Organizational Change Management: A Test of the Effectiveness of a Communication Plan

Communication Research Reports Vol. 28, No. 1, January March 2011, pp. 62 73 Organizational Change Management: A Test of the Effectiveness of a Communication Plan Cynthia B. Torppa & Keith L. Smith In a climate of continuous change, organizations must constantly adapt to survive even while unceasing demands to adapt can create change fatigue and resistance among personnel. A theoretically grounded change management communication plan that was hypothesized to ease accommodation was tested in a large public sector organization as it underwent major restructuring. Findings indicate that personnel beliefs supporting the restructuring that were targeted in the communication plan accounted for 66% of the variance in receptivity to the new structure, 57% of the variance in motivation to make the new structure a success, and 42% of the variance in pessimism about the change. Keywords: Change Beliefs; Change Communication; Change Fatigue; Change Management; Organizational Change To survive in a climate of continuous change, organizations must successfully address immediate challenges (Frahm & Brown, 2007) while simultaneously developing the capacity to address future volatilities and opportunities (Clampitt, Williams, & DeKoch, 2002). The difficulty of accomplishing these complementary tasks is seen in a large and expanding literature devoted to the problems of change fatigue and cynicism among personnel (Wanous, Reichers, & Austin, 2000). Cynthia B. Torppa (PhD, The Ohio State University, 1987) is an Associate Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at Marshall University. Keith L. Smith (PhD, Iowa State University, 1980) is a Professor in the Department of Human and Community Resource Development and Gist Chair in Extension Education and Leadership at The Ohio State University. Correspondence: Cynthia B. Torppa, Department of Communication Studies, Marshall University, 257 Smith Hall, One John Marshall Dr., Huntington, WV 25755; E-mail: torppa@marshall.edu ISSN 0882-4096 (print)/issn 1746-4099 (online) # 2011 Eastern Communication Association DOI: 10.1080/08824096.2011.541364

Communication Research Reports 63 The purpose of this article is to explore the effectiveness of a change management communication plan based on variables theorized to guide organizational change without creating fatigue and cynicism. By examining these variables and their impact on personnel s receptivity to change, motivation to implement the change, and pessimism about the change s success, we hope to refine and extend understanding of current concepts and operationalizations. Literature Review Theories of planned organizational change are typically framed within Lewin s (1947) stage model of unfreezing, moving, and refreezing. Such theories have been criticized for taking an episodic approach to continuous change which can create change fatigue, apathy, or resistance to change efforts (Armenakis, Harris, & Feild, 1999; Frahm & Brown, 2007; Wanous et al., 2000). Two communication strategies based in Lewin s model, however, propose that appropriately designed messages can manage change and prevent the discouragement sometimes associated with ongoing accommodations in organizations. Klein (1996) and Armenakis and his colleagues (Armenakis, Bernerth, Pitts, & Walker, 2007; Armenakis et al., 1999; Walker, Armenakis, & Bernerth, 2007) independently proposed similar communication processes that would help personnel adopt beliefs that move commitment from the current organizational state to the desired organizational state. Both Klein (1996) and Armenakis et al. (1999) argued an effective communication plan must present specific types of information. Using Armenakis et al. s (1999) terminology, the communication plan must explain: (a) discrepancy: the difference between where the organization is and where it needs to be; (b) appropriateness: how the proposed initiative addresses the discrepancy; (c) efficacy: that the organization has the capacity to implement the new initiative; (d) principal support: that support exists for the initiative at supervisory levels; and (e) valence: that the change will be beneficial to personnel. Klein (1996) also noted several foundational communication principals that must be practiced including using: (a) message redundancy; (b) multiple media; (c) face-to-face, as well as mediated interactions; (d) the line hierarchy including direct supervisors to convey a consistent message; and (e) opinion leaders to spread and support the message. In summary, it is theorized that a change management communication plan that addresses five specific types of information and that is conveyed with strategic attention to fundamental communication principals will create beliefs that support the organizational change. As a result, it is expected that personnel will become ready to make the change, motivated to adopt it, and will avoid the pessimism that frequent and ongoing changes sometimes trigger. This led to the hypotheses: H1: Personnel s beliefs about the discrepancy, appropriateness, efficacy, principal support, and valence of their organization s restructuring plan will be positively associated with receptivity to the changes in the plan.

64 C. B. Torppa and K. L. Smith H2: Personnel s beliefs about the discrepancy, appropriateness, efficacy, principal support, and valence of their organization s restructuring plan will be positively associated with motivation to make the plan a success. H3: Personnel s beliefs about the discrepancy, appropriateness, efficacy, principal support, and valence of their organization s restructuring plan will be negatively associated with pessimism about the outcomes of the plan. The Change Management Communication Plan and Process The Organization The change management communication plan was implemented in a large, complex, geographically dispersed public sector organization with a central administrative unit and offices in 88 counties throughout a Midwestern state. The organization had undergone two substantial restructurings two and four years earlier, both due to funding reductions. During those funding reductions, district offices were closed and regional administrative units were consolidated. A few months later, focus groups and a system-wide survey were conducted to discover how well personnel were adapting to the changes. Results showed deep and widespread dissatisfaction with the new structure. Personnel believed the loss of the former structure had shifted many tasks to county offices and the consolidation of regional administrative units drained badly needed resources from county offices. Despite repeated attempts to clarify the rationale for and benefits of the restructuring, personnel continued to share their displeasure with the new structure at meetings with supervisors and administrators, through an ongoing Pulse survey (see http://www.imetacomm.com/ tools/pulse/index.html) that monitored personnel s perceptions and concerns, and through opinion leaders who met regularly with the organization s director. The change process addressed in this study was started within that context of dissatisfaction with the intention of designing a new strategic plan. Shortly after beginning, however, additional funding reductions were announced. The resulting strategic plan incorporated additional restructuring in administrative and supervisory assignments, planned reductions in the size of the organization s workforce, and substantial alterations in employees responsibilities and supervision. The Change Management Communication Plan The organization s strategic planning process took place over about 12 months. As plans were formalized, attention was paid to sharing the types of information needed to guide personnel s beliefs about the new plan and to practicing the fundamental communication strategies needed to promote understanding and retention (Klein, 1996). Early information emphasized the discrepancy between where the organization was and where it needed to be heading, but as the goals and procedures of the plan were formulated, information about the appropriateness of the plan and the efficacy of the organization were added to the message. Administrators also took special care

Communication Research Reports 65 to demonstrate their support for the plan. At the start, the organization s director and members of the administrative cabinet held regional conferences during which they presented the most recent information, addressed questions, and conducted roundtable discussions to share and gather feedback from personnel (85% attendance). About eight months later, administrators repeated these activities at the organization s annual conference (90% attendance). Personnel were also encouraged to join any of eight issue committees that were planning specific aspects of the strategic plan. Throughout the planning process, less formal opportunities were created for employees to talk about the strategic plan with their regional or county supervisors. During this time, the three Regional Directors traveled to each of the county offices in their regions to talk about the planning process with small groups of personnel, held periodic face-to-face meetings with larger groups of personnel from throughout their regions, and distributed regular electronic newsletters with updates on the strategic planning process. County directors met monthly with administrators to learn about updates and were asked to share the latest information at county staff meetings. Information about how individuals within the organization would be impacted by the plan (valence) was shared by supervisors along the line hierarchy during face-to-face meetings. As information was shared, fundamental communication principals were practiced. Messages were shared redundantly, in both face-to-face and mediated formats, and using a variety of media. As mentioned earlier, the change message was shared in person by top administrators at the two organizational conferences, in regular and ongoing face-to-face meetings with administrators and supervisors from all levels of the organization who, in turn, discussed the plan in smaller team and staff meetings. The change management message was also shared in print and electronic venues including a semi-monthly electronic organizational newsletter and the regularly distributed electronic regional newsletters noted above, in streaming video updates from the organization s director and members of administrative cabinet that were transmitted to personnel throughout the system, and via a well-promoted organizational Web site that was devoted to sharing information about strategic planning processes and specific decisions as they were made. Personnel were also encouraged to submit questions via the Web site; appropriate administrators published an answer on the Web site, usually within a few days. Opinion leaders, that is, individuals who were identified by supervisors and peers as being individuals of influence among their peers, were invited to sit on a Director s Advisory Committee that met quarterly. Developments in the restructuring plan were discussed at those meetings and feedback on the implementation process was sought from the opinion leaders. Opinion leaders were encouraged to share information gleaned from these discussions. For a period of six months prior to the implementation of the plan, a day-long meeting to be attended by all personnel across the state was promoted. The advertised purpose of the meeting was to launch the new plan, give closure to the previous structure, and celebrate the future successes to be achieved. All personnel, including support staff, were encouraged to attend this meeting. More than 60% of all personnel attended.

66 C. B. Torppa and K. L. Smith Method Following the statewide meeting, all personnel were invited via e-mail to participate in the survey study whether they attended the meeting or not (n ¼ 1050). Two reminders were sent over the next three weeks to potential participants who had not completed survey. Participants During the three-week period the online survey was active, 325 individuals completed the questionnaire (response rate ¼ 31%). All respondents were currently employed and represented all positions from support staff to high ranking administrators and all regions of the state. The average number of years of service with the organization was 13.47 (SD ¼ 10.11). Materials and Procedure Survey Monkey, an Internet-based survey program, was used. Participants could complete the survey only once. All items used a 7-point Likert scale with responses ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7(strongly agree) or 1(never) to 7(frequently). Mean scores, standard deviations, and reliability coefficients for the scales are reported in Table 1. Organizational Change Recipients Belief Scale (OCRBS). Armenakis et al. (2007) created the 24-item OCRBS to assess respondents beliefs about a current or proposed change. OCRBS measured beliefs that messages satisfied concerns about discrepancy (e.g., A change was needed to improve operations ), appropriateness (e.g., The change we implemented was correct for our situation ), efficacy (e.g., I believe we can successfully implement the change ), principal support (e.g., The top leaders Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Cronbach s Alpha Reliability Coefficients for the Scales Reported Variable M SD a OCRBS 4.71 0.91.95 Discrepancy 5.79 1.06.91 Appropriateness 4.50 1.34.86 Efficacy 4.97 1.08.96 Principal support 4.63 1.08.79 Valence 3.61 1.26.86 Receptivity to change 4.05 0.64.95 Pessimism about change 3.04 1.38.93 Motivation to make change successful 4.69 1.37.85 Note. OCRBS ¼ Organizational Change Recipients Belief Scale.

Communication Research Reports 67 in this organization are walking the talk ), and valence (e.g., The change from [this] to [that] will benefit me ). Receptivity to change. Receptivity to change was measured using the 18-item Change in Organizational Culture instrument (Dunham, Grube, Gardner, Cummings, & Pierce, 1989) as adapted by Frahm and Brown (2007). This scale assessed affective receptivity (e.g., I don t like the changes in the new strategic plan ), cognitive receptivity (e.g., The changes would benefit this organization ), and behavioral receptivity (e.g., I would do whatever possible to support the changes ). Movtivation to make the plan a success. Motivation to try to make the strategic plan successful was measured using the four-item scale developed by Wanous et al. (2000). Items assessed included, I personally support the attempts to make things better for the organization that are included in the new Strategic Plan, I believe in trying to do everything I can to support the new Strategic Plan, I would be willing to serve on a task force to help implement the new Strategic Plan, and I am willing to take on extra duties in order to make the improvements outlined in the new Strategic Plan. Pessimism about the likelihood of change success. Pessimism about the likelihood of change success was measured using the four-item pessimism subscale of the Cynicism About Organization Change Scale, also created by Wanous et al. (2000). Items assessed included, Most of the programs that are supposed to solve problems around here will not do much good, Attempts to make things better around here will not produce good results, Suggestions on how to solve problems will not produce much real change, and Plans for future improvement will not amount to much. Attention to the change management communication message. Personnel were asked to report whether they had read articles in organizational newsletters, reviewed the Web site, talked with their supervisors, and talked with peers about the strategic plan. Most personnel reported attending to messages about the strategic plan, with scores ranging from 1 (never) to 7(frequently); means for the four actions ranged from 4.14 to 5.39; and the percentage of personnel who reported never attending to messages ranged from 1% to 13% (see Table 2). Table 2 Means and Frequencies of Personnel s Reported Attention to Messages Variable M SD Frequency: Never Frequency: Sometimes Frequently I read articles about the strategic plan in organization 5.39 1.54 4 (1%) 240 (65%) newsletters. I reviewed the strategic plan Web page. 4.14 1.90 42 (13%) 156 (49%) I talked with my supervisors about the strategic plan. 4.20 2.00 24 (7%) 179 (55%) I talked with peers about the strategic plan. 4.57 1.80 38 (12%) 151 (47%) Note. Valid n ranged from 321 to 325, and scores ranged from 1 (never) to 7(frequently).

68 C. B. Torppa and K. L. Smith Participation in the strategic planning process. Because participative decision making has been associated with acceptance of and commitment to changes, personnel were asked whether they had contributed to roundtable discussions at the Spring conference or at the annual conference, were active on an issues committee, and had made suggestions about the strategic plan on the PULSE survey. Many personnel reported participating in planning the strategic plan, with scores ranging from 1 (never) to 7(frequently); means for the four actions ranged from 2.26 to 4.15; and the percentage of personnel who reported never participating ranged from 19% to 60% (see Table 3). To further ensure it was attention to the change management message rather than participation in the planning process that influenced personnel s beliefs about the change, three regression analyses were computed following the procedures suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986). Specifically, the amounts of variance in participants OCRBS scores accounted for by participation (9% of the variance), F(1, 319) ¼ 32.02, p <.001 (R 2 ¼.09); and attention to change message (13% of the variance), F(1, 319) ¼ 45.31, p <.001 (R 2 ¼.13), were examined first in separate analyses and then together in a third regression analysis. No changes in the amount of variance accounted for was found in the third model. Thus, participation and attention to the change message each contributed uniquely to personnel beliefs about the discrepancy, appropriateness, efficacy, principal support, and valence of the change management plan. For that reason, participation is not included as a covariate in subsequent analyses. Tests of multicolinearity. Finally, prior to computing the regression analyses to test the hypotheses, analyses to examine the intercorrelations among the variables, tolerances, and variance inflation factors (VIFs) were computed. Looking first at the intercorrelations presented in Table 4, correlation coefficients for discrepancy were low enough to allow discrepancy to be examined as a separate independent Table 3 Means and Frequencies of Personnel s Reported Participation in Planning Variable M SD Frequency: Strongly Disagree Frequency: Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree I contributed to the strategic plan roundtable discussions at the Spring conference. I contributed to the strategic plan roundtable discussions at annual conference. I was active on a strategic plan issues committee. I made suggestions about the strategic plan on the Pulse survey. 3.88 2.30 93 (29%) 144 (44%) 3.39 2.30 113 (35%) 114 (35%) 2.26 2.00 195 (60%) 55 (17%) 4.15 2.20 59 (19%) 156 (48%) Note. Valid n ranged from 309 to 320, and scores ranged from 1 (never) to 7(frequently).

Table 4 Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations for Receptivity to Change, Motivation, Pessimism Scores, and OCRBS and Subscales Variable A B C OCRBS 1 2 3 4 5 Dependent variables A. Receptivity to.695.501.804.278.797.647.634.753 change B. Motivation.535.758.338.721.631.580.636 C. Pessimism.612.048.633.542.591.514 Predictor variables OCRBS.905.868.828.841 1. Discrepancy.408.186.241.114.121 2. Appropriateness.732.713.673 3. Efficacy.713.673 4. Principal.617 support 5. Valence Note. OCRBS ¼ Organizational Change Recipients Belief Scale. p ¼.05 (2-tailed). p ¼.001 (2-tailed). Communication Research Reports 69 variable (correlations ranged from.11.24). The intercorrelations among the remaining four subscales were high (coefficients ranging from.62.73), suggesting multicolinearity was problematic. To further examine these findings, test regressions were computed to examine tolerances and VIFs. Results indicated the tolerances for all the subscales except discrepancy were unacceptably low, and only the VIF for discrepancy was within an acceptable range (1.08). Because all the indicators for appropriateness, efficacy, principal support, and valence subscales indicated multicolinearity was problematic, these four subscales were combined for inclusion in the regression analyses to test the three hypotheses. Results H1, that personnel s beliefs about discrepancy, appropriateness, efficacy, principal support, and valence would be positively associated with receptivity to change, was supported. A sequential regression analysis was computed using receptivity to change scores as the dependent variable. The discrepancy subscale was entered first; then, in Step 2, the combined subscales were entered. The full model R 2 was significantly >0, F(2, 315) ¼ 306.72, p <.001 (R 2 ¼.66). As shown in Table 5, discrepancy had a significant zero-order correlation with receptivity to change and accounted for nearly 8% of the variance. Adding the combined subscales from the OCRBS in Step 2 increased the amount of variance accounted for in receptivity to change by roughly 58% (DR 2 ¼.582, p <.001). H2, that personnel s beliefs about discrepancy, appropriateness, efficacy, principal support, and valence would be positively associated with motivation to make

70 C. B. Torppa and K. L. Smith Table 5 Hierarchical Regression Analysis Summary of Organizational Change Beliefs Predicting Receptivity to Change Step B SE B b 1 Discrepancy.171.033.266 2 Discrepancy.082.020.134 Combined subscales.480.021.777 Note. Step 1: R 2 ¼.078, p <.001; Step 2: R 2 ¼.660, DR 2 ¼.582, p <.001. p <.001. the change successful, was supported. Again, a sequential regression analysis was computed in this analysis, using motivation as the dependent variable. The discrepancy subscale was entered first; then, the combined subscales were entered. The full model R 2 was significantly >0, F(2, 312) ¼ 210.15, p <.001 (R 2 ¼.573). As shown in Table 6, discrepancy had a significant zero-order correlation with motivation to make the change successful and accounted for roughly 11% of the variance in motivation. Adding the combined subscales from the OCRBS in Step 2 increased the amount of variance accounted for by roughly 46% (DR 2 ¼.461, p <.001). H3, that personnel s beliefs about discrepancy, appropriateness, efficacy, principal support, and valence would be negatively associated with pessimism about the strategic plan, was partially supported. A third sequential regression analysis was computed using pessimism about change success scores as the dependent variable. The discrepancy subscale was entered first; then, the combined subscales were entered simultaneously. The full model R 2 was significantly >0, F(2, 307) ¼ 110.49, p <.001 (R 2 ¼.420). As shown in Table 7, discrepancy was not correlated with pessimism about change success and accounted for virtually no variance in pessimism (R 2 ¼.002). Adding the combined subscales from the OCRBS accounted for roughly 42% (DR 2 ¼.418, p <.001) of the variance, however. Table 6 Hierarchical Regression Analysis Summary of Organizational Change Beliefs Predicting Motivation to the Make the Change Successful Step B SE B b 1 Discrepancy.439.069.338 2 Discrepancy.274.049.211 Combined subscales.898.049.691 Note. Step 1: R 2 ¼.114, p <.001; Step 2: R 2 ¼.573, DR 2 ¼.461, p <.001. p <.001.

Table 7 Hierarchical Regression Analysis Summary of Organizational Change Beliefs Predicting Pessimism about Change Success Step B SE B b 1 Discrepancy.062.074.048 2 Discrepancy.088.058.067 Combined subscales.855.058.657 Note. Step 1: R 2 ¼.002, ns; Step 2: R 2 ¼.420, DR 2 ¼.418, p <.001. p <.001. Communication Research Reports 71 Discussion In this study, a theoretically grounded change management communication plan was tested in a large, geographically dispersed public sector organization. In support of the theoretical strategies, findings indicated that personnel who believed the change was needed (discrepancy), was designed appropriately (appropriate), that the organization was capable of implementing it (efficacy), that leaders believed in it (principal support), and that it would ultimately benefit them in some way (valence) were also more receptive to the change and motivated to make it a success. Beliefs supporting the appropriateness, efficacy, principal support, and valence of the plan were also associated with reduced pessimism; but, beliefs about the discrepancy between where the organization was and where it needed to be did not influence personnel s pessimism about the likelihood that the change would be effective. Unfortunately, the unique contribution of appropriateness, efficacy, principal support, and valence could not be examined in the regression analyses due to multicolinearity. One question raised by these findings concerns the theoretical distinction among the five message elements proposed to support organizational change. Four of the five subscales from the OCRBS were highly correlated, despite being theoretically and conceptually distinct from one another in multiple studies (Armenakis et al., 2007). One possible explanation for this finding is that four of the factors may have been confounded by the coincidence of timing and mutual reinforcement. Recall that discrepancy was the focus of most communication in the early stage of the change process, but that as the process continued, messages emphasized appropriateness, efficacy, principal support, and valence while simultaneously the quantity of information shared in face-to-face discussions among principals and their supervisees increased. Thus, although these four elements may be theoretically distinct, their proximity in time and channel may have prevented the distinction from being recognized by our participants. Alternatively, multicolinearity may have occurred because appropriateness, efficacy, principal support, and valence were perceived as positives whereas discrepancy was perceived as negative. Messages about discrepancy concern problems, the other four message elements concern solutions. Thus, it may be that participants cognitively

72 C. B. Torppa and K. L. Smith sorted the message elements into positive and negative categories. Future research may attempt to examine this possibility. A second question concerns the reason discrepancy was unrelated to pessimism. It would seem that understanding that a change is needed would help create support for the change. Previous findings showed, however, that pessimism about the likelihood that a change will prove to be successful increases as personnel become fatigued and cynical about organizational changes (Amenakis et al., 1999; Wanous et al., 2000). The organization examined in this study had experienced multiple restructurings within the previous four years and was facing another round of funding reductions that would necessitate additional changes. Within that context, it may make sense that messages explaining that the organization was not yet where it needed to be would not reduce pessimism. It also makes sense, then, that the joint impact of personnel s beliefs that the change was appropriate, possible, supported by the organization s leaders, and would benefit them was associated with less pessimism. Finally, it is important to note that we had only a 31% response rate. It may be that personnel did not trust the confidentiality of the survey, particularly during a sequence of organizational restructurings that were rumored to culminate in work force reductions. Alternatively, individual differences in personnel s comfort in dealing with uncertainty may have contributed to the low response rate. Personnel who are cognitively and emotionally challenged by uncertainty sometimes reject or distort information, resist change, and cling to past models (Clampitt & Williams, 2005). Regardless of the reason, we do not know whether non-responders beliefs were impacted by the messages. It could be that non-responders were suffering from change fatigue that could not be overcome by the communication plan. Alternatively, it could be that new variables need to be incorporated into the process that promote attention to the change management message. References Armenakis, A., Bernerth, J. B., Pitts, J. P., & Walker, H. J. (2007). Organizational Change Recipients Beliefs Scale: Development of an instrument. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43, 481 505. Armenakis, A., Harris, S. G., & Feild, H. S. (1999). Making change permanent: A model for institutionalizing change interventions. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 12, 97 128. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173 1182. Clampitt, P. G., & Williams, M. L. (2005). Conceptualizing and measuring how employees and organizations manage uncertainty. Communication Research Reports, 22, 315 324. Clampitt, P. G., Williams, M. L., & DeKoch, R. J. (2002). Embracing uncertainty: The executive s challenge. Journal of Change Management, 2, 212 228. Dunham, R. B., Grube, J. A., Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., & Pierce, J. L. (1989, August). The development of an attitude toward change instrument. Paper presented at the Academy of Management annual meeting, Washington, DC. Frahm, J., & Brown, K. (2007). First steps: Linking change communication to change receptivity. Journal of Organizational Change, 20, 370 387.

Communication Research Reports 73 Kanter, R. M., Stein, B. A., & Jick, T. D. (1992). The challenge of organizational change. New York, NY: Free Press. Klein, S. M. (1996). A management communication strategy for change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 9, 32 46. Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics. Human Relations, 1, 5 41. Walker, H. J., Armenakis, A. A., & Bernerth, J. B. (2007). Factors influencing organizational change efforts: An integrative investigation of change content, context, process and individual difference. Journal of Organizational Change, 20, 761 773. Wanous, J., Reichers, A. E., & Austin, J. T. (2000). Cynicism about organizational change. Group and Organizational Management, 25, 132 115.

Copyright of Communication Research Reports is the property of Eastern Communication Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.