Change Managers and Stakeholder Perceptions of Their ......Change Managers and Stakeholder Perceptions of their Influence on Project Success v especially where these might mesh to

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


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).


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.


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?


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).


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


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


Other suppliers Suppliers of services and goods to the project.


Public Concerned for environmental and social impacts, with an interest in value for money where projects are publicly funded.


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)


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.


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


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).


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 &


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


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.


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.


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,


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,


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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).


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


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


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.


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.


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


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


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)


(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.


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


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).


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).


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


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).


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,


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


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).


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)


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


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


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


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


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


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).


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


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,


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).


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.


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


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


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.


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).


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.


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)


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.


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


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).


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.


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


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)


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.


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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


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


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).


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


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


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)


Interview theme Sub-themes Example (Stakeholder)


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)


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,”


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


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)



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)


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


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.


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).


Table 4.6

Interview Themes - Challenges - Change Management Project

Interview theme

Sub-themes Example (Participant)


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)


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


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


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



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)


Interview theme



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)


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)


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


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’.


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)


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


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”.


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


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.


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



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)



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”.


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


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).


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


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:


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.


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


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



Extensive knowledge Practical experience

Evidence-based design and execution Role clarity Planning and scheduling Communication and engagement Support and reliance building Value realisation


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


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.


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”.


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


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


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



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


Experience and expertise: extensive knowledge and practical experience


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.


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,


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.


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.


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


Change management influence


Planning and scheduling

Role clarity

Evidence-based design and execution

Support and resilience building

Value realisation


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”.


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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’ 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


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


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


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


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).


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.


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.


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.



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


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


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.


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


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.


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


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:


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.


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.


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


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 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.


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 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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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) [email protected]: Ethics application - approved - 1800000702

Date: 13 August 2018 at 1:08 PMTo: A/Prof Paul Davidson [email protected], A/Prof Erica French [email protected], Mrs Shelley Murphy

[email protected]: Research Ethics (HUMAN) [email protected]

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 [email protected].

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 [email protected]

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:[email protected]

SupervisorAssociateProfessorPaulDavidson

Phone:0731384108


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:


SupervisorAssociateProfessorPaulDavidson

Phone:0731384108


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 [email protected] tbc

DrPaulDavidson,AssociateProfessor,Principalsupervisor [email protected] 0731381248

DrEricaFrench,AssociateProfessor,Associatesupervisor [email protected] 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 [email protected] tbcDrPaulDavidson,AssociateProfessor,Principalsupervisor [email protected] 0731381248DrEricaFrench,AssociateProfessor,Associatesupervisor [email protected] 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–


QUTEthicsApprovalNumberxxx

RESEARCHTEAM.ShelleyMurphy,MasterofPhilosophystudent [email protected] tbcDrPaulDavidson,AssociateProfessor,Principalsupervisor [email protected] 0731381248DrEricaFrench,AssociateProfessor,Associatesupervisor [email protected] 0731384430STATEMENTOFCONSENTBysigningbelow,youareindicatingthatyou:

• Havereadandunderstoodtheinformationdocumentregardingthisresearchproject.

• Havehadanyquestionsansweredtoyoursatisfaction.

• Understandthatifyouhaveanyadditionalquestionsyoucancontacttheresearchteam.

• Understandthatyouarefreetowithdrawwithoutcommentorpenalty.

• UnderstandthatifyouhaveconcernsabouttheethicalconductoftheresearchprojectyoucancontacttheResearchEthicsAdvisoryTeamon+61731385123oremailhumanethics@qut.edu.au.

• Understandthatthefocusgroupwillbeaudiorecorded.

• Understandthatnon-identifiabledatafromthisprojectmaybeusedascomparativedatainfutureresearchprojects.

• Understandthatyouwillreceiveacopyofashortreportsummarisingobservationsandkeythematicfindings.

• Agreetoparticipateintheresearchproject.

Name

Signature

Date

PLEASERETURNTHESIGNEDCONSENTFORMTOTHERESEARCHER.

178 References

CONSENTFORMFORQUTRESEARCHPROJECT–Interview–


QUTEthicsApprovalNumberxxx

RESEARCHTEAM.ShelleyMurphy,MasterofPhilosophystudent [email protected] tbcDrPaulDavidson,AssociateProfessor,Principalsupervisor [email protected] 0731381248DrEricaFrench,AssociateProfessor,Associatesupervisor [email protected] 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

Documents

Change Managers and Stakeholder Perceptions of Their ......Change Managers and Stakeholder Perceptions of their Influence on Project Success v especially where these might mesh to