View
7
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Change Managers and Stakeholder Perceptions of Their Influence on
Project Success
Shelley Elisabeth Worsley Murphy Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Commerce, Master of Public
Administration, Diploma of Organisational Change Management
Submitted in fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of
Master of Philosophy
School of Management
QUT Business School
Queensland University of Technology
2019
Change Managers and Stakeholder Perceptions of their Influence on Project Success iii
Keywords
Change management, change manager, organisational change, project management,
project success, stakeholders, stakeholder engagement, success factors.
iv Change Managers and Stakeholder Perceptions of their Influence on Project Success
Abstract
With so many projects being undertaken in the world’s organisations to
accomplish their purposes, project success is of particular interest to researchers.
Project management manages the processes used to maximise success in projects,
and minimise failures. As all projects bring and rely on change, it is not surprising
that change management is increasingly being used to manage the relational
processes involved to maximise success in projects. Authors often refer to the high
rates of project failure (Hughes, 2011). In the project management literature,
discussion has included time, cost and quality as well as critical success factors and
criteria, along with the attributes and contribution of the project manager and
beyond. In the change management literature, there is a range of explanations for
responses to change, models and theories about change, examination of who is
responsible for leading change, and recognition of an emerging role for change
managers. In overview, there appears to be no single formula for success, which
seems to be complex and contingent on a range of factors, including the perspectives
of stakeholders.
Stakeholder theory developed as an alternative to an earlier theoretical over-
emphasis on the financial relationship of the organisation with its shareholders. In
the context of projects, stakeholder theory recognises stakeholders as those that are
able to affect, or may be affected by projects, with interests and needs that change
over time and according to circumstances. The development of change management
inherently recognises the importance of stakeholders and the need to manage them
according to their interests and attributes. There is often a call for project managers
and organisational managers to understand and use change management, and there is
an emerging role of change manager, specifically focussed on change management.
This study drew on project success, stakeholder theory and change
management literature to identify limitations and opportunities for further research.
While a great deal of attention has been paid to describing and understanding the role
and influence of the project manager, relatively little work has done on clarifying the
role and contribution of organisational change managers. There has also been limited
consideration of the perspectives of multiple stakeholders on project success,
Change Managers and Stakeholder Perceptions of their Influence on Project Success v
especially where these might mesh to form a consensus on what success looks like.
There is very limited evidence of any studies considering multiple stakeholders that
include a change manager. This provided an opportunity to explore stakeholder
views of project success, and in particular to explore the concept of change
management success, as well as to contribute to the clarification of the organisational
change manager’s role and influence.
The lack of research provided the basis to plan a qualitative study regarding
project and change management success based on multi-stakeholder perspectives.
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with key stakeholders engaged in a
change project within a single organisational unit. These included the project team,
project sponsor, change manager, service delivery partners, managers, employees
and affected stakeholders, such as line management as ‘customers’ of the project, the
implementation of an organisational review, who might be expected to derive
benefits from it. Data collection and analysis was constant and comparative, with
NVivo software used to assist with coding and thematic analysis.
This study investigated how key stakeholders’ perceptions of project success
were influenced by the presence of a change manager. It provides insights into the
interactions between stakeholders within a change project and the effect of these on
the perceptions of both project success and the contribution of the change manager to
that success. Its findings assist in the identification of key stakeholder interests and
expectations, help inform the practical management of those interests, and contribute
to clarifying the skills and experience of organisational change managers. The study
identified three success factors for change managers: social skills, personal qualities,
experience and expertise. Further, the study generated six success factors for change
management: evidence-based design and execution, role clarity, planning and
scheduling, communication and engagement, support and resilience building, and
value realisation. In combination, these success factors potentially mitigate against
project failures, thereby reducing costs, rework and relationship damage.
vi Change Managers and Stakeholder Perceptions of their Influence on Project Success
Change Managers and Stakeholder Perceptions of their Influence on Project Success vii
Table of contents
Keywords .................................................................................................................... iiiAbstract ....................................................................................................................... ivList of tables ................................................................................................................ xiList of figures ............................................................................................................. xiiStatement of original authorship ............................................................................... xiiiAcknowledgements .................................................................................................... xvAbbreviations ............................................................................................................ xviChapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................. 11.1 Background to the research ............................................................................................. 11.2 Research problem and contributions ............................................................................... 21.3 Justification for the research ............................................................................................ 51.4 Methodology .................................................................................................................... 61.5 Outline of the report ....................................................................................................... 101.6 Definitions ..................................................................................................................... 111.7 Delimitations of scope and key assumptions, and their justification ............................. 131.8 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 14Chapter 2: Literature review ................................................................................... 152.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 152.2 Project success ............................................................................................................... 16
2.2.1 Time, cost and quality ........................................................................................ 162.2.2 Project success vs project management success ................................................. 162.2.3 Critical success factors ....................................................................................... 192.2.4 Critical success frameworks and stakeholders ................................................... 192.2.5 Stakeholders and complexity .............................................................................. 222.2.6 Project success – gaps and opportunities for research ........................................ 24
Theory and research gaps ............................................................................................ 24Method gaps ................................................................................................................. 25
2.3 Stakeholder theory ......................................................................................................... 252.3.1 The stakeholder concept ..................................................................................... 262.3.2 Assessing stakeholder power against the dynamism of the environment .......... 272.3.3 A stakeholder approach to strategic management .............................................. 272.3.4 Stakeholder theory types .................................................................................... 29
Normative theory ......................................................................................................... 29Instrumental theory ...................................................................................................... 30Descriptive theory ........................................................................................................ 30
2.3.5 Stakeholders and corporate social performance ................................................. 302.3.6 Stakeholders and competitive advantage ............................................................ 312.3.7 Stakeholder salience ........................................................................................... 312.3.8 Stakeholders and the social network perspective ............................................... 322.3.9 Stakeholders’ power and interest ........................................................................ 332.3.10Converging stakeholder theory ........................................................................... 33
viii Change Managers and Stakeholder Perceptions of their Influence on Project Success
2.3.11Stakeholder influence strategies ........................................................................ 332.3.12The relative importance of stakeholders ............................................................ 342.3.13The stakeholder/organisation relationship ......................................................... 342.3.14Motivating stakeholders ..................................................................................... 352.3.15Managing stakeholders ...................................................................................... 352.3.16Applying stakeholder theory to projects ............................................................ 36
Project stakeholder management – an organisational management challenge ............ 36Stakeholder mapping for projects ................................................................................ 36Differentiating stakeholder expectations ..................................................................... 37Stakeholder identification for projects ......................................................................... 37Different stakeholders, different time periods, different perceptions of success ......... 37
2.3.17Stakeholders and the present study .................................................................... 382.3.18Stakeholder theory – gaps and opportunities for research ................................. 40
2.4 Change management ..................................................................................................... 402.4.1 Approaching change .......................................................................................... 412.4.2 Change theories and models .............................................................................. 43
Causal approaches ........................................................................................................ 43Content, context, process and outcomes ...................................................................... 48Types of change ........................................................................................................... 50Practitioner models ...................................................................................................... 52
2.4.3 Key factors ......................................................................................................... 53Leadership .................................................................................................................... 53Complexity ................................................................................................................... 54Building resilience ....................................................................................................... 55
2.4.4 Change roles ....................................................................................................... 55Change agents to change managers ............................................................................. 55Professional associations ............................................................................................. 57
2.4.5 Change management – skills, knowledge and attributes ................................... 58The concept of competency ......................................................................................... 58Change management competencies ............................................................................. 58
2.4.6 Change management – gaps and opportunities for research .............................. 60Theory and research gaps ............................................................................................ 60Method gaps ................................................................................................................. 61
2.5 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 62Chapter 3: Methodology ......................................................................................... 633.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 633.2 Research philosophy and approach ............................................................................... 633.3 Research design and strategy ........................................................................................ 65
3.3.1 Case study .......................................................................................................... 663.3.2 Project setting ..................................................................................................... 673.3.3 Data collection ................................................................................................... 68
Semi-structured interviews .......................................................................................... 683.4 Interview questions ....................................................................................................... 703.5 Data analysis ................................................................................................................. 733.6 Trustworthiness ............................................................................................................. 743.7 Governance ................................................................................................................... 75
3.7.1 Ethics approval ................................................................................................... 753.7.2 Organisational access ......................................................................................... 753.7.3 Participants – sampling and management .......................................................... 763.7.4 Data management ............................................................................................... 773.7.5 Confidentiality ................................................................................................... 77
Change Managers and Stakeholder Perceptions of their Influence on Project Success ix
3.8 Limitations ..................................................................................................................... 773.9 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 78Chapter 4: Findings and analysis ............................................................................ 794.1 Introduction. ................................................................................................................... 794.2 Case study context ......................................................................................................... 794.3 Outline of the progress of the study ............................................................................... 824.4 Interview results ............................................................................................................. 86
4.4.1 Understanding the project purpose ..................................................................... 86Change through implementing review recommendations ........................................... 87Implementing structural change ................................................................................... 88Effecting cultural change ............................................................................................. 88Improving governance ................................................................................................. 88Summary of project understanding .............................................................................. 89
4.4.2 The organisation’s usual approach to change ..................................................... 89Change just happens .................................................................................................... 90Poorly considered approach ......................................................................................... 91Little involvement ........................................................................................................ 91Many unfinished changes ............................................................................................ 92Summary of the organisation’s usual approach to change .......................................... 92
4.4.3 Challenges – change management project ......................................................... 92Entrenched behaviours ................................................................................................. 93Complex organisation .................................................................................................. 94Fragmented leadership ................................................................................................. 94Minor themes ............................................................................................................... 94Summary of challenges – change management project ............................................... 95
4.4.4 Challenges – change management in general ..................................................... 95Role of the change manager ......................................................................................... 96Resourcing ................................................................................................................... 97Timing .......................................................................................................................... 97Effective engagement .................................................................................................. 97Summary of challenges – change management in general .......................................... 98
4.4.5 Perceptions of change manager influence .......................................................... 98Social skills .................................................................................................................. 99Experience and expertise ........................................................................................... 100Personal qualities ....................................................................................................... 100Organisation ............................................................................................................... 101Summary of perceptions of change manager influence ............................................. 101
4.4.6 The contribution of change management to project success ............................ 102Cultural improvement ................................................................................................ 103Embedded structural change ...................................................................................... 103Communication and engagement ............................................................................... 103Focussed change ........................................................................................................ 104Learning and development ......................................................................................... 104Summary of the contribution of change management to project success .................. 105
4.5 Additional data – Barometer survey ............................................................................ 1054.6 Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 106
4.6.1 Research question one ...................................................................................... 108Research question one – part a .................................................................................. 108Experience and expertise ........................................................................................... 110Research question one – part b .................................................................................. 111Research question one – findings and the literature .................................................. 113Research question one – summary ............................................................................. 117
4.6.2 Research question two ...................................................................................... 117Research question two – part a .................................................................................. 118
x Change Managers and Stakeholder Perceptions of their Influence on Project Success
Research question two – part b .................................................................................. 121Research question two – findings and the literature .................................................. 126Research question two – summary ............................................................................ 135
4.7 Research questions summary ...................................................................................... 1364.8 Linking to project success ........................................................................................... 1384.9 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 142Chapter 5: Discussion and conclusion .................................................................. 1435.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1435.2 Discussion and conclusions ......................................................................................... 144
5.2.1 Research question one ...................................................................................... 146The role of the change manager ................................................................................. 146Communication and engagement ............................................................................... 146
5.2.2 Research question two ..................................................................................... 146Complexity ................................................................................................................. 146Cornerstone communication ...................................................................................... 147Cultural intent ............................................................................................................ 147Coordinated complementarity .................................................................................... 147Comparative consequence ......................................................................................... 148Combining change management and project management ....................................... 148
5.3 Contribution to theory ................................................................................................. 1495.4 Contribution to practice ............................................................................................... 1515.5 Limitations .................................................................................................................. 1525.6 Further research ........................................................................................................... 1535.7 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 153Appendices ............................................................................................................... 167
Appendix A Participant interviews – base guide ....................................................... 168Appendix B Ethics approval (email) .......................................................................... 169Appendix C Approved ethics templates and forms (Participant recruitment,
information sheet, consent forms) .................................................................... 171Appendix D Enlarged figures ..................................................................................... 179
Change Managers and Stakeholder Perceptions of their Influence on Project Success xi
List of tables
Table 1.1 Research Questions ...................................................................................... 5Table 1.2 Definitions .................................................................................................. 11Table 3.1 Interview Questions and the Literature ..................................................... 71Table 4.1 Participants by Stakeholder Type .............................................................. 82Table 4.2 Summary of Interview Themes ................................................................... 84Table 4.3 Primary Themes - the Influence of Change Managers and Change
Management ................................................................................................. 85Table 4.4 Interview Themes - Understanding the Project Purpose ........................... 86Table 4.5 Interview Themes - the Organisation's Usual Approach to Change ......... 89Table 4.6 Interview Themes - Challenges - Change Management Project ................ 93Table 4.7 Interview Themes - Challenges - Change Management in General .......... 95Table 4.8 Interview Themes - Perceptions of Change Manager Influence ................ 99Table 4.9 Interview Themes - Contribution of Change Management to Project
Success ....................................................................................................... 102Table 4.10 Primary Themes - Change Manager Contribution ................................ 108Table 4.11 Research Question One - Study Findings and the Project Success
and Change Management Literature ......................................................... 114Table 4.12 Research Question Two - Study Findings and the Project Success
and Change Management Literature ......................................................... 127
xii Change Managers and Stakeholder Perceptions of their Influence on Project Success
List of figures
Figure 1.1. Summary of research methodology. .......................................................... 7Figure 1.2. Overall study approach. ............................................................................. 9Figure 1.3. Study chapters. ........................................................................................ 10Figure 4.1. Business model. ....................................................................................... 80Figure 4.2. Three themes for change manager influence. ........................................ 113Figure 4.3. Six themes for change management influence, supported by three
themes of change manager influence. ........................................................ 118Figure 4.4. Change manager influence and change management influence –
interview themes leading to primary themes. ............................................ 137Figure 4.5. Change manager and change management success factors, and
Pinto and Slevin's (1987) project success factors. ..................................... 140Figure 5.1. Combining change manager, change management and the Pinto
and Slevin (1987) project success factors. ................................................. 149
Change Managers and Stakeholder Perceptions of their Influence on Project Success xiii
Statement of original authorship
The work contained in this report has not been previously submitted for a
degree or diploma at any other higher educational institution. To the best of my
knowledge and belief, the report contains no material previously published or written
by another person, except where due reference is made.
Shelley Murphy
18 September 2019
ORCID 0000-0003-1808-1809
QUT Verified Signature
xiv Change Managers and Stakeholder Perceptions of their Influence on Project Success
Change Managers and Stakeholder Perceptions of their Influence on Project Success xv
Acknowledgements
Professional editor, Sue Nielsen, provided copyediting and proofreading
services, according to the guidelines laid out in the university-endorsed national
‘Guidelines for editing research theses’.
My sincere thanks to Associate Professor Paul Davidson, for making time to
talk to me at an event some time ago, diagnosing a latent desire to do research and
encouraging me to do some. Also I would like to thank him for periodically
reminding me I wanted to do this. I would like to express my gratitude to both my
supervisors, Associate Professors Erica French and Paul Davidson, for their
guidance, encouragement, patience and good humour.
I would also like to thank my husband, Daniel, for his love and support, often
in the form of coffee and chocolate, and random acts of helpful domesticity. I would
also like to thank my sons, Dominick and Oliver, for their love and support, for
encouraging me to get on with it, and listening to me when I found balancing work,
home and study just a bit much. To Dominick, thank you for the odd spot of proof-
reading and diagram consultation.
Thank you too to my mother, Elisabeth, for her love and understanding,
especially as I was not always as available as I would like to be. While she has
always wondered what I ‘use all this education for’, she is always gratifyingly
enthusiastic about any milestones and awards achieved.
I am grateful to the chief executive of the participating organisation for
granting me access and especially to the participants of this study for letting me into
their world. Without their generous participation and openness it would not have
been possible.
Finally, this thesis is dedicated to the memory of my father, Michael Weston,
who taught me one of my most useful academic survival skills – speed-reading – and
whose intelligence and curiosity inspired my love of reading and learning (if not
assessment).
xvi Change Managers and Stakeholder Perceptions of their Influence on Project Success
Abbreviations
Abbreviation or acronym Term in full ACMP Association of Change Management Professionals ADKAR Awareness, desire, knowledge, ability, reinforcement
(change model) CMI Change Management Institute CMBoK Change Management Body of Knowledge
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE RESEARCH
Stakeholder perceptions appear to be a crucial factor in the concept of ‘project
success’ (Charmaz, 2014; 1996; Müller & Turner, 2010; Olander & Landin, 2005).
Critical success factor frameworks now recognise project owners, sponsors and the
project manager as key stakeholders who give meaning to the concept of success
(Achterkamp & Vos, 2008; Davis, 2014).
This has led to a focus in both the project management and change
management literature on the people- and behaviour-related aspects of change, and
on the personal skills of project managers (Brière, Proulx, Flores, & Laporte, 2015),
including stakeholder management and engagement (Davis, 2014; Walley, 2013).
Because of this emphasis on stakeholder engagement and the behaviour-related
aspects of change, there is an emerging role for organisational change managers (also
referred to as change managers) who specialise in managing the engagement of, and
the effects on, people affected by change. The identification of skills and attributes
required for this role is now receiving some research attention (Crawford &
Nahmias, 2010; Hornstein, 2015; Matthias, 2015). However, organisational change
management skills and attributes are not yet well described in the literature. There is
little evidence reported of their evaluation, and little discussion of their influence on
practice or success (Hornstein, 2015; Lunenberg, 2010). Thus, the role and
contribution of the change manager still lacks the refined description that might be
expected (Crawford & Nahmias, 2010; Pollack & Algeo, 2015). The gaps in the
literature are described in some detail in Section 1.3 Justification for the Research,
and further in Chapter Two.
If project success largely relies on satisfying stakeholder needs and interests,
the question occurs as to whether the presence of a change manager and their
performance in managing organisational change processes influences stakeholder
perceptions of project success. This single-case, inductive study sought to address
this question and contribute to the clarification of the desirable skills and attributes
for change managers through multiple stakeholder analysis. Further, the study sought
2 Chapter 1: Introduction
to understand and describe stakeholder perceptions of project and change
management success and assist in the definition of success factors in order to inform
change management practice.
The justification for this research is outlined in Section 1.3 Justification for the
Research and discussed in Chapter 2. The methodology for this study is summarised
in Section 1.4 Methodology and presented in detail in Chapter Three. The data
analysis and findings are provided in Chapter Four; essentially, these are the
identification of three change manager success factors, and six change management
success factors that suggest a contributory link to established project success factors
(Pinto & Slevin, 1987). The key contributions of this study are provided in Chapter
Five.
It is concluded that personal success factors for the change manager role
combine with the success factors for change management in a way that is mutually
supportive. Based on stakeholder perceptions of success, the combination of these
factors may influence overall project success. The way in which these factors
combine bears further study. However, the conclusions drawn from this study
suggest that the interconnections between change manager success factors, change
management success factors and project success factors underscore the complexity of
change management described in the literature, and illustrate the emerging role of the
change manager as a complex and complicated undertaking. Further, this study
demonstrates the importance of change management for meeting stakeholders’
expectations and providing them with value.
Further study is warranted to gather theoretical and practical insights about
change managers, change management and project success through the exploration
of stakeholder perceptions. It is proposed that this could be pursued through
comparative case studies, within and across sectors, industries, regions or countries,
and across longer timeframes and with broad stakeholder groupings. While each case
is different, pursuing the commonalities for success, or at least what worked well,
will provide greater guidance for both researchers and practitioners.
1.2 RESEARCH PROBLEM AND CONTRIBUTIONS
The project success literature has explored a range of reasons for project failure
and the conditions and considerations for success. The discussion has progressed
Chapter 1: Introduction 3
from a focus on time, cost and quality through risk management, more complex
criteria and improved project management methods, to the more qualitative and
subjective measures of success. Amongst other factors, various researchers have
proposed a link between the selection and competency of project managers and the
success of the project (Müller & Turner, 2007) and there is a growing interest in the
relevance of the ‘soft skills’ required to deal with the people related aspects of
change, or to engage stakeholders (Brière et al., 2015; Walley, 2013). Further, a
crucial variable appears to be stakeholder perceptions of project success (Davis,
2017; Müller & Turner, 2010; Olander & Landin, 2005).
There is growing recognition that effective change management is also a
critical success factor for projects or change initiatives of any scale. This has led to a
focus on the change management elements of projects, including stakeholder
management and engagement (Davis, 2014; Walley, 2013) and consideration of who
is best placed to undertake this. Attention is turning to the skills and attributes
required for the emerging role of change managers and the development of change
management skills and attributes (Crawford & Nahmias, 2010; Hornstein, 2015;
Matthias, 2015). However, these contributing competencies are not well described in
the literature, at this stage.
To summarise the research problem, which will be described in more detail in
Chapter Two, there is some confidence that stakeholders are crucial to project
success but investigation of perceptions has tended to focus on single stakeholders or
stakeholder groups, or dyads such as project managers and project executives. In
addition, there is an increasing recognition that soft skills, leadership and other
relationship management processes are vital to project success. There are claims that
professional change managers have skills sets that enable them to contribute to these
functions (Crawford & Nahmias, 2010; Hornstein, 2015; Pollack & Algeo, 2014,
2016). As a result, there is a greater interest in change management and in change
managers whose roles would be to manage, or engage, stakeholders. However, the
literature is in the very early stages of understanding the role of the change manager.
There is also limited agreement about how project management and change
management can combine for project success (Crawford & Nahmias, 2010; Pollack
& Algeo, 2016).
4 Chapter 1: Introduction
While there has been some exploration of the role of the project manager and a
limited number of stakeholders, including a comparison of practitioner views of
project managers and change managers (Pollack & Algeo, 2015), there is limited
evidence in the literature of any study examining multiple stakeholder perceptions of
project success including the views of, or about, organisational change managers.
The purpose of this study was to explore stakeholders’ perceptions of the
influence of organisational change managers on project success through their change
management contribution. Analysis of stakeholder perspectives was expected to lead
to a comprehensive, contextual and useful understanding of both project and change
management success factors. For the needs of this study, the following operational
definitions applied:
• influence of organisational change managers – the combination of skills
and attributes demonstrated by change managers that stakeholders, and
change managers themselves, perceive as contributing to the delivery of
project, or change initiative, success
• change managers – those formally employed in change management roles
• stakeholders – the change project’s owner or sponsor and the project
managers, and similarly influential stakeholders such as senior
management and service delivery partners, and affected employees and
line managers as well as the change managers themselves.
The specific research questions are provided below in Table 1.1 and the
justification for this study is summarised in Section 1.3 Justification for the
Research.
Chapter 1: Introduction 5
Table 1.1 Research Questions
1.3 JUSTIFICATION FOR THE RESEARCH
Project success is a popular theme in the literature, because of the importance
and complexity of the project management industry (Azim et al., 2010; Rolstadås,
Tommelein, Schiefloe, & Ballard, 2014) and perceptions of high failure rates
(Hornstein, 2015). The project success literature seeks to establish how success can
be maximised and failure avoided.
The project management literature continues to explore facets of project
success. From an early focus on time, cost and quality (Belassi & Tukel, 1996) and
through various criteria and factors (Müller & Turner, 2010), the literature now
recognises the importance and range of stakeholder perspectives in assessing project
success (Davis, 2016). There is recognition in the literature that interpersonal skills,
engagement and communication are important (Fortune & White, 2006; Pinto &
Slevin, 1987). More recently, the literature has acknowledged a need for change
management (Hornstein, 2015; Pollack & Algeo, 2015). There has been considerable
Research question Sub-question 1. How are organisational change managers
influencing stakeholders’ perceptions of change project success?
a. How do organisational change managers perceive their influence on project success?
b. How do key stakeholders (such as project owners, project managers, affected employees, managers, service delivery partners) perceive the influence of organisational change managers on project success?
2. How do stakeholder perceptions of the contribution of change management inform the future assessment of project success?
a. How do organisational change managers’ perceptions of the contribution of change management inform the future assessment of project success?
b. How do the perceptions of key stakeholders (such as project owners, project managers, affected employees, managers, service delivery partners) of the contribution of change management inform the future assessment of project success?
6 Chapter 1: Introduction
discussion about what that involves, as well as who should be responsible. In the
midst of this discussion, there is now an emerging role for change managers in
organisations. However, there is little agreement about the way in which project
management and change management should work together for success (Pollack &
Algeo, 2015) and little is known about the role and contribution of change managers
(Crawford & Nahmias, 2010) to project success (Pollack & Algeo, 2016).
While stakeholders are considered crucial to success, there have been few
studies that explore multiple stakeholder perspectives (Davis, 2017, 2018), and there
is limited evidence of multi-stakeholder studies that recognise or include
organisational change managers. A research contribution toward understanding the
role, perceived value, and skills and attributes of organisational change managers and
their use of change management in achieving project success, from a range of
perspectives, is likely to prove useful. While this present study relied on established
methods, described in detail in Chapter Three, it included a broader range of
stakeholder types as participants than has traditionally been seen in the research
literature.
The outcomes of this study contribute to the understanding of shared
stakeholder perspectives and therefore the management of expectations; the value of
the role and skills of change managers; the challenges and opportunities for
collaboration between the two disciplines of project management and change
management; and the contribution of change management to project success. The
insights are useful from a practitioner and management perspective. Practitioners
might consider stakeholders’ perceptions of skills, attributes and influence more
thoroughly. Managers might consider how they prepare for, support and manage
change managers.
1.4 METHODOLOGY
The literature review, provided in Chapter Two, was completed in 2018 and
drew on the existing project success, stakeholder theory and change management
research to situate the study in the literature and identify an appropriate approach.
The full methodology is described in Chapter Three and is summarised below
(Figure 1.1).
Chapter 1: Introduction 7
Figure 1.1. Summary of research methodology.
Based on the literature review, potentially relevant stakeholders for the study
were identified as the project owner or sponsor, the project manager, other influential
stakeholders such as executives, affected employees and line managers, service
delivery partners, customers and change managers.
The study took the form of an embedded single case study, with multiple units
of analysis (participants) within a single case (Yin, 2009). The study was cross-
sectional, the research timeframe and resources made a longitudinal study unfeasible.
Case studies allow for deep, contextualised understanding (Woodside, 2010), and are
particularly appropriate for understanding a real-life phenomenon (Yin, 2009).
Single case studies are not always recommended. However, the study had a level of
novelty in seeking perspectives from multiple stakeholder types and also explored a
common situation in business, the implementation of change, which would serve as a
practical example of everyday conditions (Yin, 2018).
To provide context, the study focussed on a business unit in the public sector,
which operates in a complex and sensitive environment described briefly in Project
Setting, Chapter Three, and again under Case Study Context, in Chapter Four, where
it is illustrated in Figure 4.1. The project at the centre of the study primarily related
to cultural and structural change, with some associated business process changes.
Research philosophy and approach – subjectivist, social constructionism, interpretivism, induction
Research design and strategy – qualitative, exploratory, embedded single case design, convenience sample, cross-sectional
Data analysis – immersion and constant comparison, content and thematic analysis supported by NVIVO software and mind mapping techniques
Data collection – semi-structured interviews based on literature review
Trustworthiness – consideration of key criteria for trustworthiness
Governance – ethics approval, data management, deidentification and confidentiality
8 Chapter 1: Introduction
Apart from funding for a temporary change manager, the project was funded from
existing allocations. It ran for approximately nine months in 2018 with some actions
taken prior to the change manager commencing in April. The change manager left
the organisation in October, with some actions left to complete. Owing to the unique
nature of the business unit, the description is intentionally limited to preserve
confidentiality.
Stakeholder perceptions were explored through semi-structured interviews.
Participants were either particular, singular stakeholders for the specific project, the
implementation of an organisational review, or representatives of larger stakeholder
groups (see Table 4.1). Interviews, within case studies, are appropriate where
relatively small numbers are involved, where they are central to the study and where
extended responses are sought (Gilham, 2010). Interviews allow the researcher to
access context and are commonly used in qualitative research (Charmaz, 2014). The
concepts and gaps identified in the literature informed the development of the
interview questions (Section 3.4 Interview Questions).
Interviews were conducted between September and December 2018, close to
the formal completion of the project. The interviews were recorded and transcribed.
Thematic analysis was assisted by the use of NVIVO software. Data analysis took
the form of axial or focused coding followed by categorisation and theory building,
using an iterative process of analysis and reference to the literature (Charmaz, 2014).
The consolidated findings are discussed in the findings and analysis chapter of
the report, Chapter Four. Finally, a discussion of the contribution of this study, its
limitations and potential future research is provided in Chapter Five. An overview of
the study approach is provided in Figure 1.2. Overall study approach.
Chapter 1: Introduction 9
Figure 1.2. Overall study approach.
Identification of gaps – research and/or method Opportunities to: 1. Explore project success 2. Explore multiple stakeholder perspectives 3. Explore role and contribution of change managers and change management
Research methodology Philosophy and approach – interpretivism and induction Research strategy – embedded single case study Qualitative data collection – semi-structured interviews, field notes and memos
Research aim • To investigate the perceptions of success amongst multiple stakeholders • To investigate the influence of organisational change managers on perceptions of
success • To present recommendations to help identify and manage expectations regarding
change management through the project lifecycle; and • To identify future research opportunities resulting from the discussion and conclusions
of the research.
Research questions 1 How are organisational change managers influencing stakeholders’ perceptions of change
project success? 1.1 How do organisational change managers perceive their influence on project success? 1.2 How do stakeholders (project owners, project managers, affected employees) perceive
the influence of organisational change managers on project success? 2 How do stakeholder perceptions of the contribution of change management inform the
future assessment of project success? 2.1 How do organisational change managers’ perceptions of the contribution of change
management inform the future assessment of project success? 2.2 How do the perceptions of key stakeholders (project owners, project managers, affected
employees) of contribution of change management in inform the future assessment of project success?
Analysis Thematic analysis, use of NVIVO
Research findings and discussion Identification of common and different perceptions of stakeholders
Research contributions
Future research opportunities
Literature review Project success, stakeholder theory and change management
10 Chapter 1: Introduction
1.5 OUTLINE OF THE REPORT
Chapter One introduces the study and provides an overview of the report and
its structure. Chapter Two reviews the literature on project success, stakeholder
theory and change management, outlining the development of research in these areas
and highlighting gaps or opportunities for further study. The research questions were
developed and justified on the basis of this analysis. Chapter Three describes and
justifies the research methodology chosen for the study. Chapter Four presents the
results of the study and the analysis. Chapter Five presents the discussion, the
contributions, the limitations of the study, and areas identified for further research.
The study chapters and structure are illustrated below (Figure 1.3):
Chapter 1 Introduction
Chapter 2 Literature review
Chapter 3 Methodology
Chapter 4 Findings and
analysis
Chapter 5 Discussion and
conclusion Background to the
research
Research problem and contributions
Justification for
the research
Methodology
Outline of the report
Definitions
Delimitations
Conclusion
Introduction
Project success
Stakeholder theory
Change management
Conclusion
Introduction
Research philosophy and
approach
Research design and strategy
Interview questions
Data analysis
Trustworthiness
Governance
Limitations
Conclusion
Introduction
Case study context
Outline of the progress of the
study
Interview results
Additional data
Analysis
Research questions summary
Linking to project
success
Conclusion
Introduction
Discussion and conclusions
Contribution to
theory
Contribution to practice
Limitations
Further research
Conclusion
Figure 1.3. Study chapters.
This thesis has been set in 12 point Times New Roman font with various sized
heading styles. The report style conforms to the Queensland University of
Technology’s Requirements for Presenting Theses, and is guided by the Thesis
Presentation and Management in Word 11 and 13 document, and the numbered
thesis template guide. These guides conform to the APA 6th style. Spelling contained
within quotations conforms to the original document quoted, resulting in some
spelling inconsistencies.
Chapter 1: Introduction 11
Throughout the thesis diagrams have been used to illustrate the text. These
frequently contain arrows to indicate connections, links or a flow. These are not
intended to indicate causal relationships or any correlation.
1.6 DEFINITIONS
Definitions adopted by researchers are often not uniform, so key and
controversial terms are defined to establish positions taken in the academic research
(Perry, 2013), as follows (Table 1.2):
Table 1.2
Definitions
Term Definition Justification Project success Evaluation of projects
and /or project management based on factors and/or criteria.
Project success is typically seen as a combination of project success factors and success criteria (Müller & Turner, 2010). There is some distinction between project management success as the micro level of measurement based on traditional measures of performance, and project success as a more macro level concept, which relates to achieving the original project concept and measurement against the overall business objectives (Lim & Mohamed, 1999; Rolstadås et al., 2014) (see Chapter 2.2).
Stakeholders Individuals or groups that need to be consulted or participate in decision-making.
Stakeholder theory therefore aims to assist in the identification of individuals or groups who need to be consulted or should participate in decision-making (Bonnafous-Boucher & Rendtorff, 2016).
Stakeholder engagement/ management
A process of understanding, managing and balancing the interests and influence of stakeholders, and developing and maintaining relationships with and between stakeholders.
Stakeholder research contains two primary themes: a strategic theme relating to the management of interests and a moral theme concerned with balancing interests (Frooman, 1999; Mainardes, Alves, & Raposo, 2011). It is also concerned with relationships between the organisation and stakeholders (Friedman & Miles, 2006) as well as stakeholder needs and actions (Frooman, 1999). (See Chapter 2.3)
Project owner Responsible for the funding of the project.
Turner and Zolin (2012) describe project owners as the source of funding.
Project sponsor or executive
Senior manager who identified the need for the project and likely benefits.
Turner and Zolin (2012) describe the project sponsor as a senior manager who identified the need for a new asset and its likely benefits.
Customers The receivers of the product or services.
Turner and Zolin (2012) describe customers as those that purchase new products. In the context of this study, they would receive services.
12 Chapter 1: Introduction
Term Definition Justification Operators and users
Those that use the new products or services that result from the project.
Turner and Zolin (2012) describe operators and users as those that use new products and are concerned with usability and reliability. In the context of this study, they would be similar to customers, in that they would be receiving services.
Project manager and team
Primarily concerned with delivery of the project. Concerned with time, cost and quality as well as personal experience, reputations and relationship management.
Turner and Zolin (2012)
Senior supplier Lead contractor, with similar concerns as the project manager and team.
Turner and Zolin (2012)
Other suppliers Suppliers of services and goods to the project.
Turner and Zolin (2012)
Public Concerned for environmental and social impacts, with an interest in value for money where projects are publicly funded.
Turner and Zolin (2012)
Service delivery partners
Individuals and representatives of organisations that are provide complementary and interdependent services through the organisations premises.
In the context of the public service, this is not entirely unusual. Many public service organisations operate from the same location, which is regarded as belonging to a primary agency, and provide complementary and inter-connected services to the same clients or customers. In the context of this study, there are independent officeholders as well as representatives of government agencies.
Employees Individuals and groups of individuals employed by the organisation that will be affected by a project or change, and may have to give effect to a change in some capacity.
Kotter (1996) describes steps six and seven of his eight steps of Leading Change as including rewarding employees that participate, as well as hiring and rewarding employees that can implement the vision
Change Adaptations and transformations occurring at various levels and in various aggregations (individual, group, organisational and social), at different speeds and intensity,
Gareis (2010)
Chapter 1: Introduction 13
Term Definition Justification and as a result of a variety of drivers or circumstances.
Change management
The management of a program of change activities and interventions.
See Chapter 2.4
Change manager A person employed explicitly for the purposes of managing the change management program, whatever their organisational title.
Over time the literature has referred to change agents as ranging from managers with some responsibility for change through to persons whose primary responsibility is to manage change – a role that has emerged more recently. (Crawford & Nahmias, 2010; Stummer & Zuchi, 2010). See Chapter 2.4.
1.7 DELIMITATIONS OF SCOPE AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS, AND THEIR JUSTIFICATION
This study takes the form of a single, embedded case study and therefore faces
the limitations associated with a singular context and set of circumstances. The study
took place in a public sector organisation, with participants located in a single
workplace. The workplace was undergoing a significant cultural and business change
following a comprehensive organisational review. The level of participation in the
study was affected to some extent by the effects of the review and change process.
Participants were accepted for this study if they had a direct or indirect role
relating to the project, that is, the implementation of the accepted organisational
review recommendations. The stakeholders either held a very specific and individual
role such as change manager/project manager, project sponsor, project executive or
were members of a broader group of stakeholders such as employees, managers or
service delivery partners.
In the context of the above, the observations and conclusions of this study are
limited by the circumstances of the study. The study does not seek to fully explain
change management, the role of change managers or define project success in
generalisable terms.
14 Chapter 1: Introduction
1.8 CONCLUSION
This chapter has laid the foundation for the report. It introduced the research
problem and research issues. It also justified the current study and presented the
research questions. The methodology was briefly described and justified, and the
contents of the report were outlined. On this basis, the report proceeds with a detailed
description of the research.
Chapter 2: Literature Review 15
Chapter 2: Literature review
2.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter reviews the research into project success, stakeholder theory,
change management and the emerging role of the change manager. The research
questions developed for the study resulted from the emerging themes and gaps
identified in the literature and research methods. The chapter contains five sections:
1. Introduction: a brief overview of the chapter.
2. Project Success: this section summarises the development of the literature
from concepts of time, cost and quality through success factors to a more
recent realisation of the criticality of stakeholders.
3. Stakeholder Theory: the literature is explored for two reasons. Firstly, the
to gain an understanding of why stakeholders might be considered critical
to project success, how stakeholders are identified, and how the evolution
of the management and engagement of stakeholders might relate to the
context of the study. Secondly, the stakeholder theory review informed
the design of the study.
4. Change management: the change management literature draws from
various disciplines and presents theory types, models, practitioner
frameworks, key factors and change roles for consideration. The review
of the literature suggests change management can make a contribution to
project success, but what of the emerging role of the change manager?
5. Conclusion: this chapter concludes with the observation that there is an
opportunity to further explore the relationship between stakeholder
perceptions and project success, and to consider the potential influence of
change management, with its inherent focus on stakeholder engagement,
and the emerging change manager role, on those perceptions.
16 Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.2 PROJECT SUCCESS
The evaluation of projects, or the measurement of success, has been
comprehensively discussed in the literature (Davis, 2016). Project success has been
of particular interest to project management researchers (Pollack & Algeo, 2015,
2016) over an extended period and successive periods of discussion have broadened
the definition of success (Müller & Turner, 2010; Turner & Müller, 2005) in
response to ambiguity and complexity (Belassi & Tukel, 1996; Rolstadås et al.,
2014). From the 1960’s on, authors have been seeking and publishing factors for
success, starting with Daniel (1961), who introduced the concept in relation to what
he described as a management information crisis caused by the rate of organisational
change (Fortune & White, 2006; Rolstadås et al., 2014). With little consensus of
opinion, these factors have related to specific problems, activity and project types,
critical failure factors and comparison of factors (Fortune & White, 2006) and with
regard to context, the industry or project complexity (Rolstadås et al., 2014). The
following discussion explores the development of the concept of project success
from the 1970’s focus on time, cost and quality to recent advances.
2.2.1 Time, cost and quality
Up to the 1970’s, attention focused on the operational and management aspects
of projects, with many early studies examining the reasons for project failure based
on assumptions about time, cost and set performance criteria (Belassi & Tukel,
1996). With the focus on time, cost and quality (Müller & Turner, 2010; Turner &
Müller, 2005) came an interest in improvements in implementation and functionality,
and delivery systems (Turner & Müller, 2005). This operational focus concentrated
on the performance requirements established at the implementation stage (Davis,
2014) and what was expected to be delivered by the end of the project (Rolstadås et
al., 2014). By the 1980’s this focus led research attention on the need for planning
and effective handover (Müller & Turner, 2010; Turner & Müller, 2005).
2.2.2 Project success vs project management success
In the 1980’s the literature started to distinguish between project success and
project management success (de Wit, 1988; Munns & Bjeirmi, 1996) moving from
the operational and technical to broader concepts of success about the way a project
is managed and its overall achievements. Project management is a process of
Chapter 2: Literature Review 17
controlling a project using existing structures and resources, applying a collection of
techniques and processes, until delivery to the client (Munns & Bjeirmi, 1996). In the
longer term the project is concerned with producing overall benefits to the
organisation, and that rests with the management of the organisation (Munns &
Bjeirmi, 1996). Project management success relates to measurement against the
traditional measures of performance such as time, cost and quality or performance
objectives. From the micro level viewpoint, project management success deals with
achievements in smaller, component levels and generally on conclusion of the
project (Lim & Mohamed, 1999). By contrast, the macro viewpoint of success relates
to whether the original project concept has been achieved (Lim & Mohamed, 1999).
Therefore, project success relates to measurement against the overall business
objectives of the project (Rolstadås et al., 2014).
Timeframes are considered to play a role in determining project success.
Project success is likely to be apparent months or years after the project is finished
(Müller & Turner, 2010). Project management measures, such as time and cost, are
readily identifiable and immediate. It is easier to concentrate on these as objectives,
and more convenient as a means of determining success, than qualitative or longer-
term measures (Munns & Bjeirmi, 1996). However, the two sets of measures are
often connected; meeting a budget is a project management measure whereas
profitability is a project success measure (Munns & Bjeirmi, 1996). Munns and
Bjeirmi (1996) argue that good project management may contribute to project
success, but is unlikely to prevent failure, while poor project management
performance may not inhibit ultimate success.
Morris and Hough (1987) identified seven success factors relating to cost and
time, project objectives, attitudes and support for the project, external influences, the
role of leadership and teamwork, systems for planning, reporting and control, and
roles and responsibilities including those defined by contract (Belassi & Tukel, 1996;
Davis, 2014). By the end of the 1980’s critical success factor lists were being
developed, though early lists were intuitive rather than based on themes emerging
from previous literature (Davis, 2014).
18 Chapter 2: Literature Review
Pinto and Slevin (1987) produced a list of ten success factors which proved
seminal (Rolstadås et al., 2014):
1. Project mission: goals are clear and understood by both the relevant project
team and the broader organisation.
2. Top management support: provision of authority, direction, and support,
which influences alignment with organisational goals, the degree of
acceptance or resistance to the project, as well as the allocation of
resources.
3. Project schedule/plan: a detailed plan of the stages of implementation
specifying time schedules, milestones, human and equipment resources,
and measurement.
4. Client consultation: clients are defined as “…anyone who will ultimately
be making use of the result of the project…” (Pinto & Slevin, 1987, p. 24).
5. Personnel: concerned with establishing a project team with appropriate
skills and commitment.
6. Technical skills: possession of the necessary skills and technology to
perform tasks.
7. Client acceptance: in addition to consultation, clients must accept the
project in the final stage for it to be effective.
8. Monitoring and feedback: a project control process through which feedback
is received on the project schedule and budget, as well as the performance
of the team.
9. Communication: in addition to feedback mechanisms, the exchange of
information with clients and the organisation about goals, policies,
procedures and status.
10. Trouble-shooting: arrangements for mechanisms that enable problem
resolution but also foreseeing and preventing problems.
The first seven of these factors are considered to be on the critical path as they
have a temporal and sequential relationship, while the last three are considered to
“…occur simultaneously and in harmony with the other sequential factors” (Pinto &
Chapter 2: Literature Review 19
Slevin, 1987, p. 26). As a result of the study, work began on an instrument for
measuring stakeholder perceptions of project success that became widely cited and
generally accepted (Davis, 2017). This framework has been adopted by this study.
The results of the data analysis will be compared to this framework (see Section 4.8
Linking to Project Success) as a widely accepted model of project success.
2.2.3 Critical success factors
Critical success factors became more popular in the 1990’s (Müller & Turner,
2010; Turner & Müller, 2005). In addition to time, cost, quality, planning and
management considerations. frameworks began to take into account products and
use, benefits to the organisation and the environment (Turner & Müller, 2005).
Shenhar, Levy, and Dvir (1997) described four dimensions for success: project
efficiency, impact on customers, business and direct success, and strategic potential
(preparing for the future), and Belassi and Tukel (1996) also created a framework
which classified success factors into four groups. These groups related to: the
project, the project manager and team, the organisation and the external environment
(Rolstadås et al., 2014). This framework had a similar structure to the earlier Morris
and Hough (1987) framework (Davis, 2014). Turner (1999) also published a project
success model, similar to the earlier framework (Davis, 2014) which was based on
seven forces: context, attitude, sponsorship, definition, people, systems and
organisation.
2.2.4 Critical success frameworks and stakeholders
In the 1990’s work continued on critical success frameworks and on breaking
down the elements of project success. By the late 1990’s and 2000’s there was a
realisation that success was to some extent stakeholder dependent (Rolstadås et al.,
2014). Definitions of stakeholders were initially narrow, and studies tended to focus
on a limited number of stakeholders (Müller & Turner, 2010; Turner & Müller,
2005), such as the project manager and the project team, and how the project related
to the organisation (Davis, 2014). Critical success frameworks recognised the
importance of the interaction between the project supplier and the recipient,
customers, and senior management (Davis, 2014) as the definition of stakeholders
broadened. The list of stakeholders could also include owners, sponsors, other
suppliers and the public (Baccarini, 1999; Turner & Müller, 2005). Frameworks in
20 Chapter 2: Literature Review
this period contained overt references to stakeholder relevance (Baccarini, 1999) or
treated them as an obvious underpinning (Cooke-Davies, 2002).
Baccarini (1999) emphasised the significance of stakeholders, their differing
roles and the implications of the range of perspectives. Using the logical framework
method to define project success, Baccarini (1999) argued four levels of project
objectives could be identified which contributed to two components of success,
product success and project success. Goal and purpose are objectives related to
product success, while output and input objectives contribute to project management
success. Baccarini (1999) argues that overall project success requires significant
attention on key stakeholders, as each will have their own perceptions of success.
Satisfying all stakeholders is unrealistic and so a set of common goals or criteria
needs to be established which takes into account that project management success is
perceived during and at the conclusion of the project, while product success is related
to the duration of the product life (Baccarini, 1999).
After establishing a distinction between project success and project
management success, and a further distinction between success factors and success
criteria, Cooke-Davies (2002) argued there were three questions to answer when
considering the critical factors for successful projects: “What factors are critical to
project management success? What factors are critical to success on an individual
project? What factors lead to consistently successful projects?” Cooke-Davies (2002,
p. 185). In response to these questions, 12 factors were identified which defined three
levels of success: project management success with two sub-factors of on-time and
on-cost performance; project success; and constant project success or corporate
success (Rajablu, Marthandan, & Yusoff, 2015).
Cooke-Davies (2002) found eight factors that led to project management
success, and contributed to a significant measurable improvement in project success.
The first six correlated to on-time performance and related to risk management, risk
ownership; the maintenance of risk registers and management plans; documented
responsibilities and restrictions on project duration. The last two factors contributed
to on-cost performance through a mature scope change control process and
maintaining the integrity of the baseline for performance measurement.
Chapter 2: Literature Review 21
The second level of success, project success, related to benefits realisation,
factor nine in the model (Cooke-Davies, 2002). Cooke-Davies (2002) observed that
‘anticipated benefits’ was a ‘touchstone’ not only for formal project reviews but also
for the informal assessment of success by senior management. He advocated
bridging the divide between project management success and project success by
bringing “…into play the interests of those who established the project (the
stakeholders) and what it was that they hoped to achieve through the project (the
benefits)” (Cooke-Davies, 2002, p. 186).
Cooke-Davies (2002, p. 189) acknowledges that none of the factors are directly
concerned with human factors, but claims that the “…’people’ side of the success
factors is woven into their very fabric” given that people perform the processes and
ultimately determine the adequacy. If this is the case, it becomes necessary to
understand who the ‘people’ are; how they are engaged in the project; how they
interact both with each other and the project; and how their perceptions of the
adequacy of processes, the potential benefits, corporate management practices,
measures of performance and success, and opportunities for improvement are
influenced.
Fortune and White (2006) undertook an extensive review of the critical success
factor literature prior to 2004 and identified 27 critical success factors. Fortune and
White (2006) criticised the critical success factor approach for failing to take into
account the inter-relationships between factors and the dynamic nature of
implementation, which means that factors will have varying levels of importance
depending on the stage of implementation. To overcome this, they mapped the
critical success factors to the Formal System Model (Bignell & Fortune, 1984) which
identifies “…the components, links and other features that are necessary for
purposeful activity without failure…” (Fortune & White, 2006, p. 56). With 23 of the
27 factors directly mapped to the model, Fortune and White (2006) argued that the
Formal System Model contained within it all of the factors that are covered by the
critical success frameworks. Four of the top ten factors cited in the critical factors list
established by Fortune and White (2006) related to stakeholders: support from senior
management, good communication and feedback, user/client involvement, and
effective change management.
22 Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.2.5 Stakeholders and complexity
Given an increasing interest in stakeholders, as well as ineffective project
management, the competence and leadership style of the project manager came into
focus (Müller & Turner, 2010; Turner & Müller, 2005). Prior to 2000, these had
largely been ignored, although the broader management literature recognised
effective leadership as a success factor for organisations, and leadership style as
playing a role in improving performance (Turner & Müller, 2005). Müller and
Turner (2010) observed that leadership competencies, such as managing resources
and a strategic perspective, correlate directly with project success measures, as do
attitudes towards customers and end-user satisfaction. They suggested that emotional
intelligence and attitudes toward stakeholder-related success criteria were necessary
for long term success and that competence in managing resources was also
necessary, where stakeholder opinions could not be compromised.
By the early 2000’s the criticality of the project sponsor’s or owner’s
perspective was acknowledged (Müller & Turner, 2010; Turner & Müller, 2005;
Turner & Zolin, 2012). Turner (2004) suggested that the owner and project manager
should work in a collaborative partnership. The owner should take an interest in the
project’s performance, and the project manager should freely exercise their
judgement and provide advice on the best way to achieve the project. Further,
success criteria should be established with the stakeholders before starting the project
and at review points throughout.
As Cooke-Davies (2002, p. 189) once observed “it is fast becoming accepted
wisdom that it is people who deliver projects, not processes and system”. The range
of people identified as important has been steadily broadening. It is now accepted
wisdom that the completion of a project requires input from a variety of
stakeholders: the end-user, the client (Müller & Turner, 2010; Munns & Bjeirmi,
1996), the project team or personnel, the organisation (Munns & Bjeirmi, 1996) and
suppliers (Turner & Zolin, 2012). This understanding reflects a realisation that
projects need to be managed as behavioural systems (Belout & Gauvreau, 2004).
The various stakeholders are likely to have different needs. End-users will
consider a project successful if it satisfies their practical requirements, while the
project’s client would be primarily concerned with long term success (Munns &
Bjeirmi, 1996). The project team is responsible for the implementation of the project,
Chapter 2: Literature Review 23
and so is most concerned with resourcing, delivering and completing the project
(Munns & Bjeirmi, 1996). The organisation is concerned with the efficient use of
project resourcing and effective project management, as well as achieving a return on
the investment and overall success (Munns & Bjeirmi, 1996). In contrast to the client
and the organisation, the project team and suppliers are likely to assess the project on
completion (Munns & Bjeirmi, 1996). It can be argued that all stakeholders make
subjective judgements about the success of projects over extended timescales (Turner
& Zolin, 2012), on completion, several months after completion and years afterwards
(Turner, 2014). If that is the case, stakeholder interests and their desired benefits
(Cooke-Davies, 2002) need to be considered over multiple timeframes (Turner &
Zolin, 2012).
Increasingly, there is emphasis on establishing and communicating a
convincing project vision (Rolstadås et al., 2014) and agreeing on success criteria
with stakeholders before the project commences communication (Davis, 2014;
Turner, 2004, 2014). The effective management of people (stakeholders), will have a
significant influence on project results (Müller & Turner, 2010), since many failures
can be ascribed to social issues (Belout & Gauvreau, 2004). Noting that evaluation of
success is rarely conducted across groups of stakeholders, Turner and Zolin (2012)
developed a model for forecasting performance indicators that was based on
stakeholders’ perceptions of success after a project’s completion, demonstrating that
stakeholders may have different perceptions of both success criteria and success
dimensions, as they hold differing perceptions of the relative importance of those
criteria (Davis, 2014). While it is acknowledged that there is a broad range of
stakeholders, and that they perceive success differently, Davis (2016, p. 485) argues
that models “fail to present the view that the stakeholder perception of success can
determine a project’s outcome”.
The literature analysis undertaken by Davis (2016) suggested nine recurring
methods of measuring project success. Although most project success models are
based on theory with relatively few empirical studies, Pinto, in conjunction with
other researchers, has conducted some of the most important empirical studies into
project success factors (Belout & Gauvreau, 2004). Now the most cited method, the
diagnostic behavioural instrument by Pinto and Slevin (1987) can be used to
diagnose project errors and develop solutions (Belout & Gauvreau, 2004; Davis,
24 Chapter 2: Literature Review
2016). Regarded as a classic piece of work (Turner & Zolin, 2012) the framework
focuses on project managers, but may be applicable for examining the perspectives
of different stakeholder groups (Davis, 2016).
Examination of the other eight recurring methods of measuring project success
identified by Davis (2016) revealed links to the Pinto and Slevin framework. By
comparing the methods, Davis (2016) found two key themes pertaining to: i) the
project structure and ii) the stakeholders of the project. Project structure related to
project methodology and planning clarity, the technical performance of the project,
and organisational characteristics including the effect of the project on the
organisation, plus time, cost and quality. The stakeholder theme included: project
managers’ perceptions that executive management support was crucial; selection of
appropriately skilled personnel, client or customer specific issues; the significance of
communication; and stakeholder satisfaction.
2.2.6 Project success – gaps and opportunities for research
Theory and research gaps
Continuing perceptions of project failure suggest a need to investigate the
subject further (Davis, 2014). Müller and Turner (2007) observed that two
components of project success, which worked in combination, were agreed on in the
literature (Müller & Turner, 2010). Project success factors are inputs into the
management system that lead directly, or indirectly, to the success of the project,
while success criteria are measures by which the success or failure of the project will
be judged (Cooke-Davies, 2002). This means there are independent elements that can
be influenced to increase the potential for success, and there are measures with which
successful outcomes can assessed, and these are dependent variables. The current
study proposes to consider the inter-relationships of perceived factors, in the context
of change management, to gain some insight into the varying levels of relevance and
the importance stakeholders attribute to them.
According to (Davis, 2017), despite the increasing recognition of the variety of
stakeholders, the importance of stakeholder views and the competing nature of their
perspectives, the project management literature rarely compares multiple stakeholder
groups. Further, while studies have explored stakeholder involvement and aspects of
project success, Davis (2014) claims none have explored the combination of senior
Chapter 2: Literature Review 25
management, the project team, or ‘recipient’ stakeholder groups in one study or the
impact of their views on project success. The present literature review can find no
evidence of a multiple stakeholder study that includes these groups and change
managers.
Pollack and Algeo (2016) identified two broad areas of enquiry in the project
success factors debate. The first area of enquiry is factors that may influence the
success of particular project types or project processes. The second area of enquiry is
interpersonal factors and the influence of sponsors, leadership, project manager
personality types, and contractors. There is little evidence of research examining the
“…the relative contribution that PM makes to project success, when compared to
other associated disciplines” (Pollack & Algeo, 2016, p. 452). Apart from the
comparison by Pollack and Algeo (2016) of project managers’ and change
managers’ perceptions of their relative contributions to project success, there is very
little discussion of the change manager’s contribution to project success in the
broader literature.
This study has identified an opportunity to explore project success through
multiple stakeholder perspectives on the role of change managers.
Method gaps
While the literature now acknowledges a broad range of key and other
stakeholders, studies tend to limit their exploration of perspectives to a specific
stakeholder type or a combination of two stakeholder types such as the project
manager and the sponsor (Davis, 2014). There is, therefore, an opportunity to explore
a broader range of perspectives than is traditional, and to understand whether there is
a collective understanding of success within and across groups (Davis, 2014). This
study was designed to consider multiple stakeholder perspectives, in response to this
gap in the literature. The following section (2.3 Stakeholder Theory) explores
stakeholder theory in order to identify relevant stakeholders for the study and guide
the overall approach.
2.3 STAKEHOLDER THEORY
The project success literature highlights the need to consider and manage the
involvement of project stakeholders. However, there is an apparent lack of multiple
stakeholder studies and limited comparison of stakeholder perspectives. The
26 Chapter 2: Literature Review
following section (2.3.1 The Stakeholder Concept) turns to stakeholder theory to
understand the stakeholder concept more fully, and identify any key themes and gaps
in the literature relevant to this study and its design.
2.3.1 The stakeholder concept
Stakeholder theory focuses on organisational decision-making and power
relations, with an emphasis on explaining how stakeholders influence decision
making according to their needs, and why organisations should try to balance those
needs (Bonnafous-Boucher & Rendtorff, 2016; Mainardes et al., 2011). It
consistently reflects the principle that the organisation must take into account the
needs and influences of people, often in constituent groups, that are affected by or
can affect its operations, in order to gain and maintain their support (Aaltonen &
Kujala, 2016; Freeman, 1984). It recognises both a broader strategic environment
and interests beyond the financial and competitive (Bonnafous-Boucher & Rendtorff,
2016). Stakeholder theory therefore aims to assist in the identification of individuals
or groups who need to be consulted or should participate in decision-making
(Bonnafous-Boucher & Rendtorff, 2016). It also aims to identify their interests and
relationship to the organisation (Mainardes et al., 2011) and address the governance,
processes and outcomes of those relationships (Jones & Wicks, 1999; Simmons &
Lovegrove, 2005). It attempts to explain how stakeholders will try to influence the
organisation (Mainardes et al., 2011) as well as how an organisation functions, or
would function, in the context of the various conflicting influences (Rowley, 1997).
Stakeholder theory developed as an alternative to the orthodox theory of
corporate management which emphasised the relationship between the corporation
and shareholders and the financial interests of both (Bonnafous-Boucher &
Rendtorff, 2016). Stakeholder theory has been described as a theory of corporate
strategy, which draws from and has been picked up by researchers in economics,
sociology, political science, business and organisational development (Bonnafous-
Boucher & Rendtorff, 2016; Simmons & Lovegrove, 2005). It has also drawn from
corporate social responsibility and planning theory and the literature on both systems
and organisational theory (Mainardes et al., 2011).
The result of this broad foundation is two primary research themes: a strategic
theme focused on the management of interests by the organisation, and a moral
Chapter 2: Literature Review 27
theme concerned with balancing interests (Frooman, 1999; Mainardes et al., 2011).
Crossing those themes is research based on classifying stakeholders, considering
their legitimacy (Friedman & Miles, 2006; Phillips, 2003), as well as their needs and
their strategies for influencing outcomes (Frooman, 1999). Attention has also been
paid, to a lesser extent, to relationships between the organisation and stakeholders,
and the stakeholder perspective (Friedman & Miles, 2006).
2.3.2 Assessing stakeholder power against the dynamism of the environment
Mendelow (1981, p. 408) argued that it was “of vital importance for an
organization to determine the outputs required by its stakeholders” on the basis that it
was clear that they would “judge its effectiveness”. Mendelow (1981) constructed a
stakeholder-based environmental scanning matrix based on the dynamism of the
environment and the relative power of the stakeholder (Olander & Landin, 2005). A
stakeholder’s power rests on their ability to change situations, through control over
resources, by dictating alternatives and exerting authority and influence (Mendelow,
1981). Their power is likely to change depending on the impact the environment has
on the basis of that power. That is, whether the environment is stable or unstable,
static or dynamic. Where stakeholders sit on the matrix determines the level and
regularity of the scanning needed to stay abreast of their interests and influence
(Mendelow, 1981).
2.3.3 A stakeholder approach to strategic management
While the stakeholder concept or label existed previously (Friedman & Miles,
2006) as illustrated above, the development and popularisation of stakeholder theory
are credited to Freeman (1984). Freeman sought to describe a form of strategic
management suited to an environment of increasing competitiveness, complexity and
globalisation (Mainardes et al., 2011). It was premised on categorising and mapping
stakeholders, and identifying their interests and connection to the organisation, which
occupied a central position in a ‘hub and spoke’ style representation (Friedman &
Miles, 2006). Taking into consideration the relative power and capacity to help or
hinder the organisation, Freeman’s (1984) model suggests four generic strategies for
managing stakeholders. Offensive or exploitative approaches aimed at changing the
viewpoint of potentially cooperative but less competitive stakeholders. Defensive
strategies aimed at reducing threats from potentially competitive and less cooperative
stakeholders. Swing strategies focussed on changing the rules that govern the
28 Chapter 2: Literature Review
relationship, where the stakeholder could be highly cooperative or threatening.
Finally, hold strategies, where the stakeholder has a low potential for either
cooperation or threat (Friedman & Miles, 2006).
Freeman’s formulation of the stakeholder construct “moved (it) to the forefront
of academic attention” (Rowley, 1997, p. 887) and significantly influenced
approaches to corporate governance (Bonnafous-Boucher & Rendtorff, 2016).
Freeman’s concepts recognised the importance of individuals, and groups of
individuals with shared rights or interests, to the organisation (Mainardes et al.,
2011) and became the foundation for further theoretical development (Rajablu et al.,
2015). Freeman has contributed to this on-going development, with his position
evolving (Friedman & Miles, 2006), along with the debate.
Freeman (1984) argued that strategic decision-making in organisations should
be concerned about the interests of stakeholders (Mainardes et al., 2011), defining
stakeholders as “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the
achievement of the firm’s objectives” Freeman (1984, p. 25). This definition has
since continued to be the basis for the majority of research (Achterkamp & Vos,
2008; Mainardes et al., 2011; Rajablu et al., 2015; Rowley, 1997) and is frequently
cited (Simmons & Lovegrove, 2005).
Since Freeman (1984) described his stakeholder approach to strategic
management, the term stakeholder has become widely used, with much variation in
its application. Early development centred on defining the concept of stakeholders
and classifying stakeholders based on stakeholder relationships (Rowley, 1997). The
above definition is often used as the basis for developing narrow categories of
stakeholders for discussion, for instance identifying collaborators, voluntary and
involuntary, ranks, and levels of financial involvement (Achterkamp & Vos, 2008).
It is also highly contested (Rajablu et al., 2015; Walley, 2013).
It has been argued that stakeholder theory treats stakeholder environments
superficially and lacks operationalisation, focusing on single, independent
stakeholders (Aaltonen & Kujala, 2016) and providing a fragmentary and singular
perspective to the dyadic relationship between the organisation and stakeholders
(Aaltonen & Kujala, 2016; Bonnafous-Boucher & Rendtorff, 2016). Owing to the
uni-directional perspective of the strategy-based literature (Frooman, 1999), the
Chapter 2: Literature Review 29
relationship is usually seen from the viewpoint of either the organisation with its
stakeholders, or of the stakeholders with the organisation, and rarely between
stakeholders (Bonnafous-Boucher & Rendtorff, 2016). However, stakeholders are
likely to have relationships with each other, and so the organisation operates within a
“network of influences” (Rowley, 1997), not all of which may be mutually
compatible and conducive to clear decision-making (Mainardes et al., 2011).
Stakeholder theory has been criticised for taking a static view of the
organisational environment. Freeman’s (1984) model, and the majority of those that
followed, did not address the element of change and how to manage it (Mainardes et
al., 2011), although there is now increasing acknowledgement of the influence of
external and internal factors, and changing relationships over time (Simmons &
Lovegrove, 2005) which affect stakeholder perspectives as their assessment of
success may change subject to different factors and at different times.
2.3.4 Stakeholder theory types
Donaldson and Preston (1995) described a taxonomy of stakeholder theory
types, the normative, instrumental and descriptive (Rajablu et al., 2015), with a
broadly managerial approach (Friedman & Miles, 2006). This categorisation “lends
some structure” (Jones & Wicks, 1999, p. 207) and provides a “reassuring
framework for those willing to immerge themselves in an abundant, often iterative
and sometimes confusing literature” (Bonnafous-Boucher & Rendtorff, 2016, p. 16).
It has also led to much academic debate, including an influential discussion about the
convergence of the three theory types: normative, instrumental and descriptive
(Friedman & Miles, 2006).
Normative theory
Much of the early stakeholder literature came from the normative perspective
(Friedman & Miles, 2006; Jawahar & McLaughlin, 2001). The normative theory type
defines how organisations should operate (Jones & Wicks, 1999; Mainardes et al.,
2011) based on underlying moral principles, including the basic premise that all
stakeholders’ interests should be considered (Jawahar & McLaughlin, 2001).
According to normative theory, stakeholders have legitimate interests that managers
should take into consideration (Donaldson & Preston, 1995) and on this basis, the
30 Chapter 2: Literature Review
normative approach, which links ethics to strategy, provides stakeholders with access
to the governance of the organisation (Bonnafous-Boucher & Rendtorff, 2016).
Instrumental theory
Instrumental theory focuses on how organisational objectives might be met
through stakeholder management, regarding stakeholders as the means to
competitive advantage (Jawahar & McLaughlin, 2001; Mainardes et al., 2011).
Instrumental theorists argue that managers will increase market success or corporate
performance through stakeholder relationships based on trust and cooperation
(Jawahar & McLaughlin, 2001; Jones, 1995). Taking an instrumental perspective
allows organisations to establish more personal relationships with stakeholders and
develop a more detailed understanding of their interests. In turn, this heightens
awareness of organisational decision-making (Mainardes et al., 2011). The
instrumental perspective of the Donaldson and Preston (1995) model was picked up
by the Mitchell, Agle, and Wood (1997) research into perceptions of stakeholder
characteristics and relevance (Mainardes et al., 2011) and by Jones (1995) in
developing a theory of competitive advantage.
Descriptive theory
Descriptive stakeholder theory sets out how the organisation operates and
interacts with stakeholders, and predicts organisational behaviour (Jawahar &
McLaughlin, 2001). It is concerned with how the organisation, and its managers,
actually behave (Jones & Wicks, 1999). The descriptive approach relates to the
explanation of organisational behaviour and traits relative to stakeholders such as the
nature of the organisation, how they are managed, perceptions of them, and the value
placed on each type of stakeholder (Mainardes et al., 2011). It describes complexity,
explains conditions for growth or new organisational forms, and identifies
organisational levels of activity by taking into account the relationship between the
organisation and the environment in which it operates (Bonnafous-Boucher &
Rendtorff, 2016). Although explanatory, it can be used as a method for managing
stakeholders (Bonnafous-Boucher & Rendtorff, 2016).
2.3.5 Stakeholders and corporate social performance
Clarkson (1995) took the view that corporate social performance could be
better analysed and evaluated using a stakeholder management framework, a
Chapter 2: Literature Review 31
significant step forward in popularising stakeholder theory (Friedman & Miles,
2006). Clarkson (1995) argued the model and methodology being used varied from
the way organisations actually managed relationships with various groups. Managers
“…did not think or act in terms of the concepts of corporate social responsibilities
and responsiveness, nor of social issues and performance…” (Clarkson, 1995, p. 98).
However, they did understand stakeholder management concepts and models and
saw stakeholder issues as linked to social issues (Clarkson, 1995).
Clarkson (1995) identified two groups of stakeholders: those with formal
contractual or primary relationships to the organisation, including shareholders,
employees, clients and supplies, and those with secondary, more indirect
relationships, including the community and government (Mainardes et al., 2011).
Organisations cannot survive without primary stakeholders, whereas secondary
stakeholders are not vital for their existence (Clarkson, 1995). Clarkson (1995)
argued that primary stakeholders need to be kept satisfied, to keep them within the
system. Failure to engage them results in corporate failure and may be caused by the
inability to create or equitably distribute wealth or value.
2.3.6 Stakeholders and competitive advantage
Jones (1995) explored the instrumental perspective initially described by
Donaldson and Preston (1995), presenting a theory of competitive advantage which
he claimed was “simultaneously contingent, descriptive and empirical” (Jones, 1995,
p. 421). He observed that organisations are at the centre of a web of contracts and
argued that efficient and ethical contracting, which avoids or resolves contractual
problems with minimal cost to either the organisation or the stakeholder, will result
in competitive advantage.
2.3.7 Stakeholder salience
One approach is regarded as the dominant stakeholder classification model
(Achterkamp & Vos, 2008; Bonnafous-Boucher & Rendtorff, 2016; Kivits, 2011;
Mainardes et al., 2011; Simmons & Lovegrove, 2005). The salience model
developed by Mitchell et al. (1997) is a framework based on three factors or
attributes: power, legitimacy and urgency. It classifies stakeholders according to the
strength and combination of these characteristics (Achterkamp & Vos, 2008; Walley,
2013) and results in eight categories of stakeholders (Friedman & Miles, 2006).
32 Chapter 2: Literature Review
These range from stakeholders with all three characteristics and a high level of
salience (Achterkamp & Vos, 2008) to those with only one attribute and who may
not be influential (Walley, 2013); they are regarded as dormant, discretionary or
demanding where they have power, legitimacy or urgency respectively (Mitchell et
al., 1997).
While the salience model has been criticised for excluding stakeholders
without an economic stake in the organisation from consideration (Rajablu et al.,
2015), it is considered a pivotal contribution to stakeholder theory (Aaltonen &
Kujala, 2016). It makes recommendations about how to determine stakeholder
relevance (Mainardes et al., 2011), recognises the dynamic and changeable nature of
stakeholder characteristics (Simmons & Lovegrove, 2005) and recognises that the
attributes are subjective or socially constructed (Mainardes et al., 2011; Simmons &
Lovegrove, 2005). The model is the starting point, along with Freeman’s stakeholder
concept, for the majority of work that followed.
2.3.8 Stakeholders and the social network perspective
Arguing that moving beyond exploring dyadic relationships revealed a
“richness of structural influences” (Rowley, 1997, p. 900), this author suggested
applying social network analysis concepts to observe the characteristics and impact
of stakeholder structures, as an alternative to considering individual interests. This
approach would explain stakeholder influence and organisational responses, as well
as explaining and forecasting how organisations might operate under varying
circumstances (Mainardes et al., 2011).
Rowley (1997) proposed interest-based stakeholder groups, which allowed for
an individual to be simultaneously within more than one group (Mainardes et al.,
2011). Two concepts are central to Rowley’s (1997) analysis: density, which refers
to the network as a whole, and centrality, which refers to the relative position of an
individual actor to others within the network. Rowley (1997) observed conflicting
stakeholder interests and influences arise from weak connections, which increases
the difficulty in satisfying stakeholders. Communication becomes more efficient as
density increases, and closer ties produce shared behaviours and patterns of
exchange, which result in a tendency toward implicit coordination, a sense of the
Chapter 2: Literature Review 33
collective and consensus. Coalitions might form amongst stakeholders, and this may
also result in constraints on the organisation.
2.3.9 Stakeholders’ power and interest
Johnson and Scholes (1999) developed the power/interest matrix based on
Mendelow’s (1981) model (Olander & Landin, 2005; Rajablu et al., 2015). In place
of the dynamism aspect of the earlier model, Johnson and Scholes (1999) substituted
the level of interest stakeholder groups have in influencing the organisation’s
decision making. In combination with an assessment of their power to influence
strategies, the matrix indicates the type of relationship and approach an organisation
might develop with the stakeholder, according to the relevant quadrant of the matrix
(Johnson, Scholes, & Whittington, 2005). Similarly to Mendelow’s (1981) model,
there is an indication of the level of effort and resourcing required to address the
stakeholders’ needs in the power/interest model (Johnson et al., 2005).
2.3.10 Converging stakeholder theory
In response to what they viewed as an unnecessary divergence between social
science and business ethics in researching the stakeholder concept, Jones and Wicks
(1999) proposed a convergent theory. They argued that the combination of the
normative and instrumental approach represented a new way of thinking about doing
business, demonstrating that both morality and workability was achievable. Jones
and Wicks (1999) proposed that a convergent stakeholder theory would have a
managerial focus, providing professional managers with guidance about how
stakeholder relationships should be structured, why they should be structured in a
particular way and what the outcomes might be. The theory assumes that behaviour
is varied and variable, in its types and extent, and malleable as it depends on
circumstances and context (Jones & Wicks, 1999). Therefore while individuals may
vary, organisational culture and organisation affect the way they behave.
2.3.11 Stakeholder influence strategies
Frooman (1999) merged resource dependence theory with stakeholder theory
to develop a categorisation of stakeholder influence strategies (Aaltonen & Kujala,
2016; Rajablu et al., 2015). He claimed that this approach provided a “…structural
component to stakeholder analysis…” (Frooman, 1999, p. 192) that had been lacking
except for the social network approach presented by Rowley (1997) and the
34 Chapter 2: Literature Review
contractual relationship work undertaken by Jones (1995). Frooman’s approach
includes versions of stakeholder mapping, and matrices based on power and
influence, or interest, to determine the best tactics (Olander & Landin, 2005).
2.3.12 The relative importance of stakeholders
Jawahar and McLaughlin (2001) proposed that an organisation’s choice of
stakeholder management strategy would depend on the relative importance of that
stakeholder amongst others. The stakeholders’ importance would depend on the
organisation’s lifecycle stage and the stakeholder’s potential to meet critical needs.
Stakeholders with the ability to provide critical resources would be more significant
to managers, who would be unlikely to risk losses and would look to maximise gains.
Using the categories developed by Clarkson (1995), Jawahar and McLaughlin (2001)
suggested that managers looking to avoid losses and increase gains would be more
likely to be proactive or accommodating toward stakeholder issues. Jawahar and
McLaughlin (2001, p. 410) observed organisations are likely “…to use different
strategies with different stakeholders at a given time…” and they are also likely to
use “…different strategies with the same stakeholder over time…” according to the
lifecycle phase.
2.3.13 The stakeholder/organisation relationship
Friedman and Miles (2002) proposed a model that took into account the need
to differentiate stakeholders, analyse relationships, and explore how and why those
relationships change over time. The organisation was conceptualised as an “arena of
competing, and on occasion conflicting, multiple interests” (Mainardes et al., 2011,
p. 233) which means stakeholders hold different levels of power subject to
sustainable negotiation and agreed solutions. Friedman and Miles (2002) categorised
the relationships according to whether they were compatible or incompatible, and
necessary (integrally connected to the social structure) or contingent (external or not
integral) (Friedman & Miles, 2006). Changes in these relationships might occur at
any time and in any direction and are most likely where there is a change to
institutional support, to contingent factors, or to ideas and interests held by either
party (Friedman & Miles, 2002). Thus the relationships are situational and
influenced by the institutional structures, contracts and support.
Chapter 2: Literature Review 35
2.3.14 Motivating stakeholders
Little research attention was paid to the mobilisation of stakeholders until
Rowley and Moldoveanu (2003) considered what motivated stakeholders to take
action (Friedman & Miles, 2006; Rowley & Moldoveanu, 2003). Observing that the
research focus had been concentrated on stakeholder classification and to a lesser
extent, individual stakeholder influencing behaviour, Rowley and Moldoveanu
(2003) suggested that the extant research was based on two assumptions. Firstly, that
stakeholder motivation was based on levels of urgency or discontent, their ‘interest
intensity’, alone (Rowley & Moldoveanu, 2003, p. 204)and secondly, that they
would act to protect their interests, especially where they felt some urgency. Rowley
and Moldoveanu (2003) also argued that organisations and stakeholders do not
exhibit stable behaviour, in particular in the context of collective action. They
concluded that for stakeholders who are members of multiple stakeholder groups, the
degrees to which their interests overlap and to which they share identities were more
likely than urgency to explain their activity (Friedman & Miles, 2006). Greater
mobilisation will be seen where there is a high degree of shared interest and lower
level of shared identity across groups.
2.3.15 Managing stakeholders
Freeman, Harrison, and Wicks (2007) proposed a framework for managing for
stakeholders. The framework relies on identifying and analysing stakeholders,
developing a ‘managing for stakeholders’ mindset by incorporating ten principles
into business management, and taking an active stakeholder engagement and ethical
leadership approach. In keeping with earlier definitions, Freeman et al. (2007)
defined stakeholders as groups or individuals that may affect or be affected by an
organisation’s objectives. Stakeholders are identified using a stakeholder map in the
form of two concentric circles surrounding the organisation at the centre. As a
generic classification, they categorised stakeholders who define the business as
primary stakeholders and place them in the inner ring, closest to the organisation.
These stakeholders include employees, suppliers, customers, communities and those
that provide finance and are regarded as central to success. Secondary stakeholders,
located in the outer ring, are those that might influence the relationship between the
organisation and the primary stakeholders.
36 Chapter 2: Literature Review
Managing for stakeholders, according to Freeman et al. (2007) entails an
enterprise strategy comprised of: a clear business purpose; policies and principles
that develop and build stakeholder commitment, reasons for an on-going
relationship; recognition of societal expectations; ethical leadership and stakeholder
engagement. Freeman et al. (2007) suggest organisational managers engage with
stakeholders through direct contact, negotiation and communication.
2.3.16 Applying stakeholder theory to projects
Project stakeholder management – an organisational management challenge
Cleland (1986) made an early attempt to apply stakeholder concepts to project
management (Aaltonen & Kujala, 2016) developing a seven step approach to project
stakeholder management (Bourne & Walker, 2005; Cleland & Ireland, 2006). These
are: identifying stakeholders, in primary and secondary groupings; gathering
information on stakeholders; identifying their mission; determining their strengths
and weaknesses; predicting their behaviour, in the context of their potential impact
on the project; and implementing a stakeholder strategy (Cleland & Ireland, 2006).
Cleland (1986) saw project stakeholder management as a challenge for
organisational management. He recommended proactive and positive attitudes
toward stakeholder management to reduce the risk of adverse action and detrimental
outcomes. This means keeping stakeholder assessment on the project review agenda
by maintaining contact with stakeholders to understand their perspectives, possible
strategies, and potential responses to project decisions. The project stakeholder
management strategy will need to cope with the stakeholders’ strengths and
weaknesses and their effect on the overall project strategy, whether they support,
counter or impede successful delivery (Cleland, 1986).
Stakeholder mapping for projects
Winch and Bonke (2002) developed a stakeholder mapping technique that
identifies stakeholders as those that have an interest in the project and the solutions
to its problems. These are classified initially as internal, part of the project coalition
or funding the project, and external, those that are affected significantly by the
project. The stakeholders are further categorised into ‘for’ (proponents) and ‘against’
(opponents) positions, their problems and suggested solutions (Olander & Landin,
2005). The stakeholder map was presented as a tool to be used as a precursor for
stakeholder analysis using the power/interest matrix (Johnson & Scholes, 1999) for
Chapter 2: Literature Review 37
developing an effective stakeholder management strategy and avoiding resource
wastage and failure through lack of project definition. Winch and Bonke (2002)
acknowledged that the stakeholder map might change over time.
Differentiating stakeholder expectations
Building on the Mitchell et al. (1997) salience model, Bourne and Walker
(2006, p. 5) introduced a tool “…for measuring and visualizing stakeholder influence
on managing projects…” based on concepts of power and urgency from Mitchell et
al. (1997), and proximity, an assessment of levels of alignment with the project.
Bourne and Walker (2006) argue stakeholders need to be engaged as part of a risk
management process. The existence and use of power by stakeholders, relative to the
authority of the project manager needs to be understood, as well as the leadership of
project managers and the capacity to use the leadership potential of stakeholders for
success.
Stakeholder identification for projects
Observing that the literature has tended to focus on stakeholders in the context
of an organisation, Vos and Achterkamp (2006) developed a four-step role-based
classification model for the identification of stakeholders in the context of innovation
projects (Achterkamp & Vos, 2008; Vos & Achterkamp, 2006). Vos and
Achterkamp (2006) applied a role perspective, based on the activities of the project,
to the identification of stakeholders and combined this with a categorisation of two
types of involvement, passive and active. Having considered stakeholder
classification, identification and role designation, Vos and Achterkamp (2006) also
considered the phases of an innovation project and how and when roles would be
played. The resulting identification method involves four steps including project goal
definition and three types of brainstorming activities to identify roles, involvement
and phasing of involvement.
Different stakeholders, different time periods, different perceptions of success
Turner and Zolin (2012) acknowledged the role stakeholders’ perceptions play
in the determination of project success. Turner and Zolin (2012, p. 98) argued, “by
acknowledging the central role of the various stakeholder groups in determining
project success, we increase our understanding of the importance of stakeholder
management.” They argued that, for large projects, different stakeholders would
38 Chapter 2: Literature Review
perceive success differently over different timescales. Their perceptions are less
likely to rest on the traditional indicators of time, cost and quality, and more likely to
be based on their assessment of whether desired business objectives had been met.
These business objectives may include economic, environmental and social
objectives, as well as outcomes and impact. In their (2012) study, and based on
previous literature, Turner and Zolin identified eight types of stakeholders that would
have different approaches to determining project success over different time periods:
owner or investor, project sponsor or executive, customers, operators and users,
project manager and team, the senior supplier or lead contractor, other suppliers, and
the public.
Based on their assessment of the different timescales and different types of
stakeholders involved in large projects, and using measures previously tested by
research, Turner and Zolin (2012) developed a model that identified two project
success factor scales and seven stakeholder satisfaction scales. They “…found only
two project success factor scales: project planning and stakeholder engagement”
(Turner & Zolin, 2012, p. 96). The project planning scale measures the effectiveness
of information gathering and dissemination, and communication processes and tools,
and project control. Stakeholder engagement relates to levels of input (being engaged
in the planning), influence (opportunity to provide views on the goals) and project
knowledge.
2.3.17 Stakeholders and the present study
Determining who a stakeholder is, and who is not, depends on “concrete
analysis of the precise situation” with stakeholders usually identified as those
concerned with a project or decision, with either the ability to affect or be affected by
it, or both (Bonnafous-Boucher & Rendtorff, 2016, p. 2). On that basis, stakeholder
participants for this study were considered relevant if they had the ability to affect or
be affected by the project. Internal stakeholders or primary stakeholders (Clarkson,
1995) have a formal relationship with the organisation and are easily identified.
However, in relation to projects, those outside the project activities, such as clients,
often receive less attention than those involved directly in the project, despite being
necessary for success (Achterkamp & Vos, 2008). There may be a tendency to focus
excessively on project team members and the supply network, overlooking some
stakeholders (owing to passivity) and avoiding others (considered opponents)
Chapter 2: Literature Review 39
(Walley, 2013). External stakeholders, not formally within the project, are often
regarded as secondary stakeholders but still may affect, or be affected by, the project
(Aaltonen & Kujala, 2016; Clarkson, 1995). Even passive stakeholders need to be
considered within the context of stakeholder engagement and communication
(Achterkamp & Vos, 2008; Walley, 2013). For the purposes of this study, an
inclusive view of stakeholders was taken. If failure to discover and manage hidden or
conflicting interests may lead to project failure (Bourne & Walker, 2005) it would
also be a limitation for research.
Stakeholder classification and identification is recommended as the first step in
all project stakeholder management methodologies (Bourne & Walker, 2005;
Walley, 2013). Achterkamp and Vos (2008) suggested that a role-based classification
model may be relevant to stakeholder management in the project context. In this
instance, stakeholders were would be identified by their roles in relation to the
relevant project and business unit and the level of their ability to affect or be affected
by the project. There would be the actively involved ‘clients’ who would benefit
from the project, ‘decision makers’ who establish requirements and undertake
evaluation, and ‘designers’ who contribute their expertise and take responsibility for
delivery. There would also be the ‘passively involved’, those who are affect by the
project (Vos & Achterkamp, 2006).
Davis (2017, p. 615) observes, “there is no recorded model within the project
management literature that is stakeholder centred”. Aaltonen and Kujala (2016)
believe that project management models tend to downplay stakeholder influences,
with the project stakeholder management literature focussing on stakeholder
behaviour or strategies and project management responses, and a tendency to focus
on single stakeholders rather than broader stakeholder environments. Taking a
contingency perspective recognises that there is more than one way to manage a
project (Davis, 2017). Therefore different projects face different stakeholder
challenges, and methods of management need to be adapted to take this into account
(Aaltonen & Kujala, 2016). The tools and methods employed in stakeholder
management should reflect the context of the project, consider the stages of the
project, and the changing positions of stakeholders (Walley, 2013). This study
explored change management, in the context of project management, as a
stakeholder-centred approach.
40 Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.3.18 Stakeholder theory – gaps and opportunities for research
Stakeholder theory is frequently referred to in research, both as a subject of
research and as an explanatory theory for enquiry. For the purposes of this study, it is
accepted that organisational stakeholders are those that affect, or are affected by, the
achievement of organisational objectives. It is also considered that key stakeholders
are the most salient, and the importance of key stakeholders such as the owner and
sponsor (senior management), the project team, including the project manager and
the recipients of projects (clients and users) (Davis, 2014), which have a direct
relationship to a project, is obvious. However, there is limited research based on
multiple stakeholder perspectives in the project success literature and in the broader
stakeholder theory literature (Davis, 2017).
For today’s organisations, project success is linked to corporate success and the
stakeholder notion may give meaning to a project’s success (Achterkamp & Vos,
2008; Turner & Zolin, 2012; Walley, 2013). There is room for further work on
stakeholder perceptions of success to ensure alignment of stakeholder perceptions
and to facilitate a shared stakeholder view (Davis, 2014; Walley, 2013). Research
into how different actors, which belong to different groups, reconcile their interests is
essential (Mainardes et al., 2011). There is an opportunity for further research
focussing on aspects such as the on-going relationships, conflicts of interest between
stakeholders and management difficulties in coping with multiple objectives. There
is also an opportunity for studies that explore how to relate stakeholder management
to organisational performance (Mainardes et al., 2011).
2.4 CHANGE MANAGEMENT
Changes occur at various levels and in various combinations of individual,
group, organisational, and social changes, at different rates of speed and intensity,
and they result from a variety of circumstances (Gareis, 2010) or drivers. There is
now more change to contend with – an increasing volume or number of changes; an
increasing momentum of change; a decreasing time taken to undertake a change or
between changes; and increasing complexity (Conner, 1998, p. 38). In an
environment where the pace of technological change (Conner, 1998; Nixon, 2014),
competition (Stummer & Zuchi, 2010), and globalization is intense, change becomes
vital (Cao & McHugh, 2005). Kotter (1996, p. 3) predicted that organisations would
Chapter 2: Literature Review 41
continue the “reengineering, restrategizing, mergers, downsizing, quality efforts and
cultural renewal projects” that he observed to have proliferated over two decades
owing to the need to improve performance and meet macroeconomic challenges
(Kotter, 1996, p. 6).
However, as with projects more generally, a high failure rate is often quoted
for change initiatives (Bariff, 2013; Beer & Nohria, 2000; Cao & McHugh, 2005;
Nixon, 2014). Although this has been disputed on the basis of a lack of empirical
evidence, the ambiguity of change, context dependency, and competing perceptions
of outcomes (Hughes, 2011) it remains a pervasive view. Recent publications claim
that the rate of failure of change projects is not improving and this leads to the
conclusion that there is a continuing need to investigate and find factors that increase
the probability of successful change (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015). This section
examines theories and models concerned with change management, change
management roles and links to project management. It also identifies gaps in the
literature, which provide the research opportunity for this study.
2.4.1 Approaching change
Different types of change require different approaches (Stummer & Zuchi,
2010). Change management occurs within the context of organisations, which are
complex social systems (Gareis, 2010). Organisational change is “…a political
process that unfolds over time and takes various forms. The form taken by a change
initiative is contingent on the extent to which it diverges from the institutional status
quo…” (Battilana & Casciaro, 2012, p. 384). Organisational change management
focuses on understanding and managing the way organisations transform (Pollack,
2015). Organisational change management draws on a broad range of literature from
strategy and organisational development to human relations and communication
(Pollack & Algeo, 2016). Disciplines such as sociology, psychology, management
and engineering have all contributed to the literature on change (Al-Haddad &
Kotnour, 2015) and works by Lewin (By, 2005; Gareis, 2010), Kotter (Gareis, 2010;
Pollack, 2015), and Connor and Phillips (Pollack, 2015) have been particularly
influential in the field. The result of this wide contribution is a broad variety of
approaches (Pollack & Algeo, 2015).
42 Chapter 2: Literature Review
Jacobs, van Witteloostuijn, and Christe-Zeyse (2013) argue that the literature is
fragmented by disciplines. Applied perspectives are to be found in organisational
behaviour literature and strategic perspectives in organisational change literature.
There is a further fragmentation based on differences within disciplines and between
academic and practitioner literature. The academic literature emphasises the
theoretical and uses the term ‘model’, the general management literature tends
toward ‘frameworks’ relating to organisational change, whereas the practitioner
literature is less abstract and emphasises change management (Pollack & Algeo,
2015). Specialist change management literature stresses culture, value and social
identity and practitioners focus on the specifics of change program delivery, teams
and individuals (Pollack, 2015). Additionally, there is little consensus on how to
evaluate change processes (Jacobs et al., 2013). Evaluation of success or failure
tends to be narrow (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999).
Despite a comprehensive body of literature, change management models and
theories fail to fully frame the successful planning, implementation and management
of change (Parker, Charlton, Ribeiro, & Pathak, 2013).
The field of research about change has been hampered by the schism
between theory and practice…Organisational theorists and practice-oriented
scholars have continued to work in rather isolated worlds, examining
different aspects of change. (Battilana, Gilmartin, Sengul, Pache, &
Alexander, 2010, p. 434)
It is often observed that change-related theories and models fall short of providing a
validated framework for the predictable successful planning, implementation and
management of change (Fernandez & Rainey, 2006; Parker, Verlinden, Nussey,
Ford, & Pathak, 2013). Further, the literature overall “does not appear to be speaking
to the concerns of those engaged in the management and delivery of changes in
organizations” (Pollack, 2015, p70). While providing for the conceptualisation of
change management activity, the models often appear to be disconnected from the
practical world, reducing change to a linear process and failing to take into account
the types and levels of skills required to engage successfully in organisational change
management (Battilana et al., 2010).
Chapter 2: Literature Review 43
2.4.2 Change theories and models
Change theories and models may be categorised in a number of ways
according to their premise or focus. For example, researchers have classified them
according to content, process, context and outcomes (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999),
causality (By, 2005), types of change such as process, structure, culture and political
(Cao & McHugh, 2005), and levels of aggregation or perspective such as individual,
group and organisations (Battilana et al., 2010; Gareis, 2010) and organisational
populations or environment (Battilana et al., 2010). Some researchers and
practitioners explore key factors or considerations for effective change management
such as leadership (Battilana et al., 2010; Burke & Litwin, 1992; Graetz, 2000;
Kotter, 1996), communication (Armenakis & Harris, 2002; Walley, 2013), and the
management of resistance (Damanpour, 1991; Lewin, 1947; Thomas, Sargent, &
Hardy, 2011) and change readiness (Armenakis, Harris, & Mossholder, 1993).
Others contrast theory and practice (Hughes, 2007; Pollack, 2015), attempt to
simplify the complexity of change management (Beer & Nohria, 2000; Cao &
McHugh, 2005), explore the relationship between change management and project
management (Crawford & Nahmias, 2010; Hornstein, 2015; Pollack & Algeo, 2014,
2015, 2016), or explore roles in change management (Crawford & Nahmias, 2010;
Pollack & Algeo, 2014, 2016; Stummer & Zuchi, 2010).
For the purposes of this review, the literature has been explored using the
typologies of: causality; content, context, process, and outcomes; and types of
change, including aggregation. It also explores key factors identified in the literature,
the emerging role of change managers, and the relationship of change management
to project management in the quest for success.
Causal approaches
Three causal approaches to change management are the source of popular
models in the literature (By, 2005). These relate to planned and incremental change,
emergent change and contingency models. The planned approach is the earliest and
most dominant approach. The emergent approach features highly popular models and
the contingency approach attempts to address situational demands.
Planned and incremental change
The dominant approach reflects planned and incremental change, which
assumes change is driven from the top down (By, 2005). Models within this
44 Chapter 2: Literature Review
approach identify stages that build on Lewin’s (1947) three step model of unfreezing,
changing and refreezing. Lewin is widely regarded as the “…intellectual father of the
philosophies of OD, behavioural science, action research and planned change” (Al-
Haddad & Kotnour, 2015, p. 236). Lewin’s model originated the planned approach
(Bariff, 2013) which dominates both the literature and practice.
Lewin (1952) described three steps for change: unfreezing, a process of
deliberately stirring up emotions; changing or moving, which includes the
assessment of options; and refreezing, at a new level of group performance which
was included in the original objective. After exploring social management and group
decision-making processes, Lewin (1947), suggested that social management takes
the form of a series of steps, each of which form a cycle of planning, action and fact-
finding prior to making a decision. Lewin (1952) acknowledged the need to consider
a multitude of factors in undertaking any planned change, with each change requiring
a different and unique range of measures. It is important that the change has the
nature of a process, rather than of an object, he argued, which meant considering
formal principles.
Many variations on the planned approach have emerged since Lewin’s model.
The 1987 Lewin-Schein Three Stage Model (Schein, 1987) built on Lewin’s original
model and aimed to: persuade individuals of the rationale for change in the
unfreezing stage; enact transformation of cognitive states and behaviours during the
executing change stage; and refreeze in the final stage through support to internalize
and sustain the changes made in the second stage (Bariff, 2013). The Judson (1991)
five step method described a process of analysing and planning change,
communicating change, gaining acceptance of new behaviour, changing from the
status quo to a new state, and consolidating and institutionalizing the change (Al-
Haddad & Kotnour, 2015).
The planned approach is sometimes criticised for its reliance on sequence,
small-scale and incremental change, assumption of constant conditions and poor fit
with crises and interdependent variables. Further, there appears to be an assumption
that stakeholders will reach consensus, moving willingly and in combination, to
achieve change (By, 2005).
Chapter 2: Literature Review 45
Emergent change
The second causal approach is the emergent approach, based on how change
came about, which emphasises a continuous process of adapting to conditions (By,
2007). The approach is exemplified by the Burke and Litwin (1992) model (Bariff,
2013) and Kotter’s popular 1996 eight-step model, both described below. Kanter,
Stein, and Jick (1992), who described ten steps, and Luecke (2003), who developed
seven steps (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015; By, 2007) have also contributed.
Burke and Litwin (1992) advocated a ‘most likely’ causal model for explaining
and planning organisational change. The Burke-Litwin model attempts to integrate
implementation and change process theory, to both diagnose change needs and plan
change, and is founded on open systems theory. The model blends two sets of change
factors: transformational factors caused by interactions with both external and
internal environmental forces which require new behaviours from those affected; and
transactional factors that relate to short-term exchanges amongst groups and people.
Transformational change is strongly associated with leadership processes and culture
while transactional change is effected through management activities, systems and
structure and is more likely to affect climate, the perceptions of individuals within
the organisation.
Burke and Litwin (1992) argue that the transformational factors of their model
are the most significant and, therefore, are the primary levers for change. They
advocated the usefulness of their model “as a guide for what to look for and as a
predictor for what and how to manage large-scale organizational change…” (Burke
& Litwin, 1992, p. 541) but warned that their model should not be used to
exclusively direct the diagnosis or management of organisational change. Armenakis
and Bedeian (1999) described the model as
novel in explicitly distinguishing between transformational and transactional
factors requiring long- versus short-term attention. Thus diagnostic
feedback, organized according to useful categories, can be provided to aid
change agents and managers in understanding which factors within their
domains need attention and when. (p. 269)
Kotter’s (1996) eight step ‘Leading Change’ model is highly appealing to
practitioners and was the most cited publication on leading change or
transformational leadership between 1978 and 2012 (Hughes, 2015b). Despite this,
46 Chapter 2: Literature Review
the model has rarely been studied or evaluated in the literature (Pollack & Pollack,
2014). Overcoming resistance to change and high-quality leadership are key success
factors for Kotter’s model (Gareis, 2010). Based on his observation of how change
fails (Kotter, 1995), Kotter (1996) recommended eight sequential steps: establishing
a sense of urgency, establishing a powerful guiding coalition, creating a vision and
supporting strategies to direct the effort, communicating the vision, empowering
others to act on the vision, planning for and creating short-term wins, consolidating
improvements, and institutionalising new approaches.
The emergent models view change as largely driven from lower ranks in the
organisation, with senior managers challenged by the need to manage the response
(By, 2005). These methods take into consideration potential pitfalls, internal and
external forces that might influence the change process and adapting to these. The
models have a common focus on communication of change, establishing a vision and
gaining acceptance (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015) and a continuous cycle of
adaptation and learning (By, 2005). However, this approach has been criticised for
being overly concerned with change readiness, for being linear (Pollack & Pollack,
2014) and lacking techniques (By, 2005). That is, while they describe what needs
doing, they provide little guidance about how it should be achieved and are not
readily adaptable to specific situations (Pollack & Pollack, 2014).
Contingency approach
Finally, the third causal approach is the contingency or situational approach
advocated by Dunphy and Stace (1988) which relies on combinations of approaches
to suit circumstances and scale (By, 2007). The contingency approach argues that
“… organisational structure and performance is contingent on the situational
variables it faces…It follows that if the key variables of an organisation can be
determined, then organisational change can be effectively managed” (Cao &
McHugh, 2005, p. 478). The approach assumes an environment of constant change
and argues that in addition, there is a range of approaches to change.
The contingency approach argues that the widely preferred incremental
approach makes dangerous assumptions by suggesting that managers have the
capacity to anticipate environmental forces and market conditions; that managers are
capable, intelligent and proactive, and have effective systems for environmental
scanning; and finally that large scale change can always be successfully implemented
Chapter 2: Literature Review 47
incrementally (Dunphy & Stace, 1988). According to the contingency approach
organisations are unique with a unique set of variables, including their operation and
structure, therefore every approach will be different (By, 2005). A contingency
approach acknowledges the importance of identifying necessary conditions for
success, both internally and externally, for specific change programs in specific
organisations and specific contexts (Jacobs et al., 2013). The contingency approach
relies on an assessment of the type (incremental or transformative) and mode of
change (collaborative or coercive) and the resulting choice of four strategies
(Dunphy & Stace, 1988): participative evolution, charismatic transformation, forced
evolution, or dictatorial transformation.
According to Jacobs et al. (2013) organisational change can violate
organisational identity. Organisational changes may align, partially conflict or
diverge from organisational identities, and that reflects on how individuals (both
internally and externally to the organisation) see themselves. This means internally,
that change leaders need to act as both change agents and agents of continuity.
Externally, the perceptions of stakeholders need to be carefully considered to avoid
losing credibility where expectations are not being met. A contingency perspective
enables the analysis of both internal and external conditions that will support or
challenge change. General patterns and mechanics apply to change processes,
however the meaning of those patterns and mechanics may differ given the cultural
or identity context; therefore careful analysis of those contexts is required. Jacobs et
al. (2013) suggest that organisational change can only be understood through a
unified framework, based on an input-throughput-output model that assists with
systematically analysing constitutive elements and the way they react.
It has been argued that the contingency approach makes assumptions about the
set of underlying organisational values and beliefs as being unproblematic, it also
pays little attention to conflicting interests, beliefs and values (Cao & McHugh,
2005) although Jacobs et al (2013) have attempted to mitigate that. In general, the
approach assumes that the key stakeholder interests are in alignment, either for or
against the change, and fails to describe a situation where the interests might be
highly divergent. The contingency approach is also criticised for providing little
structure or direction, and assuming low levels of choice and influence for managers
(By, 2005).
48 Chapter 2: Literature Review
Content, context, process and outcomes
While change management models might be categorised according to
causality, Armenakis and Bedeian (1999) considered four research themes, three
related to content, context and process issues, common to all organisational efforts,
and a fourth theme centred on criterion variables, treated as outcomes in the
literature.
Content Content relates to the substance of the changes, with the research focusing on
defining success and failure factors such as organisational structures and
performance-incentive systems (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999). Content also includes
strategy and systems, and technology and work practices (Al-Haddad & Kotnour,
2015). Categorised in this theme were the Burke-Litwin (1992) model described
above and the “…Vollman (1996) model of the transformation imperative [which]
portrays the magnitude of the change process as confronted by many organisations”
(Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999, p. 296). Vollman’s model (Armenakis & Bedeian,
1999, p. 296) is based on eight facets: strategic intent, competencies, processes,
resources, outputs, strategic responses, challenges, and learning capacity. Each facet
is intended to prompt essential questions, and analysis of the context of three
organisational dimensions of culture (organisational design (configuration) and
coordination or controls), and three organisational resources (people, information
and technology) reveals the scale of the proposed change, which supports planning
change (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999).
Context The literature relating to the dependency of organisational change on context is
rigorous and robust (Hughes, 2011). Contextual issues, in the research, deal with
internal and external forces and conditions within an organisation’s environment and
how well organisations respond to changes in those contextual elements (Armenakis
& Bedeian, 1999). Al-Haddad and Kotnour (2015) observe that the
scholarly literature can be overwhelming and applying a method that is
contingent and incorporates proven successful approaches is a step in the
right direction…it is important to plan for change, and address the critical
factors that lead to successful (sic). Moreover, it is important to adopt a
structured methodological process to achieve the desired outcome. (p254)
Chapter 2: Literature Review 49
To address this, they propose an alignment, based on change enablers (knowledge
and skills, resources and commitment), between change types, identified by scale and
duration, and change methods, whether systematic methods (business reengineering
and total quality management for instance) or change management methods (ranging
from Lewin to Kotter to Lueuke) to produce desired outcomes (Al-Haddad &
Kotnour, 2015).
Process The third area of research deals with process issues and the actions undertaken
at various levels from the individual to organisational and environmental levels, to
effect change (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999). In this area, Armenakis and Bedeian
(1999) chose to describe the work of Lewin (1947), Kotter (1995), Judson (1991),
Galpin (1996) and Armenakis, Harris, and Feild (1999) all of whom described
models with multiple steps or phases for the implementation of change. After
reflecting on the models, Armenakis and Bedeian (1999) concluded there were a
number of steps for change agents to follow, which are similar to and parallel the
models of Isabella (1990) and Jaffe, Scott, and Tobe (1994), each of which describe
the stages of individual progression through change .
Outcomes A change initiative is usually regarded as successful if it achieves
predetermined objectives, most often related to cost, time and quality, although
sometimes outcomes may also be measured in terms of customer satisfaction (Al-
Haddad & Kotnour, 2015). Armenakis and Bedeian (1999) described literature that
assessed change initiatives using behavioural and affective criteria. They observed
that success and failure criteria tend toward ‘bottom-line’ criteria or outcomes, which
do not take into account employee responses to change initiatives. Drawing on a
range of studies into affective outcomes, Armenakis and Bedeian (1999) concluded
receptivity, resistance, commitment, cynicism, stress, and related personal
reactions are clearly relevant criterion variables to be considered in the
framework of planning and implementing an organisational change…such
reactions can complement bottom-line measures…in assessing the likely
success of contextual and content changes (p 307)
Based on their review of the change literature of the 1990’s, they recommended that
future studies evaluate content, context and process issues. They also recommended
50 Chapter 2: Literature Review
longitudinal and qualitative studies, including further studies into the behavioural
and attitudinal reactions of organisational members, and research into change
readiness in fields other than management may offer further insights (Armenakis &
Bedeian, 1999).
Types of change
Changes can be categorized by type, based on the form of the change such as
scale and duration (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015). Scale refers to the degree of
change required, while duration relates to the period of time the change will take.
The scale of the change indicates the level of involvement of stakeholders, the range
of alteration to processes and behaviours and the level and type of leadership
required (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015). Long-term changes are more challenging
and will require strong and consistent leadership with participation from the people,
while changes in the short-term are likely to be more successful (Al-Haddad &
Kotnour, 2015). Changes may also be categorised by the assumptions behind the
changes (Beer & Nohria, 2000) and aspects of change (Cao & McHugh, 2005).
Theory E and Theory O Beer and Nohria (2000) observed that the reason for most failures in change
management was the tendency of managers to immerse themselves in initiatives and
lose focus. While acknowledging the unique nature of every change initiative, Beer
and Nohria (2000) asserted there are two archetypes of change, Theory E based on
economic value and Theory O based on organisational capacity. Both are based on
different, and largely unconscious assumptions, held by academics and consultants,
and the managers that they advise (Beer & Nohria, 2000). Theory E strategies are the
‘hard’ approach to change linked to restructuring and downsizing, and economic
considerations (Beer & Nohria, 2000). This approach aims for a dramatic increase in
shareholder and asset value, is driven from the top and relies heavily on external
consultants (Luecke, 2003). In contrast, Theory O strategies are ‘soft’ and focus on
organisational culture and capability development (Beer & Nohria, 2000). Theory O
strategies aim to create higher performance by fostering a strong culture and capable
employees, and usually feature high levels of employee participation and flatter,
collaborative structures (Luecke, 2003). Theory E leaders are task-oriented, while
Theory O leaders are people-oriented (Battilana et al., 2010). Beer and Nohria (2000)
argue that both sets of strategies need to be combined and sequenced to avoid
Chapter 2: Literature Review 51
destabilising the organisation. Organisations need to use Theory O methods to apply
Theory E allowing them to reinforce changes, rather than drive them (Beer &
Nohria, 2000).
A systemic view
Cao and McHugh (2005, p. 487) see change as both orderly and logical, “to the
extent that it can be usefully characterised and effectively managed…and approaches
to change are seen to be logical and orderly to the extent that they can be usefully
distinguished and employed under suitable change contexts.” They argue, based on a
systemic view, that change can be categorised into four types which are
interconnected and interacting: changes in organisational processes, changes in the
organisational structure including the coordination and control of functions, changes
in organisational culture, and changes in organisational decision-making and power
distribution. Cao and McHugh (2005) proposed four approaches to change based on
these four types of change. Comparing these four approaches to their four types of
change, Cao and McHugh (2005) observed limitations in each, with their singular
focus, and concluded
any attempt to carry out change without addressing the interactions of
organisational change and organisational subsystems is likely to contribute
to the incidence of failure. Change management needs to address effectively
the diversity and interactions of different types of organisational change. (p.
478)
Cao and McHugh (2005, p. 479) argue that “…the most significant characteristic of
organisational change is diversity and interaction”, but the majority of approaches to
change are oriented toward and quite effective in addressing a specific dimension of
organisational change. Given the inability of current approaches “…to address
situations where more than one type of organisational change is present, or to
understand and manage organisational change holistically…the use of mixed
methods and methodologies is necessary” (Cao & McHugh, 2005, p. 479).
Levels of aggregation or perspective In common with others, such as Beer and Nohria (2000), Jacobs et al. (2013, p.
773) express concern about the “…debilitating fragmentation of theories of
organisational change, with widely different perspectives – sometimes
complementary, but sometimes contradictory – [which] blossom side by side in the
52 Chapter 2: Literature Review
large organisational change literature”. They used three levels of aggregation and
perspectives to describe the literature: the individual or micro perspective; groups
and organisations or meso perspective; and organisational environment and
populations of organisations level, or macro perspective. At the micro level, research
focuses on the psychological aspects of change, and usually the effect on change
recipients, and so might involve examination of attitudes, perceptions, coping
strategies and stress (Jacobs et al., 2013). The meso perspective, explores issues
relating to the organisational context, how it affects and is affected by organisational
and institutional processes. Therefore, the meso perspective examines group and
social processes and identities (Jacobs et al., 2013). Finally, the macro perspective
focuses on the organisational ecology, with research focusing on inertia, structural
reproducibility and the effects of change on competitiveness and fitness, and the
ability to survive (Jacobs et al., 2013). These levels reflect three organisational
development perspectives: individuals, group dynamics and open systems (Al-
Haddad & Kotnour, 2015). The perspective of individuals is influenced by
psychology, sociology and organisational development. Group dynamics assumes
that change has to be on a team level and focused on influencing and changing
norms, values and roles of the group members (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015). From
an open systems perspective, organisations are open to the external environment, to
internal interactions between subunits, and the influence of organisational goals and
values, technical, psychological and managerial subsystems (Al-Haddad & Kotnour,
2015).
Practitioner models
Prosci – ADKAR A popular practitioner model of change processes, which can also be mapped
to Lewin’s three stage model (Worley & Mohrman, 2014), was released by Prosci, a
change management research and practice organisation, in 2006 (Hornstein, 2015).
The ADKAR (awareness, desire, knowledge, ability, reinforcement) model, and
related certification, is based on what Prosci describes as the building blocks for
individual change (Hiatt, 2006). The model is premised on an assumption that
understanding how to manage change with a single individual is the first step toward
managing any type of organisational change (Parker, Verlinden, et al., 2013).
However, it focuses on process rather than people and “…fails to consider change to
Chapter 2: Literature Review 53
be a complex, systemic phenomenon that involves the interdependence of a
multiplicity of variables and fails to highlight the important distinction between
individual and organizational changes” (Hornstein, 2015, p. 294).
The change management body of knowledge
The Effective Change Manager – the change management body of knowledge
(CMBOK) (Change Management Institute, 2014), was developed in collaboration
between the Change Management Institute and APMG International. The CMBOK
focuses on aspects of the Change Management Institute’s Change Management
Practitioner Competency model and Organisation Management Maturity Model, and
acknowledges that the change management profession is still evolving (Change
Management Institute, 2014). Based on the CMBOK, APMG International offers
two certification courses at foundation and practitioner level (Group, 2018). The
APMG International course is more theoretical than the Prosci certification, drawing
on a range of authors, tools and models, and not specific to any method (Moore &
Cole, 2017).
2.4.3 Key factors
The change management literature also focuses on specific factors relevant to
managing change successfully, including the following: leadership, particularly for
managers and change agents; complexity; and building resilience.
Leadership
Leadership is a process of influencing and directing others to achieve common
goals and specific objectives, and of ensuring that the organisation is heading in the
right direction (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015). Models such as Beer and Nohria’s
(2000) Theory E and Theory Y, and Kotter’s (1996) eight steps of Leading Change
are aimed at providing guidance to leaders who are implementing change. Change
leadership involves the application of principles and techniques to the people aspects
of change, in order to engage, motivate and participate (Al-Haddad & Kotnour,
2015). It can be argued that leadership requires a level of conscious competence to
implement change successfully (Conner, 1998).
Following a study which examined the influence of leadership competencies in
the context of planned organisational change, Battilana et al. (2010) concluded that
organisational change is complex and multi-dimensional and argued that the
54 Chapter 2: Literature Review
literature lacked consideration of the skills needed to engage in the organisational
change management activities. Battilana et al. (2010) describe change
implementation as having three key activities: communicating, mobilizing and
evaluating. Communicating refers to communicating the need for change and largely
relates to the management of emotional states. Mobilisation relates to a political
process, creating a coalition of support and establishing organisational systems and
processes that support cooperation. Mobilising requires a people and task focus.
Finally, evaluating involves measuring the performance and assessing the
effectiveness of both effort and the extent to which changes are embedded in the
organisation. Battilana et al. (2010) concluded that both people-oriented and task-
oriented leaders would emphasise communication activities, although for different
reasons, while task-oriented leaders would be more likely to emphasise both
mobilizing and evaluating activities. They found the “…mix of leadership
competencies might lead managers to differentially emphasize the key activities of
planned organizational change implementation fuels growing appreciation that
organizational change is a nuanced and highly differentiated process” (Battilana et
al., 2010, p. 436).
Complexity
The level of change complexity is a key consideration for change management
practitioners who must consider the context and variables in order to make effective
decisions about their approach and use of tools and techniques, therefore the generic
application of management tools means they are unlikely to be suitable for all
circumstances (Hughes, 2007). Hughes (2007) argues that there is a need for a
greater understanding of the linkages between change management tools, techniques,
models, theories and concepts in order to understand their future development.
Academics question the credibility of various management tools and techniques used
in change management, as practitioners tend to promote tools in which they may
have a vested interest (Hughes, 2007). For change managers in particular, there is a
need to make informed choices, and an ability to apply relevant tools and techniques
appropriately, according to context and levels of complexity (Hughes, 2007).
Chapter 2: Literature Review 55
Building resilience
Resilience has emerged as a key feature of complex systems across a broad
range of disciplines from economics to psychology and network theory (Fiksel,
2006). There is growing interest in the resilience of organisations (Fiksel, 2006),
particularly in the face of catastrophic events or disruptions (Burnard & Bhamra,
2011). Interest in their ability to adapt to and overcome crises leads to an interest in
which capabilities they need and how they should develop them to succeed in the
context of organisational management (Burnard & Bhamra, 2011).
Resilience is the emergent property of organisational systems that relates to
the inherent and adaptive qualities and capabilities that enable an
organisations (sic) adaptive capacity during turbulent periods. The
mechanisms of organisational resilience thereby strive to improve an
organisation’s situation awareness, reduce organisational vulnerabilities to
systemic risk environments and restore efficacy following the events of a
disruption (p. 5588).
Fiksel (2006) argues that while research has emphasised the recovery aspect of
resilience, there is also a thread that emphasises adaptive capacity. Therefore, it
should be possible to “…design systems with inherent resilience by taking advantage
of fundamental properties such as diversity, efficiency, adaptability and cohesion”
(Fiksel, 2006, p. 16). Resilience can be enhanced by taking an approach that treats
change as a manageable process (Conner, 1998).
2.4.4 Change roles
Change agents to change managers
While early literature referred to change agents, later literature refers to change
owners, change managers, change agents and change teams, with no clear
differentiation (Stummer & Zuchi, 2010). Crawford and Nahmias (2010) also
observed that the literature made reference to a range of change roles, such as change
leaders, change agents, change managers, change drivers, interim managers,
organisational development consultants, as well as external consultants and internal
project leaders. Their study highlighted the need for the professional formation of
change manager roles, arguing they “…have significant application in practice, but
56 Chapter 2: Literature Review
have been subjected to little scrutiny in terms of research” (Crawford & Nahmias,
2010, p. 411). Crawford and Nahmias (2010) noted that the role definition and
support for change managers is significantly less well developed than for project
managers. The change management literature tends to focus “…more on theories and
processes of change than on the definition of roles of those involved in its
implementation…” (Crawford & Nahmias, 2010, p. 406).
Despite the lack of common definitions there appears to be agreement that
change agents are proactively engaged (Worley & Mohrman, 2014) in interacting
with employees and implementing change measures, and supporting the change
(Stummer & Zuchi, 2010). They engage in issues facing the organisation, they tailor
change interventions to operate within the culture of the organisation, align with
strategy and orient their activities to be relevant to stakeholders, and they learn from
experience (Worley & Mohrman, 2014). The effectiveness of change “…strategies
depends on the expertise, trustworthiness, credibility and sincerity of the change
agent” (By, 2007, p. 6), though Thomas et al. (2011) caution against making the
change agent solely responsible for the success of the change implementation.
The literature indicates that it is the people aspect of projects that is the
primary cause of complexity (Azim et al., 2010), and that the management of
organisational change is becoming a highly required managerial skill (By, 2005).
Worley and Mohrman (2014) predict
Specialized change management roles will shift the planning and managing
of change to helping organization leaders build change capabilities,
providing deep knowledge and guidance about the elements of the engage
and learn activities, and creating connections for sharing and learning. (p.
221)
Organisational change managers come from a variety of disciplines. However,
recognition of the specialist change manager appears to be growing and gaining
market acceptance (Pollack & Algeo, 2016).
Change managers will need to be able to identify key drivers in a new context
(Pollack & Algeo, 2015), effectively use targeted communication (Matthias, 2015;
Pollack & Algeo, 2015; Stummer & Zuchi, 2010), accumulate diagnostic models and
make informed choices about management tools and techniques (Hughes, 2007).
They also need to be connected, or networked, as well as able to exercise judgment,
Chapter 2: Literature Review 57
as change implementation involves decisions about who needs to be involved, when
and in which sequence (Battilana & Casciaro, 2012). Change agents must be able to
influence the adoption of new practices and new norms within their organisational
environment, and their ability to do this can be affected by their position within the
organisational structure (Battilana & Casciaro, 2012).
Professional associations
While there are well-established roles and professional bodies for project
management, the professional bodies for change management are less established.
The Change Management Institute (CMI) was formed in 2005 (Crawford &
Nahmias, 2010) and the Association of Change Management Professionals (ACMP)
was incorporated in 2011 (Association of Change Management Professionals, 2017).
Both provide support to change management practitioners (Pollack & Algeo, 2016)
and have published guidance about standards and competencies. The ACMP
published a code of conduct in 2011, a standard for change management in 2014, a
qualified education provider program in 2014 and registered an industry recognised
certification in 2016 (Association of Change Management Professionals, 2017). The
CMI published a change management practitioner competency model in 2008 and a
book of knowledge in 2014, and provides three tiers of accreditation (Change
Management Institute, 2017a). Both organisations are linked to the Prosci
methodology through endorsement of training (Change Management Institute,
2017b) or by association, as the company was involved in establishing the
organisation (Association of Change Management Professionals, 2017).
Despite the development of practitioner-based standards and training, there has
been limited exploration of the skills and attributes of change managers in the
academic literature. Pollack and Algeo (2016) observed that professional
associations, such as the Change Management Institute and Association of Change
Management Professionals support change managers. However, it can be argued that
there are “no commonly agreed-on dominant guides to change management, and…
specialist industry associations are only a recent development” (Pollack & Algeo,
2014, p. 37).
58 Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.4.5 Change management – skills, knowledge and attributes
There are synergies between the literature on project success, stakeholder
theory and change management. The converging gaps in these fields provide an
opportunity for this study to explore the contribution of change managers to project
success from the perspective of multiple stakeholders. This exploration will
necessarily encompass consideration of the skills and attributes of change managers
and their job performance, therefore competency theory has something to contribute
to the foundation of this study.
The concept of competency
In 1973 McClelland first proposed competencies as being a critical
differentiator of performance (Spencer & Spencer, 1993). Competency theory is
based on the assumption that a combination of related but different sets of
behaviours are organised around an underlying construct or ‘the intent’ which are
demonstrated for specific reasons or to achieve particular ends. The demonstration of
competencies is affected by organisational climate factors, and maximum
performance is believed to occur when capability or talent is consistent with the job
demands and the organisational environment (Boyatzis, 2008). Three groups of
competencies are said to distinguish outstanding performance: cognitive
competencies, emotional intelligence and social intelligence. These are supported by
three threshold behavioural habits: expertise and experience, knowledge, and basic
cognitive competencies (Boyatzis, 2011). Competency is inferred from the
performance of activities and tasks, and is not directly observable (Gonczi, 2013).
Change management competencies
From 2005 to 2010 there was a significant increase in the number of studies
into project management competencies (Turner & Müller, 2005) with industry-based
competency standards for project management established by 2005 (Young &
Conboy, 2013). Discussion in this context about project leadership and social
competence and their relationship to success reflects a growing interest in change
management skills, and a focus on psycho-social management, which are now
considered necessary for projects (Müller & Turner, 2010). However, Hornstein
(2015) maintains that awareness of the impact of organisational change management
on project success is only recent, with very few studies reporting on the postulated
relationship.
Chapter 2: Literature Review 59
While there are many research reports on change management, there is little
clarity in the literature about the specific competencies involved and their influence
on its practice. One noteworthy study by Crawford and Nahmias (2010) undertook a
comparative analysis of the roles and competencies for project managers, program
managers and change managers. They found that while the roles of project managers
were well understood and defined, there was little consensus about the role and
competencies for change managers. Crawford and Nahmias (2010) recommended
that the questions of role clarification and competency be pursued. Other studies
support this (Lunenberg, 2010; Matthias, 2015; Stummer & Zuchi, 2010), reflecting
on the absence of evaluation of competency standards and their influence on
practice, and on the need for more explicit definition. Despite this, it has been
observed that competent change managers are a decisive factor for successful change
(Matthias, 2015).
The current ambiguity in the literature about organisational change
management competencies, their evaluation and their contribution presents an
invitation to investigate them further. Crawford and Nahmias (2010) developed a
framework to guide decisions about engaging project managers and change
managers. While acknowledging the limits of their study, they argued that to
successfully implement change it was necessary to be able to demonstrate leadership,
stakeholder management, planning, team selection and team development,
communication, decision-making and problem solving, and cultural awareness and
skills. Further, individuals should be able to undertake the following activities:
changing behaviours and organisational culture to achieve goals; preparing of users;
planning or designing organisational structure; political diffusion; impact analysis;
selling the change and champion schemes. Battilana and Casciaro (2012) argued that
the selection of change agents might be influenced by personality traits, including
their ability to use informal channels of influence, and by the nature of the structural
positions they have held over time.
Pollack and Algeo (2016) compared the perspectives of project managers and
change managers on their relative contribution to project success. The study found
the disciplines perceived aspects of projects very differently. Both disciplines ranked
their contribution to communication and stakeholder engagement significantly above
that of the other discipline, a potential issue for change managers who would see this
60 Chapter 2: Literature Review
as their field of operation. Among the factors or risks most clearly identified for
change management to address were: ensuring organisational alignment, reconciling
viewpoints, communication, environmental alignment, technology impact, user and
client involvement, politics and training (Pollack & Algeo, 2016). The study found
six factors for which each group claimed the greater influence but approached in
different ways. For instance, a project manager saw sponsor involvement as a role in
the project process, while a change manager developed the sponsor’s personal
commitment. Similarly, the change management perspective of senior management
support, teams, objective clarity, completion and review, and management of
complexity was largely conscious of the interpersonal, capability building and
facilitative aspects. By contrast, project managers focussed on process, roles,
resources and clearly defined objectives. Pollack and Algeo (2014) suggest that in
the future the development of the purpose and benefits of change management, as
well as a formalised role for change managers, should be the focus.
2.4.6 Change management – gaps and opportunities for research
Theory and research gaps
The change management literature provides a range of explanations for and
about change. The development of change management naturally recognises the
relevance of stakeholders and the need to engage them according to their attributes,
interest and influence. There are multiple models and frameworks for addressing
responses to change and for managing these at the individual, team and
organisational level. Increasingly the literature recognises that change is complex
and iterative, and that there is not a single or simple answer or formula to follow. If
the models do not adequately describe success in change management, it is possible
that other factors that do contribute to success have not yet been sufficiently
described. There has been extensive discussion of the contribution of project
management and project managers to project success and attention is turning to
change management competence and its contribution to success (Pollack & Algeo,
2015).
Although project management and change management, in combination, are
identified as potentially effective, there is little agreement about how the two
disciplines could work together for successful project outcomes (Pollack & Algeo,
2016). While there has been a call for line managers and leaders, and project
Chapter 2: Literature Review 61
managers and project teams, to understand and use change management, there is a
also a realisation that they may not have the capacity, capability or perhaps the
confidence to do so (Hornstein, 2015).
Owing to the shift in emphasis in both the project management and change
management literature and in practice toward the people and behaviour related
aspects of change, there is an emerging role for organisational change managers.
There are practitioner attempts to establish competency models, and growth in
practitioner certifications and accreditation and academic qualifications with a
change management focus. However, as Crawford and Nahmias (2010) observed in
their effort to identify potential areas of contribution, the skills and attributes of
organisational change managers are not well described in the literature, and neither is
their contribution to project success. Therefore, there is an opportunity to explore this
gap; to explore the role of a change manager and change management within an
organisational context to gain an understanding of change management in action.
Method gaps
As observed earlier, there are limited multi-stakeholder studies relating to
project success. Crawford and Nahmias (2010) identified potential areas of change
managers’ contribution, and Pollack and Algeo (2016) examined project manager
and change manager perceptions of their own and each others’ influence on project
success. However there is limited evidence of further consideration of the
contribution of change managers to project success, especially in the context of
multiple stakeholders.
In considering the complexity of change management, Pollack (2015) came to
the view that stakeholder analysis case studies provided a useful vehicle for change
management research, which would produce generalisable and verifiable
propositions. Therefore this study sought to explore the influence of formally
employed change managers on project success, by identifying and clarifying relevant
capabilities and attributes and evaluating their contribution to success through
stakeholder analysis.
62 Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.5 CONCLUSION
Over time, the project success literature has identified project success factors
and criteria, inputs that lead directly or indirectly to success and measures by which
judgements will be made about success and failure. However, perceptions of failure
persist and the literature continues to search for answers to managing project
variability, ambiguity and complexity. The discussion has ranged from early
concerns for time, cost and quality to consideration of stakeholder perceptions. It is
this latter aspect of project success that is of interest to this study.
There is an opportunity to further explore the relationship between stakeholder
perceptions and project success. Despite the increasing recognition of the range,
relevance and competing nature of their perspectives, there are few studies that
compare the views of multiple stakeholder types. Recognition of stakeholder
relevance is inherent in the change management literature. Stakeholder theory and
change management theory both take into account the needs and influences of
individuals and groups of people in the organisational decision-making process.
Stakeholder theory assists with the identification and analysis of stakeholders while
change management seeks to manage relationships with stakeholders within a
complex social system.
The change management literature has yet to reconcile the gap between theory
and practice. Yet there is an emerging change management role that is primarily
aimed at engaging stakeholders and facilitating success. The role is not well
described in the literature despite practitioner competency models, and this too
presents a gap for exploration. With the search for success factors and criteria
continuing, with stakeholders acknowledged as critical, and the change manager role
seen as potentially important but not quite understood, there are two questions to be
explored. How do change managers influence stakeholders’ perceptions of project
success? How do those perceptions inform the future assessment of project success?
Chapter 3: Methodology 63
Chapter 3: Methodology
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This study was designed to explore the following research questions, arising
from the gaps identified in Chapter 2, Literature Review:
1. How are organisational change managers influencing stakeholders’
perceptions of change project success?
a) How do organisational change managers perceive their influence on
project success?
b) How do key stakeholders (such as project owners, project managers,
affected employees, managers, service delivery partners) perceive the
influence of organisational change managers on project success?
2) How do stakeholder perceptions of the contribution of change management
inform the future assessment of project success?
a) How do organisational change managers’ perceptions of the contribution
of change management inform the future assessment of project success?
b) How do the perceptions of key stakeholders (such as project owners,
project managers, affected employees, managers, service delivery
partners) of the contribution of change management inform the future
assessment of project success?
The structure of this chapter is based on the ‘research process onion’ (Saunders,
2016), establishing the philosophy, approach, strategy, time horizon and data
collection methods being used, in order to explain and justify the structure of the
study. This chapter will also discuss the issues of research quality and research
procedures.
3.2 RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY AND APPROACH
The research questions necessitate consideration of the underpinning research
philosophy and approach, the epistemological and ontological position. Crotty
(1998) refers to the importance of understanding the underpinning ‘theoretical
64 Chapter 3: Methodology
perspective’ of research. Epistemology is “concerned with the theory of knowledge”
(Willig, 2013, p. 4). The epistemological position adopted for research has an effect
on the way knowledge and beliefs are approached (Southerland, Sinatar, & Matthew,
2001). From an epistemological point of view, this study took a subjectivist position.
With a focus on stakeholder perspectives, the study was necessarily interested in
opinions, stories and narratives, in context, attributed meanings and interpretation
(Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009). Furthermore, understanding stakeholder
perspectives is concerned with the social construction of knowledge (Willig, 2013).
In the context of a change project the aim is to understand (Saunders et al., 2009)
how the stakeholders, or participants, talk about their experiences of change
generally and the project in particular.
The research leant toward social constructionism, assuming that people act as a
consequence of their perceptions and may create partially shared meaning through
their interactions (Saunders, 2016). In its more moderate form, social
constructionism attempts to link more specific reality to the broader context (Willig,
2013). This is evident in the research design, which explored individual and group
stakeholder perspectives with the objective of finding both difference and
commonality. The study focused on complexity, interpretations and the making of
meaning, and it required the researcher to approach the project with empathy in order
to understand the participants’ view (Saunders, 2016). However, the participants
view cannot be separated from what they might have been doing in the context of
providing their account (Willig, 2013). That is, the social constructionism view
would assume the stakeholder has a position of his or her own to pursue or protect
that influences their responses. The aim is to understand their reality as they have
constructed it.
The ontological position of this study is subjectivist and interpretivist. Firstly,
it assumes that reality is decided by convention or is socially constructed through
culture and language, and that there can be multiple realities and interpretations
(Saunders et al., 2009). Secondly, the purpose of the research was to understand the
perspectives of different groups of stakeholders and to understand the commonalities
of their experiences as well as their differences, an interpretivist approach (Saunders,
2016).
Chapter 3: Methodology 65
Given the epistemological and ontological positions outlined above, this study
used an inductive approach. Inductive approaches to theory development explore
phenomena through data and seek to develop an explanation. Inductive approaches
are also concerned with the context of the phenomenon (Saunders, 2016). Small
samples, in-depth investigations (Saunders et al., 2009) and qualitative data are more
likely choices for research of this nature (Saunders, 2016). The data is collected to
explore the phenomenon, identify themes, and build a conceptual framework
(Saunders et al., 2009)
The research topic is one of great interest to the researcher whose role as a
practitioner involves organisational change and the implementation of organisation-
wide projects. It is acknowledged that the researcher’s own values and beliefs played
a role in the interpretation of the literature and the data collected. The researcher
undertook a Heightening your Awareness of your Research Philosophy (HARP) self-
assessment (Saunders, 2016, pp. 153-155) to explore their underlying values and
assumptions.
3.3 RESEARCH DESIGN AND STRATEGY
In order to explore stakeholder perceptions, and their implications, the study
took a mono method qualitative form. This is consistent with the interpretivist and
inductive approach described above in that the study aims to understand meaning
from the perspective of the participants. The study was exploratory (Saunders, 2016)
in nature being premised on research questions which explore how perspectives are
being influenced by change managers and how the resulting perspectives about
change management may inform the assessment of project success. The study was
evaluative (Saunders, 2016) as it assessed stakeholder perceptions of the
effectiveness of change strategies on a project.
Given the nature of the research questions and the theoretical perspective, an
embedded single case study (Yin, 2009) design was adopted, with data collected
through semi-structured interviews in a single phase (Saunders, 2016) of fieldwork.
The case study design is discussed in Section 3.3.1 Case Study, below, and further in
the Section 3.5 Data Analysis. The rationale for semi-structured interviews is
provided in Section 3.3.3 Data Collection, and the development of the interview
questions is discussed in Section 3.4 Interview Questions.
66 Chapter 3: Methodology
3.3.1 Case study
The study used a case study analysis strategy. This form of research enables
deep understanding (Woodside, 2010) and allows for contextualised, deep
understanding and is a means to construct practical knowledge that is responsive to
its environment (Ramirez, G, cited in (Marshall & Rossman, 2015). Case study
research is particularly appropriate where the intention is to deeply understand a real-
life phenomenon within context (Yin, 2009). More simply, “…people and programs
are prospective cases” (Stake, 1995, p. 21).
Yin (2009) advises that all case study designs can be successful. While
multiple-case studies may be preferable owing to potentially greater analytic benefits
and more protection from criticism, in practical terms, multiple case studies must
overcome challenges of resourcing and time. Yin (2018) argues single case studies
are acceptable where there is a sufficient argument and for a range of reasons,
including five key rationales: the case is theoretically critical; the case is unusual; the
case is common and captures everyday situations; the case relates to something that
was previously inaccessible and is therefore relevatory; or finally, the case is
longitudinal, that is a single case is observed two or more times. The present study
has a level of novelty, and the potential for being revelatory (Yin, 2018), in that there
is little evidence of a study involving multiple stakeholders, considering change
management and the link to project success. However, it also aims to explore and
explain a situation that is common in the business world and therefore will serve as
an illustration of everyday circumstances (Yin, 2018). The available timeframe and
resources for this study made a longitudinal case study unfeasible.
Single case studies are useful in other ways. They are appropriate for
identifying the feasibility of future studies, development of operational measures,
and the formation of hypotheses or explanations about processes (Yin, 2018). They
are also
important for the development of a nuanced view of reality…and important
for researchers’ own learning process in developing the skills needed to do
good research…concrete, context-dependent experience is just as central to
them as to professionals learning any other specific skills. (Flyvbjerg, 2001,
p. 72)
Chapter 3: Methodology 67
The present study provides a basis for replication and expansion. It opens the door
for cross-case comparisons and mixed method evaluation.
Theory guided the development of the research questions and therefore the
characteristics of an appropriate case (Willig, 2013). This study was an embedded
single case study design Yin (2009), as it involved units of analysis at more than one
level within a single case (Yin, 2018). That is, the study drew data from participants,
of different types, involved in a single case. Data was gathered through interviews.
Interviews, within case studies, are appropriate where small numbers of people are
involved, they are accessible, they are core to the study and where extended
responses and high levels of disclosure are sought (Gilham, 2010). The key and
affected stakeholders selected were well placed to observe performance and assess
the influence of a change manager on project success, from their perspective.
Case study analysis can be communicated in varied ways. This thesis provides
details about the case including the reasoning for the choice, the number and
positions of the participants involved, the period of the fieldwork, the way in which
the fieldwork was conducted and the data recorded, as well as describing the process
of analysis (Atkins & Sampson, 2002). This study has taken a balanced approach to
analysis and reporting. The results and findings are presented in a way that aligns
with the thematic analysis. Initially it presents the information arising from the case,
a narrative containing illustrative quotes and information from the participants
(Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007) (see Section 4.4 Interview Results) and progresses
toward explanatory concepts (Willig, 2013) connected to theory (Eisenhardt &
Graebner, 2007) (see Section 4.6 Analysis), demonstrating the iterative approach
taken (Atkins & Sampson, 2002).
3.3.2 Project setting
“Case study research is not sampling research…” (Stake, 1995, p. 4). Cases
should be selected that maximise what can be learnt by being accessible and
hospitable to the project (Stake, 1995). In this instance, it was proposed to take a
particular case and know it well. To this end the choice of case was purposeful and
might be considered purposeful sampling (Zikmund, 2010). It relied on accessing a
site and project where there were sufficient participants and a range of stakeholder
types engaged in a change project, including a change manager.
68 Chapter 3: Methodology
The case study was chosen on a convenience basis; it was accessible and
hospitable to the project. The research was undertaken at a Queensland State
Government workplace, within a specific organisational or business unit undergoing
a specific change project with its specific program of work that ranges from cultural
to business process change implementation, which is described in Section 4.2 Case
Study Context. Access was negotiated through the chief executive of the
organisation, with preliminary discussions held with relevant senior managers about
facilitating that access, agreeing on logistics and protocols.
3.3.3 Data collection
Semi-structured interviews
Semi-structured interviews promote interaction and provide the opportunity to
obtain information in context. They also facilitate the description of complex
interactions. While semi-structured interviews are guided by a base set of questions,
the format is flexible and adaptable allowing participants to answer freely (Marshall
& Rossman, 2015). “Interviews are the most common form of data collection in
qualitative research…the most effective way of obtaining data for certain research
questions” (Charmaz, 2014, p. 79). While the interview method may be criticised for
subjectivity (Charmaz, 2014) this is what was required for this study, which relied on
stakeholder perceptions of project success.
The key challenges associated with interviews include dependence on
cooperation and collaboration, the potential for misinterpretation on the part of both
interviewer and interviewee, and reliance on the researcher having interviewing
skills (Marshall & Rossman, 2015). These were addressed through professional
organisation from first contact to post-interview follow-up. Questions were designed
for each of the different categories of stakeholder and appeared naïve enough to
encourage the participants to provide free commentary (Willig, 2013; Yin, 2009).
There is a risk of bias on the part of the researcher and/or the participant, as
well as bias introduced through the process of participation (Saunders, 2016). The
interview guide provides some structure (Charmaz, 2014), and efforts to use attentive
listening skills, including open and probing questions mitigate the risk of bias on the
part of the researcher (Marshall & Rossman, 2015; Saunders, 2016). For this study
the interview questions were derived from the research questions and based on
Chapter 3: Methodology 69
concepts and issues arising out of the literature review, discussed further in Section
3.5 Interview Questions. An interview guide containing a base set of questions was
used for each interview (see Appendix A and Section 3.4 Interview Questions). The
sequence and phrasing was contextualised for the relevant stakeholder type to ensure
relevance and a conversational flow.
Participants were drawn from stakeholder groups involved in a single change
project within a unit of a government department. Identification of potential
stakeholders was based on stakeholder theory and commonly terms in the project
management and change management literature. Stakeholders included: the project
sponsor or executive, the change manager, project manager, employees, managers,
external or independent service delivery partners, and members of senior
management. The total number of employees and other stakeholders involved in the
change project was 60. Therefore there were sufficient numbers from which to draw
volunteer participants.
Participants were expected to provide their own observations and views about
the purpose of the project, their expectations, their understanding of the role of the
change manager, and the contribution of the change manager and change
management to project success. The face-to-face interviews took place in a
convenient location, at an agreed time, and with every effort to ensure that they were
not intrusive. The length of the interview varied according to the participant but did
not exceed one hour. The interview was recorded and transcribed, and field notes
were taken to provide additional context. Face-to-face interviews allow for noting
non-verbal behaviour in addition to any other observations (Marshall & Rossman,
2015).
Procedures were developed to facilitate logistics, data-collection and data
management (Marshall & Rossman, 2015). Notes about themes and the application
of theory and related literature assisted in ordering thoughts (Marshall & Rossman,
2015). Memos and field notes assist with disciplined reflection about the process of
gathering data, the data quality and the researchers interpretation or reaction
(Marshall & Rossman, 2015). For this study, field notes comprised of the
researcher’s notes taken at the time of the interview (individual or group).
70 Chapter 3: Methodology
3.4 INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Interview questions are used to extract participant information that is relevant
to the research questions and must be both aligned to the research question and
necessary (Castillo-Montoya, 2016). However, they are different to the research
questions in that they must be designed to facilitate a conversation, and so should
couched in language that suits the context and practices of participants (Castillo-
Montoya, 2016). As the interviews were semi-structured, the base set of questions
was designed to allow flexibility, with questions used as alternatives, prompts or
follow-ups, as necessary. Introductory questions were used to set the scene and build
rapport, while closing questions allowed for participants to reflect on their
information, add anything else they thought relevant, and close the process (Castillo-
Montoya, 2016).
Key questions and transition questions (Castillo-Montoya, 2016) were linked
to concepts arising from the literature review (Atkins & Sampson, 2002). Two
research questions were explored: 1) how organisational change managers are
influencing stakeholders’ perceptions of change project success, and 2) how
stakeholders’ perceptions of the change management inform the future assessment of
project success. The sub-questions: a) sought the perceptions of key stakeholders,
including the change manager, on the influence of change managers on project
success, and b) explored how stakeholders’ perceptions of the contribution of change
management would inform the future assessment of project success. In order to
explore the stakeholders’ perspectives, the following ‘base’ questions were
developed with links to the literature as listed (Table 3.1). The questions were
delivered in a different and more conversational order, and adapted to suit the
context and role of the participant. They are presented here in topic areas to simplify
the linkages to the literature.
Chapter 3: Methodology 71
Table 3.1
Interview Questions and the Literature
Interview questions Literature Questions about the project:
How would you describe the purpose of the project?
Overall, what should the project accomplish from your point of view?
What were the proposed benefits of this project?
Were the benefits of this project realised?
Understanding the project objectives as an element of: exploring critical success factors for organisational change management (By, 2005).
Components of project success – project success factors and criteria (Müller & Turner, 2007)
Benefits; the importance of stakeholder perceptions (Cooke-Davies, 2002)
Questions about the change manager:
What were your initial expectations of the change manager's involvement in achieving the benefits?
What key skills or knowledge were you looking for to assist with the project?
Pick one event, action or issue that would have tested the change manager's skills during the project, and tell me about it.
If you were advising a colleague on the selection of a change manager, what key skills and knowledge would you recommend looking for, based on your experience?
Which five skills would you rate as the most valuable, and why?
What do you see as the challenges for change managers in the future?
Understanding stakeholder perceptions of the role: evaluation of stakeholder demands and influence is necessary (Olander & Landin, 2005).
Observations that project sponsors want project managers with appropriate competencies and an appropriate focus (Müller & Turner, 2007) might be relevant to change managers.
“Formal expertise for managing change is necessary…the challenge is how to incorporate formal change management expertise”(Bariff, 2013, p. 45)
Competency theory – maximum performance occurs where capability meets the needs of the role and the organisation (Boyatzis, 2008).
Understanding the contextual influences on change management competencies would be worthwhile (Crawford & Nahmias, 2010).
Few industry bodies, academic programs, or agreed governance for change management roles (Crawford & Nahmias, 2010).
Factors for change ‘agentry’ (Lunenberg, 2010)
“although the literature on change management may be useful in providing models and frameworks for conceptualising the activity of change management, it does not appear to be speaking to the concerns of those engaged in the management and delivery of changes in organizations.” (Pollack, 2015)
Differentiating the role of the change manager (Stummer & Zuchi, 2010)
Notions of an emerging profession, noting growth in the field of change management consulting and a growing interest in universities (Worren, Ruddle, & Moore, 1999)
Questions about stakeholders:
Who were the key stakeholders, including yourself?
Exploring the stakeholder notion in the context of project success (Achterkamp & Vos, 2008).
Exploring multiple stakeholder views, as “perceptions of
72 Chapter 3: Methodology
Interview questions Literature What are their roles?
What was their relationship to the change manager?
success by stakeholders, as are the perceptions of important criteria and actual performance” (Davis, 2014, p. 189).
Limited studies from a multi-stakeholder perspective (Davis, 2014, 2016, 2018)
The middle management perspective dominates the idea of project success (Hornstein, 2015).
Stakeholders have an interest in time, cost and quality, management of resources and satisfaction criteria. Longer-term success relies on stakeholder perceptions of these. (Müller & Turner, 2010).
Questions about the change management experience:
How would you characterise the organisation's usual approach to change management?
What was different about the change management approach for this project?
Which aspects of the change management process did you/do you consider less successful?
Have there been any unexpected benefits or successes?
Based on your experience, what improvements would you like to see in managing change projects that would lead to greater project success?
“The first step in this process should be to carry out exploratory studies in order to increase the knowledge of organisational change management. Such studies should enable an identification of critical success factors for the management of change” (By, 2005, p. 371)
Failure rates prompt “investigating and finding what factors increase the probability of successful organizational change” and the observation, there is a “lack of a valid framework for organizational change” (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015, p. 235).
“content, people and process is what leads to successful change” (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015, p. 244)
Call for studies that examine “the influence of change activities on project implementation success” (Battilana et al., 2010, p. 435)
“A fundamental lack of a valid framework of how to implement and manage organisational change as what is currently available to academics and practitioners is a wide range of contradictory and confusing theories and approaches” (By, 2005, p. 378)
Exploring frameworks being used – assertions that change leaders need to use them (Fernandez & Rainey, 2006)
“project and program management standards address communications and stakeholder management,…the standards do not specifically address the knowledge and skills required to manage organizational and behavioral change” and “all organizations must widen their thinking to acknowledge the existence and importance of OCM in project success” (Hornstein, 2015, p. 296).
Project management could gain from using change management processes and change management could gain from using project management processes (Parker, Charlton, et al., 2013).
“change management provides the more comprehensive strategy, tools and techniques to manage risks generated by stakeholders” (Parker, Verlinden, et al., 2013).
“the emergence of change management is a significant trend” (Worren et al., 1999, pp. 283-284)
Chapter 3: Methodology 73
3.5 DATA ANALYSIS
The researcher undertook the transcription allowing for greater immersion in
the data and facilitating a practice of constant comparison and iteration (Charmaz,
2014; Hahn, 2008). The process of data analysis was inductive, that is the coding
was based on the data itself rather than on codes drawn from the literature. Coding
can be described as having three levels: open coding, an initial search for patterns
and key ideas; axial coding, which draws together commonalities and identifies
interesting outliers for further analysis, which then leads to theming and clustering, a
diagrammatic method of drawing data links and identifying relationships (Marshall
& Rossman, 2015). Charmaz (2014) refers to axial coding as focused coding, which
incorporates themes, with the final stage being categorisation. This study used a
combination of these. The aim of coding is to produce categories (Saldana, 2009) on
which to build a conceptual model.
This process was assisted by a software package, NVIVO. Software support
did not replace immersion in the data (Marshall & Rossman, 2015; Yin, 2009). As a
single researcher undertook the coding, inter-coder reliability (Marshall & Rossman,
2015) or the extent to which independent coders agree on the coding scheme, was
addressed by providing the coding guides and a random selection of text to
supervisors for blind review.
This study made use of thematic analysis. Regarded by some as a qualitative
research method in it own right and by others as a flexible tool or skill that crosses
methodological boundaries (Willig, 2013), thematic analysis is particularly suitable
for research questions that relate to how people think about specific social
experiences (Willig, 2013). For the purposes of this study, the thematic analysis took
an inductive and iterative approach. Coding generates a significant number of codes;
themes were generated by “paying attention to potential patterns across the codes and
[reflecting] on the underlying meaning” (Willig, 2013, p. 62). This process of
reducing and clustering themes was undertaken in three rounds:
• by participant, across topic;
• across participants, by topics; and
• across topics, by research question.
74 Chapter 3: Methodology
Thematic analysis was supported by mind mapping, or concept mapping,
techniques. Mind maps, and variations of analytical mapping such as concept
mapping (Novak, 1990), can be described as the diagrammatic organisation of ideas
and words within a visual layout using logical groups of information (Mammen &
Mammen, 2018). Mind maps allow for less linear notes and are useful for the
visually oriented researcher (Bergaus, Stottok, & Gorra, 2012) as they allow for the
relationships between concepts to visualised (Wheeldon & Faubert, 2009). For this
study, mind maps helped distil the themes during immersion and analysis, and to
distil themes in the literature review, while NVIVO assisted with complex queries
(Mammen & Mammen, 2018).
3.6 TRUSTWORTHINESS
The trustworthiness of qualitative studies can be enhanced by addressing four
criteria, as proposed by Guba (1981): credibility, transferability, dependability and
confirmability. To assure its credibility, or promote confidence in the recording of
the case study, well-established research methods were used, early familiarity with
the culture of the business unit was developed, triangulation was achieved by
gathering multiple perspectives, data collection included iterative questioning and the
reporting used thick description (Shenton, 2004). Clear, contextual reporting
provides enough background for the reader to determine whether the findings may be
relevant to other situations while detailed reporting of the processes and methods
uses assures dependability and confirmability (Guba, 1981; Shenton, 2004). Efforts
have been made to acknowledge and reduce research bias, assumptions and
shortcomings, and to ensure that the findings reflect the views of the participants
(Shenton, 2004).
The project also considered criteria for evaluating research suggested by
Charmaz (2014) relating to credibility, originality, resonance and usefulness. This
meant ensuring sufficient familiarity with the setting and the topic (see Section 4.2
Case Study Context), ensuring sufficient data to support any claims and providing
the reader the basis on which to form an independent assessment. Additionally, the
study used systematic comparisons and logic to develop categories that would be
fresh and offer new insights. Consideration was given to the significance of the work
including how it might contribute as an extension, challenge or refinement of
Chapter 3: Methodology 75
practices or concepts. Finally, to ensure usefulness, care has been taken to ensure that
the report will make sense to participants and people in similar circumstances, and
offer interpretations that may be useful.
3.7 GOVERNANCE
3.7.1 Ethics approval
This study gained ethical clearance for the period 13 August 2018 to 13 August
2019. It was categorised as ‘Human – Negligible-Low Risk’ – on the basis that it is
unlikely that there would be any physical economic, legal or social harms resulting
from participating in the project. The study was given UHREC reference number:
1800000702 on approval (Appendix B).
3.7.2 Organisational access
Access to the project was informally discussed with the chief executive of the
organisation. With his permission, the researcher held informal conversations with
relevant line managers and key individual stakeholders to obtain an in-principle
indication of participation. Once these were completed, a request for access, subject
to ethics approval, was approved. A formal request, including the ethics approval
number, was subsequently made and approved. The organisation was offered a
summary report of key themes and findings, as were the participants, which would
be available six months after the end of the fieldwork.
Arrangements for access to the participants were made initially through the
director of the organisational unit. The director forwarded an email to all staff, within
stakeholder groupings, and service delivery partners advising that access had been
provided, that participation was permitted and could be organised directly through
the researcher. The covering email included an introductory note and the relevant
information and consent forms for the study. The researcher followed up individual
responses to the invitation. In limited instances, participants referred others to the
study.
76 Chapter 3: Methodology
3.7.3 Participants – sampling and management
Based on key stakeholder types identified in the literature the participants were
drawn from:
• those who were directly employed in delivering a specific change
management project, such as the project team and change manager;
• those involved in or affected by the project, such as employees within the
relevant organisational unit, managers within the unit and the line
management above (including the project sponsor, project executive); and
• other end users, in this case, service delivery partners who are employed
by the state and are independent of the organisation. These participants are
appointed and paid by the state and work alongside the public service
employees in the work environment and are engaged in different aspects of
common business delivery. There were also affected service providers
who may or may not be available.
There were approximately 60 potential participants directly engaged in the
organisational unit. The study was originally based on conducting five interviews
and two small focus groups comprised of employees and managers. It became
apparent that participants were unwilling or unable to engage in focus groups,
therefore the number of interviews was increased.
Participants were included if they fitted one of the descriptions above and up to
the limit of numbers for the study. Participants were excluded if there was no
connection to the unit and the relevant organisational change project.
Appropriate consent and disclosure related documents were provided to
participants. These documents, approved in the ethics application process, outlined
the purpose, methods, demands, risks and potential benefits of the research
(Appendix C). It was made clear that any person who participated, did so freely and
could withdraw at any time. Subject to the data collection method and timeframes,
information already supplied would be withdrawn. At the time of the interview
participants were asked if they would like to see the transcription; all but one
participant declined.
Chapter 3: Methodology 77
There were no offers of reimbursements, payments or incentives. The
organisation’s agreement to provide access, including allowing participants to
participate during work time, ensured scheduling was managed to minimise
interruptions to business.
Participants were advised that a high level summary of the key themes and
conclusions would be made available six months after the end of fieldwork. A
debriefing session would also be offered.
3.7.4 Data management
Data was managed according to a data management plan, considered in the
ethics application process, with the focus being on confidentiality and secure storage.
Records were de-identified for reporting purposes. The data may be used for further,
related study in the same field. Non-identifiable data collected in this project may be
used as comparative data in future projects or stored on an open access database for
secondary analysis.
3.7.5 Confidentiality
Confidentiality of participants and the organisation has been protected. Neither
the participants nor the organisational unit have been identified. The organisation
will only be identified as a government department and the organisational unit
referred to as the business unit. Records have been stored securely, as per the
management plan, and only shared within the research team. Data has been de-
identified where referred to in this thesis.
3.8 LIMITATIONS
The challenges or limitations of using an embedded single case study design
and interviews for data collection have been discussed in sections 3.3.1
Case Study and 3.3.3 Data Collection respectively. As with all research projects, this
study faced a number of limitations with five principal challenges. Firstly, it was
constrained by timeframes, time demands and resourcing limits; therefore the
research design was intended to fit within these to avoid compromising the quality of
the study. Secondly, data management was a challenge addressed by processes and
the adoption of routines. Thirdly, reliance on third party and participant cooperation
and collaboration was addressed through a professional approach to relationship
78 Chapter 3: Methodology
management. Fourthly, the researcher being a part-time student undertaking a work
based project within an organisation, where they were likely to be known personally
or by name to some, presented a range of potential challenges, again managed
through governance and a professional approach. Finally, a qualitative study of this
nature with a high level of involvement from the researcher faces the potential for
subjectivity and misinterpretation (Marshall & Rossman, 2015). Adopting the
quality strategies outlined above, as well as a self-critical stance, provided a sound
level of assurance.
3.9 CONCLUSION
This study explored stakeholders’ perceptions of the influence of
organisational change managers on project success through an embedded, single-case
study design using semi-structured interviews. Trustworthiness and ethical
considerations were addressed through the identified strategies and procedural
arrangements. Awareness of the interpretivist and subjectivist nature of the study was
also addressed through these strategies and procedural arrangements, while academic
supervisors monitored the quality and progress of this research project throughout its
life. The research design and methods provided the opportunity to explore the
phenomenon of change management, within the boundaries described, from a broad
variety of perspectives and in context. Both the case study approach and the
qualitative method selected provide for deep understanding and provided the basis
for thick description. The following chapter reports on the findings and analysis of
the data.
Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis 79
Chapter 4: Findings and analysis
4.1 INTRODUCTION.
This chapter presents the results of the field study, and includes: the case study
context; an outline of the progress and challenges of the study; the interview results,
including interview themes by topic area, and links to emerging primary themes;
additional data; and a discussion of the research questions and the primary themes of
the study in the context of the literature.
4.2 CASE STUDY CONTEXT
The business unit at the centre of this study is a public service organisational
unit within a public sector agency hereinafter called the ‘business unit’ to maintain
confidentiality. The business unit is a core component of a broader system of service
delivery operating in a complex and politically sensitive environment, which is
illustrated in the Business Model diagram (Figure 4.1, see also Appendix D for an
enlarged version). The diagram identifies key components of the broader system,
with the business unit at the centre. Descriptions of the relationship between the
business unit and the other components are attached to the linking lines. The business
unit works in partnership with seven independent, specialist individuals, hereafter
referred to as ‘service delivery partners’ (‘Service Delivery Partners’, top left of
Figure 4.1). The business unit provides administrative and research support to the
service delivery partners, and receives technical direction from them. The business
unit, in combination with the service delivery partners, forms the hub of the broader
and complex system of service delivery. This system includes two allied support
services (Allied Support Service 1 and Allied Support Service 2, to the lower left in
Figure 4.1), delivered via other public service agencies, as well as ‘contracted service
providers’ (at the bottom left of Figure 4.1).
80 Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis
Figure 4.1. Business model.
Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis 81
The allied support services (Allied Support Service 1 and Allied Support
Service 2) provide specific forms of support and expertise to the service delivery
partners and liaise with the core business unit. One of the allied support services has
staff co-located with the business unit staff and service delivery partners. This
service was considered within the boundaries of the case as the close working
relationship suggested there are indirect, if not direct, effects from the change. The
other allied support service has specific sites of its own and a range of services that
provide support. This service was not approached for participants.
The business unit reports to an executive director, responsible for other
organisational units, who in turn reports to a senior executive and a chief executive
(upper centre of Figure 4.1). Within the broader organisation, the business unit
interacts with other business lines and corporate services functions including Human
Resources (depicted at the bottom right of Figure 4.1).
Additional and specific state-wide services are contracted by the business unit
and interact with the other components of the system. The whole system interacts
with clients or customers (whether individuals or companies) (at the centre right of
Figure 4.1), and their representatives and/or support providers (at the top right of
Figure 4.1). Various associations (Industry) relating to the latter two also interact
with the business unit. These stakeholders were not approached for participation.
In late 2017, a private company reviewed the organisational climate and
structure of the business unit. The review made over 40 recommendations relating to
the organisational structure (including additional resources), the organisation of
business processes, workload management, people management and cultural
improvement. The review also made recommendations for supporting the change,
including the appointment of a change manager. The majority of the
recommendations were accepted. Apart from the senior service delivery partner, the
director, the change manager and senior executives, the full report was not made
available to stakeholders. Staff, managers and service delivery partners were
provided with a summary and, later, a redacted version of the report.
Implementation of the recommendations commenced within a few months of
the report with some actions either completed or underway by the time the change
manager and the new director of the unit commenced duties around April 2018. The
82 Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis
change manager undertook both the change and project management role until
ceasing in October 2018 for personal reasons. They were not replaced.
4.3 OUTLINE OF THE PROGRESS OF THE STUDY
As discussed in Chapter Three, potential participants were identified and
offered the opportunity to participate in either semi-structured interviews (for key or
singular stakeholders) or focus groups (for broader stakeholder groups such as
employees and managers). Despite attempts at recruitment via email from the
director of the business unit, from a senior service delivery partner, and through
referral to the researcher who made personal contact, there were no volunteers for the
focus groups. Further individual interviews were offered instead.
A total of twelve participants were recruited (Table 4.1). All stakeholders were
affected by the project to some extent. Key stakeholders such as the director,
executive director, change manager and service delivery partners agreed to
interviews along with several employees and managers. A Human Resources (HR)
practitioner, with some experience of the business unit and the broader organisation
also agreed to an interview. Of the twelve participants, seven were female, ranging in
age from early twenties to fifties. Five participants were male and aged between 30
and their late 50s. Participants were allocated a code from A to L, in alphabetical
order based on the date of their consent form, for the purposes of attributing their
quotes and observations. Participant D is the change manager, whose observations
are referred to separately for the purposes of the research questions.
Table 4.1
Participants by Stakeholder Type
Stakeholder group Stakeholder type Number of participants
Code
Line management Executive Director – responsible for many business units, including the subject unit
1 A
Director – responsible for the business unit
1 B
Manager – responsible for a team
2 I, J
Project management
Change manager – responsible for change management and project implementation
1 D
Team member – providing support to the change manager
1 C
Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis 83
Stakeholder group Stakeholder type Number of participants
Code
Employees Staff within the business unit without managerial responsibility
2 E, G
Service delivery partners
Independent service providers supported by the business unit and allied support services
2 F, L
Organisational unit Human Resources (HR) practitioner – providing corporate level support to the business unit
1 K
Allied service provider
Manager – responsible for delivery of specific and specialised services, on behalf of another public service agency, in conjunction with the business unit
1 H
Total 12 Source: interview data
The interviews each took between 30 and 60 minutes. Allowing for roles and
levels of involvement, the interviews focused on the participants’ knowledge of the
project, their understanding of the proposed benefits and their reflections on change
management processes within the organisation. Participants discussed their initial
expectations of a change manager, the skills and abilities they valued and the
challenges they thought the change manager faced. Participants were also asked
about the challenges the project faced, successes and failures associated with the
project and what they would suggest to improve change management in the future.
As outlined in Chapter Three, Methodology, the interviews were recorded and
the researcher made field notes. The researcher transcribed each interview
personally. The transcripts were uploaded to NVIVO, qualitative data analysis
software.
The transcripts were explored and inductively coded using NVIVO. One
hundred and thirty codes were generated in the first round of coding. These were
reduced to 98 in a second round during which some codes were collapsed into
broader codes, re-named or otherwise reorganised. This process allowed for
immersion in the data. The use of NVIVO was complemented by the development of
mind maps, which allowed for both distillation of the analysis and visual
representation of linkages and concepts (Mammen & Mammen, 2018; Novak, 1990;
Wheeldon & Faubert, 2009).
84 Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis
The data were explored for each participant, and across participants, on six
topics. The topics related to:
1. their understanding of the project purpose;
2. the organisation’s usual approach to change;
3. challenges, within the project and
4. challenges more generally;
5. perceptions of change manager influence; and
6. the contribution of change management to project success.
This process aimed to identify common perspectives and drew the codes into
categories that could be related to the research questions. Twenty-four interview
themes were generated, with a total of 57 sub-themes (Table 4.2). These will be
discussed in the next section (4.5 Interview Results). Further analysis of the
interview themes, in the context of the broader research questions generated three
themes for the influence of the change manager and six themes for the influence of
change management (Table 4.3), which are discussed in more detail in Section 4.6
Research Questions.
Table 4.2
Summary of Interview Themes
Topic Interview themes Sub-themes Project purpose • Implement review
recommendations • Improve the business • Increase efficiency • Effective implementation • Poor understanding (increase
understanding)
• Implement structural change • Implement decentralised team structure • Address resourcing
• Effect cultural change • Improve stakeholder relationships • Improve performance • Improve health and wellbeing • Improve morale
• Improve governance • Business governance including roles • Project governance including roles
The organisation’s usual approach to change
• Change just happens (resource change, consider impacts
• Done on top of business as usual • Just do it
• Poor consideration of approach (think change through)
• Misguided approach • Poorly selected solutions
• Limited involvement (improve • Poor communication
Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis 85
Topic Interview themes Sub-themes communication and engagement) • Poor engagement
• Many unfinished changes (complete change)
• Many reviews • Many directors
Challenges – change management project
• Entrenched behaviours (understanding and addressing)
• Subverting alliances • Resistant negativity
• Complex organisation • Complex structure • Complex authorising environment
• Fragmented leadership (develop leadership capacity and confidence)
• Leadership issues • Wariness of change and risk
Challenges – change management generally
• Role of the change manager • Communicating the role • Onboarding • Controlling the scope
• Resourcing change • Allocating resources • Justifying resources
• Timing • Starting • Ending
• Effective engagement • Stakeholder involvement • Addressing attitudes and concerns
Perceptions of change manager influence
• Social skills • Communication • People skills
• Experience and expertise • Practical experience • Extensive knowledge
• Personal qualities • Robust and resilient • Energy and enthusiasm • Supportive • Political savvy • Good judgement
• Organisation • Planning • Monitoring
Contribution of change management to project success
• Cultural improvement • Improvements measured • Improvements observed
• Embedded structural change • Structure • Governance
• Communication and engagement • Clear, considered communication • Consultation and involvement
• Focussed change • Enhanced leadership • Proactive approach • Organisation and planning
• Learning and development • Formal learning • Social processes for behavioural change
Source: interview data Table 4.3
Primary Themes - the Influence of Change Managers and Change Management
86 Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis
Influence of… Primary themes The change manager • Social skills
• Personal qualities • Experience and expertise
Change management • Evidence-based design and execution
• Role clarity • Planning and scheduling • Communication and engagement • Support and resilience building • Value realisation
Source: interview data
4.4 INTERVIEW RESULTS
The following section describes the data for each topic area covered in the
interviews. Each subsection contains both a table summarising the data and
discussion of the data. The table lists the primary interview themes, and supporting
themes, with example quotes from participants and the change manager (Participant
D), where relevant. The participant codes and total number of participants
contributing to the theme are also provided. This includes the change manager where
applicable.
4.4.1 Understanding the project purpose
Four interview themes emerged from the participants’ perceptions of the
project’s purpose. Briefly, the purpose of the review was to: ‘implement the review’s
recommendations’; ‘implement structural change’; ‘effect cultural change’; and
‘improve governance’ (Table 4.4). Ultimately, participants anticipated that the
benefits, outcomes or value that they expected would be delivered. The change
manager (D) also contributed to these themes, clearly stating their role in the
“achievement of benefits”.
Table 4.4
Interview Themes - Understanding the Project Purpose
Interview theme Sub-themes Example (Stakeholder)
Example (Change manager/D)
Participants
Implement review recommendations
Improve the business Increase efficiency Effective implementation
“to try and improve the office” (H) “streamlined processes” (A) “not partially implemented or left on
“improved productivity”
A C D F G H I J K L (10)
Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis 87
Interview theme Sub-themes Example (Stakeholder)
Example (Change manager/D)
Participants
Poor understanding (improve understanding)
the shelf” (F) “I don’t know much about it” (E) “At times I am not clear what is going on” (H)
Implement structural change
Implement decentralised team structure Address resourcing
“functional split” (C) “address resourcing issues” (I)
“implement a structure that provides value for money” “provide an evidence base for increased structure
A C D E G I (6)
Effect cultural change
Improve stakeholder relationships Improve performance Improve health and wellbeing Improve morale
“better support for clients” (A) “trying to become more efficient and effective” (H) “address toxic culture” (B) “remove disharmony” (H)
“create a better place to work” “reducing WHS [work health and safety] risks” “much nicer place to work”
A B C D F H J K L (9)
Improve governance
Business governance including roles Project governance including roles
“following policies” (J) “plans in place” (C)
“put governance structure in place”
C D J K (3)
Source: interview data
Change through implementing review recommendations
The participants shared a perception that the change project was prompted by a
review, which made a number of recommendations. With the exception of the
change manager and the director, the participants were unclear about the number of
recommendations. Three participants (G, I and L) indicated that they had not seen
the full list of recommendations or the review report, and this was cause for concern.
Participant L indicated that they had not seen the results except in “very vague
terms” which meant “I don’t know how good it is.” Two participants (E and H)
seemed unconcerned about the number of recommendations but lacked clarity about
the aims of both the review and the recommendations. “I don’t know much about it,”
88 Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis
said Participant E when asked what the change project was about beyond the review
making recommendations.
With the exception of the change manager, the participants were unclear about
the proposed benefits of the project, in a formal project sense. Similarly, they were
unclear about project roles. Participant A indicated they might be the project
executive or the sponsor, and that another senior executive might be the project
executive. Participant B admitted they were “unsure” of the project structure and that
they may be the sponsor or the owner. The change manager (D) was aware of the
confusion, stating that they had had to sort out the sponsor and other project roles,
and put project governance in place.
Implementing structural change
The majority of participants indicated that the review was about implementing
both structural and cultural change with six participants referring to structural change
(A, C, D, E, G and I). Participant B observed that the project was “across all human
elements of the business as well as moving procedures and processes”. Structural
change related to implementing a team-based structure (A, C and J) and resourcing
issues to be addressed (I). The change manager (D) described the role as providing
“an evidence base for increased structure” as well as implementing a structure that
provided value for money.
Effecting cultural change
Nine participants referred to cultural change (A, B, C, D, F, H, J, K, and L).
Five participants referred to negative cultural elements to be fixed, describing a toxic
culture (B), bullying (B, D, and K), and disharmony (H). Six participants (A, B, C, F,
I, and K) referred to the project positively influencing the culture, having to
“reposition the culture” (F) in some way, and “considered to be a good, above-
average place to work” (B). The change manager (D) suggested that the aim was to
create a “better place to work”, reducing work health and safety risks including
psychological claims and the risk of bullying.
Improving governance
Finally, three participants (C, J and K) referred directly to a focus on
improving governance by following policies (J, K), putting plans in place (C),
strengthening contract management (J), starting complaints and risk management
Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis 89
processes (C), implementing human resource management practices including
flexible work arrangements (K) and succession planning (J). The change manager
(D) focused on both implementing project governance and improving workplace
governance, citing the implementation of risk registers and complaints processes, and
clarification of roles.
Summary of project understanding
There was broad agreement across the stakeholder types that the project
purpose was to effectively implement the recommendations of an organisational
review. While they were all aware of the review, there was a variable level of
understanding of the nature of the recommendations though they cited implementing
structural change, effecting cultural change and improving governance. The change
manager (D), the director of the business unit (B) and the senior service delivery
partner (F) were able to be quite specific about the project purpose and the proposed
benefits. The majority of participants, ranging from a service delivery partner to an
employee, appeared to have a vague knowledge of the project purpose. They were
more likely to express desirable outcomes than formal benefits. The participants
expected that the change management process would deliver the value or outcome
they anticipated – whether this was formally identified as a benefit or not.
4.4.2 The organisation’s usual approach to change
In order to compare their expectations with the experience of the current
change project, participants were asked to characterise the organisation’s usual
approach to change. Four themes emerged: ‘change just happens’, ‘poor
consideration of approach’ ‘limited involvement’, and ‘many unfinished changes’
(Table 4.5).
Table 4.5
Interview Themes - the Organisation's Usual Approach to Change
Theme Sub-themes Example (Participant)
Example (Change manager - D)
Participants
Change just happens (resource change, consider impacts)
Done on top of business as usual Just do it
“sit it on top of BAU [business as usual]” (A) “no formal plan” (K) “I guess you just muddle around until you figure it out” (G)
“Just do it”
A C D E F G K L (8)
90 Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis
Theme Sub-themes Example (Participant)
Example (Change manager - D)
Participants
Poor consideration of approach (think change through)
Misguided approach Poorly selected solutions
“we often launch into projects and assume because they are good ideas that we will be successful without thinking about potential roadblocks” (F) “tend to be solution-focussed but it doesn’t necessarily fit the problem” (K)
F G J K L (5)
Limited involvement (improve communication and engagement)
Poor communication Poor engagement
“It’s the fuzziness that’s the problem” (L) “senior management commitment was unclear” (F)
“not sure time was taken to explain”
D F H I J L (6)
Many unfinished changes (complete change)
Many reviews Many directors
“It seems to be in a constant state of flux” (H) “One of the problems that we had in the past was a succession of directors with different approaches and styles” (F)
“couple of big changes”
C D F G H I (6)
Source: interview data
All participants were critical of the organisation’s usual approach to change.
The majority had direct experience of change within the business unit or broader
organisation, while the change manager, director, and one employee were new to the
organisation, and the HR officer worked outside the business unit. The perceptions of
the latter four were based on observations and discussions with employees and other
stakeholders. The HR officer drew on information gathered via a series of
organisational capability reviews and the employee opinion survey.
Change just happens
The strongest theme among the participants was ‘change just happens’. This
was consistent across levels and types of stakeholder. The change manager described
the organisation’s approach as non-existent, Participant C described it as “bad” and
Participant K responded with an initial “horrible”. Both Participant A and the change
Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis 91
manager (D) stated that there was an expectation they would “just do it”. Participant
A described being “expected to do it on top of your day job” and expressed
frustration at being expected to “suck it up, don’t complain”. The participants
described a tendency to expect implementation with little notice or guidance. “You
might get three weeks and ‘you figure it out’,” offered Participant G. Others
observed the usual approach as “piecemeal” (F), “done on the cheap” (L) or as
happening “by osmosis” (K) with no planning (K, L) or resourcing (F). G suggested,
“I guess you just muddle around until you figure it out”. The implication of this
theme was that participants expected change to be resourced and the impact
considered.
Poorly considered approach
Five participants (F, G, J, K and L) described the usual approach to change as
being poorly considered in some way. This was different to the ‘change just happens’
theme through which there was a base assumption that change was given at least
minimal thought. In this theme the undercurrent was a sense of being misguided.
“We often launch into projects and assume because they are good ideas that we will
be successful at [them] without thinking about potential roadblocks” observed
Participant F. The organisation failed to consider “damaged workplaces” according
to Participant J and “addressed ‘spot fires’ not the organisation as a whole” (L).
Participant K suggested that management “tend to be solution-focussed but it doesn’t
necessarily fit the problem”. The implication of this theme was that participants
wanted the change to be thought through.
Little involvement
The third theme to emerge was one of ‘little involvement’ which encompassed
“low levels of collaboration” (change manager/D), poor engagement and poor
communication. The change manager (D) observed “limited involvement of
stakeholders” while Participant I cited “inconsistent communication” and Participant
F claimed there was a failure “to bring people along”. Participant H stated that they
“became aware of changes” while Participant L declared, “it’s the fuzziness that is
the problem.” The change manager (D) observed that there seemed to have been little
talking and they were “not sure that time was taken to explain.” This theme implied
that the participants wanted communication and engagement to be improved.
92 Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis
Many unfinished changes
Finally, participants referred to the number of unfinished changes made over a
period of years, as well as management turnover. “It (the business unit) seems to be
in a constant state of flux,” observed Participant H. “This is the third review the
office has undertaken in 10 years” according to Participant G. “One of the problems
that we had in the past was a succession of directors with different approaches and
styles” observed Participant F. Compounding the issues associated with multiple
reviews and the rapid turnover of leaders, “they would just start to get the ball rolling
on that and then to have another person come in…” (I). It was clear that the
participants were frustrated and confused by the sense of changes being left
unfinished and would prefer changes to be completed.
Summary of the organisation’s usual approach to change
The organisation’s usual approach to change was generally characterised as
poorly considered, if at all, with limited involvement of stakeholders and a tendency
to make many changes. The changes were sometimes implemented without
sufficiently explaining why, often left unfinished and frequently reversed.
Participants claimed there was poor communication and engagement. Managers were
expected to implement change on top of their business as usual activities and without
complaint. Employees and other stakeholders had, in the past, accepted changes on
face value and worked through the effects with minimal assistance.
4.4.3 Challenges – change management project
Participants were asked to describe challenges the change manager would face
during the current project. Primarily, participants referred to the challenge associated
with addressing a range of entrenched behaviours amongst the stakeholder groups,
from employees through to service delivery partners. Powerful cliques offered
resistance, and there was negativity, more generally, amongst stakeholders.
Reference was also made to the complexity of the organisation and to the business
unit’s leadership team (Table 4.6).
Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis 93
Table 4.6
Interview Themes - Challenges - Change Management Project
Interview theme
Sub-themes Example (Participant)
Example (Change manager/D)
Participants
Entrenched behaviours (understanding and addressing)
Subverting alliances Resistant negativity
“powerful cliques” (B, K) “(service delivery partners) will exploit that…get management to meet their demands” (F) “unwillingness to engage…you don’t even get eye contact” (J) “degrees of hostility” (F)
“the strength of a few was surprising” “the power of the resistors”
A B C E F G H J K (9)
Complex organisation
Complex structure Complex authorising environment
“complex structure” (H) “different layers of accountability and power” (F)
“interaction with [service delivery partners]”
A, D, F, H (4)
Fragmented leadership (develop leadership capacity and confidence)
Leadership issues Wariness of change and risk
“leadership team issues” (K) “as a whole wary of the change manager” (A)
“ I heard a lot of ‘What do we (management team) need a change manager for?’”
A D K (3)
Source: interview data
Entrenched behaviours
Participants B, D, H, K, and F commented on the challenge of facing small but
influential groups or “powerful cliques” (B and K). Participant F observed that the
service delivery partners would exert influence to “get management to meet their
demands”, while the change manager stated, “the strength of a few (staff) was
surprising” and Participant H referred to the staff having “certain influential
members”. Participant C observed that there were “people stuck in their way” while
Participant A described “entrenched behaviours” in staff that had been employed in
the same jobs for a long time.
More generally, and possibly associated with the number of incomplete
changes experienced in the past, there was a sense of negativity observed amongst
the staff, the management team and the service delivery partners. With regard to the
94 Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis
staff or employees, Participant J stated that there was an “unwillingness to
engage…you don’t even get eye contact” while Participant F described a “degree of
hostility”. Participant G put this down to experience, and “lots of concerns
disregarded”. Similarly, Participant H suggested, “people didn’t think they were free
to say what they wanted to say”. The participants considered that the negativity could
be overcome. “There are a lot of negative Nancy’s that will never embrace it [the
change]. But as long as we get a higher number than them, I think we are winning”
observed Participant J.
Complex organisation
While general negativity and small coalitions exhibit challenging, entrenched
behaviours, the complex business environment or “complex organisation” (A) also
contributed to the challenge for this particular project. Implementing change while
learning to navigate the system was seen as a challenge. The “complex structure” (H)
leads to a “complex authorising environment” (A) with “different layers of
accountability and power” (F). The change manager (D) admitted finding the system
difficult to navigate, particularly understanding the interaction with the service
delivery partners.
Fragmented leadership
The third theme for this topic related to leadership. Participant A described the
business unit as having “fragmented leadership” with the leadership team “as a
whole, wary of the change manager”. The change manager (D) referred to having
difficulty with “trying to convince managers to take a risk” and having to answer
questions such as “what do we need a change manager for?” From outside the
business unit, “leadership team issues” (K) were also observed.
Minor themes
In addition to the three themes, there were observations that provided some
context for earlier themes. It was observed that there was a “lack of internal
expertise” (change manager/D), for example in project management. There were also
issues with transparency about the review and recommendations. Participant I
referred to “hidden aspects of the review” and Participant L suggested that there was
a “lack of evidence for the change” because the full report was not available. As a
result of employee reactions there was a “level of scrutiny” from both the media and
Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis 95
senior management according to the change manager (D). These minor themes of
missing capability and distrust suggest some context for the entrenchment, negativity
and wariness that became key challenges for the project.
Summary of challenges – change management project
Participants suggested that the change efforts for this project were actively
undermined by powerful alliances or met with resistance and negativity from various
directions. This suggested entrenched behaviours on the part of employees, the
management team and the service delivery partners, many of whom had lengthy
experience in the workplace. The participants cited other challenges for the project at
hand. Navigating the system and understanding the interplay of the component parts
was seen to be a challenge for the change manager. The leadership team was
functioning poorly. The team was described as wary of change generally, and the use
of a change manager more specifically. The participants held expectations that the
change process should address resistance and negativity, as well as concerns and
needs. The management team is expected to demonstrate leadership, organising day-
to-day work, and also supporting affected stakeholders and doing their part in
navigating the path of change, including collaborating with the change manager.
4.4.4 Challenges – change management in general
Participants were asked, based on their past and present experience, to describe
possible challenges for change management into the future. Four primary themes
emerged. One theme related to the ‘role of the change manager’, including
communicating the role, controlling the scope, and setting them up effectively.
Resourcing change management, timing the process and engagement were also
primary themes (Table 4.7).
Table 4.7
Interview Themes - Challenges - Change Management in General
Interview theme
Sub-themes Example (Participant)
Example (Change manager/D)
Participants
Role of the change manager
Communicating the role Onboarding
“recognising the need for a change manager” (B) “We need to onboard change managers properly” (A)
“must be the right fit” “starting well, earlier the better”
A B C D F G H I K (9)
96 Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis
Interview theme
Sub-themes Example (Participant)
Example (Change manager/D)
Participants
Controlling the scope
“there was role explosion” (A)
“strong possibility of burnout owing to expectations and demand”
Resourcing change
Allocating resources Justifying resources
“balance between dollars and priorities” (H) “we could have used that money” (I)
A B C H I (5)
Timing Starting Ending
“starting early enough” (C) “staff need to know when it ends” (B)
A B C G I K (6)
Effective engagement
Stakeholder involvement Addressing attitudes and concerns
“staff involvement” (C) “balancing viewpoints” (F)
“senior leadership needs to understand the impact on people”
B C D F G H I J L (9)
Source: interview data
Role of the change manager
Nine participants (A, B, C, D, F, G, H, I and K) commented on the role of the
change manager being a challenge for the future. Three sub-themes contributed to
this: communicating the role, onboarding the change manager and controlling the
scope of the role. Firstly, there is a challenge in communicating the role. In part this
stems from a lack of understanding. Participants B and K suggested there was
difficulty in “recognising the need for a change manager” (B) and “recognising they
[management] need help” (K). Participant B suggested that the role was “difficult to
recruit” and Participant D (change manager) argued the change manager “must be
the right fit”. Participant A observed that there is a difficulty in “describing what
they do and the value” and the change manager said it would be difficult to face the
“lack of understanding and the need to establish ‘cred’”. Participant I stated they
would need “more info about what they do” and Participant F wanted them to
articulate the framework being used more explicitly. “How are you going to bring
about the change? I don’t know if that is an easy thing to do or not” (F).
The second sub-theme related to onboarding. “We need to onboard change
managers properly,” observed Participant A. This would “let them get started” (C)
Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis 97
and “provide context” (A) which is “unique to setting and culture” (H). The third
sub-theme was concerned with controlling the scope of the change manager.
Participant A referred to the need for “clarity of expectations” and preventing “role
explosion”. The change manager commented on the “strong possibility of burnout
owing to expectations and demand”.
Resourcing
Resourcing was also seen to be a challenge into the future (A, B, C, H, and I).
Participant A referred to the difficulty of “working out what is needed, a change
expert or a content expert” while others referred to having to “balance between
dollars and priorities” (H) when “money is tight” (C). There was also a view that
resourcing change management needed additional justification compared to other
interventions. Participant I suggested that, in the local context, the business unit
would need to counter claims “we could have used that money”. Participant B
considered that on a broader scale, “we (the government) don’t seem to throw a lot of
money at purposely improving cultures, processes and practices”.
Timing
The third theme under this topic was timing. While one participant (B) referred
to the increasing pace of change and Participant K suggested a “lack of time”, the
majority of comments surrounded “starting at the right time and maximising
resources” (I), and “starting early enough” (C), or identifying the end of the change.
“When do we say it is done?” asked Participant B expressing concern that staff, in
particular, need to know when it ends. There was also a sense of mismatched timing
in terms of the end and the beginning. With regard to the end, “we’ve got a date for
the change manager to leave…and we have a project that we still need to finish”,
observed Participant B. Referring to the early actions taken after the review
including implementation of a team structure, Participant G said, “we changed before
we had a change manager”.
Effective engagement
Finally, nine participants (B, C, D, F, G, H, I, J and L) made reference to
engagement. This included observations that “buy-in” (G) and “staff involvement”
(C) was needed, which meant “bringing the staff on” (L) and being realistic about the
“staff ability to understand” (J). Additionally, this meant addressing attitudes and
98 Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis
concerns – the “powerful cliques” (B) and resistance (H), concerns about jobs (B and
J), and recognising that the change is “not being done to us…we’re in it together”
(G). Participant D (change manager) observed “senior management needed to
understand the impact on people”.
Summary of challenges – change management in general
Participants suggested that, in general, change projects would face a number of
challenges. These challenges appeared to reflect their experience of previous changes
as well as the project that was in train. They argued that there was a need to clearly
communicate the role of the change manager, that attention needed to be paid to on-
boarding the change manager and finally, the scope of, or demand placed on, the
change manager must be controlled. Participants were also were concerned about
adequately resourcing projects, the level of engagement and the issue of timing.
Participants were concerned that change support needed to start early, and that there
needed to be a clear end to a project.
4.4.5 Perceptions of change manager influence
Participants were asked questions about their expectations of change managers
including the skills they would look for in a change manager, the skills and attributes
they valued and what they would recommend to others if recruiting a change
manager. The change manager was asked variations of these questions including
their views on what the various stakeholders might have valued.
Several participants had little experience of change managers and what they
might do, outside the project. “I have never seen one before,” admitted Participant G.
Participant B “had no previous experience”, and Participant F stated, “the role was
not well articulated”. Despite this, five common primary themes emerged (Table
4.8): ‘social skills’, ‘experience and expertise’, ‘personal qualities’, and
‘organisation’.
Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis 99
Table 4.8
Interview Themes - Perceptions of Change Manager Influence
Interview theme
Sub-themes Example (Participant) Example (Change manager/D
Participants
Social skills Communication People skills
“explain things well” (C, E) “adept at dealing with people” (B)
“they just want to be heard” “had skills and the willingness to have conversations”
A B C D E F G H I J K L (12)
Experience and expertise
Practical experience Extensive knowledge
“experience in the field” (C) “need to know the processes you can apply” (B)
“demonstrating that this organisation is serious about change”
A B C D E G H I J L (10)
Personal qualities
Robust Energy Supportive Political savvy Good judgement
“so many issues arise – need to be able to deal with that” (B) “energy and enthusiasm” (B) “passionate” (E) “support for staff” (A) “support the director” (F) “ability to navigate the political environment in a complex organisational setting” (F) “put the pressure on the right level and take it off when you need to, and apply it again”(A
“persistence” “drive” “energy” “enthusiasm” “if it matters to somebody, it matters” “tweaking as I went”
A B D E F G H I J K (10)
Organisation Planning Monitoring Personal organisation
“roadmap towards change” (A) “keeping track of all the variables” (F) “ensuring things happen…follow through” (I)
A B D F G J K (7)
Source: interview data
Social skills
All participants cited people skills or communication skills as being
particularly important for the change manager. These slightly different perspectives
have been drawn together under a ‘social skills’ theme. References to
communication skills included the ability “to explain things well” (C and E),
“convey information” (C), “answer questions and concerns” (G) and “sell the
100 Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis
benefits” (F). People skills were described as “approachable” (E and I), “adept at
dealing with people” (B), and being a “people person” (C). Participant F suggested a
change manager needs to be a “facilitator”, and Participant J referred to the need for
“team building”. Both of these would lead to “options to contribute” (G) and “cross-
team collaboration” (L). Three participants (A, H and J) suggested “engagement” as
a key skill, while Participant B suggested the change manager needs “enough
charm”.
Experience and expertise
Ten participants (A, B, C, D, E, G, H, I, J and L) argued that the change
manager must bring practical experience and relevant knowledge. Participants A, I
and J stated that change managers must be “people with experience”, participants B
and H looked for “actual experience” and Participant C sought “experience in the
field”. Participants A, E and J suggested that human resource management
experience was necessary. “HR skills were important”, observed Participant A.
Others suggested that change managers must have “some idea of how the
organisation works” (I) and “know the business” (L). The ability to rapidly
understand the business environment was important. The change manager should
“learn the inner workings” (I) and gain a “good understanding of the operational
requirements and impact” (G).
Personal qualities
Participants suggested a range of ‘personal qualities’ such as “patience” (F),
“adaptability” (H), “confidence” (B) and “resilient” (B, H). Five sub-themes
emerged to support a theme of personal qualities. Firstly, the change manager should
be “robust” (A), they must be able to “deal with cynicism” (F), be “willing to
challenge people on behaviour” (K), “know how to deal with people and emotion”
(J) and “be willing to disagree” (K). F suggested they needed skills in “taming the
lions”. Secondly, they need a significant level of “energy” (B). They should be
“passionate” (E) with a “positive outlook” (B), or “enthusiasm and drive” (D).
Thirdly, the change manager needs to provide “support for staff” (A) and “support
for leaders” (B). Participant B “discovered they provided a lot of personal and
professional support”.
Participant K suggested that the change manager needed to exhibit “political
savvy” (K) and others agreed. The fourth sub-theme, ‘political savvy’, was seen as
Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis 101
the necessary “ability to navigate the political environment in a complex
organisational setting” (F) or “understanding government structures, how it works”
(C) and “navigating the system” (K). Finally, Participant B argued good judgement
was needed “because so many things come up, so many issues arising they need to
be able to deal with”. Participant A suggested that the change manager would need to
be able to “watch the pressure cooker”. They need to “put the pressure on the right
level and take it off when you need to, and apply it again” (A).
Organisation
The fourth theme in this topic was ‘organisation’, with two contributing
aspects: ‘planning’ and ‘monitoring’. Participant D described this as “getting things
done” through project management, measurement and monitoring. Participant A
expected the change manager to provide a “roadmap for change”, Participant B
looked for a “clear plan” and both participants G and J also expected planning that
demonstrated the change manager “understands where you are going and the
direction” (J). Participant F was more interested in the monitoring of progress
“keeping track of all the variables” to “make sure the benefits are realised”. The
implication of this theme is that the change manager must be organised, a personal
quality.
Summary of perceptions of change manager influence
The skills and knowledge of the change manager most valued by participants
included social skills, or communication and people skills, and various personal
qualities. Participants described the change manager as needing to be robust and
resilient, with energy and enthusiasm, and a supportive approach. A change manager
should also have practical experience in the field as well as specific knowledge of
change management tools, resources and frameworks. A change manager should
plan and monitor the change management process. Participants also expected a mix
of political savvy and good judgement that allowed for innovation, flexibility and
adaptability in delivering the change process. Participants expected the project to be
organised in a formal sense, with a clear implication that the change manager should
be personally organised.
102 Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis
4.4.6 The contribution of change management to project success
Participants were asked for their views on the difference change management
might have made to the success of the project. They were also asked about planned
and unexpected successes or benefits that they had observed (Table 4.9).
Table 4.9
Interview Themes - Contribution of Change Management to Project Success
Theme Sub-themes Example (Participant)
Example (Change manager/D)
Participants
Cultural improvement
Improvements measured Improvements observed
“surveys show significant improvement” B “Culture moving in a positive direction” A
“I have evidence based on the barometer checks that there is an improvement, a considerable improvement”, “cultural improvements” “improved perceptions of the leadership team”
A B C D J K (6)
Embedded structural change
Structure Governance
“implementation of teams” “policies and processes being followed” (J)
“team and structural changes” “reduced risks”
D F G E G I J (7)
Communication and engagement
Clear considered communication Consultation and involvement
“communication plan” (J) “lots of consultation” (I)
A B C F G I J L (8)
Focussed change
Enhanced leadership Proactive approach Organisation and planning
“buy-in from senior management” (F) “viewing change as a process with its own focus” (A) “clearer idea of the support to be provided” (J)
“getting things done”
A B D E F G I J K (9)
Learning and development
Formal learning Social processes for behavioural change
“training has happened” (E) “processes to bring forward cultural and behavioural changes” (F)
C E J L F (5)
Source: interview data
Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis 103
Cultural improvement
Six participants (A, B, C, D, J and K) observed improvements in the culture as
a result of the project. Participant A described a “culture moving in a positive
direction” with “more respectful engagement”. Participant D observed “cultural
improvements” and Participant B suggested staff were “happier, more settled”.
Participant C, a long-term employee, stated, “I talk to a lot of staff. A lot of staff talk
to me and are quite open about what they say, which other people wouldn’t hear, and
basically there’s no negativity”. These observations were supported by the results of
two survey instruments. The project used a periodic ‘barometer survey’, based on a
survey administered during the organisational review, to measure staff responses to
the change. In addition, the organisation undertakes an annual employee opinion
(EOS) or climate survey and this took place during the implementation project.
Participants A, B, C and J referred to improvements in the barometer survey results.
The “surveys show significant improvement,” said Participant B, while Participant C
described the results as showing “leaps and bounds in peoples’ attitudes” and
Participant K referred to “EOS improvements”.
Embedded structural change
There were two aspects to the theme of structural change, changes to the
structure of the business unit and improvements to the operation of the business, or
governance. The principal structural change was the reorganisation of services into a
team-based model. The implementation of teams was mentioned by four participants
(D, E, F and G) with Participant G stating that “I quite enjoy the new model”.
Participant F also referred to decentralisation as a key outcome. Participants
described improvements in governance and in the organisation of the business more
generally. Participant J observed that there were “visible improvements” in
governance with “policies and processes being followed”. Participant E stated
“business is better, more organised.” The change manager (D) suggested that
improvements to governance had “reduced risks”.
Communication and engagement
Eight participants (A, B, C, F, G, I, J and L) suggested that the project resulted
in improved communication and engagement. The existence of a “communication
plan” (J) and “clearer expectations” (F) led to “improved communication” (C):
“more information” (I), “more communication, more regular” (F), “more
104 Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis
discussions” (G) and a greater understanding of “the why and the how” (L).
Participant I suggested there was “lots of consultation” and Participant F believed
people were “more engaged”. This participation meant, “getting people on board”
(B).
Focussed change
Three sub-themes contributed to a primary theme of focused change. Firstly it
was observed that there was improved leadership. There was “buy-in from senior
management” (F) with “recognition that the skills are different for BAU [business as
usual] versus change” (A). Participant A commented that there was “an awareness
that one of the things we (leaders) need to get better at is actually asking for
resources to support change, transition processes”. Participant D (change manager)
saw their role as a change manager as building the confidence, competence and skills
of the leadership team.
Secondly, the participants described the approach to change as more proactive.
The approach was “significantly different, with extra staff and extra management
provided” (G). This included the use of a change manager (A, B and I), which “gives
focus” (I) and ensured that the approach was “proactive versus ‘bushfire
management’” (A). The approach was described as “viewing change as a process
with its own focus” and “a conscious treatment of stages” (A).
Finally, participants (F, G, J and K) felt the change was “more planned” (F),
with “more lead in” (G) and a “clearer idea of support to be provided” (J). The
change manager (D) referred to “getting things done” which incorporated project
planning and communication planning as well as trial and error based on having lots
of knowledge.
Learning and development
The final theme for this topic was ‘learning and development’. Four
participants (C, E, J and L) referred to training as being a key outcome: “training has
happened” (E), “staff are going to things like VT (vicarious trauma) training” C).
There were also broader references to changes in behaviour, which might be
attributed to informal and social processes, such as “processes to bring forward
cultural and behavioural changes” (F).
Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis 105
Summary of the contribution of change management to project success
The participants suggested that in this case, effective change management led
to cultural improvements including positive behaviour and more respectful
engagement. Participants reported the organisational structure had been implemented
prior to the change manager commencing. However, structural changes attributed to
the project included improved work organisation and business processes, and
stronger governance. Further, participants reported lasting improvements to
communication and engagement, and an ongoing commitment to learning and
development.
Apart from outcomes, participants described key elements for effective change
management, described above as ‘focussed change’. Change processes were
characterised as: having top management support; sustainably improving leadership
practice within the business unit; organising and planning change, based on a clear
understanding of needs; and being proactive in delivering initiatives that met those
needs. The implications for change managers are that they must possess skills and
experience to assess and address cultural issues, the ability to design or refine
structure or facilitate the process, and the ability to design the change process based
on evidence (including emerging needs) and using their knowledge and experience
of frameworks and models.
4.5 ADDITIONAL DATA – BAROMETER SURVEY
The change manager provided a copy of a barometer survey report as evidence
to support observations that the project resulted in improvements in governance,
culture, structure, communication, and support. “I have evidence based on the
barometer checks that there is an improvement, a considerable improvement”, said
the change manager (D). The survey results supported the effectiveness of planned
change management activities, which targeted cultural, structural, governance,
communication and leadership issues. Participant B observed that the early scores
“were so low it can only improve but they turned around pretty quickly, very
quickly, that was unexpected”.
The barometer survey was administered to employees, including managers, of
the business unit, a total of 50 employees. The survey was initially administered
during the organisational review in November 2017 and this was treated as a
106 Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis
baseline. The barometer checks were administered twice by the change manager;
between 16 and 23 May 2018, and again between 23 and 30 July 2018. The May
2018 response rate was 64%, an increase of six points from the previous survey.
The results of the barometer surveys were positive. Of the 34 items, 29 had an
increase in positive perceptions of over 10 points from their starting point. The
maximum increases were between 41 and 50 points indicating significant
improvements in the respondents’ perceptions of their ability to contribute to
business improvements, respect within the workplace and the functioning of the
management team. Increases between 31 and 40 points indicated more positive
perceptions about: having appropriate information and resources, effective service
delivery, performance and discipline management, and aspects of governance and
decision-making. The majority of questions increased by 21-30 points and indicated
increased satisfaction with governance and decision-making, feedback and
performance monitoring, recognition, role clarity, and service delivery standards.
4.6 ANALYSIS
How do change managers, and their use change management processes,
influence project success? The interview themes and sub-themes were further
analysed in the context of the research questions, identifying connections across the
topics that emerged as primary themes. In summary, analysis of the data suggested
the change manager’s influence could be categorised into three themes, that stand
alone but are connected to the themes for the influence of change management:
1. social skills – communication and people skills;
2. personal qualities – robust and resilient, energy and enthusiasm, support,
political savvy and good judgement; and
3. experience and expertise – extensive knowledge and practical experience.
The contribution of change management to project success could be categorised into
six themes, which contextualise and support the themes for the change manager’s
influence. These are described below, based on the data:
Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis 107
1. evidence-based design and execution – a proactive approach, treating
change as a priority in itself and designed on the basis of evidence, needs
and the expert application of models, frameworks and experience.
Evidence-based design and execution is supported primarily by the change
manager’s experience and expertise;
2. role clarity – clarity about the specific roles involved, their scope, and their
interaction for delivering the change and project. Role clarity is in part
supported by the change manager’s experience and expertise, and also
through their social skills;
3. planning and scheduling – organising delivery of the design in appropriate
stages, through appropriate mechanisms, and in appropriate timeframes
with relevant measures for monitoring progress. Planning and scheduling
is based on the change manager’s expertise and experience, and their
personal qualities;
4. communication and engagement – communicating and engaging with
stakeholders on a range of levels from the overall project level to the micro
level. Change managers contribute social skills and personal qualities to
their interpersonal interactions, and apply them in combination with their
experience and expertise to the development of communication and
engagement strategies and activities;
5. support and resilience building – developing and providing support in the
form of leadership, learning and development, and empathetic cultural
change initiatives for the period of the project, with the aim of sustainable
improvements in stakeholder readiness for change. Support and resilience
building is reliant on the change manager’s experience and expertise to
diagnose and respond to issues, their personal qualities in driving
interventions, and their social skills to deliver them; and
6. value realisation – identifying and satisfying or managing stakeholder
expectations of benefits, outputs and outcomes, in the short and longer
term. Value realisation requires all of the change manager’s influences to
be achieved.
108 Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis
The themes were common to all stakeholders, including the change manager, though
their specific expectations may have differed. The development of these themes and
their relationship to the literature are discussed in more detail in the following
sections.
4.6.1 Research question one
The first research question was “how are organisational change managers
influencing key stakeholders’ perceptions of change project success?” This question
sought information on what the stakeholders thought a change manager does, what
they contribute and how they affect the success of a project. It also explored how the
change manager sees their role and contribution. The combination of the
participants’ expectations for, experiences of, and reflections on this project and
others, produced insights into the influence of the change manager.
Research question one – part a
The first part of research question one was “How do key stakeholders (such as
project owners, project managers, affected employees, managers, service delivery
partners) perceive the influence of organisational change managers on project
success?” This question sought to explore the perspectives of a range of
stakeholders, each with varying degrees of influence and connection to the business
unit, on the contribution of organisational change managers on the success of a
project. Analysis of the data suggested three interview themes directly relevant to the
influence of change managers: ‘social skills’, ‘personal qualities’, and ‘experience
and expertise’. These interview themes became emerging primary themes as analysis
of the data for the contribution of change management to project success supported
their necessity (Table 4.10).
Table 4.10
Primary Themes - Change Manager Contribution
Primary theme – change manager
influence
Interview theme Sub-theme Related primary themes – change management
contribution to project success
Social skills Social skills Communication People skills
Communication and engagement Support and resilience building
Personal qualities Personal qualities Robust and resilient Planning and scheduling
Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis 109
Primary theme – change manager
influence
Interview theme Sub-theme Related primary themes – change management
contribution to project success
Energy and enthusiasm Supportive Political savvy Good judgement
Communication and engagement Support and resilience building
Experience and expertise
Experience and expertise
Extensive knowledge Practical experience
Evidence-based design and execution Role clarity Planning and scheduling Communication and engagement Support and reliance building Value realisation
Source: interview data
Social skills Stakeholders believed change managers should possess strong communication
and people skills. The primary contributing interview theme was ‘social skills’.
However, the implications of other change management related themes especially
‘communication and engagement’, and ‘support and resilience building’, suggest this
is an important area of competency. In order to develop a communication and
engagement strategy, and deal with entrenched and negative behaviours the change
manager must possess personal communication skills and the ability to deal with
emotions, the most obvious aspect to stakeholders being social management.
Participants made reference to communication skills including the ability to “convey
information” (C), “paint the picture” (F) and “explain things well” (C and E). They
also described the need for the change manager to be “a people person” (C), “adept
at dealing with people” and “approachable” (E and I). Participant B described the
change manager as needing “enough charm”.
Personal qualities
Participants described change managers as having to be “robust” (A),
“resilient” (B, H) and able to “deal with cynicism” as well as “people and
110 Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis
emotion”(J). They also described them as having energy and enthusiasm; they should
be “passionate” (E) with a “positive outlook” (B). Change managers are expected to
provide support for staff (A) and support for leaders (B), demonstrating leadership in
their own right. They should have political savvy and navigate the system (K).
Participants felt change managers needed to exercise good judgement to cope with
the various issues that arise in the course of a project (B) as well as judging how and
when best to act, being careful to “watch the pressure cooker” (A). Participant A
described the need for a change manager to be “robust” and participants B and H
suggested a level of resilience was needed. This would give them the ability to deal
“with negative behaviours” (B), “deal with performance and behavioural issues” (J),
and “manage feelings and emotional responses” (F). Participant B suggested that
change managers would need to be bright or intelligent “because so many things
come up, so many issues arising that they need to be able to deal with”. Participant F
went further suggesting change managers needed skills for “taming the lions”, while
Participant A felt they needed to be able to “watch the pressure cooker”. Change
managers also need confidence to “confidently engage in change and document it”
(B) and for “dealing with different, difficult groups” (F). Change managers should
also be organised, engaging in planning (G, J), “keeping track of all the variables”
(F), developing a “roadmap towards change” (A) and making “sure that the benefits
are realised”.
The sub-themes ‘robust and resilient’, ‘energy and enthusiasm’, ‘supportive’,
‘political savvy’, and ‘good judgement’ contributed to an interview theme of
‘personal qualities’, which became a primary theme.
Experience and expertise
Participants suggested that change managers should demonstrate a high level
of expertise based on relevant knowledge, both practical and theoretical, and
experience (A, B, C, D, E, G, H, I, J and L) of life, varied work environments and
change. For example, Participant C looked for “experience in the field”, while
participants B and H sought “actual experience”. In contrast, Participant F wanted
the change manager to be able to clearly articulate the framework being used, asking,
“How are you going to bring about the change? I don’t know if that is an easy thing
to do or not”.
Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis 111
The interview theme contributing directly to this primary theme was
‘experience and expertise’. Additionally, the primary theme of ‘evidence-based
design and execution’ as an antidote to poorly planned, poorly considered and
unfinished changes, supports the need for experience and expertise. Without relevant
skills combined with knowledge of models, methodologies, tools and processes for
change and project management as well as culture, the change manager is unlikely to
appropriately design and execute interventions to effect change.
The interview theme of ‘focussed change’ provides context for the primary
theme of ‘experience and expertise’. Focussed change was drawn from observations
that there should be a proactive approach to change, achieved through “a conscious
treatment of stages” and “viewing change as a process with its own focus” (A).
Additionally, the use of a change manager “gives focus” (I) to a change project;
participants cited feeling that the change experience in this instance was “more
planned” (F), had “more lead in” (G) and was “proactive versus ‘bushfire
management’” (A).
Based on the participants’ criticisms of past change projects and their
reflections on the current project, the data suggested that a change manager’s
expertise would be expressed in well-designed and well-executed plans for change.
Those plans would be based on evidence and needs, and provide a sense of
organisation and planning. This would address concerns that change approaches
were “horrible” (K), “bad” (C) and poorly considered (F, G, J, K and L). In addition,
the change manager’s expertise would be demonstrated in their ability to rapidly
acquire knowledge and understanding of the nature and context of the business, and
their ability to navigate the system. Change managers should “know the business”
(L), “learn the inner workings” and develop a “good understanding of the operational
requirements and impact” (G).
Research question one – part b
The second part of the research question “How do organisational change
managers perceive their influence on project success?” centred on the change
manager’s view of their contribution to the success of a project. The change
manager’s perspective, in this case study, agreed on many points with the broader
group of stakeholders which led to three key themes for the personal contribution of
112 Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis
change managers: ‘social skills’, ‘personal qualities’ and ‘experience and expertise’.
Their perspective was at times more nuanced or broader.
Social skills The change manager (D) considered skills in communication, consultation and
collaboration as key contributions on their part. They considered that it was
important “put themselves out there” for two reasons. Being visible meant,
“demonstrating that the organisation is serious about change.” On a more granular
level, they felt they had a role in “describing what was going to happen” and to be
available for stakeholders, particularly employees and managers. With regard to
employees they said, “they just want to be heard” and you have to both understand
different perspectives and “build trust one person at a time.” The change manager
(D) cited having “the skills and ability to have the conversations” at all levels, as
well as their ability to produce good quality documents with “persuasive arguments”
as useful contributions.
The change manager (D) also referred to their role in building the confidence
and competence of both employees and the leadership team. They claimed they had
built a good rapport with the director. “It could have been a disaster, if we didn’t
respect and like each other and get on with each other, it would have been terrible,”
they said. Additionally, they dealt with resistance and negativity. It was hard “trying
to convince the managers to take a risk” and there was also the resistance of
employees. The change manager (D) observed that “the strength of a few was
surprising”, and that the attitude of these stakeholders tended to be “I reject your
reality and substitute it with my own.”
Personal qualities
The change manager (D) observed that a number of personal attributes served
them well in managing their interactions with stakeholders. In common with other
stakeholders they considered their energy and enthusiasm, adaptability and being
organised or “getting things done” to be valuable. They also indicated that they were
persistent and driven, optimistic, collaborative, a problem solver and adaptable.
Experience and expertise The change manager (D) described themselves as confident in their skills.
They felt they were seen as an expert with a breadth of knowledge and experience. In
particular, the change manager had experience in different organisations and had
Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis 113
experience of change. They also had human resources experience, which they felt
contributed to their success. The change manager (D) regarded their knowledge of
public sector governance, their understanding of project management and their
organisational skills as valuable. They also stated that they “wanted to learn some
things.”
Research question one – findings and the literature
The first research question was “how are organisational change managers
influencing key stakeholders’ perceptions of change project success?” This question
explored change manager influence in two parts: a) what the stakeholders thought a
change manager did, what they contribute and how they affect the success of a
project; and b) how the change manager saw their role and contribution.
As described above the stakeholders’ perspectives, including the change
manager, generated three themes: ‘social skills’; ‘personal qualities’; and ‘experience
and expertise’ for change manager influence (Figure 4.2).
Figure 4.2. Three themes for change manager influence.
These findings were considered in the context of prior research (Table 4.11) noting
that there are limited studies relating to change managers specifically. Therefore, this
section relies quite heavily on logical deductions and parallels in the literature.
Stakeholder perspectives
Change manager influence
Social skills
Personal qualities
Experience and expertise
114 Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis
Table 4.11
Research Question One - Study Findings and the Project Success and Change Management Literature
Research question one and primary themes Prior research coverage
Cha
nge
man
ager
influ
ence
How are organisational change managers influencing key stakeholders’ perceptions of change project success?
a. How do key stakeholders (such as project owners, project managers, affected employees, managers, service delivery partners) perceive the influence of organisational change managers on project success?
b. How do organisational change managers perceive their influence on project success?
Primary themes Social skills: possession of comprehensive communication and people skills
Project success literature: to a limited extent. Change management literature: to a limited extent.
Personal qualities: a range of qualities and attributes that are valued by change mangers themselves, and both expected and respected by stakeholders including being robust and resilient, energetic and enthusiastic, supportive, demonstrating political savvy and good judgement
Project success literature: to a limited extent. Change management literature: to a limited extent.
Experience and expertise: extensive knowledge and practical experience
Project success literature: to a limited extent. Change management literature: to a limited extent.
Social skills
Analysis of the data suggested that a change manager influences project
success through their personal social skills. As the literature review revealed, there
has been limited exploration of the specific skills and attributes of change managers.
The need for those involved in implementing change to possess strong
communication and people skills is supported by the project management and change
management literature. Pollack (2016, p. 1246) observed, “there is increasing
convergence about how the literatures discuss communication and stakeholder
roles”. However, the project success literature has focussed on communication
within project management processes, and subsequently on the softer skills of project
managers, and to a lesser extent other project related roles. The change management
literature emphasises the role of communication in change management processes,
which will be discussed in the next section in relation to the contribution of change
management.
Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis 115
Communication (Brière et al., 2015; Pollack & Algeo, 2016) and engagement
is described as a key skill set for change managers (Crawford & Nahmias, 2010) and
therefore within “…an important grouping of competencies linked to the human and
behavioural aspect, as well as personal skills” (Brière et al., 2015, p. 123) for change
management. Change agents, and therefore change managers, must be able to use
targeted communication effectively (Matthias, 2015; Pollack & Algeo, 2015;
Stummer & Zuchi, 2010). They need to be proactively engaged in interacting with
employees (Worley & Mohrman, 2014) and, by extension, other stakeholders.
Persuasive oral and written communication, in combination with negotiation (Brière
et al., 2015) and enabling participation and involvement, is a key strategy for dealing
with resistance (Armenakis et al., 1993).
Personal qualities
Participants, including the change manager, identified a range of qualities and
attributes that they valued. Qualities expected and respected by stakeholders included
being robust and resilient, energetic and enthusiastic, supportive, and demonstrating
political savvy and good judgement. Qualities such as adaptability and charm were
also mentioned. These personal qualities, amongst others, have been identified in the
literature, primarily in relation to project managers, but also for change agents, or
change managers, specifically.
Change manager competencies would include: leadership, planning, team
selection and development, decision-making and problem-solving, and cultural
awareness (Crawford & Nahmias, 2010), and the ability to operate at multiple
organisational levels at the same time (Pollack, 2016). Further, change managers
should be able to change behaviour and influence organisational culture; prepare
users or stakeholders; plan or design organisational structures; be able to analyse
impacts; and act as a champion of schemes, promoting the change along the way
(Crawford & Nahmias, 2010). Change agents need to be able to decide who is
involved in change and how, and this requires both judgement and connections
(Battilana & Casciaro, 2012).
More generally, a recent study (Gruden & Stare, 2018) confirmed certain
behavioural competencies influence project performance, such as assertiveness,
emotional resilience, creativity, social competence and leadership. Project managers
are described as needing qualities such as leadership (Graetz, 2000), ethics,
116 Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis
communication and personal qualities, interpersonal skills, adaptability, capacity
building and a local network and knowledge (Brière et al., 2015). In combination,
these various qualities establish relationships of trust, contributing to individual
stakeholder resilience (Francisco de Oliveira & Rabechini Jr, 2019) and
organisational resilience (Kimberlin, Schwartz, & Austin, 2011).
Experience and expertise The third theme generated for the influence of the change manager was
‘experience and expertise’. There are parallels in the now extensive discussion of the
competencies and attributes of project managers in the project success literature
(Hornstein, 2015; Müller & Turner, 2010; Müller & Turner, 2007; Pinto & Slevin,
1987).
In terms of change managers specifically, this finding complements the limited
research. Change managers focus on planning and embedding change (Crawford &
Nahmias, 2010), and on alignment, politics, reconciling viewpoints, communicating
and training (Pollack & Algeo, 2016). Change managers accumulate diagnostic
models (Hughes, 2007) in order to make choices about tailored interventions
(Worley & Mohrman, 2014). Further, they operate in the context of the
organisational culture, aligning with organisational strategy and ensuring relevance
to stakeholders (Worley & Mohrman, 2014) and managing complexity (Pollack &
Algeo, 2016).
A change manager needs to be well-experienced (Stummer & Zuchi, 2010),
able to learn from their experience (Worley & Mohrman, 2014) and conscious of the
interpersonal, capability building and facilitative aspects of change (Pollack &
Algeo, 2016). They also require technical skills, including knowledge of change
management tools and techniques (Hughes, 2007) and project management skills
(Crawford & Nahmias, 2010). To this list, could be added knowledge of stakeholder
theory and tools that enable the identification of relevant stakeholders to ensure that
they are kept satisfied and within the system (Clarkson, 1995). The participants of
this study would add human resource management skills and experience.
Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis 117
Research question one – summary
In summary, this study complements the existing limited literature relating to
the change manager’s contribution to project success. It must be acknowledged that
there are practitioner models that provide advice about competencies for change
managers (Change Management Institute, 2014) but as yet these have had limited
exposure in the literature. To some extent, the communication and engagement skills,
personal qualities and expertise and experience required of change managers can be
extrapolated from the existing research relating to project managers, leaders, and
change agents. Further, the themes for the influence of change management on
project success support the themes for the influence of change managers. Change
managers cannot produce evidence-based change interventions, work effectively
with the different roles or stakeholders, effectively plan change activities, develop
communication plans, provide effective support or identify and achieve value for
stakeholders without the personal factors described above. To a large extent the
effectiveness of change “…strategies depends on the expertise, trustworthiness,
credibility and sincerity of the change agent” (Armenakis et al., 1993; By, 2007, p. 6)
4.6.2 Research question two
Research question two asked, “How do key stakeholder perceptions of the
contribution of change management inform the future assessment of project
success?” To assess this, participants, including the change manager (D), were asked
about: their experience of change; their experience of the project at the centre of the
case study including any benefits or successes, planned or unplanned; the challenges
they saw for change management; and their suggestions for improvement. As
outlined above, analysis of the data generated six primary themes for the contribution
of change management ‘evidence-based design and execution’; ‘role clarity’;
‘planning and scheduling’; ‘communication and engagement’; ‘support and
resilience building’; and ‘value realisation’. These are connected to and are
supported by the three themes previously identified for change manager influence
from the analysis of the stakeholder (participant) perspectives (Figure 4.3): All
stakeholders contributed to these themes, including the change manager whose view
was at times more specific or nuanced.
118 Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis
Figure 4.3. Six themes for change management influence, supported by three themes of change manager influence.
Research question two – part a
Part a of research question two asked, “How do organisational change
managers’ perceptions of the contribution of change management inform the future
assessment of project success?” This question explored the aspects of change
management the change manager saw as valuable for achieving overall project
success and contributed to the six primary themes for change management’s
influence on project success.
Evidence-based design and execution The change manager (D) demonstrated a stronger grasp of the origins of the
project than other participants. This included both the formal benefits and desirable
outcomes from an organisational and senior management perspective. They had the
benefit of full access to documentation and could draw on experience and expertise
to design and plan a response. They referred to having to “implement a structure that
provides value for money”, needing to “provide an evidence base for increased
structure” and reducing risks, especially work health and safety risk. They also
referred to documenting improvements and outcomes, and implementing
measurement and monitoring, for example through the use of the barometer survey.
Relying on their expertise and experience to both plan and adapt as necessary,
they admitted to “tweaking as I went”. They criticised previous approaches as “non-
existent” and lacking in consultation, communication and collaboration, as well as
lacking in project management. This critique and discussion of their current approach
Stakeholder perspectives
Change manager influence
Social skills
Personal qualities
Experience and expertise
Change management influence
Communication and engagement
Planning and scheduling
Role clarity
Evidence-based design and execution
Support and resilience building
Value realisation
Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis 119
indicated a view that change management needs to be thought through. It needs to be
appropriate as both a response to its cause (in this case the review) and to needs
identified during implementation.
Role clarity
The change manager (D) observed that the stakeholders seemed to have little
understanding of the change manager role. People frequently said that they had
“never heard of a change manager” and the change manager responded to questions
about why a change manager was necessary. The change manager (D) felt that they
had to justify the role and understood it was “a bit of a showcase role.” They felt that
they repeatedly said, “so that’s why there is a change manager” after fixing
something. While the stakeholders may not have been clear about the role, the
change manager felt there were high expectations. At times they felt a great deal of
pressure as there was “a lot pushed on to the role” and they also felt this was a risk
for change managers as there would be a “strong possibility of burnout owing to the
expectations and demand.”
In contrast to the majority of stakeholders, who focused on the role of the
change manager, the change manager (D) saw a broader issue with role clarity. The
change manager observed a lack of clarity around governance roles generally and
project roles specifically, stating that they needed to sort out the sponsor, director
and project roles themselves. They pointed to a lack of internal expertise, especially
in terms of project management and governance, as contributing to the confusion,
and suggested there was a need for “project 101”.
Planning and scheduling
The change manager (D) referred to a lack of project management, a lack of
documentation, and the lack of an organisational understanding of change. They
suggested that change management should start well and “the earlier, the better”.
They observed that they needed to create the project, put governance structures in
place and establish the activities and timeframes. “I had to put the governance
structure in place.” They also planned the use of the barometer survey to allow for
outcomes to be achieved within particular periods. The change manager (D) clearly
regarded the use of planning and scheduling to be key to success, not just to ensure
outcomes were met, which they documented, but also to provide guidance to
120 Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis
stakeholders about what to expect. They felt they played a role in “describing what
was going to happen” and building trust and credibility.
Communication and engagement The change manager (D) placed a great deal of emphasis on communication.
They felt their communication and people skills were important, and that the
communication and engagement aspects of the project were vital. They were critical
of past approaches that seemed to have “low levels of collaboration” and “limited
involvement of stakeholders”. They observed that there had been a couple of big
changes and no talking; they were “not sure that time was taken to explain”.
Support and resilience building The change manager (D) observed negative and resistant behaviour in
stakeholders. These included employees, the management team and the service
delivery providers. The change manager (D) was aware there had been a number of
reviews and directors, and believed past changes could be characterised as lacking
communication, training, and planning. The change manager (D) found “the strength
of a few was surprising” but did not seem surprised at the general negativity given
the history of the business unit.
The change manager (D) described two of their challenges during the project:
“trying to convince managers to take a risk” and the “power of the resistors”. It was
“those pesky people, always those pesky people” they observed with a laugh. The
change manager (D) described needing to build the confidence and competency of
the leadership team to lead the change and deal with undesirable behaviours, and
build the competency of employees. During the project the change manager (D) took
unplanned leave for four weeks. They were surprised by the reversal of behaviours
that took place in their absence, saying they thought, “oh my god, we are back where
we started from…it was a face palm, devastating moment actually and it was
terrible.” They cited the improved perceptions of the leadership team as one of their
successes. These observations indicate the change manager’s (D) perspective that
stakeholders, particularly employees and leaders, need more than communication,
they need support, development and the capacity to cope with change on an ongoing
basis.
Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis 121
Value realisation
As discussed above, the change manager (D) appeared to have a greater
understanding of the purpose and objectives of the project. They were aware of the
need for structural change, including improvements in efficiency and productivity.
They were also aware of objectives for cultural change, addressing key issues such as
perceptions of bullying and inappropriate behaviour, as well as addressing the
functioning of the management team. Additionally, the project aimed to improve
governance. The change manager (D) provided a copy of the project plan, which
outlined the proposed benefits for the project.
On the whole, the change manager’s (D) perspective was that they were there
to support benefits realisation, in a project sense. Coupled with indications that they
had worked toward individual successes and changes, not listed on the benefits plan,
and addressed concerns of the director particularly, the change manager (D)
contributed to an emerging primary theme of ‘value realisation’ – achieving formal
benefits as well as outcomes of value to the stakeholders.
Research question two – part b
Part b of research question two asked, “How do the perceptions of key
stakeholders (such as project owners, project managers, affected employees,
managers, service delivery partners) of the contribution of change management
inform the future assessment of project success?” The participants reflected on past
experiences and the project at the centre of the study. They identified concerns,
challenges, and successes, which provided an insight into what they considered
necessary for project success. As discussed above, the data suggested six themes:
‘evidence-based design and execution’; ‘role clarity’; ‘planning and scheduling’;
‘communication and engagement’; ‘support and resilience building’; and ‘value
realisation’. These are discussed below.
Evidence-based design and execution The participants were critical of the organisation’s usual approach to change.
The interview themes were: ‘poor consideration of approach’, ‘many unfinished
changes’, and ‘change just happens’. The implications of these were that participants
expected change to be thought through, completed and planned. They also expected
more focus (focused change): proactive, organised and well led.
122 Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis
They described previous change projects as having been “done on the cheap”
(L), with no planning (K, L) or resourcing (F). The usual approach was also
described as poorly considered, launching into projects “without considering the
roadblocks” (F), or considering “damaged workplaces” (J) and choosing solutions
that do not “necessarily fit the problem” (K). Additionally, they pointed to low levels
of stakeholder involvement. Participant L said “it’s the fuzziness that is the problem”
and Participant F suggested that previous changes had “failed to bring people along”.
Participants suggested that the number of changes, and turnover in directors,
contributed to the lack of success. Considering the business unit, Participant H said,
“it seems to be in a constant state of flux”. “The succession of directors with
different approaches and styles” (F) appears to have compounded the other deficits
making employees, managers, and other stakeholders wary of change.
Participants sought clarity about the reasons for the project and its activities.
Participants G, I and L were concerned that they had not seen the report or a list of
recommendations. Participant L looked for evidence for the recommendations
stating, “I don’t know how good it is” having seen the results in “very vague terms”.
Additionally, while aware that the report indicated a toxic culture, Participant L
sought the evidence for that as well. Participant F wanted a clearly articulated
framework asking, “How are you going to bring about the change?”
In contrast, participants described positive aspects of the project at the centre of
the case study. There was a perception that consideration had been given to change.
There was “recognition that the skills are different for BAU versus change” (A) and
the approach was described as proactive (A). Participant G described the approach as
“significantly different, with extra staff and extra management provided”.
Participants (F, G, J and K) described the change as more planned, with the use of a
change manager giving focus (I).
In combination, the data suggested that participants would like to see change
designed and executed with consideration. They would like to understand the reason
for the project, the reason for its activities and why activities or interventions have
been chosen. Recognising that a change manager brings skills and experience to
bear, “actual experience and knowledge of methods and frameworks” (B and H),
they would also like to see evidence of that skill and experience in the management
of change.
Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis 123
Role clarity
Participants expressed concern about the role of the change manager. Many
were unclear about the role and some had not heard of a change manager. The
organisation had difficulty in “recognising the need for a change manager “
according to Participant B. In part this may be due to the difficulty in “describing
what they do and the value” (A). Participant I said they would “need more info about
what they (change managers) do” and Participant F was not sure about how they
would do what they do, “How are you going to bring about the change?”
There was also concern that the change manager in this project did not receive
the induction they needed, and this was considered a challenge into the future. “We
need to onboard change managers properly”, argued Participant A. Participant C
agreed, onboarding would “let them get started”. Finally, there was concern about
the scope of the role. Participant A observed there was a risk of “role explosion” and
therefore a need to clarify expectations.
Planning and scheduling
Three interview themes contributed to the emergence of a ‘planning and
scheduling’ theme: ‘resourcing change’, ‘organisation’ (planning and monitoring)
and ‘timing’. Participants considered resourcing for change to be important. They
criticized the usual approach to change for its lack of resourcing. Participant A said,
“as a whole, our agency is ‘sure we can do that, we don’t need any money’” and one
was “expected to do it on top your day job”. Participant F suggested that change was
not resourced, and Participant L described it as “done on the cheap”. Participants
considered resourcing would continue to be a challenge as “money is tight” (C) and
there had to be a “balance between dollars and priorities” (H). However, the project
in this case study was “significantly different, with extra staff and management
provided” (G).
Participants criticised the organisation’s usual approach to change for its lack
of organisation or planning and monitoring; there was “no formal plan” (K), “no
planning” (L), and it was “piecemeal” (F). They also referred to short notice; “you
might get three weeks and ‘you figure it out’ (G) or “given two weeks notice of a
need for an electronic system” (C). Participant G said, “I guess you just muddle
around until you figure it out”. In contrast with the usual approach, Participant J felt
there was a benefit in “having a plan”, Participant F felt the project was “more
124 Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis
planned”, and Participant A described it as more proactive. Participant J said there
was a “clearer idea of support to be provided” and Participant I suggested that having
a change manager meant “ensuring things happen”.
Finally, timing was an issue for participants. There was a minor theme, as
evidenced above, of “lack of time” (K). However, participants commented on the
right time to start, deciding when the project was finished and aligning timeframes to
activities. For example, Participant C said there was a challenge in “starting early
enough”, and Participant B asked, “When do we say it is done?” Participant G
observed “we changed before we had a change manager” and Participant B said
“we’ve got a date for the change manager to leave…and we have a project that we
still need to finish.”
Communication and engagement
‘Communication and engagement’ was a strong theme throughout the case
study. Participants criticised the usual approach to change for its poor engagement
and poor communication, which led to limited involvement. Participant H described
becoming aware of changes, Participant I commented on the “inconsistent
communication” and Participant L described “fuzziness” as a problem. When asked
about challenges for change management, eight participants (B, C, F, G, H, I, J and
L), other than the change manager, cited engagement, including the need for
“bringing the staff on” (L), “staff involvement” (L) and obtaining “buy-in” (G). In
describing the successes, of the project, planned or unplanned, eight participants (A,
B, C, F, G, I, J and L) excluding the change manager (D) referred to communication
and engagement. They cited “lots more consultation” (I), “getting people on board”
(B), “more information” (I) and “clearer expectations” (F). Participant J referred to
the benefit of having a communication plan.
Support and reliance building Four interview themes contributed to the emerging primary theme of ‘support
and resilience building’: enhancing and supporting leadership
(‘leadership’/’enhanced leadership’); understanding and addressing entrenched
behaviours (‘entrenched behaviours’); and ‘learning and development’.
Issues about leadership were implicit in the many criticisms of previous
changes. The lack of direction, poor planning, lack of involvement and lack of
support suggest that previous changes were led ineffectively. Leadership emerged as
Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis 125
a specific theme in the participants’ discussion of the challenges for the project. In
particular, there were references to “fragmented leadership” (A) and “leadership
issues” (K). Also in relation to challenges for the project, there were observations
that there were long standing and entrenched behaviours. Implicit in the discussion
of these was a sense that the leadership team had so far not addressed this. In
discussing the influence of the change manager, participants referred to providing
support for the leaders. For example, Participant B stated, “they (the change
manager) provided lots of personal and professional support”.
Finally, learning and development was also a key form of support and
resilience building. Again, participant’s criticisms of past change project provided
insight into their expectations. Observations that change just happens and that “you
figure it out” (G) or “muddle through” (G), with limited or no resourcing or
communication, suggest that minimal attention was paid to learning and
development, either on-the-job or in a formal training sense. Participants with
experience of the organisation presented as having been poorly prepared for business
changes in the past. In contrast, discussion of change management’s contribution to
success included a theme of ‘learning and development’. “Training has happened,”
stated Participant E, while Participant C said, “staff are going to things like VT
(vicarious trauma) training”. Participant F referred to broader “processes to bring
forward cultural and behavioural changes”.
Value realisation
Each participant was asked questions about the purpose of the project. The
responses revealed varying levels of understanding of the recommendations,
proposed actions and formally identified benefits. However, each participant
expressed knowledge of at least one aim or anticipated outcome of the project, which
seemed important to them. They were generally agreed that the project should
implement the recommendations of the review. Participants referred to implementing
structural change, effecting cultural change and improving governance. For example,
the structural change referred to the implementation of a team based structure (A, C
and J) as well as establishing a business case for other recommendations that
required funding. The cultural change was primarily aimed at addressing the “toxic
culture” (B) or repositioning the culture (F). The project was also to address
126 Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis
governance issues: contract management (J), complaints and risk management
processes (C), and improving compliance with policies (J and K).
When asked about the successes of the project, both planned and unplanned,
participants described embedded structural and governance changes, and cultural
improvements. Participants D, E, F and G mentioned that the teams had been
established and Participant G stated, “I quite enjoy the new model”. Participant E
said, “business is better, more organised”, and Participant J confirmed “policies and
processes being followed”. Five participants (A, B, C, J and K), excluding the
change manager (D), described improvements in the culture. These improvements
were observed as well as measured in a barometer survey; the “surveys show
significant improvement” (B).
While participants did not necessarily have a grasp of formal benefits, they
each had a sense of what they expected to be achieved, they held expectations about
how that would be achieved, and expressed satisfaction where these expectations had
been met. Therefore, this primary theme reflects the sense of value expressed by the
participants, and the need for realisation of what they value.
Research question two – findings and the literature
The second research question was “How do key stakeholder perceptions of the
contribution of change management inform the future assessment of project
success?” and this too was explored in two parts: a) How do change managers’
perceive the contribution of change management; and b) how do key stakeholders
perceive the contribution of change management. Analysis of the data generated six
primary themes: ‘evidence-based design and execution’; ‘role clarity’; ‘planning and
scheduling’; ‘communication and engagement’; ‘support and resilience building’;
and ‘value realisation’.
The connection to the existing literature is stronger for these themes than those
for the contribution of the change manager (Table 4.12). The change management
literature provides models, frameworks and approaches, and advice about support
and resilience. The project management literature has a clear interest in role clarity,
and planning and scheduling, and both bodies of literature place emphasis on
communication. The project management literature also has a focus on benefits
Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis 127
management, while the change management literature is more concerned with
stakeholder needs.
Table 4.12
Research Question Two - Study Findings and the Project Success and Change Management
Literature
Research question two and primary themes Prior research coverage
Cha
nge
man
agem
ent i
nflu
ence
How do key stakeholder perceptions of the contribution of change management inform the future assessment of project success?
a) How do organisational change managers’ perceptions of the contribution of change management inform the future assessment of project success
b) How do the perceptions of key stakeholders (such as project owners, project managers, affected employees, managers, service delivery partners) of the contribution of change management inform the future assessment of project success?
Primary themes Evidence-based design and execution: a proactive approach, treating change as a priority in itself and designed on the basis of evidence, needs and the expert application of models, frameworks and experience. Evidence-based design and execution is supported primarily by the change manager’s experience and expertise
Project success literature: to some extent in the context of establishing projects; to a limited extent in the context of change Change management literature: to some extent
Role clarity: clarity about the specific roles involved, their scope, and their interaction for delivering the change and project. Role clarity is achieved in part through the exercise of the change manager’s experience and expertise, and also through their social skills
Project success literature: to some extent Change management literature: to a limited extent
Planning and scheduling: organising delivery of the design in appropriate stages, through appropriate mechanisms, and in appropriate timeframes with relevant measures form monitoring progress. Planning and scheduling is based on the change managers expertise and experience, and their personal qualities
Project success literature: to some extent in the context of project management, to a limited extent in the context of planning change projects Change management literature: to some extent
Communication and engagement: communicating and engaging with stakeholders on a range of levels from the overall project level to the micro level. Change managers contribute social skills and personal qualities to their interpersonal interactions, and apply them in combination with their experience and expertise to the development of communication and engagement strategies and activities
Project success literature: to some extent in the context of stakeholder engagement Change management literature: to some extent in the context of employees, and to some extent in the context of other stakeholders
Support and resilience building: developing and providing support in the form of leadership, learning and development, and empathetic cultural change initiatives for the period of the project, with the aim of sustainable improvements in stakeholder readiness for change. Support and resilience building is reliant on the change managers experience and expertise to diagnose and respond to issues, their personal qualities in driving interventions, and their social skills to deliver them
Project success literature: to some extent in the context of sustainable outcomes Change management literature: to some extent in terms supporting change and resilience
128 Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis
Research question two and primary themes Prior research coverage
Value realisation: identifying and satisfying or managing stakeholder expectations of benefits, outputs and outcomes, in the short and longer term. Value realisation requires all of the change manager’s influences to be achieved.
Project success literature: to some extent, in the context of benefits realisation Change management literature: to a limited extent
Among the factors, or risks, most clearly identified for change management to
address were: ensuring organisational alignment, reconciling viewpoints,
communication, environmental alignment, technology impact, user and client
involvement, politics and training (Pollack & Algeo, 2016).
Evidence-based design and execution
The first theme for the influence of change management was ‘evidence-based
design and execution’. Based on the study data, this is described as a proactive
approach, treating change as a priority in itself and designed on the basis of evidence,
needs and the expert application of models, frameworks and experience. In part,
participants were quite explicit about the need for evidence. This related to the
reason for the project, the reason for having a change manager, and reasons for the
change activities and interventions, from implementation of a team based structure to
use of the barometer survey. Beneath these overt requests for evidence, sometimes
couched as complaints about the lack of evidence, were undercurrents of distrust and
insecurity, which led to perceptions of a lack of safety. In order to achieve evidence-
based design and execution the participants expected a convincing demonstration of
the change manager’s experience and expertise.
The change management literature provides a range of models and
frameworks, described in detail in Chapter Two, Literature Review. The difficulty is
in selecting them, applying them and ensuring that stakeholders understand them
(Hughes, 2007). The change management literature suggests that effective change
management relies on establishing the strategic intent of the change and managing
the stages of the change (Vollman, 1996). This means communicating the need or
reason for the change (Battilana et al., 2010), creating strategies that support the
change effort (Kotter, 1996) and aligning change types to change methods based on
the duration and scale of the change (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015).
Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis 129
From a project management perspective, this contribution relates to supporting
the strategic perspective (Müller & Turner, 2010), aligning to business objectives
and corporate strategies (Pinto & Slevin, 1987) and meeting stakeholders’ criteria for
success (Davis, 2014; Müller & Turner, 2010; Turner, 2004). Change management
addresses risks relating to organisational alignment and plays a key role in managing
ambiguity and complexity by assessing and addressing the impact of changes on
stakeholders, clarifying what needs to be done and resolving conflicting perspectives
(Pollack & Algeo, 2016).
From a stakeholder theory perspective, the evidence-based approach aligns
with observations that managers, or the change manager in this instance, would be
proactive in using a contingency approach, applying different strategies for different
stakeholders at different times, as well as different strategies with the same
stakeholders at different points in time to prevent loss, or failure (Jawahar &
McLaughlin, 2001). Understanding different stakeholder needs and interests provides
both evidence for the approach, and insight into how to provide the evidence.
This theme adds to the literature by being quite explicit about the need for
thoughtful consideration of the change management approach. Based on this case
study, reliance on one model or a simplistic view of change is not enough. This
reflects the “growing appreciation that organizational change is a nuanced and highly
differentiated process” (Battilana et al., 2010, p. 436).
Role clarity
Analysis of the data revealed two aspects about the stakeholder’s perceptions
about role clarity. They were quite explicit about not understanding the role or scope
of the change manager, and the change manager confirmed that there seemed to be
little understanding of the role. Less explicit, but no less evident, was the
participants’ confusion about roles relating to organisational governance and project
governance. The change manager commented on having to sort out the roles and
implement governance. Contributing to this confusion was the complex environment
and its complex and ambiguous decision making processes and levels of
accountability. This theme, ‘role clarity’ is therefore about the clarity of specific
roles involved, their scope, and their interaction for delivering the change and
project.
130 Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis
Role clarity, other than defining the role of the change manager, is not the
subject of a great deal of research in the change management literature. The literature
tends to use the terms change leader, change agent, change manager and similar
interchangeably (Crawford & Nahmias, 2010) and relies more on the discussion of
broader role concepts such as leadership (Kotter, 1996). This creates a difficulty as
change agents must be able to influence the adoption of new practices and new
norms within their organisational environment, and their ability to do this can be
affected by their position within the structure (Battilana & Casciaro, 2012).
Moreover, as discussed above, change is carried out in complex situations. Clearly
defined roles, organisational rules and communication structures help manage both
ambiguity and complexity (Stummer & Zuchi, 2010). It would help the change
manager, and stakeholders, if they understood the power distribution, the factors
affecting decision-making and the sources of power (Cao & McHugh, 2005). This
supports the contention of Rowley (1997) about network centrality, which refers to
the relative position of an individual actor to others within the network, and its
relationship to communication in the context of stakeholders and social networks. He
suggests communication becomes more efficient where there are closer ties between
actors. Based on this study, clear roles assist in the identification of ties between
actors, the closer the ties are, the greater the sense of implicit coordination.
From a project management perspective, change management’s contribution to
clarification and the reduction of complexity would assist structuring the project and
improving governance. While the project management literature has devoted some
time to clarifying the role of the project manager (Crawford & Nahmias, 2010), and
project management methodologies prescribe roles, and appropriate levels of skills
and commitment (Pinto & Slevin, 1987), in practice, as demonstrated by this case
study, there is often confusion as project management structures overlay and conflict
with organisational structures.
This theme adds to the literature by drawing attention to the practical necessity
of establishing clearly defined roles for those involved in the change. It also indicates
that the change manager needs a clearly defined scope and set of accountabilities.
Additionally, the participants suggested that attention be paid to the onboarding of
change managers. As there is limited research relating to the role of change
managers, there is also little attention to their onboarding needs.
Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis 131
Planning and scheduling The third theme ‘planning and scheduling’ relates to organising the delivery of
the change design in appropriate stages, through appropriate mechanisms, and in
appropriate timeframes with relevant measures for monitoring progress. The change
management literature is sometimes criticised for its lack of practical advice about
how to plan and schedule change (Parker, Charlton, et al., 2013) despite perceptions
that change managers engage in “change management planning” (Crawford &
Nahmias, 2010, p. 409). Though the literature describes change management
beginning early in the project lifecycle, for example in defining and communicating
the vision (Pollack, 2016), in practical terms, as illustrated by this case study, change
management is not necessarily considered in the beginning stages, and a change
manager may start some time after the project is underway. The change management
literature tends to focus on enabling change, planning and creating improvements
(Kotter, 1996) rather than plotting the way forward (Pollack, 2016).
Practitioners tend to ‘projectise’ change management, drawing on project
management methodologies to plan change interventions that align with project
stages and milestones. Project management provides for management of risk
(Pollack & Algeo, 2016) and addresses complexity with its understanding that
projects need to be run in a way that is both simultaneous and sequential (Pinto &
Slevin, 1987). It also provides guidance for the act of planning (Turner & Zolin,
2012), establishing a clear mission and goals (Fortune & White, 2006), and gaining
input into the broader organisational management system (Müller & Turner, 2010).
Further, project governance provides a structure that can be adapted for use in
managing the change elements of a project. Effective governance will influence trust
(Derakhshan, Turner, & Mancini, 2019).
This theme adds to the change management literature by drawing attention to
the need for advice about change management implementation in practical terms. It
complements the project management literature by illustrating the usefulness of the
project management approach in the context of change management. In combination
with role clarity, it suggests that governance is as important to change management
as project management.
132 Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis
Communication and engagement
The fourth theme ‘communication and engagement’ relates to communicating
and engaging with stakeholders on a range of levels from the overall project level to
the micro level. Change managers contribute social skills and personal qualities to
their interpersonal interactions, and apply them in combination with their experience
and expertise to the development of communication and engagement strategies and
activities.
Communication is a key factor in the change management literature
(Armenakis & Harris, 2002; Walley, 2013) and involves: communicating a vision
(Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015; Kotter, 1996); managing communication risks and
managing the interaction of perspectives (Pollack & Algeo, 2016); gaining
acceptance (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015) and engaging people (Beer & Nohria,
2000). Change management also involves “communicating with stakeholders and
managing their expectations”, “stakeholder management”, “political diffusion”,
“selling the change” (Crawford & Nahmias, 2010, p. 409) and implementing
communication structures such as meetings with stakeholders or for specific
purposes and events (Stummer & Zuchi, 2010).
Communication is also a key factor in the project success literature, with
authors recommending early communication with stakeholders (Achterkamp & Vos,
2008; Walley, 2013); communicating a vision (Rolstadås et al., 2014); providing
stakeholders with input into project planning, defining goals and project knowledge
(Turner & Zolin, 2012) and considering the needs of passive stakeholders (Walley,
2013). Pinto and Slevin (1987) identified communication, client consultation and
feedback as three of seven tactical factors for project success.
Similarly communication is a key factor in the stakeholder theory literature.
Direct contact, negotiation and communication necessarily underpin the management
of stakeholders (Freeman et al., 2007). Communication becomes more efficient
where the social network is dense and where stakeholders have closer ties (Rowley,
1997). Its effectiveness influences the success of project planning as well as levels of
stakeholder satisfaction with outcomes (Turner & Zolin, 2012), as early
communication in the project lifecycle (Olander & Landin, 2005), even with passive
stakeholders (Achterkamp & Vos, 2008), may uncover hidden or conflicting interests
that may adversely affect the project (Bourne & Walker, 2005). Communication
Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis 133
facilitates the sharing of knowledge, perspectives, expectations, interests and
influence (Butt, Naaranoja, & Savolainen, 2016). This theme provides further
confirmation of the importance of communication and engagement already
recognised by the project success, change management and stakeholder theory
literature.
Support and resilience building The data analysis described in Chapter Four, generated a fifth theme for the
contribution of change management to project success, ‘support and resilience
building’. This theme involves developing and providing support in the form of
leadership, learning and development, and empathetic cultural change initiatives for
the period of the project, with the aim of sustainable improvements in stakeholder
readiness for change.
In the limited research relating to change managers specifically, key change
management activities have been identified that are relevant to this theme. Pollack
and Algeo (2016) suggested change managers change behaviours and culture,
prepare users, analyse impacts, develop capability (including the provision of
training) and ensure the visibility of senior management support. Additionally,
change managers can assess the adequacy of a project’s structure and activities, and
whether the program is effective and responsive to stakeholder needs (Kimberlin et
al., 2011). The change manager’s ability to manage complex change is significant, as
affected employees (and by extension stakeholders) are more likely to be motivated
where there is demonstrable skill (Matthias, 2015).
More generally, the change management literature suggests that change leaders
need to support the institutionalisation and sustainability of the changes that are
made (Graetz, 2000). This requires a strategic and long-term approach incorporating
improvements at the operational level with systems, technology and structural
reinforcements as well as behavioural and cultural change (Graetz, 2000).
Behavioural and cultural change includes the development of and succession
planning for leadership (Kotter, 1996). Change often represents a crisis, therefore the
aim of change management in effecting the changes described above, should be to
increase the resilience of the organisation and its ability to cope with challenges or
crises (Kimberlin et al., 2011). Resilient organisations are better able to deal with
134 Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis
ambiguity, engage in problem solving, communicate effectively and look to the
future (Kimberlin et al., 2011).
The change management literature has extensively explored resistance to
change (Matthias, 2015). Resistance is seen as a key challenge and is variously
ascribed to personal traits or personal circumstances, though it is possible that those
implementing change contribute to resistance (Hughes, 2015a) by breaking promises,
breaching trust and raising expectations (Vos & Rupert, 2018). The prevailing view
relates to dysfunctionality on the part of the stakeholder (Hughes, 2015a). Related to
resistance, the concept of readiness for change assumes that the change manager (or
agent) can influence employee readiness for change through activities such as
participation, support, communication and education, thereby reducing or preventing
resistance (Armenakis et al., 1993).
This theme adds to the literature by drawing attention to change management’s
responsibility to ensure that stakeholders are supported throughout a change process
and positioned to cope with future changes effectively. The provision of support
needs to be carefully considered in the context of the stakeholders’ connection to the
change and their disposition towards it. This case study illustrated the effects of
many, poorly managed changes on the various stakeholders, and the contrasting
effect of targeted support and efforts to ‘change-proof’ the participants.
Value realisation
The final theme for the contribution of change management to project success
was ‘value realisation’. The data analysis suggested that the change management
process contributed by identifying and satisfying or managing stakeholder
expectations of benefits, outputs and outcomes, in the short and longer term. The
participants, in general, were unclear about the proposed benefits for the project at
the centre of this case study. This suggests that the formal benefits were decided
without reference to the majority of stakeholders and were not communicated
clearly. However, the stakeholders identified various benefits or successes from their
perspective that were related to the formal benefits, or were unplanned and beneficial
outcomes.
Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis 135
The project management literature has a strong emphasis on benefits
management and realisation, benefits are seen as the ‘ultimate deliverable’ (Bradley,
2010). “Project benefits can be classified into two groups: (1) ‘target benefits’, those
benefits set prior to project commencement which the project funder seeks thorough
an investment in a project; and, (2) ‘fortuitous benefits’ which may emerge during
the project” (Zwikael, Chih, & Meredith, 2018, p. 650). The role of the project
manager (Young & Conboy, 2013) and the purpose of the project (Cooke-Davies,
2002; Rajablu et al., 2015) is to deliver benefits. The creation of benefits across
stakeholders is supported by project governance (Derakhshan et al., 2019). This
means that benefits, both tangible and intangible, should be clearly stated and
communicated to those stakeholders (Legris & Collerette, 2006).
The change management literature acknowledges a mutual interest with project
management in benefits realisation (Pollack & Algeo, 2016). The development,
management and realisation of benefits relates directly to stakeholders, therefore
they need to be identified and engaged, to connect to the vision and objectives, and
to understand the nature and structure of the project (Bradley, 2010). Additionally, a
focus on benefits allows for prioritisation, identification and justification of
necessary changes or new projects, factors that will enable realisation and influence
both communication and measures (Bradley, 2010). Project management tends to
focus on benefits that are specific and attainable, or targeted (Zwikael et al., 2018).
The change management approach also includes a focus on satisfying psychological
factors (Burke & Litwin, 1992), planning to achieve objectives that may be related to
desires and sense of worth, and more ‘fortuitous’ (Zwikael et al., 2018).
This theme adds to the literature by recognising the broader aspects of
satisfying stakeholder needs and expectations. While it acknowledges the role of
managing the formal benefits realisation, there will also be specific, less tangible
benefits to be realised and, sometimes, unexpected benefits to be recognised. Change
management then has a far greater role in identifying the potentially valuable and
translating this to benefits.
Research question two – summary
The way that stakeholders perceive the influence of change management
success suggests that considered and structured approaches to change, clarity of
roles, planned and scheduled actions, with clear communication, engagement and
136 Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis
support for the change as well as future changes, will result in success in that they
will feel safe throughout. Value realisation is a vital, additional component to the
mix; stakeholders need to see value through planned benefits and unexpected
successes, and growth of in their own capability and capacity.
4.7 RESEARCH QUESTIONS SUMMARY
The linkages between the subthemes, interview themes and the generated
primary themes, as they align to the influence of the change manager and of change
management is depicted in Figure 4.4 (see also Appendix D for an enlarged version).
As discussed previously, the primary themes for the influence of change
management contextualised and supported the themes for the influence of the change
manager, while the change manager themes underpin and support the change
management themes.
Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis 137
Figure 4.4. Change manager influence and change management influence – interview themes leading to primary themes.
stakeholder perspective- change manager
influence and changemanagement influence
Changemanagerinfluence
socialskills
communication
people skills
personalqualities
goodjudgement
robustand
resilient
supportive
politicalsavvy
energy andenthusiasm
experienceand expertise
practicalexperience
extensiveknowledge
change managementinfluence
communicationand
engagement
limitedinvolvement
poorcommunication
poorengagement
effectiveengagement
stakeholderinvolvement
addressingattitudes and
concerns
communicationand
engagement
clearconsidered
communication
consultation andinvolvement
planningand
scheduling
organisationplanning
monitoring
resourcingchange
allocatingresources
justifyingresources
timing
starting
ending
role clarity
role of thechange
manager
communicatingthe role
onboarding
controllingthe scope
complexorganisation
complexstructure
complexauthorising
environment
evidence-baseddesign andexecution
poorconsiderationof approach
(think changethrough)
poorlyselectedsolutions
misguidedapproach
manyunfinishedchanges
(completechanges)
manyreviews
manydirectors
focussed change
enhancedleadership
proactiveapproach
organisationand planning
change justhappens(resourcechange,considerimpacts)
done on topof business
as usual
just do it
support andresiliencebuilding
entrenchedbehaviours
(understandingand addressing)
subvertingalliances
resistantnegativity
learning anddevelopment
formallearning
socialprocesses forbehavioural
change
fragmentedleadership(develop
leadershipcapacity
andconfidence)
leadershipissues
wariness ofchange and risk
valuerealisation
implementreview
recommendations
improve thebusiness
increaseefficiency
effectiveimplementation
poorunderstanding
(increaseunderstanding)
implementstructuralchange
implementdecentralised
teamstructure
addressresourcing
effect culturalchange
improvestakeholderrelationships
improveperformance
improvehealth andwellbeing
improvemorale
improvegovernance
businessgoverance
including roles
projectgovernance
including roles
culturalimprovement
improvementsmeasured
improvementsobserved
embeddedstructuralchange
structure
governance
138 Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis
In the figure 4.4, the outer ‘ring’ is comprised of the interview sub-themes,
which led directly to interview themes, a relationship indicated by solid arrows, and
in some instances supported or contributed to other interview themes, a relationship
indicated by dotted arrows. The twenty-one interview themes relating to change
management influence, indicated by lighter boxes, led to six primary themes for
change management influence (dark boxes). The three interview themes for change
manager influence became three primary themes, or three factors for change manager
success.
4.8 LINKING TO PROJECT SUCCESS
The final step in analysing the findings of the study was to compare the three
factors for change manager success and the six factors for change management
success with an established model for project success. The participants linked the
factors to success. Is there a connection to project success factors; if so what might
that be? As the literature review demonstrated, the ten factors for project success
identified by Pinto and Slevin (1987) are regarded as “adequate without the need for
further research” (Davis, 2014, p. 198). The 10 factors include seven factors which
are regarded as being on the critical path with two, ‘communication’ and ‘monitoring
and feedback’, taking place simultaneously and congruently with the first seven, and
a final factor, ‘trouble shooting’, being available at all times. The factors (Pinto &
Slevin, 1987) are as follows :
1. Project mission: clearly defined goals, and clearly defined benefits which
are both well understood and aligned with the broader organisational
skills;
2. Top management support: vital for direction and authority, provision of
resourcing, and influencing the level of resistance or acceptance of the
project;
3. Project schedule/plan: detailed planning including stages, milestones,
resourcing requirements, and evaluation;
4. Client consultation: identification of and consultation with “anyone who
will ultimately be making use of the project” (Pinto & Slevin, 1987, p.
24) to establish their needs:
Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis 139
5. Personnel: project teams with the appropriate skills and knowledge as
well as personal qualities such as commitment;
6. Technical skills: implementation teams must have relevant skills and
appropriate technology, they must demonstrate that they understand the
implementation:
7. Client acceptance: the final factor or step along the critical path, the
client, or stakeholder, must accept the results of the project for the project
to be successful;
8. Monitoring and feedback: adequate mechanisms for obtaining feedback
and monitoring progress assist in predicting issues, correcting issues and
watching for omissions particularly in relation to the budget and the
schedule. Monitoring and feedback also relates to the project team’s
performance. In conjunction with the following factor, monitoring and
feedback happens throughout the earlier stages.
9. Communication: feedback mechanisms, information exchange, formal
communication regarding status, policy and procedural change, with all
groups related to the project; and
10. Trouble-shooting: available at all times, the capacity to identify, address
and prevent problems.
The diagram below (Figure 4.5) illustrates how the three change manager
success factors can be seen to influence and support the six change management
success factors, and how these in turn might be considered to influence the project
success factors. While arrows indicate the key connections between these factors,
they are not intended to indicate causal relationships or any correlation.
140 Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis
Figure 4.5. Change manager and change management success factors, and Pinto and Slevin's (1987) project success factors.
The connections between the combined influence of the change manager and change
management success on project success, are based on comparison of the identified
elements of the six change management success factors described earlier and their
connection to the descriptions of the Pinto and Slevin (1987) project success factors
described above. These connections can be described as follows:
1. Evidence-based design and execution: with its proactive design and expert
application of models, frameworks and experience contributes to the
‘project mission’ by establishing not only the strategic intent of the project
but also the cultural intent, identifying the benefits and value of the change,
in consultation with stakeholders, and ensuring they are well understood. It
influences ‘top management support’ by providing guidance and
influencing the management system. It is connected to ‘client consultation’
owing to the need to both identify and consult with stakeholders and it
connects to ‘technical task’ by contributing the change management aspect
to the team’s relevant skills and knowledge for undertaking the project.
Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis 141
2. Role clarity: change management processes identify leaders, preparing and
supporting them to best support others, they also influence their
understanding of the project and their decisions about direction and
resourcing. Role clarity is important for the governance aspects of the
‘project schedule/plan’ factor as well as influencing resourcing
requirements, scheduling and evaluation. ‘Personnel’ decisions are also
influenced by role clarity, which guides the selection and coordination of
those involved in implementation. Role clarity plays a part in client
acceptance, as this is related to understanding the standing of stakeholders
and decision-makers vis-a-vis the project;
3. Planning and scheduling: with a clear relationship to the ‘project
schedule/plan’ factor, planning and scheduling is also related to the
‘monitoring and feedback’ factor as it defines the mechanisms to undertake
monitoring and gather feedback, and re-schedule where adjustments need
to be made as a result;
4. Communication and engagement: relates to all project success factors. In
the change management context this includes formal and informal
communication at various levels and across project-related activities. At a
minimum it relates to the provision of information, but it extends to
consultation, negotiation and conflict resolution.
5. Support and resilience building: with a focus on support through
preparation, development and empathetic cultural change initiatives as well
as sustainable improvements in stakeholder and organisational readiness
for change, this factor relates to supporting ‘top management’ to provide
effective leadership. It also relates to ‘client consultation’ and ‘client
acceptance’ through ensuring stakeholders feel understood and heard,
prepared and safe. ‘Personnel’ of the project are also stakeholders and the
project team also needs support. ‘Communication’ should be influenced by
an understanding of the clients (stakeholders) support needs and their
development, and should be empathetic. Finally, ‘support and resilience
building’ relates to ‘troubleshooting’ as it includes identifying not just
stakeholder needs, but also problems within the project, in performance,
and in individuals that are affecting progress; and
142 Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis
6. Value realisation: has a clear relationship to ‘client acceptance’ and its
precursor ‘client consultation’ as they are about benefits and the assessment
of success. It is linked to ‘personnel’ as they are also stakeholders, but
appears to be excluded from the definition of clients in the project success
factors model.
The way that the change management success factors connect to the project
success factors underscores the complexity of the change management undertaking
and the role of the change manager. Change management has both sequential and
iterative aspects, which must be managed simultaneously. Change management
anticipates much earlier and deeper interaction with stakeholders, than the project
success factors used in this exercise.
4.9 CONCLUSION
The purpose of this study was to explore stakeholder perceptions of the
contribution of change managers to project success. In order to do this the study
explored perceptions of the change manager’s influence as well as the influence of
change management, a process ostensibly managed by the change manager.
The qualitative embedded case study design used semi-structured interviews
with 12 participants to gather data. The data was coded and themed through a
process of constant comparison. The analysis of the data revealed three themes for
change manager influence: ‘social skills’, ‘personal qualities’, and ‘experience and
expertise’. Further the data revealed six themes for the contribution of change
management to project success: ‘evidence-based design and execution’; ‘role
clarity’; ‘planning and scheduling’; ‘communication and engagement’; ‘support and
resilience building’; and ‘value realisation’.
Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis 143
Chapter 5: Discussion and conclusion
5.1 INTRODUCTION
The overall purpose of the study was to achieve an understanding of how
change managers influence stakeholders’ perceptions of project success. In simple
terms, if we accept that project success is largely in the eye of the stakeholder, the
question is: could change managers, using change management, influence project
success? The study sought to answer two research questions:
1. How are organisational change managers influencing key stakeholders’
perceptions of change project success?
a. How do key stakeholders perceive the influence of organisational
change managers on project success?
b. How do organisational change managers perceive their influence on
project success?
2. How do key stakeholder perceptions of the contribution of change
management inform the future assessment of project success?
a. How do organisational change managers’ perceptions of the
contribution of change management inform the future assessment of
project success?
b. How do the perceptions of key stakeholders of the contribution of
change management inform the future assessment of project success?
Answering these questions resulted in three themes for the influence of change
managers, and six themes for the influence of the use of change management, as
discussed in Chapter 4. These factors for change manager and change management
success contribute to our theoretical understanding of the role of the change manager
and the active management of change processes. They provide an insight into the
needs, expectations and satisfaction of stakeholders that can inform both the practice
of change managers, and the management and support of change managers in the
field. Reflection on the interview outcomes and findings in the context of the
144 Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion
literature review, also found in Chapter 4, resulted in conclusions about the influence
of the change manager and the practice of change management, on stakeholders’
perceptions of success. These conclusions will be discussed in the next section.
Though this study had some limitations, it has made both academic and practical
contributions, and identified further areas for research, which will be discussed in
this chapter.
5.2 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Project success is one of the most popular themes in the project management
literature (Derakhshan et al., 2019; Pollack & Algeo, 2016; Turner & Zolin, 2012),
owing to the complexity and importance of the project management industry. The
project management literature has explored various facets of project success: time,
cost and quality (Müller & Turner, 2010; Turner & Müller, 2005); success factors
(Müller & Turner, 2010; Pinto & Slevin, 1987; Turner & Zolin, 2012) and success
criteria (Müller & Turner, 2010); and stakeholder influence (Cooke-Davies, 2002).
Stakeholders are now considered crucial to project success (Cooke-Davies,
2002) and their identification and classification is regarded as an important first step
in project stakeholder management methodologies (Bourne & Walker, 2005; Walley,
2013). On an ongoing basis, stakeholder management involves this first step, as well
as identification and analysis of their interests, and management of stakeholder
relationships structured around achieving organisational aims (Mainardes et al.,
2011). The participants in this study emphasised the criticality of engaging them in
the project and associated changes. The study revealed that a broad range of
stakeholders was affected by the change, with some more able to affect it than others.
The study had to stay within its boundaries for practical reasons. However, as the
study progressed, it became clear that the range and number of representative
stakeholders could have been extended further, for example introducing the
perspectives from members of the second allied service provider, the contracted
service provider and clients or customers stakeholder groups. These stakeholders all
had an interest in the functioning of the business unit, which was undergoing
significant business and cultural change, regardless of whether this was fully
recognised by the organisation or whether the organisation was interested in the
stakeholders (Donaldson & Preston, 1995). Further, the study demonstrated that,
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion 145
without implying the need for all stakeholders to be equally involved, there is a need
to pay “simultaneous attention to the legitimate interests of all appropriate
stakeholders” (Donaldson & Preston, 1995, p. 67).
Recently, the project management literature has explored the relationship
between project management and change management (Crawford & Nahmias, 2010;
Pollack & Algeo, 2015). This relatively new interest recognises the need to consider
the people aspects of projects, treating projects as behavioural systems rather than
technical systems (Belout & Gauvreau, 2004). The literature recognises the
complexity of change, and the absence of simple solutions. Both the project
management and change management literature recognise the need for effective
stakeholder management, and for those involved to understand and use change
management. Recognition of the relevance of stakeholders, and the need to engage
them, is inherent in change management. The literature examines: who counts, who
should be responsible for managing change, and what skills, knowledge and
attributes are needed by those involved. Defining the contribution of change
management as well as who should be responsible for it, remains a challenge.
In common with the project management literature, the organisational change
management literature seeks factors that will increase the probability of success (Al-
Haddad & Kotnour, 2015). Organisational change management focuses on
understanding and managing the ways organisations transform (Pollack, 2015).
However, while the change management literature provides a range of explanations
for and about change, there is a “schism between theory and practice” (Battilana et
al., 2010, p. 434). Change management models and theories fail to fully frame how
change management is done (Parker, Verlinden, et al., 2013); yet, based on this
study, a change manager is expected to have the capacity, capability and confidence
to do it. In answering the two research questions referred to below, the study found
factors of success for both change managers and change management as discussed in
Chapter Four. Further reflection on the questions and the finding of this study
suggested the following observations.
146 Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion
5.2.1 Research question one
“How are organisational change managers influencing key stakeholders’
perceptions of change project success?”
The role of the change manager
The role of a change manager, though yet to be fully articulated, is complex
and challenging. The change manager must be able to blend their personal attributes,
skills and knowledge with an understanding of the context. Change managers must
demonstrate expertise and experience, or competence and capability, as well as a
range of personal qualities and social skills. The personal qualities identified by the
participants in this study suggested a regard for courage, while the combination of
social skills can be summarised by Participant B’s description of a change manager
as “having just enough charm”. While the majority of participants were less clear
about the role of the change manager than was the change manager, all participants
identified elements related to the three primary themes or factors for change manager
success.
Communication and engagement
Communication and engagement is critical at different levels; for the change
manager at an interpersonal level, the blend of communication skills ranges from
imparting information to coaching, negotiation and conflict resolution. As a
component of the change manager’s expertise, communication and engagement
includes the ability to craft and publish information, promote the changes, prepare
leaders for conversations and plan the overarching communication strategy. At a
third level, communication and engagement are vital in the context of change
management practice.
5.2.2 Research question two
“How do key stakeholder perceptions of the contribution of change
management inform the future assessment of project success?”
Complexity
Change management is a complex undertaking. Change is multi-faceted. While
the change management literature is criticised for providing fragmented guidance,
this in itself is an indication that there is not a single or right way to manage change.
The practice of change management therefore needs a contingency-based and curated
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion 147
approach that draws from models, frameworks, case studies and experience. The aim
of the change manager, in practicing change management is to design processes to
suit the circumstances, the context, levels of complexity and complication, and the
degree of cultural change required.
Cornerstone communication
Communication is commonly regarded in the literature as a key component of
success with little detailed explanation of its primary focus. This study suggests a
cornerstone for communication. The primary focus of communication should be on
providing, or being prepared to provide, evidence for every aspect of the approach
and the rationale for decision-making, in the context of stakeholder needs. No project
is likely to survive disengaged stakeholders. This means answering “why?” at
various levels, in various contexts and for varying stakeholders. This includes
questions about: why the change is happening, why a certain approach is being
taken, why certain people are involved, why activities have been chosen, why they
are happening at a particular time, and even why they are not.
Cultural intent
The change management process is necessarily focussed on engaging and
managing stakeholders. It has an interest in shaping behaviours, attitudes, and
capability at the individual and group level. It has an interest in complementing the
various business related changes with an appropriate organisational culture that will
support desired outcomes. For the benefit of stakeholders’ wellbeing and to assure
the success of future change processes, the change management process should
provide adequate support and build resilience. Change management should leave
those affected better able to cope with change, rather than wary of change. This
means, the change management process should place as much emphasis on
establishing the cultural intent of the project as it does on establishing, or aligning
with, the strategic intent of the project.
Coordinated complementarity
It was clear from this case study and from the literature that project
management and change management need to combine in order to achieve project
success. While it is possible to take a contingency approach to project management,
it is a more likely approach to change management in practice. Stakeholders like
148 Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion
structure and coordination, they are reliable and comforting, but somewhat
contrarily, stakeholders are not entirely predictable in their needs and reactions, and
so the planning needs to be flexible and adaptable, balancing the project’s and
stakeholders’’ needs. Project management and change management need to work in
coordinated complementarity, with each informing the other to ensure progress and
success.
Comparative consequence
The need for change management and the need for a change manager would
vary according to the project. The level of the change management emphasis and the
need for a change manager increases in proportion to the degree and complexity of
cultural change required. The greater the need for cultural change, the more
important it is that the change manager and change management processes
commence early, and continue well past implementation of business or technical
changes. This degree of relativity to the depth and breadth of cultural change is
described as comparative consequence.
Combining change management and project management
The diagram below (Figure 5.1) illustrates the overlapping nature of change
manager, change management and project success factors (Pinto & Slevin, 1987) and
where the concepts of cultural intent, comparative consequence, coordinated
complementarity and cornerstone communication fit.
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion 149
Figure 5.1. Combining change manager, change management and the Pinto and Slevin (1987) project success factors.
No matter the level of change, there is a need for coordinated complementarity,
and the cornerstone of communication remains substantiating, anticipating and
answering questions about the ‘why’. Once the cultural intent is established and the
level of cultural change is estimated, the degree to which change management is
necessary can also be estimated. Associated with that, the need for a change manager
can be assessed. The higher the degree of cultural change involved in the project, the
greater the need for change management. The greater the need for change
management, the greater the need for evidence-based design, clear roles for those
involved, effective planning and scheduling, multi-level communication, support and
resilience-building, and a focus on delivering value to stakeholders. Additionally, the
greater the need for change management, the greater the need for someone
particularly equipped to undertake it. That someone, a change manager, will need
capability, competence, courage and just enough charm.
5.3 CONTRIBUTION TO THEORY
This case study provides an illustrative example of both change management,
much observed in research and in the practitioner world, and a change manager, less
observed in either research or the practitioner world, in action. It extends the limited
Project success
Project success factors: 1 project mission 2 top management support 3 project schedule/plan 4 client consultation 5 personnel – recruitment,
selection and training 6 technical tasks 7 client acceptance 8 monitoring and feedback 9 communication 10 trouble-shooting
Change manager success factors: 1 social skills 2 personal qualities 3 experience and expertise
Change management success factors: 1 evidence-based design and execution 2 role clarity 3 planning and scheduling 4 communication and engagement 5 support and resilience-building 6 value realisation
coordinated complementarity
comparative consequence
cultural intent
cornerstone communication
150 Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion
literature about change managers by describing three aspects of their practice that
stakeholders and a change manager see as valuable. It confirms the significance of
communication and engagement skills, which include negotiation, persuasion, and
proactive interaction. It highlights personal qualities that the literature has partially
explored and adds a real world perspective to the value of those qualities and some
additional traits. Finally, the participants’ emphasis on the need for experience and
expertise addresses in part the issue of how change management models,
frameworks, tools and techniques can be blended and applied. This study, and the
literature, suggests that the effectiveness of change management is largely reliant on
the skills of the change agent, and increasingly a specific type of change agent. In the
case of a formally engaged change manager, there is the additional pressure of
stakeholders’ having high expectations of considerable knowledge and experience.
Carrying the title of change manager, in the context of this study, meant ensuring that
the stakeholders felt understood, considered and safe.
Change management’s relationship to project management, and therefore
project success, has received more attention in the literature. Within its limitations,
this study extends the literature by exploring a multiple stakeholder perspective and
generating common themes for success. The literature describes change as complex,
challenging and multi-faceted; this study suggests that effective change management
relies on the creative curation of change management models, critical thinking and
stakeholder-centred design with at least a sound knowledge of culture, human
resource management, project management and other management practices.
This study also illustrates that in the organisational setting, role clarity and
effective planning and scheduling, which includes governance, monitoring and
measurement are seen as important for change activities, as well as business or
technical changes. While there is a reliance on the change manager having
communication and engagement skills, the need goes beyond the interpersonal level.
Participants in this study expected and valued planned, clear and consistent
communication about the reason for the project, the reasons for activities and
initiatives, reasons for the approach, as well as who was to be involved, why, when
and where.
Clarity of communication was particularly important as the ambiguity of the
change process can make stakeholders feel unsafe. It was apparent that structure in
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion 151
the change management approach also provided security for participants. Similarly,
the provision of support, including learning and development activities, and
demonstrating an understanding of stakeholder positions and needs, provides a
greater sense of security. The study demonstrated that stakeholders want to be heard
and listened to, and their concerns addressed. Stakeholders also expected that
unproductive behaviours would be addressed.
In contrast to much of the relevant literature, the findings of this study indicate
that resistance is less about dysfunction and recalcitrance, and more about negative
experiences and ongoing disquiet about the prospect of future changes. Change
management’s responsibility is to ‘change-proof’ stakeholders by providing a safe
experience. Change management needs to provide support and development beyond
the skills and attitudes for the immediate change, but for navigating future changes,
such as skills to deal with ambiguity and complexity, and continuous learning.
Finally, this study complements the existing body of work around benefits
management and realisation. It agrees with the view that change management has a
shared responsibility for benefits, and includes psychological benefits relating to
stakeholder desires and their sense of worth (Burke & Litwin, 1992). Additionally,
change management has a role in accentuating and celebrating the fortuitous,
accidental successes and unforeseen growth arising from the change.
The findings of this case study suggest a simple model for the key influencing
factors for change managers and change management for project success. In
combination, with the three change manager success factors, the six change
management success factors contribute to project management success and this has
been demonstrated by comparing the new factors with the project success factors of
Pinto and Slevin (1987).
5.4 CONTRIBUTION TO PRACTICE
For both public and private sector managers, and for practitioners, this case
study provides a real world example of the experiences and perspectives of a range
of stakeholders affected by a project. By exploring the influence of a change
manager and their use of change management and linking it to an existing model of
project success, this study demonstrates the need for a thorough identification of
stakeholders, with their needs as comprehensively understood as possible. There was
152 Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion
a strong indication, in this case, that stakeholders needed to feel safe, that they could
trust both the change process and the change manager. For those undertaking change
management, this case study suggests that they put considerable thought into the
approach and design of the change management process, and that they be prepared to
explain the rationale for this. They also need to recognise that the change process
includes ambiguity, fuzziness, and sometimes chaos; therefore stakeholders find
safety and reassurance in structured approaches, with clear roles and accountabilities,
and constant, clear communication. Those managing change need to take into
account the potential to make stakeholders change resistant or ‘change-shy’, if they
manage clumsily or oversell the change. Finally, they need to ensure a thorough
approach to benefits planning, acknowledging that the change process itself can lead
to unplanned successes and benefits.
This case study has some implications for the recruitment and management of
change managers. A change manager should have relevant experience, knowledge
and technical skills; they must also have appropriate personal qualities. Based on the
study these include resilience, energy and enthusiasm, judgement and political savvy.
They could also include creativity (Brière et al., 2015), leadership (Crawford &
Nahmias, 2010), trustworthiness and credibility (By, 2007) and the ability to learn
from experience (Worley & Mohrman, 2014). Finally they must have social skills, a
strong ability to communicate and engage with a broad range of stakeholders.
Once recruited, change managers will be effective more quickly if given an
effective grounding in the project and organisation. Their agility depends on their
ability to navigate systems, understand politics and identify and engage with
stakeholders. If they have the range of skills and qualities identified in the study, they
are naturally robust, engaged and persistent. This presents risks for scope creep,
overload and burnout. While the change manager is looking after others, someone
needs to look after the change manager.
5.5 LIMITATIONS
Section 1.7 Delimitations of Scope and Key Assumptions described the major
delimitations for this research. The study took the form of a single, embedded case
study and therefore faced the limitations of a singular context and a particular set of
circumstances. The case study was based on a business unit in the public sector
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion 153
context that not only forms the hub of a complex service delivery model, but was
also the subject of a comprehensive review of its cultural and structural operation.
The service delivery context and the context for the change process resulted in a
sensitive and somewhat charged atmosphere. These organisational issues may have,
and likely did, affect the level of participation. Further, the research was limited by
timeframes. A longer timeframe may have allowed for more participation in a cross-
sectional study, and certainly a longer timeframe would allow for a longitudinal
study.
However, these limitations are also strengths. Change managers operate within
specific organisations or organisational units; they face singular contexts with
circumstances and challenges peculiar to the situation. Change management is
delivered in complex environments and charged atmospheres, and stakeholder
participation in change ranges from resistant to enthusiastic. The present study
provided an opportunity to explore a change manager and change management in
action, to gain a snapshot from real participants in change and understand their
experiences and perspectives.
5.6 FURTHER RESEARCH
This study demonstrates that there are theoretical and practical insights to
gather from case study research about change managers, change management and
project success. These insights help illustrate the real world context for change
managers and change management. They also inform in a small way the selection
and management of change managers, and an approach to change management that
may improve the likelihood of project success. This study suggests that greater
insights will be available by exploring stakeholder perceptions in comparative case
studies within and outside the public sector context, within or across different
industries, within or across different regions or countries, and across longer
timeframes.
5.7 CONCLUSION
The literature suggests there is still an appetite to explore project success. With
an increasing focus on stakeholder engagement and relationship management, the
interface between project management and change management is a natural area to
investigate, and the contribution of change managers – who they are, what they do
154 Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion
and how they influence success is still relatively unchartered territory. The model
described in this study presents success factors for both change managers and change
management based on the common perceptions of a broad variety of stakeholders of
differing levels of interest and influence. This study has highlighted the complexity
of change management and the complicated role of change managers. It suggests that
a change manager, effectively using change management models and frameworks,
will add value to the change experience. It also suggests that as the needed degree of
cultural change increases, there is a greater need for a dedicated change agent such as
a change manager. The roles of project management and change management are
complementary and interlinked; this study suggests that stakeholders expect a high
degree of coordination. Finally, this study indicates that the use of evidence in
designing and implementing change is vital, and that demonstrating and
communicating the rationale for change at multiple levels is a cornerstone for
success. The model provides simplified guidance for change managers and their
employers, and provides a premise for further research.
References 155
References
Aaltonen, K., & Kujala, J. (2016). Towards an improved understanding of project
stakeholder landscapes. International Journal of Project Management, 34(8), 1537-1552. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.08.009
Achterkamp, M. C., & Vos, J. F. J. (2008). Investigating the use of the stakeholder notion in project management literature, a meta-analysis. International Journal of Project Management, 26(7), 749-757.
Al-Haddad, S., & Kotnour, T. (2015). Integrating the organizational change literature: A model for successful change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 28(2), 234-262.
Armenakis, A. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (1999). Organizational change: A review of theory and research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25(3), 293-315. doi:10.1016/S0149-2063(99)00004-5
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S., & Feild, H. (1999). Paradigms in organizational change: Change agent and change target perspectives. In R. T. Golembiewski (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (Vol. 87.). New York: Marcel Dekker.
Armenakis, A. A., & Harris, S. G. (2002). Crafting a change message to create transformational readiness. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(2), 169-183. doi:doi:10.1108/09534810210423080
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating readiness for organizational change. Human Relations, 46(6), 681-703. doi:10.1177/001872679304600601
Association of Change Management Professionals. (2017). About ACMP. Retrieved from http://www.acmpglobal.org/page/about_acmp
Atkins, C., & Sampson, J. (2002). Critical appraisal guidelines for single case study research. ECIS 2002 Proceedings, 15.
Azim, S., Gale, A., Lawlor-Wright, T., Kirkham, R., Khan, A., & Alam, M. (2010). The importance of soft skills in complex projects. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 3(3), 387-401.
Baccarini, D. (1999). The logical framework method for defining project success. Project Management Journal, 30(4), 25-32.
Bariff, M. L. (2013). Managing organizational change Business Strategies and Approaches for Effective Engineering Management (pp. 22-47).
156 References
Battilana, J., & Casciaro, T. (2012). Change agents, networks, and institutions: A contingency theory of organizational change. Academy of Management Journal, 55(2), 381-398.
Battilana, J., Gilmartin, M., Sengul, M., Pache, A.-C., & Alexander, J. A. (2010). Leadership competencies for implementing planned organizational change. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), 422-438. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.03.007
Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000). Cracking the code of change. Harvard Business Review, 78(3), 133-141.
Belassi, W., & Tukel, O. I. (1996). A new framework for determining critical success/failure factors in projects. International Journal of Project Management, 14(3), 141-151. doi:10.1016/0263-7863(95)00064-X
Belout, A., & Gauvreau, C. (2004). Factors influencing project success: The impact of human resource management. International Journal of Project Management, 22(1), 1-11. doi:10.1016/s0263-7863(03)00003-6
Bergaus, M., Stottok, B., & Gorra, A. (2012). Validation of Grounded Theory Based Data by Means of Analytical Mapping Techniques, Kidmore End.
Bignell, V., & Fortune, J. (1984). Understanding systems failures. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Bonnafous-Boucher, M., & Rendtorff, J. D. (2016). Stakeholder theory : A model for strategic management. Cham: Springer.
Bourne, L., & Walker, D. H. T. (2005). Visualising and mapping stakeholder influence. Management Decision, 43(5), 649-660. doi:10.1108/00251740510597680
Bourne, L., & Walker, D. H. T. (2006). Visualizing stakeholder influence - two Australian examples. Project Management Journal, 37(1), 5-21.
Boyatzis, R. E. (2008). Competencies in the 21st century. The Journal of Management Development, 27(1), 5-12.
Boyatzis, R. E. (2011). Managerial and leadership competencies: A behavioral approach to emotional, social and cognitive intelligence*. Vision, 15(2), 91-100.
Bradley, G. (2010). Benefit realisation management Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315569055 doi:10.4324/9781315569055
Brière, S., Proulx, D., Flores, O. N., & Laporte, M. (2015). Competencies of project managers in international NGOs: Perceptions of practitioners. International Journal of Project Management, 33(1), 116-125. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.04.010
References 157
Burke, W. W., & Litwin, G. H. (1992). A causal model of organizational performance and change. Journal of Management, 18(3), 523.
Burnard, K., & Bhamra, R. (2011). Organisational resilience: Development of a conceptual framework for organisational responses. International Journal of Production Research, 49(18). doi:doi: 10.1080/00207543.2011.563827
Butt, A., Naaranoja, M., & Savolainen, J. (2016). Project change stakeholder communication. International Journal of Project Management, 34(8), 1579-1595. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.08.010
By, R. T. (2005). Organisational change management: A critical review. Journal of Change Management, 5(4), 369-380.
By, R. T. (2007). Ready or not... Journal of Change Management, 7(1).
Cao, G., & McHugh, M. (2005). A systemic view of change management and its conceptual underpinnings. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 18(5), 475-490. doi:10.1007/s11213-005-8484-4
Castillo-Montoya, M. (2016). Preparing for interview research: The interview protocol refinement framework. The Qualitative Report, 21(5), 811-831. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol21/iss5/2
Change Management Institute. (2014) The effective change manager: The change management body of knowledge. United States: Vivid Publishing.
Change Management Institute. (2017a). Our story: About us. Retrieved from https://www.change-management-institute.com/our-story
Change Management Institute. (2017b). Training. Retrieved from https://www.change-management-institute.com/training
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd edition. ed.). London: SAGE.
Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. The Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92-117. doi:10.2307/258888
Cleland, D. I. (1986). Project stakeholder management. Project Management Journal, 17(4), 36-44.
Cleland, D. I., & Ireland, L. R. (2006). Project stakeholder management Project management: strategic design and implementation (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Conner, D. (1998). Managing at the speed of change: How resilient managers succeed and prosper where others fail. New York; Chichester, England: Wiley.
158 References
Cooke-Davies, T. (2002). The “real” success factors on projects. International Journal of Project Management, 20(3), 185-190. doi:10.1016/s0263-7863(01)00067-9
Crawford, L., & Nahmias, A. H. (2010). Competencies for managing change. International Journal of Project Management, 28(4), 405-412.
Crotty, M. (1998). Introduction: The research process The foundations of social research: meaning and perspective in the research process. Thousand Oaks, Calif;London;: Sage Publications.
Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation - a metaanalysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 555-590.
Daniel, D. R. (1961). Management information crisis. Harvard Business Review, 39(5), 111-121.
Davis, K. (2014). Different stakeholder groups and their perceptions of project success. International Journal of Project Management, 32(2), 189-201.
Davis, K. (2016). A method to measure success dimensions relating to individual stakeholder groups. International Journal of Project Management, 34(3), 480-493. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.12.009
Davis, K. (2017). An empirical investigation into different stakeholder groups perception of project success. International Journal of Project Management, 35(4), 604-617. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.02.004
Davis, K. (2018). Reconciling the Views of Project Success: A Multiple Stakeholder Model. Project Management Journal, 49(5), 38-47. doi:10.1177/8756972818786663
de Wit, A. (1988). Measurement of project success. International Journal of Project Management, 6(3), 164-170. doi:10.1016/0263-7863(88)90043-9
Derakhshan, R., Turner, R., & Mancini, M. (2019). Project governance and stakeholders: a literature review. International Journal of Project Management, 37(1), 98-116. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.10.007
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. The Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65-91. doi:10.5465/AMR.1995.9503271992
Dunphy, D. C., & Stace, D. A. (1988). Transformational and coercive strategies for planned organizational change: Beyond the O.D. model. Organization Studies, 9(3), 317-334.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. The Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25-32. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2007.24160888
References 159
Fernandez, S., & Rainey, H. G. (2006). Managing successful organizational change in the public sector. Public Administration Review, 66(2), 168-176.
Fiksel, J. (2006). Sustainability and resilience: Toward a systems approach. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy, 2(2), 14-21.
Flyvbjerg, B., & Sampson, S. (2001). Making social science matter (pp. 66-87). Retrieved from Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Fortune, J., & White, D. (2006). Framing of project critical success factors by a systems model. International Journal of Project Management, 24(1), 53-65. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.07.004
Francisco de Oliveira, G., & Rabechini Jr, R. (2019). Stakeholder management influence on trust in a project: A quantitative study. International Journal of Project Management, 37(1), 131-144. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.11.001
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. C. (2007). Managing for stakeholders: Survival, reputation, and success. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Friedman, A. L., & Miles, S. (2002). Developing stakeholder theory. Journal of Management Studies, 39(1), 1-21. doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00280
Friedman, A. L., & Miles, S. (2006). Stakeholders: Theory and practice. New York: Oxford University Press.
Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. The Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 191-205. doi:10.5465/AMR.1999.1893928
Galpin, T. (1996). The human side of change: A practical guide to organization redesign (1 ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Gareis, R. (2010). Changes of organizations by projects. International Journal of Project Management, 28(4), 314-327. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.01.002
Gilham, B. (2010). Case study research methods Retrieved from ProQuest ebrary database
Gonczi, A. (2013). Competency-based approaches: Linking theory and practice in professional education with particular reference to health education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 45(12), 1290-1306.
Graetz, F. (2000). Strategic change leadership. Management Decision, 38(8), 550-564. doi:10.1108/00251740010378282
Group, A. (2018). Change Management. Retrieved from https://apmg-international.com/product/change-management
160 References
Gruden, N., & Stare, A. (2018). The Influence of Behavioral Competencies on Project Performance. Project Management Journal, 49(3), 98-109. doi:10.1177/8756972818770841
Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. ECTJ, 29(2), 75-91.
Hahn, C. (2008). Doing qualitative research using your computer. Thousand Oaks CA: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Hiatt, J. (2006). ADKAR: A model for change in business, government and our community (1 ed.). Loveland: Colorado Prosci Learning Center Publications.
Hornstein, H. A. (2015). The integration of project management and organizational change management is now a necessity. International Journal of Project Management, 33(2), 291-298.
Hughes, M. (2007). The tools and techniques of change management. Journal of Change Management, 7(1), 37-49. doi:10.1080/14697010701309435
Hughes, M. (2011). Do 70 per cent of all organizational change initiatives really fail? Journal of Change Management, 11(4), 451-464.
Hughes, M. (2015a). The leadership of organizational change Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315762425 doi:10.4324/9781315762425
Hughes, M. (2015b). Leading changes: Why transformation explanations fail. Leadership, 12(4), 449-469. doi:10.1177/1742715015571393
Isabella, L. A. (1990). Evolving interpretations as a change unfolds: How managers construe key organizational events. The Academy of Management Journal, 33(1), 7-41. doi:10.2307/256350
Jacobs, G., van Witteloostuijn, A., & Christe-Zeyse, J. (2013). A theoretical framework of organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 26(5), 772-792. doi:10.1108/JOCM-09-2012-0137
Jaffe, D. T., Scott, C. D., & Tobe, G. R. (1994). Rekindling commitment: How to revitalize yourself, your work, and your organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Jawahar, I. M., & McLaughlin, G. L. (2001). Toward a descriptive stakeholder theory: An organizational life cycle approach. The Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 397-414. doi:10.2307/259184
Johnson, G., & Scholes, K. (1999). Exploring corporate strategy: Prentice Hall Europe.
Johnson, G., Scholes, K., & Whittington, R. (2005). Exploring corporate strategy: Text and cases. England: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
References 161
Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 404-437. doi:10.5465/AMR.1995.9507312924
Jones, T. M., & Wicks, A. C. (1999). Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 206-221.
Judson, A. S. (1991). Changing behavior in organizations : Minimizing resistance to change. In A. S. Judson (Ed.). Cambridge, Mass., USA: B. Blackwell Business.
Kanter, R. M., Stein, B., & Jick, T. D. (1992). The Challenge of Organizational Change: How companies experience it and leaders guide it. New York: Free Press.
Kimberlin, S. E., Schwartz, S. L., & Austin, M. J. (2011). Growth and resilience of pioneering nonprofit human service organizations: A cross-case analysis of organizational histories. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 8(1), 4-28. doi:10.1080/15433710903272820
Kivits, R. A. (2011). Three component stakeholder analysis. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 5(3), 318-333.
Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 59-67.
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press.
Legris, P., & Collerette, P. (2006). A roadmap for IT project implementation: integrating stakeholders and change management issues. Project Management Journal, 37(5), 64.
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics. Human Relations, 1(1), 5-41. doi:10.1177/001872674700100103
Lewin, K. (1952). Group decision and social change. In G. E. Swanson, R. E. Newcomb, & E. K. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in Social Psychology (pp. 459-473). Holt New York: Rinehart.
Lim, C. S., & Mohamed, M. Z. (1999). Criteria of project success: An exploratory re-examination. International Journal of Project Management, 17(4), 243-248. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(98)00040-4
Luecke, R. (2003). Harvard business essentials: Managing change and transition. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press.
Lunenberg, F. C. (2010). Managing change: The role of the change agent. International Journal of Management, Business and Administration, 13(1), 1-6.
Mainardes, E. W., Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2011). Stakeholder theory: Issues to resolve. Management Decision, 49(2), 226-252.
162 References
Mammen, J. R., & Mammen, C. R. (2018). Beyond concept analysis: Uses of mind mapping software for visual representation, management, and analysis of diverse digital data. Research in nursing & health, 41(6), 583. doi:10.1002/nur.21920
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2015). Designing qualitative research (Vol. 6). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE.
Matthias, G. W. (2015). Successful organizational change through win-win: How change managers can create mutual benefits. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 11(2), null. doi:10.1108/JAOC-06-2013-0056
Mendelow, A. L. (1981). Environmental scanning - the impact of the stakeholder concept. Paper presented at the ICIS.
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886.
Moore, C., & Cole, R. (2017). Change management certification courses from APMG and Prosci: which one is right for you? Retrieved from change-management-institute.com website: https://www.change-management-institute.com/sites/default/files/uploaded-content/field_f_content_file/prosci_apmg_white_paper_july_final.pdf
Morris, P. W. G., & Hough, G. H. (1987). The anatomy of major projects: A study of the reality of project management. Chichester, England.
Müller, R., & Turner, J. R. (2010). Attitudes and leadership competences for project success. Baltic Journal of Management, 5(3), 307-329.
Müller, R., & Turner, R. (2007). The influence of project managers on project success criteria and project success by type of project. European Management Journal, 25(4), 298-309.
Munns, A. K., & Bjeirmi, B. F. (1996). The role of project management in achieving project success. International Journal of Project Management, 14(2), 81-87. doi:10.1016/0263-7863(95)00057-7
Nixon, M. M. (2014). The phenomena of change: A qualitative study. Journal of Business and Behavior Sciences, 26(2), 39-57.
Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 937-949. doi:10.1002/tea.3660271003
Olander, S., & Landin, A. (2005). Evaluation of stakeholder influence in the implementation of construction projects. International Journal of Project Management, 23(4), 321-328.
References 163
Parker, D., Charlton, J., Ribeiro, A., & Pathak, R. D. (2013). Integration of project-based management and change management. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 62(5), 534-544.
Parker, D., Verlinden, A., Nussey, R., Ford, M., & Pathak, R. D. (2013). Critical evaluation of project‐based performance management. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 62(4), 407-419.
Perry, C. (2013). Efficient and effective research: A toolkit for research students and developing researchers. Australia: AIB Publications Pty Ltd.
Phillips, R. (2003). Stakeholder theory and organizational ethics Vol. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. (pp. 200 ). Retrieved from http://library.books24x7.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/toc.aspx?bookid=6977
Pinto, J. K., & Slevin, D. P. (1987). Critical factors in successful project implementation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, EM-34(1), 22-27. doi:10.1109/tem.1987.6498856
Pollack, J. (2015). Is there a divide between change management theory and practice? The business & management review, 6(2), 64-72.
Pollack, J. (2016, 2016). The need for integration between organizational project management and change management. Paper presented at the 2016 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management.
Pollack, J., & Algeo, C. (2014). Perspectives on the formal authority between project managers and change managers. Project Management Journal, 45(5), 27-43. doi:10.1002/pmj.21446
Pollack, J., & Algeo, C. (2015). The contribution of project management and change management to project success. The business & management review, 6, 22-30.
Pollack, J., & Algeo, C. (2016). Project managers’ and change managers’ contribution to success. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 9(2), 451-465. doi:doi:10.1108/IJMPB-09-2015-0085
Pollack, J., & Pollack, R. (2014). Using Kotter’s eight stage process to manage an organisational change program: Presentation and practice. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 28(1), 51-66. doi:10.1007/s11213-014-9317-0
Rajablu, M., Marthandan, G., & Yusoff, W. F. W. (2015). Managing for stakeholders: The role of stakeholder-based management in project success. Asian Social Science, 11(3), 111-125.
Rolstadås, A., Tommelein, I., Schiefloe, P. M., & Ballard, G. (2014). Understanding project success through analysis of project management approach. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 7(4), 638-660. doi:10.1108/IJMPB-09-2013-0048
164 References
Rowley, T. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences. The Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 887-910. doi:10.2307/259248
Rowley, T. J., & Moldoveanu, M. (2003). When will stakeholder groups act? An interest- and identity-based model of stakeholder group mobilization. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 204-219. doi:10.5465/AMR.2003.9416080
Saldana, J. (2009). Coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks CA: SAGE Publications.
Saunders, M. (2016). Research methods for business students (Seventh edition. ed.). Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Understanding research philosophies and approachesResearch Methods for Business Students.
Schein, E. (1987). Process consultation: Vol. 11. Lessons for managers and consultants. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.
Shenhar, A., Levy, O., & Dvir, D. (1997). Mapping the dimensions of project success. Project Management Journal, 28(2), 5-3.
Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63-75.
Simmons, J., & Lovegrove, I. (2005). Bridging the conceptual divide: Lessons from stakeholder analysis. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18(5), 495-513. doi:10.1108/09534810510614977
Southerland, S., Sinatar, G., & Matthew, M. (2001). Belief, knowledge and science education. Educational Psychology Review, 13(4), 325-351.
Spencer, L. M., & Spencer, S. (1993). Competence at work: Models for superior performance Retrieved from QUT Library database
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Stummer, M., & Zuchi, D. (2010). Developing roles in change processes – A case study from a public sector organisation. International Journal of Project Management, 28(4), 384-394.
Thomas, R., Sargent, L. D., & Hardy, C. (2011). Managing organizational change: Negotiating meaning and power-resistance relations. Organization Science, 22(1), 22-41. doi:10.1287/orsc.1090.0520
Turner, J. R. (1999). The handbook of project-based management: Improving the processess for achieving strategic objectives (2nd edition ed.). London: McGraw-Hill Publishing Co.
References 165
Turner, J. R. (2004). Five necessary conditions for project success. International Journal of Project Management, 22(5), 349-350. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.02.001
Turner, J. R. (2014). The handbook of project-based management: Leading strategic change in organizations (Fourth;4th; ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Turner, J. R., & Müller, R. (2005). The project manager's leadership style as a success factor on projects: A literature review. Project Management Journal, 36(2), 49-61.
Turner, J. R., & Zolin, R. (2012). Forecasting success on large projects: Developing reliable scales to predict multiple perspectives by multiple stakeholders over multiple time frames. Project Management Journal, 43(5), 87-99.
Vollman, T. E. (1996). The transformation imperative. Boston, Massechusettes: Harvard Business School Press.
Vos, J. F. J., & Achterkamp, M. C. (2006). Stakeholder identification in innovation projects. European Journal of Innovation Management, 9(2), 161-178. doi:10.1108/14601060610663550
Vos, J. F. J., & Rupert, J. (2018). Change agent's contribution to recipients' resistance to change: A two-sided story. European Management Journal, 36(4), 453-462. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2017.11.004
Walley, P. (2013). Stakeholder management: The sociodynamic approach. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 6(3), 485-504.
Wheeldon, J., & Faubert, J. (2009). Framing experience: Concept maps, mind maps and data collection in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(3), 68-83.
Willig, C. (2013). Introducing Qualitative Research In Psychology. Maidenhead, UNITED KINGDOM: McGraw-Hill Education.
Winch, G. M., & Bonke, S. (2002). Project stakeholder mapping - analyzing the interests of the project stakeholders. In D. I. Cleland, J. K. Pinto, D. P. Slevin, & I. Books24x (Eds.), The Frontiers of Project Management Research. Exton: Project Management Institute.
Woodside, A. (2010). Case study research: Theory, methods and practice Retrieved from Proquest ebrary database
Worley, C. G., & Mohrman, S. A. (2014). Is change management obsolete? Organizational Dynamics, 43(3), 214-224. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2014.08.008
Worren, N. A. M., Ruddle, K., & Moore, K. (1999). From organizational development to change management: The emergence of a new profession. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35(3), 273-286.
166 References
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: design and methods (Vol. 4th). Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Pub.
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications : Design and methods (Sixth edition. ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Young, M., & Conboy, K. (2013). Contemporary project portfolio management: Reflections on the development of an Australian Competency Standard for Project Portfolio Management. International Journal of Project Management, 31(8), 1089-1100.
Zikmund, W. G., Babin, B. J., Carr, J. C., Griffin, M. (2010). Business research methods (8 ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western, Cengage Learning.
Zwikael, O., Chih, Y.-Y., & Meredith, J. R. (2018). Project benefit management: Setting effective target benefits. International Journal of Project Management, 36(4), 650-658. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.01.002
Appendices 167
Appendices
168 References
Appendix A Participant interviews – base guide
Date: Interviewee name: Welcome and introduction, consent form and approach. How would you describe the purpose of the project?
How are/were you involved in the project? Role and responsibilities.
Overall, what should the project (have) accomplish(ed) from your point of view?
What were the proposed benefits of this project?
What were your initial expectations of the change manager's involvement in achieving the benefits?
What key skills or knowledge were you looking for/expecting to assist with the project?
Who were the key stakeholders, including yourself? What are their roles? What was their relationship to the change manager?
How would you characterise the organisation's usual approach to change management?
What was different about the change management approach for this project?
Pick one event, action or issue that would have tested the change manager's skills during the project, and tell me about it.
Which five skills would you rate as the most valuable, and why?
What do you see as the challenges for change managers in the future?
Considering all of that: if you were advising a colleague on the selection of a change manager, what key skills and knowledge would you recommend looking for, based on your experience?
Were benefits of this project realised/are they being realised?
Which aspects of the change management process did you/do you consider less successful? Why?
Have there been any unexpected benefits or successes?
Based on your experience, what improvements would you like to see in managing change projects that would lead to greater project success?
I have reached the end of my questions, do you have any thoughts or clarifications, based on our discussion, that you would like to share?
Closing and thanks.
References 169
Appendix B Ethics approval (email)
From: Research Ethics (HUMAN) humanethics@qut.edu.auSubject: Ethics application - approved - 1800000702
Date: 13 August 2018 at 1:08 PMTo: A/Prof Paul Davidson p.davidson@qut.edu.au, A/Prof Erica French e.french@qut.edu.au, Mrs Shelley Murphy
shelley.murphy@hdr.qut.edu.auCc: Research Ethics (HUMAN) humanethics@qut.edu.au
Dear A/Prof Paul Davidson and Mrs Shelley Murphy
Ethics Category: Human - Negligible-Low RiskUHREC Reference number: 1800000702Dates of approval: 13/08/2018 to 13/08/2019Project title: Change managers and theirinfluence on stakeholders' perceptions of project success - an exploratorystudy
Thank you for submitting the above research project for ethics review. This project was considered by Chair, Queensland University of Technology(QUT) Human Research Ethics Committee (UHREC) or a Faculty-based low riskreview panel.
We are pleased to advise you that the above research project meets therequirements of the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research(2007) and ethics approval for this research project has been granted onbehalf of the UHREC, to be ratified at their next scheduled meeting.
Please find attached the Research Governance Checklist.Please ensure you address any items you identify as relevant to yourresearch project.
Approval of this project is valid as per the dates above, subject to thefollowing conditions being met:
< The Chief Investigator (CI) / Project Supervisor (PS) willimmediately report anything that might warrant review of ethical approvalof the project.
< The CI/PS will notify the UHREC of any event that requires amodification to the protocol or other project documents and submit anyrequired amendments in accordance with the instructions provided by theUHREC. These instructions can be found athttp://www.orei.qut.edu.au/human/.
< The CI/PS will submit any necessary reports related to the safety ofresearch participants in accordance with UHREC policy and procedures. These instructions can be found at http://www.orei.qut.edu.au/human/.
< The CI/PS will report to the UHREC annually in the specified formatand notify the UHREC when the project is completed at all sites.
< The CI/PS will notify the UHREC if the project is discontinued at aparticipating site before the expected completion date, with reasonsprovided.
< The CI/PS will notify the UHREC of any plan to extend the duration ofthe project past the approval period listed above and will submit anyassociated required documentation. Instructions for obtaining an extensionof approval can be found at http://www.orei.qut.edu.au/human/.
< The CI/PS will notify the UHREC of his or her inability to continueas CI/PS including the name of and contact information for a replacement.
This email constitutes ethics approval only. If appropriate, please ensure the appropriate authorisations are obtainedfrom the institutions, organisations or agencies involved in the projectand/or where the research will be conducted.
The UHREC Terms of Reference, Standard Operating Procedures, membership andstandard forms are available from: http://www.orei.qut.edu.au/human/manage/conditions.jsp.
Should you have any queries about the consideration of your project pleasecontact the Research Ethics Advisory Team on 07 3138 5123 or emailhumanethics@qut.edu.au.
We wish you every success in your research.
170 References
We wish you every success in your research.
Research Ethics Advisory Team, Office of Research Ethics & Integrity on behalf of the Chairperson, UHRECLevel 4 | 88 Musk Avenue | Kelvin Grove+61 7 3138 5123 humanethics@qut.edu.au
The UHREC is constituted and operates in accordance with the NationalStatement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2007) and registered by theNational Health and Medical Research Council (# EC00171).
References 171
Appendix C Approved ethics templates and forms
(Participant recruitment, information sheet, consent forms)
Sampleapproachemail–focusgroupsSubjectTitle:Participate in a research study – influence of change managers on stakeholders’ perceptions of project
success
Dearcolleagues
My name is Shelley Murphy, I am undertaking a Master of Philosophy through the School of Business,
QueenslandUniversityofTechnology(QUT).Myresearchstudyisexploringtheinfluencechangemanagers
and changemanagementhaveonperceptionsof project success.My study aims togather the viewsof a
wide-range of people involved in an organisational change project – from employees to managers and
magistrates.Iamveryinterestedintheroleofchangemanagersasanemergingprofession.
I’m looking for individuals (employeesormanagers)whoare involved in theorganisationalchangeproject
withinyourorganisationalunittoparticipateinsmallfocusgroupsaboutchangemanagementandtherole
ofchangemanagers.Participationinafocusgroupisentirelyvoluntaryandanyinformationgatheredwillbe
treatedconfidentially.Onlyaggregatedand/orde-identifiedinformationwillbeusedinmyresearchreport.
Ifyouwouldprefertocontributetothestudyasanindividualthereisanoptiontocompleteaquestionnaire
basedonthefocusgroupquestionsorundertakeashortinterview.
PleaseviewtheattachedParticipantInformationSheetandConsentFormforfurtherdetailsonthestudy.
Pleasenote,thisstudyhasbeenapprovedbytheQUTHumanResearchEthicsCommittee(approvalnumber
xxx). Inaddition, theDirector-General, {name} is supportiveofmystudyandhasgivenapproval formeto
approach staff to participate. Youmay participate duringwork time. Of course, this will bemanaged to
minimisedisruption.
Ifyouare interested inparticipatingeither ina focusgrouporbycompletingaquestionnaire,orhaveany
questions,pleasecontactmeviatheemailaddressorphonenumberbelow,Ilookforwardtohearingfrom
you.
Manythanksforyourconsiderationofthisrequest.
ShelleyMurphy
MasterofPhilosophystudentPhone:
Email:shelley.murphy@hdr.qut.edu.au
SupervisorAssociateProfessorPaulDavidson
Phone:0731384108
Email:p.davidson@qut.edu.au
SchoolofBusiness
QueenslandUniversityofTechnology
172 References
Sampleapproachemail–individualrolesSubjectTitle:Participate in a research study – influence of change managers on stakeholders’ perceptions of project
success
Dearcolleagues
My name is Shelley Murphy, I am undertaking a Master of Philosophy through the School of Business,
QueenslandUniversityofTechnology(QUT).Myresearchstudyisexploringtheinfluencechangemanagers
and changemanagementhaveonperceptionsof project success.My study aims togather the viewsof a
wide-range of people involved in an organisational change project – from employees to managers and
magistrates.Iamveryinterestedintheroleofchangemanagersasanemergingprofession.
I’mlookingforindividualswhoareinvolveddirectlyandindirectlyintheorganisationalchangeprojectwithin
thecourttoparticipateinasemi-structuredinterviewabouttheroleandinfluenceofchangemanagersand
changemanager.Iaminterestedinyourperceptionsandexperiencegivenyourroleas{insertrole}.
PleaseviewtheattachedParticipantInformationSheetandConsentFormforfurtherdetailsonthestudy.
Pleasenote,thisstudyhasbeenapprovedbytheQUTHumanResearchEthicsCommittee(approvalnumber
xxx). Inaddition, theDirector-General, {Name} issupportiveofmystudyandhasgivenapproval formeto
approachstafftoparticipate.Heisallowingvolunteerstoparticipateduringworktime.Ofcourse,thiswill
bemanagedtominimisedisruption.
Ifyouareinterestedinparticipatingorhaveanyquestions,pleasecontactmeviatheemailaddressorphone
numberbelow.Ilookforwardtohearingfromyou.
Manythanksforyourconsiderationofthisrequest.
ShelleyMurphy
MasterofPhilosophystudentPhone:
Email:shelley.murphy@hdr.qut.edu.au
SupervisorAssociateProfessorPaulDavidson
Phone:0731384108
Email:p.davidson@qut.edu.au
SchoolofBusiness
QueenslandUniversityofTechnology
References 173
PARTICIPANTINFORMATIONFORQUTRESEARCHPROJECT–Focusgroup–
Changemanagersandtheirinfluenceonstakeholders’perceptionsofprojectsuccess–anexploratorystudyQUTEthicsApprovalNumberxxx
RESEARCHTEAMPleaselistallmembersandorganisationsinthissection
PrincipalResearcher: ShelleyMurphy,MasterofPhilosophystudent
AssociateResearcher(s): DrPaulDavidson,AssociateProfessor,PrincipalSupervisor
DrEricaFrench,AssociateProfessorAssociateSupervisor
SchoolofBusiness,QueenslandUniversityofTechnology(QUT)
DESCRIPTIONThisresearchprojectisbeingundertakenaspartofaMasterofPhilosophystudyforShelleyMurphy.
The purpose of this research is to investigate how key stakeholders’ perceptions of project success are
influenced by the presence of an organisational change manager, an employee specifically charged with
undertakingchangemanagement.
You are invited to participate in this research project because you are a stakeholder (for example, an
employeeormanager)affectedbyanorganisationalchangeproject.
PARTICIPATIONYour participation will involve an audio-recorded focus group at the {named locations} or other agreed
locationthatwilltakeuptotwohoursofyourtime.
The focus group will be based on a prepared set of questions but is intended to be conversational and
flexible.Forexample,thequestionswillask:
• Howwouldyoucharacterisetheorganisation'susualapproachtochangemanagement?
• In the context of a specific project: Were the benefits of this project realised? Were there any
unexpectedbenefitsorsuccesses?
• Whatdoyouseeasthechallengesforchangemanagersinthefuture?
Your participation in this research project is entirely voluntary. If you do agree to participate you can
withdrawfromtheresearchprojectwithoutcommentorpenalty.
Youcanwithdrawatanytime.Pleasenotethat itwillnotbepossibletowithdrawdataprovideduptothe
pointofwithdrawal.Thegroupsituationmakesitdifficulttoidentifyandextractinformation.
Yourdecisiontoparticipateornotparticipatewill innowayaffectyourcurrentorfuturerelationshipwith
QUTorDJAG.
Pleasenotethatifyouarrivelateitmaynotbepossibleforyoutoparticipate.
EXPECTEDBENEFITSIt isexpectedthatthis researchprojectwillnotbenefityoudirectly, thoughwehopeyouwillenjoy itand
finditinterestingtoshareyourviews.
You will receive a short report summarising observations and key thematic findings. The report will be
availablesixmonthsafterthefieldwork(interviewsandfocusgroups),whichallowsforaperiodofanalysis
andwriting.
174 References
Acopyofthisshortreportwillalsobeprovidedtotheorganisation.Thestudy isabouttheroleofchange
managersandmayinformfutureplanningofchangemanagementprocesses.
RISKSTherearenorisksbeyondnormalday-to-daylivingassociatedwithyourparticipationinthisresearchproject.
PRIVACYANDCONFIDENTIALITYAll comments and responses will be treated confidentially unless required by law, or regulatory or
monitoringbodies,suchastheethicscommittee.Thenamesofindividualpersonsarenotrequiredinanyof
theresponses.
Astheresearchprojectinvolvesanaudiorecording:
• Therecordingwillbedestroyed5yearsafterthelastpublication.
• Therecordingwillnotbeusedforanyotherpurpose.
• Onlythenamedresearchersandtranscriptionservice,whichisboundbyaconfidentialityagreement,
will have access to the recording. Non-identified datawill be used for publication (eg the research
studyreport)
• It isnotpossibletoparticipateinthefocusgroupfortheresearchprojectwithoutbeingrecorded.If
youhaveanyconcernsaboutbeingrecordedyoumaywishtocompleteaquestionnairebasedonthe
focusgroupquestionsorconsideranindividualinterview.
Any data collected as part of this research project will be stored securely as per QUT’s Management of
researchdatapolicy.
Pleasenotethatnon-identifiabledatafromthisresearchprojectmaybeusedascomparativedatainfuture
researchprojectsorstoredonanopenaccessdatabaseforsecondaryanalysis.
CONSENTTOPARTICIPATEWewould like toaskyou tosignawrittenconsent formtoconfirmyouragreement toparticipate.Please
return the consent form by close of business on xxxxx to Shelley Murphy via
shelley.murphy@hdr.qut.edu.au.Shelleywillcontactyoutoscheduleyourparticipation.
QUESTIONS/FURTHERINFORMATIONABOUTTHERESEARCHPROJECTIfyouhaveanyquestionsorrequirefurtherinformationpleasecontactoneofthelistedresearchers:
ShelleyMurphy,MasterofPhilosophystudent shelley.murphy@hdr.qut.edu.au tbc
DrPaulDavidson,AssociateProfessor,Principalsupervisor p.davidson@qut.edu.au 0731381248
DrEricaFrench,AssociateProfessor,Associatesupervisor e.french@qut.edu.au 0731384430
CONCERNS/COMPLAINTSREGARDINGTHECONDUCTOFTHERESEARCHPROJECTQUT is committed to research integrity and the ethical conduct of research projects. However, if you do
haveanyconcernsorcomplaintsabouttheethicalconductoftheresearchprojectyoumaycontacttheQUT
ResearchEthicsAdvisoryTeamon+61731385123oremailhumanethics@qut.edu.au.TheQUTResearch
Ethics Advisory Team is not connected with the research project and can facilitate a resolution to your
concerninanimpartialmanner.
THANKYOUFORHELPINGWITHTHISRESEARCHPROJECT.PLEASEKEEPTHISSHEETFORYOURINFORMATION.
References 175
PARTICIPANTINFORMATIONFORQUTRESEARCHPROJECT–Interview–
Changemanagersandtheirinfluenceonstakeholders’perceptionsofprojectsuccess–anexploratorystudy
QUTEthicsApprovalNumberxxxRESEARCHTEAMPrincipalResearcher: ShelleyMurphy,MasterofPhilosophystudentAssociateResearcher(s): DrPaulDavidson,AssociateProfessor,PrincipalSupervisor
DrEricaFrench,AssociateProfessorAssociateSupervisor SchoolofBusiness,QueenslandUniversityofTechnology(QUT)DESCRIPTIONThisresearchprojectisbeingundertakenaspartofMasterofPhilosophystudyforShelleyMurphy.The purpose of this research is to investigate how key stakeholders’ perceptions of project success areinfluenced by the presence of an organisational change manager, an employee specifically charged withundertakingchangemanagement.You are invited to participate in this research project because you have a direct and individual role inmanaginganorganisationalchangeorasastakeholderaffectedbyanorganisationalchangeproject.PARTICIPATIONYourparticipationwillinvolveanaudio-recordedinterviewatthe{namedlocations}orotheragreedlocationthatwilltakeapproximatelyonehourofyourtime.Theinterviewsaredesignedtobesemi-structured–basedonapreparedsetofquestionsbutintendedtobeconversationalandflexible.Forexample,thequestionswillask:
• Howwouldyoucharacterisetheorganisation'susualapproachtochangemanagement?• In the context of a specific project: Were the benefits of this project realised? Were there any
unexpectedbenefitsorsuccesses?• Whatdoyouseeasthechallengesforchangemanagersinthefuture?
Your participation in this research project is entirely voluntary. If you do agree to participate you canwithdraw from the research project without comment or penalty. You can withdraw at anytime. If youwithdrawwithintwoweeksofyourinterview,onrequestanyidentifiableinformationalreadyobtainedfromyouwill bedestroyed.Yourdecision toparticipateornotparticipatewill innowayaffect your currentorfuturerelationshipwithQUTorDJAG.EXPECTEDBENEFITSIt isexpectedthatthisresearchprojectwillnotbenefityoudirectly, thoughwehopeyouwillenjoy itandfinditinterestingtoshareyourviews.You will receive a short report summarising observations and key thematic findings. The report will beavailablesixmonthsafterthefieldwork(interviewsandfocusgroups),whichallowsforaperiodofanalysisandwriting.Acopyofthisshortreportwillalsobeprovidedtotheorganisation.Thestudy isabouttheroleofchangemanagersandmayinformfutureplanningofchangemanagementprocesses.RISKSTherearenorisksbeyondnormalday-to-daylivingassociatedwithyourparticipationinthisresearchproject.
176 References
PRIVACYANDCONFIDENTIALITYAll comments and responses will be treated confidentially unless required by law, or regulatory ormonitoringbodies,suchastheethicscommittee.Thenamesofindividualpersonsarenotrequiredinanyoftheresponses.Astheresearchprojectinvolvesanaudio-recording:• Youwillhavetheopportunitytoverifyyourcommentsandresponsespriortofinalinclusion.• Therecordingwillbedestroyed5yearsafterthelastpublication.• Therecordingwillnotbeusedforanyotherpurpose.• Onlythenamedresearchersandtranscriptionservice,whichisboundbyaconfidentialityagreement,
will have access to the recording. Non-identified datawill be used for publication (eg the researchstudyreport)
• Itispossibletoparticipateintheresearchprojectwithoutbeingrecorded.Theresearcherwillneedtomakemorenotesandthismayaffecttheflowoftheinterview.
Any data collected as part of this research project will be stored securely as per QUT’s Management ofresearchdatapolicy.Pleasenotethatnon-identifiabledatafromthisresearchprojectmaybeusedascomparativedatainfutureresearchprojectsorstoredonanopenaccessdatabaseforsecondaryanalysis.CONSENTTOPARTICIPATEWewouldliketoaskyoutosignawrittenconsentform(enclosed)toconfirmyouragreementtoparticipate.Please return the consent form by close of business on xxxxx to Shelley Murphy viashelley.murphy@hdr.qut.edu.au.Shelleywillcontactyoutoscheduleyourinterview.QUESTIONS/FURTHERINFORMATIONABOUTTHERESEARCHPROJECTIfyouhaveanyquestionsorrequirefurtherinformationpleasecontactoneofthelistedresearchers:ShelleyMurphy,MasterofPhilosophystudent shelley.murphy@hdr.qut.edu.au tbcDrPaulDavidson,AssociateProfessor,Principalsupervisor p.davidson@qut.edu.au 0731381248DrEricaFrench,AssociateProfessor,Associatesupervisor e.french@qut.edu.au 0731384430CONCERNS/COMPLAINTSREGARDINGTHECONDUCTOFTHERESEARCHPROJECTQUT is committed to research integrity and the ethical conduct of research projects. However, if you dohaveanyconcernsorcomplaintsabouttheethicalconductoftheresearchprojectyoumaycontacttheQUTResearchEthicsAdvisoryTeamon+61731385123oremailhumanethics@qut.edu.au.TheQUTResearchEthics Advisory Team is not connected with the research project and can facilitate a resolution to yourconcerninanimpartialmanner.
THANKYOUFORHELPINGWITHTHISRESEARCHPROJECT.PLEASEKEEPTHISSHEETFORYOURINFORMATION.
References 177
CONSENTFORMFORQUTRESEARCHPROJECT–Focusgroup–
Changemanagersandtheirinfluenceonstakeholders’perceptionsofprojectsuccess–anexploratorystudy
QUTEthicsApprovalNumberxxx
RESEARCHTEAM.ShelleyMurphy,MasterofPhilosophystudent shelley.murphy@hdr.qut.edu.au tbcDrPaulDavidson,AssociateProfessor,Principalsupervisor p.davidson@qut.edu.au 0731381248DrEricaFrench,AssociateProfessor,Associatesupervisor e.french@qut.edu.au 0731384430STATEMENTOFCONSENTBysigningbelow,youareindicatingthatyou:
• Havereadandunderstoodtheinformationdocumentregardingthisresearchproject.
• Havehadanyquestionsansweredtoyoursatisfaction.
• Understandthatifyouhaveanyadditionalquestionsyoucancontacttheresearchteam.
• Understandthatyouarefreetowithdrawwithoutcommentorpenalty.
• UnderstandthatifyouhaveconcernsabouttheethicalconductoftheresearchprojectyoucancontacttheResearchEthicsAdvisoryTeamon+61731385123oremailhumanethics@qut.edu.au.
• Understandthatthefocusgroupwillbeaudiorecorded.
• Understandthatnon-identifiabledatafromthisprojectmaybeusedascomparativedatainfutureresearchprojects.
• Understandthatyouwillreceiveacopyofashortreportsummarisingobservationsandkeythematicfindings.
• Agreetoparticipateintheresearchproject.
Name
Signature
Date
PLEASERETURNTHESIGNEDCONSENTFORMTOTHERESEARCHER.
178 References
CONSENTFORMFORQUTRESEARCHPROJECT–Interview–
Changemanagersandtheirinfluenceonstakeholders’perceptionsofprojectsuccess–anexploratorystudy
QUTEthicsApprovalNumberxxx
RESEARCHTEAM.ShelleyMurphy,MasterofPhilosophystudent shelley.murphy@hdr.qut.edu.au tbcDrPaulDavidson,AssociateProfessor,Principalsupervisor p.davidson@qut.edu.au 0731381248DrEricaFrench,AssociateProfessor,Associatesupervisor e.french@qut.edu.au 0731384430STATEMENTOFCONSENTBysigningbelow,youareindicatingthatyou:
• Havereadandunderstoodtheinformationdocumentregardingthisresearchproject.
• Havehadanyquestionsansweredtoyoursatisfaction.
• Understandthatifyouhaveanyadditionalquestionsyoucancontacttheresearchteam.
• Understandthatyouarefreetowithdrawwithoutcommentorpenalty.Ifyouwithdrawwithintwoweeksofyourinterview,onrequestanyidentifiableinformationalreadyobtainedfromyouwillbedestroyed.
• UnderstandthatifyouhaveconcernsabouttheethicalconductoftheresearchprojectyoucancontacttheResearchEthicsAdvisoryTeamon+61731385123oremailhumanethics@qut.edu.au.
• Understandthatnon-identifiabledatafromthisprojectmaybeusedascomparativedatainfutureresearchprojects.
• Understandthatyouwillreceiveacopyofashortreportsummarisingobservationsandkeythematicfindings.
• Agreetoparticipateintheresearchproject.Pleaseticktherelevantboxbelow:
Iagreefortheinterviewtobeaudiorecorded.Idonotagreefortheinterviewtobeaudiorecorded.
Name
Signature
Date
PLEASERETURNTHESIGNEDCONSENTFORMTOTHERESEARCHER.
References 179
Appendix D Enlarged figures
Figure 4.1 Business Model
180 References
Figure 4.4 Change manager influence and change management influence – interview
themes leading to primary themes.
stak
ehol
der
pers
pect
ive
- cha
nge
man
ager
influ
ence
and
cha
nge
man
agem
ent i
nflu
ence
Cha
nge
man
ager
influ
ence
soci
alsk
ills
com
mun
icat
ion
peop
le s
kills pe
rson
alqu
aliti
es
good
judg
emen
t
robu
stan
dre
silie
nt
supp
ortiv
e
polit
ical
savv
y
ener
gy a
nden
thus
iasm
expe
rien
cean
d ex
pert
ise
prac
tical
expe
rienc
e
exte
nsiv
ekn
owle
dge
chan
ge m
anag
emen
tin
fluen
ceco
mm
unic
atio
nan
den
gage
men
t
limite
din
volv
emen
t
poor
com
mun
icat
ion
poor
enga
gem
ent
effe
ctiv
een
gage
men
t
stak
ehol
der
invo
lvem
ent
addr
essi
ngat
titud
es a
ndco
ncer
ns
com
mun
icat
ion
and
enga
gem
ent
clea
rco
nsid
ered
com
mun
icat
ion
cons
ulta
tion
and
invo
lvem
ent
plan
ning
and
sche
dulin
g
orga
nisa
tion
plan
ning
mon
itorin
g
reso
urci
ngch
ange
allo
catin
gre
sour
ces
just
ifyin
gre
sour
ces
timin
g
star
ting
endi
ng
role
cla
rity
role
of t
hech
ange
man
agerco
mm
unic
atin
gth
e ro
le
onbo
ardi
ng
cont
rolli
ngth
e sc
ope
com
plex
orga
nisa
tionco
mpl
exst
ruct
ure co
mpl
exau
thor
isin
gen
viro
nmen
t
evid
ence
-bas
edde
sign
and
exec
utio
n
poor
cons
ider
atio
nof
app
roac
h(t
hink
cha
nge
thro
ugh)
poor
lyse
lect
edso
lutio
ns
mis
guid
edap
proa
ch
man
yun
finis
hed
chan
ges
(com
plet
ech
ange
s)
man
yre
view
s
man
ydi
rect
ors
focu
ssed
cha
nge
enha
nced
lead
ersh
ippr
oact
ive
appr
oach
orga
nisa
tion
and
plan
ning
chan
ge ju
stha
ppen
s(r
esou
rce
chan
ge,
cons
ider
impa
cts)
done
on
top
of b
usin
ess
as u
sual
just
do
it
supp
ort a
ndre
silie
nce
build
ing
entr
ench
edbe
havi
ours
(und
erst
andi
ngan
d ad
dres
sing
)
subv
ertin
gal
lianc
es
resi
stan
tne
gativ
itylear
ning
and
deve
lopm
ent
form
alle
arni
ngsoci
alpr
oces
ses
for
beha
viou
ral
chan
ge
frag
men
ted
lead
ersh
ip(d
evel
ople
ader
ship
capa
city
and
conf
iden
ce) le
ader
ship
issu
es
war
ines
s of
chan
ge a
nd ri
sk
valu
ere
alis
atio
n
impl
emen
tre
view
reco
mm
enda
tions
impr
ove
the
busi
ness
incr
ease
effic
ienc
y
effe
ctiv
eim
plem
enta
tion
poor
unde
rsta
ndin
g(in
crea
seun
ders
tand
ing)
impl
emen
tst
ruct
ural
chan
ge
impl
emen
tde
cent
ralis
edte
amst
ruct
ure
addr
ess
reso
urci
ng
effe
ct c
ultu
ral
chan
ge
impr
ove
stak
ehol
der
rela
tions
hips
impr
ove
perfo
rman
ce
impr
ove
heal
th a
ndw
ellb
eing
impr
ove
mor
aleim
prov
ego
vern
ance
busi
ness
gove
ranc
ein
clud
ing
role
s
proj
ect
gove
rnan
cein
clud
ing
role
s
cultu
ral
impr
ovem
ent
impr
ovem
ents
mea
sure
d
impr
ovem
ents
obse
rved
embe
dded
stru
ctur
alch
ange
stru
ctur
e
gove
rnan
ce
Recommended