The role of training and development in creating employee 'readiness' for effective workplace change.

Dr Dell Dennis

Faculty of Education

Monash University

Abstract.

The momentum for change is forever present. We experience change in our daily lives in a range of ways and in a range of settings. One setting where there has been significant change in recent years is the workplace. However, in many instances, proposed and substantive workplace change has resulted in considerable employee resistance.

Based on evidence from two case studies undertaken in large, but diverse organisational settings, this paper examines the use of training and development as intervention strategies to minimise employee resistance to change. The paper also examines issues which could assist organisations to effectively diagnose, manage, and overcome employee resistance, whilst at the same time, engender a climate conducive to employee 'readiness' for change.

Introduction.

A major obstacle to effective implementation of workplace reform is employee resistance to change within an organisation. Such resistance is not a recent phenomenon, nor is it confined to the workplace (Hurst, 1991). It is not exclusive to any particular setting and is likely to be evident amongst individuals or groups within any social system because change will require ". . . new habit patterns or sacrifices" (Davis, 1977: 163). Subsequent research by Dennis (1996a), Fullan and Steigelbauer (1991), Kotter and Schlesinger (1979), and Lovat and Smith (1995) reinforces the continued existence of resistance to change across a range of settings.

Historical perspective.

Resistance to changing work technology and work patterns was first recorded as part of the early moves towards industrialisation in the nineteenth century. This resistance was noted by Hansen (1976) as having led to ". . . reactionary violence" (p. 100) from craftspeople and their families. These people, known as the Luddites, were fighting to maintain their deeply valued traditional work patterns and way of life and also

". . . against urbanisation and centralisation which came with industrialisation" (Hansen, 1976: 100).

Resistance to change in the context of industrial work settings was later documented in the work of Taylor (1911) who experienced substantial resistance to his Principles of Scientific Management, not only from within the workplace, but also from organised labour groups, managers and politicians. The progressive nature of his vision for reform in industry settings resulted in Taylor often being hounded and denounced by union leaders and workers of the day as radical and an exploiter of the working class. This was highlighted by Fisher (1924) who noted, that in his efforts to bring about reform, Taylor disturbed the customs and traditions of work practice.

When, after hoary ages of tradition, science enters on the scene, a battle royal is inevitable . . . Taylor had to pay for disturbing the peace in industry - industry being sublimely unconscious of its shortcomings and unwilling to be reformed (p: 50).

A contemporary perspective.

The first recognised research into the issue of employee resistance to change was undertaken by Coch and French (1948), where they investigated why production workers at the Harwood Manufacturing Corporation displayed strong resistance to substantial changes in work practices and tasks, brought about through re-tooling. The researchers also explored what could be done to overcome the resistance in this setting, and through their field research they concluded that ". . . change can be accomplished by the use of group meetings in which management effectively communicates the need for change and stimulates group participation in planning the changes" (p. 530). This conclusion was significant in that it promoted the idea of participative involvement and effective communication as potential solutions to employee resistance and both of these factors are recognised in more recent times as essential components for effective workplace change.

The issue of employee resistance continues to be evident in contemporary organisations (Davis, 1977; Dennis, 1996a; Hurst, 1991; Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979; Miner, 1988). Resistance can be found at all levels within an organisation from management to the shop floor (Davis, 1977; Dennis, 1996a; Walley & Kowalski, 1992) with the expression of resistance in the workplace revealed in many ways. It may be overt or covert, and may come from an individual or group within an organisation, or it may result from the overall culture and climate of the organisation itself (Davis, 1977; Dennis, 1996a; Milton, Entrekin & Stening, 1984; Miner, 1988).

The role of training: Two case studies.

Two case studies recently undertaken by the author in large and diverse organisational settings investigated, in part, the role of training in minimising employee resistance in times of substantial organisational change. The research revealed that although significant effort was placed in providing relevant and complimentary training programs during the change periods in both settings, the value of training as a Human Resource Development (HRD) intervention strategy appeared to be of limited value in minimising employee resistance to proposed and substantive change (Dennis, 1996a; 1996b). The author concluded that:

. . . carefully developed training is a fundamental component of the ongoing development and growth of successful corporations, thus an essential part of organisational change. Relevant training is, however, only one of many enabling factors that need to be provided in the change process and should not be used as a single intervention strategy (Dennis, 1996a: 255).

This finding reinforced the assertion that training is not an end in itself, made by Watson and Marsick (1993), and led the author to pursue reasons why the associated training may not have been effective in times of change in the two case study settings. In this aspect of the analysis, she found that the majority of people involved in developing the training programs associated with the proposed changes in those settings had minimal knowledge and limited experience in the field of educational theory, in particular the cognitive aspects of learning theory. They may have been experienced and competent technical trainers, shop floor specialists, or managers, but they knew very little about educational theory. It was found that the training developed or purchased by these people in association with the respective changes in both settings reflected substantial technical and practical learning, but provided no opportunity for emancipatory learning, which Mezirow (1981) interprets from the work of Habermas (1970; 1971) as meaning learning through introspection and self awareness allowing recognition of socialised and environmental constraints which may inhibit the learner's life chances. Mezirow (1981) viewed the opportunity for emancipatory learning as ". . . synonymous with perspective transformation" (p: 6), thus the lack of emancipatory learning opportunity in these settings undermined the potential for transformational learning at both an individual level (Mezirow 1981; 1990) and organisational level (Watkins & Marsick 1993). Transformational learning at an individual level is described by Mezirow (1981) as ". . . the process by which adults come to recognise culturally induced dependency roles and relationships and take action to overcome them (p: 6), and at an organisational level as ". . . learning that recreates strategy as people understand the organisation or its work in new, fundamentally different ways or that is transformational [and] gives the organisation wholly new capacities" (Watkins & Marsick, 1993: 11). Thus, with this impeded learning capacity within the two case study settings, employee resistance prevailed.

Further analysis of the two case studies by the author revealed an extensive list of factors which influenced employees' attitudes and behaviours in times of substantial workplace change, and which were likely to have impeded their capacity for transformational learning. These factors are described below under four headings, comprising management and planning; the change message; employee relations issues; and variables. It was found that employee resistance stemmed from a combination of these factors rather than any single factor in isolation. The diversity and potential combination of these factors accentuate the complexity of issues which may contribute to employee resistance, and which need to be carefully considered when planning for change in large organisational settings.

1. Planning and management: the style of management employed by the organisation; the consistency of management advocacy for the change issue at various levels within the organisation; the turnover of management in times of change (ie: continuity of management); the choice of the change model and planning approach for the proposed change; the amount of internal and external research (investigation) undertaken in the initial planning phase; the assumption by managers that employees will change; and the use of appropriate change monitoring systems to observe progress or to register problems in the change process.

2. The change message: how the change message is determined and by whom; how the change message is structured; the clarity and consistency of the change message; the perceived sincerity of the change message; the continuing provision of relevant information; and the need for ongoing employee access to the change agent to clarify and to update information.

3. Employee relations issues: the opportunity for genuine participative involvement; the changing of traditional work practices and work roles; the provision of career path opportunities, the changing roles of unions and employee affiliation to unions; the provision of detail on associated industrial relations matters, e.g: monetary rewards and demarcation issues; and the provision of employee support services in times of change, e.g: financial and personal counselling.

4. Variables: the location of the workplace setting; its culture and associated employee expectations; the perceptions and ecological transition capacities amongst employees; the previous experience of individual employees and groups of employees; the age of the employee; the influence of unanticipated external events. e.g. economic forces or significant world events; the impact of externally driven change such as government policy; and the blurring of ongoing and concurrent change issues which can give rise to accumulated resistance (Dennis, 1996a: Chpt 6).

Individuals are most comfortable with routine and stability therefore, change will need to be patiently dealt with by employers and managers (Dennis, 1996a; Hurst, 1991). With this advice to mind, it would appear more constructive that employers and managers learn to anticipate resistance towards proposed change, and enhance their management skills to not only accurately diagnose potential and entrenched resistance, but to also choose the most appropriate method for managing and overcoming the resistance (Brewer, 1996; Dennis, 1996a: 1996b; Hurst, 1991; Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979). Thus this paper will, in the first instance, focus on one article which reinforces the complex nature of issues which need to be addressed in the change process, but which also proposes a model for employee readiness in times of change. From there, the paper will link that model to proposed essential components of a learning organisation, which should promote transformational learning at both the individual and organisational levels when substantial workplace change is proposed.

Moving the focus beyond resistance.

Promoting employee readiness for change is quite a recent phenomenon. It had its origins in the work of Coch and French (1948), Lewin (1947; 1952), and Kotter and Schlesinger (1979). More recent research undertaken by Armenaskis, Harris and Mossholder (1993) proposes that Ò. . . readiness is the cognitive precursor to the behaviours of either resistance to, or support for, change effortÓ (p. 682). Further, they state that Ò. . . making an explicit distinction between readiness and resistance helps refine discussions of the implementation of change efforts and captures the spirit of the pro-active change agentÓ (p. 682).

It is suggested by Dennis (1996a) that inherent in the Armenaskis et al (1993) theoretical readiness model, is the acceptance that employee resistance is always likely to exist, so rather than focus on resistance as a problem, Armenaskis et al discuss a range of factors which they believe contribute to employee readiness to willingly participate in the change process. These factors include:

1. The change message. This is the ÒmessageÓ conveyed to employees within an organisation in preparing the climate for change. Here, Armenaskis et al. (1993) give considerable emphasis to the change (readiness) message, and suggest that it should address two issues:

a) the need for change, that is the discrepancy between the desired end state, (which must be appropriate for the organisation), and the present state: and

b) the individual and collective efficacy (i.e, the perceived ability to change) of parties affected by the change effort (p: 684).

Discrepancy conveys information about the necessity for the proposed change, and this information should be Òconsistent with relevant contextual factorsÓ (p.684) such as changing technology, market competition, current and projected political and economic conditions. The end state refers to the desired outcome of any proposed change, which aligns with the notion of transformation as proposed by Mezirow (1981; 1990) and Watkins & Marsick (1993). Here, Armenaskis et al. (1993) emphasise the need to highlight the importance of leadership vision in Òclarifying and gaining commitment to the end state against which the organisation is judging its present condition and justifying the need for changeÓ (p: 685).

While discrepancy may be a significant motivator for some employees, other possible reactions to proposed changes should not be overlooked. Armenaskis et al. (1993) highlight the research of Nadler and Tushman (1989) who suggest that awareness of the discrepancy factor by employees could result in adverse or counterproductive behaviours towards the change process, including: Òdenial, flight or withdrawalÓ (p. 685). In anticipation of potential adverse reactions to proposed changes within an organisation, Armenaskis et al. (1993) draw on the work of Bandura (1982; 1986) who focuses on the notion of employee confidence or ÒefficacyÓ which he describes as their perceived Òcapability to correct the discrepancyÓ (p: 685). Thus Armenaskis et al. suggest that in an effort to balance the change message, it should also contain efficacy building cues to enhance employee confidence in their own belief that they have the capacity to overcome the discrepancy.

2. Interpersonal and social dynamics. Here Armenaskis et al. (1993) highlight the need for the change agent to understand the distinction between, and the significance of, individual and collective readiness. They suggest that Òthrough the dynamics of social information processing, an organisationÕs collective readiness is constantly being influenced by the readiness of individuals comprising itÓ (p: 686), which once again, relates to the capacity for transformation.

Three theories based on the work of Defleur and Ball-Rokeach (1989) are then described by the authors to provide an insight into the various social dynamics which are likely to exist in the readiness building process, and these include:

(i) Individual difference theory: This suggests that the responses of individuals are likely to vary because of differing cognitive structures and Armenaskis et al. (1993) propose that this should be taken into account when preparing the change message, as each individual may react differently to the same message.

(ii) Social differentiation theory: This theory argues that responses to the influence of change will be determined by employeesÕ cultural and sub-cultural membership within their organisation, and that their membership in different groupings within the organisation (e.g. management, unions, technical/non technical staff) may result in psychological boundaries which Ò. . . affect the ease with which readiness is evenly distributed across the subcultures of the organisationÓ (p: 687).

(iii) Social relationship theory: Here it is suggested that employee responses to the influence of change will reflect the relationships that individuals may have within the organisation. In particular, the influence of opinion leaders within the cultural and sub-cultural network, for example, supervisors, or union leaders, could be a significant attitudinal and behavioural modifier in affecting individualsÕ readiness for change.

3. Influence strategies. This aspect of the readiness model requires the change agent to be able to intervene subtly in the natural flow of social information processing which is occurring between individuals within the organisation to increase their readiness for change. Drawing from a range of literature, Armenaskis et al. (1993) suggest three strategies which could influence the individualÕs capacity to understand the concept of readiness. Firstly they list persuasive communication which is the information carried in the ongoing change message relating to discrepancy and efficacy, but also includes the symbolic messages associated with the change process, such as management commitment to, and priority and urgency of, the proposed change. These messages may be in either written or oral form. Secondly the authors highlight the need to manage external information may be discreetly included (or excluded) to enhance the change message which is being used within the organisation.

Finally, through active participation opportunities are provided for employees to learn or gain information through participative involvement in activities related to readiness building. Research referred to by Armenaskis et al. (1993) suggests that the Òmessage generated through active participation is essentially self-discoveredÓ (p. 689) and that this Ò. . . is advantageous since individuals tend to place greater trust in information discovered by themselvesÓ (p. 689). Active participation may Ò. . . involve employees in activities which are rich in information pertaining to potential discrepancy and efficacy messagesÓ (p. 689).

This research highlights three forms of active participation. The first refers to the direct involvement of employees in activities closely associated with information gaining opportunities related to the discrepancy and efficacy cues of the change message. In a large Australian organisational setting, this would translate to employee participative roles in a range of situations, including working parties, joint consultative committees, quality assurance teams, single bargaining units, specific project teams, or employee representation on specific industry training councils.

The second form of active participation described by Armenaskis et al. (1993) relates to vicarious learning where they suggest that providing opportunities for employees to observe others utilising new and innovative techniques and work practices could enhance the observerÕs confidence (and readiness) to attempt and adopt the technique or practice. While this form of active participation is not a common practice beyond initial training in a structured sense in Australian organisations, it could easily be adopted as part of a mentoring strategy.

The final form of active participation relates to enactive mastery which provides opportunity for employee involvement and success in small incremental steps towards a larger desired change. These smaller success opportunities for employees can assist in generating efficacy towards the larger desired change and this would link closely to the participative roles mentioned in direct participation.

4. Readiness assessment. Here Armenaskis et al. (1993) suggest that in an effort to guide readiness building progress, it is worthwhile to monitor the process, and this can be done through such techniques as questionnaire, informal and structured interview and observation methods. While the authors refer to research which cautions that Ò. . . the change agent must respect the importance of reliability and validity issuesÓ (p.691), they also add that if the readiness assessment is effectively conducted, then it Ò. . . can reveal the need to intensify efforts, use additional strategies to create readiness, and offer insights into how readiness messages might be modifiedÓ (p. 691).

5. Change agent attributes. Whether an internal or external change agent be used, the Òeffectiveness of the influence strategies is dependent on the change agent using themÓ (Armenaskis et al., 1993, p. 690). Thus the credibility of the change agent in such attributes as knowledge and expertise, trustworthiness and sincerity will have a direct influence in building readiness within an organisation.

Although these five components are significant considerations when attempting to create employee readiness for change, Armenaskis et al. (1993) recommend that they should be structured with two further considerations,

1. The degree to which the employees are ripe or primed to commence the change process, as determined through a readiness assessment, and

2. the urgency of the change based on the amount of time available before the changes must be implemented (p. 691).

The authors believe that some proposed changes may be more extreme, and potentially more disruptive to employee and organisational harmony, thus making the urgency factor (time frame) of readiness building a vital consideration in the planning phase. They believe that by combining the readiness and urgency factors of change, various conditions can be inferred, thus planned and prepared for, to ensure the desired end state is achieved.

To summarise, Armenaskis et al, (1993) suggest that five primary and two secondary factors need to be considered in developing employee readiness for change. The primary factors include: an effective change message, incorporating both discrepancy and efficacy components; consideration of interpersonal and social dynamics within the organisation; influence strategies both within and beyond the organisation in times of change; undertaking a readiness assessment; and ensuring appropriate change agent attributes. Secondary factors which should also be considered are the level of employee ripeness for change, and the urgency or available lead time for implementing the change. However, it is noted that whilst the issues listed in the Armenaskis et al (1993) readiness model are substantial and complex and should not be understated, they are primarily issues to be considered in times of planning and preparing for change, rather than strategies which facilitate the learning and development which is necessary at both an individual and organisational level to ensure that the transformation of the organisation, ie: the successful implementation of the change, will occur. Thus to 'round out' the Armenaskis readiness model, this paper will draw on recent literature which focuses on components considered essential for the successful learning (transformative) organisation.

Building on the readiness model.

Learning has always occurred in the work environment and ". . . recurrent, lifelong education and training . . . are implicit requirements of the modern workplace (Waugh, 1996 p: 15). Since the late 1970's, a range of literature has discussed the concept of the learning organisation, which is defined by Senge (1990) as an organisation ". . . where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning how to learn" (p: 14). This definition sounds comprehensive and appears to support the idea of transformation at both individual and organisational levels (Mezirow, 1980; 1990; Watkins & Marsick, 1993), but there has been some doubt expressed as to whether the type of organisations promoted by the Senge (1990) definition commonly exist (Dennis, 1997b; Tight, 1996; Thompson & Mabey, 1994; Watkins & Marsick, 1993). These authors suggest that lack of recognition of the complex nature and provision of appropriate human resource development strategies often undermines the realisation of a learning organisation. The talk of being a learning organisation is quite different to the reality. Well intentioned strategies are often undermined by the lack of knowledge of the complex considerations and holistic approach necessary to establish such a reality.

Two recent articles have listed key components for the design of a learning organisation. The first paper by Watkins and Marsick (1993) lists what they refer to as action imperatives as the framework of a successful learning organisation. These include: creating continuous learning opportunities; the promotion of inquiry and dialogue; encouraging collaboration and team learning; the establishment of systems to capture a collective vision; and the need to connect the organisation to its environment (p: 11). The second paper written by Field (1995) proposes that there are three essential components to a learning organisation, including a well developed capacity for double loop or composite learning; an ongoing attention to learning how to learn, and finally that key areas of organisational functioning support learning. These two frameworks are similar in their directions as seen below.

Field (1995)Watkins & Marsick (1993)1. Well developed capacity for double loop learning.Promote inquiry and dialogue.Create continuous learning opportunities.Encourage collaboration and team learning.2. Ongoing attention to learning how to learn.Empower people towards a collective vision.Create continuous learning opportunities.Encourage collaboration and team learning.

3. Key areas of organisational functioning (in particular employee relations; work organisation; skill formation; and technology/information systems) support learningEstablish systems to capture and share learning. Connect the organisation to its environment.By combining the issues identified in the Armenaskis et al (1993) readiness model, with the key components listed for the development of an effective learning organisation (Field, 1995; Watkins & Marsick, 1993) a more comprehensive framework for creating employee readiness can be established to include:

* An effective change message, incorporating both discrepancy and efficacy components,

* consideration of interpersonal and social dynamics within the organisation,

* recognition of influence strategies both within and beyond the organisation in times of change,

* provision of a readiness assessment mechanism, and

* ensuring the provision of appropriate change agent attributes, coupled with

* the level of employee ripeness for change

* the urgency or available lead time for implementing the change, and including strategies which

* enhance opportunity for complex learning

* focus on learning how to learn with the goal of continuous improvement, and

* foster the development of learning and learner friendly organisational systems and structures.

Conclusion.

The recognition of resistance to change in the workplace is not new ( Coch & French, 1948; Davis, 1977; Dennis, 1996a; Hurst, 1991; Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979; Miner, 1988). In accepting that employee resistance is a component of reform in all work settings, this paper has emphasised the value of employers and managers creating employee readiness for change. The complex nature of creating readiness should not be understated. It is a task that requires substantial professional input and should not be left to chance. Whilst training and development are components of the change process, they are not an end in themselves (Watkins & Marsick 1993; Dennis, 1996a). Significant issues need to be considered in the change process (Armenaskis, et al, 1993) and it is suggested that these issues should be reinforced with strategies that promote the reality of a learning organisation (Field, 1995, Dennis, 1997a; 1997; Watkins and Marsick, 1993) to provide opportunity for successful transformation at both individual (Mezirow, 1981; 1990) and organisational levels (Watkins & Marsick, 1993). With these factors applied, it is anticipated that a climate of employee readiness is likely to prevail.

References:

Armenaskis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating readiness for organisational change. Human relations. 46 (6), 681-703.

Brewer, A. (1996). Change management: Strategies for Australian organisations. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

Coch, L., & French, J. P. R. (1948). Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relations. 1 (4), 512-532.

Davis, K. (1977). Human behaviour at work: Organisational behaviour. (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Dennis, D. (1996a). Promoting effective workplace reform through a social ecological paradigm. Ph D thesis. Faculty of Education. Newcastle University. NSW.

Dennis, D. (1996b, October). Emancipatory learning: The key to successful training outcomes in an industrial setting? In IER Conference. Newcastle University, NSW

Dennis, D. (1997a. In print). Articulating the role of the development specialist in large organisational settings. Australian and New Zealand Journal for Vocational Education Research.

Dennis, D. (1997b, November). Cross discipline studies: The key to professionalising the development specialists in large organisational settings.In 5th Annual International Conference on Post-compulsory Education and Training. Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland.

Field, L. (1995). Managing organisational learning. Melbourne: Longman.

Fisher, I. (1924). Scientific management made clear. Bulletin of the Taylor Society. 10 (1), 41-61.

Fullan, M., & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Hansen, D. A. (1976). An invitation to critical sociology. New York: Macmillan.

Hurst, B. F. (1991). Facilitating change: The key to success with information technology. Chief information officer journal. 3(4), 39-46.

Kotter, J. P., & Schlesinger, L. A. (1979, March-April). Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business Review. 57 (2), 106-114.

Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics. Human Relations. 1 (1), 5-41.

Lewin, K. (1952). Group decisions in social change. In G. E. Swason, T. M. Newcombe, & E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology. (pp 450-473). New York: Holt.

Lovat, T., & Smith, D. L. (1995). Curriculum: Action on reflection revisited. Wentworth Falls: Social Science Press.

Mezirow, (1981). A critical theory of adult learning and education. Adult Education. 32 (1), 3-24.

Mezirow, J. (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformational and emancipatory learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Milton, C. R., Entrekin, L., & Stening, B. W. (1984). Organisational behaviour in Australia. Sydney: Prentice-Hall.

Miner, W. (1988). Organisational behaviour: performance and productivity. New York: Random House.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organisation. Sydney: Random House.

Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of Scientific Management. Massachusetts: Plimpton.

Thomson, R., & Mabey. C. (1994). Developing human resources. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Tight, M. (1996). Key concepts in adult education and training. London: Routledge.

Walley, P., & Kowalski, E. (1992). The role of training in total quality implementation. Journal of European Industrial Training. 16 (3), 25-31.

Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J (1993). Sculptiing the learning organisation: Lessons in the art and science of systematic change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Waugh, D. A. (1996). Changing learning environments: The workplace in transition. Training and Development. 23 (2), 15-16.

_____________________________________________________________________

Dr Dell Dennis worked for several years as a consultant in the field of Human Resource Development and Training in a range of large organisational settings in the Northern Territory, Western Australia, the Australian Capital Territory and New South Wales. She completed her doctorate through the University of Newcastle NSW where she investigated issues associated with effective workplace change. Currently, she is lecturing in the field of Adult and Workplace Learning at Monash University.

5