more

effective in the formation of strongly held attitudes (Smith, 2009).

Opinion leaders are important to the acceptance or rejection of an innovation by a

social system because they can significantly influence other members of a social system

(Smith, 2009). Research has shown that attitudes are developed through communication

exchanges about the innovation with peers and opinion leaders (Rogers, 2003; Smith,

2009). Diffusion theory argued that opinion leaders directly affect the critical mass of an

innovation (Smith, 2009). It is best to persuade opinion leaders to change prevailing

attitudes about an innovation (Smith, 2009).

Criticism of Diffusion Research. While diffusion research has made many

important contributions to the understanding of human behavior change, its potential has

also been limited by inherent biases (Haider & Kreps, 2004). Four main criticisms of the

diffusion of innovation have been a pro-innovation bias, the individual-blame bias, the

recall problem, and the issue of inequality (Rogers, 2003).

The first criticism, pro-innovation bias, indicates that most of diffusion studies

were about innovations that were successfully adopted and diffused (Rogers, 2003). It

has been harder to study innovations that were rejected or discontinued because people

have been less willing to talk about them (Haider & Kreps, 2004). As a result, diffusion

research has a limited understanding about innovation because it has failed to learn from

those unsuccessful attempts (Haider & Kreps, 2004).

Utilizing Rogers’ (2003) recommendation to conduct a point of adoption study,

this study examined the beliefs of members of an organization regarding the adoption of

project management as an organizational change. Data was collected from organizational

change recipients and then reported back to them which allowed the organizational

change recipients to participate and to establish ownership for the change as well as to

capitalize on their expertise (Armenakis, Harris, et al., 2007).

The second criticism, individual-blame bias, is the tendency to hold the individual

change recipient responsible for their lack of adopting an innovation rather than the ones

promoting the innovation (Rogers, 2003). An unwillingness to adopt the innovation

would be an example of an individual-blame bias in contrast to someone who promotes

an inappropriate innovation (Haider & Kreps, 2004).

To overcome the individual blame bias, Rogers (1995) suggested refraining from

using individuals as the units of analysis for diffusion therefore removing the possibility

of blame on particular individuals. The researcher was aware of this tendency to blame

the individual (Haider & Kreps, 2004). Increasing awareness of this type of bias has

been a good way to begin to overcome it (Rogers, 1995, 2003). For this study, the

researcher reduced the individual-blame bias by employing a mixed methods design with

an embedded unit of analysis. Stratifying the quantitative and qualitative data collected

into four sub unit of analysis offset this limitation (Yin, 2009).

The third criticism, recall problem, occurs because diffusion of an innovation is a

process that transpires over time and is dependent on data collected from respondents as

to their adoption of a new idea (Rogers, 2003). Usually, the respondent has been asked to

look back in time in order to reconstruct his or her past history of innovation experiences

(Haider & Kreps, 2004). In general, people’s ability to recall their experiences degrades

over time and is not completely accurate (Haider & Kreps, 2004).

The approach for this study to overcome the recall problem was to gather data

from the change recipients during the persuasion stage of the innovation-decision process

(Haider & Kreps, 2004). During this stage, change recipients form their beliefs and

opinions regarding the innovation (Rogers, 1995, 2003). By identifying and

understanding the change recipients’ beliefs and opinions at this key point, senior

management could make an informed decision as to whether the innovation could be

either adopted or rejected (Rogers, 2003). During the decision stage, the individual

engages in decision-making activities that lead to the adoption or rejection of the

innovation (Rogers, 1995, 2003).

The fourth criticism, issue of inequality, is the result of diffused innovation that

often widens the socioeconomic gap between the higher and the lower segments of a

social system (Rogers, 2003). This creates an inequality effect within the social system

between those that adopted the innovation and those that did not (Haider & Kreps, 2004).

According to Haider & Kreps (2004), the issue of inequality cannot be resolved or

controlled by the researcher. Approaching the implementation stage of the diffusion

process in a way that illustrates awareness of the inequalities can help facilitate more

successful diffusion of innovations (Haider & Kreps, 2004). When introducing the

innovation in a social system, senior management and change agents should take into

consideration how the different adopter categories reconstruct meaning about the

innovation (Sonenshein, 2010). If the meaning attached to the innovation by individual

adopters matches the meaning attached by top management, change agents, and other

opinion leaders, the innovation is more likely to be assimilated (Sonenshein, 2010).

Change Beliefs

The decision to adopt an innovation requires adjustments in individual beliefs

(Armenakis, Berneth, et al., 2007). Armenakis, Berneth, et al. (2007) stated that in “any

organizational transformation, change recipients formulate precursors (e.g. cognitions,

emotions, and intentions), which become part of their decision processes that result in

resistance or supportive behaviors” (p. 482). There is a long intellectual tradition of the

basic notion of stages in the process of changing human behavior (Rogers, 2003).

According to Rogers (1995, 2003), it is at the persuasion stage that a general perception

of the innovation has been developed. During the persuasion stage, as shown in Figure 2,

an individual’s mental activity is based on affective or feelings about the innovation

(Bouckenooghe, 2010; Rogers, 2003; Vishwanath, 2009).

“Every individual experiences change in a unique way” (Bouckenooghe, 2010, p.

501). At the individual level, a change may provide a positive response, such as joy,

because of the perceived benefits or advantages from doing something more efficiently

(Bouckenooghe, 2010). For others, a change may cause a negative response, such as

stress, because of the perceived disadvantages from the uncertainty of not knowing what

the future will look like (Bouckenooghe, 2010).

Armenakis et al. (1999) (as cited in Armenakis, Berneth, et al., 2007) proposed a

set of five key change beliefs that they argued were essential to encourage change

readiness, adoption, and institutionalization. Armenakis, Berneth, et al., (2007), defined

a belief as “an opinion or a conviction about the truth of something that may not be

readily obvious or subject to systematic verification” (p. 483). Armenakis & Bedeian

(1999) conducted a content analysis of a variety of publications in the organizational

science literature by both researchers and practitioners that dealt with planning,

implementing, and assessing change initiatives. From this analysis, five beliefs were

identified as salient in explaining the reactions of the change recipients: (1) discrepancy,

Figure 2. The influence of change beliefs. This figure illustrates where the change beliefs

influence the persuasion stage within the innovation-decision process. Adapted from

Rogers, (2003). p. 170.

Change Beliefs

Knowledge

Stage Persuasion

Stage Decision

Stage 

Implementation

Stage 

Confirmation

Stage

(2) appropriateness, (3) efficacy, (4) principal support, and (5) valence (Armenakis &

Bedeian, 1999). Armenakis, Berneth, et al., (2007) referred to these beliefs as

“precursors to behavior reactions” (p. 483).

An email from Armenakis stated, “My research on change is linked to the theory

of reasoned action (beliefs—attitudes—intentions—behavior)” (A. Armenakis, personal

communication, November 21, 2011). The theory of reasoned action was formulated by

Ajzen and Fishbein in 1980 (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010). Fishbein and Ajzen (2010)

articulated the theory of reasoned action after trying to measure the discrepancy between

attitude and behavior. The theory of reasoned action suggested that a person's behavior

was determined by his/her intention to perform the behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010).

Their intention was a function of his/her attitude toward the behavior and his/her

subjective norm – their beliefs (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010). The best predictor of behavior

was intention, which was the cognitive representation of a person's readiness to perform a

given behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010). To predict someone’s intentions, knowing

their subjective norm (beliefs) was as important as knowing the person’s attitudes

(Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010). A general rule was the more favorable the attitude and the

belief and the greater the perceived control, the stronger the person’s intention to perform

the behavior in question was (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010). Understanding the beliefs of the

change recipients improved the effectiveness of planning and implementing the

organizational change initiative (Armenakis, Berneth, et al., 2007).

Rogers asserted that the diffusion of innovation theory applied at the

organizational level as well as the individual level (Rogers, 2003). Black and Gregersen,

(2003) argued that to strategically change an organization, the individual must first be

changed (Black & Gregersen, 2003). Unlocking individual change started and ended

with the beliefs that the individual carried in their heads. Black and Gregersen (2003)

claimed that beliefs direct behavior. If organizational leaders cannot change the

individuals’ beliefs, they will not be able to change the organization as a whole (Black &

Gregersen, 2003).

Organizational change recipients developed certain beliefs toward change through

interpersonal exchanges with their colleagues (Bouckenooghe, 2010; Vishwanath, 2009).

As a result, successful organizational change required a focus on individuals and

understanding of their beliefs in regard to change (Armenakis, Harris, et al., 2007;

Bouckenooghe, 2010; Rogers, 2003; Vishwanath, 2009). These differences in

perceptions and beliefs were also reflected in the language used by organizational

scholars using a variety of ways for conceptualizing people’s reactions toward change

(Oreg & Berson, 2009).

Project Management

Project management is the act of organizing and managing tasks and resources to

ensure that the project is completed within the defined scope, quality, time, and cost

constraints (Weaver, 2007). According to Ward (2000), project management is the

discipline of applying knowledge, skills, tools, and management techniques to project

activities to meet or exceed the needs and expectations of project sponsors and

stakeholders. The Project Management Institute (2008) defined project management as

“the application of knowledge, skills, tools, and techniques to project activities to meet

the project requirements” (p. 6). Project management has evolved with an emphasis on

establishing standard practices with formalized organizational competencies (Crawford,

2006). Kerzner (2003) stated, “Project management is now viewed as a competitive

weapon that brings quality and value-added to the customer” (p. xi).

Historical Perspective of Project Management. Project management, as a

professional discipline, is a young field (Andersen, 2010). Early research in project

management from the 1950s to 1990s focused on improving specific individual tools and

techniques of project management or on understanding how various project management

tools and techniques support project effectiveness or performance (Bredillet, 2010; Kwak

& Anbari, 2009; Thomas, Krahn, & George, 2009). The U.S. government, military, and

the construction industry made significant early contributions to the new discipline

(Bredillet, 2010).

In the 1980s, the development of knowledge was driven by the professional

associations such as the Project Management Institute (United States), the Association of

Project Management (United Kingdom), the Australian Institute of Project Management,

the International Project Management Association (Netherlands), and Project

Management Association Japan (Bredillet, 2010; Kerzner, 2010; Kwak & Anbari, 2009).

The focus of these organizations was to develop bodies of knowledge to support their

project management certification programs (Bredillet, 2010). In addition, many

governmental agencies and non-governmental industries began to recognize these

professional associations and their associated bodies of knowledge as standards on

project management (Bredillet, 2010; Kwak & Anbari, 2009).

By the mid-1990s, academia began to contribute research regarding project

management (Bredillet, 2010; Kwak & Anbari, 2009). The first academic research

conference in project management, the International Research Network for Organizing by

Project, occurred in 1994 (Kwak & Anbari, 2009). In 2000, the Project Management

Institute held its first research conference (Kwak & Anbari, 2009). Initially, courses or

degrees in project management were given by universities with schools of engineering or

construction and later by schools of information technology (Bredillet, 2010; Kwak &

Anbari, 2009). More recently, project management has been incorporated into schools of

business management and has been gaining recognition as a branch of management

(Bredillet, 2010; Kwak & Anbari, 2009).

By the early 2000s, the interest changed from managing projects to integration of

project management practices into organizational management (Kerzner, 2010; Thomas

et al., 2009). Although there have been many perspectives emerging in the history of

project management, three models including classical project management, modern

project management, and strategic project management have emerged in different eras in

the evolution of the concept (Thomas et al., 2009). Each model has provided distinct

perspectives on management and strategic focus (Thomas et al., 2009). The variations,

however, have been generally distinguished according to the specific skills or processes

promoted in each model (Kerzner, 2010).

Classical Project Management Model. The classical project management

model appeared in the 1950s with the primary use in defense, engineering, and

construction industries (Kerzner, 2010; Turner, 2009). This perspective of project

management utilized planning and management processes for capital investment projects

and national or social infrastructure projects and focused on project objectives,

constraints, technical performance, schedule, and cost (Kerzner, 2010).

Modern Project Management Model. The modern project management model

emerged from 1993 to 1996 as a response to the increasing changes of the economy

resulting from the recession of 1989 to 1993 (Kerzner, 1996, 2010). Organizations

focused on improved efficiencies and enhanced planning, which were only a couple of

benefits of modern project management (Kerzner, 1996, 2010). The model has been

gradually used in many industries for implementation of free-market competition, market

driven economy, and fast-growing computer technology (Kerzner, 2010).

In 1996, Project Management Institute published its first standard A Guide to the

Project Management Body of Knowledge® (PMBOK® Guide) (Project Management

Institute, 2008). Modern project management has been known to apply the balance of

hard (tools and techniques) and soft (leadership and interpersonal skills) project

management practices (Project Management Institute, 2008). While the PMBOK®

Guide has a fifth edition, many organizations have failed to apply these best practices

within their organizations that have implemented the model (Kerzner, 2010). Large

project failures have been widely documented in the IT industries among others

(Martinsuo et al., 2006).

Strategic Project Management Model. The strategic project management

model has stressed the integration of project management with business (or

organizational) elements and has offered an all-in-one package of strategic project

business management and project management (Turner, 2009). The strategic project

management model has addressed the pursuit of an organization’s business strategy by

linking organizational strategy with tangible and intangible value (Shenhar et al., 2007;

Turner, 2009). While the classical and modern project management models has

considered the delivery of projects as a tactical activity, strategic project management has

provided a high-level perspective and regulation of critical organizational resources that

have directly added value to the organization (Shenhar et al., 2007). Strategic project

management has evolved with an emphasis to achieve higher levels of performance and

productivity (Crawford, 2006; Turner, 2009).

The classical and modern project management models generally maintained that

strategic management and project management were two separate business disciplines

(Turner, 2009). A strategic project management perspective has had strong links to

project management processes and activities and has strongly influenced intended

corporate and business strategies (Turner, 2009; Morris & Jamieson, 2004). However, in

the face of increasing global competition causing faster obsolescence of products and

services, organizations have been losing competitiveness due to decreased demand,

competition from destructive innovation that has created a new market and value network

or an internal lack of coherence between organizational strategy and methods to

implement it (Turner, 2009). The 21st century economy has been demanding actual

value to be delivered, to address complex social, economic, and business issues as

organic programs resulting in strategic project management models being proposed in

this century (Turner, 2009).

The Value of Project Management. The previous three project management

models—classical, modern, and strategic—have contributed to advancing the value of

project management by providing standard project management practices (Thomas et al.,

2009). Organizations that have successfully adopted standard project management

practices have realized improved financial results (Englund, Dinsmore, & Graham, 2003;

Kerzner, 2003; Thomas & Mullaly, 2008). Research by Dai and Wells (2004) and

Martinsuo et al. (2006) supported the development of project management standards,

methods, and training to deliver project results more consistently.

In 2008, the Project Management Institute determined from a multi-method,

multi-disciplinary research study, “…unequivocally that project management adds value”

(Thomas & Mullaly, p. 349). Having uniform or standardized project management

procedures, processes, and systems has had the greatest impact on achieving value, and

the study provided explicit and compelling evidence of the value that organizations

achieve when project management has been appropriately implemented (Thomas &

Mullaly, 2008).

The value of project management has been widely recognized in the business

sector (Thomas & Mullaly, 2008; Dai & Wells, 2004). Research conducted by Thomas

and Mullaly (2008) concluded that “implementing project management adds significant

value to organizations” (para. 1). The study surveyed more than 100 project management

practitioners who were in senior-level positions (Thomas & Mullaly, 2008). The study

reported significant improvements in organizational measures of finance, customer

service, project/process, and learning and growth (Thomas & Mullaly, 2008). The results

of the study further implied that, to improve the results of the executing projects,

executive management needed to incorporate formal project management practices

(Thomas & Mullaly, 2008).

Research has indicated that project management practices substantially enhance

change initiatives (Turner, 2009). Lientz and Rea (2002) argued that the need to

implement major enterprise-wide changes requires the extensive use of project

management practices. Project management has increasingly been used as a means to

achieve an organization’s strategic objective(s) (Kerzner, 2010; Lientz & Rea, 2002;

Turner, 2009).

Research on Implementation of Project Management. In spite of substantial

research supporting the benefits of standardized project management practices, effective

implementation of these practices has remained elusive (Martinsuo et al., 2006). For

example, research by the Thomas & Mullaly (2008) found that inconsistent project

management practices has remained one of the most prevalent challenges of today’s

organizations. The degree of value in adopting project management practices has been

realized when the implementation has been appropriate to the organization’s need

(Thomas & Mullaly, 2008). Failure in the implementation of project management has

been evident with the continuing widespread underachievement of projects (Englund et

al., 2003). In a study conducted by Englund et al. (2003), the majority of selected

projects were found to have missed deadlines, to have budget overruns, and to have

customer dissatisfaction due to “lack of project management skill, methodology, and

organizational support led to most projects being late, over budget, and not done to

customer satisfaction” (p. 10).

Recently, the focus in project management literature has shifted from performing

project management to integrating it into the organization (Thomas et al., 2009). Ives

(2005) found that there has been little research related to the effective fit of projects into

organizations. Underlying the concept of fit has been that the value of a project

management implementation has been a function of what has been implemented and how

well the implementation has fit the needs of the organization derived from the

organization and business environment using it (Thomas et al., 2009). The Ives study has

been limited, as it included in-depth interviews of only four project management

practitioners (Ives, 2005). Thomas and Mullaly (2008) asserted that “the degree of value

that organizations realize is determined by how well what is implemented meets the

needs of the organization” (p. 360).

“Getting a new idea adopted, even when it has obvious advantages, is difficult”

(Rogers, 2003, p. 1). So has been the case for the adoption of project management

practices. Organizational leaders have needed to know and understand that the adoption

of project management practices has constituted in and of itself an organizational change

initiative. Adopting project management within an organization may encompass new

processes, structures, methods, technical systems, and behavioral patterns (Martinsuo et

al., 2006). According to Martinsuo et al. (2006), the adoption of project management has

received little empirical research. Utilizing innovation diffusion to better understand the

early phases and diffusion of project management could contribute to project

management research (Martinsuo et al., 2006).

Summary and Relevance of the Literature

This chapter focused on five major concepts including organizational change

management, diffusion of innovation, criticism of diffusion research, change beliefs, and

project management and provided relevance to better understand the adoption of project

management practices in an organization as an organizational change initiative. As

described in this chapter, organizations have faced significant change and therefore

implementing strategic change has been important to organizations (Kerzner, 2010;

Sonenshein, 2010). Research covered previous organizational change focuses on how

organizations prepare for, implement, and react to organizational change (Oreg et al.,

2011). However, the main determinant to which any organizational change can succeed

has been how change recipients react to organizational change (Oreg et al., 2011). Only

in the last decade have researchers begun to study the change-related attitudes using a

variety of approaches to understanding employees’ reactions to change (Van Dam et al.,

2008).

The theoretical basis for this research study has been the diffusion of innovation,

which explored beyond the change-related attitudes of either resistance to change or

readiness for change in regard to adopting an innovation (Rogers, 2003). The decision to

adopt an innovation has required adjustments in individual beliefs and has become part of

their decision processes (Armenakis, Berneth, et al., 2007). Research has indicated that

project management practices substantially enhance change initiatives (Turner, 2009).

Lientz and Rea (2002) argued that the need to implement major enterprise-wide changes

requires the extensive use of project management practices. Project management has

evolved with an emphasis on establishing standard practices with formalized

organizational competencies to achieve higher levels of performance and productivity

(Crawford, 2006; Turner, 2009).

Chapter Three – Research Method

Means

The previous two chapters provided an overview of the research study and a

review of the related literature. Chapter One introduced the research, defined project

management as an adaptable form of work organization, and identified the

implementation of project management within organizations as an organizational change

initiative. Chapter Two presented a review of related literature on organizational change,

the diffusion of innovation, change beliefs, and project management. The diffusion of

innovation theory provides the theoretical basis for the study.

The purpose of Chapter Three is to describe the research method that was used

during the research process. Chapter Three begins by restating the research questions and

concludes with the quantitative and qualitative procedures to allow the reader to

understand the rigor of the study design. Additionally, this chapter includes discussion

on the following topics: (a) site selection, (b) similar study, (c) population, (d) instrument

selection and validity, (e) procedure, (f) research approach, (g) data analysis, and (h)

limitations. A summary will conclude the chapter.

Research Questions

The purpose of this proposed research study was to examine the beliefs of

members of an organization regarding the adoption of project management as an

organizational change. These beliefs were examined quantitatively and qualitatively for

the purpose of assessing both what participants believe in terms of the organizational

change and why they report those stated beliefs. The research questions for this study are

as follows:

Research Question #1: What are organizational change recipients’ beliefs

regarding the adoption of project management as an organizational change?

Research Question #2: Why do the participants hold the beliefs they do about the

adoption of project management as an organizational change?

Research Question #1 was answered using the Organizational Change Recipients’

Beliefs Scale (OCRBS) to determine the current belief about the proposed change. These

five change beliefs are: (1) discrepancy, (2) appropriateness, (3) efficacy, (4) principal

support, or (5) valence. The quantitative procedures resulted in frequency distributions

with histograms, measures of central tendency (mean, median, and mode) and dispersion

(range and standard deviation) and were reported for the overall organization and for

each of the five change beliefs as identified in the OCRBS (Armenakis, Bernerth, et al.,

2007).

Research Question #2 was answered using semi-structured interviews. The data

analysis method that is most appropriate for use when exploring qualitative interview

data is meaning condensation and meaning categorization (Klenle, 2008). The data

gathered from the interviews were condensed, categorized, and interpreted to provide

meaning about the reasons the participants hold the beliefs they do regarding

organizational change.

Research Approach

Grounded from a pragmatic worldview, the approach for this study is an

explanatory sequential, single case study utilizing a mixed methods design with an

embedded unit of analysis (Yin, 2009). Creswell and Plano Clark (2011) preferred the

term worldview to describe these assumptions as a set of beliefs, values, and methods

about knowledge that informs the researcher. A pragmatic worldview utilizes a

pluralistic approach that values both objective and subjective knowledge (Creswell &

Plano Clark, 2011) that focuses on the consequence of the problem, the research

questions being asked, and on the multiple methods used. Based on the belief that

quantitative and qualitative approaches are compatible, multiple research methods of data

collection and analysis are used to inform the problem under study (Creswell & Plano

Clark, 2011).

The research topic of adopting project management within an organization needs

to be understood; therefore, a case study approach was used. The findings from the

research study conducted by the Project Management Institute on the value of project

management support this design decision. "We need to make sure that we understand

what we know about project management (not just what we think we know), and what we

need to learn” (Thomas & Mullaly, 2008, p. 130).

According to Yin (2009), understanding can be facilitated with a case study

approach in order to study individuals in their natural settings. The case study method is

chosen to comprehend the real life phenomenon in depth by understanding important,

contextual conditions (Yin, 2009). This focus on meaning is central to what is known as

the interpretive approach to social science (Maxwell, 2005). The researcher is interested

in the events and behaviors taking place, how the participants make sense of these, and

how their understanding influences their behaviors (Maxwell, 2005).

Mixed Methods Research Design. The research problem utilized a mixed

methods research design. “The importance of the research problem and the research

questions is a key principle of mixed methods research design” (Creswell & Plano Clark,

2011, p. 60). Mixed methods research design answers the research questions that cannot

be answered by quantitative or qualitative approaches alone (Creswell & Plano Clark,

2011). A combination of both forms of data provides the most comprehensive analysis of

the problem (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). In a mixed methods study, the researcher

thinks through the research problem and the research questions to select the appropriate

research design that reflects the sequencing and mixing strategies to achieve the

necessary rigor for overall interpretation of the results (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011).

An explanatory sequential mixed methods design consists of one quantitative

phase and a qualitative phase (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). The order of the two

research phases was sequential, which means the sequence in which the researcher used

the results from the two sets of data within the study (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). In

this study, the quantitative data collection and analysis occurred before the qualitative

data collection and analysis.

A notational schema developed by Morse (as cited in Creswell & Plano Clark,

2011) was used to illustrate the explanatory sequential design for this study. Figures 3

and 4 graphically convey the different research phases, their relationship, and importance.

Using Morse’s notational schema for an explanatory sequential mixed methods design,

the sequence and priority of phases would be expressed as quan → QUAL = explained

results (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011).

The quantitative phase, expressed in lowercase quan had less priority than the

qualitative phase, as illustrated with uppercase QUAL. Although the quantitative phase

occurred first, the qualitative data had a greater priority or emphasis over the quantitative

Figure 3. Procedural diagram for the quantitative phase of the explanatory sequential mixed

methods study. An adaptation of Morse’s notational schema illustrating the different

research phases, their relationship, and level of importance by J. Creswell and V. Plano

by Sage.

Figure 4. Procedural diagram for the qualitative phase of the explanatory sequential mixed

methods study. An adaptation of Morse’s notational schema illustrating the different

research phases, their relationship, and level of importance by J. Creswell and V. Plano

by Sage.

data. The decision of priority was made due to the limitation of a single case design and

limited sample size, which prohibited generalizability beyond this case.

Using the explanatory sequential design, semi-structured interview questions were

developed based on the results of the quantitative analysis (Creswell & Plano Clark,

2011). The quantitative data analysis guided the researcher to develop primary and

secondary interview questions that were used for further explanations to help in

understanding the phenomenon under investigation.

The researcher used an “interactive strategy of merging,” the quantitative data and

qualitative data together through combined analysis (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011, p.

66). The qualitative results were used to explain and understand the initial quantitative

results. The quantitative results were used to explain and understand the initial

qualitative results.

Appropriateness of the Design. The mixed method approach for this case study

utilized the OCRBS to determine what the organizational change recipients’ beliefs were

and semi-structured interviews to determine why the organizational change recipients

reported the beliefs. Sampling of the organization was based on stratified purposeful

sampling of four sub groups, which were executive management, change agents, project

managers/leaders, and project participants. This research design facilitated data analysis

to describe and summarize the change beliefs of the organization and the four subgroups

from both a quantitative and qualitative approach.

This combined approach added the requisite depth to answer the research

questions. The OCRBS was used for quantitative data collection, and a descriptive

quantitative approach to analysis was used. Qualitative data collection consisted of semi-

structured interviews with each of the four subgroups. Meaning condensation and

categorization was used for the qualitative data analysis. The quantitative and qualitative

techniques required different procedures for data collection and analysis as a

methodological triangulation design (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011).

Site Selection

This research involved a single case study conducted with a single organization at

one location. The organization was selected as the case site due to their knowledge

regarding project management practices. As the theoretical basis for this study, the

innovation-decision process (see Figure 1) begins with the knowledge stage where the

potential adopter seeks information about the innovation to determine what the

innovation is and how and why it works (Rogers, 2003). The focus of this study was the

persuasion stage, which is a subsequent stage of the innovation-decision process. At the

time of the research, executive management had been considering adopting project

management practices to help them manage their projects more effectively by improving

cost and time efficiencies, as well as increasing profitability and marketing share.

For the purpose of this study and anonymity, the name of the organization will be

called ABC. Founded in 1995, ABC, a growing biomarketing firm that manages

healthcare marketing brands, has experience managing billion dollar accounts within the

highly regulated pharmaceutical and biotech brand environments. Their clientele has

included life science companies, pharmaceutical, biotech, and medical device companies

like Baxter Healthcare, Eli Lilly, Roche, and others to translate their brand strategies into

results. When a new drug has been ready for market, ABC has assisted health care

providers and patients in understanding the appropriate dosage and its effectiveness.

Services have included the creation of educational programs, the design and deployment

of customized communication and training, and meeting facilitation for health care

professionals. Their success has been built on a combination of an innovative approach

to program development and a disciplined approach to the details that bring their clients

the results they need.

From 2000 to 2010, ABC had been growing. At the end of 2010, ABC employed

approximately 130 full-time employees. They attributed their growth by staying focused

on the life science industry. Executive management also acknowledges Indiana state

government support for small business, close proximity to several leading universities

focused on life sciences, and Bio Crossroads (2013), an initiative that fosters a

collaborative environment between local businesses, pharmaceutical companies, and

research universities focused on making Indiana a hub for the life sciences industry.

Executive management stated that the needs of clients have changed dramatically

in the last couple of years, and ABC has had to adjust its business model. In 2011, ABC

experienced its first reduction of revenue. Executive management attributed this loss of

revenue to their healthcare clients demanding significant cost reductions. At the end of

2011, executive management decided to eliminate one of its divisions because of these

substantial cost reductions. The divestiture reduced the number of full-time employees

from 130 to 74 employees at the time of the study. As a result of these cost reductions

and other competitive pressures, executive management believed that the implementation

of project management practices would improve cost and time efficiencies, profitability,

and market share.

Sampling

The quantitative portion of this study was a stratified purposive sampling of 50

personnel from the selected organization. These individuals were categorized into four

subgroups, which were executive management, change agents, project managers/project

leaders, and project practitioners. From the quantitative respondents, the researcher

randomly selected 19 participants to participate in the qualitative phase, which included

one-on-one semi-structured interviews. The number of interviews was based on

Auerbach and Silverstein (2003) experience that 20 research participants give them

enough information for initial theorizing.

Instrument Selection and Validity

Instrument Selection. “To strategically change your organization, you must first

change individuals” (Black & Gregersen, 2003, p. 2). Unlocking individual change starts

and ends with the beliefs that individuals carry in their heads. Black and Gregersen

(2003) claimed that beliefs direct behavior. If organizational leaders cannot change the

individuals’ beliefs, they will not be able to change the organization as a whole (Black &

Gregersen, 2003). As a result, successful organizational change requires a focus on

individuals and understanding of their beliefs in regard to change (Black & Gregersen,

2003).

The Organizational Change Recipients’ Beliefs Scale (OCRBS) developed by

Armenakis, Bernerth, et al., (2007) was the chosen survey instrument used for the

quantitative portion of this study. Armenakis, Bernerth, et al., (2007) validated the

OCRBS as a means to assess an organization’s change recipient’s belief about a given

organizational change. According to Armenakis, Bernerth, et al., (2007), the instrument

determines the degree of acceptance among the change recipients, identifies deficiencies

in specific change beliefs, and provides a basis for planning and executing organizational

change initiatives.

The advantages of the OCRBS were as follows: (a) assesses five beliefs that have

been identified as relevant from previous change literature, (b) can be used concurrently

with other change instruments, and (c) can be used during the three major phases of

organizational change—readiness, adoption, and institutionalization (Armenakis,

Bernerth, et al., 2007). The researcher obtained permission (see Appendix D) from the

authors of the instrument and Sage Publications via the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.

to use the OCRBS in this study.

Armenakis, Bernerth, et al., (2007) conducted four studies that led to the

development of the OCRBS. Based on the findings, the OCRBS can be used as an

assessment to determine if specific beliefs are lacking, which can negatively influence the

success of an organizational change (Armenakis, Bernerth, et al., 2007). For planning

purposes, the OCRBS can provide a level of awareness to which members of an

organization are in acceptance with a given organizational change (Armenakis, Bernerth,

et al., 2007). With this instrument, the research question regarding the participants’

beliefs about change could be described using quantitative descriptive analysis. Other

advantages of using the OCRBS were that it could be used concurrently with other

change instruments and could be used during the other phases of organizational change

(Armenakis, Bernerth, et al., 2007).

Validity. Armenakis, Bernerth, et al., (2007) conducted four validation studies

for the OCRBS. The content validity was assessed using a sample of 19 executives and

the variable kappa was calculated. Kappa indicated the extent to which classifications

were made on a consistent basis (Armenakis, Bernerth, et al., 2007). The kappa for this

study was 0.86 (p<0.05). A value of greater than 0.70 has generally been considered

acceptable (Creswell, 2009). The next study that was undertaken was an organizational

context analysis where the authors analyzed the variability of the responses. Sufficient

variability, a standard deviation of greater than one, has been necessary for new

measurements (Armenakis, Bernerth, et al., 2007). No items were removed from the

instrument due to lack of variability since all items had standard deviations that ranged

between 1.01 and 1.86. Finally, Armenakis, Bernerth, et al., (2007) conducted

explanatory and confirmatory factor analysis on the questionnaire. The explanatory

factor analysis solution consisted of 24 items that explained 64.5% of the variance and

the confirmatory factor analysis produced results that were sufficient for the validation of

the instrument (Armenakis, Bernerth, et al., 2007).

Organizational Change Recipients’ Beliefs Scale. The Organizational Change

Recipients’ Beliefs Scale (OCRBS) is a psychometrically sound, self-report questionnaire

consisting of 24 items to assess five change beliefs of the organizational change

recipients regarding a proposed organizational change (Armenakis, Bernerth, et al.,

2007). The response format for the OCRBS is a seven-cell format with the anchors being

strongly disagree and strongly agree (Armenakis, Bernerth, et al., 2007). The basis of the

OCRBS has been the five beliefs that have been identified as relevant from previous

change literature. The following is a short description of the five change beliefs.

Discrepancy. Discrepancy is the belief there is a need to change from the current

state to a future state (Armenakis, Bernerth, et al., 2007). This belief is grounded in

external contextual factors such as social, economic, political, and competitive

environments to justify the need to change (Armenakis, Bernerth, et al., 2007).

Armenakis et al. (1993) argued that the “legitimacy for organizational change can be

established by interpreting the effect of external contextual factors on an organization’s

performance” (p. 685).

Appropriateness. Appropriateness is the belief that questions what the desired

future state will be (Armenakis, Bernerth, et al., 2007). A certain future state, such as

organizational survival, is rarely questioned, but the appropriateness of other future states

may be. The emphasis of leadership, creating a vision, and gaining acceptance becomes

important for change recipients beliefs. Armenakis, Bernerth, et al., (2007) stressed the

necessity that the proposed change addresses the cause(s) of the discrepancy so that the

appropriate corrective action can be matched to that situation, thus reducing or

eliminating the discrepancy.

Efficacy. Efficacy, in the context of organizational change, refers to

organizational change recipients’ beliefs in their collective capabilities to organize and

execute the courses of action regarding the implementation of the proposed change

(Weiner, 2009). Low levels of confidence in one's capabilities to execute an

organizational change can influence one's decision to undertake implementation of a

proposed organizational change (Armenakis, Harris, et al., 2007). Organizational

readiness is likely to be highest when organizational members feel confident that they can

do so (Armenakis, Bernerth, et al., 2007; Weiner, 2009).

Principal support. Principal support looks at how organizational members

exchange information with one another in order to reach a mutual understanding (Rogers,

2003; Vishwanath & Barnett, 2011). Principal support describes the belief that

individuals develop a certain belief toward change through the “process of individual

reflection and collective sense-making that comes from a series of interactions with their

colleagues” (Bouckenooghe, 2010, p. 519).

As a social information processing model, an individual’s change beliefs may also

be shaped by the beliefs of others (Armenakis, Bernerth, et al., 2007; Bouckenooghe,

2010; Rogers, 2003). Individuals sense nonverbal cues and explicit information in

formulating a belief about the change. If the individuals believe principal support among

the opinion leaders and change agents is adequate, then this belief can influence whether

the change initiative will be embraced (Armenakis, Bernerth, et al., 2007).

Valence. Valence refers to the benefits that organizational change recipients

anticipate that the organizational change will produce for the organization, their fellow

employees, or for them personally (Weiner, 2009). According to Weiner (2009) valence

is a multi-faceted construct where organizational change recipients might value a planned

organizational change because they believe that the change is urgently needed and that

the proposed change will solve an important organizational problem. They might value it

because senior management, opinion leaders, or peers support it. They might value it

because it resonates with their core values. The more organizational members value the

change, the more they will want to implement the change, and the more resolve they will

feel to engage in the activities involved in change implementation (Weiner 2009).

Procedures

This study utilized an explanatory sequential design that was implemented in two

distinct phases. The procedure for an explanatory sequential design has been to use a

qualitative strand to explain the initial quantitative results (Creswell & Plano Clark,

2011). The first phase involved collecting and analyzing quantitative data. The OCRBS

was administered for quantitative data collection. A qualitative phase was conducted

after completing the quantitative phase. Qualitative data collection consisted of one-on-

one semi-structured interviews to explore factors found to be significant in the

quantitative phase.

Sampling. The quantitative portion of this study will use a stratified purposive

sampling of 50 employees from the selected organization. Embedded units of analysis

were sampled in order to calculate the beliefs held by the participants and the reasons

they hold those beliefs. Creswell (2009) indicated that, in such cases, a stratified

purposeful sample is appropriate. The stratification of the quantitative sample was as

follows: executive management (nine participants), change agents (six participants),

project managers/project leaders (six participants), and project practitioners (29

participants).

The procedure to select the sample for the qualitative phase was determined based

on individuals who completed the OCRBS. Using maximum variation, the researcher

randomly selected 20 participants from the quantitative population. The stratification of

the qualitative sample was as follows: executive management (three participants), change

agents (three participants), project managers/project leaders (five participants), and

project practitioners (nine participants).

Permissions needed. Researchers require permission to collect data from

individuals and sites (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). Obtaining access to people and

sites requires obtaining permissions from individuals with authority and in charge of the

selected site. In the case of this study, permission to access the site (see Appendix B)

was granted by the organization’s Chief Operating Officer. Once permission was

granted, the organization designated one individual to act as a coordinator between the

researcher and the organization. Working with the coordinator, the researcher sought

permission from the employees if they would be willing to participate in the study. The

researcher also obtained permission from the university’s institutional review board prior

to collecting data.

Informed consent. Gaining the trust and support of research participants is

critical to informed and ethical academic inquiry and phenomenological research

(Marshall & Rossman, 1995). All participants involved in the study were provided with

an informed consent letter (see Appendix C) before the OCRBS was distributed and

before being interviewed. The purpose of the informed consent letter was to introduce

the research effort, to provide contact information, to articulate the intent of the study, to

request voluntary participation by the recipients, and to identify the anticipated

information that participates were expected to provide. All participants were required to

sign and return the letter of consent to the researcher before participating in the research.

Confidentiality. The only source of data for this study was the participant

responses from the organization. The informed consent letter stated that the participant’s

background information would remain confidential and would not be released without

prior expressed personal approval. Restricted access based upon a need-to-know basis

protects and secures participant information to maintain confidentiality, anonymity, and

to ensure that all responses are secure from inappropriate disclosure to enhance reliability

and validity of provided data. Each participant was provided a signed informed consent

form as an indication of their willingness to participate in the study.

Phase 1 – Quantitative Data Collection and Analysis

Quantitative Data Collection. The initial list of participants included all of the

employees of the selected organization. Senior management identified the employees

according to the four subgroups of executive management, change agents, project

managers, and project participants based on their role or function within the organization.

Executive management represented the individuals who have the authority to select and

authorize which projects the organization would undertake. Change agents were

individuals who are responsible for implementing project management practices into the

organization. Project managers/leaders were the individuals who are responsible for

leading and directing the project team to complete the work of the project. Project

participants are the individuals who perform the work of the project. The variety of job

roles coupled with the differing levels of responsibility provided a rich cross section of

feedback that was representative of other organizations conducting projects.

For the quantitative data collection of the study, the target population included 74

employees. The internal coordinator sent the employees an e-mail that included an

attachment with the request to participate in the study. The email included information

informing potential participants that the organization had agreed to participate in a

research study on adopting project management practices in the organization. The email

also conveyed that the study had been approved by executive management and that the

time required to participate would be allowed. In addition to the email, the informed

consent was included, which provided a background and procedures to participate in the

study as well as explained the risks associated with the study and confidentiality of the

participate. The participants were notified that the informed consent was to be signed

and submitted to the researcher before they would be able to participate in the

quantitative data collection.

The decision of who could participate in the quantitative portion of the study was

determined by who was in attendance at an organizational staff meeting that occurred on

April 26, 2012. The purpose of the staff meeting was to allow members of the executive

team to inform the employees the future goals for the organization. Out of 74 employees

who work for the company, 50 employees were in attendance at the staff meeting. At the

end of the staff meeting, one hour was allowed for the researcher to administer the

OCRBS to those in attendance. Those that did not attend were either required to maintain

minimum operational functions such as answering phone calls from clients or customers,

were off-site working with clients, or did not report to work that day due to a variety of

personal reasons.

Quantitative Data Analysis. The quantitative data analyses measured the five

change beliefs of the respondents. The quantitative data for this study were collected at

the individual level then was aggregated to form a single measure for the organization as

a whole. Research Question #1 was answered using descriptive statistics. Descriptive

statistics are limited to making summations about the data that were measured (Bryman,

2008). This included the mean, standard deviation, number of valid observations,

standard error, minimum and maximum values, range, and the 95% confidence interval

for each belief. Also examined were the frequency distributions with histograms,

measures of central tendency, and dispersion for the overall questionnaire and each scale.

The reliability (internal consistency) of the overall questionnaire and each of the sub-

scales were also assessed and Cronbach’s alpha values reported.

Because of the limited sample size, descriptive statistics were used to describe the

quantitative data of the four subgroups and the organization as a whole. Descriptive

statistics are distinguished from inferential statistics in that with inferential statistics, the

data analysis is attempting to reach conclusions that extend beyond the immediate data

alone (Bryman, 2008). For this study, descriptive statistics were not intended to be used

to generalize to other populations or organizations, nor to determine cause-and-effect

relationships. The researcher intentionally designed the study using an explanatory

sequential approach where the results of the quantitative analysis were used to develop

the qualitative data collection and analysis procedures used in the qualitative phase of the

study (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2011). This approach guided the researcher to probe

deeper for further explanations to help in understanding.

Phase 2 – Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis

Qualitative Data Collection. The quantitative results produced general

explanations, but a detailed understanding of what the statistical analysis means was

lacking. Qualitative data and results can help build that understanding. According to

Creswell and Plano Clark (2011), a combination of both forms of data provides the most

complete analysis of problems.

The qualitative data collection consisted of semi-structured interviewing. The

researcher conducted semi-structured interviews (see Appendix F) of executive

management, change agents, project managers/leaders, and project participants. For the

qualitative phase, the researcher selected individuals from the quantitative population

using maximum variation. The number of participants required for the qualitative phase

can vary, but the minimum number has been cited at approximately 20 participants

(Auerbach & Silverstein, 2003). The study attempted to interview 20 participants which

would result in a sufficient sample for conducting qualitative data collection.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a fairly open framework which

allows for focused, conversational, two-way communication. The primary interview

questions for the semi-structured interviews were pre-designed to align with the five

change beliefs (see Appendix F). Using the explanatory sequential design, secondary

interview questions were added based on the results of the quantitative analysis (Creswell

& Plano Clark, 2011). Other follow-up questions evolved during the interview, allowing

both the researcher and the person being interviewed the flexibility to probe for details or

discuss issues.

Qualitative Data Analysis. The data analysis examined the qualitative data for

description and themes within each of the five beliefs and the four sub groups. Meaning

condensation and meaning categorization (Klenle, 2008) was used to explore these

beliefs and the reasons that the participants reported holding them. This analysis

followed with a cross-case analysis to identify important themes about the change

recipients’ change beliefs.

For the data analysis in this study, the researcher used NVivo, Version 9, (2010),

from QSR International, a computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software. The

purpose of the analysis was to understand why the organizational change recipients hold

the beliefs they do regarding organizational change. The coding procedures used both

open and axial coding (Thomas & James, 2006). Open coding was used to add depth to

responses gathered from the axial coding process as well as to validate the responses

(Krippendorff, 2004). Open coding has allowed the data to be the guide rather than

searching for specific indicators or topics within qualitative data. Axial coding has been

used when the researcher has sought to gain insight with respect to a specific thematic

category or topic (Thomas & James, 2006). Axial coding was appropriate for this type of

inquiry since the topic of investigation was known and the semi-structured interviews

provided a guide for the respondents to convey their thoughts (Krippendorff, 2004). In

this case, the topic of investigation was the reasoning of the participants regarding their

change beliefs. Krippendorff (2004) indicated that the use of both coding methodologies

using qualitative analysis software can provide insight into the thoughts of participants

when used in conjunction with interview data. The use of NVivo and the coding

procedures will be discussed further in Chapter Four.

Triangulation

Denzin considered combining quantitative and qualitative methods as a form of

methodological triangulation (as cited in Patton, 2002). Data triangulation was used by

mixing different types of purposive samples from the four subgroups by combining

descriptive data analysis and meaning categorization. In using triangulation, bias can be

minimized and validity enhanced (Patton, 2002). Neither the qualitative nor the

quantitative method alone could yield the results of the two combined. To accomplish

triangulation, analysis of the quantitative and qualitative data was conducted to find

categories of how the participants integrated their change beliefs into their comments.

These categories were merged to form themes to answer the study’s research questions.

The categories and themes will be discussed in more detail in Chapter Four.

Limitations

Two limitations surrounded this study. First, a single case study approach was a

limitation for the study. Making causal conclusions from case studies is difficult due to

lack of generalizability of the findings. This case study involved the change beliefs of

one organization and the findings of this study cannot be applied to similar organizations.

To offset this limitation, this single case study design was strengthened by using a mixed

methods design to allow the researcher to address more complicated research questions

and collect a richer, stronger array of evidence than can be accomplished by any single

method alone (Yin, 2009). Mixed method approaches to research have made a valuable

contribution whereby research questions can be asked and answered from different

perspectives (Bryman, 2008).

The second limitation was the limited sample size of the study. Yin (2009)

argued that subunits of analyses can “add significant opportunities for extensive analysis,

enhancing the insights into the single case” (p. 52). In the context of this study, the

embedded units of analysis included executive management, change agents, project

managers, and project management practitioners of a selected organization. Because of

the limited sample size of the quantitative phase, descriptive statistics was used to

describe the quantitative data of the four subgroups and the organization rather than

inferential statistics

To compensate for the sample size limitation, the qualitative phase utilized

embedded units of analysis, which provided extensive contextual analysis and greater

insight into the case. This data collection method provided tacit knowledge on how the

sense-making and perception differed between the four sub groups (Poole & Van de Ven,

2004). A multisource data collection method also contributed to the external validity of

the study’s findings (Bouckenooghe, 2010). This approach improved the significance of

the findings by increasing the richness of the data available for interpretation and thereby

improving the usefulness of the findings (Bryman, 2008).

Similar Study

Griffith (2010) conducted a similar mixed methods study with an embedded unit

of analysis using the OCRBS to measure the participants’ beliefs regarding an

organizational change and semi-structured interviews to add depth and understanding to

the quantitative findings. Griffith’s (2010) study combined the OCRBS with the

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire to design an intervention to improve an

organizational change. In contrast to Griffith’s study, this study examined the beliefs of

members of an organization regarding the adoption of project management as an

organizational change to understand why participants hold certain beliefs regarding

organizational change.

Summary

Chapter Three presented the mixed method approach combining quantitative and

qualitative research to examine the beliefs of members of an organization regarding the

adoption of project management as an organizational change. These beliefs were

examined quantitatively and qualitatively for the purpose of assessing both what

participants believe in terms of the organizational change and why they report those

stated beliefs.

In this chapter, the research questions were presented with discussion on the

following topics: (a) site selection, (b) similar study, (c) participants, (d) instrument

selection and validity, (e) procedure, (f) research approach, (g) data analysis, and (h)

limitations. An explanatory sequential, single case study utilizing a mixed methods

design with an embedded unit of analysis was determined to be the most appropriate

research design. The OCRBS was used for quantitative data collection, and descriptive

quantitative approach to analysis was taken. The qualitative data collection consisted of

semi-structured interviews with each of the four subgroups. Meaning condensation and

meaning categorization was used for the qualitative data analysis. Chapter Four will

present the results of the data analysis, and Chapter Five will discuss those findings with

respect to the relevant literature.

Chapter Four – Results

The objectives for this study are to measure the organizational change recipients’

beliefs and understand why the change recipients report those stated beliefs. These

beliefs were examined quantitatively and qualitatively for the purpose of assessing both

what organizational change recipients believe in terms of the organizational change and

why they report those stated beliefs. The research questions for this study were as

follows:

Research Question #1: What are organizational change recipients’ beliefs

regarding the adoption of project management as an organizational change?

Research Question #2: Why do the organizational change recipients’ hold the

beliefs they do about the adoption of project management as an organizational change?

Mixed Method Design

The conceptual framework for choosing a mixed method is to determine what is

happening in the case, and why. The focus on meaning is central to what is known as the

interpretive approach to social science (Maxwell, 2005, p. 22). The researcher was

interested in the events and behaviors that are taking place, how the participants made

sense of these, and how their understanding influences their behaviors.

This study consisted of a single case utilizing an explanatory sequential mixed

methods design aimed at examining the five change beliefs of members of an

organization regarding a given organizational change. The single case study utilized an

embedded design, which aided in the analysis and enhanced the insights into the single

case. The embedded units of analyses were executive management, change agents,

project managers/project leaders, and project management practitioners of a selected

organization. The mixed methods approach “forces the research methods to share the

same research questions, to collect complementary data, and to conduct counterpart

analyses” (Yin, 2009, p. 63). The mixed method approach utilized a survey to determine

what the organizational change recipients’ beliefs are and semi-structured interviewing to

build an in-depth case to determine why the organizational change recipients hold those

beliefs.

The study was implemented in two distinct phases. The first phase involved

collecting quantitative data using the Organizational Change Recipients’ Belief Scale

(OCRBS) to assess the five change beliefs, which were discrepancy, appropriateness,

efficacy, principled support, and valence as defined in the definition of terms

(Armenakis, Bernerth, et al., 2007). The quantitative portion of this study used a

stratified purposive sampling of 50 employees from a selected organization. The

stratification of the quantitative sample represented four subgroups consisting of

executive management, change agents, project managers/project leaders, and project

practitioners. The qualitative portion of this study included 19 participants randomly

selected from the four subgroups who participated in the quantitative phase.

Phase 1 – Quantitative

The quantitative data for this study was collected at the individual level to form a

single measure for the organization as a whole and the subgroups. Descriptive statistics

was used to answer Research Question #1 by describing and summarizing the

quantitative data in a meaningful way to determine if patterns might emerge from the

data. They were also provided for all the OCRBS scores, including the mean, standard

deviation, the number of valid observations, standard error, minimum and maximum

values, range, and the 95% confidence interval for each belief. With an explanatory

sequential approach, the researcher used the “interactive strategy of merging,” (Creswell

& Plano Clark, 2011, p. 66) of the quantitative data and qualitative data together through

combined analysis.

Due to the limited sample size of the four sub groups, inferential analyses were

not used for this study. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the quantitative data

of the four subgroups and the organization. The reliability (internal consistency) of the

overall questionnaire and each of the sub-scales was also assessed and Cronbach’s alpha

values reported. These statistics assessed how well the OCRBS worked on this sample.

Quantitative Data Collection. Quantitative data were collected using the

OCRBS (see Appendix E) in a hardcopy format. The survey was administered in ABC’s

organizational staff meeting that took place onsite in the selected organization’s facility

in Indianapolis, IN, on April 27, 2012. During the staff meeting, the researcher was

given one hour to administer the survey. The researcher gave a 15-minute overview of

the research study and answered any questions or concerns from the participants. The

researcher instructed the participants not to discuss their responses to the survey with

others while completing the survey so their comments would not influence someone else

taking the survey.

The decision to administer the survey in this setting and format was to reduce any

conversation and bias that could occur if the survey was administered as a web-based

survey. In a web-based survey, respondents are typically given a length of time to

complete the survey. Employees who complete the web-based survey early may have

informal conversations with other participants and influence the other person’s responses.

Each survey included a two-letter code (EM, CA, PM, PP) in the footing that was

used to designate the four subgroups – executive management (EM), change agent (CA),

project manager/leader (PM), and project participant (PP). A senior member of the

organization, who acted as a coordinator between the organization and the researcher,

distributed the surveys to the appropriate members based on the four subgroups. The

surveys were completed anonymously and deposited into a manila envelope when the

respondents left the room. Once all respondents had completed their survey, the

coordinator sealed the envelope and gave it to the researcher.

Population and Sample Size. As previously stated, the quantitative data was

collected at an organizational staff meeting that occurred on April 26, 2012, at the

company’s headquarters located in Indianapolis, IN. The purpose of the staff meeting

was to allow members of the executive team to inform the employees the future goals for

the organization. Out of 74 employees who work for the company, 50 employees were in

attendance at the staff meeting.

Table 1 displays the percentage of how many employees were surveyed based on

their work role as a percentage of the organization. Example: There are ten executive

management roles with the company. Nine completed the OCRBS. This represents

12.2% (9 / 74) of the organization, based on the role of executive management, who

completed the OCRBS.

Table 1

Percentage of Respondents Who Completed the OCRBS as a Percentage of the

Organization (Number of Employees = 74)

Unit of analysis

based on work role

Number of

employees

Number of

surveyed

respondents

Percentage

of surveyed

respondents

Executive management (EM) 10 9 12.2%

Change agents (CA) 9 6 8.1%

Project managers (PM) 9 6 8.1%

Project participants (PP) 46 29 39.2%

Total 74 50 67.6%

Table 2 displays the percentage of how many employees were surveyed based on

their work role. Example: There are ten executive management roles within the

company. Nine completed the OCRBS. This represents 90.0% (9 / 10) of executive

management completed the OCRBS.

Table 2

Percentage of Respondents Who Completed the OCRBS Based on Their Work

Role

Unit of analysis

based on work role

Number of

employees

Number of

surveyed

respondents

Percentage

of surveyed

respondents

Executive management (EM) 10 9 90.0%

Change agents (CA) 9 6 66.7%

Project managers (PM) 9 6 66.7%

Project participants (PP) 46 29 63.0%

Total 74 50 67.6%

Quantitative Data Analysis. Quantitative data were collected from 50

respondents. These respondents were coded into units of analysis based on their work

role. The work roles were executive management (18%), change agent (12%), project

manager (12%) and project participant (58%). Table 3 shows the percentage of surveyed

respondents based on their work role (n= 50). Example: There were nine executive

management completed the OCRBS. This represents 18.0% (9 / 50) of the surveyed

population, based on the role of executive management who completed the OCRBS.

Table 3

Percentage of Respondents who Completed the OCRBS as a

Percentage of the Surveyed Population (n= 50)

Unit of analysis

based on work role

Number of

surveyed

respondents

Percentage of

surveyed

respondents

Executive management (EM) 9 18.0%

Change agents (CA) 6 12.0%

Project managers (PM) 6 12.0%

Project participants (PP) 29 58.0%

Total 50 100.0%

Reliability Analysis. The OCRBS questionnaire consists of 24 items on a seven-

point Likert scale. The response format for the OCRBS is a seven-cell format with the

anchors being strongly disagree and strongly agree (Armenakis, Bernerth, et al., 2007).

Items from the OCBRS were coded as shown in Table 4.



Table 4

Coding of the OCRBS 7-Point Likert Scale

7-point Likert scale Coding

Strongly disagree 1

Moderately disagree 2

Slightly disagree 3

Undecided 4

Slightly agree 5

Moderately agree 6

Strongly agree 7



The 24 items of the OCRBS were summarized into five composite scales:

Discrepancy, Appropriateness, Efficacy, Principal Support, and Valence. The reliability

(internal consistency) was evaluated for each of the five scales and found to be adequate,

exceeding the recommended minimum level of 0.70. The scale reliabilities are

summarized in Table 5.

Table 5

Summary Internal Consistency Reliability Estimates

Scale

Cronbach's

alpha

N of

items

Discrepancy 0.91 4

Appropriateness 0.83 5

Efficacy 0.84 5

Principled support 0.83 6

Valence 0.80 4

Descriptive statistics. A fundamental task in many statistical analyses has been to

characterize the location and variability of a data set (Bryman, 2008). The mean has

represented the location or measurement of the central tendency of this distribution, also

expressed as an estimate of the center of a distribution of values. The standard deviation

has represented the relation that a set of scores has to the aforementioned mean of the

sample.

The descriptive statistics for each of the five scales and for each of the four

subgroups (n= 50) appears in Table 6 through Table 10 followed by their respective

histograms showing the frequency of observations of each variable. The range of values

has been evenly divided into n classes or intervals. For each class, the number of data

values falling into that interval has been tallied.

Because of the limited sample size, descriptive statistics were used to describe the

quantitative data of the four subgroups and the organization. The results of the

descriptive statistics were not intended to be used to generalize to other populations or

organizations, nor to determine cause-and-effect relationships. The mixed-methods

explanatory sequential design for this study consisted of two distinct phases: quantitative

phase followed by qualitative phase. The researcher first collected and analyzed the

quantitative (numeric) data followed by the qualitative (text) data, which were collected

and analyzed. The integration of both the quantitative and qualitative data will be

presented later in this chapter.



Frequency of observations

Range of scores

Mean = 5.30

Std. Dev. = 1.13

n = 50

Figure 5. The frequency distribution of the number of observations and

range of scores that occurred for Discrepancy (n = 50).

The descriptive statistics for Discrepancy and for each of the sub groups is shown

in Table 6.

Table 6

Descriptive Statistics for Discrepancy

Items M SE

95% CI

lower 95% CI

upper SD Min Max

Discrepancy 5.30 0.16 4.98 5.62 1.13 1.50 7.00

Executive

management

6.28 0.19 5.83 6.72 0.58 5.25 7.00

Change agents 5.79 0.33 4.96 6.63 0.80 5.00 7.00

Project managers 5.04 0.31 4.24 5.84 0.77 4.00 6.25

Project participants 4.95 0.22 4.49 5.40 1.20 1.50 6.50

The histogram displaying the frequency of observations for Discrepancy is

illustrated in Figure 5.

Figure 6. The frequency distribution of the number of observations and

range of scores that occurred for Appropriateness (n = 50).

Frequency of observations

Range of scores

Mean = 5.56

Std. Dev. = 0.82

n = 50

The descriptive statistics for Appropriateness and for each of the sub groups is

shown in Table 7.

Table 7

Descriptive Statistics for Appropriateness

Items M SE

95% CI

lower 95% CI

upper SD Min Max

Appropriateness 5.56 0.12 5.33 5.79 0.82 3.60 6.80

Executive

management

6.20 0.27 5.59 6.81 0.80 4.60 6.80

Change agents 6.33 0.14 5.97 6.70 0.35 5.80 6.80

Project managers 5.27 0.31 4.47 6.06 0.76 4.60 6.20

Project participants 5.26 0.13 4.99 5.53 0.70 3.60 6.40

The histogram displaying the frequency of observations for Appropriateness is

illustrated in Figure 6.

Figure 7. The frequency distribution of the number of observations and

range of scores that occurred for Efficacy (n = 50).

Frequency of observations

Range of scores

Mean = 5.78

Std. Dev. = 0.90

n = 50

The descriptive statistics for Efficacy and for each of the sub groups is shown in

Table 8.

Table 8

Descriptive Statistics for Efficacy

Items M SE

95% CI

lower 95% CI

upper SD Min Max

Efficacy 5.78 0.13 5.52 6.04 0.90 3.80 7.00

Executive

management

6.02 0.36 5.20 6.84 1.07 4.00 7.00

Change agents 6.57 0.16 6.16 6.97 0.39 5.80 6.80

Project managers 5.83 0.42 4.74 6.92 1.04 4.20 6.80

Project participants 5.53 0.15 5.22 5.84 0.81 3.80 6.80

The histogram displaying the frequency of observations for Efficacy is illustrated

in Figure 7.

Figure 8. The frequency distribution of the number of observations and

range of scores that occurred for Principal Support (n = 50).

Frequency of observations

Range of scores

Mean = 5.40

Std. Dev. = 0.88

n = 50

The descriptive statistics for Principal Support and for each of the sub groups is

shown in Table 9.

Table 9

Descriptive Statistics for Principal Support

Items M SE

95% CI

lower 95% CI

upper SD Min Max

Principal support 5.40 0.12 5.15 5.65 0.88 3.33 6.83

Executive

management

6.07 0.29 5.40 6.75 0.88 4.00 6.67

Change agents 5.64 0.32 4.81 6.47 0.79 4.50 6.83

Project managers 5.28 0.43 4.18 6.38 1.05 3.67 6.50

Project participants 5.17 0.14 4.88 5.47 0.77 3.33 6.33

The histogram displaying the frequency of observations for Principal Support is

illustrated in Figure 8.

Figure 9. The frequency distribution of the number of observations and

range of scores that occurred for Valence (n = 50).

Frequency of observations

Range of scores

Mean = 4.55

Std. Dev. = 1.09

n = 50

The descriptive statistics for Valence and for each of the sub groups is shown in

Table 10.

Table 10

Descriptive Statistics for Valence

Items M SE

95% CI

lower 95% CI

upper SD Min Max

Valence 4.55 0.15 4.24 4.85 1.09 2.75 7.00

Executive

management

4.97 0.34 4.19 5.76 1.02 3.25 6.25

Change agents 5.71 0.64 4.06 7.35 1.57 2.75 7.00

Project managers 5.71 0.64 4.06 7.35 1.57 2.75 7.00

Project participants 4.24 0.14 3.96 4.52 0.75 2.75 6.00

The histogram displaying the frequency of observations for Valence is illustrated

in Figure 9.

Observations from the descriptive analysis. The researcher chose to integrate the

quantitative and qualitative data to investigate those results in more depth through

collecting and analyzing the qualitative data in the second phase of the study. Later in

Chapter Four, the researcher used the “interactive strategy of merging,” (Creswell &

Plano Clark, 2011, p. 66) of the quantitative data and qualitative data together through

combined analysis.

In preparation for the qualitative phase, the quantitative results were examined

and the following observations were made regarding the analysis (see Table 11). This

analysis guided the researcher to develop primary and secondary interview questions that

were used for further explanations to help in understanding the phenomenon under

investigation.

Table 11

Observations from the Descriptive Analysis

Change Belief Highest Mean Score

by Sub Group

Lowest Mean Score

by Sub Group

Discrepancy 6.28 (EM) 4.95 (PP)

Appropriateness 6.33 (CA) 5.27 (PM)

5.26 (PP)

Efficacy 6.57 (CA) 5.53 (PP)

Principal support 6.07 (EM) 5.17 (PP)

Valence 5.71 (CA)

5.71 (PM)

4.24 (PP)

In examining the highest means from the quantitative results, the executive

management scored higher means in Discrepancy and Principal Support. The change

agents scored the highest means in Appropriateness, Efficacy, and Valence. Interestingly,

project managers only ranked Valance as their highest mean. In contrast, the lowest

mean scores for all five change beliefs were scored by the project participants. In

addition, the project managers, ranked Appropriateness as their lowest mean score. The

question of why are these means differ required the use a mixed method approach and

semi-structured interviews provided insights into differences in the mean scores.

Phase 2 – Qualitative

The qualitative phase of this study began by accepting the paradigm that there is a

range of different ways of making sense of the world (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011).

Qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of

or interpret phenomena in terms of what people bring to them (Patton, 2002). For this

study, a pragmatic approach was employed that values both objective and subjective

knowledge. A pragmatic approach is concerned with discovering the meanings seen by

those who are being researched and with understanding of their view of the world rather

than that of the researcher (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011).

Research Question. The research question for the qualitative phase of the study

was to examine the organizational change recipients’ beliefs regarding the adoption of

project management as an organizational change and why they report those stated beliefs.

Sampling. The sampling for the qualitative phase was determined from those

who participated in the quantitative phase of the study. There were 50 respondents who

completed the OCRBS in the quantitative phase of the study. From the 50 respondents,

ten participants were excluded from participating in the qualitative phase because they

were either: the owners of the company (two participants), involved in the coordination

of the case study between the researcher and the organization (two participants),

unavailable due to maternity leave (four participants), or they were working off-site (two

participants) when the interviews were scheduled.

The researcher utilized maximal variation sampling in which individuals were

chosen who held different perspectives on the central phenomenon (Yin, 2009). In the

case of this study, the criteria for maximizing differences were the four sub groups

consisting of executive management, change agents, project managers, and project

participants. The researcher chose maximum variation in order to understand how

different people perceived the adoption of project management as an organizational

change. Maximum variation is a special type of purposive sample (Bryman, 2008). The

main objective of a maximum variation sampling technique is to select a sample that, in

most cases, is more representative than a random sample (Bryman, 2008). The logic

behind this procedure is that, if very different areas are deliberately selected, the

aggregate answers obtained from respondents in these areas will be close to the average

(Bryman, 2008).

Based on the four sub groups, the names of the remaining 40 participants from the

quantitative population were entered into a MS Excel spreadsheet. The number of

participants that are required for the qualitative phase can vary, but the minimum number

has been cited at approximately 20 participants (Auerbach & Silverstein, 2003). The goal

was to interview 20 participants, which would result in a sufficient sample for conducting

qualitative data collection. The researcher randomly selected a total of 20 participants

from the remaining 40 participants using a random number table. Due to a scheduling

conflict, one of the selected individuals was not available at the time the qualitative

interviews were conducted. The final stratification of the qualitative sample for each of

the four subgroups is shown in Table 12.

Table 12

A Comparison of the Number of Participants Who Completed the OCRBS Survey and

the Semi-Structured Interviews Based on the Sub Groups.

Number of participants

Unit of analysis

Completed

the OCRBS

Available to be

interviewed

Interviews

completed

Executive management (EM) 9 7 3

Change agents (CA) 6 4 3

Project managers (PM) 6 6 4

Project participants (PP) 29 23 9

Total 50 40 19

Qualitative Data Collection. Qualitative data collection was conducted with

one-on-one semi-structured interviews to explore the factors found to be noteworthy in

the quantitative phase. The procedure for an explanatory sequential design is to use a

qualitative strand to explain the initial quantitative results (Creswell & Plano Clark,

2011). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a fairly open framework which

allowed for focused, conversational, two-way communication. Using an interview guide

(see Appendix F), the interview questions were designed with questions based on the five

change beliefs. Using the explanatory sequential design approach, secondary interview

questions were added based on the results of the quantitative analysis (Creswell & Plano

Clark, 2011). This approach guided the researcher to probe deeper for further

explanations to help in understanding. Other interview questions evolved during the

interview, allowing both the researcher and the participant the flexibility to probe for

details or discuss related issues.

Semi-Structured Interviews. Using the explanatory sequential design, semi-

structured interview questions were developed based on the results of the quantitative

analysis (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). The quantitative data analysis guided the

researcher to develop primary and secondary interview questions that were used for

further explanations to help in understanding the phenomenon under investigation. The

interviewing instrument was designed to align with the Organizational Change

Recipients’ Beliefs Scale, which was used during the quantitative phase of the study. The

semi-structured interviewing approach allowed the researcher and participant to have a

discussion in a systematic and consistent order, but allowed the participant to expand his

or her answers beyond a set of prepared and standardized questions.

The purpose for each of the primary interview questions was to initiate a dialogue

about the participants’ beliefs so that the researcher could probe the participant with

secondary interview question and follow-up questions to discover deeper meaning.

Probing includes a series of follow-up questions that occur after asking each primary

interview question (Patton, 2002). The follow-up questions emerged as a constructive

process built from the interview dialogue.

In examining the quantitative results from phase one, the highest means for

Discrepancy were scored by the executive management. Discrepancy is the belief there

is a need for the organizational to change (Rogers, 2003). The primary interview

question for this belief asked if there was an internal need to change. Secondary

interview questions asked if there were external factors requiring the organization to

change. The same questions were asked of the project practitioners to ascertain their

perspective on the need to change.

For the belief Appropriateness, the change agents scored the highest means.

Appropriateness is the belief that the proposed solution, in this case, the adoption and

implementation of project management, addresses the causes of the discrepancy (Rogers,

2003). The primary interview question asked if project management was the right

solution for the organization. The secondary question asked if project management was

the right solution in a highly-regulated business environment. Interestingly, the

descriptive statistics indicated that the project managers scored low in this belief. The

researcher used probing questions to obtain their comments regarding this belief.

Efficacy is the belief that the organization is capable of implementing the

proposed change (Rogers, 2003). The change agents scored the highest means, while the

project practitioners scored the lowest. The primary interview question asked if the

organization was capable to implement project management. The secondary interview

question asked if there were any barriers, which could be perceived as risks, to the

implementation.

The belief Principal Support is how organizational members influence one

another on adopting an innovation, in this case, project management (Rogers, 2003). For

the belief, Principal Support, the executive management scored the highest means and

the project practitioners scored the lowest. The primary interview question asked if there

was adequate individual and organizational commitment to adopting project

management. The secondary interview question asked about the organizational culture in

implementing project management.

The last belief, Valence is defined as having the personal motivation to change

(Rogers, 2003). The change agents and project managers scored highest means for this

belief, while the project practitioners scored the lowest. The primary interview question

was asked in two parts by distinguishing between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation.

Using an interview guide (see Appendix F), the semi-structured interviews began

with the researcher explaining the purpose of the research, reassuring the participants that

their privacy and confidentiality of the data collected would be enforced, and providing

an explanation of the interview process and how the data would be collected and

analyzed.

The researcher began the interviews by asking the participants demographic

questions about their length of employment at the organization, their title or position

within the company, and an explanation of their duties and responsibilities. This initial

protocol served three purposes. First, it allowed the participants to reduce their anxiety

about participating in an unfamiliar process (Patton, 2002). Second, this type of

questioning allowed the researcher and the participant to build rapport, which enhanced

the interview process (Patton, 2002). Third, using Jootun, McGhee, and Marland’s

(2009) “hybrid perspective”, the researcher was able to situate and confirm the

participant’s role within the boundaries of the four sub groups of executive management,

change agent, project manager, and project participant.

After the initial demographic questions, the interview consisted of five open-

ended questions which explored the participant’s beliefs about adopting project

management as an organizational change. Each of the primary interview questions was

aligned with the Organizational Change Recipients’ Belief Scale that was used for the

quantitative phase of the study (see Appendix F). Secondary interview questions and

follow-up questions were asked to discover deeper meaning about each belief. The

researcher made field notes directly on an interview guide during each interview to help

organize and monitor the use of follow-up questions and probing in subsequent

interviews.

The interviews occurred within the headquarters of the selected organization. All

interviews were scheduled over the course of one week from June 4, 2012, through June

7, 2012. Two interviews occurred in the morning with another two interviews completed

in the afternoon. The interviews were conducted in a private office in a closed-door

setting that provided the participants the security to articulate their responses to the

interview questions without the concern of fellow employees overhearing.

Each interview lasted approximately 45 to 60 minutes depending on follow-up

questions. All interviews were recorded on two digital recorders to ensure that the

interview was captured. As interviews were being conducted, the researcher made verbal

comments during the course of the interview when the participant emphasized certain

statements. These verbal notes were later used to describe the latent content of the

interviews and record any issues that appeared to reemerge in each interview.

The recorded interviews were transcribed using an online transcription service. In

most cases, the transcripts were created within 48 hours after submitting them to the

online transcription service. Once the initial transcriptions were completed, the

researcher validated the quality of the transcription by comparing the transcription to the

actual audio recordings of the interviews for any errors or omissions. The researcher

accomplished this by playing back short segments of the recordings and comparing them

to the corresponding section of the transcript. The average interview consisted of 5,000

to 6,000 words, and the accuracy of the transcription service was quite high with less than

10 transcription errors per interview.

Qualitative Data Analysis. Qualitative data analysis for the case study employed

categorizing, tabulating, testing, and recombining the data (Yin, 2009). Thematic

analysis of the data was conducted to identify factors associated with the adoption and

implementation of project management as an organizational change initiative. Various

coding techniques were applied to the thematic analysis.

Qualitative Coding Procedures. The researcher used NVivo, Version 9.0

(2010), a computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software, for analyzing the

transcribed interviews. After the written transcripts were validated, the 19 transcribed

interviews were imported to the NVivo program from a MS Word™ text file. In NVvio,

each transcribed interview is called a source, which is a collective term representing the

research data (NVivo 9, 2010). Coding is the process of examining the raw qualitative

data in the form of words, phrases, sentences, or paragraphs for concepts, ideas, or issues

relevant to the phenomena under investigation (NVivo 9, 2010). Using the NVivo

software program, coding of the data is a method of tagging data by assigning codes

(NVivo 9, 2010).

The coding procedures used both open and axial coding (Thomas & James, 2006).

Open coding allowed the data to be the guide rather than searching for specific indicators

or topics within qualitative data (Thomas & James, 2006). Axial coding is used when the

researcher seeks to gain insight with respect to a specific thematic category or topic

(Thomas & James, 2006).

An open coding procedure was used to examine the transcriptions for concepts,

ideas, or issues relevant to the five change beliefs in the comments provided by the

participants. Words, phrases, sentences, or paragraphs were marked with codes to

identify them for further analysis. A code is a labeled section of data that a researcher

identified as significant to some facts that data represent. The name of the code was

decided by the researcher based on the context taken from the language of the participant.

This labeling process is referred to in vivo coding (NVivo 9, 2010).

After the open coding process, axial coding procedure was used to analyze the

codes for similarities. Axial coding is the process of grouping codes into categories

based on common characteristics (Thomas & James, 2006). The name of the categories

was different than the label used for the codes to provide clarity of its contents. The

researcher defined the categories to explain the interrelationships between emergent

nodes. The development of these categories enabled the researcher to reduce data into

more manageable amounts, allowing patterns and themes to emerge. Axial coding was

appropriate for this type of inquiry since the topic of investigation was known and the

semi-structured interviews provided a guide for the respondents to convey their thoughts

(Krippendorff, 2004). In this case, that topic was the reasoning of the participants

regarding their change beliefs.

Researcher as the instrument of analysis. When analyzing qualitative data,

particularly when using open-coding, the researcher is considered the primary instrument

of analysis (Patton, 2002). Unlike studies where quantitative measurements are used, the

researcher performs the function of the instrument, identifying issues and concepts, and

measuring their relative value. According to Patton (2002), the benefit of the researcher

as an instrument of analysis is that the researcher has the flexibility to modify his or her

approach as needed and can detect latent content inherent in the subjects. The drawback

is that the researcher often lacks the same precision and objectivity that a survey might

afford. As the instrument of analysis, the researcher must recognize personal biases and

attempt to mitigate them in order to improve the reliability and validity of the study

findings.

In qualitative research, the researcher is both the researcher and the participant

and cannot be divorced from the phenomenon under study. The researcher used

bracketing and reflexivity to improve the rigor and reduce bias in analyzing the

qualitative data. Klenke (2008) defined bracketing as the ability of the researcher to

suspend their own preconceptions, prejudices, and beliefs so that they do not interfere

with or influence the participants’ experience. By bracketing, the researcher does not

influence the participants’ understanding of the phenomenon. Each participant can

present the researcher with new knowledge and new understanding in the search for the

essence of things through the identification of essential themes (Klenke, 2008).

The researcher’s past experience, as a business owner and as a professional

consultant, in implementing project management practices within his own organization

and in client’s organizations must be acknowledged as a possible bias for this study. In a

sense, the researcher might be viewed as having emic and etic knowledge to the area

being studied (Patton 2002). Jootun et al. (2009) stated that it is impossible for the

researcher to be totally detached and unbiased when conducting qualitative research and

the relationship and the influence between the researcher and participants should be made

transparent. Jootun et al. (2009) stated a hybrid perspective must be taken when the

100

researcher is familiar with the practice area that is under investigation. In this study, the

researcher attempted to take advantage of his hybrid status and draw on his past

experiences while trying to remain objective and to listen intently to the discussion of the

participants.

To offset this bias, reflexivity was included to increase the rigor of the research

process. Jootun et al. (2009) stated, “reflecting on the process of one’s research and

trying to understand how one’s own values and views may influence findings adds

credibility to the research and should be part of any method of qualitative inquiry” (p.

42). Reflexivity was utilized to enhance the trustworthiness of the data. Because the

researcher became part of the experience in the research process, care was taken to make

certain that the researcher’s personal beliefs and biases did not unduly influence the

research participants. The researcher bracketed any preconceived notions whether the

organization change recipients would adopt or not adopt project management practices.

As the researcher interviewed the various sub groups from the organization, he was

mindful of how his values and views might influence the findings.

Identifying codes and categories. The interviews were conducted from June 4,

2012, through June 7, 2012. The 19 audio recordings of the interviews were submitted as

separate audio files to the online transcription service over a period of two weeks.

Because of the number of interviews and to validate the quality of the transcription, the

assigning codes did not occur until four weeks after the actual interviews. Assigning

codes consisted of simultaneously viewing the text-based transcription in NVivo and

listening to the audio recording of each interview. The researcher listened for verbal

comments he had made during the course of the interview when the participant

101

emphasized certain statements. These audio reminders were used to describe the latent

content of the interviews and record any issues that appeared to reemerge in each

interview. According to the NVivo 9 Basics user manual, nodes can be created “on the

fly” or “up front” (NVivo 9, 2010). In the case of this study, both approaches were

utilized. Pre-defined codes were created based on the five change beliefs. Other codes

were created as the researcher analyzed the data.

The initial pass through the 19 transcripts resulted in tagging 1,242 codes (see

Appendix G). Bazeley (2007) defined these codes as free codes, which meant these

codes do not have any relationships or connections with each other. A code was a

specific section of the interviews such as a word, phrase, sentence, or sentences that was

considered relevant to the five change beliefs. By listening to the audio recordings, the

researcher also tagged comments where the researcher listened for verbal comments he

had made during the course of the interview when the participant emphasized certain

statements. In the 19 transcripts, the number of codes per transcript ranged from 45 to

109. The average number of codes per transcript was 65. See Table 13 for the categories

based on the five change beliefs with the corresponding number of codes for each

category.

102

Table 13

The Total Number of Codes Based on the Five Change Beliefs

Discrepancy 199

Appropriateness 113

Efficacy 311

Principal support 265

Valence 135

Miscellaneous a 219

Total number of codes 1,242

Note. a Miscellaneous codes were assigned to comments that emerged from probing

and follow-up questions and were not aligned with the five change beliefs.

During the axial coding process, the researcher used the query feature within

NVivo to sort the codes into what NVivo calls categories. Categories are codes that have

a relationship between codes around a common concept, idea, or issue (NVivo 9, 2010).

The second review of the data resulted in creating 28 categories from 1,242 codes that

were identified from the open coding process. The 28 categories were categorized and

named based on the five change beliefs. The number of categories per transcript ranged

from four to eight. The average number of categories per transcript was six (see

Appendix G).

Theme Development. Using an inductive/deductive method, the theme analysis

was conducted to answer the research question, “Why do the organizational change

recipients’ hold the beliefs they do about the adoption of project management as an

organizational change?”

103

A thematic analysis of the data from the semi-structured interviews was

conducted to identify emergent themes evident in the study. Patton (2002) described the

process of inductive analysis as discovering patterns, themes, and categories in one’s own

data. The data were examined, tested, categorized, and recombined, and the frequency of

the emergent themes were tabulated (Yin, 2009). The data were coded and categorized to

organize the material bringing meaning to the data. Patton (2002) explained that once

codes, patterns, and categories were established through inductive analysis, the final

confirmatory stage of qualitative analysis was deductive in testing and affirming the

authenticity and appropriateness of the inductive content analysis.

After the initial codes were developed, the researcher worked to determine the

most logical set of codes and to refine those codes. As part of the theory-building

process, the researcher began developing more selective codes by determining links

between the various codes, creating related categories and determining how the

categories related to one another, which became the primary themes.

The next step was to review the data within each category to create the themes.

Thematic analysis has been historically a conventional practice in qualitative research

which involves searching through data to identify any recurrent patterns. A theme is a

cluster of categories conveying similar meanings and emerges through a deductive

analytic process which characterizes the qualitative paradigm. Themes were created by

bringing together the participant’s comments of experiences, which often were

meaningless when viewed alone. Themes that emerged from the individual interviews

were pieced together to form a comprehensive picture of their collective experience.

Since analysts move back and forth between new concepts and the data, all research

104

involved processes of induction and deduction, especially thematic analysis whereby

induction created themes and deduction verified them.

The themes developed through the thematic analytic process are presented in

Table 14. The themes were divided into various categories that aligned with the OCRBS

and the five change beliefs. The typology for the themes and categories was created by

the researcher based on the data, but not necessary used explicitly by the participants.

Table 14

Thematic Categorization

Belief Theme Explanation of theme

Discrepancy

Theme #1: Business reasoning regarding the need to adopt project management

This theme consisted of comments regarding the need to adopt

project management to execute ABC’s business strategies.

Theme #2: Difficulties in adopting project management in a highly-regulated

business environment

This theme consisted of comments regarding difficulties and

obstacles in adopting project management within the

pharmaceutical/healthcare industry on its approach to medical

education.

Appropriateness

Theme #1: Organizational approach

This theme consisted of comments regarding project management

as the right organizational approach to accomplish ABC’s project

work.

Theme #2: Strategic advantage

This theme consisted of comments regarding project management

as a strategic advantage for the organization for implementing

senior executive’s business strategy.

105

Table 14 (continued)

Thematic categorization

Belief Theme Explanation of theme

Appropriateness (continued)

Theme #3: Adaptability

This theme consisted of comments of the adaptability that project

management can offer the organization based on varying client

demands by being able to adopt a new project management

framework for ABC’s project environment.

Efficacy

Theme #1: Key points for implementing project management as an

organizational change.

This theme consisted of comments regarding the concerted effort

and contribution of all organizational members when

implementing project management as an organization change.

Theme #2: Barriers to implementation

This theme consisted of comments regarding various

organizational constraints to implement ABC’s project

management which included individual barriers and

organizational barriers.

Principal support

Theme #1: Organization support

This theme consisted of comments regarding the organizational

support for adopting project management and addresses ABC’s

leaders’ commitment to the organizational change.

Theme #2: Acceptance

This theme consisted of comments to achieve acceptance and

minimize organizational resistance for adopting project

management in order for ABC to achieve a successful

organizational change initiative.

106

Table 14 (continued)

Thematic categorization

Belief Theme Explanation of theme

Principal support

Theme #3: Organizational culture

This theme consisted of comments regarding ABC’s

organizational culture for adopting project management as an

enabler or an obstacle to implementing the organizational change.

Theme #4: Training

This theme consisted of comments regarding issues on providing

training on project management and the needed change in

attitudes and behaviors as well as skills and knowledge

Valence

Theme #1: Extrinsic motivation

This theme consisted of comments regarding extrinsic motivation

due to the major role that employees play in the success or failure

of the change.

Theme #2: Intrinsic motivation

This theme consisted of comments regarding intrinsic motivation

due to the impact of the change on themselves, their job, and

work colleagues.

Discrepancy. Discrepancy is the belief there is a need to change from the current

state to a future state (Armenakis, Bernerth, et al., 2007). This belief is grounded in

external contextual factors such as social, economic, political, and competitive

environments to justify the need to change (Armenakis, Bernerth, et al., 2007).

Communication that fails to engage employees and to inform them of the reasons,

processes, and expected benefits of major organizational changes can lead to lack of

107

employee acceptance and, ultimately, failure of change initiatives (Biedenbach &

Söderholm, 2008).

Discrepancy – Theme #1: Business reasoning regarding the need to adopt project

management. This theme legitimized the argument that employees accepted the fact that

a need for change existed. Organizations are required to continuously create new sources

of competitive advantages to mitigate the competitors’ advantages, changing market

demands, and advances in technological innovations (Chung & Hsu, 2010). This was

also evident in the pharmaceutical/healthcare sector. Pharmaceutical companies have

been facing a number of major challenges, both internally and externally (“The

Pharmaceutical Industry Faces,” 2009). Internally, issues such as the declining efficiency

of internal R&D processes and increasingly crowded markets have resulted in fierce price

competition between both branded and generic drug makers (“The Pharmaceutical

Industry Faces,” 2009). Externally, increasing regulatory pressures have required that

companies be more restricted in their promotion of products to patients and physicians

(“The Pharmaceutical Industry Faces,” 2009). This theme addressed the business

reasoning to adopt project management as providing the capability to execute ABC’s

business strategies. It consisted of 48 comments regarding the business reasoning to

adopt project management as an organizational change. Of the 48 comments, six

comments are presented below.

One of the categories under this theme was concerned with increasing regulations

in the healthcare industry and the possible loss of revenues due resulting from non-

compliance issues. One executive manager commented that front-end planning and

shorter timelines could be a possible source for risk. The executive manager stated that

108

the need to adopt project management may possibly offset losses in revenues resulting

from non-compliance issues:

We are so regulated on some of the front end that it is causing out timelines to be

even more compromised. When we get to a place where timelines are comprised,

we open ourselves up for greater risk. Not only regulatory risk, but also risk of

not completing a project successfully. That could have a huge implication for us

if we get a violation that’s reportable to the FDA. It could mean our contract

becomes null and void, and we could lose millions of dollars in revenue. (see

Appendix F)

One project management practitioner supported this need by affirming that the

medical education providers have been expected to streamline operations by cutting costs

with dramatic changes reducing time-to-market in producing medical education due to

increased regulations and changes resulting from the healthcare reform (“The

Pharmaceutical Industry Faces,” 2009) and stated:

We have heard of project management and we have always kind of been doing

that. I think that we have been called to the table to do a lot more of that, and I

think probably the biggest reason for the investment right now at our company,

and probably why they are pushing it, is that it is such a critical piece in the eyes

of the client. (see Appendix F)

Another category under this theme was the issue of developing more

competencies in managing their projects. One executive manager commented on the

current lack of capabilities in their internal project management practices and the need to

become better at managing projects:

109

If we’re going to keep saying to our client that we do this, we’d better learn how

to do it and do it. Or, somebody is going to turn around and call us on it, and

we’re going to get busted, and we’re going to look silly. (see Appendix F)

This sentiment was also expressed at other levels within the organization. One

project manager was quoted as saying, “We are all over the board, and we really need to

get better at this” (see Appendix F). Another project manager stated, “This is going to be

very disruptive to the organization, but it is very necessary. And, it’s either you get it on

board, or it’s going to be pretty much the same mess as it was before” (see Appendix F).

A project practitioner summarized this belief by stating:

I would hate for my client to see something that a teammate of mine did that looks

differently or that they feel that they should be getting and they’re not getting

from me, and I don’t even know it exists because it’s on a different team. Even

some of that sharing that comes with having those outlines and deadlines, and

things like that, would probably help team by team to make more of a

consistency. (see Appendix F)

Discrepancy – Theme #2: Difficulties in adopting project management in a

highly-regulated business environment. This theme consisted of comments regarding

difficulties that may be encountered in establishing project management processes as an

organizational change for a highly-regulated business environment. Medicines have

become increasingly more complex, and the benefits to patients can only become clear if

physicians have been properly trained and educated (Rear, 2012). During the past

decade, governmental regulatory bodies have been focusing on potential conflicts of

interest among pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers concerning medical

110

education (Rear, 2012). In response to public pressure and increased government

regulation, the pharmaceutical industry has begun adopting stricter guidelines on its

approach to medical education (Rear, 2012). This theme consisted of 15 comments

regarding obstacles in adopting project management in a highly-regulated business

environment. Of the 15 comments, four comments are presented regarding various

barriers and obstacles in the implementation of project management.

One of the categories under this theme was concerned with the public perception

of bias between pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers. One executive

manager commented that, during the past decade, government and regulatory bodies have

paid a lot more attention to potential conflicts of interest among companies and

healthcare providers. The executive manager expressed a concern that developing good

medical education has become a serious concern and a possible conflict of interest. The

executive manager commented:

Our business is unique. It is such a highly regulated environment. To eliminate

any potential conflict of interest, there are very clear processes that we have to

follow. Sometimes those processes turn in, more into guardrails than processes,

and we have to know when to switch from being on, I guess the analogy for me

would be being on a train track versus driving a car. You have to be able to

switch gears. I definitely think there’s a need for it, but I think, at the same time,

it has to be balanced with this. This will not solve all of your problems and you

can’t just follow the process blindly. (see Appendix F)

111

Another executive manager commented that because of the stricter guidelines,

having a set of pre-defined project management processes may hinder their company’s

ability to respond to project ambiguities inherent within the pharmaceutical industry:

Developing a process that allows them to say, “I go from step A to step B to step

C”. Sometimes, the part for me that always worries me about that is that, when

things jump from A to C, sometimes people can get paralyzed. (see Appendix F)

One of the change agents also stated this concern and emphasized the need for the

organization to rely on providing creative solutions to their clients rather than following a

set of processes:

I think it’s actually one of the key hurdles in dealing with project management

because it feels “processy,” but we’re supposed to be creative, and I’m good at

my job. Project management feels like some process we’re putting on rather than

the guidelines and really creating collaboration and creating a vision for projects,

and I think that’s going to be the largest hurdle to overcome. (see Appendix F)

One comment that expressed the current creative mindset that the organization

has was articulated by one of the project team members. This reference was indicative of

an attitude-related obstacle to adopting project management as an organizational change

(Szabla, 2007). The project team member stated:

If it’s not a process that is official, I will not do it. I am trying to keep up with

what I’ve got and so I will just put it off and I will get it done, but if you’re not

telling me I have to do it that way, I won’t do it that way. (see Appendix F)

112

Appropriateness. Appropriateness is the belief that questions what the desired

future state will be (Armenakis, Bernerth, et al., 2007). The emphasis of leadership,

creating a vision, and gaining acceptance becomes important for change recipients’

beliefs. Armenakis, Bernerth, et al., 2007) stressed the necessity that the proposed

change addresses the cause(s) of the discrepancy so that the appropriate corrective action

can be matched to that situation, thus reducing or eliminating the discrepancy.

Appropriateness – Theme #1: Organizational approach. This theme consisted of

comments regarding project management as the desired future state for the organization.

Project management has quickly become a critical method of accomplishing work today.

Increasingly, organizations have been required to organize so complex, non-routine, one-

time efforts limited by time, budget, resources, and performance specifications designed

to meet customer needs can be accomplished (Turner, 2009). Research has indicated that

utilizing project management practices substantially enhance organizational change

initiatives (Turner, 2009). This theme consisted of 24 comments that expressed the

concerns if project management was the correct organizational approach for the

organization. Of the 24 comments, six comments are presented.

One of the categories under this theme was utilizing project management to

achieve the strategic goals of the organization. Several executive managers remarked

that they felt project management was the right managerial approach. “I absolutely think

it's the direction that we need to continue to go in building more framework, giving

people more tools” (see Appendix F). Another executive manager stated, “I feel like this

the direction and this is what we're doing” (see Appendix F).

113

Another category under this theme was the issue of overcoming resistance to

change. For many organizations, it has made more sense to select a single set of project

management processes rather than risk diversity and inconsistency in managing projects.

Adopting project management in any form has often required a radical change in attitude.

Changing business processes and personal behaviors is difficult (Szabla, 2007).

Researchers have emphasized that attitude-related human behavior as a primary obstacle

to organizational change (Szabla, 2007). One executive manager stated that the

acceptance of using project management would take time:

When we have these project management practices, when we have one of our

directors say, “I just don’t know how I’m going to do this.” And you have

another director saying, “I don’t know how you’re not doing it. I don’t know how

you’re doing your job.” I feel like those conversations really would happen if we

gave it kind of room to breathe and said, “Let’s take a year to do it.” (see

Appendix F)

Eby et al. (2000) stated, “…perceptions of the organization’s readiness for change

are based on an individual’s unique interpretation of the organization’s context” (p. 42).

Moreover, Eby et al. (2000) asserted that individual perceptions of organizational

readiness generally evolved over time and that management intervention such as

communication, solicitation of participation, and active support can help to shape those

perceptions. Readiness for change is comprised of an individual’s beliefs and attitudes

that have arisen from one’s perception of an organization’s ability to effect change

(Armenakis et al., 1993; Eby et al., 2000). A comment, by one of the change agents

signified the importance of individual attitudes and beliefs:

114

If you had asked me last year I would have said “That’s a waste of freaking time.”

This year I feel like it’s not a waste of time because the teams need guard rails.

They need guidance. They need to make sure that they’re following a process and

not skipping any of those steps that are very important to what they’re doing. (see

Appendix F)

When asked if project management was the right choice for them, one of the

project managers emphatically stated:

Is project management the right choice? As opposed to what? I mean, I don't

know what else they would choose. Project management basically keeps

everybody on task. There are no surprises. Everybody knows when they are

supposed to do something, what they are supposed to do, who it is due to. (see

Appendix F)

Another project manager also commented about the choice of project

management and stated:

Yes. I think that [project management] really describes what probably all of us do

to some degree, even if we don’t know that we’re doing it. So I think naming it

would allow some more perimeters, some more things that we could judge our

self against and how we’re doing it. (see Appendix F)

Appropriateness – Theme #2: Strategic advantage. This theme consisted of

comments regarding project management as a strategic advantage for the organization.

In recent years, the strategic importance of project management in the corporate arena has

been recognized by many organizations, large and small, throughout the world

(Srivannaboon, 2009). In particular, many organizational leaders have believed that

115

aligning project management with the business strategy has significantly enhanced the

competitive advantage of the organization in terms of strategies and performance. This

theme consisted of 18 comments that were made that considered the adoption of project

management as a strategic advantage for the organization. Of the 18 comments, five

comments are presented.

One of the categories under this theme was ABC’s competitive advantage.

Competitive advantage has no longer arisen exclusively from past marketing position or

existing capabilities in producing or delivering results (Srivannaboon, 2009). Those

competitive advantages have become essentially static. Organizational leaders have

found that sustainable competitive advantage stems from the organizational capabilities

that foster rapid adaptation. Instead of being really good at doing some particular thing,

companies must be really good at learning how to do new things. One of the change

agents commented that their clients expected ABC to expand their project management

skills and services. This expansion was seen as a competitive advantage. The change

agent stated:

Our clients are scaling a way back. They don’t have as many resources and I feel

like a lot of the resources they’re getting rid of are some of those people who

could kind of pull everybody together. They’re really looking for companies who

can pull, who can work with multiple different clients, multiple different divisions

but then the company can pull that all together. I feel like that is really valuable.

It’s a good place. I feel like we’re poised to take over a lot of that, but we need

folks here internally who are really comfortable to be able to do that. (see

Appendix F)

116

This sentiment was equally expressed by one of the project management

practitioners, who stated:

I think we are looked upon as a partner versus just a vendor that does a task for

them and that is why I think that is important. It brings a whole other value to

what you are doing rather than just doing a good job at whatever task you have

been given. It is looking at a big picture and seeing from start to finish every

single thing that flows in there that we are able to handle it. We know what is

going on, we know how it needs to happen in the order it needs to happen, and if

there is an issue, that we can raise a red flag right then to correct it and keep

everything moving forward. (see Appendix F)

A second category under this theme dealt with the recent divestiture of one of

ABC’s business units. In 2011, ABC experienced its first reduction of revenue.

Executive management has attributed this loss of revenue to their healthcare clients

demanding significant cost reductions. As a result, executive management decided to

eliminate one of its divisions because of these substantial cost reductions. For many

organizational members, the adoption of project management has taken on new meaning,

especially for those wishing to improve their performance in this cost-constrained

economy. Project management has evolved with an emphasis on establishing standard

practices with formalized organizational competencies (Crawford, 2006). With these cost

reductions and other competitive pressures, one project manager asserted that the

implementation of project management practices will improve cost and time efficiencies,

profitability, and market share:

117

We are in a position right now to where we’ve got to find ways to grow our

organization and increase our business but do it with fewer people. How do we

do that? And it takes a lot of organizational skills. A lot of times when you do

implement project management methodologies, you are able to identify repeatable

processes. If you can repeat something, like a framework, you just become more

efficient, and in fact, throughout the entire monitoring and controlling because it’s

like clockwork. Your scope is different every time, but the things that you do

should be consistent. (see Appendix F)

A third category for this theme was a possible new corporate identify or

rebranding. In preparation for implementing a significant organizational change, senior

management must be more aware of how key stakeholders, such as employees,

customers, and the community, view the company’s new identity (Kjaergaard, 2009).

One of the project management practitioners commented about the adoption of project

management as a new or refreshed corporate identity and stated, “If this can be done, we

tell our client when we rebrand ourselves” (see Appendix F).

Large-scale changes to an organization normally involve changes in the

organization’s identity (Kjaergaard, 2009). A corporate brand stands for the relationship

that an organization has with its employees as much as it represents the relationship that

it has with its customers through its product and service offering (Kjaergaard, 2009). The

significance of the divesture and the adoption of project management were articulated by

one of the project management practitioners concerning the new direction for ABC:

It depends on where the company wants to go. There are times where I think I

almost feel like they need to figure out what they want this company to be. If we

118

want it to be a project management company, then we want to be able to take on

those kinds of things, and without question, that’s what we should be doing. But,

if that’s not what they want to do, then maybe it is not so important. (see

Appendix F)

Appropriateness – Theme #3: Adaptability. This theme consisted of comments of

the adaptability that project management can offer the organization based on varying

client demands. Research on various project management methods has found that the

traditional model of project management is no longer efficient (Shenhar, 2008). In

today’s business environment, modern projects are uncertain, complex, and changing,

and they are highly impacted by the dynamics in the environment (Shenhar, 2008).

Instead of holding onto the traditional project management model, organizations should

adopt a new project management framework that is agile to its project environment

(Highsmith, 2009). Project management methods must adapt to the specific project and

its requirements. According to Highsmith (2009), this approach represents a shift in

thinking but is inevitable to meet today’s organizational challenges. This theme

consisted of 25 comments that were made that expressed concern over the adaptability of

project management meeting customer expectations and ensuring the necessary rigor to

comply with governmental regulations. Of the 25 comments, six comments were

presented.

This category consists of comments that adopting project management practices

should adapt to the business needs of ABC’s clients. While no project management

framework can provide all the answers, organizations can significantly improve its

business results from their projects if they consciously apply an adaptive-style of project

119

management framework (Shenhar, 2008). The following comments made by various

individuals felt that the decision to adopt project management should stipulate that the

project management practices should remain adaptive to the business needs of their

clients. An executive manager stated:

As long as everybody else here can feel like we’re as responsive to our ultimate

clients as we can be without opening ourselves up to more risks than we need to,

we can call it whatever we want, but it should be a process as long as it’s

adaptive. (see Appendix F)

Another executive manager strongly expressed an opinion that the new project

management framework remained responsive to the needs of their customers and stated,

“We’ve got to do what we need to do. Whatever the customer says, we’re going to say

yes to it” (see Appendix F). One of the project management practitioners also

commented that the project management should be adaptive and stated, “It depends on

how rigid of a process it is because this company does not do this rigid process” (see

Appendix F).

A change agent provided a good example of how the project’s requirements may

change. This comment not only addressed the need for adaptability in the project

management practices but the attitudinal perspective that individuals must have to

tolerate a certain degree of ambiguity. The change agent stated:

Decisions that we made five months ago that now all of a sudden are being

adjusted. So, I think for me it sort of is what it is. I think that is really hard for

some people to just kind of get okay with the fact that it is this flexibility and

knowing that things are going to change and it’s definitely the nature of the beast.

120

You just do as much as you possibly can and plan for as much as you possibly

can. So, I think it’s sort of, 80% of our planning is really around the mainstream

and what typically should happen, and then the other 20% is what is going to

happen. (see Appendix F)

The following was a comment made by one of the project management

practitioners regarding a project manager who was attempting to use project management

software program to schedule the activities for a project. The comment was an indication

that not only should the project management framework be adaptive but also the

individuals managing the projects:

I see somebody here that is a project manager who always uses a computer

program. She’s like, “See, this week you said this.” I’m like, “Well, things

change. We’re in an ever changing environment and our clients changed the

deadline. I apologize. I am telling you now though that this has to change.” It’s

like a lack of flexibility because they are just using a project management

computer program. Basically, I think it needs to be flexible. (see Appendix F)

One project management practitioner warned that employees were becoming

stressed because of the recent divesture. This person felt that the loss of flexibility would

be detrimental to the organization and stated:

I think people right now are real sensitive to becoming more rigid because it

seems, from the chit-chat around and just from general feeling, it seems like

people are already feeling like the stress from all of the realignment and all that

kind of thing. I think people are feeling like things [are] less flexible. I think that

senior management would want to be sensitive to not handing down things that

121

seem more rigid, taking out all of the individualized parts of our business that we

value. I also think you can’t just baby everybody and say, “Just do whatever you

want,” because that’s not safe, especially in our industry; that’s not safe. (see

Appendix F)

Efficacy. Efficacy, in the context of organizational change, refers to

organizational change recipients’ shared beliefs in their collective capabilities to organize

and execute the courses of action regarding the implementation of the proposed change

(Weiner, 2009). Low levels of confidence in one's capabilities to execute an

organizational change can influence one's decision to undertake implementation of a

proposed organizational change (Armenakis, Bernerth, et al., 2007).

Efficacy – Theme #1: Key points for implementation. This theme consisted of

comments regarding key points to consider when implementing project management as

an organization change. A key point for implementing project management as an

organizational change requires the concerted effort and contribution of all organization

members (Axelrod, 2000). Broad-based meaningful engagement and participation across

the different business units, functions, and levels has been a key mechanism for

mobilizing and building commitment and ownership. This theme consisted of 86

comments that were expressed on key points that would aid in the adoption of project

management for the organization. Of the 117 comments, five comments are presented.

One of the categories under this theme included comments made regarding

critical actions that should be made in implementing project management within the

organization. Effective organizational realignment plans should be comprised of

sequenced actions, defined milestones, key deliverables expected to be produced, and

122

timelines for producing them (Levin & Gottlieb, 2009). Managing with rigor and

discipline also includes establishing a clear set of governance, management, and

accountability structures to monitor and control the established plan of action (Levin &

Gottlieb, 2009). This concern was expressed by one of the change agents who was to

have a major role in the implementation process:

I think one way that we can really grow is to have some processes in place that

were really intentional to make sure that we’re just pulling ourselves back from

projects as well and not just moving forward because maybe that’s the easiest or

most effective, or even the client suggested that we do it this way, so we’re just

doing it that way, but it might not be the best way. I think those really intentional

sort of touch points that, to me, feel like that can be a really focused project

management tool or exercise would be really valuable. (see Appendix F)

One executive manager reinforced this sentiment by stating that the

implementation process may take a longer perspective so that project management

becomes an integral part of the organization’s culture and stated, “It [project

management] needs to become the fabric of who we are, which may mean a slower

implementation” (see Appendix F).

The importance of planning the implementation as a vital business improvement

initiative means detailed planning, realistic estimates of resource requirements,

commitment to meeting those requirements, and the coordination of various actions

(Axelrod, 2000). One member of executive management advised the necessity to

properly plan the scope of the implementation to meet the needs of the organization and

stated:

123

Just making sure that we balance the need for it because, if it doesn’t, one thing

I’ve learned in 12 years, if you don’t get it off on the right foot, you might as well

have not done it. There just is no need to spin wheels; it may be a very short-

lived process. You may get it off the ground, but it’s probably not going to stay

in the air. (see Appendix F)

Another executive management participant cautioned that the scope of the

implementation should not be overly rigorous based on lessons learned from a previous

attempt of implementing project management in one of the business units and stated:

We put in processes that maybe would have been more suitable for a Fortune 500

company, not one that’s small and nimble. We’re scaling back a little bit. I think

that same type of approach should be taken as we roll it out to our company.

Maybe do it in little pieces at a time. Just so that everybody can get comfortable

with “Oh, okay, so this isn’t so scary. This isn’t so bad; I can do this” and then

just add on a little bit more and a little bit more and a little bit more and before

they know it . . . there… (see Appendix F)

One of the change agents commented that it would be beneficial to the

implementation if other members of the organization could observe and acknowledge that

the new ways of working actually were better than how things were done in the past.

This demonstrated that the new project management processes were contributing to

achieving desired business results. The change agent stated:

It’s about having a few people who really champion the process and really

showcase what that is. I feel like that just gets people on board. It’s having these

internal people who are really champion and just showcasing it. I think it’s even

124

more powerful for people to see it in process and how it can work and continuing

to remind people to use it. (see Appendix F)

Efficacy – Theme #2: Barriers to implementation. This theme consisted of

comments regarding various organizational constraints to implement project

management. A number of barriers to the adoption of project management were stated

during the interviews. Implementing a significant organizational change is complicated.

Not only must organizational leaders address individual barriers but the organizational

barriers as well. According to many organizational scholars, many organizational change

initiatives failed because people neglected to create a sense of urgency among

stakeholders (Levin & Gottlieb, 2009; Miles, 2010). This theme consisted of 113

comments on concerns on the adoption of project management for the organization. Of

the 113 comments, 11 comments are presented.

One of the categories for this theme was a lack capacity to implement the

organizational change. The common sentiment was the day-to-day management of

existing projects was already operating at full capacity, and there often was not enough

capacity to plan and launch an organizational change. One executive manager

acknowledged that capacity was a concern and stated, “I do think we’re capable. My

concern is much more; my concern is around capacity more than capability.” Another

executive manager reinforced the previous concern and stated:

I think at times we get really excited about, “Let’s have this project management

practice in place,” and then we roll it out to the entire organization. Now

everybody’s responsible for doing everything exactly the way it’s supposed to be,

125

and I think it would do us some good to take a step back and say, “We have one

particular team that is slower, that has some capacity” (see Appendix F).

Another category, for this theme, was a lack of clarity on what the

implementation was supposed to achieve. Miles (2010) recommended that, before

undertaking an organizational transformation, it was essential for senior management to

be clear about the opportunity ahead of them and enthusiastic about their role in helping

to achieve it. Without that clarity and without that sense of urgency, change was bound

to be hampered by hasty, haphazard, and misguided activity. One change agent voiced a

concern about the lack of senior management establishing a vision for the company and

stated:

Our leadership has the vision to move us in this direction to be an education

company. How do we do that? That’s not been clearly identified, and when you

have tactical operational people, if you don’t set that goal and you don’t put a

carrot out in front of them–a clear goal–they’re going to go nowhere, and they’re

just going to keep doing what they do well. (see Appendix F)

A long-term project management practitioner made a comment based on previous

experience that a lack of planning for organizational change has occurred in the past and

stated:

My experience has been any time we have had any major roll out in the company

sometimes it does not feel as thought out as it should be. It seems like a few

people understand it inside and out, and then the message does not get out to the

levels below. (see Appendix F)

126

Another change agent reiterated this same concern over the lack of planning

because the day-to-day operations requires too much of their time and stated, “One of the

biggest barriers is that we are full speed ahead, that we don’t pull ourselves up and ask

the appropriate questions that we need to ask [during] the planning process or the

different phases” (see Appendix F).

Another category for this theme was about everyone’s busyness and not having

time to implement project management. In most cases, this was true. ABC’s project

managers and project teams have been the critical link in organizational performance.

They have faced competing priorities and have sometimes been subjected to unrealistic

demands with too few staff and too many constraints. Often they have spent their time

resolving issues. A common statement that was made from all levels of the organization

during this portion of the interviews was, “I don’t have time to change” (see Appendix

F). According to organizational change experts (Levin & Gottlieb, 2009; Miles, 2010),

forcing the implementation into the on-going operations of the organization will only

produce apathy to the implementation effort.

One of the executive managers acknowledged the issue of capacity, commented

that middle management would also have the additional responsibility of implementing

the organizational change, and stated, “Knowing that I think our middle management

right now mostly is the most squeezed; they’d also be responsible for making sure their

team is implementing those practices” (see Appendix F). One of the change agents

commented about how busy everyone was and implementing an organizational change

would be challenging and stated, “It always seems that when things are rolled out, it’s

always when we’re absolute[ly] the busiest” (see Appendix F).

127

One of the project managers, who would have been expected to use the new

project management practices, openly stated resistance and stated:

I don't want to see people forced into doing this by a certain date. Like if you are

swamped and you are lucky to sleep at night, don't make me do this. I appreciate

it, but I don't have time right now. I'll do it when I can. (see Appendix F)

Another project manager, though not as explicit, conveyed the same message, “As

long as I don't have to do extra work, I'm fine” (see Appendix F).

Another category under the theme of barrier to implementation was those who

were going to be leading the organizational change. Miles (2010) stated that assembling

a strong implementation team with credibility, skills, connections, reputations, and formal

authority was vital. This team was responsible for creating sensible, uplifting visions and

sets of strategies, then communicating them through as many channels as possible. Many

of the interviewees felt that the implementation team would not have the knowledge,

experience, or capability to fulfill this role.

One of the change agents alluded to this and stated, “We’ve got a ton of very

tactical, operationally minded people. They need a checklist, and [if] it’s to step back and

look at the big picture, they’re not willing to do that” (see Appendix F).

A project manager, who has day-to-day operational responsibilities, put it succinctly and

said, “If it is rolled out by somebody who doesn't know what they are talking about, or

doesn't understand the impact, and doesn't know what it feels like, that is going to make it

worse” (see Appendix F). Another project manager voiced the same concern and stated:

I just think that if it comes from somebody who is not truly doing the work, the

people who are doing the work and who will be operating under this project

128

management role are going to say, ”You have no idea what you are talking about”

(see Appendix F).

One of the project management practitioners summarized the implementation as

follows:

We are going to be the ones doing it, and [with] everything else that is going on

with day-to-day responsibilities and jobs, it just needs to be rolled out really well

so that we understand it. It is going to be kind of a crazy time to be implementing

that with everything else that is going on, so we just need to make sure it is rolled

out to us. (see Appendix F)

Principal support. This belief looks at how organizational members exchange

information with one another in order to reach a mutual understanding (Rogers, 2003;

Vishwanath & Barnett, 2011). Principal support describes the belief that individuals’

develop a certain belief toward change through the “process of individual reflection and

collective sense-making that comes from a series of interactions with their colleagues”

(Bouckenooghe, 2010, p. 519).

Principal support – Theme #1: Organizational support. This theme consisted of

comments regarding the organizational support for adopting project management.

Organizational leaders need to be viewed as personally committed to the change they

advocate, acting in ways congruent with the new behaviors they are expecting of others,

and holding others accountable for similar consistency in desired behaviors (Levin &

Gottlieb, 2009). Such actions help to validate that the desired change is a reality, to

establish the alignment of others with the change, and to serve to motivate others to learn

the nature of the new performance expectations and ways of working (Levin & Gottlieb,

129

2009). This theme consisted of 47 comments that were made regarding the support for

adopting project management. Of the 47 comments, seven comments are presented.

One of the categories for this theme was regarding organizational support.

According to Levin and Gottlieb (2009), culture realignment due to significant

organizational change works best when there is a supporting management and

accountability infrastructure to provide appropriate oversight. One executive manager

felt that organizational support would diminish further down in the organizational levels

and stated:

I guess my initial gut would be it might get slightly less supportive as it goes

down the chain. The reason I would say that, I guess, is because sometimes

people perceive it as it takes more time. You have to take a step back a little bit to

really think through the objectives and just all of these pieces and parts and maybe

get things down on paper when you just want to go. Sometimes, as you get

further down, they just want to do rather than think and take a step back. (see

Appendix F)

A project manager stated they wanted assurances that executive management

would assist in the implementation rather than providing the decision to adopt project

management. By gaining agreement with executive leaders on the outcomes and desired

results of their implementation, the project manager wanted executive management to

clarify their roles during the effort along with decision-making parameters and processes.

The project manager stated:

I think my personal opinion here is that we need to make sure that the executive

team is on board and that they may even be following it and guiding the directors

130

and not just saying, “Directors you’re going to implement this. Go.” And we’re

like, “Okay, well, where’s your part in this? Are you going to help me? Are you

going to support me? They’re like, “Just run; I’m busy over here right now.”

That’s not going to work. (see Appendix F)

One of the project management practitioners felt executive management would

support the adoption and implementation process. This participant also provided keen

insight that the lack of support would be the result of the lack of understanding or the end

result would not provide value to the organization and stated:

I don’t see any reason why the upper management wouldn’t support it. It seems

like it would be in their best interest to have everyone working efficiently and

within more defined parameters, so I would be surprised if they didn’t support it.

I think the people that aren’t going to support it are going to be the people that

don’t understand why we’re doing it, or don’t see the value in it, or if it really, for

whatever reason, if it’s a huge game changer for them in terms of their role. I

can’t picture even what that would be, but other than that, I think really, people

are going to embrace it or they’re not, depending on their personality. (see

Appendix F)

One executive manager provided other comments about the possible lack of

support and stated, “I think if we have people who don’t support, it would be work load

capacity and lack of understanding” (see Appendix F).

Another category under the theme of organizational support was that project

management might have been seen as a management fad. Management fad is a derisive

term used to describe a management philosophy or practice when managers and

131

organizations adopt it, only to quickly drop it (Shah, Chandrasekaran, & Linderman,

2008). A project manager stated:

My concern is I see this as a fad of the month. Because I feel that they roll out a

lot of things, and then it just kind of fizzles, and we’re like, “I don’t know.

Whatever happened to that?” (see Appendix F)

Management fads can provoke thought and discussion. They can help produce

change in the workplace, by encouraging organizations to question their existing

approaches and re-align them to fit the changing world (Shah, et al., 2008). Management

fads can also have the effect of creating a cynicism that can become so strong that the

organization can make no progress at all (Shah et al., 2008). As an example, another

comment was made by a different project manager that upper management has not

supported previous organizational change efforts. The project manager stated:

I think it’s interesting when my direct report who I report up to; she tells all the

directors, “Okay you need to go do this with your people; you need to insure this

is happening,” and I go, “Okay.” And I look and she’s not even doing it with all

of us. So sometimes I sit there and I question, “You know, it makes it a lot easier

to swallow when you’re leading by example.” (see Appendix F)

Even an executive manager acknowledged that organizational support can waver

when a situation requires another outcome and stated:

We have some who might say, “Yeah, I totally support this,” but they’ll support it

as long as it gets them what they want when they want it, but as soon as the fact

that we need to have a requirement session or sign off impedes their ability to get

132

something done, then it’s like, “Well, no, we can’t say no, we just have to do it.

Processes be damned.” (see Appendix F)

Principal support – Theme #2: Acceptance. This theme consisted of achieving

acceptance and minimizing organizational resistance for adopting project management.

Organizational change research has shown that 70% of all organizational change efforts

failed (Armenakis, Bernerth, et al., 2007). According to (Armenakis, Bernerth, et al.,

2007), one reason for this high failure rate was organizational leaders not having enough

acceptance from enough people for their initiatives. Organization acceptance, also

known as buy-in, is critical to making any large organizational change effort successful

(Armenakis, Bernerth, et al., 2007; Levin & Gottlieb, 2009). Without the support from

people at all levels of the organization, the proposed organizational change may never

achieve the desired improvement goals or sustain itself over time (Lawler & Worley,

2006). This theme consisted of 72 comments that were expressed for the organization to

achieve acceptance in adopting project management for the organization. Of the 72

comments, seven comments are presented.

One of the categories under this theme was achieving organizational acceptance.

Successful organizational change efforts must begin with reaching agreement among

senior leaders and key stakeholder groups about the preferred future culture required to

help successfully achieve business goals and implement planned changes (Levin &

Gottlieb, 2009). One of the project management practitioners comments also mirrored

this sentiment on getting senior management acceptance would be important and stated,

“I think the biggest thing is buy-in and support from senior management; I think that

133

that’s the biggest thing” (seeAppendix F). Another project management practitioner

stated:

I think obviously, if the support’s not there, regardless of what it is, it’s going to

fail. Having the key leadership there, having not only them onboard, but having it

be known to everyone else that they’re onboard, is a huge part of adoption. (see

Appendix F)

Another project manager commented about senior management support:

I think there might be individuals that don't support it, but I do feel that it

depends. I mean we take a lot of our queues from our president and our owner,

and if they supported it, a lot of times, you’ll get a lot of support behind it, and

then if it comes from the top down, you're probably going to get what you need.

(see Appendix F)

One of the project management practitioners commented that the amount of support from

upper management seemed to diminish as the change proceeded downward. This person

also felt disconnected and uninvolved in the change and stated:

I think there’s not always buy-in. Like executive level, and then you’ve got the

directors, you’ve got the program managers, and the project coordinators. I think

that the executive level rolls it out just to the director. The directors don’t always

(a) understand it, or (b) have buy-in. So, if your direct boss is kind of like, “We’ve

just got to do this,” then you don’t understand the value in it. I think that if you

are going to roll it out in small groups, that’s fine, but it needs to be the same

people rolling it out so that something doesn’t get mixed up and different teams

are hearing different things and different processes because that’s what I have

134

noticed a lot. My team may be doing something one way, but another team does

it differently, and another team does it differently. We should all be doing that

the same way. (see Appendix F)

Another category was identified that dealt with getting other stakeholders

involved in the organizational change process. Successful organizational change efforts

must begin with reaching agreement among senior leaders and key stakeholder groups

about the preferred future culture required to help successfully achieve business goals and

implement planned changes (Levin & Gottlieb, 2009). One of the executive managers

commented that getting other stakeholders involved in the process would be important:

Including them in more of the discussions where we define our processes is

helping. It’s common sense. If you don’t have stakeholder buy-in, you’re on

your own. I don’t know why we didn’t pull some of these people into our

discussions earlier, but we’re pulling them in now. (see Appendix F)

One of the change agents also commented about having others involved in the

organizational change process and stated, “I think we’re capable if it’s set up correctly.

And I think we need to have employee buy-in. I think employees have to be involved in

the process, in the decision” (see Appendix F). One of the project management

practitioners commented that gaining the support of everyone involved would help in

supporting the organizational change and stated:

Getting everyone to buy-in and everyone on board from the get-go would help.

Because if one director is not for it, and the others are, I mean, that will filter

down to their team, absolutely. Then that will filter across the company. I think

135

getting buy-in on all different levels, I think would help eliminate any risk of not

supporting it. (see Appendix F)

By (2007) warns that the change probably will not happen as quickly as desired.

To maintain stakeholder involvement, it is important to celebrate small successes as they

happen (By, 2007). Acknowledge early adopters for their participation and showcase

them to promote the change initiative throughout the organization. Their support for the

change initiative is likely to influence others to change (Armenakis, Harris, et al., 2007).

One of the executive managers felt by demonstrating success stories of key supporters

would be valuable in achieving stakeholder acceptance and stated, “I think identifying

who would be key supporters, who has capacity in the organization and rolling it out to

them first; then showcasing why the successes are so important” (see Appendix F).

Another executive manager also reaffirmed that using actual examples of success

stories would aid in developing stakeholder support:

Honestly, I think if we can get to a place where we can concretely explain to the

team how this will make it more efficient and effective for them, those are things

that are really going to resonate because they all want to spend less time doing the

work so if they realize it might be some work up front. (see Appendix F)

One of the change agents declared that they should set an example for leading the

change and stated, “I feel like we should really be the champions for this change and

implementation as well” (see Appendix F). A project manager expressed that

stakeholders would support the change with one stipulation and stated, “I think you

would have a mixed bag, but I think overall people would support it, if it was easy to

implement. All of this is with that caveat” (see Appendix F).

136

Principal support – Theme #3: Organizational culture. This theme consisted of

the organizational culture for adopting project management. Organizational culture can

be a strong enabler or an insurmountable obstacle to implementing change in

organizations. Most organizational change efforts require some degree of culture shift

(Levin & Gottlieb, 2009). Yet, changing an organization’s culture continues to be a

highly challenging and often elusive endeavor. The biggest barrier to corporate

transformation is letting go of the existing mindset (Lewin, 1976). When organizations

pursue variations on the same business model for an extended period of time, they

become preoccupied with incremental improvement (Levin & Gottlieb, 2009). Drawing

on Lewin's three-stage model of change, change management experts have proposed

various strategies to unfreezing existing mindsets (Armenakis, Bernerth, et al., 2007).

This theme consisted of 43 comments that were concerned over the organizational culture

on the adoption of project management for the organization. Of the 28 comments, seven

comments are presented.

One of the categories under this theme was about long-term tenured employees.

The amount of shift in the organization’s culture could be constrained because of the

existing mindset of the organizational members who fall into that category. An executive

manager indicated that changing the organization’s culture would be highly challenging

and stated:

Between the ones that are not as flexible and the ones that are flexible, what do I

think is separating this? I think it’s more what their past history has been. Maybe

that’s not fair, but the ones that I’m thinking of right now that are the most

137

trouble, they just haven’t been anywhere else. They just haven’t, so they just

don’t know. (see Appendix F)

Another executive manager stated:

I think there are a lot of people here at various levels who are capable and I base

that of the fact that they’[ve] been with other companies. They’ve been at other

places that had project management. I also believe there are pockets of people

who[se] . . . whole work experience has just been with our company, and I don’t

know that they are capable of implementing project management because this is

all they know, and it’s always been this way. (see Appendix F)

One of the long-termed project practitioners confirmed that the organizational

culture may be a barrier to the organizational change and stated, “I think some of our

history can hold us back” (see Appendix F).

A change agent stated, “We have in the past notoriously been making decisions

and then shoving it down people’s throats per se” (see Appendix F).

A second category under this theme dealt with the organization to collaborate

among its employees. By reframing the organizational culture, the organization would

have the potential to develop organizational capacities through the transfer or pooling of

organizational knowledge (Levin & Gottlieb, 2009). Organizational members need to

observe that the new ways of working actually are better than how things were done in

the past. This requires the demonstration that the new ways of doing things are

contributing to achieving desired business results (Levin & Gottlieb, 2009). One of the

change agents remarked that collaboration in the existing organization was limited and

stated:

138

A lot of people are very direct within their sphere of influence. We were really

great collaborating within our silos but not [a]cross the organization . . . What

I’ve figured out is that our culture is very family feel. What that does is, when

you feel safe within your work team, you can be direct: put timelines on things,

get what you want, push for it, support in order to help people get there, but you

don’t want to look like an ass cross-functionally. Then communication breaks

down, and if I put a hard deadline on somebody from a different function, they’re

going to think I’m being mean. No. You’re setting expectations. They’re going

to live up to those and that actually builds a stronger work relationship. I’ve

realized it all comes down to the ability to communicate across the company

because we do a great job within our work teams where we feel safe and built a

rapport. (see Appendix F)

Organizational silos can occur in any organization. They are detrimental to an

organization’s ability to succeed in a rapidly changing world (Kotter, 2011). Silos cut off

clear communication between different business units or managerial levels. People can

fall easily into only communicating with those directly around them or those who are at

the same level in the organization. This sentiment is evident in a comment made by one

of the project management practitioners:

I can remember when those conversations we were having, and you almost feel

like you even need to be a part of them because it just helps across the whole

thing. That’s something that I definitely think is lacking here. Everyone is very

siloed. Not that they’re territorial, that they don’t want to give away their client

or their position, but it’s more out of need. They don’t see a need to include

139

people until it says “Okay, now it’s time to include so-and-so because she’s

involved with this alliance.” (see Appendix F)

A third category under this theme was about the organization’s willingness to do

whatever the client requested. Clients and project managers often find themselves with

competing interests. Studies have consistently shown that the active support of key

stakeholders is a critical factor in creating successful outcomes for projects (Bourne,

2011). Successful project managers not only understand this but are also willing to do

whatever is necessary to ensure that their project teams understand and fulfill this support

role. Statements expressed from different levels throughout the organization supported

this sentiment as an indication of ABC’s organizational culture. One executive manager

emphasized:

The piece that is, hasn’t been for 12 years since the day I started until now, is that

our clients will call us with unrealistic timelines. Not impossible, unrealistic,

difficult, challenging requiring you to stay late, and frankly, that is part of our

brand and that is who we are. They hire us because we don’t say no. We say,

“We will figure it out.” (see Appendix F)

From unrealistic schedules to changing requirements, project managers have had

to find ways to deal with stakeholder expectations that have not aligned with the realities

of the project. Another executive manager reaffirmed this perspective and stated, “I call

it the Nike methodology; they just did it” (see Appendix F). One project manager

emphatically stated that resolving unrealistic demands from stakeholders was a hallmark

of ABC’s culture and stated, “We'll figure it out. That's kind of like our motto; like, we'll

get through today, like we'll figure it out” (see Appendix F).

140

Principal support – Theme #4: Training. This theme consisted of issues on

providing training on project management. For this type of organizational change to be

successful, there likely will need to be a change in attitudes and behaviors as well as

skills and knowledge (Smets, Morris, & Greenwood, 2012). Organizational leaders must

participate in the training that other organizational members attend, but, even more

importantly, they must exhibit a form of behavioral integrity, which is an alignment of

words and actions to support the proposed organizational change (Armenakis, Bernerth,

et al., 2007). This theme consisted of 30 comments that were made concerning training

issues for implementing project management for the organization. Of the 45 comments,

six comments are presented.

One of the categories under this theme was concerned with learning and

development to support the organizational change. With budget and resources

constrained, getting results quicker and sustaining them has been more critical than ever.

As a result, learning and development has become a catalyst for organizational change

(Smets et al., 2012). To support an organizational change and restructuring, learning and

development can support the new strategic direction of the organization and provide the

skills required to fulfill that strategy. One executive manager commented that, because

of the highly-regulated industry, project management training will be needed to support

their organizational change initiative and stated:

Yes, without a doubt, I think the more regulated the industry gets for us, the more

I think sometimes the regulations drive tighter timelines downstream. The more

project management skills the team can obtain, I believe the better off that it will

be. (see Appendix F)

141

An executive manager realized that learning and development will be a necessary

requirement for their organizational change initiative and stated, “I think it takes lots of

training. I feel like we've gotten people to a place where they understand what project

management is and that we need to be doing it” (see Appendix F).

One of the concerns expressed by an executive manager was having the resources

which had the time to train the organizational members on various project management

practices. The executive manager stated:

One of the issues that I have is that I have available resources and people totally

overwhelmed. Trying to get people who are totally overwhelmed to teach the

people who are available or even tell them what to do is like pulling teeth. I think

that, it’s, I think, that if we can teach them that you got to invest the time up front

to get to this relief place. (see Appendix F)

Another executive manager expressed a concern over the lack of time to conduct

training:

You’re just so, just trying to get through your day, that now to go sit and listen to

somebody talk about something that would be great to implement if I had the

time, but I don’t because now I’m two hours behind from sitting in this two hour

class. (see Appendix F)

One of the change agents spoke about the lack of time to develop and train the

other employees on project management and stated:

The rest of the team is responsible for training them on project management.

Well, that’s not going to fly because we really – we don’t have time to train

142

people on other things. So, making sure that there’s ongoing support and ongoing

training to consistently help. (see Appendix F)

Another category under this theme was the quality of the training to support the

implementation of project management. A key to sustained impact from learning and

development has been the ability to engage the learner in a continuous process of

individual change through ongoing application, practice, and reinforcement (Nelson,

2008). Behavior change most frequently has taken place through a much more

emotional-driven process, where people see, either literally or in their mind’s eye, some

sort of experience that can be applied to the workplace (Nelson, 2008). One of the

change agents expressed a concern over the lack of capability of their internal training

department. This person felt it would be advantageous to bring in outside resources to

maximize the necessary training to successfully implement project management. The

change agent stated:

I feel like there’s some capability, but I feel like to really to get to the level of our

company. If you’re going to do it, let’s do it right, and let’s do it so I think there’s

more of an investment in bringing outside people in to help with the training, and

granted, we have a great training team. They’re fine, but I don’t think they know

any more than the rest of us on training project management. (see Appendix F)

One of the project management practitioners also restated the same concern, but

in a more direct manner, “I know that there are a lot of people that have been here a long

time, but a lot of people don’t really have a background in project management. They

sort of learned it” (see Appendix F). Another project management practitioner also felt

143

that the internal training department would not have the capability to train others on

project management and stated:

Sometimes the thing that worries me is when I think about drill down, so she

would be the one that presents it, and everyone is, “Yeah, do this.” But, then you

move down to the next level, the training department say[s] that [it] is going to

roll it out. They haven’t been intimately involved with client work in a while and

some of them not ever. Sometimes I think that’s where the tension gets because

then they’re very strictly trying to roll something to people who do all the client

facing work, and then that’s where we all go, “Wait a minute, that’s not going to

work for my client” (see Appendix F).

Valence. Valence refers to the benefits that organizational change recipients

anticipate that the organizational change will produce for the organization, their fellow

employees, or for them personally (Weiner, 2009). They might value it because senior

management supports it, opinion leaders support it, or peers support it. The more

organizational members value the change, the more they will want to implement the

change and the more resolve they will feel to engage in the activities involved in change

implementation (Weiner 2009).

Valence – Theme #1: Extrinsic motivation. This theme consists of extrinsic

motivation for adopting project management. Change management researchers have

increasingly concluded that employees play a major role in the success or failure of

change in their organizations (Armenakis, Bernerth, et al., 2007; Shin, Taylor, & Seo,

2012). Researchers have found that individual employees’ change-related attitudes and

behaviors are related to post change organizational performance and their work

144

performance following change (Armenakis, Bernerth, et al., 2007). This theme consisted

of 43 comments that were made on issues concerning extrinsic motivation in adopting

project management for the organizational change recipient. Of the 43 comments, eight

comments are presented.

One of the categories under this theme is improving efficiencies resulting from

the organizational change. According to Shin et al. (2012) employees have often been

reluctant to commit to an organizational change because they experience it as intrusive

and disruptive to the routines they formerly relied upon to complete important work

activities. They may also experience increased workloads resulting from the assignment

of new work tasks on top of existing ones and the need to adjust to new work

relationships. An executive manager articulated this motivation regarding the proposed

organizational change and stated:

Helping getting the team tools, providing them support, is my primary

motivations. If I can share with the team that this really will change, it will make

an impact on how efficient you can be with the time you are spending here. That

is a huge message to me. (see Appendix F)

A change agent, who has responsibilities for internal training felt that the adoption

of project management would provide a framework to assist in employee performance

evaluations and stated:

If project management gives me the ability to sit down and create a common

language cross-team and cross-functionally and build collaboration because I

believe that it’s [project management] a natural tool for collaboration, my job gets

a hell of a lot easier. We’re speaking the same language; I know where people are

145

in their work process. I’m able to focus right here and say, “Here are your

predecessors, and because we know what those are, we can focus here.” (see

Appendix F)

Another change agent spoke about improved efficiencies:

I would feel better at the end of the day knowing that I’m consistently using tools

and approaches to be thinking about all the different aspects. So, I think for me, I

think I could do my job a lot more effectively. (see Appendix F)

One of the project management practitioners also felt that the implementation

would provide efficiencies:

In a sense, I think it is motivating to learn more and to figure out that if we just

had a process; it would make our job easier and more efficient. I mean that would

probably be my biggest motivator. (see Appendix F)

Improved efficiencies were also identified as a motivation from another project

management practitioner who stated, “I think if it would make my job more efficient and

easier to do, then that’s a huge motivation” (see Appendix F).

Another category under this theme was regarding performance efficiencies that

could expedite the work required and save time. According to Shin et al. (2012), these

types of inducements can be used to motivate employees in exchange for the

contributions they make to organizational change initiatives. Organizational inducements

can be used as a means of helping employees overcome the challenges they confront

during organizational change, thereby enhancing their commitment to the change (Shin et

al., 2012.

146

With the reduction of internal staff because of the divestiture, one project

manager felt if implementing project management would reduce the amount of time at

work, then it would be a motivation. The project manager stated:

If it saved me time. I don't have much time. If I can work less than 60 hours…If

this can help me be more efficient and be in the office less and have to work

smarter, work smarter not harder, yeah, that's what I need. (see Appendix F)

Another project manager demanded that the decision to adopt project

management had to provide value and stated:

In order for me to adopt anything, I’ve got to see value in it, so you’ve got to

show me right away how it’s going to either make me more efficient, cut my time

in the office of doing that task. (see Appendix F)

Another project manager articulated that saving time at work would motivate her

to adopt project management and stated, “Can it save me time? I’m always thinking

about, ‘Well, if I do this upfront, maybe it will save me time later.’ What would not

make me adopt project management if it took more time?” (see Appendix F).

Valence – Theme #2: Intrinsic motivation. This theme consists of intrinsic

motivation for adopting project management. There is considerable agreement in the

organizational change literature that people have been concerned with what the impact of

change will be on themselves, their job, and on their work colleagues (Furst & Cable,

2008). Since changes must ultimately be implemented by change recipients,

understanding their motivations to support or not support organizational changes provides

very practical insights into how to best lead change (Furst & Cable, 2008). This theme

consisted of 29 comments that were made regarding intrinsic motivation of the

147

organizational change recipient to adopt project management. Of the 83 comments,

twelve comments are presented.

One of the categories under this theme was concerned with personal development.

To gain acceptance, organizational leaders will have to examine those components that

intrinsically motivate their employees (Armenakis, Bernerth, et al., 2007). Employees,

on some level, will ask the question, "What is in it for me?" Talking about company

growth and new opportunities for the business will not sway people on a personal level

(Oreg et al., 2011). Therefore, organizational leaders must realize that acceptance is

about personal benefit, and if they cannot convey some level of individual outcome,

gaining acceptance may be a challenge (Oreg et al., 2011).

An executive manager felt that the adoption and implementation of project

management would reduce the risk of personal failure and stated, “Wanting to be

successful; not wanting to screw something up. I do not like to fail. For me, it would

help think through all the pieces and parts versus I didn't think through it all” (see

Appendix F). For one of the project management practitioners, personal career growth

was stated as the benefit for adopting project management:

It’s a career growth opportunity. It could be, knowing that career growth

opportunity also requires learning, and some people don’t like to learn or don’t

like to change, so that’s what I meant. Is this something you feel like you would

want to grow into, or you know, it’s like “You know what, I’m not really good

with change?” I think it would just depend on where I’m at with my career, and

whether I feel that I’m ready to take on such a role, because I do think that takes a

special kind of person and experience. (see Appendix F)

148

One project manager mirrored this same perspective by referring to the

organizational change making them a better person and sharpening their skill set and

stated:

I would say, really, it goes more towards what I want to get out of it. I want to

make it where it’s better – it’s making me a better person, it’s giving me a way to

sharpen my skill set, bring in new things that I’m not accustomed to, giving me

different ways to look at things. (see Appendix F)

Another project management practitioner also echoed this same perspective by

labeling this organizational change as an opportunity for personal growth and stated:

I don’t want to get too narrow in my thinking. And then the other part is just, I

need to grow personally. I need to expand my wings a little bit. I don’t want to

be so limiting that I’m not open to it. (see Appendix F)

Another project management practitioner recognized the implementation of

project management as a learning opportunity and stated, “I’m also new to project

management, so to me, it is kind of all motivate, I mean, I love learning about it, and

sometimes you just learn something new.” (see Appendix F)

Another project management practitioner felt that personal change was the benefit

resulting from the organizational change and stated, “I haven’t been here that long to see

the way things are. My first thought in my mind is you need to always be looking at

changing. You can’t always just rely on what you’ve done” (see Appendix F).

Another category under this theme dealt with the amount of personal time that

could be given back to the employees. To successfully lead the change initiative, it is

important that organizational leaders understand the organizational change recipients’

149

reaction to change, their personal motivations, and the required behavioral changes

(Armenakis, Bernerth, et al., 2007). Being aware of these intrinsic motivations may help

or hinder change.

One executive manager acknowledged personally motivation in gaining a sense of

balance in the number of hours that employees worked and stated, “The business that

we’re in, it’s never going to be an eight-to-five job. I think what motivates me is finding

things that keep us closer to the 40” (see Appendix F). A project manager stated it

succinctly, “Time, it's like time back to you. It's personal time” (see Appendix F).

This category included comments that were made about employees worrying

about job security due to the layoffs that occurred the previous year. According to Neal

(2008), involving an organization’s human resources department has been critical during

the early planning stage of the organizational change initiative. Only then can the change

process be well planned, communicated, and managed to minimize employee stress.

Some people view change in a positive light and deal with it effectively, and others have

a very negative perception of change and are extremely reluctant to accept it.

Organizational leaders should endeavor to make sure that their people gain a positive

experience of the process (Neal, 2008).

One project manager voiced concern about job security because of the recent

divestiture and stated, “We’re listening to our leaders, we’re following them, but look at

what just happened the beginning of this year” (see Appendix F). Another project

manager was concerned about the need for cost-cutting measure and that improving

efficiencies could lead to job loss and stated, “When people start talking about

150

efficiencies and that, they start worrying about, ‘Well if we get too efficient, then I’m

going to be out of a job’” (seeAppendix F).

This comment stated by one of the project management practitioners exemplifies

the need to executive communication:

A lot of concern is because I do not know if this is a career-ending change for me,

or is it a growth change for me and senior management has not conveyed that? It

is one of those, “We are going this way and we are going to force it” (see

Appendix F).

A project manager expressed doubts that senior management’s vision for the

company was the right choice:

No, we’re not going to get so efficient we’ll let you go. We’re going to grow the

business, but based on what just happened in the last six, nine months, I still have

all the faith in the world that the leadership is taking us in the right direction, but

there’s always that question of, “Well, what if?” (see Appendix F)

Integrating the Quantitative and Qualitative Data Analysis

The mixed-methods explanatory sequential design for this study consisted of two

distinct phases: quantitative phase followed by qualitative phase (Creswell & Plano

Clark, 2011). The researcher first collected and analyzed the quantitative (numeric) data

followed by the qualitative (text) data, which was collected and analyzed. The qualitative

data and the analysis refined and explained the descriptive results by exploring

participants’ views in more depth (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011; Yin, 2009).

In this study, the researcher decided to give priority to the qualitative data

collection and analysis, despite it being the second phase of the research process. Priority

151

refers to which approach, quantitative or qualitative (or both), a researcher gives more

weight or attention throughout the data collection and analysis process in the study

(Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). The decision was influenced by the purpose of the

study to identify and explain why the participants hold the beliefs they do about the

adoption of project management as an organizational change. Integration of the data has

referred to the stage or stages in the research process where the mixing or integration of

the quantitative and qualitative methods has occurred (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011).

The researcher chose to integrate the data in the development of the qualitative data

collection protocols, grounded in the results from the quantitative phase, to investigate

those results in more depth through collecting and analyzing the qualitative data in the

second phase of the study. Using an “interactive strategy of merging,” (Creswell & Plano

Clark, 2011, p. 66) this research brought the quantitative data and qualitative data of the

five scales together through combined analysis.

Discrepancy. Discrepancy is the belief there is a need to change from the current

state to a future state (Armenakis, Bernerth, et al., 2007). The descriptive analyses for

Discrepancy (see Table 15) of the four groups indicated that the executive management

group (M = 6.28, SE = 0.19, SD = 0.58) and the change agents group (M = 5.79, SE =

0.33, SD = 0.80) were higher than the ratings of the project participant group (M = 4.95,

SE = 0.22, SD = 1.20).

152

Table 15

Summary of the Descriptive Statistics for Discrepancy

Items M SE

95% CI

lower 95% CI

upper SD Min Max

Discrepancy 5.30 0.16 4.98 5.62 1.13 1.50 7.00

Executive

management

6.28 0.19 5.83 6.72 0.58 5.25 7.00

Change agents 5.79 0.33 4.96 6.63 0.80 5.00 7.00

Project managers 5.04 0.31 4.24 5.84 0.77 4.00 6.25

Project participants 4.95 0.22 4.49 5.40 1.20 1.50 6.50

Discrepancy represented the change recipients’ recognition of a need for the

organization to adopt project management. Without the recognition that there was a need

for change, a proposed change would have been seen as valueless. If there was no visible

difference between current and desired outcomes, the motives for change put forth by

change agents may have seemed uninformed (Armenakis, Bernerth, et al., 2007).

One executive manager expressed that the need to adopt project management was

the ability to integrate the different stakeholders of their project and stated:

The why we need to adopt project management is because there are so many

moving parts to what we do and so many different clients, different needs. A lot

of times we don't just work with one client. We've got a client, and we've got

various stakeholders around that client, and we have to pull that whole thing

together as seamlessly as possible. (see Appendix F)

One of the change agents communicated that the need to adopt project

management was to provide a certain degree of consistency and stated, “I definitely think

153

there’s a need for it because I think it sounds like it’s a consistent way of managing a

project. Right now, none of our brands, clients, there’s nothing consistent. Our teams

don’t do anything consistently” (see Appendix F).

One of the project management practitioners voiced a contrasting perspective on

the need to adopt project management and said:

There’s been a lot of talk recently about, “Oh, well, this is–we have to do this for

the business,” or, “We have to–the business–it’s good for the business,” or, “It’s

good for the company,” and there should be talk of that because we all work here

and we all should have the same goal, but I think sometimes if there’s so much

emphasis on the business that it’s kind of losing sight of what each person is

doing to further that, so there’s a lot of emphasis on everybody do this because

it’s good for the business, but then it’s not really reciprocated in terms of, “Well,

this may be good for the individual.” (see Appendix F)

Appropriateness. Appropriateness is the belief that questions what the desired

future state will be (Armenakis, Bernerth, et al., 2007). The descriptive analyses of

Appropriateness (see Table 16) indicated that the executive management group (M =

6.20, SE = 0.27, SD = 0.80) and the change agent group (M = 6.33, SE = 0.14, SD = 0.35)

were higher than the ratings of the project participant group (M = 5.26, SE = 0.13, SD =

0.70).

154

Table 16

Summary of the Descriptive Statistics for Appropriateness

Items M SE

95% CI

lower 95% CI

upper SD Min Max

Appropriateness 5.56 0.12 5.33 5.79 0.82 3.60 6.80

Executive

management

6.20 0.27 5.59 6.81 0.80 4.60 6.80

Change agents 6.33 0.14 5.97 6.70 0.35 5.80 6.80

Project managers 5.27 0.31 4.47 6.06 0.76 4.60 6.20

Project participants 5.26 0.13 4.99 5.53 0.70 3.60 6.40

Appropriateness provides guidance in recognizing the proposed change as one

that will bridge the gap between where the organization is currently and where it needs to

be (Kjaergaard, 2009). Appropriateness reflects the belief that the adoption of project

management is the correct solution to address the organization’s discrepancy.

One executive manager affirmed that project management was the appropriate

course for the organization and expressed:

I would say, yes, I feel like I've been doing project management since I've started

my job, but the lingo and the jargon and the shaping around all that has changed

obviously in the last five years, even in the last couple years. Was I using Gantt

charts, no, but I had timelines, I ran the meetings, I kept everybody on task. I was

able to synthesize conversations and influence people and get people where I

wanted them to go, the way I was approaching things. I definitely think it's the

right way to go. I just don't see it as this revolutionary thing because it's been

around; it's just the way we talk about it, which is great. (see Appendix F)

155

One of the change agents indicated the adoption of project management was the

correct solution because of the changing client expectations and affirmed, “I say yes, and

I think it’s because of our customer base. I think our customers need project managers”

(see Appendix F). A project manager felt that project management was the right choice

for marketing to their clients and stated, “I mean, it can be, if it’s done well. The caveat

is if you sell it as a selling tool, and you’re falling on your face, that’s not a good thing”

(see Appendix F).

One of the long-term employees felt hesitant about the adoption of project

management and declared, “So don’t make me fill out paperwork for something that we

have been doing for 12 years” (see Appendix F).

Efficacy. Efficacy, in the context of organizational change, refers to

organizational change recipients’ shared beliefs in their collective capabilities to organize

and execute the courses of action regarding the implementation of the proposed change

(Weiner, 2009). The descriptive analyses of Efficacy (see Table 17) indicated that the

Change Agent group (M = 6.57, SE = 0.16, SD = 0.39) were higher than the ratings of the

Project Participant group (M = 5.53, SE = 0.15, SD = 0.81).



Table 17

Summary of the Descriptive Statistics for Efficacy

Items M SE

95% CI

lower 95% CI

upper SD Min Max

Efficacy 5.78 0.13 5.52 6.04 0.90 3.80 7.00

Executive

management

6.02 0.36 5.20 6.84 1.07 4.00 7.00

Change agents 6.57 0.16 6.16 6.97 0.39 5.80 6.80

156

Table 17 (continued)

Summary of the Descriptive Statistics for Efficacy

Items M SE

95% CI

lower 95% CI

upper SD Min Max

Project managers 5.83 0.42 4.74 6.92 1.04 4.20 6.80

Project participants 5.53 0.15 5.22 5.84 0.81 3.80 6.80

The number of comments from the interviews was higher for Efficacy and Principal

Support than the other beliefs (Table 18).

Table 18

Comparison of the Number of Comments for Each Belief

Belief Number of

comments

Percentage of

comments

Discrepancy 199 22.4%

Appropriateness 113 12.7%

Efficacy 311 35.0%

Principal support 265 29.8%

Valence 135 15.2%

Total comments 888 100.0%

Weiner (2009) stated that efficacy has been a function of organizational members'

cognitive appraisal of three determinants of implementation capability—task demands,

resource availability, and situational factors. Capability to implement project

management has depended on knowing the necessary implementation activities involved

157

and having the subject-matter knowledge and experience to successfully implement

project management practices (Weiner, 2009).

For efficacy, comments regarding what was going to be implemented and who

was going to do the implementation were made. One of the change agents, who would be

responsible for the implementation, felt that the change agents would be capable to lead

the implementation effort and verbalized, “I think we're definitely capable. I think it

takes lots of training. I think it continues to take training and development around all the

tools that can be used, but I think we're capable. For sure” (see Appendix F).

As one project manager expressed in response to if the organization was capable

of implementing project management practices, “It depends who is rolling it out” (see

Appendix F). Another project manager indicated they had similar apprehensions and

replied:

I just think that if it comes from somebody who is not truly doing the work, the

people who are doing the work and who will be operating under this project

management role are going to say, “You have no idea what you are talking

about.” I don't want to see people forced into doing this by this date. Like if you

are swamped and you are lucky to sleep at night, don't make me do this, so I

appreciate it. I don't have time right now. I'll do it when I can. (see Appendix F)

Another project manager also voiced their concern on who would be responsible

for the implementation and stated:

Great idea in theory, but we're in the trenches. It is not going to work in real life,

and so that is why it needs to be rolled out by somebody who does the work and

is, at least I think needs to be done that way, and it needs to be an option and not a

158

must. And, if it is rolled out by somebody who doesn't know what they are

talking about or doesn't understand the impact and doesn't know what it feels like,

that is going to make it worse. (see Appendix F)

One of the project managers adamantly expressed that the lack of planning would

be a source of risk:

There are some good change agents here that can do it. I don’t always think that

we have a full plan before they roll it out. Sometimes it’s rolled out before it’s a

well-cooked thing. So, then if it’s not really rolled out when it’s already done,

then it’s kind of like, “Well, we’re going to give you more details. We’ll look for

your e-mail,” and you’re like, “They don’t really know what’s going on, so I

don’t have to do it.” (see Appendix F)

Another project management practitioner voiced the same concern:

My experience has been any time we have had any major roll out in the company,

sometimes it does not feel as thought out as it should be. It seems like a few

people, like a small number of people, understand it inside and out, and then that

message does not really get to the levels below. (see Appendix F)

Principal Support. Principal support is the belief that looks at how

organizational members exchange information with one another in order to reach a

mutual understanding (Rogers, 2003; Vishwanath & Barnett, 2011). The descriptive

analyses of Principal Support (see Table 19) of the four groups indicated that the

executive management group (M = 6.07, SE = 0.29, SD = 0.88) was notably higher than

the ratings of the project participant group (M = 5.17, SE = 0.14, SD = 0.77).

159

Table 19

Summary of the Descriptive Statistics for Principal Support

Items M SE

95% CI

lower 95% CI

upper SD Min Max

Principal support 5.40 0.12 5.15 5.65 0.88 3.33 6.83

Executive

management

6.07 0.29 5.40 6.75 0.88 4.00 6.67

Change agents 5.64 0.32 4.81 6.47 0.79 4.50 6.83

Project managers 5.28 0.43 4.18 6.38 1.05 3.67 6.50

Project participants 5.17 0.14 4.88 5.47 0.77 3.33 6.33

Principal support refers to respected colleagues in organizations who often act as

informal change agents communicating information to others about a proposed

organizational change. These opinion leaders can be instrumental in influencing the

beliefs of other change recipients to either support or resist the adoption of the

organization change (Rogers, 2003). According to Rogers (2003), the success of change

in an organization may very well depend on identifying opinion leaders and gaining their

support to influence group members towards change adoption.

One executive manager expressed their belief that everyone would be supportive

in adopting project management, “I think, as an organization, everyone would be

supportive. It doesn’t make any sense to me; maybe I’m just being a little naive. It

doesn’t make sense to me that people wouldn’t want to adopt project management” (see

Appendix F).

One project management practitioner had a contrasting perspective on how certain

opinion leaders may negatively influence others:

160

Pick out on each team who is behind the scenes that people listen to and get their

buy-in first maybe, so you can have people planted in the organization that like

the idea. There are so many people that have worked here for two years, like

myself, or people that have worked here for 10 years. The people who have

worked here for two years are just used to stuff changing all the time. The people

that have been here for 10 years are a little bit more hesitant to change, and that’s

normal. So, I think that it is you need buy-in from most, maybe not all people,

but all levels. There are people that everyone listens to what they say and they

will act all, “Oh, buy–in,” and then they will go to lunch and be like, “This is a

stupid thing to do,” and they do that, and then you are like, “People listen to you.”

(see Appendix F)

One of the project management practitioners remarked that in previous change

initiatives many of the change efforts stalled because the ideas and strategies never made

it far enough down in the organization to have an impact on the people who actually

performed the work. The project management practitioner stated:

Sometimes the thing that worries me is when I think about drill down so she

would be the one that presents it, and everyone is, “Yeah, do this.” But then you

move down to the next level, the training department say that is going to roll it

out, they haven’t been intimately involved with client work in a while and some

of them not ever. Sometimes I think that’s where the tension gets because then

they’re very strictly trying to roll something to people who do all the client facing

work and then that’s where we all go, “Wait a minute, that’s not going to work for

my client.” (see Appendix F)

161

Valence. Valence is the belief that refers to the benefits that organizational

change recipients anticipate that the organizational change will produce for the

organization, their fellow employees, or for them personally (Weiner, 2009). The

descriptive analyses of Valence of the four groups indicated that the change agent group

(M = 5.71, SE = 0.64, SD = 1.57) and the project manager group (M = 5.71, SE = 0.64,

SD = 1.57) were notably higher than the ratings of the project participant group (M =

4.24, SE = 0.14, SD = 0.75).



Table 20

Summary of the Descriptive Statistics for Valence

Items M SE

95% CI

lower 95% CI

upper SD Min Max

Valence 4.55 0.15 4.24 4.85 1.09 2.75 7.00

Executive

management

4.97 0.34 4.19 5.76 1.02 3.25 6.25

Change agents 5.71 0.64 4.06 7.35 1.57 2.75 7.00

Project managers 5.71 0.64 4.06 7.35 1.57 2.75 7.00

Project participants 4.24 0.14 3.96 4.52 0.75 2.75 6.00

A key determinant of whether change recipients accept or resist change has been

the extent to which the change has been perceived as personally beneficial or harmful

(Oreg et al., 2011). The more organizational members have valued the change, the more

they will want to implement the change. In contrast, the less they have valued the

change, the more they have been motivated to disengage in the implementation of the

change. One of the change agents spoke positively about implementing project

162

management because it would aid in identifying performance issues and training needs

more easily:

Allows me to be able to identify where growth needs are more easily because,

currently, if there’s a performance issue for training or a personal career

development issue or organizational growth issue, I have to spend so much time

finding out, how does that team function? How does this person fit within the

team? (see Appendix F)

One of the project managers believed that the implementation of project

management would be beneficial in regard to personal development and articulated, “I

think project management is an interesting field so from my growth and development that

would motivate me. I would love to, that's one way I could continue to grow and

develop” (see Appendix F).

In contrast to these positive beliefs, one of the project management practitioners

expressed doubts about the value in adopting project management and stated:

I think it would take a lot to motivate me to do it because I don’t see the value in

my current position. I don’t see how it would make our jobs easier. If it made

our jobs easier, we could see the value. It’s going to save us time and efficiency,

and then they could show how the company is getting more profitable in the end.

(see Appendix F)

Summary

This chapter presented a single case utilizing an explanatory sequential mixed

methods design and was implemented in two distinct phases. The study examined two

research questions including: (a) measuring the organizational change recipients’ beliefs

163

regarding the adoption of project management as an organizational change, and (b)

determining why the organizational change recipients hold the beliefs they do about the

adoption of project management as an organizational change.

Using descriptive statistics, five change beliefs, including discrepancy,

appropriateness, efficacy, principled support, and valence, were examined. Within the

five change beliefs, four sub groups consisting of executive management, change agents,

project managers, and project participants were also reviewed. Data was presented from

the one-on-one semi-structured interviews and was explored based on the five change

beliefs and the four sub groups. Additionally, the quantitative and qualitative data were

reviewed together. Chapter Five will include summary overview of results, relationship

of present result to theory and previous research, analysis and conclusions, limitations,

and suggestions for future research.

164

Chapter Five - Discussion

The purpose of this research study was to examine the beliefs of members of an

organization regarding the adoption of project management as an organizational change.

These beliefs were examined quantitatively and qualitatively for the purpose of assessing

both what participants believed in terms of the organizational change and why they

reported those stated beliefs. The approach for this study was an explanatory sequential,

single case study utilizing a mixed methods design with an embedded unit of analysis

(Yin, 2009).

The purpose of this chapter is to analyze the results and provide conclusions about

the study. This chapter includes discussion on the following topics: (a) summary

overview of results, (b) relationship of present result to theory and previous research, (c)

conclusions concerning the findings, (d) implications for practice, (e) limitations, (f) and

suggestions for future research. A summary concludes the chapter.

Summary Overview of Results

This study consisted of a single case utilizing an explanatory sequential mixed

methods design aimed at examining the five change beliefs of members of an

organization regarding a given organizational change. The single case study utilized an

embedded design, which aided in the analysis and enhanced the insights into the single

case. The embedded units of analyses were executive management, change agents,

project managers/project leaders, and project management practitioners of a selected

organization. The mixed method approach utilized a survey to determine what the

165

organizational change recipients’ beliefs were and semi-structured interviewing to build

an in-depth case to determine why the organizational change recipients hold those beliefs.

The explanatory sequential design was implemented in two distinct phases. The

first phase involved administering the Organizational Change Recipients’ Beliefs Scale

(OCRBS) to a stratified purposive sampling of 50 employees from a selected

organization. The qualitative phase was conducted after the quantitative phase and

consisted of one-on-one semi-structured interviews of 19 participants in the quantitative

phase. Using an “interactive strategy of merging,” this research brought the quantitative

data and qualitative data together through combined analysis (Creswell & Plano Clark,

2011, p. 66). The following is a summary of the results based on the five change beliefs.

Discrepancy. Discrepancy is the belief that there is a need for the organization to

change its operations (Rogers, 2003). Based on a 7-point Likert scale, the descriptive

analyses indicated that executive management (n=9) had the highest mean score of 6.28,

while the change agents (n=6) had a mean score of 5.79, the project managers (n=6) had

a mean score of 5.04, and the project participants (n=29) had the lowest mean score of

4.95. Based on 63 comments, the qualitative analysis identified: 1) inconsistent project

management practices resulting in increased risks due to non-compliance issues, 2)

reducing operational costs, and 3) shorter time-to-market schedules as three critical

factors for the organization to change its operations.

Appropriateness. Appropriateness is the belief that the adoption of project

management would address the cause(s) of the discrepancy; thus, reducing or eliminating

the discrepancy (Rogers, 2003). The descriptive analyses indicated that executive

management (n=9) had a mean score of 6.20, the change agents (n=6) had the highest

166

mean score of 6.33, the project managers (n=6) had a mean score of 5.27, and the project

participants (n=29) had the lowest mean score of 5.26. Based on 67 comments, all four

groups commented that project management was considered as the right managerial

approach, but it must be adaptable to meet the needs of the client, the specific project,

and its technical requirements.

Efficacy. Efficacy is the belief concerning the organization’s capability to

implement project management as an organizational change (Rogers, 2003). The

descriptive analyses indicated that executive management (n=9) had a mean score of

6.02, while the change agents (n=6) had the highest mean score of 6.57, the project

managers (n=6) had a mean score of 5.83, and the project participants (n=29) had the

lowest mean score of 5.53. Based on 230 comments, the organization felt they were

capable of implementing project management, but 122 comments were made regarding

the lack of capacity to implement the organizational change because the day-to-day

operations required too much of their time. These comments indicated that insufficient

organizational capacity should be considered a barrier to the implementation of project

management.

Principal Support. Principal support is the belief that opinion leaders can

influence other organizational members regarding the adoption of project management by

the organization (Rogers, 2003). The descriptive analyses indicated that executive

management (n=9) had the highest mean score of 6.07, the change agents (n=6) had a

mean score of 5.64, the project managers (n=6) had a mean score of 5.28, and the project

participants (n=29) had the lowest mean score of 5.17. Based on 192 comments,

principal support for the adoption of project management would diminish further down in

167

the organizational levels. In addition, 75 comments were made regarding assurances that

executive management would assist in the implementation rather than only providing the

decision to adopt project management. These comments implied the importance of

executive communication regarding the change initiative and providing the necessary

support.

Valence. Valence is the belief that the adoption of project management will

benefit the organization, fellow employees, or, for respondents, personally (Rogers,

2003). The descriptive analyses indicated that executive management (n=9) had a mean

score of 4.97, while the change agents (n=6) and the project managers (n=6) had the

highest mean score of 5.71, and the project participants (n=29) had the lowest mean score

of 4.24. Based on 72 comments, respondents were concerned with reducing the number

of hours spent at work. In addition, 52 comments were made regarding the importance to

get the right tools to expedite the work more efficiently to reduce the number of hours at

work. This data implies the importance of the organizational leaders to demonstrate their

commitment to achieving a reasonable work-life balance by implementing project

management.

Relationship of Present Results to Theory and Previous Research

With the new economy of the 21st century, most organizations have accepted, in

theory at least, that they must either change or die (Sonenshein, 2010). However,

organizational change remains difficult to successfully implement and has long been

recognized as widespread, commonplace, and costly (Sonenshein, 2010). Given the time,

effort, and opportunity costs involved in implementing organizational change, this

represents a massive waste of unrealized potential (Calogero, 2000).

168

Based on previous research on organizational change, a great deal of these

failures has been attributed to ineffective implementation of the organizational change

(Decker, Durand, Mayfield, McCormack, Skinner, & Perdue, 2012). Often, these failures

reflect a lack of planning, managing, and leading the implementation process itself

(Weaver, 2007). The psychological processes involved in individuals’ reaction to change

have increasingly come to be recognized as a major determinant of both success and

failure (Bouckenooghe, 2010; Van Dam et al., 2008; Vishwanath, 2009).

How people react to change matters. A critical aspect of implementing an

organizational change initiative will depend upon the individuals’ beliefs of how the

proposed change may affect them. Limited empirical information has been available in

understanding the change recipients’ beliefs in the process of organizational change

(Bouckenooghe, 2010; Vishwanath, 2009). By understanding the change recipients’

beliefs about the proposed change, organizational leaders can plan more effective

strategies for the implementation stage.

The high rate of organizational change failures attributed to the implementation

stage compelled the researcher to utilize the diffusion of innovation as the theoretical

basis for this study. Within the diffusion of innovation is the innovation-decision

process, which includes: (1) knowledge stage, (2) persuasion stage, (3) decision stage, (4)

implementation stage, and (5) confirmation stage (Rogers, 2003). The focus of this study

was the persuasion stage where individuals form attitudes based on their beliefs about the

innovation. The researcher felt that understanding the change-related attitudes that occur

in the persuasion stage would benefit the implementation of the proposed change.

169

Individuals develop certain beliefs toward change through interpersonal

exchanges with their colleagues. A framework of key change beliefs would be useful in

identifying supportive or resistive behaviors for implementing the organizational change

(Armenakis, Harris, et al., 2007). By assessing the five change beliefs, the degree of

acceptance by individuals can be determined. Based on a 67.6% response of the selected

organization, the results of the OCRBS indicated that the change beliefs for adopting

project management were favorable. Using a 7-point Likert scale, the mean scores of the

five change beliefs for the selected organization was Discrepancy (M = 5.30),

Appropriateness (M = 5.56), Efficacy (M = 5.78), Principal Support (M = 5.40), and

Valence (M = 4.55). A comparison of the mean scores of this study to a similar study is

provided in Table 21. Griffith’s study (2010) used the OCRBS to measure the beliefs of

an organization that was changing its organizational structure, which represented

significant changes in the way the firm did business. The mean scores of the OCRBS for

Griffith’s study were Discrepancy (M = 5.21), Appropriateness (M = 5.55), Efficacy (M =

5.75), Principal Support (M = 5.81), and Valence (M = 5.15).

Table 21

Comparison of OCRBS Mean Scores to Previous Research

Current study Previous study

Change belief n M SD n M SD

Discrepancy 50 5.30 1.13 164 5.21 1.32

Appropriateness 50 5.56 0.82 205 5.55 1.24

Efficacy 50 5.78 0.90 205 5.75 1.15

Principal support 50 5.40 0.88 246 5.81 1.07

170

Table 21 (continued)

Comparison of OCRBS Mean Scores to Previous Research

Current study Previous study

Change belief n M SD n M SD

Valence 50 4.55 1.09 164 5.15 1.39

Note. From Griffith, S. D. (2010). Transformational leadership and change readiness

using assessments for near–term prescriptive organizational intervention (Doctoral

dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.

3434003)

Four of the mean scores from both studies were similar; however, the mean score

for Valence, the motivation to change, was lower in this study. Although the quantitative

results for the current study indicated an overall level of acceptance to adopting project

management, it was the qualitative results that provided deeper insight regarding the

individuals’ change beliefs that should be considered during the decision stage to adopt

project management.

The semi-structured interviews of the four sub groups consisting of executive

management (n=3), change agents (n=3), project managers (n=4), and project participants

(n=9) revealed two critical observations. First, successful implementation of project

management within the selected organization depended on knowing the necessary

implementation activities involved, and second, the subject-matter knowledge and

experience needed to be present to successfully implement project management practices.

This perception was supported with comments from all sub groups regarding what was

going to be implemented and who was going to lead the implementation. As one project

171

manager expressed in response to if the organization was capable of implementing

project management practices, “It depends who is rolling it out” (see Appendix F).

Another project manager indicated having similar apprehensions and stated that the

organization lacked the necessary subject matter experts.

According to Rogers (2003), the success of change in an organization may very

well depend on identifying opinion leaders and gaining their support to influence group

members toward change adoption. One executive manager expressed that everyone

would be supportive in adopting project management. Another executive manager felt

that the past history of the organization would be a constraint because the opinion leaders

had not worked anywhere else and they would resist the change. Other comments were

made that, in previous change initiatives, many of the change efforts stalled because the

ideas and strategies never made it far enough down in the organization to have an impact

on the people who actually performed the work.

The qualitative results indicated the need for developing expertise in change

management. Many comments were made regarding the need for broad-based

engagement of various levels of the organization in the change management process.

From these comments, implementing change should not be compartmentalized or

externalized; rather, inclusion of all internal levels is important for successful

implementation.

The implementation must allow for revising plans or altering the process based on

reactions to the process. From the qualitative results, the four sub groups had conflicting

concerns; therefore, maintaining alignment among stakeholders and retaining their

172

commitment to the process throughout the implementation of the change will be an

ongoing challenge.

It is difficult to forecast the full scope and time demands of the implementation

and its impact on budget and resources. This degree of uncertainty will require executive

management to consider a dynamic change process, one that undergoes frequent revision

to accommodate contextual factors and other enterprise environmental factors.

The quantitative and qualitative results of this study, which explored the

dimensions of organizational change recipients’ beliefs, would aid in the decision and

implementation stage for organizational leadership by providing insights on the

readiness-level of adopting project management practices. Based on the research on the

high rate of failed change initiatives, it is in the interest of organizational leaders to

uncover sentiments that offer insights into the strengths and shortcomings of the

organizational change effort.

Conclusions Concerning the Findings of the Present Study

Conclusions of the Research Design. In designing the study, the researcher

considered whether to study a single case or multiple cases. Both single and multiple

case designs have distinct advantages and disadvantages. An advantage of multiple cases

is that the findings are often considered more compelling, and the overall study is

regarded as more robust (Yin, 2009). In contrast, Creswell (1998) warned that “the study

of more than one case dilutes the overall analysis; the more cases an individual studies,

the greater the lack of depth in any single case" (p. 63). The conceptual framework for

choosing a research design is primarily a model of what is happening in the case and

173

why. This focus on meaning is central to what is known as the interpretive approach to

social science (Maxwell, 2005, p. 22).

After careful consideration, the researcher chose to conduct a single case for three

reasons. First, the researcher wanted to understand the phenomenon in their natural

settings by understanding important contextual conditions. The researcher was also

interested in the physical events and behaviors that took place, how the participants make

sense of these, and how their understanding influences their behaviors. The second

reason was based on the researcher’s belief that contrasting external factors such as

social, economic, political, and competitive environments would instigate different needs

for an organization to change. The researcher assumed that no two organizations would

be considering adopting project management for the same reason or has the same external

business environment. The third reason was based on Yin’s (2009) cautionary statement

that to undertake a multiple case study would require extensive resources and time

beyond the means of a single student or independent research investigator. The decision

to choose a single case was the right decision. Yin’s (2009) assertion that a single case

study, if conducted with a defined set of protocols and procedures, will yield a wealth of

data and can aid to the body of knowledge on organizational leadership was proved true.

Another design decision for strengthening the single case design was to conduct a

mixed methods approach. The mixed methods approach “forces the research methods to

share the same research questions, to collect complementary data, and to conduct

counterpart analyses” (Yin, 2009, p. 63). Mixed methods studies can permit researchers

to address more complicated research questions and collect a richer, stronger array of

evidence than can be accomplished by any single method alone. The researcher

174

intentionally designed the mixed methods study using an explanatory sequential approach

that was implemented in two distinct phases. Because of the limited sample size due to a

single case, the qualitative phase utilized embedded units of analysis, which provided

extensive contextual analysis and greater insight into the case. The procedure for an

explanatory sequential design has been to use a qualitative strand to explain the initial

quantitative results (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011).

Conclusions on the Attitude-Related Nature of Organizational Change. In

the last decade, researchers have begun to study the change-related attitudes using a

variety of approaches to understanding employees’ reactions to change ( Szabla, 2007;

Van Dam et al., 2008). Although researchers have cited diverse obstacles to

implementing change, this study examined the attitude-related human behaviors as a

primary obstacle to organizational change. The researcher wanted to better understand

the multifaceted attitude-related nature of change and how human behavior may be a

contributor to organizational change failure or success.

Organizational change management research has provided evidence that most

change initiatives were unsuccessful, and a possible cause for this failure has been

directed toward the readiness for change (Lawler & Worley, 2006; Porras & Robertson,

1991). Given this assertion, the researcher felt that a greater emphasis on readiness for

change would aid in planning, managing, and leading the change process, as well as

improving the adoption and sustainability of the change initiative. Readiness for change

has been comprised of an individual’s beliefs and attitudes that have arisen from one’s

perception of an organization’s ability to effect change (Armenakis et al., 1993; Eby et

175

al., 2000). Readiness for change has been a critical precursor to successfully

implementing a change initiative (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999; Weiner, 2009).

This study utilized the persuasion stage of the innovation-decision process (Figure

1) to examine the organizational change recipients’ beliefs about the adoption of project

management as an organizational change. The innovation-decision process was an

important aspect to this study on the adoption of project management practices because,

in the persuasion stage, individuals form attitudes based on their beliefs about the

innovation (Rogers, 2003). Understanding the change recipients’ beliefs in the

persuasion stage would aid in the subsequent decision and implementation stage.

Utilizing the OCRBS to measure the degree of acceptance and understanding the

importance of the persuasion stage of the innovation-diffusion process, ABC’s

organizational leaders can adequately plan and successfully implement the adoption of

project management into their organization.

Conclusions Based on the Findings. To answer the research questions of what

were the organizational change recipients’ beliefs regarding the adoption of project

management and why they hold those beliefs, the researcher utilized an explanatory

sequential design to use a qualitative strand to explain the quantitative results (Creswell

& Plano Clark, 2011). Because of the limited sample size due to the single case,

descriptive statistics were used to describe the quantitative data of the four subgroups and

the organization as a whole. The descriptive statistics were not intended to be used to

generalize to other populations or organizations nor to determine cause-and-effect

relationships. The quantitative results produced general explanations; however, a

176

detailed understanding of what the descriptive statistics mean was lacking. Qualitative

data and results were used to help build that understanding.

The qualitative data collection consisted of semi-structured interviewing and

examined the data for description and themes within each of the five beliefs and the four

sub groups of executive management, change agents, project managers, and project

practitioners. Meaning condensation and meaning categorization (Klenle, 2008) was

used to explore these beliefs and the reasons that the participants reported holding them.

This analysis followed with a cross-case analysis to identify important themes about the

change recipients’ change beliefs.

The initial analysis of the interviews resulted in 1,242 comments (see Appendix

G). As part of the theory-building process, the researcher began developing more

selective codes by determining links between the various codes, creating related

categories and determining how the categories related to one another, which became the

primary themes. The themes developed through the thematic analytic process are

presented in Table 14. The themes were divided into various categories that aligned with

the OCRBS and the five change beliefs. The following are important conclusions that

were drawn from the results of the study.

Discrepancy. Overall, the organization’s mean score (M = 5.30) for discrepancy

indicated there is a need for the selected organization to change. This conclusion is not

surprising due to the contextual factors in which the selected organization operates.

Increasing regulations within the healthcare industry are requiring medical education

providers to streamline operations by cutting costs through reduction of timelines and

other operational expenses in producing medical education stemming from recent

177

healthcare reform. As a result of these cost-cutting demands, executive management

divested of one of its business units in 2011, which reduced the number of full-time

employees from 130 to 74. The need to change was also supported by the 117 comments

that were captured from the semi-structured interviews (see Appendix G). Many of the

respondents referred to their business model as unique because of the highly regulated

environment. Based on the quantitative and qualitative results, it is evident that ABC

needs to change from its current managerial approach to a new managerial approach.

Appropriateness. Based on the existence of discrepancy, ABC’s executive

management was faced with the decision to implement a specific organizational change

to eliminate the discrepancy. This choice was whether or not to adopt project

management. The organization’s mean score (M = 5.56) for appropriateness indicated

that project management would be the right choice to eliminate the discrepancy. From

the qualitative results, contrasting viewpoints were heard. Several of the executive

management members stated that having a set of predefined project management

processes may hinder their company’s ability to respond to ambiguities inherent within

the pharmaceutical industry. Change agents commented about their concerns of rigid

project management processes, and the project managers openly stated resistance to the

implementation of project management because they felt the new practices would not

meet the needs of their clients. By interpreting the quantitative and qualitative data, the

adoption of project management is the right choice for the organization, but it must be

flexible to accommodate both the organization’s and individuals’ needs.

The conclusion for this belief indicated that the implementation of project

management practices must include a high degree of adaptability to improve

178

effectiveness in a very fluid business environment, while still maintaining effective

control over the execution and delivery of projects. To facilitate implementing an

adaptive form of project management, the idea of what defines a successful project shifts

from just following a relatively inflexible process to a set of processes that embraces and

facilitates the concept of delivering business value in an environment of continuous

change. The business environment will not tolerate implementing a rigid set of project

management practices. Rather, the implementation is a matter of designing a set of

practices that is most appropriate for the organization, allowing the project to be

delivered in a specific business situation.

Efficacy. The organization’s mean score (M = 5.78) for efficacy indicated that

the organization was capable of implementing the organizational change. While the

mean scores for the five beliefs indicated a favorable decision to adopt project

management, it was the number of comments from the qualitative data analysis that

revealed efficacy (35.0%) and principal support (29.8%) to be of biggest concern for the

organizational members (see Table 18). Efficacy is the belief that deals with the

capability of the organization to implement the proposed organizational change, and

principal support is the belief that refers to having opinion leadership to support the

organizational change (Rogers, 2003). These two beliefs indicated concerns or doubts as

to the implementation of new processes, structures, and methods and the impact on the

organization.

Every change initiative requires leadership. In initiating change, organizational

leadership is perceived as the most important enabler of success, especially when the top

leaders are seen as models of desirable behaviors. The results of the study revealed that

179

all levels of the organization must be involved to achieve a sustainable organizational

change. When executive management sees the adoption of project management as a

means to achieving strategic results, it implies that the need to change is an

organizational priority. Several respondents indicated that consistent change messages

from leadership and a clear display of its desired behaviors would contribute to the

success and alignment with strategic goals.

Just as leadership involvement was widely cited as an essential component of

success from the interviews, many in the organization also stated that they must have the

capability and capacity to do what they are being asked to do. Of the 230 comments

regarding efficacy, 113 (49.1%) comments were made that resistance to the proposed

change will depend on having adequate resources assigned to the change management

process (see Appendix G). Capability was identified as having resources skilled in

change management and subject matter expertise about project management practices,

but capability is not enough. One of the key insights from the study came from the

comments regarding capacity. Organizational resources must also be deployed to

successfully implement the organizational change.

Principal support. The organization’s mean score (M = 5.40) for principal

support indicated that individuals believed opinion leadership was adequate.

Organizational leaders need to be viewed as personally committed to the change they

advocate, acting in ways congruent with the new behaviors they are expecting of others.

Such actions help to reinforce the desired change and to serve to motivate others to learn

the new methods of working.

180

From the qualitative data analysis, of the 192 comments made regarding principal

support, 47 (24.4%) comments were made regarding organizational support (see

Appendix G). The success for the proposed change will depend on having broad-based

involvement from all levels of the organization for the change management process.

Axelrod (2000) reinforced this key point for implementing an organizational change

requiring the concerted effort and contribution of all organization members.

Contrasting comments provided a glimpse of the competing perspective on

implementing project management. Many of the project managers and practitioners

stated that they wanted assurances from executive management that they would assist in

the implementation rather than only providing the decision to adopt project management.

Other comments were made about getting other stakeholders involved in the

organizational change process. One of the executive managers commented that getting

other stakeholders involved in the process would be important. Successful organizational

change implementation begins with identifying and understanding critical stakeholder’s

expectations to help implement planned changes.

From the qualitative data analysis, of the 192 comments made regarding principal

support, 30 (15.6%) comments were made regarding training issues for implementing

project management for the organization (see Appendix G). Since changing an

organization ultimately comes down to changing the practices, attitudes, and behaviors of

the people who compose it, the change agents are an essential component of the change

management process. Training is a classic technique for achieving organizational

alignment. Systematic training in project management practices will greatly facilitate

transition to deliver project results more consistently.

181

One executive manager, who realized that learning and development will be a

necessary requirement for their organizational change initiative, stated that it will take a

significant amount of training before they can apply project management practices. One

of the change agents expressed a concern over the lack of capability of their internal

training department. This person felt it would be advantageous to bring in outside

resources to maximize the necessary training to successfully implement project

management. One of the project management practitioners also restated the same

concern but in a more direct manner by stating that many of the employees do not have

experience in project management. Another project management practitioner also felt

that the internal training department would not have the capability to train others on

project management because they lack experience in working directly with the client. A

key to sustaining an organizational change has been the ability to engage the change

recipient in a continuous process of ongoing application, practice, and reinforcement

(Nelson, 2008). Behavior change most frequently has taken place through a much more

emotional-driven process where people see, either literally or in their mind’s eye, some

sort of experience that can be applied to the workplace (Nelson, 2008).

Valence. The organization’s mean score (M = 5.40) for valence indicated that

individuals had some reservations concerning the motivation to change. From the

qualitative data analysis, of the 72 comments made regarding valence, 29 (40.2%)

comments were made regarding intrinsic motivation for implementing project

management for the organization (see Appendix G). Since changes must ultimately be

implemented by change recipients, understanding their motivations to support or not

support organizational changes provides practical insights into how to best lead change

182

(Furst & Cable, 2008). A considerable amount of comments were made regarding what

the impact of change will be on the change recipients.

To gain acceptance, the organizational leaders will have to examine those

components that intrinsically motivate their employees (Armenakis, Bernerth, et al.,

2007). Employees, on some level, will ask the question, "What is in it for me?"

Therefore, organizational leaders must realize that acceptance is about personal benefit,

and if they cannot convey some level of individual outcome, gaining acceptance may be a

challenge.

Many respondents expressed a concern over the lack of time to attend training

because of the operational demands of completing work. One of the concerns expressed

by an executive manager was having the resources who had the time to train the

organizational members on various project management practices. Others commented

that training would add additional time to their workload.

The key intrinsic motivation is a better work-life balance, which points back to

organizational capacity. Communicate, educate, and engage was cited from one

respondent as the strategy for increasing trust in the organization. Deliberate

communication from executive management will ensure the people know what is

changing, why it is changing, and how it will affect them.

Implications for Practice

Although many organizations are faced with the challenge of adapting to rapidly

changing and often unpredictable environments, the underlying concept of the change

process has remained relatively simplistic in nature. Many of the theoretical models of

organizational change management change explicitly or implicitly utilize Lewin’s basic

183

three-stage process of unfreezing – change – freeze (Oreg, & Berson, 2009). Most of the

research covered in previous organizational change focused on how organizations prepare

for, implement, and react to organizational change (Oreg et al., 2011).

Drawing on Lewin's three-stage model of change, change management experts

have begun to propose various strategies to create readiness for change by unfreezing

existing mindsets (Armenakis, Bernerth, et al., 2007; Weiner, 2009). Organizational

change readiness has typically focused on the organizational members’ beliefs, attitudes,

and intentions that reflect and recognize the need for a particular change at a specific

point in time (Armenakis et al., 1993). Organizational change readiness has been seen as

fundamental to the successful management of change. Yet, given the constant state of

flux in the current business environment, it might be more successful to focus on

promoting continuous change readiness rather than on implementing and managing a

specific change effort.

Given this emphasis, it is important to distinguish between change readiness from

change capacity – the ability of an organization to change not just once, but to constantly

adapting to and anticipating changes in its environment. Such capacity implies a focus

on multiple, often iterative and overlapping, organizational change initiatives, which is

different from the traditional view of change as a series of isolated events. Developing

organizational change capacity reflects a dynamic process of continuous learning and

adjustment to cope with the ambiguity and uncertainty that the business environment

operates in, and the ability to implement those changes in that context.

One of the key insights from the study was articulated by an executive manager

regarding the proposed organizational change. She felt that the organization was capable

184

to change but was more concerned with the capacity to change. Lewin (1976) referred to

the capability to change as having the necessary knowledge and expertise in leading and

managing change. The capacity to change refers to dismantling the existing mindset to

change (Lewin, 1976).

To illustrate ABC’s capacity to change, the interview comments about long-term

employees were grouped under the qualitative theme of organizational culture. Because

of the existing mindset of the organizational members who fall into that category, the

extent of change necessary to alter their perspective to adopt project management could

be considered a constraint in the implementation. An executive manager indicated that

changing the organization’s culture would be highly challenging because of their past

history. One of the long-term project practitioners confirmed that the organizational

culture may be a barrier to the organizational change and stated, “I think some of our

history can hold us back” (see Appendix F).

Organizational capacity, from the individual perspective, can be defined as the

organization’s total workload for running operations while implementing change

activities. Most organizations are running at over-capacity, where daily operations

consume the organization’s capacity. Then, organizational leaders require or desire

individuals to change their work activities and business processes on top of constrained

workloads without removing any responsibilities. Organizational members, who are

consistently extended beyond their limits of capacity, may be resentful, have diminished

talent, perform poorly, and have increased failure of judgment from the sheer lack of time

to think clearly.

185

Executive management highly influences organizational capacity at the personal

level. How they attend to organizational capacity issues in turn dictates the

organization’s cultural norms about capacity. Leaders do not always stop to think about

whether or not their people can do what is needed; they just assume they can and will.

The issue of organizational capacity at a personal level is a significant risk factor to the

implementation of a proposed change. A possible source of the problem for leaders is

that leading a substantial organizational change initiative is unlike any other managerial

task they have undertaken. Relying on a prescriptive model for implementing an

organizational change does not work when attempting to change the attitudes, beliefs, and

behaviors of individuals.

Many comments were made during the interview process about the proposed

change because it would be good for the company. As one project practitioner stated:

There should be talk of changing because we all work here and we all should have

the same goal, but I think sometimes there’s so much emphasis on the business

that it’s kind of losing sight of what each person is doing to further that. There’s a

lot of emphasis on everybody doing this because it’s good for the business, but

then it’s not really reciprocated in terms of this may be good for the individual.

(see Appendix F)

Another project manager openly stated, “As long as I don't have to do extra work,

I'm fine.” That sentiment was clearly articulated from all levels of the organization who

believed that they were already operating at full capacity due to the day-to-day

management of their existing projects. For them, there was not enough capacity to plan

and launch an organizational change.

186

Work-life imbalance could contribute to a range of negative consequences for the

individual and the organization. Rogers’ (2003) diffusion of innovation theory has

shown that once a critical mass of people adopts a new practice or way of thinking, these

new behaviors and attitudes becomes the norm. This new norm will diffuse to others if

enough opinion leaders within the population are known to adopt, endorse, and support

the behavior. The implications from this study could affect the decision to adopt an

organizational change and its implementation. Organizational leaders should assess the

organizational capacity, the ability to dismantle the existing mindset to change, at an

operational-level and at the individual-level to successfully implement organizational

change initiatives.

Limitations

A single case study approach was a limitation for the study. Making causal

conclusions from case studies is difficult due to the generality of the findings (Yin, 2009).

This case study involved the change beliefs of one organization and the findings of this

study cannot be applied to similar organizations. To offset this limitation, a single case

study using a mixed methods design was used which included a quantitative phase and a

qualitative phase. The mixed methods design strengthened the study by allowing the

researcher to address more complicated research questions and to collect a richer,

stronger array of evidence. Mixed methods research design answers the research

questions that cannot be answered by quantitative or qualitative approaches alone

(Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). A combination of both forms of data provided the most

comprehensive analysis of the problem (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011).

187

Chapter Three discussed the sample size limitation; however, to compensate for

this limitation, the qualitative phase utilized embedded units of analysis, which included

executive management, change agents, project managers, and project management

practitioners of a selected organization. Yin (2009) argued that subunits of analyses can

“add significant opportunities for extensive analysis, enhancing the insights into the

single case” (p. 52). Embedded units of analysis allowed for extensive contextual

analysis and greater insight into the case study. This data collection method provided

tacit knowledge on how the sense-making and perception differed between the four sub

groups (Poole & Van de Ven, 2004). A multisource data collection method also

contributed to the external validity of the study’s findings (Bouckenooghe, 2010). This

approach improved the significance of the findings by increasing the richness of the data

available for interpretation and thereby improving the usefulness of the findings

(Bryman, 2008).

Suggestions for Future Research

Typical diffusion research consists of diffusion studies that were successfully

adopted and diffused (Rogers, 2003). This approach creates a pro-innovation bias. As a

result, diffusion research has a limited understanding about innovation because it has

failed to learn from unsuccessful attempts. The research design chosen for this study was

to conduct a point-of-adoption study, which means the data collection and analyses were

conducted before the decision to adopt the organizational change was made.

There are two suggestions for future research. One recommendation is for future

diffusion studies to utilize a point-of-adoption study but to incorporate multiple data

collection and analysis at various intervals which will provide a moving picture of

188

behavior rather than single snap shot. This type of research approach would allow the

ability to trace the flow of diffusion as it spreads through a social system. A longitudinal

study would provide repeated observations though each of the five innovation-decision

process stages and identify trends across the life cycle of the change initiative. This

approach may uncover predictors of certain behaviors in each stage, which can aid

organizational leaders in the implementation stage.

The second suggestion for future research is to conduct a multiple-case study

utilizing an explanatory, sequential design with an embedded unit of analysis. As in the

current study, the OCRBS would be used for quantitative data collection and semi-

structured interviews with each of the four sub groups would be used for the qualitative

data collection. The sub groups would include executive management, change agents,

project managers/leaders, and project participants. Multiple organizations would add

statistical rigor to the study.

The future study would utilize the persuasion stage of the innovation-decision

process to examine the organizational change recipients’ beliefs about a proposed

organizational change within multiple organizations. Comparison could be made

between organizations regarding the five change beliefs within each sub group. The

comparison would provide differences of the change recipients’ beliefs between

organizations and provide valuable information for planning strategies for resolving any

deficiencies.

Summary

The purpose of this study was to measure the organizational change recipients’

beliefs on the adoption of project management practices as an organizational change

189

initiative and understand why the change recipients reported those stated beliefs. This

study was aimed at examining five change beliefs (discrepancy, appropriateness,

efficacy, principal support, and valence) of members of an organization. Given the

constant state of flux in the current business environment, the implications for practice is

for organizational leaders to distinguish organizational change readiness from

organizational change capacity. Organizational change capacity implies a focus on

multiple, often iterative and overlapping, organizational change initiatives, which is

different from the traditional view of change as a series of isolated events. This

perspective broadens organizational change management as a dynamic process of

continuous learning and adjustment to cope with the ambiguity and uncertainty that the

business operates in, and the ability to implement those changes in that context. The

findings of this study provided insights on the readiness-level for adopting an

organizational change. This includes: (a) a deeper understanding of organizational

adoption of standards and methods; (b) insight into change recipients’ beliefs about

change; and (c) a greater awareness of planning and executing the implementation of

change into an organization.



A Correlational Study Examining Project Management Leaders Implementation of Lessons Learned Practices that Increases Organizational Revenue

Students also viewed