Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Effective communication during organizational change: a gap analysis
(USC Thesis Other)
Effective communication during organizational change: a gap analysis
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: COMMUNICATING CHANGE
Effective Communication During Organizational Change: A Gap Analysis
by
David S. Ferris
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
MAY 2018
Copyright 2018 David S. Ferris
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 1
DEDICATION
To JR, TM, and the technical staff of Premier Energy, for making this project possible.
May the outcomes of this research foster sustained top-quartile returns for many years to come.
To my parents, for instilling in me a desire to learn and your support in this effort.
To my wonderful wife, for your partnership and encouragement throughout this
endeavor. You continue to inspire me daily.
To my son and daughter, for your time and warm hugs during my quest to get a funny-
looking hat. May you always love to learn, do what is right, and be a positive influence.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication 1
List of Tables 5
List of Figures 11
Abstract 14
Chapter One: Introduction 15
Introduction of the Problem of Practice 15
Related Literature 15
Organizational Context and Mission 19
Organizational Performance Status 23
Importance of Addressing the Problem 23
Organizational Performance Goal 25
Description of Stakeholder Groups 25
Performance Goal of Stakeholders 26
Stakeholder Group for the Study 27
Purpose of the Project and Questions 28
Conceptual and Methodological Framework 28
Definitions 29
Organization of the Dissertation 29
Chapter Two: Literature Review 30
The Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework 30
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Factors 31
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions 45
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 3
Conceptual Framework 46
Conclusion 48
Chapter Three: Methodology 51
Assessment of Performance Influences 51
Participating Stakeholders and Sample Selection 56
Data Collection 56
Data Analysis 65
Role of Investigator 69
Chapter Four: Results and Findings 77
Introduction 77
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes 80
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes 99
Results and Findings for Organization Causes 138
Conclusion 167
Chapter Five: Solutions, Implementation, and Evaluation 169
Introduction 169
Recommendations for Practice 169
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan 183
Limitations and Delimitations 199
Recommendation for Further Inquiry 201
Conclusion 201
References 204
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 4
Appendices 217
Appendix A: Survey Items 217
Appendix B: Focus Group Protocol 223
Appendix C: Validation Interview Protocol 225
Appendix D: Personal Interview Protocol 226
Appendix E: Survey Results 228
Appendix F: Post-Training Survey Items Measuring Kirkpatrick Levels 1-4 258
Appendix G: Technical Staff Job Aid 265
Appendix H: Participant Information Sheet 285
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 5
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page
1 Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals 27
2 Assumed Knowledge Influences on Stakeholder Performance During 36
Organizational Change
3 Assumed Motivation Influences on Stakeholder Performance During 40
Organizational Change
4 Assumed Organizational Influences on Stakeholder Performance During 45
Organizational Change
5 Summary of Influences on the Technical Staff of Premier Energy 49
6 Summary of Assessment Approaches for the Assumed Influencers 54
7 Summary of Analysis Techniques for Quantitative Data 66
8 Summary of Strategies for Validating/Assessing the Assumed Influencers 71
9 Summary of Survey Response Rate by Functional Group 78
10 Summary of Survey Respondent Gender by Functional Group 78
11 Summary of Survey Respondent Generation by Functional Group 79
12 Summary of Focus Group Participation Rate by Functional Group 79
13 Results of χ
2
Test of Knowledge of the Company Vision 82
14 Results of χ
2
Test of Knowledge of the Technical Group Vision 83
15 Results of χ
2
Test of Knowledge of the Company Strategy 85
16 Results of χ
2
Test of Knowledge of the Technical Group Strategy 86
17 Results of χ
2
Test of Technical Group Knowledge of Role Related to 90
Company Strategy
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 6
18 Results of χ
2
Test of Knowledge of Performance Relative to 93
Expectations.
19 Results of χ
2
Test of Metacognitive Knowledge Related to 98
Reflections on Expectations
20 Results of χ
2
Test of Technical Staff Value Their Role in 102
Achieving the Company Strategy
21 Results of χ
2
Test of Technical Staff Value in Their Role in Achieving the 103
Technical Group Strategy
22 Results of χ
2
Test of Technical Staff Belief that Goals Will Improve 106
Performance Relative to the Company Strategy
23 Results of χ
2
Test of Technical Staff Belief that Goals Will Improve 108
Performance Relative to the Technical Group Strategy
24 Results of χ
2
Test of Technical Staff Desire to Improve Performance to 111
Achieve the Company Strategy
25 Results of χ
2
Test of Technical Staff Desire to Improve Performance to 111
Achieve the Technical Group Strategy
26 Results of Survey Questions Related to Technical Staff Confidence in Their 116
Ability to Identify the Company Vision
27 Results of Survey Questions Related to Technical Staff Confidence in Their 116
Ability to Identify the Technical Group Vision
28 Results of Survey Questions Related to Technical Staff Confidence in Their 118
Ability to Identify the Company Strategy
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 7
29 Results of Survey Questions Related to Technical Staff Confidence in Their 118
Ability to Identify the Technical Group Strategy
30 Comparison of Self-efficacy and Declarative Knowledge of the Vision 119
and Strategy for the Population
31 Results of Survey Questions Related to Technical Staff Confidence in Their 122
Ability to Identify the Steps Necessary to Implement Company Strategy
32 Results of Survey Questions Related to Technical Staff Confidence in Their 122
Ability to Identify the Steps Necessary to Implement Technical Group Strategy
33 Results of Survey Questions Related to Technical Staff Confidence in Their 124
Ability to Identify the Primary Role of the Technical Group Relative to the
Company Strategy
34 Results of Survey Questions Related to Technical Staff Confidence in Their 126
Ability to Describe Their Role Relative to the Company Strategy
35 Results of Survey Questions Related to Technical Staff Confidence in Their 126
Ability Describe Their Role Relative to the Technical Group Strategy
36 Results of Survey Questions Related to Technical Staff Confidence in Their 129
Ability to Describe the Expectations of Their Direct Supervisor
37 Results of Survey Questions Related to Technical Staff Confidence in Their 129
Ability Describe Their Performance Relative to the Expectations of Their
Direct Supervisor
38 Results of Survey Questions Related to Technical Staff Confidence that 131
the Company Strategy can be Achieved.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 8
39 Results of Survey Questions Related to Technical Staff Confidence that 132
the Technical Group Strategy can be Achieved
40 Results of Survey Questions Related to Technical Staff Confidence that 135
the Company Strategy Will Improve Company Performance
41 Results of Survey Questions Related to Technical Staff Confidence in that 135
the Technical Group Strategy Will Improve Technical Group Performance
42 Results of Survey Questions Related to Technical Staff Confidence in that 136
the Technical Group Strategy Will Improve Company Performance
43 Results of χ
2
Test of Technical Staff Belief that Senior Leader Model 139
Behavior Congruent with the Company Strategy
44 Results of χ
2
Test of Technical Staff Belief that Technical Group Leadership 141
Model Behavior Congruent with the Technical Group Strategy
45 Results of χ
2
Test of Technical Staff Belief that They Have the Information 144
Needed to do Their Job
46 Results Indicating Which Sources of Information the Technical Staff 146
Believe are the Most Actionable
47 Results Indicating Which Sources of Information the Technical Staff 146
Believe are the Least Actionable
48 Results Indicating Which Sources of Information the Technical Staff 148
Trust the Most
49 Results Indicating Which Sources of Information the Technical Staff 149
Trust the Least
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 9
50 Results of χ
2
Test of Technical Staff Belief that Alpha Group Leadership 152
Communicates Effectively
51 Results of χ
2
Test of Technical Staff Belief that Alpha Group Leadership 154
Effectively Communicates Decisions Relative to the Technical Group Strategy
52 Results of χ
2
Test of Technical Staff Belief that Alpha Group Leadership 156
Effectively Communicates Decisions Relative to the Technical Group Strategy
in a Timely Manner
53 Results of χ
2
Test of Technical Staff Belief There are Clear Priorities to 160
Implement the Technical Group Strategy
54 Results Indicating Which STAR Model Element Provides the Most 164
Confidence to Perform
55 Results Indicating Which STAR Model Element Provides the Least 164
Confidence to Perform
56 Table of Assumed Influences and Associated Gaps 167
57 Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 170
58 Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations 174
59 Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations 177
60 Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 185
61 Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Technical Staff 186
and Leaders
62 Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors of Technical Staff 188
and Leaders
63 Components of Learning for the Program 191
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 10
64 Components to Measure Reactions to the Program 193
65 Anderson and Krathwohl (2000) Cognitive Processes Examined 194
Through the Survey
66 Program Expectations Relative to Kirkpatrick Levels 197
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 11
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title Page
1 A gap analysis process using the Clark and Estes (2008) conceptual framework 31
2 A gap analysis process using the Clark and Estes (2008) conceptual framework 47
3 Conceptual framework to describe the knowledge-, motivation-, and 48
organization-related influences on the Premier Energy technical staff's
achievement of their stakeholder goal
4 Highlighting the Alpha Group within the Premier Energy organizational 60
structure
5 Survey groups conducted within the context of Premier Energy 61
6 Focus groups to be conducted within the context of Premier Energy 63
7 Technical staff declarative knowledge of the vision of for the company 81
and technical group
8 Technical staff declarative knowledge of the strategy of for the company 84
and technical group
9 Technical staff declarative knowledge of the technical group role with 89
respect to company strategy
10 Technical staff declarative knowledge of performance relative to expectations 92
11 Technical staff metacognitive knowledge of performance relative to 97
expectations based upon feedback from their supervisor
12 Technical staff value in their role in achieving the company strategy 100
13 Technical staff value in their role in achieving the technical group strategy 101
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 12
14 Technical staff belief goals contribute to improving performance relative 105
to the company strategy
15 Technical staff belief goals contribute to improving performance relative 107
to the technical group strategy
16 Technical staff desire to improve performance to achieve the company strategy 109
17 Technical staff desire to improve performance to achieve the technical group 110
strategy
18 Aggregated median self-efficacy of technical staff across all 16-self-efficacy 114
related questions
19 Median technical staff confidence in their ability to identify the vision 115
20 Median technical staff confidence in their ability to identify the vision 117
21 Median technical staff confidence in their ability to identify the steps 121
necessary to implement the strategy
22 Median technical staff confidence in their ability to identify the primary 123
role of the technical group relative to the company strategy
23 Median technical staff confidence in their ability to describe their role relative 125
to the company and technical group strategy
24 Median technical staff confidence in their ability to describe the expectations 128
of their direct supervisor as compared to technical staff performance relative
to supervisor expectations
25 Median technical staff confidence that the strategy can be achieved 130
26 Median technical staff confidence that the strategy will improve performance 134
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 13
27 Technical staff who believe senior leader behaviors model the company 138
strategy
28 Technical staff who believe technical group leadership behaviors model 140
the technical group strategy
29 Technical staff who often have the information needed to perform their job 143
within the technical group
30 Most and least actionable sources of information for the technical staff 145
31 Most and least trusted sources of information for the technical staff 147
32 Percentage of technical staff who believe Alpha Group leadership 151
communicates effectively
33 Percentage of technical staff who believe Alpha Group leadership effectively 153
communicates decisions related to the strategy
34 Percentage of technical staff who believe Alpha Group leadership effectively 155
communicates decisions related to the strategy in a timely manner
35 Percentage of technical staff who believe the priorities to implement the 159
technical group strategy are clear
36 Organizational elements which provide the technical staff with the most, 163
and least, confidence in the technical group ability to perform
37 Example of scorecard used in weekly meetings to monitor progress toward 196
outcome
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 14
ABSTRACT
This study sought to understand the high failure rate of organizational change initiatives
and the importance of effective communication during those changes. The complex global
economy requires leaders to effectively manage change, yet 70% of organizational change
initiatives fail to achieve a positive outcome (Maurer, 2010). A review of research literature
revealed these initiatives often fell short of expectations due to a poor strategy (Rosenberg &
Mosca, 2011), poor execution (Getz, Jones, & Loewe, 2009; Kotter, 1996), or failure to consider
organizational culture (Drucker, 2004). Relatedly, the need for effective communication during
change was a common theme across all three of the reasons for failure. Thus, leaders who do not
understand the role of effective communication during organizational change, place the
companies and people they lead at risk of financial failure.
The purpose of this project was to conduct a gap analysis that examined the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences on the stakeholders as they work to achieve their goals.
These influences were derived from existing general research literature; however, this project
was conducted within the Alpha Technical Group of Premier Energy, a leading energy company
headquartered in North America. A mixed methods research approach validated the assumed
influences and recommendations were proposed to improve knowledge related to the strategy;
goals aligned to the strategy; communicate clear priorities and model behavior aligned with the
strategy; and monitor progress with job aids and scorecards. Furthermore, firms with effective
and congruent communication improved organizational value by 20-30% (Axelrod, Hadfield-
Jones, & Welsh, 2001; McDonald & Smith, 1995; Watson Wyatt, 2004). Therefore, successful
implementation of the recommendations will provide value to the employees, leadership,
shareholders, and stakeholders of Premier Energy.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 15
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Introduction of the Problem of Practice
This study addresses the high failure rate of organizational change initiatives and the
importance of effective communication during those changes. The complex global economy
requires leaders to effectively manage change, yet 70% of organizational change initiatives fail
to achieve a positive outcome (Maurer, 2010). Senior executives have suggested that people are
the primary reason for failure (Stanleigh, 2013). However, a review of research literature
revealed organizational change initiatives often fall short of expectations due to a poor strategy
(Rosenberg & Mosca, 2011), poor execution (Getz, Jones, & Loewe, 2009; Kotter, 1996), or a
failure to consider organizational culture (Drucker, 2004). The latter can be defined as “the way
we do things around here” (Deal & Kennedy, 1982, p. 4) and is reinforced by the flow of
information through the organization. Relatedly, the need for effective communication during
change was a common theme across all three of the reasons for failure. Thus, leaders who do not
understand the role of effective communication during organizational change, place the
companies and people they lead at risk of financial failure.
Related Literature
This review examined research literature related to the high failure rate of organizational
change initiatives and the importance of effective communication during those changes. First,
the study examined the rate of failure during change and then focus on reasons for failure,
including issues related to strategy, culture, and implementation. Then the discussion focused on
the importance of communication during organizational change. The focus then turned to a
discussion of the stakeholder organizational context and mission.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 16
The high failure rate of organizational change initiatives
The complex global economy is constantly changing and requires leaders to balance
strategy, culture, and organizational change or risk financial failure. Research literature
suggested 60-80% of change initiatives fail (Beer & Nohria, 2000; McLean & Antony, 2014;
Stanleigh, 2013). This failure rate holds true whether the change was a new IT system
implementation (Rizzuto & Reeves, 2007) or a corporate merger (Boeh & Beamish, 2006;
Knodel, 2004). However, several different root causes for failure were identified in research
literature.
Organizational change failure has been studied since the seminal three-stage change
model was presented by Lewin (1951). Since then, the research literature is in agreement that
most change initiatives fail, yet in disagreement as to the root cause. Agocs (1997) proposed
organizational change can fail for several reasons. Porter (1987) submitted that a good strategy
is foundational for a successful change. Similarly, Drucker (2004) and Schein (2010) suggested
attention to culture and climate are critical to achieving the desired outcomes. Relatedly, Kezar
(2001) and Kotter (1996) proposed the steps taken to implement the change are critical to derive
positive results. However, a common element in each of these approaches is the need for
effective communication, and Kotter (2007) identified ineffective communication as a reason
change initiatives fail. Conversely, firms that communicate change through a consistent message
outperform the market by 25% (McDonald & Smith, 1995) and firms with good internal
dialogue derive 22% more total shareholder return than their peer companies (Axelrod, Hadfield-
Jones, & Welsh, 2001). Thus, effective communication may be a key element in achieving the
results desired from an organizational change initiative. The following section will further
explore the research literature related to the root cause of failure for organizational change.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 17
Failure related to strategy
An effectively formed vision and strategy focuses the organization to achieve its purpose
and provides guidelines for the decisions and cultural behavior that ultimately lead to
competitive advantage (McDonald, 2007). However, poor strategy formation is one reason
organizational change initiatives fail to achieve the expected results (Getz, Jones, & Loewe,
2009). Relatedly, 74% of strategic corporate acquisitions were later divested as a result of
failure during the strategy formation process (Porter, 1987). Moreover, Rosenberg and Mosca
(2011) proposed poor strategy as the root cause for 29% of change initiatives being terminated
prior to implementation. Likewise, strategies which are ineffectively communicated to
stakeholders will likely not achieve the desired outcomes (Rosendahl, Olaisen, & Oivind, 2014).
Furthermore, a change strategy that is not effectively communicated by leaders or aligned with
the strategy will fail (Kotter, 1996). Conversely, Hackman and Johnson (2009) submitted the
role of a leader is to set the expectations, culture, and communication processes necessary to
achieve the vision and strategy of the organization. Consequently, Kezar (2000) proposed
competitive advantage may be derived when leaders effectively communicate a corporate
strategy aligned with the organizational culture.
Failure related to culture
Senior leaders establish the culture and flow of information within their companies
(Grunig, Grunig, & Dozier, 2002). Consequently, change strategies are more likely to succeed
when the culture of the organization is considered (Kezar & Eckel, 2002). Relatedly, culture
serves as a launching point for organizational change (Bolman & Deal, 1994). Conversely,
change is inhibited when executives fail to focus on the culture of the company (Drucker, 2004).
Likewise, failure is likely if the organization is not ready for change and if leaders fail to lead
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 18
through the change (Eisenbach, Watson, & Pillai, 1999). To lead through the change, leaders
need to understand the macro and micro nature of the culture (Erez & Gati, 2004).
The culture of an organization is comprised of people in various sub-cultures who
reinforce the culture through communication and shared experiences (Madoff, DeWine, &
Butter, 2008). Relatedly, Schien (2004) proposed firms need to consider the impact on the
different levels of culture within the organization when contemplating a change. Similarly, the
culture is comprised of the people within the organization, and the change will be unsustainable
if people are not willing to change (Schneider, Brief, & Guzzo, 1996). Furthermore, the
communication that occurs within the different levels of culture within the organization
reinforces the status quo (Schien, 2004). Consequently, Mangundjaya (2013) proposed change
will only succeed when at least 35.5% of individuals exhibit a readiness for change. Thus, the
likelihood of failure is increased when the implementation and pace of change are not matched
with the organizational culture (McGowan and Miller, 2001; McLean and Antony, 2014).
Failure related to implementation
Organizational change initiatives often fail during implementation (Getz, Jones, &
Loewe, 2009). Relatedly, Knodel (2004) submitted 28% of implementation efforts are canceled
before completion, 43% of implementation efforts are delivered late, and 80% of implementation
efforts fail to deliver the desired outcome. Several implementation models have been proposed
to improve the likelihood of success. Lewin (1951) proposed his seminal three-stage change
model focused on unlearning past behaviors and cementing new behaviors into the organization.
Later, Kotter (1996) expanded the model to an eight-stage model to align the organization to the
change and provide appropriate support for the change throughout the organization. Similarly,
Kezar (2001) submitted different types of change processes may be implemented at different
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 19
stages of the change; however, the connecting tie between all typologies is effective
communication.
The importance of communication during organizational change
Effective communication allows the organization to understand the vision and strategy
for the firm and the respective roles in implementing the strategy. In a study of both academic
and popular literature, Lewis (2011) found both sources agreed communication plays an
important role during change initiatives. Relatedly, Watson Wyatt (2004) found that firms who
improved the effectiveness of their internal communication produced a 29.5% improvement in
market value. This enhanced performance may be sustained when the strategy of the firm is
effectively communicated, and the efforts of the staff are aligned to the strategy (Schneider,
Brief, & Guzzo, 1996). Furthermore, change may be sustained when leadership effectively
communicates why the change is necessary and the respective roles required to implement the
change (Lewis, 2000a, Schneider, Brief, & Guzzo, 1996). The following section will turn
attention to the stakeholder group of focus for this study.
Organizational Context and Mission
Premier Energy (pseudonym) is a leading independent oil and natural gas exploration and
production (E&P) company headquartered in North America and is a Fortune 500 company
included in the S&P 500 Index (Fortune, 2016; Standard & Poors, 2016). According to the
company website, the vision of Premier Energy is to be the premier independent E&P company,
admired for its quality employees, assets, and performance. Furthermore, the mission of the firm
suggests a desire to consistently deliver top-quartile total shareholder return (TSR) compared to a
peer group of companies and do so through a highly-engaged culture focused on innovation,
safety, operational excellence, environmental stewardship, and social responsibility. Relatedly,
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 20
the organizational performance goal is to adhere to the organizational mission and deliver two
consecutive years of top-quartile TSR relative to the peer group by the end of December 2020.
This objective was established by the executive leadership of the firm and execution of the
objective falls to the Premier Energy technical group management and technical staff.
According to the Premier Energy website, the company employs approximately 3,700
people throughout North America and currently manages daily operations from over 10,000
properties. The staff work in a variety of technical fields, such as geology and engineering, or
support fields, such as accounting, human resources, and finance. The age distribution for
employees at Premier is as follows: 20-29 years old (33%), 30-39 years old (30%), 40-49 years
old (8%), 50-59 years old (17%), and 60-69 years old (12%) (Premier Energy, personal
communication, January 31, 2016). The bimodal age distribution reflects the generational gap in
the energy industry which was created by a period of depressed prices and economic stress from
1985-2005 (Ghosh & Soupa, 2014). Differences in age and associated communication
preferences may lead to challenges in alignment and communication given the organizational
structure of the firm. Relatedly, both the leadership and staff of Premier Energy believe the
communication within the company is ineffective and inconsistent (Premier Energy, personal
communication, October 7, 2013). Challenges in communication may be related to the rapid
transition of both the company and forms communication.
Premier Energy began as a small company on a single floor of a downtown office
building. Communication occurred primarily through face-to-face meetings with an occasionally
written memo on the rare occasion a conversation needed to be formalized (Premier Energy,
personal communication, July 29, 2013). According to the company website, the firm grew
through a series of successively larger acquisitions eventually resulting in a large company
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 21
spanning several downtown office buildings. Consequently, the relational nature of face-to-face
communication became more challenging due to employees being spread across several
buildings. As such, employees began to rely more heavily on email as a primary form of
communication (Premier Energy, personal communication, July 29, 2013). The use of email
continued to expand as the primary form of communication yet employees frequently lamented
the decrease in face-to-face conversation (Premier Energy, personal communication, July 29,
2013). Accordingly, the company consolidated all employees into a single downtown building
to enable more efficient face-to-face meetings. However, the use of email and face-to-face
meetings continued to expand, rendering many employees overwhelmed with information and
lacking a true sense of company priorities (Premier Energy, personal communication, July 29,
2013). To further complicate communication, the organizational structure of the company was
changed and may be related to continued challenges in communication within the firm.
Premier Energy employees are distributed across six regional business units, or technical
groups and report to their respective technical group management. The organization has been
organized in functional teams since inception; however, the staff is now organized in a matrix
fashion and is focused on executing as one team with one plan (Premier Energy, personal
communication, December 2015). The recent shift to a matrix organization was the certerpiece
of a 2013 organizational change initiative intended to reverse several years of underperformance
relative to the market.
The change to a matrix organization was driven principally by a consulting company
which had been engaged by the Premier Energy executive committee to aide in transforming the
performance of the firm. The consulting company was supported by a cross-functional team
comprised of 17-individuals throughout the E&P organization who were moved to a nearby
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 22
office building downtown and charged with developing a plan to implement the change (Premier
Energy, personal communication, July 2013). The implementation team had the full support of
the Chief Executive Officer who told company leadership, “we’re going to do whatever this team
comes up with. Let me be clear, the change train has left the station and if you aren’t already on
board, you need to get out of the way or you’ll be run over” (Premier Energy, personal
communication, November 2013).
A matrix organizational structure was selected to shift business leadership of the
technical group from the traditional functional group silos to a lateral group within the technical
group. This lateral group was intended to coordinate the business plans and be responsible for
the economic outcomes of the technical group. However, the change to a matrix disrupted
decades of culture and power networks constructed through the vertical functional siloes and
reoriented them to the lateral group, even though lateral communication was not a strength of the
organization (Premier Energy, personal communication, July 2014). Furthermore, the success of
the change was placed in jeopardy when the consulting company and implementation team
decided not to deploy a communication and change management team to support the effort
(Premier Energy, personal communication, February 2014). Consequently, the change was met
with resistance by the functional managers and their teams who claimed they did not understand
why the change was made or how it impacted them. Subsequently, both roles, responsibilities,
and communication between the vertical functional groups and the lateral groups were unclear
and resulted in conflict and eroded trust within the organization (Premier Energy, personal
communication, December 2014). Accordingly, performance was slow to improve over the
ensuing years and Premier continued to underperform in TSR as compared to a peer group of
companies in the marketplace.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 23
Organizational Performance Status
Premier Energy had become accustomed to consistently outperforming its peer group of
companies in achieving top-quartile TSR. However, the firm experienced a 70% decline in share
price from June 1
st
, 2008 to June 1
st
, 2016 (Premier Energy, personal communication, June
2016). Comparatively, delivering top-quartile returns required a minimum share price increase
of 25% with the industry leader experiencing a 235% increase in share price over the same eight-
year period (Premier Energy, personal communication, June 2016). Not satisfied with the
underperformance of the last eight-years, senior leadership implemented a series of three
organizational change initiatives, all of which failed to achieve the desired outcomes. A fourth
effort was initiated in 2013 and restructured the organization from a traditional functional silo
structure to a matrix organization, as discussed previously. This change was intended to
transform the financial performance of the firm yet showed only mixed results. Subsequently,
beginning in 2015, the E&P industry experienced a period of depressed prices and economic
stress, which was similar to 1985-2005; thus, failure to effectively implement the
transformational change initiative placed the company at risk of financial failure. Therefore, this
study was timely as it examined the strategic alignment of the change with the organizational
culture and explore the role of communication in successfully implementing the change.
Importance of Addressing the Problem
The high failure rate of organizational change initiatives is an important problem to solve.
Billions of dollars are spent annually on consulting firms and leadership training to guide
organizations through change (Bolman & Deal, 1994), and Premier Energy alone has invested
over $150 million in such training and initiatives over the past five years (Premier Energy,
personal communication, January 2016). However, as the research literature suggested, 60-80%
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 24
of changes initiated by Premier Energy failed to achieve the desired outcome (Meaney & Pung,
2008; Miller, 2001; Premier Energy, personal communication, January 2016). A review of the
research literature revealed a change strategy that is not effectively communicated, aligned with
the organizational culture, and implemented in a stakeholder-first manner would likely fail
(Kezar, 2000; Kotter, 1996; Porter, 1987). Thus, managing change through effective
communication and consideration of the culture during strategy formation and implementation
may have a positive impact on the competitive advantage of the firm.
The economic volatility in the complex and ever-changing geopolitical landscape of the
global energy market requires exploration and production companies to successfully manage
change or risk financial failure. The latter would be detrimental to modern society, as the
production from these companies generates 67% of the electricity produced in the United States
(BP, 2016). Further, the domestic exploration and production companies directly employ 2.1
million people and indirectly employ 9.8 million people, or 5.6% of the U.S. labor force and 8%
of U.S. Gross Domestic Product (BLS, 2016; Price Waterhouse Coopers, 2011). Not only are
there economic implications at the national level but, like many domestic exploration and
production companies, Premier Energy has woven itself into the fabric of the local community.
The company has earned the social license to operate by being an advocate for local education,
community development, and stakeholder engagement. Should Premier Energy experience
financial stress, these local programs would likely be suspended. Therefore, it is important for
domestic exploration and production firms like Premier Energy to successfully manage change to
create economic value and benefit to society.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 25
Organizational Performance Goal
The organizational performance goal of Premier Energy is to achieve consistent top-
quartile TSR relative to a peer group of companies. This objective will be accomplished by
December 2020 with the standard measure of success being two consecutive years in the top-
quartile of TSR relative to the peer group. Progress toward the desired outcome will be
visualized graphically through key internal performance indicators that will be reviewed monthly
by senior leadership and disseminated to all company employees via the corporate
communication portal. The goal was established in January 2016 by the Premier Energy
executive leadership, with a desire to improve the financial performance of the firm.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
At Premier Energy, there are three primary stakeholder groups who directly contribute to
and benefit from the achievement of performance goals set forth by the company. Those
stakeholder groups are the technical staff, management, and executive leadership. The technical
staff are employed by the company and are not in a hierarchical management position; these
employees are responsible for completing the work and comprise the bulk of the headcount of
the company. The management stakeholder group is comprised of a few employees who have
been promoted from the technical staff ranks into a hierarchical management position due to
their unique functional and leadership skills. These employees are responsible for allocating
resources and prioritizing staff efforts in line with the strategy of the firm. The executive
leadership stakeholder group consists of a smaller number of employees who have been
promoted from a management position and are now accountable for setting the vision and
strategy for the firm. The executive leadership group is accountable to effectively communicate
the vision and strategy of the firm.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 26
Performance Goal of Stakeholders
Stakeholders are an important group to engage to create a learning organization that can
adapt to the ever-changing modern economy and ultimately yield a competitive advantage in the
marketplace. Kezar (2000) suggested stakeholders both contribute to and benefit from the
performance of an organization. As such, firms that consider and include stakeholders in the
development of strategy will likely outperform the market when the strategy is implemented in a
stakeholder first manner (Wheeler & Sillanpa’a, 1998). Likewise, when leaders understand the
needs of stakeholders, more impactful and sustainable solutions are created (Fullan, 2004; Rado,
2013). This collaboration with stakeholders is an important aspect in creating a learning
organization and the diverse viewpoints provided through this engagement lead to a deeper
alignment to a common purpose (Kanter, 1999; Kezar, 2000). However, when stakeholder views
are not heard and included, individuals feel left out and thereby decrease productivity (Kezar,
2000). For a change to be successful and sustainable, engagement with stakeholders is
important, as employees who did not feel their needs were considered were not likely to be
committed to a change (Mangundjaya, 2013; Rosenberg & Mosca, 2011). Thus, for a change to
be effective, leaders must mobilize and engage all viewpoints toward a collective purpose and
expected outcome (Stengel, 2008). It is important for executive leadership to understand how
well the mission and strategy are understood by stakeholders. Therefore, the stakeholder group
of focus for this study will be the technical staff of Premier Energy, as shown in Table 1.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 27
Table 1
Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Mission
The mission of Premier Energy is to deliver consistent top-quartile total shareholder return
among its peer group through a highly-engaged culture focused on innovation, safety,
operational excellence, environmental stewardship and social responsibility.
Organizational Global Goal
Premier Energy will adhere to the organizational mission and deliver two consecutive years of
top-quartile total shareholder return relative to the peer group by the end of December 2020.
Stakeholder 1 (focus group)
Premier Energy Technical
Group Technical Staff
Stakeholder 2
Premier Energy Technical
Group Management
Stakeholder 3
Premier Energy Executive
Leadership
Intermediate Goal
By the end of December
2019, 100% of technical staff
annual goals will be aligned
with the organizational
strategy and accomplished
with a 100% completion rate.
Intermediate Goal
By the end of December
2019, 100% of Technical
Group leadership annual
goals will be aligned with the
organizational strategy and
accomplished with a 100%
completion rate.
Intermediate Goal
By the end of December
2019, 100% of company-
wide communications from
executive leadership will
demonstrate alignment to the
company vision and strategy.
Stakeholder Group for the Study
The technical staff of Premier Energy is the chosen stakeholder group for this study.
These employees are responsible for execution of the corporate strategy and achieving the
performance goal of two consecutive years of top-quartile TSR relative to the peer group by the
end of December 2020. To achieve this goal, the technical staff will likely need to communicate
effectively, exhibit proficiency in their respective functional responsibilities, and demonstrate an
ability to work in a collaborative matrix organization. These capabilities will aid the technical
staff in developing and achieving annual goals aligned with the company vision and strategy.
Accomplishment of the collective goals of the technical staff is an important step to achieve the
organizational performance goal of Premier Energy.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 28
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to conduct a gap analysis that examines the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences on the technical staff as they work to achieve their
stakeholder goal. Although a comprehensive gap analysis would focus on all stakeholders, for
practical purposes this study focused primarily on technical professionals in the exploration and
production division of Premier Energy. This study sought to determine if stakeholders
understood the organizational strategy, if stakeholder efforts were aligned with the strategy, if
the strategy was aligned with the organizational culture, and the influence communication had in
achieving the strategy. This analysis began by generating a list of possible or assumed root
causes from the research literature, and then examining these sources systematically to focus on
actual or validated interfering influences. The guiding questions for this analysis were the
following:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational elements which prevent the
technical staff from achieving their goal that 100% of technical staff annual goals will be
aligned with the organizational strategy and accomplished with a 100% completion rate
by the end of December 2019?
2. What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions?
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
A gap analysis is a systematic, analytical method to help identify the root causes of a
performance gap between the current and desired performance of an organization. The Clark
and Estes (2008) framework suggested such gaps may be related to knowledge-, motivation-, and
organization-related influences on stakeholder performance. Relatedly, the Clark and Estes
(2008) framework was implemented in this study. A mixed methods approach validated the
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 29
influences preventing the technical staff from achieving their goal through the use of document
analysis, a survey, focus groups, validation interviews, and literature review. Comprehensive
solutions based on data and research literature were evaluated and recommended.
Definitions
Competitive Advantage: a commonly used business concept that describes how one company
may differentiate itself to outperform competitors.
Firm: a company, organization, enterprise, business, or partnership with common incorporation.
Market Value: the price a buyer is willing to pay for an asset and used in this text as the price
investors are willing to pay for shares of the firm, which determines the value of the company.
Matrix: an organizational structure comprised of direct, and indirect reporting relationships
resulting in a dual report structure.
Technical Groups: similar to a business unit, these groups are comprised of staff in the technical
department organized and focused on a singular geographical area of responsibility.
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is organized into five chapters. The first chapter provided an overview
of key concepts and terminology related to communication during organizational change. The
mission, goals, and stakeholders of Premier Energy were introduced as was the concept of a gap
analysis. The second chapter provides a review of research literature relevant to the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences on stakeholder communication and performance. The
third chapter of this dissertation describes the conceptual framework for the study and the
methodology for sampling, recruitment, data collection, and analysis. The fourth chapter focuses
on the results and findings derived from analysis of the collected data. The fifth chapter presents
the associated solutions, implementation, and evaluation plan.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 30
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
This review examined research literature related to influences on stakeholder
performance during organizational change. Chapter One of this dissertation focused on the high
failure rate of organizational change initiatives and examined root causes related to strategy,
culture, and implementation. A common theme emerged which highlighted the importance of
effective communication during organizational change. The following discourse reviews the
factors influencing stakeholder performance. This chapter begins with a brief introduction
followed by an overview of the Clark and Estes Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework (Clark &
Estes, 2008). Next, the discussion focuses on general theory related to knowledge-, motivation-,
and organization-related influences on stakeholder performance during organizational change
before turning attention to the specific influences on the technical staff at Premier Energy. The
chapter concludes with discussion of the purpose of the project and the structure of the
conceptual framework.
The Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework
A gap analysis is a systematic methodology to identify the root causes of a performance
gap between the current and desired outcomes. The framework presented by Clark and Estes
(2008) suggested such gaps may be related to knowledge, motivational, and organizational
influences on stakeholder performance. Krathwohl (2002) proposed knowledge and skills may
be grouped into four types: (a) factual, (b) conceptual, (c) procedural, and (d) metacognitive.
These four knowledge types may be used to improve the delivery of information within an
organization and thereby ensure stakeholders know how to achieve their performance goals
(Clark & Estes, 2008; Krathwohl, 2002). Relatedly, motivation is the underlying reason an
individual expends energy toward an activity or task and persists in an effort toward achieving a
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 31
goal (Clark & Estes, 2008; Eccles, 2006; Pintrich, 2003; Rueda, 2011). Performance gaps
related to motivation may be described through motivational theories such as utility value, goal
orientation, attribution, and self-efficacy (Eccles, 2006, Pintrich, 2003). Likewise,
organizational influences related to processes, policies, resources, and culture may also
contribute to performance gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008). The relationship between knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences on stakeholder performance is shown in Figure 1 and
is addressed in the following performance gap analysis of stakeholders at Premier Energy.
Figure 1: A gap analysis process using the Clark and Estes (2008) conceptual framework.
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Factors
General theory related to influences on communication during organizational change.
This project focused on stakeholder performance during organizational change. The need
for effective communication was a common theme across all failure modes and ineffective
communication is one reason change initiatives fail to achieve the desired results (Kotter, 2007).
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 32
To avoid ineffective communication, organizations need to convey the right information through
the right process. In theory, the latter is how information is communicated throughout the
organization (Dembo & Eaton, 2000; Denler, Wolters, & Benzon, 2009; Mayer, 2011); however,
the right process can take many forms. The right process could range from a leader conducting a
formal performance feedback session with a member of their staff (Shute, 2008) to the informal
communication network, or grapevine, that exists in every organization (Lewis, 2011). Within
the Clark and Estes (2008) framework, the process of how information is communicated would
be an organization-related influence and discussed in more detail later in this study. Regardless
of the process, leaders need to communicate the right information.
The right information is what a stakeholder needs to know to accomplish their work.
This information could range from general knowledge of what the company strategy is,
procedural knowledge of how to accomplish a task, or personal knowledge related to individual
performance (Krathwohl, 2002). Relatedly, Lewis (2011) proposed the information that is
communicated to employees, “the what,” is more important to improving performance than the
process, “the how,” the information is communicated. The information communicated is a
knowledge-related influence within the Clark and Estes (2008) framework. Similarly, the
communicating the right information through the right process may have a motivation-related
influence on the organization. As such, the following discussion will examine the knowledge,
motivational, and organizational influences on the ability of the Premier Energy technical staff to
align 100% of technical staff annual goals with the organizational strategy and accomplish those
goals with a 100% completion rate by the end of December 2019.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 33
Knowledge influences stakeholder performance during organizational change
Knowledge is an important driver of performance as information that is meaningfully
learned can be more easily retrieved and put into practice (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006).
Krathwohl (2002) proposed four knowledge types. The first knowledge type, factual knowledge,
is related to fundamental aspects of a task, such as terminology, which individuals are required to
have a basic understanding of the subject. The second type, conceptual knowledge is associated
with the connections between structure, tenets, and classifications. Procedural knowledge, the
third knowledge type, is associated with the processes and methods necessary to accomplish the
work. Metacognitive knowledge is the fourth knowledge type proposed by Krathwohl (2002)
and contemplates thinking and the ability of an individual to reflect on their thinking. Together,
these four knowledge types can be used, in association with cognitive processes, to improve
delivery of information (Krathwohl, 2002). The following assumed knowledge factors were
derived from the research literature and may influence the technical staff’s ability to meet their
performance goals.
The technical staff know the firm’s goals and strategy. Performance may be improved
when the technical staff have factual knowledge of the vision, goals, and strategy of the firm
(McDonald, 2007). This improved performance may stem from increased employee engagement
and performance resulting from their understanding the organizational vision and strategy
(Berbarry & Malinchak, 2011). Likewise, improved performance may be sustained when the
staff know the strategy and why changes are implemented to achieve the strategy (Schneider,
Brief, & Guzzo, 1996). Relatedly, changes are more likely to be achieved when the vision and
strategy are understood by stakeholders (Kotter, 2007). Similarly, a strategy is more likely to be
effective when stakeholders know, and helped conceive, the strategy (Kezar, 2000). This
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 34
discussion assumes the organization has determined a single strategy and is not communicating
several competing strategies, which is a topic discussed below in the organizational influences
section. Thus, when the technical staff know the strategy, they can focus on how to implement
the strategy.
The technical staff know how to implement the strategy. Competitive advantage may
be gained when the technical staff have the procedural knowledge of how to implement the
strategy. Superior organizational performance is more likely when leaders support their
employees through systems thinking and creating tension, or a sense of urgency (Kotter, 1996),
between the shared vision of the future and the reality of the current state (Senge, 1990).
Relatedly, procedural knowledge, combined with knowledge of the vision, allows stakeholders to
segment their work into manageable parts to implement the strategy (Kirschner, Kirschner, &
Paas, 2006). This procedural knowledge may be gained through training, which results in
competitive advantage when the training considers the stakeholder environment (Grossman &
Salas, 2011). Consequently, when leaders contemplate the diverse viewpoints which comprise
the work environment, Stengel (2008) proposed a process can be created which aligns the staff
toward a collective purpose in which stakeholders own both the journey and result. Therefore,
knowledge of the strategy, and how to implement the strategy, may enable the technical staff to
consider their roles in achieving the strategy.
The technical staff understand their role as it relates to the strategy. Performance is
likely to be improved when the technical staff have the factual knowledge of how their role
aligns with the strategy. Schneider, Brief, and Guzzo (1996) submitted that efforts aligned with
the organizational strategy are more likely to sustained when employees know why the change
was implemented and their role in the change. Likewise, understanding their roles allows staff to
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 35
connect prior knowledge to their current tasks (Denler, Wolters, & Benzon, 2009). This
connection may be the result of the sense-making process during change initiatives, and Lewis
(2011) suggested communication plays an important role in helping staff understand the strategy.
Relatedly, communication is an important factor in employee engagement, job satisfaction, and
job performance (Pincus, 1986). However, while the technical staff need to understand their role
as it relates to the strategy, they also need to understand their performance relative to
expectations.
The technical staff understand the status of their performance relative to
expectations. Factual knowledge of clear expectations allows the technical staff to be
accountable their performance. When expectations are unknown, and when judgement of
competency is involved, stakeholder concern may become elevated (Lewis & Seibold, 1993). To
mitigate these concerns, Darling-Hammond and Snyder (2015) suggested accountability
concepts be incorporated into how the organization works together to achieve the organizational
vision. Likewise, Hentschke and Wohlstetter (2004) submitted that accountability is effective
when both participants are willing and able to demonstrate the requisite competencies necessary
to deliver the desired outcomes. Furthermore, accountability is supported when both parties are
aligned in objectives, have clear decision rights, and understand the information necessary to
accomplish the desired outcomes (Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004). However, leaders need to
understand the strategy and regularly review progress with their employees (Fernandez &
Rainey, 2006). This feedback from leaders allows the technical staff to assess their performance.
The technical staff assess their performance based on supervisor feedback. The
performance of the technical staff may be improved when their supervisor provides feedback
aligned with the strategy. Feedback is an imperative tool in improving performance (Hattie &
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 36
Timperley, 2007) and firms with superior performance management outperform their peer
companies in the financial marketplace (Axelrod, Hadfield-Jones, & Welsh, 2001). Likewise,
performance feedback should be aligned to clearly understood performance expectations and is
most effective when aligned with the strategy of the organization (Biron, Farndale & Paauwe,
2011; Shute, 2008). Relatedly, (Elmore, 2005) proposed continuous improvement is enabled
through feedback aligned with a common purpose, and Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick (2007)
suggested feedback is essential for human development. However, employee trust in
management can be destroyed through ineffective feedback (Korsgaard, Brodt, & Whitener,
2002) and may be one reason Kluger & DiNisi (1998) suggested two-thirds of feedback fail to
influence behavior. Another important aspect of influencing behavior is the underlying
motivation of the technical staff, which will be discussed in the following section. For reference,
Table 2 shows the previously described knowledge influences, and associated knowledge types.
Table 2
Assumed Knowledge Influences on Stakeholder Performance During Organizational Change
Assumed Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type
The technical staff know the strategy for the
company
Declarative (Conceptual)
The technical staff understand their role as it
relates to the strategy
Declarative (Conceptual)
The technical staff know their performance
relative to expectations
Declarative (Conceptual)
The technical staff know how to implement
the strategy
Procedural
The technical staff reflect on their performance
based on feedback from their supervisor
relative to expectations
Metacognitive
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 37
Motivation influences on stakeholder performance during organizational change
This section of the literature review will focus on motivational influences related to the
stakeholder goal that 100% of technical staff annual goals will be aligned with the organizational
strategy and accomplished with a 100% completion rate by the end of December 2019.
Motivation is the underlying reason an individual expends energy toward an activity or task and
is an important component of learning (Eccles, 2006; Pintrich, 2003). The following discussion
will focus on three theories of motivation. First, utility value is the alignment of tasks with the
goals of an individual and is a construct of expectancy value theory (Eccles, 2006). Second, goal
orientation is related to the motivation for why stakeholders choose to engage in certain tasks
(Anderman & Anderman, 2006). Third, self-efficacy is associated with the personal beliefs of an
individual to deliver an expected outcome (Bandura, 2000). The influence of utility value, goal
orientation, and self-efficacy on the technical staff of Premier Energy will also be examined.
Expectancy Value Theory. Expectancy value theory is related to the belief an
individual has in their personal ability and, separately, their personal desire to do a task. As
individuals develop confidence in their ability to accomplish tasks, they are motivated to seek
out more challenging tasks and thereby seek to continually improve their performance (Eccles,
2006). Separately, the desire of an individual to accomplish a task may be related to one of four
motivational concepts: intrinsic value, attainment value, utility value, or perceived cost (Eccles
2006). Intrinsic value is related to the enjoyment experienced by an individual while completing
the task and attainment value is the connection between the task and personal identity of the
individual (Eccles, 2006). Similarly, utility value is the alignment of tasks with the goals or
needs of an individual and perceived cost is associated with the expected value of the task as
compared to the perceived cost of engaging in the work (Eccles, 2006). Relatedly, the
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 38
opportunity for an individual to experience choice in aligning their tasks to their personal goals
can increase motivation and derives positive values (Eccles, 2006; Pintrich, 2003).
Consequently, individuals are motivated to learn when they experience autonomy and
competency in their work (Eccles, 2006). The expectancy value theory influence of utility value
will now be reviewed in relation to the technical staff of Premier Energy.
The technical staff value achieving the goal and their role in that achievement.
Performance and engagement levels of the technical staff may be improved when the work is
aligned with the personal needs and values systems of the employees. Organizations with
engaged employees are 50% more productive than organizations without engaged employees
(Izzo & Withers, 2000). This increased level of productivity may be rooted in a commitment to
change, which Mangundjaya (2013) suggested is more likely when employees felt their needs
were considered. Likewise, Kotter (2007) proposed performance outcomes may be improved
and sustained when the staff is motivated to change. Thus, engagement of the technical staff is
important and may lead to increased performance and goal achievement.
Goal Orientation. When the technical staff experience choice in aligning their tasks to
their personal goals, positive motivation may result. Goals examine the rationale for why work
is done and can motivate individuals to focus their efforts on certain tasks (Anderman &
Anderman, 2006; Pintrich, 2003). These goals can be either performance or mastery based with
the latter leading to higher persistence in learning with the former leading to better achievement
in the near term (Anderman & Anderman, 2006). Likewise, goals may also be used to
understand the desire of an individual to improve over time (Anderman & Anderman, 2006).
The following review will examine the motivational influence of goal orientation within the
stakeholder group.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 39
Technical staff believe that creating goals will contribute to improved performance.
The motivation of the technical staff may be enhanced if goals are aligned with the strategy and
supported by leadership. Without anchoring on priorities and goals, people can feel
overwhelmed with the amount of work needed to implement the strategy (McPhee & Zaug,
2001). Likewise, goals may lead to higher levels of achievement, which may be sustainable with
appropriate support from leadership (Anderman & Anderman, 2006). However, O’Keefe and
Jensen (2006) proposed people believe risks are more acceptable if taken to avoid losses as
opposed to achieve gains. Thus, the technical staff establishment of goals aligned with the
strategy and geared toward avoiding losses may enhance motivation, particularly if the staff
believe they can deliver the expected results.
Self-efficacy. Engaging stakeholders in the creation of goals and a strategy enhances the
belief the expected outcomes can be achieved. Self-efficacy is related to the belief a person has
in their ability to achieve the expected outcomes related to a task (Bandura, 1997). Likewise,
Pajares (2006) suggested self-efficacy is associated with the confidence an individual has in their
ability to perform assigned tasks. Self-efficacy may also be related to the confidence a group or
organization has in their ability to achieve desired outcomes (Bandura, 2000). The self-efficacy
of the stakeholder group will be reviewed in the following section.
Technical staff are confident in their ability to achieve the strategy. The self-efficacy of
the technical staff is an important aspect of stakeholder group motivation to achieve the strategy.
Lewis and Seibold (1993) proposed stakeholder concern regarding change becomes elevated
when outcomes are unknown and feelings of mastery are involved. Relatedly, Armenakis and
Harris (2002) proposed stakeholders need to believe that change is needed and can be achieved
by the organization. Ultimately, when the stakeholders are involved in the creation of the
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 40
strategy, connections are made between tasks and prior knowledge which may provide
stakeholders with confidence the strategy can be achieved (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006).
However, when stakeholders perceive they do not understand the strategy or their role as it
relates to the strategy, productivity may be diminished (Kezar, 2000). For reference, Table 3
presents the previously described assumed motivation related influences on stakeholder
performance during organizational change.
Table 3
Assumed Motivation Influences on Stakeholder Performance During Organizational Change
Assumed Motivation Influences Motivation Type
The technical staff value achieving the goal
and their role in that achievement
Expectancy Value Theory: Utility Value
The technical staff believe that creating goals
will contribute to improving their
performance relative to the strategy
Expectancy Value Theory: Goal Orientation
The technical staff is confident in their
individual and collective ability to achieve the
strategy and that implementing the strategy
will improve company performance
Self-efficacy
Organizational influences stakeholder performance during organizational change
Technical staff see desired behaviors modeled by leadership. The behaviors modeled
by leadership influence the activities of the organization and impact both performance and
sustainability of change. Understanding organizational behavior enables companies to be three
times more likely to outperform their industry peers in the marketplace (Watson Wyatt, 2014).
This understanding is critical for leaders as they wield the most influence over employee
perceptions, accounting for 55% of influence (Shaffer, 2000). Perhaps this influence is why
Fullan (2004) suggested sustainable change is more likely when leaders develop other leaders at
multiple levels of the organization. Likewise, Johnson, Johnson, and Smith (2007) proposed
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 41
cooperation within groups improves team performance, and Moran and Brightman (2000)
submitted this performance may be enhanced when the group effort is aligned to a purpose of the
organization. The alignment within an organization is often created through communication
from leaders, which may be more difficult in a dual reporting organizational structure.
Technical staff see leaders communicating effectively in a dual reporting structure.
A dual reporting hierarchy complicates the information flow within an organization; however,
companies who use informal communication networks to disseminate information tend to
outperform their peers. Effective communication enables a company to be twice as likely to
outperform their peers in the marketplace (Watson Wyatt, 2012). Relatedly, Morrison and
Milliken (2000) proposed the flow of information is an important aspect of the health of an
organization, which is comprised of groups of people mixed in a formal hierarchy and an
emergent, or informal, network (Switzer, 2008). The flow of information through this mix of
people becomes more challenging in a dual reporting structure as communication does not
always follow the hierarchal organizational structure (Battilana & Casciaro, 2013; Hancock &
Raeside, 2010). Instead, the information often flows through the informal communication
network, and Lewis (2011) suggested organizational communication may be enhanced when
leaders communicate through the nodes in the informal network
Central connection points, or nodes, within an informal network may be envisioned as a
single person who connects people with relevant information (Rosendahl, Olaisen, & Oivind,
2014). These nodes are not typically leaders within the formal organizational hierarchy; rather,
they work at the staff level to ensure information flows within the informal network of the
organization (Runardotter, 2011). Thus, leaders may improve the performance of their
organization through understanding, and using, the informal communication network to
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 42
disseminate information (Cross & Prusak, 2002). Relatedly, after conducting research across
several companies, Young and Post (2011) suggested top companies endorse communication
through informal networks. Furthermore, a key component of the informal communication
network in a matrix organization is lateral communication.
Lateral communication supported by leaders. Lateral communication is when
information flows between functional groups and is a requirement for a matrix organization to be
effective (Galbraith, 2002; Galbraith, Downey, & Kates, 2002). Furthermore, Vantrappen and
Wirtz (2016) submitted lateral communication, and the related coordination across functions, is
required for a matrix organization to be effective. Moreover, Eisenstat, Foote, Galbraith, and
Miller (2001) proposed effective lateral communication may improve operating profit by 26%,
particularly when stakeholders are focused on a common opportunity. Similarly, when
stakeholders in a matrix organization recognize their interdependence, their willingness to
cooperate and share information is improved (Slater, 1995). However, lateral information flow
may be hindered when managers, and their respective staff, do not recognize their dependence on
each other (Larson & Gobeli, 1987). Likewise, lack of support from senior managers and
confusion over priorities may further degrade lateral communication (Corkindale, 2008). Yet,
Galbraith (1995, 2010) proposed lateral communication within the informal information network
is important for reinforcing the vision and strategy of the organization as well as timely
communicating new information, such as decisions made by leadership.
Technical staff receive timely communication of decisions and feedback. Leaders
may improve the performance of their organizations through timely communication and
clarification of the strategy. Hackman and Johnson (2009) suggested the role of a leader is to set
the expectations, culture, and communication processes necessary to achieve the vision of the
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 43
organization. Likewise, Grunig, Grunig, and Dozier (2002) submitted senior leaders are
accountable to establish the structure, culture, and flow of information within their companies.
Relatedly, Deal and Kennedy (1982) proposed culture is reinforced through the flow of
information within the organization. Consequently, Kotter (2007) proposed if leaders expect to
achieve the desired change, they must communicate effectively and swiftly during the change
initiative. Thus, effective communication from leaders is an important factor during change.
Leaders are often the sponsor for organizational change and need to ensure
communication is accurate and effective. Oftentimes, senior leaders are perceived to have valid
information and the staff expect leaders to effectively clarify inaccurate or misunderstood
information (Lewis, 2011). The importance of this timely clarification is essential as staff
perceive 57% of the information about the change is communicated by the implementation and
senior leadership teams, with the remainder through the informal networks (Lewis, 2011).
Furthermore, staff perceptions are amplified through the informal communication networks
within the organization (Lewis, 2006) and leaders who consistently feed the rumor mill with
accurate information improve the likelihood of a successful change (Lewis, 2011). By enabling
the flow of accurate information, leaders empower employees and companies with effective
communication produced a 29.5% improvement in market value (Watson Wyatt 2004).
However, senior leadership needs to ensure the communication aligns priorities to the strategy of
the organization.
Technical staff see priorities clearly aligned to the company strategy. Organizations
whose leaders establish a plan with clear priorities aligned to the company strategy are more
likely to outperform the market. Hill, Thomas, and Keller (2009) proposed that strategic
planning is a process, not a product, and the process should be aligned to the mission and vision
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 44
of the firm. Aligning the plan with the vision and mission of the firm allows leaders to
communicate a consistent message and focus stakeholders on a single strategy (Rosendahl,
Olaisen, & Oivind, 2014). Relatedly, to derive competitive advantage, the strategy must be of
good quality (Rosenberg & Mosca, 2011), communicated effectively, and aligned with the
culture of the organization (Kezar, 2000). Likewise, it is imperative that the organization have a
singular vision and strategy for the staff to align their respective efforts toward as people can
become paralyzed when multiple priorities exist (McPhee & Zaug, 2001). Thus, organizations
need to align to a common purpose (Elmore, 2005) and it is the role of leadership to discern the
most important priorities for the organization to focus on to achieve the strategy and vision of the
firm (Waters & Grubb, 2004).
Relatedly, internal communication from leaders about strategic priorities is important in
achieving the objectives of the organization (Berger, 2008). Furthermore, leaders who regularly
communicate with members of both the in- and out-groups understand how deeply the strategic
plan has permeated the organization and how well the plan is understood (Northouse, 2016).
Organizations that include stakeholders in the development of the strategy will outperform the
market (Wheeler & Sillanpa’a, 1998), perhaps by as much as 25% (Axelrod, Hadfield-Jones, and
Welsh, 2001). Conversely, leaders who exclude groups or ineffectively communicate erode
employee trust, engagement, and performance (Weber, 2014). Thus, it is important for leaders to
establish a plan with clear priorities aligned to the strategy of the firm. Below, Table 4 displays
the assumed organizational influences on communication within Premier Energy.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 45
Table 4
Assumed Organizational Influences on Stakeholder Performance During Organizational Change
Assumed Organizational Influences Organizational Influence Type
The behaviors modeled by leadership need to
be congruent with the strategy communicated
to the technical staff.
Cultural Model
The dual reporting nature of a matrix
organizational structure makes communication
difficult for the technical staff.
Cultural Model
Leadership needs an effective process to
communicate decisions and timely, concrete
feedback to the technical staff
Cultural Setting
The priorities necessary to implement the
strategy are clear to the technical staff and the
organization recognizes and rewards behavior
congruent with the strategy.
Cultural Setting
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
This study examined the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on
stakeholder performance during organizational change and the importance of communication as
the technical staff work to achieve their performance goal. The modern economy is constantly
changing and a key role of organizational leadership is managing change (Hackman & Johnson,
2009). However, 60-80% of all change initiatives fail (Maurer, 2010; Miller, 2011). Research
literature has identified the root cause of failure as often related to issues with strategy (Porter,
1987; Rosenberg & Mosca, 2011), culture (Drucker, 2004; Schein, 2010), or implementation
(Getz, Jones, & Loewe, 2009; Kotter, 1996). Upon further review, a foundational element across
all three failure mechanisms was the need for effective communication (Kotter, 2007). Thus,
organizations whose leaders who understand the role of effective communication during
organizational change are more likely to achieve their organizational goals and strategy.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 46
The purpose of this study was to conduct a gap analysis that examined the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences that prevent the Premier Energy technical staff from
achieving their stakeholder goal. The core business of this exploration and production company
is conducted by the technical staff. As such, this group of employees were the stakeholder group
of focus for the gap analysis. The guiding questions for this analysis were the following:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational elements which prevent the
technical staff from achieving their goal that 100% of technical staff annual goals will be
aligned with the organizational strategy and accomplished with a 100% completion rate
by the end of December 2019?
2. What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions?
Conceptual Framework
The purpose of a conceptual framework is to provide the supporting structure for the
proposed research question. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) suggested the conceptual framework
contains components of the position a researcher brings to their study and how qualitative and
quantitative analysis may be applied to further understand their position. Relatedly, Maxwell
(2013) submitted the researcher creates a frame for their study based on knowledge gained
through experience, existing and emergent research, and thought experiments. Furthermore,
Maxwell (2013) proposed a conceptual framework also describes the relationship between the
primary elements in a study. These elements may be related to gaps in performance between
current and desired outcomes, the root causes of which are identified through a systematic gap
analysis like the Clark and Estes (2008) framework. The elements proposed by both Maxwell
(2013) and Merriam and Tisdell (2016) were combined with the knowledge, motivational, and
organizational elements from the Clark and Estes (2008) framework to develop a conceptual
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 47
framework for this study. A diagram of the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analytic framework is
shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2: A gap analysis process using the Clark and Estes (2008) conceptual framework.
Earlier in this chapter, this study presented knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences as assumed causes. The interaction between these three influences may interfere with
the ability of the technical staff to align their individual goals with the strategy of the
organization. Relatedly, Kirschner, Kirschner, and Paas (2006) proposed knowledge of the
strategic mission enables staff to align their roles to the goals of the organization. Relative to
this study, the strategy of the Premier Energy is to be the best operator in each area of operations
while maintaining financial strength and a balanced asset portfolio. Achieving this strategy
should result in consistent top-quartile TSR for the firm. Likewise, knowledge of this strategy
allows the staff to contemplate if the appropriate resources and competencies are available to
achieve the strategic mission (Schneider, Brief, & Guzzo, 1996). Through seeing how their roles
support achieving the strategy, staff may derive value from their role and establish goals aligned
(1) Identify
Goals
(2) Current
Performance
(3) Gaps in
Performance
(4) Root Causes
• Knowledge
• Motivation
• Organization
(5) Implement
Solution(s)
(6) Evaluate
Performance
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 48
with the strategy of the firm (Denler, Wolters, & Benzon, 2009; Pintrich, 2003). However,
executing the strategy may require significant change and performance may be inhibited without
effective communication from leadership on the how the change aligns with the strategy (Lewis,
2011). The relationship between the assumed knowledge, motivational, and organizational
influences on the technical staff at Premier Energy is shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Conceptual framework to describe the knowledge-, motivation-, and organization-
related influences on the Premier Energy technical staff's achievement of their stakeholder goal.
Conclusion
This chapter presented a framework for gap analysis and how that framework could be
employed to identify the root cause of a performance gap between the current and desired
outcomes. The Clark and Estes (2008) framework proposed such gaps may be related to
knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences on stakeholder performance. Research
literature related to each of these three influences were reviewed in general and in relation to the
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 49
technical staff of Premier Energy. Effective communication from leadership regarding clarity of
the vision and strategy of the firm, priorities and roles to achieve the vision, timely and accurate
feedback, and clarity on the vision and strategy of the firm were a few of the key themes from
the research literature. These assumed influences and supporting research literature are
presented in Table 5, below. The next chapter of this dissertation will establish the proposed
process and methodology to be employed to further explore the influences on stakeholder
performance within Premier Energy.
Table 5
Summary of Influences on the Technical Staff of Premier Energy
Assumed Needs of Successful Technical Staff General Literature
Knowledge
Declarative The technical staff know the strategy
for the company
The technical staff understand their
role as it relates to the strategy
The technical staff know their
performance relative to expectations
Berbarry and Malinchak (2011),
Elmore (2005), Getz, Jones, and Loewe
(2009), Kezar (2000), Kotter (2007),
McPhee and Zaug (2001), Rosenberg
and Mosca (2011), Waters and Grubb
(2004)
Denler, Wolters, and Benzon (2009),
Lewis (2011), Pincus (1986),
Schneider, Brief, and Guzzo (1996)
Darling-Hammond and Snyder (2015),
Fernandez and Rainey (2006),
Hentschke and Wohlstetter (2004),
Lewis and Seibold (1993)
Procedural The technical staff know how to
implement the strategy
Grossman and Salas (2011), Kirschner,
Kirschner, and Paas (2006), Senge
(1990), Stengel (2008)
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 50
Metacognitive The technical staff reflect on their
performance based on feedback from
their supervisor relative to
expectations
Axelrod, Hadfield-Jones, and Welsh
(2001); McDonald and Smith (1995),
Biron, Farndale and Paauwe (2011),
Elmore (2005), Hattie and Timperley
(2007), Kluger and DiNisi (1998),
Korsgaard, Brodt, and Whitener
(2002), Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick
(2007), Shute (2008)
Motivation Utility value: The technical staff value
in achieving the goal and their role in
that achievement
Izzo and Withers (2000), Kotter (2007),
Mangundjaya (2013)
Organizational The behaviors modeled by leadership
need to be congruent with the strategy
communicated to the technical staff.
The dual reporting nature of a matrix
organizational structure makes
communication difficult for the
technical staff.
Leadership needs an effective process
to communicate decisions and timely,
concrete feedback to the technical staff
The priorities necessary to implement
the strategy are clear to the technical
staff and the organization recognizes
and rewards behavior congruent with
the strategy.
Fullan (2004), Johnson, D., Johnson,
R., and Smith, K. (2007), Moran and
Brightman (2000), Shaffer (2000),
Watson Wyatt (2014)
Battilana and Casciaro (2013);
Hancock and Raeside (2010)., Cross
and Prusak (2002), Lewis (2011),
Rosendahl, Olaisen, and Oivind (2014),
Runardotter (2011), Switzer (2008),
Watson Wyatt (2012), Morrison and
Milliken (2000), Young and Post
(1993)
Angeline (2010); Ferri-Reed (2013),
Artley and Macon (2009), Berger
(2014), Kapoor and Solomon (2011),
Deal and Kennedy (1982), DiTomaso,
Post, and Parks-Yancy (2007), Grunig,
L., Grunig, J., and Dozier, D. (2002),
Hackman and Johnson (2009),
Haeberle, Herzberg, and Hobbs (2009),
Johnson (2006), Kotter (2007), Lewis
(2006), Lewis (2011), McGowan and
Miller (2001), Pelz (1952), Powers
(1996-1997), Waston Wyatt (2004)
Axelrod, Hadfield-Jones, and Welsh
(2001), Berger (2008), Clark and Estes
(2008)., Hill, Thomas, and Keller
(2009), Northouse (2016), Rosendahl,
Olaisen, and Oivind (2014), Weber
(2014), Wheeler and Sillanpa'a (1998)
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 51
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This study sought to understand the high failure rate of organizational change initiatives
and the importance of effective communication during those changes. The change initiative to
restructure Premier Energy from a functionally structured organization to a matrix organization
was intended to improve the performance of the firm; however, the change failed to achieve the
desired outcome as performance has been slow to improve. Research literature identified the
root cause of failure as often related to issues with strategy (Porter, 1987; Rosenberg & Mosca,
2011), culture (Drucker, 2004; Schein, 2010), or implementation (Getz, Jones, & Loewe, 2009;
Kotter, 1996) with the need for effective communication being a common across all three failure
mechanisms (Kotter, 2007). Consequently, this study endeavored to examine the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences which prevent the Alpha Group technical staff from
achieving their goal that 100% of technical staff annual goals will be aligned with the
organizational strategy and accomplished with a 100% completion rate by the end of December
2019. Likewise, this study also sought to recommended knowledge, motivation, and
organizational solutions to close gaps which may be inhibiting stakeholder performance.
Accordingly, these gaps were recognized through the collection and analysis of both qualitative
and quantitative data, the methodology for which is outlined in the following sections of this
chapter.
Assessment of Performance Influences
A review of research literature revealed organizational change initiatives often fail due to
strategy, culture, or implementation related issues, with the need for effective communication
being a common theme across all three failure mechanisms. This flow of information throughout
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 52
the organization may surface in the form of knowledge-, motivation-, or organization- related
influences. The assumed knowledge influences are related to the technical staff’s knowledge of
the strategy, their role and expectations in implementing the strategy, and supervisor feedback
related to performance. Similarly, motivational influences are associated with the technical staff
valuing their respective goals and that the achievement of those goals is possible thereby leading
to improved individual and company performance. Relatedly, the organizational influences on
the technical staff are concerned with the congruency of leadership behaviors with the strategy,
the dual reporting nature of the matrix organizational structure, effective communication
processes, and the alignment of clear priorities with the company strategy. A summary of these
assumed influences is shown in Table 6 along with the assessment approach, which will be
discussed in the following sections.
Knowledge Assessment
A review of research literature revealed five possible knowledge influences, which are
displayed in Table 6. Three of these influences were related to declarative knowledge: (a) the
technical staff know the strategy for the company; (b) the technical staff understand their role as
it relates to the strategy; (c) the technical staff know their performance relative to expectations.
The declarative knowledge influences were assessed through focus group questions designed for
participants to demonstrate knowledge of the company strategy, their respective roles in
implementing the strategy, and their individual performance relative to expectations. A fourth
knowledge influence was related to the procedural knowledge of the technical staff knowing how
to implement the strategy, which was evaluated primarily through focus group questions
intended for participants to demonstrate knowledge of the steps necessary to implement the
strategy. Similarly, the fifth knowledge influence was associated with metacognitive knowledge
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 53
and the ability of the technical staff reflect on their performance based on performance feedback
from their supervisor. The influence of metacognitive knowledge was considered through focus
group questions constructed for participants to demonstrate how often supervisors provide
feedback and how frequently the technical staff engage in reflection on their performance.
Motivation Assessment
The research literature proposed three possible motivation influences which may be
preventing the technical staff from achieving their performance goal. These influences are
described below and shown in Table 6. Utility value was assessed through survey questions
constructed to demonstrate participant motivation through the use of goal setting and value in
goal achievement. Additionally, the responses from the survey led to further exploration of
utility value during the focus group sessions. Similarly, goal orientation was evaluated through
survey questions designed to observe participant belief that goals will contribute to improving
their individual performance in implementing the strategy. Based on the survey responses, the
focus group sessions further examined goal orientation. Likewise, self-efficacy was considered
through survey questions devised to demonstrate participant motivation through their confidence
in their individual and collective ability to achieve the strategy and that the strategy will improve
company performance. Consequently, the survey responses suggested additional questions about
self-efficacy during the focus group sessions would be useful.
Organization Assessment
Four possible organizational influences inhibiting the technical staff from achieving their
performance goal were suggested by the research literature, as discussed below and presented in
Table 6. The organizational influences evaluated were: (a) the behaviors modeled by leadership
need to be congruent with the strategy communicated to the technical staff; (b) the dual reporting
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 54
nature of a matrix organizational structure makes communication difficult for the technical staff;
(c) leadership needs an effective process to communicate decisions and timely, concrete
feedback to the technical staff; (d) the priorities necessary to implement the strategy are clear to
the technical staff and the organization recognizes and rewards behavior congruent with the
strategy. Leadership modeling behaviors were evaluated through survey questions designed to
observe congruency between the strategy and leadership behaviors. Similarly, the
communication challenges presented by a dual reporting structure were evaluated through survey
questions constructed to observe which sources participants receive their information from and
how frequently the technical staff have the information they need to do their jobs. Relatedly, the
effectiveness of processes for timely feedback and communication of decisions was considered
through survey questions devised to demonstrate the frequency of effective communication from
leadership regarding strategy and strategy related decisions. Likewise, the clarity of priorities
were evaluated through survey questions intended to observe how clear these priorities are to the
technical staff. Additional questions were asked during the focus groups to further explore the
three assumed motivation influences of utility value, goal orientation, and self-efficacy.
Table 6
Summary of Assessment Approaches for the Assumed Influencers
Assumed Influences Assessment Approach
Knowledge
Declarative
The technical staff know the strategy
for the company
The technical staff understand their
role as it relates to the strategy
Observe declarative knowledge through a
survey (questions 17-20) with further
demonstration of knowledge solicited in
focus group.
Observe declarative knowledge through a
survey (question 21) with further
demonstration of knowledge solicited in
focus group.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 55
The technical staff know their
performance relative to expectations
Observe declarative knowledge through a
survey (questions 36) with further
demonstration of knowledge solicited in
focus group.
Procedural The technical staff know how to
implement the strategy
Observe procedural knowledge through
demonstration of knowledge solicited in
focus group.
Metacognitive The technical staff reflect on their
performance based on feedback
from their supervisor relative to
expectations
Observe metacognitive knowledge through
a survey (question 29) with further
demonstration of knowledge solicited in
focus group.
Motivation
Utility value: The technical staff
value in achieving the goal and their
role in that achievement
Observe motivation through a survey
(questions 22, 26) with further
demonstration of motivation solicited in
focus group.
Organizational
Goal orientation: The technical staff
believe that creating goals will
contribute to improving their
performance relative to the strategy.
Self-efficacy: The technical staff is
confident in their individual and
collective ability to achieve the
strategy and that implementing the
strategy will improve company
performance
The behaviors modeled by leadership
need to be congruent with the strategy
communicated to the technical staff.
The dual reporting nature of a matrix
organizational structure makes
communication difficult for the
technical staff.
Leadership needs an effective process
to communicate decisions and timely,
concrete feedback to the technical
staff
Observe motivation through a survey
(questions 23-24, 27-28) with further
demonstration of motivation solicited in
focus group.
Observe motivation through a survey
(questions 1-16) with further
demonstration of motivation solicited in
focus group.
Observe organizational influences through
a survey (question 25, 35) with further
demonstration of cultural model solicited
in focus group.
Observe organizational influences through
a survey (questions 34, 37-40) with further
demonstration of cultural model solicited
in focus group.
Observe organizational influences through
a survey (questions 30-32, 36) with further
demonstration of cultural setting solicited
in focus group.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 56
The priorities necessary to implement
the strategy are clear to the technical
staff and the organization recognizes
and rewards behavior congruent with
the strategy.
Observe organizational influences through
a survey (questions 33, 41-42) with further
demonstration of cultural settings solicited
in focus group.
Participating Stakeholders and Sample Selection
The stakeholder group of focus for this study was the technical staff of the Alpha
Technical Group within Premier Energy. The technical staff of Premier Energy accounts for
approximately 500 of the roughly 3,700 people employed across the five respective technical
groups in North America. The Alpha Group is one of the largest and most active technical
groups in the company and is a key component of future growth plans for the firm.
Consequently, the Alpha Group was selected for this study as the size of the group was large
enough to impact company performance yet not distract the rest of the organization.
Furthermore, the Alpha Group leadership was willing to support the study, and the executive
leadership of the company appreciated the study being focused on one technical group to develop
a more distinctive baseline for future studies across the company.
The technical groups are primarily responsible for applying their technical knowledge to
the core business of Premier, which is to explore, develop, and produce crude oil and natural gas
resources. The technical staff work in a variety of technical fields, such as geology and
engineering, and are engaged in the core business of Premier Energy. The following sections
will describe in greater detail the criteria, rationale, and instrumentation for sampling the
participants and the associated recruitment strategies employed during this study.
Data Collection
This study employed a mixed methods approach by using document analysis and a
quantitative survey followed by qualitative focus groups and validation interviews to gain a
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 57
deeper understanding of the contrasting experiences and opinions of the technical staff within the
E&P department of Premier Energy. The use of a mixed methods approach ensured
triangulation of the data to increase the trustworthiness of the data collected (Creswell, 2014).
Relatedly, Merriam and Tisdell (2016) proposed document analysis may be used to inform
traditional quantitative and qualitative research; consequently, presentations used to
communicate the strategy of Premier Energy and the respective technical groups were examined
and used to inform the survey and focus group questions. Furthermore, member checking was
used to validate the vernacular used in the survey was congruent with the local culture
(Cresswell, 2014). A summary of the strategies for validating and assessing the assumed
influences is shown in Table 7, at the end of this chapter.
Documents and Artifacts
Within the context of Premier Energy, it is common for strategy-related information to be
communicated to employees through presentations and knowledge of the strategy is central to
the ability of the technical staff to achieve their performance goal. Cresswell (2014) proposed
incorporating existing documents into research as they may provide the researcher with language
familiar to the participants. Relatedly, the presentations given within the context of Premier
Energy may contain information related to both the strategy of the company and the respective
technical groups. Conversely, Merriam and Tisdell (2016) proposed authenticity of existing
documents as a potential concern; however, these presentations were provided by leadership to
their respective technical group employees and therefore should be considered authentic.
Furthermore, copies of the presentation are readily available to all employees through the
company intranet and are stored in a read-only format to ensure the document authenticity is
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 58
preserved. Consequently, the information gleaned from these presentations was used to inform
questions related to strategy in the survey and focus groups.
Survey
Fink (2013) proposed quantitative surveys be used to gather data from a large sample of
the population being studied. This study used an electronic multiple-choice survey to contrast,
infer, and generalize the opinions of 130 people in the Alpha Technical Group of Premier
Energy. The anonymous, online survey did not ask participants for identifiable information and
responses from company computers did not have identifiable IP addresses. Acknowledgement
of the survey protocol and consent to participate in the study was obtained from stakeholders and
permission for the survey protocol was obtained from the Institutional Review Board of the
University of Southern California.
Survey Sampling, Recruitment, and Instrumentation. A census approach to sampling
seeks to obtain participation from the entire target population which, for this study, is the
technical staff of the Alpha Technical Group within Premier Energy. Given the relative ease of
online surveys, the utilization of a census approach ensured all employees had an opportunity for
their opinions to be known. The use of online surveys is also common within the organizational
context of the company and invitations to participate in surveys are typically sent via email from
the sponsor of the survey (Premier Energy, personal communication, February 20, 2016). At the
beginning of the data collection process for this study, the Alpha Technical Group vice-president
sent an email to the technical staff explaining the purpose and voluntary nature of the survey as
well as information regarding confidentiality. A link to the 42-question multiple-choice survey
was embedded in the email. The survey was expected to take 10-15 minutes to complete and the
actual median time to completion was 14.875 minutes, which was reduced to 13.4 minutes when
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 59
surveys spanning multiples days to complete were removed. Portions of the survey were adapted
from instruments used by Bandura (2006), Eccles (2006), and Schraw and Dennison (1994).
Relatedly, the survey was written in English, and will contain questions related to potential
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on change initiatives within the
organization, as previously presented in Table 6.
The email invitation to participate in the survey was sent to all exploration and
production technical staff and leadership within the Alpha Technical Group on Monday, July
17
th
at 3:00 in the afternoon to allow the survey to be reviewed by staff prior to being discussed
during respective Tuesday morning staff meetings. Likewise, the timing of the email ensured no
holidays fell within the two-week survey period and thereby limited the impact of holiday
vacations on the ability of stakeholders to participate in the survey. A second email was sent
from the Alpha Group vice-president to the Alpha leadership of Premier Energy requesting them
to mention the survey during their respective staff meetings and encourage their staff to
participate in the survey. A reminder email was sent to the technical staff and leadership on July
24
th
, one week after the initial invitation and a second reminder email was sent on Thursday, July
27
th
, two days prior to the close of the survey on July 31
st
at 5:00 in the evening. Overall,
employees had two weeks to respond to the survey.
Each survey link contained a survey group identifier to allow for analysis of the results
for the entire population in aggregate and segmented into results for each technical group, or
what Fink (2013) refers to as subgroups. Including the survey group identifier also allowed the
results of the survey to be used to inform questions asked during subsequent focus groups. A
graphical representation of Premier Energy organizational chart is presented in Figure 4 and
depicts the Alpha Technical Group within the E&P organization of Premier Energy as well as
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 60
several matrixed corporate groups intended to provide support to the E&P Technical Groups.
Figure 4: Highlighting the Alpha Group within the Premier Energy organizational structure.
Furthermore, within the Alpha Technical Group, the matrix of the lateral group and the vertical
functional groups are presented in Figure 5 along with the respective survey groups.
Historically, the technical staff reported only to their functional manager; however, the change to
a matrix organization introduced a lateral reporting component for each role in the group, as
shown in Figure 5. For reference, the lateral group is depicted as Functional Group 2 and a copy
of the survey appears in Appendix A.
Executive)Committee
Senior)Vice1President
Technical)Groups)(E&P)
Senior)Vice1President)
Technical)Groups)(E&P)
Technical)
Group
Vice1President
Technical)Group)
Leadership
Technical)
Group
Vice1President
Technical)
Group
Vice1President
Technical)
Group
Vice1President
Technical)
Group
Vice1President
Alpha)
Group
Technical)Staff
Technical)Group)
Leadership
Technical)Staff
Technical)Group)
Leadership
Technical)Staff
Technical)Group)
Leadership
Technical)Staff
Technical)Group)
Leadership
Technical)Staff
Support
Group
Vice1President
Support)Group)
Leadership
Support)Staff
Support
Group
Vice1President
Support)Group)
Leadership
Support)Staff
Support
Group
Vice1President
Support)Group)
Leadership
Support)Staff
Support
Group
Vice1President
Support)Group)
Leadership
Support)Staff
Senior)Vice1President
Support)Groups
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 61
Figure 5: Survey groups conducted within the context of Premier Energy.
The responses from survey group one, which was comprised of Alpha Technical Group
leadership, were not included in the analysis as this study focused only on the technical staff;
however, the leadership responses may be useful in identifying areas for future study.
Historically, response rates for previous internal surveys at the firm have averaged 65% and
additional incentives to participate were not necessary (Premier Energy, personal
communication, March 15, 2016). The response rate must be considered to understand if the
effective sample was sufficient to generalize findings to the population.
Given a population of 131 technical staff employees and a response rate of 65%, the
effective sample was expected to be 85 participants. This sample size should be sufficient to
provide a 95% confidence interval with a margin of error of less than 4% (Fink, 2013).
However, the results were tested for nonresponse bias through the techniques presented in
Pazzaglia, Stafford, and Rodriguez (2016). Likewise, Fink (2013) suggested weighting
procedures to calibrate the responses to the demographics of the population and these
Technical)Group
Vice0President
Technical)Staff
Technical)Staff
Technical)Staff
Technical)Staff
Technical)Staff
Technical)Staff
Functional)Manager
Functional)Manager
Functional)Manager
Functional)Manager
Functional)Manager
Functional)Manager Technical)Staff
Technical)
Group)
Leadership)
Team)
(N=19)
Technical)
Staff)
(N=112)
Alpha)Technical)Group)Population
(N=131)
Functional)Supervisor
Functional)Supervisor
Functional)Supervisor
Functional)Supervisor
Functional)Supervisor
Functional)Supervisor
2 N
Survey)Group
3 4 5 6 7 8
1
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 62
adjustments were made, as necessary. Therefore, the use of a census approach to survey the
Alpha Group technical staff population should produce a sufficient sample from which to infer
and inform the questions to be asked during the focus groups.
Focus Groups
Subsequent to the quantitative survey, qualitative focus groups were conducted and
followed by validation interviews. A total of seven in-person focus groups were conducted in
English and within the conference center of the Premier Energy headquarters from August 29
th
through September 7
th
, 2017. Maxwell (2013) and Merriam and Tisdell (2016) both proposed
focus groups be comprised of seven to ten people and seek to develop a deeper understanding
about the behavior and perspective of how participants perceive a particular problem.
Accordingly, participants shared their perspectives in one of seven, 60-minute focus groups
comprised of the technical staff of the respective technical groups within Premier Energy.
Relatedly, Krueger & Casey (2009) stressed that qualitative research was not to infer but rather
to garner a richer understanding of how people make sense of a specific problem.
Focus Group Sampling Criteria and Rationale. Seven distinct focus groups were
conducted with the technical staff of the seven respective functional groups within the Alpha
Technical Group of Premier Energy. Both Merriam and Tisdell (2016) and Krueger and Casey
(2009) suggested the composition of participants in a focus group can influence the participation
level and depth of responses produced during the session. Thus, to mitigate potential leader-
member influences, the focus groups in this study was comprised only of technical staff
employees at the same hierarchical level within the organization. The criterion to participate in
the focus groups are described below and a graphical illustration of the seven focus groups to be
conducted within the organizational context of Premier Energy is shown in Figure 6.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 63
Criterion 1. To be eligible to participate in the focus group, respondents to the survey
indicated a willingness to participate in a focus group. As part of the survey, participants were
asked to affirm or deny their willingness to participate in a focus group. Participants for the
focus group were purposefully selected from willing participants.
Criterion 2. To be eligible to participate in the focus group, participants must have been
employed within Premier Energy on a full-time basis for a minimum of three years. The time
requirement should allow sufficient time for the participant to be engaged in the culture and
understand the vision and strategy for the firm.
Criterion 3. To be eligible to participate in the focus group, participants must currently
be employed by Premier Energy within a technical department. The study sought to understand
the knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences on organizational change within the
firm and particularly among the technical staff.
Figure 6: Focus groups to be conducted within the context of Premier Energy.
Technical)Group
Vice0President
Technical)Staff
Technical)Staff
Technical)Staff
Technical)Staff
Technical)Staff
Technical)Staff
Functional)Manager
Functional)Manager
Functional)Manager
Functional)Manager
Functional)Manager
Functional)Manager Technical)Staff
Technical)
Group)
Leadership)
Team)
(N=19)
Technical)
Staff)
(N=112)
Alpha)Technical)Group)Population
(N=131)
Functional)Supervisor
Functional)Supervisor
Functional)Supervisor
Functional)Supervisor
Functional)Supervisor
Functional)Supervisor
2 N
Interviews
3 4 5 6 7 8
1
2 N
Focus)Group
3 4 5 6 7 8
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 64
Focus Group Sampling Recruitment, and Instrumentation. Each of the five focus
groups attempted to gain a deeper understanding of the perspectives of participants relative to the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on communication during organizational
change. Specifically, the focus groups explored the survey questions returned with the widest
and narrowest dispersion in responses for each survey group. For reference, the respective focus
group protocols are presented in Appendix B.
Krueger and Casey (2009) proposed focus groups comprised of experienced participants
and designed to understand a specific issue should be limited to between four and eight
participants. Relatedly, Merriam and Tisdell (2016) suggested focus groups should have
between six and ten participants. Likewise, Maxwell (2013) submitted confidence could be
gained if conclusions were derived from a focus group designed to represent the typical
individual within the organization. Accordingly, a focus group comprised of seven to ten
participants was purposefully created to understand the perspectives of the technical staff within
the seven respective functional groups within the Alpha Technical Group of Premier Energy.
Historically, the business performance of each technical group has differed (Premier Energy,
personal communication, January 31, 2017) and studying each group separately may yield
insights not possible if a single focus group was conducted with a sample from the entire
technical staff population. Participants in the focus groups were selected to ensure the
demographics of each department are represented. Likewise, the semi-structured focus group
questions was tailored to explore the survey responses with the widest, and narrowest, dispersion
for each respective technical department. Additional semi-structured questions explored
knowledge, motivation, and organization related influences not previously assessed through the
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 65
survey. These focus groups were related to the intentional conversations that Weiss (1994)
suggested would allow the researcher to understand the how people observe the world.
Validation Interviews
At the conclusion of the focus group, an opportunity to participate in a five to ten-minute
validation interview was provided to the group to allow participants to discuss views they may
not have felt comfortable verbalizing in front of a larger group. As the focus groups and
subsequent validation interviews involve the personal opinions of people, responses collected
during the focus group were attributed pseudonyms and only general themes from the focus
groups were published. Responses were kept confidential; however, the researcher cannot
control what other participants may have shared about their experiences during the study. To
further protect the anonymity of the participants, a third-party researcher facilitated, recorded,
and transcribed the focus groups to ensure the participant responses remain confidential.
Acknowledgement of the focus group protocol and consent to participate in the study was
obtained from stakeholders and permission for the focus group protocol was obtained from the
Institutional Review Board of the University of Southern California.
Data Analysis
Quantitative Data
A site approved census survey was conducted within the Alpha Technical Group of
Premier Energy over a two-week period. A total of 131-people in the Alpha Group were asked
to participate in the survey. If the survey garnered less than 100% participation, the results
would be stratified and weighted to align with the demographics of the Alpha Technical Group;
however, full participation was achieved, and no stratification or weighting of the results will be
necessary. The results of the data were also tested for bias and adjusted, as necessary. The
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 66
survey was conducted via Qualtrics and comprised of 2 nominal demographic, 11 nominal, 14
ordinal, and 16 ratio questions for a total of 44 questions on the survey. Analysis of the data
consisted of frequency analysis for the nominal data; frequency, median, and mode for the
ordinal data; frequency, mean, median, mode, range, and standard deviation for the ratio data. A
summary of the analysis techniques is shown in Table 7.
Table 7
Summary of Analysis Techniques for Quantitative Data
Nominal
Data
Ordinal
Data
Ratio
Data
Frequency
Analysis
Count X X X
Percentage X X X
Central Tendency
Analysis
Mean X
Median X X
Mode X X
Range X
Standard
Deviation
X
The most relevant results from the survey informed additional exploration in the seven
subsequent focus groups with the technical staff as well as 10-15 personal interviews with senior
leadership. The results most relevant to the research question were broken down into attributes
related to knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences and presented in both tabular
and graphical format. A narrative connecting the most relevant results to related research
literature is also presented.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 67
Qualitative Data
A focus group consisting of 6-8 people was conducted with each of the respective
functional groups within the Alpha Technical Group of Premier Energy. Participants for the
focus group met the criterion previously described in this chapter. The sample was selected to
represent the gender and generational demographics of each functional group and thereby
provided a representative sample for the focus group. A total of 42-56 people were expected to
participate in one of the seven focus groups and each of the focus groups were audio recorded.
The recordings were transcribed and coded using analytic tools presented by Corbin and Strauss
(2008). Likewise, a codebook was created to create consistent categories to help manage the
data and analysis (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The use of a priori and in vivo codes was used
during qualitative analysis as were multiple phases of coding, as suggested by Miles, Huberman,
and Saldaña (2014). Consequently, this study employed both open and axial coding as well as
typicality to develop themes from the raw data and these themes will be aligned to the conceptual
framework to ensure the primary themes provide answers to the research question. Typicality
was used to understand which themes were most prominent and the primary findings from the
focus groups were then be presented in alignment with the research question and framed by the
conceptual framework. The analysis procedure described above was also used to analyze the
transcripts from the personal interviews with senior leadership and described in a subsequent
section.
Synthesis of Qualitative and Quantitative Data
After analyzing the results from the survey and findings from the focus groups and
interviews, convergent and triangulated themes across all data sources were synthesized. These
emergent themes were aligned with the conceptual framework and may represent the root cause
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 68
of knowledge, motivation, or organizational gaps preventing the technical staff from achieving
their goal. The nascent themes were considered valid as they were triangulated across the
survey, focus group, and interview data sources. These themes were compared against related
research literature to derive potential solutions to close the gaps with the solutions proposed in
Chapter Five.
Trustworthiness of data
The trustworthiness of data was improved through the use of triangulation (Maxwell,
2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), existing valid and reliable surveys (Maxwell, 2013), assurance
of anonymity and confidentiality (Cresswell, 2014), and member checking (Maxwell, 2013).
Triangulation is the examination of evidence from different sources to determine if emerging
themes converge (Creswell, 2014). This study used existing documents to ensure the language
used in the survey and focus groups was familiar to the stakeholders. Relatedly, the results of
the survey informed the topics of discussion for the focus groups and subsequent validation
interviews. Furthermore, the surveys and focus groups were constructed to allow comparison
between each of the five technical groups within Premier Energy. Thus, the themes were
evaluated for convergence within each technical group and across all seven technical groups.
The use of triangulation improved the trustworthiness of the data as did comparison across
groups (Maxwell, 2013).
Another step taken in this study to improve the trustworthiness of data was to base survey
items on existing valid and reliable instruments. Bandura (2006) proposed a self-efficacy
instrument which was used to evaluate how certain participants were in their ability to do a
certain task at a certain time. Furthermore, Bandura (2006) proposed the use of a ratio scale in
increments of 10 from 0-100 improved the reliability of the instrument. Likewise,
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 69
trustworthiness of data may also be improved by engaging with potential stakeholders to reduce
the potential for confusion or misinterpretation within the survey instrument (Irwin & Stafford,
2016). Relatedly, Merriam and Tisdell (2016) proposed maximum variation be evaluated and
the results from the survey with the widest, and narrowest, dispersion were discussed within each
respective focus group. Furthermore, Maxwell (2013) proposed researcher intervention may
impact the validity of the study; however, a census approach to the survey was selected to ensure
all participants receive the same instrument to reduce the influence the study may have on
participant behavior.
Participants in the survey were provided assurance of anonymity to encourage
participation. Personal information which could be used to identify the participants was not
collected. Furthermore, responses from a Premier Energy computer had the same IP address and
was not attributable to an individual. Likewise, the survey responses were aggregated with
general themes published and used to guide the respective focus group conversations. Relatedly,
participants in the focus groups and subsequent validation interviews were provided assurance of
confidentiality to foster candid responses. Only general themes which arise during the focus
groups and validation interviews were used in the study and any individual responses published
were attributed a pseudonym. Relatedly, the trustworthiness of data was further improved
through the use of member checks to validate with participants that the themes emerging from
the focus groups and validation interviews were accurate.
Role of Investigator
The researcher for this study is currently retained by Premier Energy to provide a variety
of services to the organization, including improving the flow of information within the firm.
This engagement provides the potential for the researcher to have influence, real or perceived,
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 70
with likely participants in the study. Furthermore, the researcher has a personal interest in both
the near and long-term financial success of the firm. To mitigate confusion by participants
regarding the dual roles of the researcher, several steps were taken. First, within the context of
Premier Energy, it is common for employees to participate in electronic surveys and an email
will be sent from the Technical Group vice-president inviting participants to participate in a
voluntary study. Second, participants acknowledged consent to participate and that responses to
the survey were anonymous. Third, the researcher trained a qualified third party on the focus
group and validation interview protocols. The third-party researcher was necessary to mitigate
the potential influence of the researcher during the in-person focus groups and validation
interviews with the technical staff. The third-party researcher facilitated, recorded, and
transcribed the focus groups and validation interviews to ensure the participant responses
remained confidential. Fourth, within the context of Premier Energy, it is common for managers
to visit with both senior leaders and other mangers about potential improvement projects to
develop a broader understanding of how those projects might be more successful. Thus, the
personal interviews conducted by the researcher were congruent with the local practice of the
organization as the researcher is a manger within the firm. Participants in the personal
interviews had the information sheet and understood the protocol prior to the start of the
interview. Further steps were also taken to ensure participant rights and confidentiality.
All participants in both the survey and focus groups were required to acknowledge that
they have been informed about the purpose, methodology, potential implications of the research
and their consent to participate in the study. A participant information sheet appears in
Appendix H and was modeled after Glesne (2011), who submitted participants should
understand their participation was voluntary, their participation and subsequent data were
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 71
confidential, participant permission was needed to record, and how the data were stored and
secured. The survey did not ask participants for identifiable information and responses from
company computers did not have identifiable IP addresses. Likewise, responses and direct
quotes collected during the focus group were attributed pseudonyms with general themes from
the focus groups were published. Participants in the focus group understood how the researcher
kept their responses confidential; however, the researcher cannot control what other participants
may have shared about their experiences during the study. Data from both the surveys and focus
groups will be stored on a password protected computer for three years after the conclusion of
the study and then destroyed.
Table 8
Summary of Strategies for Validating/Assessing the Assumed Influencers
Assumed Needs of Successful Technical Staff Validation Strategies
Knowledge
Declarative The technical staff know the
strategy for the company
Survey (Multiple Choice): Which of the
following is the vision for the company?
Focus Group (possible follow-
up): Describe the company
vision.
Survey (Multiple Choice): Which of the
following is the vision for your
technical group?
Focus Group (possible follow-
up): Describe the vision for
your technical group.
Survey (Multiple Choice): Which of the
following is the strategy for the
company?
Focus Group (possible follow-
up): Describe the strategy for
the company.
Survey (Multiple Choice): Which of the
following is the strategy for your
technical group?
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 72
The technical staff understand their
role as it relates to the strategy
The technical staff know their
performance relative to
expectations
Focus Group (possible follow-
up): Describe the strategy for
your technical group?
Survey (Multiple Choice): Which of the
following is the primary role of your
technical group relative to the company
strategy?
Focus Group (possible follow-
up): Describe the primary role
of your technical group relative
to the company strategy?
Focus Group: Describe your role as it
relates to the company strategy.
Focus Group: Describe your role as it
relates to the strategy of your technical
group.
Focus Group: Describe the expectations
your supervisor has for you in your role.
Focus Group: What information do you
receive to help you understand your
performance relative to the expectations
of your supervisor.
Procedural The technical staff know how to
implement the strategy
Focus Group: How would you go about
implementing the company strategy?
Focus Group: How would you go about
implementing the strategy for your
technical group?
Metacognitive The technical staff reflect on their
performance based upon feedback
from their supervisor relative to
expectations
Survey (Likert): How often do you ask
yourself if you are meeting performance
expectations?
Motivation
Utility value: The technical staff
value in achieving the goal and
their role in that achievement
Survey (Likert): The work I do in my
role is important to achieving the
company strategy.
Survey (Likert): The work I do in my
role is important to achieving the
strategy of the technical group.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 73
Goal orientation: The technical
staff believe that creating goals will
contribute to improving their
performance relative to the strategy
Self-efficacy: The technical staff
is confident in their individual
and collective ability to achieve
the strategy and that
implementing the strategy will
improve company performance
Survey (Likert): How much do you
want to improve your performance to
achieve the company strategy?
Focus Group: What is your goal
for doing this?
Survey (Likert): How often do you set
goals to improve your performance to
achieve the company strategy?
Focus Group: What are your
reasons for doing this?
Survey (Likert): Do much you want to
improve your performance to achieve
the technical group strategy?
Focus Group: What is your goal
for doing this?
Survey (Likert): How often do you set
goals to improve your performance to
achieve the technical group strategy?
Focus Group: What are your
reasons for doing this?
Survey (Likert): Use the scale below to
indicate how certain you are in your
ability to identify the vision for the
company.
Survey (Likert): Use the scale below to
indicate how certain you are in your
ability to identify the vision for your
technical group.
Survey (Likert): Use the scale below to
indicate how certain you are in your
ability to identify the strategy for the
company.
Survey (Likert): Use the scale below to
indicate how certain you are in your
ability to identify the strategy for your
technical group.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 74
Survey (Likert): Use the scale below to
indicate how certain you are in your
ability to identify the primary role of
your technical group relative to the
company strategy.
Survey (Likert): Use the scale below to
indicate how certain you are in your
ability to describe your role relative to
the company strategy.
Survey (Likert): Use the scale below to
indicate how certain you are in your
ability to describe your role relative to
the technical group strategy.
Survey (Likert): Use the scale below to
indicate how certain you are in your
ability to describe the expectations your
supervisor has for you in your role.
Survey (Likert): Use the scale below to
indicate how certain you are in your
ability to describe your performance
relative to the expectations your
supervisor has for you in your role.
Survey (Likert): Use the scale below to
indicate how certain you are in your
ability to describe the steps necessary to
implement the company strategy.
Survey (Likert): Use the scale below to
indicate how certain you are in your
ability to describe the steps necessary to
implement the technical group strategy.
Survey (Likert): Use the scale below to
indicate how certain you are that
implementing the company strategy will
improve company performance
Survey (Likert): Use the scale below to
indicate how certain you are that the
company can achieve the strategy
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 75
Organizational
The behaviors modeled by
leadership need to be congruent
with the strategy communicated to
the technical staff.
The dual reporting nature of a
matrix organizational
structure makes communication
difficult for the technical staff.
Survey (Likert): Use the scale below to
indicate how certain you are that
implementing the technical group
strategy will improve the performance
of the technical group
Survey (Likert): Use the scale below to
indicate how certain you are that the
technical group can achieve the strategy.
Survey (Likert): Use the scale below to
indicate how certain you are that
implementing the technical group
strategy will improve company
performance
Survey (Likert): Leaders exhibit
behaviors aligned with the strategy of
the company
Survey (Likert): Leaders exhibit
behaviors aligned with the strategy of
the technical group
Survey (Likert): How often do you
have the information you need to do
your job within your technical group?
Survey (Multiple Choice): Which of the
following sources provide you with the
most actionable information?
Survey (Multiple Choice): Which of the
following sources provide you with the
least actionable information?
Survey (Multiple Choice): Which of the
following sources of information do you
trust the most?
Survey (Multiple Choice): Which of the
following sources of information do you
trust the least?
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 76
Leadership needs an effective
process to communicate decisions
and timely, concrete feedback to
the technical staff
The priorities necessary to
implement the strategy are clear
to the technical staff and the
organization recognizes and
rewards behavior congruent with
the strategy.
Survey (Likert): How often does your
supervisor provide performance
feedback relative to their expectations
for your role?
Survey (Likert): How often does
leadership communicate effectively?
Survey (Likert): How often does
leadership effectively communicate
decisions relative to the strategy?
Survey (Likert): How often does
leadership effectively communicate
decisions relative to the strategy in a
timely manner?
Survey (Likert): How clear are the
priorities to implement the strategy?
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 77
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
Introduction
This study sought to understand the high failure rate of organizational change initiatives
and the importance of effective communication during those changes. Accordingly, the research
examined the change initiative to restructure Premier Energy from a functionally structured
organization to a matrix organization and the residual knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences on stakeholder performance that prevent the Alpha Group technical staff from
achieving their stakeholder goal. Chapter One described the importance of effective
communication during organizational change whereas Chapter Two provided a review of
academic research literature and proposed assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences. Subsequently, Chapter Three outlined the methodology to study the assumed
influences within the context of Premier Energy. The purpose of Chapter Four is to share the
relationship between the respective assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences and the results and findings generated from this study. These relationships were
developed by triangulating qualitative results and quantitative findings to propose convergent
themes, to which solutions are discussed in Chapter Five.
The survey was constructed according to the methodology proposed in Chapter Three and
existing documents were used to adjust question nomenclature to be appropriate for the local
organizational context. Additionally, the survey questions were member checked with senior
leadership of the company to validate congruence with the organizational culture. The Qualtrics
survey was available from July 17
th
, 2017 through July 31
st
, 2017 and a total of 130 of the 131
individuals in the population participated in the survey for a response rate of 99%, as shown in
Table 9.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 78
Table 9
Summary of Survey Response Rate by Functional Group
Group # Group Population Responses Rate
1 Leadership 19 19 100%
2 Functional Group 2 8 8 100%
3 Functional Group 3 27 27 100%
4 Functional Group 4 17 17 100%
5 Functional Group 5 8 8 100%
6 Functional Group 6 9 9 100%
7 Functional Group 7 12 12 100%
8 Functional Group 8 31 30 97%
TOTAL 131 130 99%
As described previously, the lateral group is represented as Functional Group 2 with all other
groups being vertical functional groups. The technical staff within each vertical functional group
report to their functional manager and also maintain a reporting relationship with the lateral
manager. Given the census survey approach and 99% response rate, no additional weighting or
stratification was conducted on the survey responses. Similarly, the respondent demographics
with respect to gender and generation are presented in Tables 10 and 11.
Table 10
Summary of Survey Respondent Gender by Functional Group
Group Count Female Male Prefer not to answer
Leadership 19 16% 84% 0%
Functional Group 2 8 40% 60% 0%
Functional Group 3 27 22% 70% 7%
Functional Group 4 17 18% 82% 0%
Functional Group 5 8 0% 75% 25%
Functional Group 6 9 11% 89% 0%
Functional Group 7 12 33% 58% 8%
Functional Group 8 30 43% 50% 7%
TOTAL 130 25% 68% 8%
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 79
Table 11
Summary of Survey Respondent Generation by Functional Group
Generation [age in years]
Group Count 70-90 50-69 35-49 20-34 Prefer not to answer
Leadership 19 0% 16% 63% 21% 0%
Functional Group 2 8 0% 0% 25% 50% 25%
Functional Group 3 27 0% 11% 37% 44% 7%
Functional Group 4 17 0% 18% 12% 71% 0%
Functional Group 5 8 0% 0% 38% 38% 25%
Functional Group 6 9 0% 11% 22% 44% 22%
Functional Group 7 12 0% 17% 33% 50% 0%
Functional Group 8 30 0% 10% 33% 50% 7%
130 0% 12% 35% 46% 8%
Following the survey, focus groups and interviews were conducted to develop a deeper
understanding of the survey responses for each of the seven respective functional groups within
the Alpha Technical Group of Premier Energy. The selection criteria were met as participants in
the focus groups self-selected to participate, had been employed with Premier Energy on a full-
time basis for at least three-years, and were currently employed within a technical group within
the firm. Table 12 presents the focus group participation rate by functional group.
Table 12
Summary of Focus Group Participation Rate by Functional Group
Group Population Participants Rate
Leadership (interviews) 19 8 42%
Functional Group 2 8 5 63%
Functional Group 3 27 8 30%
Functional Group 4 17 2 12%
Functional Group 5 8 1 13%
Functional Group 6 9 3 33%
Functional Group 7 12 1 8%
Functional Group 8 31 8 26%
TOTAL 131 36 27%
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 80
Validation
The assumed influences were considered validated if the influence was shown to be
present and therefore a gap did not exist. Validation was determined through triangulation of
quantitative and qualitative data. By nature, the qualitative data contained more depth and
richness than the survey data; therefore, emphasis was placed on the qualitative data.
Consequently, for an assumed influence to be validated, a minimum of 51% of the survey
responses affirmed the assumed influence and were supported by qualitative data obtained from
both the focus groups and interviews. Conversely, if less than 51% of the survey responses
affirmed the assumed influence and were supported by qualitative data, the assumed influence
was not validated and therefore a gap existed. Furthermore, if the quantitative and qualitative
data were in conflict yet the preponderance of qualitative data was conclusive, the qualitative
was used to determine if the assumed influence was validated. Likewise, the assumed influence
was considered unable to validate if the quantitative and qualitative data were mixed and
inconclusive. The following sections discuss the results and findings from the study with respect
to each of the assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences and suggest if the
respective influences were validated, not validated, or unable to validate.
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes
Assumed Knowledge Influence 1: The technical staff know the strategy for the technical
group
Factual knowledge of the vision and strategy of the organization may improve
performance (McDonald, 2007). Relatedly, the desired outcome of a change is more likely to be
achieved when the vision and strategy are understood by stakeholders (Kotter, 2007). To gauge
stakeholder declarative knowledge of the vision and strategy, a total of four questions were asked
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 81
on the survey. Two questions asked the technical staff to identify the vision of the company and
the technical group respectively, with the results displayed graphically in Figure 7.
Figure 7: Technical staff declarative knowledge of the vision of for the company and technical
group.
All groups demonstrated declarative knowledge with at least 51% of respondents able to
correctly identify the company and technical group vision respectively. A chi-square test
compared the independence of the responses between each group to understand if group
affiliation influenced the survey response with respect to knowledge of the company vision. The
results of the test confirmed there was a relationship between group affiliation and survey
response since the chi-square test produced a χ
2
= 157.32, P-value < .05 for the population, as
shown in Table 13.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 82
Table 13
Results of χ
2
Test of Knowledge of the Company Vision.
Knows the
Company Vision
Yes No
%
Correct
χ
2
Critical
Value
P-value Φ
Leadership 16 3 84% 35.95 7.82 0.00 1.38
Functional Group 2 7 1 88% 17.00 7.82 0.00 1.46
Functional Group 3 15 12 56% 18.19 7.82 0.00 0.82
Functional Group 4 13 4 76% 24.65 7.82 0.00 1.20
Functional Group 5 6 2 75% 12.00 7.82 0.00 1.22
Functional Group 6 8 1 89% 19.89 7.82 0.00 1.49
Functional Group 7 8 4 67% 12.67 7.82 0.00 1.03
Functional Group 8 20 10 67% 30.27 7.82 0.00 1.00
Population 93 37 72% 157.32 7.82 0.00 1.10
Likewise, the percentage of correct responses varied by group with a range from 67% to 88%.
Moreover, a χ
2
= 157.32, P-value < .05 for the population indicated the responses were
statistically significant and that group membership influenced the knowledge, and therefore
response, of the group.
Similarly, a separate chi-square test compared the independence of the responses to
understand if a relationship existed between group membership and survey response with respect
to knowledge of the technical group vision. Again, the results of the test confirmed the
responses were independent and group affiliation does influence the survey response as the chi-
square test produced a χ
2
= 198.47, P-value < .05 for the population, as shown in Table 14.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 83
Table 14
Results of χ
2
Test of Knowledge of the Technical Group Vision.
Knows the
Technical Group
Vision
Yes No
%
Correct
χ
2
Critical
Value
P-
value
Φ
Leadership 18 1 95% 49.42 9.49 0.00 1.61
Functional Group 2 7 1 88% 17.00 9.49 0.00 1.46
Functional Group 3 21 6 78% 41.00 9.49 0.00 1.23
Functional Group 4 13 4 76% 25.12 9.49 0.00 1.22
Functional Group 5 7 1 88% 17.50 9.49 0.00 1.48
Functional Group 6 6 3 67% 9.22 9.49 0.01 1.01
Functional Group 7 9 3 75% 16.67 9.49 0.00 1.18
Functional Group 8 20 10 67% 29.50 9.49 0.00 0.99
Population 101 29 78% 198.47 9.49 0.00 1.24
The percentage of correct answers ranged from 67% to 95% and a χ
2
= 198.47, P-value < .05 for
the population indicated there was a relationship between group membership and declarative
knowledge. Thus, the chi-square test for declarative knowledge of both the company and
technical group vision indicated the level of declarative knowledge was related to group
membership, which suggested some groups may be better informed than other groups.
Furthermore, as at least 51% of each group correctly identified the vision, the quantitative results
suggested the population possessed declarative knowledge of the vision for both the company;
therefore, the declarative knowledge of the vision was quantitatively validated.
Separately, two questions asked the technical staff to identify the strategy of the company
and technical group respectively. The results of the two questions related to demonstration of
declarative knowledge are displayed graphically in Figure 8.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 84
Figure 8: Technical staff declarative knowledge of the strategy of for the company and technical
group.
All groups demonstrated declarative knowledge of the company strategy with at least 51% of
respondents able to correctly identify the company strategy. A chi-square test compared the
independence of responses between each group to understand if group affiliation influenced the
survey response with respect to knowledge of the company strategy. The results of the test
confirmed there was a relationship between group membership and survey response as the chi-
square test produced a χ
2
= 195.97, P-value < .05 for the population, as shown in Table 15.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 85
Table 15
Results of χ
2
Test of Knowledge of the Company Strategy.
Knows the
Company Strategy
Yes No
%
Correct
χ
2
Critical
Value
P-value Φ
Leadership 16 3 84% 50.74 7.82 0.00 1.63
Functional Group 2 6 2 75% 14.00 7.82 0.00 1.32
Functional Group 3 16 11 59% 29.97 7.82 0.00 1.05
Functional Group 4 12 5 71% 25.13 7.82 0.00 1.22
Functional Group 5 7 1 88% 18.50 7.82 0.00 1.52
Functional Group 6 9 0 100% 29.25 7.82 0.00 1.80
Functional Group 7 8 4 67% 15.67 7.82 0.00 1.14
Functional Group 8 18 12 60% 29.47 7.82 0.00 0.99
Population 92 38 71% 195.97 7.82 0.00 1.23
Consequently, the percentage of correct responses varied by group with a range from 59% to
100%. Moreover, a χ
2
= 195.97, P-value < .05 for the population indicated the responses were
statistically significant and that group membership influenced the declarative knowledge of the
group. Therefore, the level of declarative knowledge was related to group membership and some
groups are more informed than others. Nonetheless, the assumed knowledge influence that the
technical staff know the company strategy was quantitatively validated as greater than 51% of
the population correctly identified the company strategy. However, a significant difference was
noted with respect to declarative knowledge of the technical group strategy.
A separate question asked the respondents to identify the technical group strategy. Of the
eight groups surveyed, the Leadership and Functional Group 2 were the only groups with at least
51% of respondents able to correctly identify the technical group strategy. Conversely, less than
51% of the technical staff in the remaining groups correctly identified the technical group
strategy. In total, 34% of the population correctly identified the technical group strategy. A chi-
square test compared the independence of the responses between each group to understand if
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 86
group affiliation influenced the survey response with respect to knowledge of the technical group
strategy. The results of the test confirmed there was a relationship between group affiliation and
survey response since the chi-square test produced a χ
2
= 101.47, P-value < .05 for the
population, as shown in Table 16.
Table 16
Results of χ
2
Test of Knowledge of the Technical Group Strategy.
Knows the
Technical Group
Strategy
Yes No
%
Correct
χ
2
Critical
Value
P-
value
Φ
Leadership 11 8 58% 19.64 9.49 0.00 1.02
Functional Group 2 7 1 88% 19.00 9.49 0.00 1.54
Functional Group 3 6 21 22% 29.08 9.49 0.00 1.04
Functional Group 4 6 11 35% 11.37 9.49 0.01 0.82
Functional Group 5 0 8 0% 12.00 9.49 0.01 1.22
Functional Group 6 3 6 33% 6.14 9.49 0.07 0.83
Functional Group 7 2 10 17% 7.67 9.49 0.04 0.80
Functional Group 8 9 21 30% 10.27 9.49 0.02 0.58
Population 44 86 34% 101.47 9.49 0.00 0.88
The percentage of correct responses varied by group with a range from 0% to 88%. Moreover, a
χ
2
= 101.47, P-value < .05 for the population indicated the responses were statistically significant
and that group membership influenced the knowledge, and therefore response, of the group. The
results of the chi-square test are interesting as the level of declarative knowledge varies,
dramatically with respect to the technical group strategy, thereby indicating certain groups are
better informed than other functional groups. In aggregate, less than 51% of the population
demonstrated declarative knowledge of the technical group strategy; thus, a gap was discovered
as the assumed influence that the technical staff know the strategy for the technical group was
not validated, a result further explored during the focus group sessions.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 87
Review of Qualitative Findings. The purpose of the focus group sessions was to
develop a deeper understanding of the behavior and beliefs of stakeholders with respect to
various assumed influences (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The declarative knowledge of the Alpha
Technical Group strategy was quantitatively validated as a gap and an area for further
exploration as Functional Group Two was the only group where at least 51% of respondents
correctly identified the technical group strategy. Accordingly, Functional Group Two was asked
for their thoughts on what differentiated their ability to recognize the technical group strategy.
One of the technical staff from Functional Group Two suggested, “the vision, mission, and
strategy of the technical group and company are on the wall so we see the strategy every day.”
The manager of Functional Group Two proposed, “visibility of the strategy is critical for us to be
one team executing one plan.” Similarly, another member of Functional Group Two submitted,
“our manager reinforces the strategy in the majority of their communication whereas other
leaders may not communicate the strategy as frequently.” Overall, Functional Group Two
reported they were “highly integrated with other functional groups and knowing the strategy
helped them align efforts toward the most important work.” However, other functional groups
shared a different perspective on the Alpha Technical Group strategy.
The findings from Functional Group Two were juxtaposed against the findings from the
functional groups which were unable to demonstrate declarative knowledge of the Alpha Group
strategy. When asked about their knowledge of the technical group strategy, a member of
Functional Group Three proposed “the technical group strategy changed a lot, was too broad, and
did not provide any true direction.” Likewise, Functional Group Eight also agreed the “strategy
constantly changed so we don’t know what to execute.” However, the Alpha Group strategy was
implemented in July 2016 and has not changed over the past year (Premier Energy, personal
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 88
communication, August 14, 2017), which may suggest the strategy was not effectively
communicated or reinforced to the respective functional groups.
Leadership may not have reinforced the strategy to the technical staff, as proposed by the
manager of Functional Group Six who suggested “the strategy is just words but the important
thing is we know what our work is and how to do it.” This perspective was echoed by the
technical staff of Functional Group Six, one of whom submitted they were “put off by the
corporate buzzwords and jargon so [they] just ignore[d] it because [they] don’t understand it and
don’t know how it adds value.” Conversely, a member of Functional Group Seven suggested
“this isn’t the first time [they have] seen the strategy and [they] understand what the words mean
but have trouble applying the words to [their] daily job.” Similarly, technical staff from
Functional Group Four were surprised “at the low percentage of people of were able to identify
the strategy because that is a lot of what we do.” Therefore, the findings from the focus groups
and interviews exposed a gap in technical staff declarative knowledge of the Alpha Technical
Group strategy. Thus, the assumed influence that the technical staff know the strategy for the
technical group was not validated.
Assumed Knowledge Influence 2: The technical staff understand their role as it relates to
the strategy
Change is more likely to be sustained when employees know their role in in the change
(Schneider, Brief, & Guzzo, 1996). Likewise, communication may help staff understand their
role as it relates to the organizational strategy (Lewis, 2011). Relatedly, the survey asked
stakeholders to identify the role of the technical group with respect to the company strategy with
the results of this question displayed in Figure 9.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 89
Figure 9: Technical staff declarative knowledge of the technical group role with respect to
company strategy.
The population demonstrated declarative knowledge with at least 51% of respondents able to
correctly identify the role of the Alpha Technical Group with respect to the company strategy. A
chi-square test was run to compare the independence of responses between each functional group
and understand if group affiliation influenced the survey response with respect to knowledge of
the technical group role as it relates to the company strategy. The ability to demonstrate
declarative knowledge varied by group affiliation, as shown in Table 17.
74%
100%
85%
76%
63%
78%
83%
62%
76%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Leadership
Functional;Group;2
Functional;Group;3
Functional;Group;4
Functional;Group;5
Functional;Group;6
Functional;Group;7
Functional;Group;8
Population
Percentage;of;technical;staff;able;to;demonstrate;
declarative;knowledge;of;the;technical;group;role;with;
respect;to;the;company;strategy
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 90
Table 17
Results of χ
2
Test of Technical Group Knowledge of Role Related to Company Strategy.
Knows the
Technical Group
Role
Yes No
%
Correct
χ
2
Critical
Value
P-
value
Φ
Leadership 14 5 74% 25.84 9.49 0.00 1.17
Functional Group 2 8 0 100% 24.00 9.49 0.00 1.73
Functional Group 3 23 4 85% 52.85 9.49 0.00 1.40
Functional Group 4 13 4 76% 26.53 9.49 0.00 1.25
Functional Group 5 5 3 63% 9.00 9.49 0.01 1.06
Functional Group 6 7 2 78% 14.56 9.49 0.00 1.27
Functional Group 7 10 2 83% 22.00 9.49 0.00 1.35
Functional Group 8 18 12 62% 23.87 9.49 0.00 0.89
Population 98 32 76% 268.05 9.49 0.00 1.44
The percentage of correct responses ranged from 62% to 100% and the results of the chi-square
test indicated the responses were statistically significant with a χ
2
= 268.05, P-value < .05.
Again, the results indicated there was a relationship between group membership and declarative
knowledge which may be an indication of ineffective communication within the organization.
Consequently, despite the range of accuracy across the functional groups, the assumed influence
that the stakeholders know the role of the technical group as it relates to the company strategy
was quantitatively validated as greater than 51% of the population correctly identified the role of
the technical group with respect to the company strategy.
Review of Qualitative Data. The Alpha Group technical staff demonstrated declarative
knowledge of the role of the technical group and the focus group sessions were intended to more
deeply understand the perspectives of the technical staff about the role of the technical group as
it relates to the strategy. One member of Functional Group Two proposed “we understand the
focus of our group is to grow our asset base and knowing our role helps us be confident in
putting more effort into improving our work.” Furthermore, the leader of Functional Group
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 91
Eight suggested they could “see the work that needs to be done to achieve our strategy and how
that work fits with the strategy of the company.” Similarly, one of the technical staff in
Functional Group Four submitted their “manager helps us know our roles as individuals but we
oftentimes are unclear on how our roles relate to an ever-changing strategy.” Moreover, a
technical staff member from Function Group Eight said they had “never really thought about
[their] role as it relates to the strategy but just do what [their] manager tells [them] to do and trust
that it is the right thing.” Likewise, a member of Functional Group Four proposed it is
“challenging to know how our role relates to the strategy if we don’t know the strategy.”
Additionally, the leader of Functional Group Six admitted they found it “frustrating when leaders
say that our strategy is evolving but won’t admit they are changing the strategy. Just tell me
what you want me to do and I’ll do it.” Despite a range of perspectives, the evidence presented
suggested the technical staff understand the primary role of the technical group with respect to
the company strategy. However, the preponderance of the qualitative evidence suggested the
technical staff may not understand their individual roles as they relate to the strategy, an issue
that will be further evaluated in the motivation and self-efficacy section later in this dissertation.
Assumed Knowledge Influence 3: The technical staff know their performance relative to
expectations
Clear expectations provide the technical staff the factual knowledge necessary to be
accountable their performance. Furthermore, when expectations are unknown, stakeholders may
become concerned about their performance (Lewis & Seibold, 1993). Accordingly, one question
was asked on the survey to gauge stakeholder declarative knowledge of their performance
relative to expectations, with the results displayed graphically in Figure 10.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 92
Figure 10: Technical staff declarative knowledge of performance relative to expectations.
Each of the respective groups demonstrated declarative knowledge with at least 51% of
respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing that their supervisor provided them with performance
feedback relative to the supervisor’s expectations for the role. Subsequently, a chi-square test
compared the independence of the responses between each group to understand if group
affiliation influenced the survey response with respect to knowledge of performance relative to
expectations. The results of the test confirmed there was a relationship between group affiliation
and survey response as the chi-square test produced a χ
2
= 83.72, P-value < .05 for the
population, as shown in, as shown in Table 18.
27%
27%
8%
44%
25%
29%
33%
13%
26%
5%
17%
13%
6%
7%
5%
Strongly)Agree Agree Disgaree Strongly)Disagree
Percentge)of)techncial)staff)whose)direct)supervisor)provides)
performance)feedback)based)on)expectations)for)their)respective)roles
Functioal)Group)8
Population
Functional)Group)6
Functional Group)7
Functional)Group)3
Functional)Group)4
Functional)Group5
Functional)Group)2
Leadership
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 93
Table 18
Results of χ
2
Test of Knowledge of Performance Relative to Expectations.
Knows Expectations
Based on Feedback
Agree Disagree χ
2
Critical
Value
P-value Φ
Leadership 84% 16% 10.26 7.82 0.00 3.20
Functional Group 2 63% 38% 12.00 7.82 0.07 3.46
Functional Group 3 89% 11% 17.30 7.82 0.00 4.16
Functional Group 4 71% 29% 10.53 7.82 0.09 3.24
Functional Group 5 75% 25% 6.00 7.82 0.15 2.45
Functional Group 6 100% 0% 6.56 7.82 0.01 2.56
Functional Group 7 75% 25% 22.00 7.82 0.00 4.69
Functional Group 8 93% 7% 15.33 7.82 0.00 3.92
Population 84% 16% 83.72 7.82 0.00 9.15
Furthermore, the percentage of affirmative responses varied by group ranging from 63% to
100%. Moreover, the χ
2
= 83.72, P-value < .05 for the population indicated the responses were
statistically significant and that group membership influenced the knowledge, and therefore
response, of the group. Thus, the assumed declarative knowledge influence that the technical
staff know their performance relative to expectations was quantitatively validated as greater than
51% of the population agreed or strongly agreed to have knowledge of their performance related
to supervisor expectations.
Review of Qualitative Data. The purpose of the focus group was to further explore the
results of the survey with the stakeholder group to develop a deeper understanding of their
knowledge of their performance related to supervisor expectations. “Our supervisor has earned
our trust by providing consistent, candid, evidence based feedback and we typically receive that
feedback on an almost real time basis” said a member of Functional Group Four. Likewise, the
leader of Functional Group Two submitted “we spend a lot of time as a group discussing the
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 94
strategy, our roles related to the strategy, how our goals support the strategy, and our respective
performance. It is time consuming but I believe our performance will improve because of this
effort.” Similarly, a member of Functional Group Seven proposed “they receive feedback from
our leader in a group or one-on-one setting and that feedback is almost always positive.”
However, several other members of the group seemed to frown and become uncomfortable with
the positive response. Additional probing questions were asked but none of the technical staff
would engage in further conversation, which suggested a possible bias against negative
responses regarding leadership.
Relatedly, a member of Functional Group Two proposed “our leader provides consistent
feedback but I hear other groups not understanding their performance or not holding people
accountable for failing to deliver on expectations.” Moreover, a member of Functional Group
Six submitted their “manager is so busy they don’t have the time to visit with me so I just keep
doing my work and assume somebody will tell me if I’m not meeting expectations.”
Furthermore, the leader of Functional Group Six conveyed their “team knows what to do and as
we progress throughout the year, I will tell them if changes need to be made to improve our
performance.” Consequently, although there is always room for improvement, the evidence
presented suggested the assumed knowledge influence that the technical staff know their
performance relative to expectations was validated.
Assumed Knowledge Influence 4: The technical staff know how to implement the strategy
Procedural knowledge allows stakeholders to segment their work into manageable parts
to implement the strategy (Kirschner, Kirschner, & Paas, 2006). Although no direct qualitative
measures of procedural knowledge were presented in the survey, two questions were asked
regarding stakeholder confidence in their ability to identify the steps necessary to implement
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 95
both the company and technical group strategy. The results from these two questions are
discussed in the motivation section later in this chapter. Although the survey did not directly
measure procedural knowledge, this assumed influence was discussed with stakeholders during
the focus group sessions.
Review of Qualitative Data. Previous sections of this dissertation discussed the
technical staff declarative knowledge of both the company and Alpha Technical Group
strategies; the latter determined to be a gap in declarative knowledge. The focus group questions
regarding procedural knowledge aimed to understand if the technical staff knew how to apply
their declarative knowledge of the respective strategies. With respect to the company strategy, a
member of Functional Group Three suggested they “didn’t really need to know the company
strategy or how to implement it. [They] just needed to know what their boss wanted them to do.”
Similarly, a member of the Functional Group Eight technical staff struggled for two or three
minutes to describe the steps and then said, “I guess I actually don’t know how to implement the
strategy.” Relatedly, a member of Functional Group Seven proposed that “the company strategy
and steps to implement the strategy be visible so everyone so we can see it and then perhaps I
would actually know what it is and how do to it.” Similarly, the leader of Functional Group Four
also began to confidently express the strategy and describe the steps only to pause and offer “I
am saying things like I know what I’m talking about but in my head I am questioning if I am
right. Candidly, I can’t say with confidence that I know the company strategy or how to
implement it.” Thus, despite validation that the technical staff had declarative knowledge of the
company strategy, there is an apparent gap in the technical staff procedural knowledge in how to
implement the company strategy.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 96
Similarly, the technical staff were asked about their knowledge of how to implement the
technical group strategy. “Well, it’s pretty hard to understand the steps to do something that is
always changing” submitted a member of Functional Group Eight. Similarly, a member of
Functional Group Six suggested, “you hear people different things from different groups on how
we’re supposed to be doing stuff so we just tune them out and do what we think is right.”
Relatedly, one of the members of Functional Group Four said, “we’re told to stick to the plan
and then people change the plan and it seems like we can’t ever stay consistent to do what needs
to be done.” Moreover, a member of Functional Group Two proposed “the managers need to
know the strategy, understand the strategy, be aligned with the strategy, and communicate the
strategy because people today have different perspectives and are not aligned.” Furthermore,
another member of the same group proposed “having our manger consistently relate everything
we do to the strategy and having the strategy on the well is a constant reminder to ensure we
know what we are doing and how to do it.” Therefore, based on the evidence presented, the
assumed influence that the technical staff know how to implement the technical group strategy
was not validated, and a gap exists with respect to procedural knowledge.
Assumed Knowledge Influence 5: The technical staff reflect on their performance based on
feedback from their supervisor relative to expectations
Feedback is essential for performance to improve (Hattie & Timperley, 2007), which is
further enhanced through metacognitive knowledge and reflection on performance (Krathwohl,
2002). Likewise, performance feedback should be congruent with clear expectations aligned
with the organizational strategy (Biron, Farndale & Paauwe, 2011; Shute, 2008). To gain
insights into the metacognitive knowledge of the technical staff, one question was asked on the
survey with the results presented graphically in Figure 11.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 97
Figure 11: Technical staff metacognitive knowledge of performance relative to expectations
based on feedback from their supervisor.
The results from the survey suggested that at least 51% of the technical staff possessed
metacognitive knowledge and reflected on their performance relative to the expectations of their
direct supervisor. A chi-square test was run to compare the independence of the responses
between each group and understand if group affiliation influenced the survey response with
respect to metacognitive knowledge. The results of the test confirmed there was a relationship
33%
13%
8%
56%
63%
47%
41%
25%
37%
13%
11%
7%
4%
Strongly)Agree Agree Disgaree Strongly)Disagree
Percentge)of)techncial)staff)who)reflect)on)their)performance)relative)to)
expectations)based)upon)feedback)from)their)supervisor
Functioal)Group)8
Population
Functional)Group)6
Functional Group)7
Functional)Group)3
Functional)Group)4
Functional)Group5
Functional)Group)2
Leadership
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 98
between group affiliation and survey response since the chi-square test produced a χ
2
= 66.55, P-
value < .05 for the population, as shown in Table 19.
Table 19
Results of χ
2
Test of Metacognitive Knowledge Related to Reflections on Expectations.
Reflects on
Performance Based
on Feedback
Agree Disagree χ
2
Critical
Value
P-value Φ
Leadership 87% 13% 10.26 7.82 0.01 3.20
Functional Group 2 78% 22% 12.00 7.82 0.00 3.46
Functional Group 3 89% 11% 17.30 7.82 0.00 4.16
Functional Group 4 80% 20% 10.53 7.82 0.01 3.24
Functional Group 5 75% 25% 6.00 7.82 0.05 2.45
Functional Group 6 97% 3% 6.56 7.82 0.04 2.56
Functional Group 7 56% 44% 22.00 7.82 0.00 4.69
Functional Group 8 88% 12% 15.33 7.82 0.00 3.92
Population 83% 17% 66.55 7.82 0.00 8.16
Moreover, the percentage of affirmative responses varied by group with a range from 56% to
97%. Furthermore, the χ
2
= 66.55, P-value < .05 for the population indicated the responses were
statistically significant and that group membership influenced the metacognitive knowledge, and
therefore response, of the group. The differences in metacognitive knowledge across the
respective functional groups may be an indication of ineffective communication within the
organization. Thus, the assumed knowledge influence that the technical staff reflect on their
performance based upon feedback from their supervisor relative to expectations was
quantitatively validated as the at least 51% of respondents positively affirmed the influence.
Review of Qualitative Data. The respective focus groups each explored reflection with
respect to performance based on leadership feedback to examine the metacognitive knowledge of
the technical staff. When asked about reflecting on their performance, a member of Functional
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 99
Group Three suggested they “felt like [they] should reflect on our performance but don’t
regularly think about it besides just doing what [their] boss tells [them] to do.” Relatedly, a
member of Functional Group Six submitted that they “reviewed goals but that’s really more of a
check the box HR deal so we don’t actually reflect on performance but work hard to add value.”
Likewise, the leader of Functional Group Six proposed “we typically just move from fire to fire
and don’t really have a need to think about our performance because we see the result every
day.” Similarly, a member of Functional Group Four said, “things feel like they are constantly
changing so I really wouldn’t even know what to reflect on if I took the time to do so. I just try
to do my best every day.” Conversely, a member of Functional Group Two offered that they
“start every morning with five minutes of reflection to frame [their] efforts to ensure [they] are
working toward the highest priorities.” Despite the qualitative validation that the technical staff
reflect on their performance based on feedback from their supervisor relative to expectations,
very little evidence was presented during the focus group sessions. Furthermore, the
preponderance of the qualitative data suggested reflection is not regularly practiced and the
survey results may have been influenced by stakeholders wanting to project their best self. Thus,
the assumed knowledge influence that the technical staff reflect on their performance based on
feedback from their supervisor relative to expectations was not validated and a gap exists with
respect to metacognitive knowledge.
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes
Assumed Motivation Influence 1: The technical staff value achieving the goal and their role
in that achievement
Motivation may be improved when individuals value the goals they are working toward
Pintirch (2003). Similarly, Clark and Estes (2008) proposed performance may be improved
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 100
when individuals value their goals and performance in achieving their goals. Furthermore,
organizations with engaged employees are 50% more productive than organizations without
engaged employees (Izzo & Withers, 2000). Consequently, to discern the value the technical
staff place in achieving the goal and their role in that achievement, two questions were asked on
the survey with the results displayed graphically in Figure 12 and Figure 13.
Figure 12: Technical staff value in their role in achieving the company strategy.
43%
40%
50%
67%
63%
29%
33%
25%
58%
1%
13%
Strongly)Agree Agree Disgaree Strongly)Disagree
Percentge)of)techncial)staff)who)value)their)role)in)achieving)the)
company)strategy
Functioal)Group)8
Population
Functional)Group)6
Functional Group)7
Functional)Group)3
Functional)Group)4
Functional)Group5
Functional)Group)2
Leadership
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 101
Figure 13: Technical staff value in their role in achieving the technical group strategy.
Each of the respective functional groups valued their role in achieving both the company and
technical group strategies as at least 51% of stakeholders responded positively to the questions
posed. Similarly, a chi-square test was run to test for independence and understand if group
affiliation influenced the survey response. Consequently, the results of the test confirmed there
was a relationship between group affiliation and survey response as the chi-square test produced
a χ
2
= 130.49, P-value < .05 for the population, as presented in Table 20.
52%
50%
67%
67%
63%
29%
41%
38%
74%
Strongly)Agree Agree Disgaree Strongly)Disagree
Percentge)of)techncial)staff)who)value)their)role)in)achieving)the)
technical)group)strategy
Functioal)Group)8
Population
Functional)Group)6
Functional Group)7
Functional)Group)3
Functional)Group)4
Functional)Group5
Functional)Group)2
Leadership
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 102
Table 20
Results of χ
2
Test of Technical Staff Value Their Role in Achieving the Company Strategy.
Value Role in
Achieving
Company Strategy
Agree Disagree χ
2
Critical
Value
P-value Φ
Leadership 100% 0% 19.95 7.82 0.00 4.47
Functional Group 2 88% 13% 7.00 7.82 0.03 2.65
Functional Group 3 100% 0% 33.00 7.82 0.00 5.74
Functional Group 4 100% 0% 22.76 7.82 0.00 4.77
Functional Group 5 100% 0% 9.00 7.82 0.01 3.00
Functional Group 6 100% 0% 11.00 7.82 0.01 3.32
Functional Group 7 100% 0% 12.00 7.82 0.00 3.46
Functional Group 8 100% 0% 32.40 7.82 0.00 5.69
Population 99% 1% 130.49 7.82 0.00 11.42
Furthermore, the percentage of affirmative responses varied slightly across the population with a
range of 88% to 100%. Moreover, the χ
2
= 130.49, P-value < .05 for the population indicated the
responses were statistically significant and that group membership influenced the response of the
group.
Similarly, a separate chi-square test compared the independence of the responses to
understand if a relationship existed between group membership and survey response with respect
to technical staff value in achieving the technical group strategy. Again, the results of the test
confirmed the responses were independent and group affiliation influenced the survey responses
as the chi-square test produced a χ
2
= 119.17, P-value < .05 for the population, as shown in Table
21.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 103
Table 21
Results of χ
2
Test of Technical Staff Value in Their Role in Achieving the Technical Group
Strategy.
Value Role in
Achieving
Technical Group
Strategy
Agree Disagree χ
2
Critical
Value
P-
value
Φ
Leadership 95% 5% 25.84 7.82 0.00 5.08
Functional Group 2 88% 13% 5.00 7.82 0.02 2.24
Functional Group 3 96% 4% 24.41 7.82 0.00 4.94
Functional Group 4 100% 0% 22.76 7.82 0.00 4.77
Functional Group 5 100% 0% 9.00 7.82 0.07 3.00
Functional Group 6 100% 0% 11.00 7.82 0.01 3.32
Functional Group 7 100% 0% 14.67 7.82 0.00 3.83
Functional Group 8 100% 0% 30.00 7.82 0.00 5.48
Population 98% 2% 119.17 7.82 0.00 10.92
Moreover, the percentage of affirmative responses ranged from 88% to 100% and the χ
2
=
119.17, P-value < .05 for the population, which indicated there was a relationship between group
membership and survey response. Thus, the chi-square test for technical staff value in achieving
both the company and technical group strategy indicated the level of value was related to group
membership. Furthermore, as at least 51% of the population responded positively, the
quantitative results suggested the population valued their role in achieving both the company and
technical group strategies; therefore, the assumed influence was quantitatively validated.
Review of Qualitative Data. The participants in the respective interviews and focus
groups were asked if they valued their role in achieving the strategy. During an interview, the
leader of Functional Group Four said, “I value our work and think it is critical to achieving our
goals but I don’t always feel like our work is valued.” The leader went on to say, “different
people have different perspectives which may not be aligned to my goals for my group and can
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 104
result in conflict, frustration, and decreased motivation for the staff.” Likewise, during a focus
group session, a member of the Functional Group Four technical staff submitted “we do a bunch
of work that corporate asked us to do and then decisions are made without respect to the data.
We think the technical group values our work but don’t think corporate is aligned with that
perspective. Frankly, it’s pretty demotivating.” Relatedly, a member of Functional Group Two
expressed that although they felt their work was important and critical to achieving the strategy
of the technical group and company. However, these same stakeholders felt their peer functional
groups within the Alpha Group did not value their work, “largely due to leaders not
communicating and reinforcing changes in roles and responsibilities, which leaves us to
continually deal with conflict. We ultimately feel that we are not wanted by the other functional
groups.” Despite 98% of the population quantitatively affirming they value in their role in
achieving the technical group strategy, the preponderance of the qualitative data suggested the
population did not feel their work was valued. However, they did believe their work was
valuable and therefore the assumed influence that the technical staff value in their role in
achieving the technical group strategy was validated.
Assumed Motivation Influence 2: The technical staff believe that creating goals will
contribute to improving their performance relative to the strategy
Motivation may be improved when individuals have confidence in their ability to achieve
a meaningful goal (Clark & Estes, 2008). Furthermore, leadership support of staff goals may
lead to sustainable performance improvement (Anderman & Anderman, 2006). Consequently,
the survey asked stakeholders a question regarding their beliefs about goals improving
performance relative to the company strategy, with the survey results presented graphically in
Figure 14.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 105
Figure 14: Technical staff belief goals contribute to improving performance relative to the
company strategy.
At least 51% of the population reported believing goals contribute to improving their
performance relative to the company strategy. Relatedly, a chi-square test compared the
independence of the responses between each group to understand if group affiliation influenced
the survey response. Consequently, the results of the chi-square test confirmed there was a
relationship between group affiliation and survey response as the chi-square test produced a χ
2
=
130.49, P-value < .05 for the population, as shown in Table 22.
55%
53%
25%
22%
25%
29%
26%
21%
8%
Strongly)Agree Agree Disgaree Strongly)Disagree
Percentage)of)techncial)staff)who)believe)that)creating)goals)will)contribute)
to)improving)their)performanc)relative)to)the)company)strategy
Functioal)Group)8
Population
Functional)Group)6
Functional Group)7
Functional)Group)3
Functional)Group)4
Functional)Group5
Functional)Group)2
Leadership
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 106
Table 22
Results of χ
2
Test of Technical Staff Belief that Goals Will Improve Performance Relative to the
Company Strategy.
Believe goals will
improve company
performance
Agree Disagree χ
2
Critical
Value
P-value Φ
Leadership 89% 11% 19.95 7.82 0.00 4.47
Functional Group 2 100% 0% 7.00 7.82 0.03 2.65
Functional Group 3 89% 11% 33.00 7.82 0.00 5.74
Functional Group 4 94% 6% 22.76 7.82 0.00 4.77
Functional Group 5 88% 13% 9.00 7.82 0.01 3.00
Functional Group 6 78% 22% 11.00 7.82 0.01 3.32
Functional Group 7 92% 8% 12.00 7.82 0.00 3.46
Functional Group 8 100% 0% 32.40 7.82 0.00 5.69
Population 99% 1% 130.49 7.82 0.00 11.42
Moreover, the percentage of affirmative responses varied by group and ranged from 78% to
100%. Furthermore, the χ
2
= 130.49, P-value < .05 for the population indicated the responses
were statistically significant and that group membership influenced the response of the group.
The survey also asked stakeholders a question regarding their beliefs about goals
improving performance relative to the technical group strategy, with the survey results presented
graphically in Figure 15.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 107
Figure 15: Technical staff belief goals contribute to improving performance relative to the
technical group strategy.
Overall, the responses for the technical group strategy were more positive than the responses
related to the company strategy and each of the respective functional groups reported they
believed goals contribute to improving their performance relative to the technical group strategy.
Furthermore, at least 51% of the technical staff responded positively regarding the use of goals
relative to performance. Relatedly, to test for independence between the functional groups, a
chi-square test was run, with the results shown in Table 23.
55%
53%
42%
56%
75%
41%
52%
50%
74%
Strongly)Agree Agree Disgaree Strongly)Disagree
Percentage)of)techncial)staff)who)believe)that)creating)goals)will)contribute)
to)improving)their)performanc)relative)to)the)technical)group)strategy
Functioal)Group)8
Population
Functional)Group)6
Functional Group)7
Functional)Group)3
Functional)Group)4
Functional)Group5
Functional)Group)2
Leadership
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 108
Table 23
Results of χ
2
Test of Technical Staff Belief that Goals Will Improve Performance Relative to the
Technical Group Strategy.
Believe goals will
improve technical
group performance
Agree Disagree χ
2
Critical
Value
P-
value
Φ
Leadership 100% 0% 25.84 7.82 0.00 5.08
Functional Group 2 100% 0% 5.00 7.82 0.07 2.24
Functional Group 3 100% 0% 24.41 7.82 0.00 4.94
Functional Group 4 94% 6% 22.76 7.82 0.00 4.77
Functional Group 5 100% 0% 9.00 7.82 0.01 3.00
Functional Group 6 100% 0% 11.00 7.82 0.01 3.32
Functional Group 7 100% 0% 14.67 7.82 0.00 3.83
Functional Group 8 100% 0% 30.00 7.82 0.00 5.48
Population 99% 1% 119.17 7.82 0.00 10.92
Relatedly, the results were largely consistent, with all groups affirming the statement except for
Functional Group Four. Moreover, the χ
2
= 119.17, P-value < .05 for the population indicated
the responses were statistically significant and that group membership influenced belief that
goals will improve technical group performance.
Irrespective of stakeholder use of goals to improve performance, the survey also asked
stakeholders about their desire to improve their personal performance to achieve the company
and technical group strategies. The results of these two questions are displayed graphically in
Figure 16 and Figure 17.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 109
Figure 16: Technical staff desire to improve performance to achieve the company strategy.
55%
53%
50%
56%
88%
35%
48%
63%
74%
Strongly)Agree Agree Disgaree Strongly)Disagree
Percentage)of)techncial)staff)who)desire)to)improve)their)performance)
toacheive)the)company)strategy
Functioal)Group)8
Population
Functional)Group)6
Functional Group)7
Functional)Group)3
Functional)Group)4
Functional)Group5
Functional)Group)2
Leadership
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 110
Figure 17: Technical staff desire to improve performance to achieve the technical group strategy.
Overall, the respective functional groups agreed, or strongly agreed, they desired to improve
their performance with respect to the company and technical group strategies as at least 51% of
respondents returned a positive response to the questions. Subsequently, the responses for each
question were tested for independence, with the results of the chi-square test shown in Table 24
and Table 25 respectively.
55%
53%
42%
56%
75%
41%
52%
50%
74%
Strongly)Agree Agree Disgaree Strongly)Disagree
Percentage)of)techncial)staff)who)desire)to)improve)their)performance)
toacheive)the)technical)group)strategy
Functioal)Group)8
Population
Functional)Group)6
Functional Group)7
Functional)Group)3
Functional)Group)4
Functional)Group5
Functional)Group)2
Leadership
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 111
Table 24
Results of χ
2
Test of Technical Staff Desire to Improve Performance to Achieve the Company
Strategy.
Desire to improve
performance to
achieve company
strategy
Agree Disagree χ
2
Critical
Value
P-value Φ
Leadership 100% 0% 27.53 7.82 0.00 5.25
Functional Group 2 100% 0% 9.00 7.82 0.01 3.00
Functional Group 3 100% 0% 27.07 7.82 0.00 5.20
Functional Group 4 94% 6% 15.24 7.82 0.00 3.90
Functional Group 5 100% 0% 17.00 7.82 0.00 4.12
Functional Group 6 100% 0% 9.22 7.82 0.01 3.04
Functional Group 7 100% 0% 12.00 7.82 0.00 3.46
Functional Group 8 100% 0% 30.27 7.82 0.00 5.50
Population 99% 1% 129.51 7.82 0.00 11.38
Table 25
Results of χ
2
Test of Technical Staff Desire to Improve Performance to Achieve the Technical
Group Strategy.
Desire to improve
performance to
achieve technical
group strategy
Agree Disagree χ
2
Critical
Value
P-value Φ
Leadership 100% 0% 27.53 7.82 0.00 5.25
Functional Group 2 100% 0% 8.00 7.82 0.02 2.83
Functional Group 3 100% 0% 27.07 7.82 0.00 5.20
Functional Group 4 94% 6% 13.82 7.82 0.00 3.72
Functional Group 5 100% 0% 12.00 7.82 0.00 3.46
Functional Group 6 100% 0% 9.22 7.82 0.01 3.04
Functional Group 7 100% 0% 12.67 7.82 0.00 3.56
Functional Group 8 100% 0% 30.27 7.82 0.00 5.50
Population 99% 1% 128.65 7.82 0.00 11.34
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 112
The chi-square tests compared the independence of the responses between each group to
understand if group affiliation influenced the survey response. The results of both tests
confirmed there was a relationship between group affiliation and survey response as the chi-
square test produced a χ
2
= 129.51, P-value < .05 and χ
2
= 128.65, P-value < .05 for the
population, as shown in Table 24 and Table 25 respectively. Thus, the chi-square test for
technical staff desire to improve performance to achieve the company and technical group
strategies indicated the level of desire is related to group membership. Furthermore, as at least
51% of each group responded affirmatively, the technical staff desire to improve their
performance with respect to strategy and the assumed motivational influence that creating goals
will contribute to improving their performance relative to the strategy were quantitatively
validated.
Review of Qualitative Data. Overall, the quantitative results suggested the technical
staff desired to improve their work and believed that goals may help improve their individual
performance. During an interview with the Vice-President of the Alpha Group, the leader
expressed varying levels of confidence in the ability of the respective focus groups to achieve
their goals by stating, “we did not achieve our group goals in 2013, had moderate success in
2014 and certainly achieved our goals in both 2015 and 2016. I have confidence we will
continue to achieve our goals; but, I do have more confidence in certain groups.” The leader
went on to say, “I have the most confidence that the goals supported by Functional Groups Two,
Five, and Eight will be achieved and the least confidence in Functional Groups Four and Six,
primarily due to inconsistencies in results and information coming out of those groups.” Follow
up questions revealed the leader had “more confidence that goals would be achieved by the
functional groups that provided frequent and accurate information.”
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 113
Subsequently, the respective focus groups further explored the assumed motivational
influence that creating goals will contribute to improving their performance relative to the
strategy. A member of Functional Group Two submitted that “we have short term goals on what
needs to be done and when it is to be completed but I struggle with the alignment of my personal
goals with the nebulous technical group goals.” Furthermore, a different member of the same
group agreed with their colleague by adding “we are typically in crisis mode anyway which
renders any real goals and priorities useless.” Relatedly, a member of Functional Group Four
said, “I don’t even know what our group goals are. Our manager just hands them to us at the
beginning of the year and we never talk about them again. Goals are just a meaningless check
the box exercise.” Likewise, members of Functional Group Six agreed that goals are given to
them and no input from the team is accepted by their leader. “Although we review goals every
month, the goals are meaningless because they are so high level. Besides, there’s not any
accountability to meet the goals so we write vague ones to ensure we always get our annual
bonuses.” Conversely, the leader of the same group said, “we review goals monthly so I can
hold my people accountable and if they aren’t meeting their goals, they hear about it.” Thus,
despite being quantitatively validated, the preponderance of the quantitative findings suggested
the assumed motivational influence that the technical staff believe creating goals will contribute
to improving their performance relative to the strategy was not validated and that a gap exists
with respect to goal utility.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 114
Assumed Motivation Influence 3: The technical staff is confident in their individual and
collective ability to achieve the strategy and that implementing the strategy will improve
company performance
Performance may be improved when stakeholders are motivated to be effective and
possess self-efficacy in their abilities related to the task (Clark & Estes, 2008). Furthermore,
Armenakis and Harris (2002) proposed stakeholders need to believe that change is necessary and
achievable by the organization. Consequently, stakeholder confidence was measured via 16-
questions on the survey and Figure 18 graphically presents the aggregate confidence of the
respective functional groups.
Figure 18: Aggregated median self-efficacy of technical staff across all 16-self-efficacy related
questions.
The median stakeholder response on questions related to self-efficacy suggested the technical
staff was confident in their individual and collective ability to achieve the strategy and that
82%
73%
75%
71%
63%
82%
72%
83%
76%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Leadership
Functional8Group82
Functional8Group83
Functional8Group84
Functional8Group85
Functional8Group86
Functional8Group87
Functional8Group88
Population
Aggregated8median8selfBefficacy8of8technical8staff
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 115
implementing the strategy will improve company performance. Moreover, the median response
of at least 51% suggested the assumed influence was quantitatively validated in aggregate;
however, each of the respective questions will be further examined in the following sections.
Stakeholder confidence in their ability to identify the vision and strategy. The
technical staff were asked four questions related to confidence in their ability to identify the
vision and strategy of the company and technical group respectively. Two questions used a scale
from 0-100 and asked the technical staff to identify their level of confidence in their ability to
identify the vision of the company and technical group respectively, as shown in Figure 19.
Figure 19: Median technical staff confidence in their ability to identify the vision.
Each of the respective functional groups reported a confidence of at least 51% which
quantitatively validated the assumed influence that stakeholders have confidence in their ability
80% 80% 80%
70%
60%
90%
75%
80% 80%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Leadership
Functional8Group82
Functional8Group83
Functional8Group84
Functional8Group85
Functional8Group86
Functional8Group87
Functional8Group88
Population
Median8technical8staff8confidence8in8their8ability8to8
identify8the8vision8on8a8scale8from80D100
Company8Vision Technical8Group8Vision
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 116
to identify the vision. Furthermore, additional statistical information regarding the responses is
shown in Table 26 and Table 27 respectively.
Table 26
Results of Survey Questions Related to Technical Staff Confidence in Their Ability to Identify the
Company Vision.
Confidence
in
ability
to
identify
the
vision
for
the
company
Lower
Bound
of
95%
Confidence
Interval
Median
Mode
Mean
Upper
Bound
of
95%
Confidence
Interval
Standard
Deviation
Range
Count
Leadership
64%
80%
80%
81%
97%
17%
50%
19
Group
2
52%
80%
80%
71%
91%
20%
60%
8
Group
3
53%
70%
80%
72%
91%
19%
70%
27
Group
4
43%
80%
80%
69%
95%
26%
100%
17
Group
5
41%
70%
90%
64%
87%
23%
60%
8
Group
6
57%
80%
80%
78%
98%
20%
70%
9
Group
7
65%
75%
70%
77%
88%
12%
40%
12
Group
8
60%
80%
90%
76%
92%
16%
70%
30
Population
55%
80%
80%
74%
94%
19%
100%
130
Table 27
Results of Survey Questions Related to Technical Staff Confidence in Their Ability to Identify the
Technical Group Vision.
Confidence
in
ability
to
identify
the
vision
for
the
technical
group
Lower
Bound
of
95%
Confidence
Interval
Median
Mode
Mean
Upper
Bound
of
95%
Confidence
Interval
Standard
Deviation
Range
Count
Leadership
68%
80%
100%
84%
99%
15%
50%
19
Group
2
48%
80%
80%
71%
94%
23%
70%
8
Group
3
52%
80%
90%
73%
93%
20%
100%
27
Group
4
41%
70%
80%
65%
88%
24%
80%
17
Group
5
34%
60%
40%
60%
86%
26%
70%
8
Group
6
54%
90%
100%
78%
100%
24%
70%
9
Group
7
63%
75%
70%
76%
88%
13%
40%
12
Group
8
63%
80%
90%
77%
92%
15%
50%
30
Population
54%
80%
80%
74%
94%
20%
100%
130
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 117
Similarly, two additional questions used a scale from 0-100 and asked the technical staff to
identify their level of confidence in their ability to identify the strategy of the company and
technical group respectively, as shown in Figure 20.
Figure 20: Median technical staff confidence in their ability to identify the vision.
Overall, the median stakeholder response suggested the technical staff had more slightly more
confidence in their ability to identity the vision (80%) as compared to the strategy (70%).
Consequently, additional details regarding the stakeholder responses to questions related to
strategy are shown in Table 28 and Table 29 respectively.
90%
80%
70% 70%
50%
80%
70%
80%
70%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Leadership
Functional8Group82
Functional8Group83
Functional8Group84
Functional8Group85
Functional8Group86
Functional8Group87
Functional8Group88
Population
Median8technical8staff8confidence8in8their8ability8to8
identify8the8strategy8on8a8scale8from80D100
Company8Strategy Technical8Group8Strategy
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 118
Table 28
Results of Survey Questions Related to Technical Staff Confidence in Their Ability to Identify the
Company Strategy.
Confidence
in
ability
to
identify
the
strategy
for
the
company
Lower
Bound
of
95%
Confidence
Interval
Median
Mode
Mean
Upper
Bound
of
95%
Confidence
Interval
Standard
Deviation
Range
Count
Leadership
53%
80%
80%
75%
96%
21%
80%
19
Group
2
41%
75%
75%
65%
89%
24%
70%
8
Group
3
54%
70%
70%
68%
83%
14%
70%
27
Group
4
46%
60%
60%
62%
78%
16%
80%
17
Group
5
38%
55%
80%
59%
80%
21%
60%
8
Group
6
57%
80%
80%
77%
96%
19%
70%
9
Group
7
44%
70%
70%
63%
83%
20%
60%
12
Group
8
54%
80%
80%
71%
88%
17%
70%
30
Population
49%
70%
80%
68%
87%
19%
80%
130
Table 29
Results of Survey Questions Related to Technical Staff Confidence in Their Ability to Identify the
Technical Group Strategy.
Confidence
in
ability
to
identify
the
strategy
for
the
technical
group
Lower
Bound
of
95%
Confidence
Interval
Median
Mode
Mean
Upper
Bound
of
95%
Confidence
Interval
Standard
Deviation
Range
Count
Leadership
48%
90%
100%
75%
102%
27%
80%
19
Group
2
48%
80%
80%
70%
92%
22%
70%
8
Group
3
51%
70%
80%
70%
89%
19%
100%
27
Group
4
41%
70%
70%
65%
88%
23%
80%
17
Group
5
33%
50%
40%
58%
82%
25%
70%
8
Group
6
53%
80%
100%
77%
100%
24%
70%
9
Group
7
48%
70%
70%
66%
83%
18%
60%
12
Group
8
57%
80%
80%
73%
88%
15%
50%
30
Population
48%
70%
80%
70%
92%
22%
100%
130
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 119
Consequently, as each functional group expressed a median confidence of at least 51%
regarding their ability to identify the vision and strategy, the assumed motivational influence was
quantitatively validated. However, Functional Group Five reported a median of 50% self-
efficacy in their ability to identify the strategy and subsequent exploratory questions were asked
of this group during the focus group session. Furthermore, the aggregate self-efficacy for the
population was compared against the ability of the population to demonstrate declarative
knowledge of the vision and strategy, with the results presented in Table 30.
Table 30
Comparison of Self-efficacy and Declarative Knowledge of the Vision and Strategy for the
Population.
Alpha Group Population
Mean
Confidence
Ability Difference
Company Vision 74% 72% 2%
Technical Group Vision 74% 71% 3%
Company Strategy 68% 78% -10%
Technical Group Strategy 70% 34% 36%
The self-efficacy of the population was almost perfectly aligned with the ability of the population
to demonstrate declarative knowledge of the company and technical group vision. Likewise, the
ability of the population to identify the company strategy was within the confidence interval of
the population self-efficacy in their ability to identify the company strategy, as shown in Table
30. However, only 34% of the technical group population could identify the technical group
strategy, which was below the 48% lower bound of the self-efficacy confidence interval and
outside of the expected range of outcomes. Therefore, the apparent gap between self-efficacy
and the ability to demonstrate declarative knowledge of the technical group strategy was further
explored during the respective focus groups.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 120
Review of Qualitative Data. The technical staff expressed confidence in their ability to
identify the vision and strategy for both the company and Alpha Technical Group. Their
confidence in the vision was rooted in the fact that they “hear the vision of the company and
technical group repeated frequently” as one member of Functional Group Five suggested. The
individual went on to say, “senior leaders have referred to the company strategy in the quarterly
town hall for the last several quarters so I guess it is starting to sink in.” However, despite
confidence in their abilities, the population was unable to demonstrate declarative knowledge of
the technical group strategy. When asked about the difference, a member of Functional Group
Six proposed “the [technical group] strategy is just a bunch of buzzwords that don’t mean
anything to me. Besides, it is really long and not easy to remember.” Similarly, a member of
Functional Group Seven replied, “I just picked the one that sounded the most like what we do
and it makes sense now since it was another technical group’s strategy.” Conversely, a member
of Functional Group Two proposed “different groups may have a different perspective of the
strategy and those differences are amplified through their staff. This may be a reason why the
more tactical strategy was chosen because it is more activity based and aligned with what people
think they should be doing and how it should be done.” Consequently, the confidence of the
technical staff may indicate a cultural understanding of the strategy; however, the specific words
used to describe the strategy were not congruent with the cultural understanding. This issue will
be further explored in the section on assumed organizational influences later in this dissertation.
Stakeholder confidence in their ability to identify the steps necessary to implement
the strategy. Two questions were asked of stakeholders to discern self-efficacy in their ability
to identify the steps necessary to implement strategy for the company and technical group
respectively. Consequently, a scale from 0-100 and asked the technical staff to identify their
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 121
level of confidence in their ability to identify the steps necessary to implement the strategy, as
shown in Figure 21.
Figure 21: Median technical staff confidence in their ability to identify the steps necessary to
implement the strategy.
Upon review, the median stakeholder response for the population suggested the technical staff
had more similar levels of confidence in their ability to identify the steps necessary to implement
both the company and technical group strategy. Moreover, statistical details with respect to the
stakeholder responses are shown in Table 31 and Table 32 respectively.
80%
70% 70%
60%
45%
70%
65%
70% 70%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Leadership
Functional8Group82
Functional8Group83
Functional8Group84
Functional8Group85
Functional8Group86
Functional8Group87
Functional8Group88
Population
Median8technical8staff8confidence8in8their8ability8to8
identify8the8steps8necessary8to8implement8the8strategy8
on8a8scale8from80D100
Company8Strategy Technical8Group8Strategy
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 122
Table 31
Results of Survey Questions Related to Technical Staff Confidence in Their Ability to Identify the
Steps Necessary to Implement Company Strategy.
Confidence
in
ability
to
identify
the
steps
to
implement
the
company
strategy
Lower
Bound
of
95%
Confidence
Interval
Median
Mode
Mean
Upper
Bound
of
95%
Confidence
Interval
Standard
Deviation
Range
Count
Leadership
42%
80%
80%
67%
93%
25%
90%
19
Group
2
34%
65%
65%
56%
79%
22%
70%
8
Group
3
42%
70%
80%
63%
83%
21%
90%
27
Group
4
42%
60%
70%
59%
76%
17%
80%
17
Group
5
34%
50%
50%
53%
71%
19%
60%
8
Group
6
50%
70%
70%
71%
92%
21%
80%
9
Group
7
41%
60%
80%
58%
76%
18%
50%
12
Group
8
54%
70%
80%
69%
83%
14%
50%
30
Population
43%
70%
70%
63%
84%
20%
100%
130
Table 32
Results of Survey Questions Related to Technical Staff Confidence in Their Ability to Identify the
Steps Necessary to Implement Technical Group Strategy.
Confidence
in
ability
to
identify
the
steps
to
implement
the
technical
group
strategy
Lower
Bound
of
95%
Confidence
Interval
Median
Mode
Mean
Upper
Bound
of
95%
Confidence
Interval
Standard
Deviation
Range
Count
Leadership
46%
80%
90%
71%
97%
26%
90%
19
Group
2
39%
70%
70%
63%
86%
23%
70%
8
Group
3
44%
70%
70%
66%
88%
22%
100%
27
Group
4
38%
60%
80%
61%
83%
23%
80%
17
Group
5
34%
45%
40%
55%
76%
21%
60%
8
Group
6
48%
70%
100%
71%
94%
23%
70%
9
Group
7
47%
65%
70%
63%
80%
16%
60%
12
Group
8
55%
70%
80%
71%
87%
16%
60%
30
Population
45%
70%
80%
66%
88%
22%
100%
130
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 123
The population expressed a median confidence of at least 51% regarding their ability to identify
the steps necessary to implement both the company and technical group strategy. However,
Functional Group Five reported a median of less than 51% self-efficacy in their ability to
identify the steps necessary to implement both the company and technical group strategy;
therefore, follow-up questions were asked of this group during the subsequent focus group
session and were detailed previously in the procedural knowledge section.
Stakeholder confidence in their ability to identify the primary role of the technical
group relative to the company strategy. Each of the five technical groups within Premier
Energy have a primary role relative to the company strategy: emerging growth area, core growth
area, base production, and non-core area. Accordingly, the survey asked the stakeholder group
their confidence in their ability to identify the primary role of the technical group relative to the
company strategy, with the results shown in Figure 22.
Figure 22: Median technical staff confidence in their ability to identify the primary role of the
technical group relative to the company strategy.
90%
85%
80% 80%
65%
80%
75%
80% 80%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Leadership
Functional8Group82
Functional8Group83
Functional8Group84
Functional8Group85
Functional8Group86
Functional8Group87
Functional8Group88
Population
Median8technical8staff8confidence8in8their8ability8to8identify8the8primary8
role8of8the8technical8group8relative8to8the8company8strategy
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 124
Given the median stakeholder response for the population is above the 51% confidence level, the
technical staff appeared to have confidence in their ability to identify the primary role of the
technical group relative to the company strategy. Furthermore, additional information regarding
the stakeholder responses is shown in Table 33.
Table 33
Results of Survey Questions Related to Technical Staff Confidence in Their Ability to Identify the
Primary Role of the Technical Group Relative to the Company Strategy.
Confidence
in
ability
to
identify
the
primary
role
of
the
technical
group
relative
to
the
company
strategy
Lower
Bound
of
95%
Confidence
Interval
Median
Mode
Mean
Upper
Bound
of
95%
Confidence
Interval
Standard
Deviation
Range
Count
Leadership
66%
90%
90%
82%
98%
16%
60%
19
Group
2
56%
85%
85%
75%
94%
19%
50%
8
Group
3
55%
80%
80%
71%
88%
16%
60%
27
Group
4
58%
80%
80%
72%
87%
14%
50%
17
Group
5
39%
65%
80%
64%
89%
25%
70%
8
Group
6
62%
80%
80%
80%
98%
18%
60%
9
Group
7
56%
75%
70%
74%
92%
18%
70%
12
Group
8
61%
80%
80%
74%
87%
13%
60%
30
Population
57%
80%
80%
74%
91%
17%
70%
130
The population submitted a mean self-efficacy of 74% in their ability to identify the primary role
of the technical group with respect to the company strategy as shown in Table 33. Relatedly,
76% of the population demonstrated declarative knowledge of the primary role of the technical
group, as shown previously in Table 17. Moreover, qualitative discussion of the primary role of
the technical group was described previously in the declarative knowledge section.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 125
Stakeholder confidence in their ability to describe their role relative to the strategy.
The technical staff was asked two questions on the survey regarding self-efficacy in their ability
to describe their one relative to the company and technical group strategy, with the results
presented in Figure 23.
Figure 23: Median technical staff confidence in their ability to describe their role relative to the
company and technical group strategy.
The stakeholder population expressed a median confidence of 80% and therefore quantitatively
validated that technical staff have confidence in their ability to describe their role relative to the
strategy. Furthermore, the details behind the results to questions regarding technical staff
confidence in their ability to describe their role relative to the company strategy are found in
Table 34. Likewise, Table 35 presents the same information with respect to the technical group
strategy.
90%
75%
80%
70%
60%
80%
70%
80% 80%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Leadership
Functional8Group82
Functional8Group83
Functional8Group84
Functional8Group85
Functional8Group86
Functional8Group87
Functional8Group88
Population
Median8technical8staff8confidence8in8their8ability8to8
describe8their8role8relative8to8the8strategy8on8a8scale8from8
0E100
Company8Strategy Technical8Group8Strategy
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 126
Table 34
Results of Survey Questions Related to Technical Staff Confidence in Their Ability to Describe
Their Role Relative to the Company Strategy.
Confidence
in
ability
to
describe
your
role
relative
to
the
company
strategy
Lower
Bound
of
95%
Confidence
Interval
Median
Mode
Mean
Upper
Bound
of
95%
Confidence
Interval
Standard
Deviation
Range
Count
Leadership
61%
80%
80%
80%
99%
19%
80%
19
Group
2
40%
70%
70%
64%
88%
24%
80%
8
Group
3
58%
80%
80%
76%
93%
18%
70%
27
Group
4
64%
80%
80%
76%
88%
12%
50%
17
Group
5
42%
55%
50%
65%
88%
23%
60%
8
Group
6
64%
90%
90%
81%
98%
17%
50%
9
Group
7
63%
80%
90%
78%
92%
15%
50%
12
Group
8
59%
80%
90%
79%
98%
20%
90%
30
Population
57%
80%
80%
76%
95%
19%
90%
130
Table 35
Results of Survey Questions Related to Technical Staff Confidence in Their Ability to Describe
Their Role Relative to the Technical Group Strategy.
Confidence
in
ability
to
describe
your
role
relative
to
the
technical
group
strategy
Lower
Bound
of
95%
Confidence
Interval
Median
Mode
Mean
Upper
Bound
of
95%
Confidence
Interval
Standard
Deviation
Range
Count
Leadership
60%
90%
90%
80%
100%
20%
70%
19
Group
2
40%
75%
75%
65%
90%
25%
80%
8
Group
3
53%
80%
80%
73%
93%
20%
70%
27
Group
4
51%
70%
70%
70%
89%
19%
80%
17
Group
5
38%
60%
40%
64%
89%
25%
70%
8
Group
6
62%
80%
70%
78%
94%
16%
50%
9
Group
7
56%
70%
70%
73%
89%
17%
60%
12
Group
8
57%
80%
90%
77%
96%
20%
90%
30
Population
53%
80%
90%
74%
94%
21%
90%
130
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 127
Overall, results from the population expressed confidence greater than 51% with an range of
responses from 60% to 90%. Follow-up questions were asked of during the respective focus
groups to further understand the technical group confidence in their ability to describe their role
relative to the technical group strategy.
Review of Qualitative Data. To augment the quantitative data, the focus group provided
richer context related to the various perspectives of the stakeholder group. A member of
Functional Group Five reported: “we are a service group to the company and we know what
needs to be done, so I suppose our role is fairly clear but how that specifically aligns with the
technical group strategy is uncertain.” The leader of Functional Group Six added: “the teams
know what they are supposed to do but occasionally have conflict over who has decision rights.”
Furthermore, a member of the Functional Group Eight technical staff submitted “I really don’t
know how my role aligns to the strategy so I try to only focus on the things I need to do today
instead of wondering how all of those things fit into the big picture, which is what I hope the
managers are focused on.” Another member of Functional Group Eight added: “we know the
expectations and are focused on meeting those expectations but do not spend a lot of time
thinking about the big picture but focus on what we are asked to do today.” The evidence
presented suggested the staff do what their manager directs them to achieve. Relatedly, the
technical staff do not appear to spend significant time contemplating how their roles align with
the strategy but assume the leaders are directing their work toward the highest priorities.
Stakeholder confidence in their ability to describe the expectations of their direct
supervisor and their performance relative to those expectations. A pair of questions was
asked of the stakeholders regarding their confidence in their ability to describe the expectations
of their direct supervisor and, subsequently, stakeholder confidence in their ability to describe
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 128
their performance relative to those expectations. The results of these two questions are shown in
Figure 24.
Figure 24: Median technical staff confidence in their ability to describe the expectations of their
direct supervisor as compared to technical staff performance relative to supervisor expectations.
The technical staff population expressed a median confidence of 80%, which qualitatively that
the stakeholder group had confidence in their ability to describe expectations of their supervisor.
Furthermore, the technical staff were also confident in their ability to describe their performance
relative to the expectations of their supervisor. Relatedly, the statistical information supporting
the aforementioned results can be found in Table 36 and Table 37 respectively.
90%
65%
80% 80%
75%
80%
70%
90%
80%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Leadership
Functional8Group82
Functional8Group83
Functional8Group84
Functional8Group85
Functional8Group86
Functional8Group87
Functional8Group88
Population
Median8technical8staff8confidence8in8their8ability8to8
describe8the8expectations8of8their8direct8supervisor8and8
stakeholder8perforamnce8relative8to8those8expecations8
on8a8scale8from80F100
Describe8Expectations Performance8to8Expectations
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 129
Table 36
Results of Survey Questions Related to Technical Staff Confidence in Their Ability to Describe
the Expectations of Their Direct Supervisor.
Confidence
in
ability
to
describe
the
expectations
of
direct
supervisors
Lower
Bound
of
95%
Confidence
Interval
Median
Mode
Mean
Upper
Bound
of
95%
Confidence
Interval
Standard
Deviation
Range
Count
Leadership
48%
90%
90%
75%
100%
26%
100%
19
Group
2
26%
70%
70%
60%
94%
34%
90%
8
Group
3
51%
70%
70%
69%
88%
19%
70%
27
Group
4
52%
80%
80%
72%
92%
20%
70%
17
Group
5
44%
85%
100%
74%
100%
30%
80%
8
Group
6
58%
90%
90%
79%
100%
21%
70%
9
Group
7
38%
70%
70%
63%
87%
25%
90%
12
Group
8
70%
90%
100%
85%
100%
15%
70%
30
Population
50%
80%
90%
74%
97%
24%
100%
130
Table 37
Results of Survey Questions Related to Technical Staff Confidence in Their Ability Describe
Their Performance Relative to the Expectations of Their Direct Supervisor.
Confidence
in
ability
to
describe
performance
relative
to
expectations
from
direct
supervisors
Lower
Bound
of
95%
Confidence
Interval
Median
Mode
Mean
Upper
Bound
of
95%
Confidence
Interval
Standard
Deviation
Range
Count
Leadership
60%
90%
90%
78%
97%
18%
50%
19
Group
2
37%
65%
65%
63%
88%
26%
70%
8
Group
3
53%
80%
80%
72%
92%
20%
80%
27
Group
4
55%
80%
80%
72%
89%
17%
70%
17
Group
5
45%
75%
30%
71%
97%
26%
70%
8
Group
6
64%
80%
80%
80%
96%
16%
50%
9
Group
7
39%
70%
70%
65%
91%
26%
90%
12
Group
8
68%
90%
90%
84%
100%
16%
60%
30
Population
54%
80%
80%
75%
96%
21%
90%
130
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 130
Relative to both questions, the functional groups reported greater than 51% confidence thereby
quantitatively validating that the technical staff were confident they knew the expectations of
their supervisor and their performance relative to those expectations. This confidence was
supported by qualitative data previously presented during the declarative knowledge section of
this dissertation.
Stakeholder certainty the strategy can be achieved. The Alpha Group technical staff
were asked a series of questions regarding their level of certainty that implementing and
achieving the strategy would improve performance with two of the questions with respect to the
corporate strategy and three related to the technical group strategy. Consequently, the responses
related to questions regarding certainty that the strategy can be achieved are shown in Figure 25.
Figure 25: Median technical staff confidence that the strategy can be achieved.
80%
70%
80%
70%
60%
80% 80%
90%
80%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Leadership
Functional8Group82
Functional8Group83
Functional8Group84
Functional8Group85
Functional8Group86
Functional8Group87
Functional8Group88
Population
Median8technical8staff8confidence8that8the8strategy8can8
be8achieved8on8a8scale8from80E100
Company8Strategy Technical8Group8Strategy
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 131
Except for Functional Group Five, the technical staff expressed more confidence in their ability
to achieve the technical group strategy as compared to the company strategy. Relatedly,
additional information regarding the responses can be found in Table 38 and Table 39.
Table 38
Results of Survey Questions Related to Technical Staff Confidence that the Company Strategy
can be Achieved.
Certainty
the
company
can
achieve
the
company
strategy
Lower
Bound
of
95%
Confidence
Interval
Median
Mode
Mean
Upper
Bound
of
95%
Confidence
Interval
Standard
Deviation
Range
Count
Leadership
46%
70%
70%
66%
87%
20%
80%
19
Group
2
46%
60%
60%
64%
81%
17%
50%
8
Group
3
56%
70%
60%
71%
86%
15%
60%
27
Group
4
45%
60%
60%
63%
81%
18%
70%
17
Group
5
44%
70%
70%
69%
94%
25%
70%
8
Group
6
56%
80%
90%
76%
95%
19%
60%
9
Group
7
63%
75%
80%
74%
85%
11%
40%
12
Group
8
71%
90%
90%
85%
100%
14%
50%
30
Population
54%
70%
80%
73%
91%
19%
80%
130
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 132
Table 39
Results of Survey Questions Related to Technical Staff Confidence in that the Technical Group
Strategy can be Achieved.
Certainty
the
technical
group
can
achieve
the
technical
group
strategy
Lower
Bound
of
95%
Confidence
Interval
Median
Mode
Mean
Upper
Bound
of
95%
Confidence
Interval
Standard
Deviation
Range
Count
Leadership
59%
80%
80%
79%
99%
20%
80%
19
Group
2
53%
70%
70%
69%
84%
15%
50%
8
Group
3
60%
80%
80%
76%
92%
16%
60%
27
Group
4
45%
70%
70%
66%
88%
21%
90%
17
Group
5
40%
60%
50%
66%
92%
26%
70%
8
Group
6
53%
80%
100%
77%
100%
24%
70%
9
Group
7
61%
80%
80%
76%
90%
14%
50%
12
Group
8
71%
90%
90%
85%
99%
14%
50%
30
Population
57%
80%
80%
76%
95%
19%
90%
130
The respective functional groups each submitted responses which indicated confidence that the
strategy for both the company and technical group can be achieved. Moreover, questions were
asked during the focus group sessions to further understand the difference in confidence level
between achieving the company and technical group strategy. Furthermore, follow-up questions
during the focus group sessions were also asked of Functional Group Five related to a higher
level of confidence in achieving the company strategy as compared to the technical group
strategy.
Review of Qualitative Data. The technical staff confidence in achieving the strategy was
further explored during the respective focus group sessions. With respect to the company
strategy, a member of Functional Group Five suggested: “since we are a centralized corporate
service that serves the company, I suppose it makes sense that we are more aligned to the
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 133
company than to the respective technical groups we serve.” This statement was echoed by the
leader of Functional Group Five, who submitted “our group supports all of the technical groups
across the company and while we try to align or goals to the respective strategies of each
technical group, we focus on keeping the company view in front of the team.” Conversely, a
member of Functional Group Three suggested their confidence was not from alignment but
rather due to intra-group relationships by stating “our confidence came from knowing we’re
doing good work and achieving our goals, which should help the technical group achieve the
strategy and help the company improve performance.”
Stakeholder certainty that implementing the strategy will improve performance.
The technical staff were asked their level of certainty that implementing the strategy will
improve performance. Relatedly, three questions sought to understand stakeholder confidence
that the company strategy would improve company performance, the Alpha Group strategy
would improve the Alpha Group performance, and the Alpha Group strategy would improve
company performance. Consequently, the results of these questions are shown graphically in
Figure 26.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 134
Figure 26: Median technical staff confidence that the strategy will improve performance.
Similarly, the higher level of stakeholder confidence in the ability to achieve the technical group
strategy, as compared to the company strategy, the technical staff is also more confident the
technical group strategy will improve the performance of both the technical group and the
company. A statistical breakdown of the results is presented in Table 40, Table 41, and Table 42
80%
75%
80% 80%
75%
90%
70%
90%
80%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Leadership
Functional8Group82
Functional8Group83
Functional8Group84
Functional8Group85
Functional8Group86
Functional8Group87
Functional8Group88
Population
Median8technical8staff8confidence8that8the8strategy8can8
be8improve8performance8on8a8scale8from80E100
Company8Strategy8Improves8Company8Performance
Technical8Group8Strategy8Improves8Technical8Group8Performance
Technical8Group8Strategy8Improves8Company8Performance"
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 135
Table 40
Results of Survey Questions Related to Technical Staff Confidence that the Company Strategy
Will Improve Company Performance.
Certainty
that
implementing
the
company
strategy
will
improve
performance
Lower
Bound
of
95%
Confidenc
e
Interval
Median
Mode
Mean
Upper
Bound
of
95%
Confidence
Interval
Standard
Deviation
Range
Count
Leadership
51%
70%
60%
68%
86%
18%
70%
19
Group
2
53%
75%
75%
70%
87%
17%
50%
8
Group
3
44%
70%
80%
67%
90%
23%
100%
27
Group
4
46%
70%
70%
65%
85%
19%
80%
17
Group
5
41%
70%
70%
61%
82%
20%
60%
8
Group
6
53%
80%
90%
73%
93%
20%
70%
9
Group
7
53%
65%
80%
70%
87%
17%
50%
12
Group
8
69%
80%
80%
83%
97%
14%
50%
30
Population
51%
70%
80%
71%
91%
20%
100%
130
Table 41
Results of Survey Questions Related to Technical Staff Confidence in that the Technical Group
Strategy Will Improve Technical Group Performance.
Certainty
that
implementing
the
technical
group
strategy
will
improve
performance
Lower
Bound
of
95%
Confidenc
e
Interval
Median
Mode
Mean
Upper
Bound
of
95%
Confidence
Interval
Standard
Deviation
Range
Count
Leadership
61%
80%
100%
79%
97%
18%
60%
19
Group
2
44%
75%
75%
69%
93%
25%
80%
8
Group
3
57%
80%
80%
73%
89%
16%
60%
27
Group
4
54%
80%
80%
71%
89%
17%
70%
17
Group
5
42%
75%
90%
68%
93%
25%
70%
8
Group
6
56%
90%
90%
78%
99%
21%
70%
9
Group
7
56%
70%
90%
72%
87%
16%
40%
12
Group
8
69%
90%
100%
84%
99%
15%
50%
30
Population
57%
80%
80%
76%
95%
19%
80%
130
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 136
Table 42
Results of Survey Questions Related to Technical Staff Confidence in that the Technical Group
Strategy Will Improve Company Performance.
Certainty
the
technical
group
strategy
will
improve
company
performance
Lower
Bound
of
95%
Confidence
Interval
Median
Mode
Mean
Upper
Bound
of
95%
Confidence
Interval
Standard
Deviation
Range
Count
Leadership
56%
80%
80%
79%
102%
23%
90%
19
Group
2
48%
75%
75%
68%
87%
20%
50%
8
Group
3
57%
80%
80%
74%
92%
17%
60%
27
Group
4
46%
70%
80%
67%
88%
21%
90%
17
Group
5
40%
65%
90%
65%
90%
25%
70%
8
Group
6
54%
90%
100%
78%
100%
24%
70%
9
Group
7
57%
80%
80%
74%
91%
17%
50%
12
Group
8
72%
90%
90%
86%
99%
14%
50%
30
Population
56%
80%
80%
76%
96%
20%
90%
130
The results from functional group suggested the technical staff had confidence that the strategy
would improve performance. Moreover, the technical staff appeared to have more confidence in
the performance derived from the technical group strategy, as compared to the company strategy.
The apparent difference was explored with additional questions during the subsequent focus
group sessions.
Review of Qualitative Data. Each of the respective focus group sessions sought to
further understand the confidence of the respective functional groups with respect to their
confidence that implementing the strategy will improve performance. A member of Functional
Group Three proposed their group had “confidence that our managers are orienting our goals
toward the company strategy and will improve company performance.” Relatedly, the members
of Functional Group Two proposed that they understood the strategic picture and associated
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 137
improvements in performance but “other groups are more focused on their own work than
working together. Our group is focused on optimizing a $10-12 billion program and other
groups are wrapped up in saving $100 thousand so they can feel like they added value, but it
delays the overall program.” Conversely, a member of Functional Group Six suggested “actions
speak louder than words. Corporate jargon always looks good on paper but I need to know how
it’s going to work before I can have confidence that it’s going to improve our performance.”
Furthermore, the leader of Functional Group Six reported their group was “confident in
[their]selves and not necessarily the strategy because we really don’t know and don’t need to
know the strategy. We know we are going a good job and we just focus on what needs to be
done.” Based on the evidence presented, the technical staff have confidence that their respective
performance will contribute to improved company performance. However, the previously
mentioned gap in declarative knowledge may be eroding confidence that implementing the
strategy will improve performance.
Overall, the technical staff are confident that their work matters and will ultimately lead
to improved performance for both the technical group and the company. However, technical
staff motivation may be eroded by the perceived instability of the technical group strategy which
makes understanding the steps to implement strategy, roles associated with the strategy, and
goals to achieve the strategy. Relatedly, each of these influences has a tie to knowledge
influences and may be associated with organizational influences, as discussed in the following
section.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 138
Results and Findings for Organization Causes
Assumed Organization Influence 1: The behaviors modeled by leadership need to be
congruent with the strategy communicated to the technical staff
Leader behavior congruent with the strategy and culture of the organization may improve
performance (Clark & Estes, 2008). Furthermore, the behavior modeled by current leaders is
emulated by followers and may serve as a predictor of future behavior within the organization
(Moorman & Grover, 2009). Consequently, stakeholders were asked if senior leadership
modeled behavior congruent with the company strategy, with the results presented in Figure 27.
Figure 27: Technical staff who believe senior leader behaviors model the company strategy.
25%
33%
25%
33%
38%
18%
30%
16%
1%
5%
Strongly)Agree Agree Disgaree Strongly)Disagree
Percentage)of)techncial)staff)who)believe)senior)leaderhip)behaviors)are)
congruent)with)the)communicated)company)strategy
Functioal)Group)8
Population
Functional)Group)6
Functional Group)7
Functional)Group)3
Functional)Group)4
Functional)Group5
Functional)Group)2
Leadership
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 139
In aggregate, the population agreed, or strongly agreed, that senior leaders model behavior
congruent with the communicated strategy as at least 51% of respondents returned a positive
response. Consequently, a chi-square test compared the independence of the responses between
each group to understand if group affiliation influenced the survey response with respect to
beliefs that senior leaders model behavior congruent with the company strategy. The results of
the test confirmed there was a relationship between group affiliation and survey response since
the chi-square test produced a χ
2
= 129.57, P-value < .05 for the population, as shown in Table
43.
Table 43
Results of χ
2
Test of Technical Staff Belief that Senior Leaders Model Behavior Congruent With
the Company Strategy.
Senior leaders model
behavior congruent
with the company
strategy
Agree Disagree χ
2
Critical
Value
P-value Φ
Leadership 84% 16% 19.53 7.82 0.00 4.42
Functional Group 2 50% 50% 8.00 7.82 0.02 2.83
Functional Group 3 100% 0% 35.96 7.82 0.00 6.00
Functional Group 4 76% 24% 12.41 7.82 0.00 3.52
Functional Group 5 88% 13% 5.00 7.82 0.07 2.24
Functional Group 6 100% 0% 11.00 7.82 0.01 3.32
Functional Group 7 100% 0% 18.00 7.82 0.00 4.24
Functional Group 8 100% 0% 36.67 7.82 0.00 6.06
Population 91% 9% 129.57 7.82 0.00 11.38
Furthermore, the percentage of affirmative responses varied by group ranging from 50% to100%.
Moreover, the χ
2
= 129.57, P-value < .05 for the population indicated the responses were
statistically significant and that group membership influenced the belief, and therefore responses,
of group members.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 140
Similarly, the stakeholder group was also asked if Alpha Technical Group leadership
modeled behavior congruent with the technical group strategy, with the results presented in
Figure 28.
Figure 28: Technical staff who believe technical group leadership behaviors model the technical
group strategy.
Overall, the technical staff agreed, or strongly agreed, that the behavior modeled by Alpha Group
leadership is congruent with the communicated strategy as at least 51% of respondents returned a
positive response. Furthermore, although the distribution of responses within groups changed,
the overall result for the population was similar to the result of the prior question regarding
24%
30%
17%
33%
25%
12%
22%
13%
32%
1%
5%
Strongly)Agree Agree Disgaree Strongly)Disagree
Percentage)of)techncial)staff)who)believe)Alpha)Group)leaderhip)behaviors)
are)congruent)with)the)communicated)technical)group)strategy
Functioal)Group)8
Population
Functional)Group)6
Functional Group)7
Functional)Group)3
Functional)Group)4
Functional)Group5
Functional)Group)2
Leadership
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 141
senior leader behavior. Subsequently, to test for independence of the results, a chi-square test
was, with the results shown in Table 44.
Table 44
Results of χ
2
Test of Technical Staff Belief that Technical Group Leadership Model Behavior
Congruent with the Technical Group Strategy.
Technical group
leaders model
behavior congruent
with the technical
group strategy
Agree Disagree χ
2
Critical
Value
P-value Φ
Leadership 84% 16% 10.68 7.82 0.01 3.27
Functional Group 2 75% 25% 7.00 7.82 0.03 2.65
Functional Group 3 96% 4% 37.74 7.82 0.00 6.14
Functional Group 4 94% 6% 30.29 7.82 0.00 5.50
Functional Group 5 75% 25% 4.00 7.82 0.11 2.00
Functional Group 6 89% 11% 6.56 7.82 0.04 2.56
Functional Group 7 100% 0% 22.67 7.82 0.00 4.76
Functional Group 8 100% 0% 39.60 7.82 0.00 6.29
Population 92% 8% 145.82 7.82 0.00 12.08
Consequently, the percentage of correct responses varied by group ranging from 75% to 100%.
Likewise, the χ
2
= 145.82, P-value < .05 for the population indicates the responses are
statistically significant and that group membership again influences the beliefs, and therefore
responses, of group members. To further understand the beliefs of the technical staff, additional
questions were asked during the focus group sessions.
Review of Qualitative Data. The data collected during the interviews and focus group
sessions provided a deeper understanding of the technical staff perspectives regarding leader
behavior. With respect to senior leader behavior, the leader of Functional Group Four suggested
senior leadership is “constantly changing the portfolio and it feels like they don’t have a true
sense of what they want to achieve.” Likewise, members of Functional Group Two proposed
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 142
“senior leadership needs to hold leaders accountable to know the strategy” and questioned, “if
the leader behavior of the Alpha Group leader was being influenced by senior leadership.”
Furthermore, the same group suggested leaders “should spend more time on alignment,
accountability, and doing the right thing” as opposed to spending “too much time trying to prove
something wrong.” Moreover, a member of the same group submitted “managers are engaged in
turf wars that are just silly and if some managers would contemplate constructive criticism,
things could be much more efficient and effective.” This sentiment was echoed by a member of
Functional Group Seven who suggested: “although technical group leadership [was] always
willing to listen, there needs to be more transparency across the organization, not just what they
think people should know.” Similarly, a member of Functional Group Three reported: “decisions
are being made by managers and it doesn’t feel like the leaders are passing down the information
or providing the same message to their respective staff. It feels like different groups have
different information, which is different than how I thought a matrix organization worked.”
Thus, despite quantitative validation, the preponderance of the qualitative evidence presented
suggested the assumed organizational influence that behaviors modeled by leadership are
congruent with the strategy communicated to the technical staff was not validated and therefore a
gap exists with respect to modeled behavior.
Assumed Organization Influence 2: The technical staff need to communicate in the dual
reporting nature of the matrix organizational structure
Lateral communication is required for a matrix organization to be effective (Vantrappen
& Wirtz, 2016). Moreover, the flow of information between groups improves when stakeholders
in a matrix organization recognize their interdependence (Slater, 1995). Relatedly, trust is
cultivated when stakeholders receive clear and candid information related to the organizational
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 143
vision, strategy, and goal performance (Dixon, 1994). Consequently, the flow of information
within the Alpha Group was evaluated through five survey questions which asked stakeholders if
they often had the information needed to perform their jobs and which sources of information
provided were trusted and provided actionable information. Accordingly, the stakeholders were
first asked if they had the information needed to perform their jobs within the technical group,
with the results displayed graphically in Figure 29.
Figure 29: Technical staff who often have the information needed to perform their job within the
technical group.
25%
30%
42%
44%
25%
18%
19%
21%
1%
5%
Strongly)Agree Agree Disgaree Strongly)Disagree
Percentage)of)techncial)staff)who)often)have)the)information)needed)to)
perform)their)job)within)the)technical)group
Functioal)Group)8
Population
Functional)Group)6
Functional Group)7
Functional)Group)3
Functional)Group)4
Functional)Group5
Functional)Group)2
Leadership
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 144
Except for Functional Group Two, each of the respective function agreed, or strongly agreed,
that they often had the information necessary to do their job as at least 51% of respondents
returned a positive response. Furthermore, Functional Group Two was again split with 50%
agreeing they often had the information necessary to do their job. Subsequently, a chi-square
test was run to test for independence of the results between the functional groups group to
understand if group affiliation influenced the survey response, as shown in Table 45.
Table 45
Results of χ
2
Test of Technical Staff Belief that They Have the Information Needed to do Their
Job.
Technical staff often
have the information
needed to do their
job
Agree Disagree χ
2
Critical
Value
P-value Φ
Leadership 79% 21% 11.95 7.82 0.00 3.46
Functional Group 2 50% 50% 8.00 7.82 0.02 2.83
Functional Group 3 78% 22% 19.96 7.82 0.00 4.47
Functional Group 4 94% 6% 25.12 7.82 0.00 5.01
Functional Group 5 75% 25% 4.00 7.82 0.11 2.00
Functional Group 6 100% 0% 9.22 7.82 0.01 3.04
Functional Group 7 83% 17% 6.00 7.82 0.05 2.45
Functional Group 8 93% 7% 29.47 7.82 0.00 5.43
Population 84% 16% 96.28 7.82 0.00 9.81
Overall, the percentage of affirmative responses varied by group with a range from 50% to
100%. Moreover, the χ
2
= 96.28, P-value < .05 for the population indicates the responses are
statistically significant and that group membership influences the beliefs, and therefore response,
of the respective group members.
Subsequent to the questions regarding how often the technical staff have the data they
need to perform their jobs, two questions sought to understand which sources of information the
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 145
technical staff found to be the most, and least, actionable. The results of these questions are
shown in Figure 30.
Figure 30: Most and least actionable sources of information for the technical staff.
In general, the staff and supervisors provide the most actionable information, as would be
expected in a functionally aligned organization. Furthermore, senior leaders provided the least
actionable information, a trend predicted by the theory of power distance (Lewis, 2011). The
data presented in Figure 30 is also shown in Table 46 and Table 47.
26%
38%
26%
53%
63%
56%
42%
23%
35%
58%
38%
44%
53%
38%
33%
9%
44%
43%
Sources(of(information(who(provide(the( most(and0least)(actionable(
information(to(the(technical(staff
Functioal(Group(2
Leadership
Functional(Group(3
Functional Group(7
Functional(Group(7
Functional(Group(6
Functional(Group5
Functional(Group(8
Population
Most0Actionable
Least0Actionable
Staff0Actionable
Manager0Actionable
Vice>President0Actionable
Supervisor0Actionable
Senior0Leader00Actionable
Staff0Not0Actionable
Manager0Not0Actionable
Vice>President0Not0Actionable
Senior0Leader00Not0Actionable
Supervisor0Not0Actionable
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 146
Table 46
Results Indicating Which Sources of Information the Technical Staff Believe are the Most
Actionable.
Most
actionable
sources
of
information
for
the
technical
staff
Staff
Supervisor
Manager
Vice-‐
President
Senior
Leader
Count
Leadership
26%
21%
26%
26%
0%
19
Group
2
38%
25%
38%
0%
0%
8
Group
3
26%
56%
15%
0%
4%
27
Group
4
53%
18%
29%
0%
0%
17
Group
5
63%
25%
13%
0%
0%
8
Group
6
56%
44%
0%
0%
0%
9
Group
7
42%
8%
50%
0%
0%
12
Group
8
23%
77%
0%
0%
0%
30
Population
35%
42%
18%
4%
1%
130
Table 47
Results Indicating Which Sources of Information the Technical Staff Believe are the Least
Actionable.
Least
actionable
sources
of
information
for
the
technical
staff
Staff
Supervisor
Manager
Vice-‐
President
Senior
Leader
Count
Leadership
11%
16%
5%
11%
58%
19
Group
2
13%
13%
13%
25%
38%
8
Group
3
22%
11%
4%
19%
44%
27
Group
4
6%
12%
6%
24%
53%
17
Group
5
13%
0%
0%
50%
38%
8
Group
6
11%
0%
0%
56%
33%
9
Group
7
27%
45%
0%
18%
9%
11
Group
8
30%
4%
11%
11%
44%
27
Population
18%
12%
6%
21%
43%
126
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 147
Relatedly, Northouse (2016) and Lewis (2011) suggested actionable information and trust
degrade with hierarchical distance in the organization due a perceived leadership disconnect
from the details of frontline work. Furthermore, the question framed in a negative manner by
asking staff to identify which source provided them with the least actionable information elicited
a lower response rate that prior questions throughout the survey and may suggest concerns
around trust. Consequently, Figure 31 portrays the sources of information the technical staff
trust the most, and least.
Figure 31: Most and least trusted sources of information for the technical staff.
11%
13%
22%
29%
25%
33%
17%
3%
17%
32%
63%
50%
15%
63%
44%
45%
67%
47%
42%
29%
62%
38%
22%
9%
33%
32%
Sources(of(information(who(are(the( most(and3least)(trusted(by(the(technical(staff
Functioal(Group(2
Leadership
Functional(Group(4
Functional Group(3
Functional(Group(7
Functional(Group(6
Functional(Group5
Functional(Group(8
Population
Most3Trusted
Least3Trusted
Staff3Trusted
Manager3Trusted
ViceAPresident3Trusted
Supervisor3Trusted
Senior3Leader33Trusted
Staff3Not3Trusted
Manager3Not3Trusted
ViceAPresident33Not3Trusted
Senior3Leader33Not3Trusted
Supervisor3Not3Trusted
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 148
Power distance predicted technical staff would trust the technical staff and their direct
supervisors the most and senior leadership would be trusted the least. However, except for
Functional Group Four, this trend did not hold and the source of information least trusted by the
technical staff was the technical staff themselves. This result may indicate ineffective lateral
communication between groups within the matrix organization as trust erodes when groups have
different information at different times. For further examination, the results related to the
sources of information the technical staff trust the most, and least, are shown in Table 48 and
Table 49.
Table 48
Results Indicating Which Sources of Information the Technical Staff Trust the Most.
Most
trusted
sources
of
information
for
the
technical
staff
Staff
Supervisor
Manager
Vice-‐
President
Senior
Leader
Count
Leadership
11%
16%
32%
32%
11%
19
Group
2
13%
13%
38%
13%
25%
8
Group
3
22%
22%
41%
7%
7%
27
Group
4
29%
0%
65%
6%
0%
17
Group
5
25%
63%
13%
0%
0%
8
Group
6
33%
11%
56%
0%
0%
9
Group
7
17%
17%
67%
0%
0%
12
Group
8
3%
55%
28%
7%
7%
29
Population
17%
26%
41%
9%
6%
129
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 149
Table 49
Results Indicating Which Sources of Information the Technical Staff Trust the Least.
Least
trusted
sources
of
information
for
the
technical
staff
Staff
Supervisor
Manager
Vice-‐
President
Senior
Leader
Count
Leadership
32%
11%
11%
5%
42%
19
Group
2
63%
13%
25%
0%
0%
8
Group
3
50%
13%
0%
8%
29%
24
Group
4
15%
8%
0%
15%
62%
13
Group
5
63%
0%
0%
0%
38%
8
Group
6
44%
11%
0%
22%
22%
9
Group
7
45%
36%
0%
9%
9%
11
Group
8
67%
0%
0%
0%
33%
21
Population
47%
11%
4%
7%
32%
113
Consequently, the results of the survey indicated the technical staff trust one another less
than direct and senior leadership. Furthermore, the number of participants who answered
questions regarding trust were significantly lower than other questions throughout the survey.
This reduced response was particularly true when questions were framed in a negative manner,
such as identifying the least trusted source of information and may suggest issues with trust.
Moreover, clear and candid communication garners trust (Dixon, 1994); conversely, ineffective
communication erodes trust (Weber, 2014). Thus, the lateral communication between peers may
be ineffective and an area of exploration for the respective focus group sessions.
Review of Qualitative Data. The focus groups and interviews provided deeper
understanding of the technical staff and leadership perspectives related to lateral communication
within the Alpha Technical Group. A member of Functional Group Four suggested the
confidence of their group was “boosted by the great relationships we have within our [functional]
group.” However, a member of the same group later reported “our leader tells us different things
than what we hear from other groups but there are so many differences, I’m starting to wonder if
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 150
I should trust my leader. We feel really confused.” Relatedly, the leader of the same group
proposed “people generally understand their roles but the areas we run into trouble are in the
handoffs between groups and the associated decision rights related to each role.” Likewise, a
member of Functional Group Two submitted the respective functional groups within the
technical group “are much too siloed and work without regard to the interdependencies on other
silos.” Furthermore, the same individual proposed “because information is slow to move
between groups, not everyone has the same information at the same time and because
communication between groups is not strong, trust is impaired. We waste a lot of time simply
waiting for information to be delivered from a trusted source in the respective functional
groups.” Similarly, another member of Functional Group Two observed “other managers may
not be providing the appropriate level of empowerment to their staff” and added, “we make the
easy things extremely hard in this company.” Therefore, the preponderance of both the
quantitative and qualitative evidence presented suggested the assumed organizational influence
that the technical staff need to communicate in the dual reporting nature of the matrix
organizational structure was not validated and therefore a gap exists with respect to lateral
communication.
Assumed Organization Influence 3: Leadership needs an effective process to communicate
decisions and timely, concrete feedback to the technical staff
Organizational performance may be improved when feedback is communicated in a
timely and specific manner (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). Furthermore, consistent and candid
feedback from leadership on progress toward common objectives may improve stakeholder
performance. Moreover, one role of a leader is to establish the communication processes
necessary to achieve the vision of the organization (Hackman & Johnson, 2009). Consequently,
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 151
stakeholders were asked three questions regarding communication from Alpha Group leadership,
with the technical staff belief that the leadership communicates effectively shown in Figure 32.
Figure 32: Percentage of technical staff who believe Alpha Group leadership communicates
effectively.
Overall, the percentage of the population who agreed, or strongly agreed, that leadership
communicates effectively was above 51% and therefore quantitatively validated that leadership
communicates effectively. Relatedly, a chi-square test compared the independence of the
responses between each group to understand if group affiliation influenced the survey response.
The results of the test confirmed there was a relationship between group affiliation and survey
14%
23%
33%
13%
24%
7%
5%
3%
6%
13%
11%
Strongly)Agree Agree Disgaree Strongly)Disagree
Percentage)of)techncial)staff)who)often)beleive)the)Alpha)Technical)Group)
leadership)communicates)effectively
Functioal)Group)8
Population
Functional)Group)6
Functional Group)7
Functional)Group)3
Functional)Group)4
Functional)Group5
Functional)Group)2
Leadership
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 152
response as the chi-square test produced a χ
2
= 111.66, P-value < .05 for the population, as
shown in Table 50.
Table 50
Results of χ
2
Test of Technical Staff Belief that Alpha Group Leadership Communicates
Effectively.
Alpha Group
leadership
communicates
effectively
Agree Disagree χ
2
Critical
Value
P-value Φ
Leadership 68% 32% 15.74 7.82 0.00 3.97
Functional Group 2 38% 63% 5.00 7.82 0.07 2.24
Functional Group 3 78% 22% 32.41 7.82 0.00 5.69
Functional Group 4 94% 6% 20.88 7.82 0.00 4.57
Functional Group 5 38% 63% 7.00 7.82 0.03 2.65
Functional Group 6 89% 11% 6.56 7.82 0.04 2.56
Functional Group 7 67% 33% 14.67 7.82 0.00 3.83
Functional Group 8 97% 3% 41.20 7.82 0.00 6.42
Population 78% 22% 111.66 7.82 0.00 10.57
Furthermore, the percentage of affirmative responses varied by group and ranged from 38% to
97%. Moreover, the χ
2
= 111.66, P-value < .05 for the population indicates the responses are
statistically significant and that group membership influences the member beliefs, and therefore
responses, of the group. Additionally, the range of responses is interesting and may be related to
inefficient communication between groups. Similarly, Functional Groups Two and Five returned
lower than 51% agreement and were asked additional questions during the subsequent focus
group sessions.
Similarly, a second question related to leadership communication asked the technical
staff if they believed Alpha Group leadership effectively communicated decisions relative to the
technical group strategy. The results of this second question are shown in Figure 33.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 153
Figure 33: Percentage of technical staff who believe Alpha Group leadership effectively
communicates decisions related to the strategy.
Collectively, at least 51% of the technical staff population agreed, or strongly agreed, that
leadership effectively communicates decisions relative to the technical group strategy and
thereby quantitatively validated that claim. Moreover, a chi-square test compared the
independence of the responses between each group to understand if group affiliation influenced
the survey response. The results of the test confirmed there was a relationship between group
affiliation and survey response since the chi-square test produced a χ
2
= 97.75, P-value < .05 for
the population, as shown in Table 51.
15%
20%
8%
33%
13%
18%
15%
13%
3%
6%
13%
11%
Strongly)Agree Agree Disgaree Strongly)Disagree
Percentage)of)techncial)staff)who)often)beleive)the)Alpha)Technical)Group)
leadership)effectively)communicate)decisions)relative)to)the)techncial)
group)strategy
Functioal)Group)8
Population
Functional)Group)6
Functional Group)7
Functional)Group)3
Functional)Group)4
Functional)Group5
Functional)Group)2
Leadership
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 154
Table 51
Results of χ
2
Test of Technical Staff Belief that Alpha Group Leadership Effectively
Communicates Decisions Relative to the Technical Group Strategy.
Alpha Group
leadership effectively
communicates
decisions related to
the strategy
Agree Disagree χ
2
Critical
Value
P-value Φ
Leadership 58% 42% 14.89 7.82 0.00 3.86
Functional Group 2 50% 50% 2.00 7.82 0.21 1.41
Functional Group 3 78% 22% 23.52 7.82 0.00 4.85
Functional Group 4 88% 12% 19.47 7.82 0.00 4.41
Functional Group 5 38% 63% 7.00 7.82 0.03 2.65
Functional Group 6 67% 33% 3.00 7.82 0.15 1.73
Functional Group 7 83% 17% 16.67 7.82 0.00 4.08
Functional Group 8 93% 7% 39.87 7.82 0.00 6.31
Population 75% 25% 97.75 7.82 0.00 9.89
Furthermore, the percentage of correct responses varied by group with a range from 38% to 93%.
Moreover, the χ
2
= 97.75, P-value < .05 for the population indicates the responses are statistically
significant and that group membership influences beliefs related to leader communication of
decisions relative to the technical group strategy.
Likewise, a third question with respect to leadership communication examined the
technical staff beliefs that Alpha Group leadership effectively communicated decisions relative
to the technical group strategy in a timely manner, with the results shown in Figure 34.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 155
Figure 34: Percentage of technical staff who believe Alpha Group leadership effectively
communicates decisions related to the strategy in a timely manner.
In total, 75% of the population agreed, or strongly agreed, that leadership effectively
communicates decisions relative to the technical group strategy in a timely manner.
Furthermore, as a positive response was submitted by at least 51% of the technical staff, the
claim was quantitatively validated. Accordingly, a chi-square test was run to compare the
independence of the responses between each group. The results of the test confirmed there was a
relationship between group affiliation and survey response since the chi-square test produced a χ
2
= 96.89, P-value < .05 for the population, shown in Table 52.
14%
20%
8%
33%
18%
7%
25%
5%
4%
6%
13%
16%
Strongly)Agree Agree Disgaree Strongly)Disagree
Percentage)of)techncial)staff)who)often)beleive)the)Alpha)Technical)Group)
leadership)effectively)communicate)decisions)relative)to)the)techncial)
group)strategy)in)a)timely)manner
Functioal)Group)8
Population
Functional)Group)6
Functional Group)7
Functional)Group)3
Functional)Group)4
Functional)Group5
Functional)Group)2
Leadership
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 156
Table 52
Results of χ
2
Test of Technical Staff Belief that Alpha Group Leadership Effectively
Communicates Decisions Relative to the Technical Group Strategy in a Timely Manner.
Alpha Group
leadership effectively
communicates
decisions in a timely
manner
Agree Disagree χ
2
Critical
Value
P-value Φ
Leadership 58% 42% 9.42 7.82 0.01 3.07
Functional Group 2 38% 63% 3.00 7.82 0.15 1.73
Functional Group 3 78% 22% 32.41 7.82 0.00 5.69
Functional Group 4 88% 12% 19.47 7.82 0.00 4.41
Functional Group 5 38% 63% 9.00 7.82 0.01 3.00
Functional Group 6 78% 22% 3.89 7.82 0.11 1.97
Functional Group 7 92% 8% 22.00 7.82 0.00 4.69
Functional Group 8 87% 13% 30.27 7.82 0.00 5.50
Population 75% 25% 96.89 7.82 0.00 9.84
Furthermore, the percentage of affirmative responses varied by group with a range from 38% to
92%. Moreover, the χ
2
= 96.89, P-value < .05 for the population indicates the responses are
statistically significant and that group membership influences the group beliefs that leadership
effectively communicates decisions relative to the technical group strategy in a timely manner.
Consequently, given the range of responses for each of the survey questions regarding the
effectiveness of Alpha Group leadership communication, subsequent questions were asked
during the respective focus groups and interviews.
Review of Qualitative Data. The assumed organizational influence that technical group
leadership needs an effective process to communicate decisions and timely, concrete feedback to
the technical staff. A member of Functional Group Seven proposed “leaders are too busy in
meetings and don’t have time to communicate. It would be great if there was a more efficient
way to get the information we need to do our jobs.” Moreover, the leader of Functional Group
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 157
Eight suggested: “we’re so tied up in meetings and trying to make decisions that we don’t have
time to do our jobs.” Relatedly, a member of Functional Group Two offered “it takes a long time
to make decisions, or at least until the decision is communicated.” Moreover, the decisions that
are communicated are often done via email and a member of Functional Group Three reported
that “if our manager were not translating the decision email, we would have no idea as to what
the decision actually was.” Relatedly, a member of Functional Group Two suggested “people
hear different things from different leaders and we don’t know who is right. It really slows us
down and creates tension between the teams.”
Furthermore, a member of the technical staff in Functional Group Three submitted
“leaders don’t seem aligned and then communicate different messages which results in
confusion.” Likewise, a member of Functional Group Five conveyed “the leaders of certain
groups really focus only on their group instead of how the connections and information should
flow between the groups.” Furthermore, “not all leaders are in the loop so we often just go to the
manager we trust the most,” said a member of Functional Group Six. Consequently, the different
perspectives in the technical group “feel like executives know, but don’t want to share, the full
strategy with the staff,” said a member of Functional Group Eight. Relatedly, a member of
Functional Group Five reported the company “culture is to not be as frank as we need to be
sometimes. Perhaps leaders should just get everyone in the room and tell it like it is instead of
worrying about who is going to get their feelings hurt.” Hence, the majority of the quantitative
and qualitative data presented suggested the assumed organizational influence that technical
group leadership needs an effective process to communicate decisions and timely, concrete
feedback to the technical staff was not validated and therefore a gap exists with respect to leader
communication.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 158
Assumed Organization Influence 4: The priorities necessary to implement the strategy are
clear to the technical staff and the organization recognizes and rewards behavior congruent
with the strategy
Priorities to implement the strategy. Organizational performance is likely to improve
when leaders provide clear priorities aligned with the strategy (Schein, 2010). Furthermore, a
consistently communicated message from leadership with respect to these priorities allows
stakeholders to focus on a single strategy (Rosendahl, Olaisen, & Oivind, 2014). Moreover,
communication from leaders about strategic priorities is important in achieving the objectives of
the organization (Berger, 2008). Thus, a series of questions asked the technical staff about
clarity of priorities and the elements which contribute to those priorities. Relatedly, Figure 35
presents the technical staff believe that the priorities to implement the technical group strategy
are clear.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 159
Figure 35: Percentage of technical staff who believe the priorities to implement the technical
group strategy are clear.
Overall, greater than 51% of the population agreed, or strongly agreed, that priorities to
implement the strategy were clear. Subsequently, a chi-square test was run to compare the
independence of the responses between each group. The results of the test confirmed there was a
relationship between group affiliation and survey response as the chi-square test produced a χ
2
=
93.20, P-value < .05 for the population, as shown in Table 53.
10%
17%
8%
22%
12%
4%
11%
2%
13%
11%
Strongly)Agree Agree Disgaree Strongly)Disagree
Percentage)of)techncial)staff)who)often)beleive)the)priorities)to)implemnt)
the)technical)group)strategy)are)clear
Functioal)Group)8
Population
Functional)Group)6
Functional Group)7
Functional)Group)3
Functional)Group)4
Functional)Group5
Functional)Group)2
Leadership
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 160
Table 53
Results of χ
2
Test of Technical Staff Belief There are Clear Priorities to Implement the Technical
Group Strategy.
The priorities to
implement the
technical group
strategy are clear
Agree Disagree χ
2
Critical
Value
P-value Φ
Leadership 53% 47% 6.47 7.82 0.04 2.54
Functional Group 2 63% 38% 9.00 7.82 0.01 3.00
Functional Group 3 70% 30% 30.63 7.82 0.00 5.53
Functional Group 4 76% 24% 16.18 7.82 0.00 4.02
Functional Group 5 38% 63% 5.00 7.82 0.07 2.24
Functional Group 6 67% 33% 3.89 7.82 0.11 1.97
Functional Group 7 75% 25% 12.67 7.82 0.00 3.56
Functional Group 8 73% 27% 20.40 7.82 0.00 4.52
Population 67% 33% 93.20 7.82 0.00 9.65
Despite garnering a positive response from at least 51%, the overall affirmation response was
lower than other questions in the survey suggesting further exploration was warranted in the
focus group session. Furthermore, the percentage of affirmative responses varied by group with
a range from 38% to 75%. Moreover, the χ
2
= 93.20, P-value < .05 for the population indicated
the responses were statistically significant and that group membership influenced the technical
staff belief there are clear priorities to implement the technical group strategy. The lower
percentage of affirmative responses, as compared to other survey questions, suggested the
priorities may not be clear to all groups; accordingly, follow-up questions were asked during the
respective focus group sessions.
Review of Qualitative Data. The interviews and focus groups explored the perspectives
of the Alpha Group leadership and technical staff with respect to clarity of priorities within the
technical group. A member of Functional Group Five proposed: “we don’t know the priorities
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 161
because we don’t know the strategy.” Conversely, a member of Functional Group Two
suggested: “we know what needs to be done and when it needs to be completed but it never
seems like we get out of crisis mode and actually able to work on longer term priorities.”
Moreover, responses during every focus group and interview suggested the functional priorities
are clear but perhaps what is less clear are the interactions between the functional priorities. This
finding may be related to the historical functional organizational structure and highlighting the
immaturity of lateral communication within the organization. “Each functional group is focused
on the priorities for their group but they don’t understand how those priorities influence, interact,
and interfere with other priorities across the technical group,” said a member of Functional
Group Two. Likewise, the leader of Functional Group Four suggested: “I tell my team to focus
on the priorities for my group and then later get reprimanded because my team was focused on
adding value instead of spending all of their time on some corporate initiative.”
Furthermore, a member of Functional Group Three echoed that sentiment by submitting
“corporate groups have initiatives that don’t seem aligned with ours but we spend the majority of
our time trying to respond to their requests.” Similarly, a member of Functional Group Five
submitted “in a perfect world we would all work together but each functional group has their
own agendas.” Furthermore, a member of Functional Group Four suggested: “we get a lot of
requests from corporate groups that don’t feel like they add value and then we’re asked to do our
jobs as well so it creates a lot of ambiguity and confusion.” Relatedly, a member of Functional
Group Six proposed “maybe if leaders would communicate the bigger picture we could see how
all of these efforts should be prioritized.” Thus, the quantitative and qualitative evidence
presented suggested the assumed influence that the priorities necessary to implement the strategy
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 162
are clear to the technical staff was not validated and therefore a gap exists with respect to clear
priorities.
Recognize and reward behavior congruent with the strategy. Rewards are one of five
elements that comprise the STAR Model proposed by Kates and Galbraith (2007). Relatedly, the
STAR model proposed organizations balance the five elements of the model: strategy and
direction, organizational structure and decision making, processes and communication, metrics
and rewards, and roles and responsibilities (Galbraith, 2014). Consequently, Premier Energy
implemented a form of the STAR model during the 2014 transformation project and the survey
asked two questions related to which elements of the model provide the most, and least,
confidence in the ability of the technical group to perform. The results of these two questions are
shown graphically in Figure 36.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 163
Figure 36: Organizational elements which provide the technical staff with the most, and least,
confidence in the technical group ability to perform.
Overall, the population reported the technical group strategy and direction provided the most
confidence in the ability of the technical group to perform. Conversely, processes and
communication were considered to provide the least confidence in the ability of the population to
perform. For reference, the results displayed in Figure 36 and presented in Table 54 and Table
55.
58%
38%
44%
50%
13%
88%
25%
45%
46%
37%
38%
52%
20%
38%
63%
45%
61%
46%
Organizational+elements+which+provide+technical+staff+the+most(and2least)+
confidence+in+the+technical+group+ability+to+perform
Functioal+Group+2
Leadership
Functional+Group+4
Functional Group+3
Functional+Group+7
Functional+Group+6
Functional+Group5
Functional+Group+8
Population
Strategy2and2Direction
Processes and2Communication
Metrics2and2Rewards
Organizational2Structure2and2Decision2Making
Roles2and2Responsibilities
Strategy2and2Direction
Processes and2Communication
Metrics2and2Rewards
Organizational2Structure2and2Decision2Making
Roles2and2Responsibilities
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 164
Table 54
Results Indicating Which STAR Model Element Provides the Most Confidence to Perform.
STAR
Model
element
which
provides
the
most
confidence
to
perform
Strategy
and
direction
Organizational
structure
and
decision
making
Processes
and
communication
Metrics
and
rewards
Roles
and
Responsibilities
Count
Leadership
58%
11%
0%
11%
21%
19
Group
2
38%
13%
13%
25%
13%
8
Group
3
44%
7%
7%
11%
30%
27
Group
4
50%
13%
13%
6%
19%
16
Group
5
13%
13%
13%
25%
38%
8
Group
6
88%
0%
0%
0%
13%
8
Group
7
25%
25%
17%
17%
17%
12
Group
8
45%
17%
10%
0%
28%
29
Population
46%
13%
9%
9%
24%
127
Table 55
Results Indicating Which STAR Model Element Provides the Least Confidence to Perform.
STAR
Model
element
which
provides
the
most
confidence
to
perform
Strategy
and
direction
Organizational
structure
and
decision
making
Processes
and
communication
Metrics
and
rewards
Roles
and
Responsibilities
Count
Leadership
5%
26%
37%
21%
11%
19
Group
2
13%
25%
38%
13%
13%
8
Group
3
0%
22%
52%
11%
15%
27
Group
4
7%
7%
20%
47%
20%
15
Group
5
0%
63%
38%
0%
0%
8
Group
6
13%
13%
63%
13%
0%
8
Group
7
0%
18%
45%
27%
9%
11
Group
8
4%
14%
61%
11%
11%
28
Population
4%
21%
46%
18%
11%
124
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 165
Except for Functional Group Four, the population suggested rewards were not an element which
provided confidence, nor did rewards diminish confidence in the ability of the group to perform.
However, the results of the survey did suggest the technical staff technical staff have confidence
in the strategy, despite not being able to demonstrate declarative knowledge of the strategy. This
paradox may be related to the explicit communication of the strategy as opposed to the implicit
cultural understanding of the strategy and was an area for further investigation during the
respective focus group sessions.
Review of Qualitative Data. The focus groups and interviews sought to more deeply
understand the elements of the STAR model and how organization recognizes and rewards
behavior congruent with the strategy. The leader of Functional Group Two proposed “the staff
are rewarded for achieving their goals in a manner consistent with our company attributes. The
role of a leader is to ensure those goals are aligned with our strategy and that we consistently
provide performance feedback.” Moreover, a member of Functional Group Four suggested “we
are recognized by the organization for the results of our work and strategic direction. Our
company rewards results.” Likewise, the functional managers are the primary source for the
company incentive structure whereas the lateral manager only provides input, as opposed to
recommendations, for rewards. Despite this imbalance in the incentive structure, the staff
expressed confidence in their work.
A member of Functional Group Two submitted “we have confidence in what we are
doing because we see it working and how our strategy will improve the big picture.” Relatedly,
when asked about the possibility of a paradox between confidence and knowledge of the
strategy, a member of Functional Group Three responded “our confidence is based on meeting
our goals and improved results so what we’re doing is working. I personally didn’t think our
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 166
strategy on paper really reflected what we are actually doing.” Similarly, a member of
Functional Group Four proposed “we are having success so our strategy is working but I chose
the words that fit what I think we’re doing, which turned out to not be our strategy.” Likewise, a
member of Functional Group Five reported “we are confident in ourselves and the work we are
doing, not necessarily the words on the page. We all feel like what we are doing is making a
positive difference.” Conversely, the technical staff also expressed frustration over another
element of the STAR model.
The technical staff broadly reported the least confidence in the processes and
communication within the technical group. “We have too many processes that don’t seem to fit
how we work,” said a member of Functional Group Three. “We don’t feel like we have
ownership in the processes.” Relatedly, a member of Functional Group Five expressed
“processes add far less value than they destroy and it feels like groups just roll out processes to
justify their jobs.” Likewise, a member of Functional Group Six proposed “there are so many
new processes and changes happening at once, it seems almost impossible to effectively
communicate during so much change.” Similarly, a member of Functional Group Seven
suggested: “the processes change so much I just stop worrying about doing the new thing
because it will change pretty soon anyway.” Consequently, the evidence presented suggested the
staff believe they are rewarded for achieving desired outcomes and have confidence in their
abilities, despite being unable to demonstrate declarative knowledge of the technical group
strategy. Furthermore, the evidence also suggested the technical staff are least confident in
processes and communication throughout the technical group, particularly given the perceived
lack of value derived from the processes. Accordingly, value in the process may be eroded due
to low trust between groups inhibited by inefficient lateral communication during the handoffs in
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 167
the processes. Thus, the respective groups may have different, or conflicting, priorities which
may be evidence of the ineffective lateral communication resulting from the change to a matrix
structure. Therefore, the evidence suggested the assumed organizational influence that the
priorities necessary to implement the strategy are clear to the technical staff and the organization
recognizes and rewards behavior congruent with the strategy and thus a gap exists.
Conclusion
This chapter presented research results and findings associated with the respective
assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. The data collected was used to
validate each influence and determine if a gap existed. Moreover, the results of the chi-square
test suggested differences between each group and what people know and believe, which may be
related to ineffective lateral communication within the Alpha Group. Consequently, gaps were
evident for nine of the twelve assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences, as
shown in Table 56. The following chapter will discuss proposed solutions for each of the
influences where a gap exists as well as an implementation and evaluation plan.
Table 56
Table of Assumed Influences and Associated Gaps.
Assumed Influence
Quantitatively
Validated
Qualitatively
Validated
Gap
Exists
Assumed Knowledge
Influence
The technical staff know the strategy for
the technical group. (D)
No No Yes
The technical staff understand their role as
it relates to the strategy. (D)
Yes No Yes
The technical staff know their
performance relative to expectations. (D)
Yes Yes No
The technical staff know how to
implement the strategy. (P)
Not Applicable No Yes
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 168
The technical staff reflect on their
performance based on feedback from their
supervisor relative to expectations. (M)
Yes No Yes
Assumed Motivation Influence
The technical staff value achieving the
goal and their role in that achievement
Yes Yes No
The technical staff believe that creating
goals will contribute to improving their
performance relative to the strategy
Yes No Yes
The technical staff is confident in their
individual and collective ability to achieve
the strategy and that implementing the
strategy will improve company
performance
Yes Yes No
Assumed Organization Influence
The behaviors modeled by leadership need
to be congruent with the strategy
communicated to the technical staff.
Yes No Yes
The technical staff need to communicate
in the dual reporting nature of the matrix
organizational structure.
No No Yes
Leadership needs an effective process to
communicate decisions and timely,
concrete feedback to the technical staff.
Yes No Yes
The priorities necessary to implement the
strategy are clear to the technical staff and
the organization recognizes and rewards
behavior congruent with the strategy.
Yes No Yes
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 169
CHAPTER FIVE: SOLUTIONS, IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION
Introduction
This dissertation sought to understand the high failure rate of organizational change
initiatives and the importance of effective communication during those changes. Accordingly,
the project examined the change initiative to restructure Premier Energy from a functionally
structured organization to a matrix organization and the residual knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences on stakeholder performance that prevent the Alpha Group technical
staff from achieving their stakeholder goal. Chapters One and Two presented the importance of
effective communication during organizational change and a review of academic research
literature respectively. Subsequently, the methodology used to study the assumed influences
within the context of Premier Energy was described. Then, Chapter Four communicated the
outcomes and gaps derived from the research. Accordingly, Chapter Five will outline
recommended solutions for the validated knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps as well
as use the New World Kirkpatrick Model proposed (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) to develop
an implementation and evaluation plan.
Recommendations for Practice
Knowledge Recommendations
Introduction. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected, triangulated, and used to
validate the assumed knowledge influences inhibiting the technical staff from achieving their
goal. Analysis of the triangulated data suggested each of the respective knowledge influences
presented in Table 57 were validated as a knowledge influence on the technical staff.
Furthermore, these influences were compared to existing research literature and context-specific
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 170
recommendations were suggested for each of the assumed knowledge influences, as presented in
Table 57. The following sections will describe each of these recommendations in more detail.
Table 57
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Knowledge
Influence
Priority
(Yes, No)
Principle and Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
The technical
staff know the
strategy for the
technical group.
(D)
Yes Procedural knowledge may be improved
when the declarative knowledge necessary
to conduct the task is known (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Remembering and understanding
declarative knowledge may clarify
procedural knowledge (Anderson &
Krathwohl, 2001)
Provide a job aid
containing
definitions and
examples of key
elements of the
strategy.
The technical
staff understand
their role as it
relates to the
strategy. (D)
No Procedural knowledge may be improved
when the declarative knowledge necessary
to conduct the task is known (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
A prompt may allow recall of declarative
knowledge may aid in procedural
knowledge (Anderson & Krathwohl,
2001)
Provide a job aid
containing
definitions of roles
and examples of
roles as they relate
to the strategy.
The technical
staff know how
to implement
the strategy.
(P)
Yes Declarative knowledge in the form of
information and examples may aid in
knowledge transfer and improve
procedural knowledge (Clark & Estes,
2008).
How individuals organize knowledge
influences how they learn and apply what
they know (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006).
Provide a job aid
that provides
examples of the
key steps
necessary to
implement the
strategy.
The technical
staff reflect on
their
performance
based on
feedback from
their supervisor
relative to
expectations.
(M)
Yes Expertise often begins with declarative
knowledge about procedural steps (Clark
& Estes, 2008)
To develop mastery, individuals must
acquire component skills, practice
integrating them, and know when to apply
what they have learned (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006).
Provide training
(feedback) that
compares staff
performance
against a job aid
with examples of
desired
performance in
implementation of
the strategy.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 171
Declarative knowledge description of needs. The technical staff need to have
declarative knowledge of the strategy for the technical group, as shown in Table 57. This
declarative knowledge is important in achieving a successful organizational change because
procedural knowledge may be improved when the declarative knowledge necessary to conduct
the task is known (Clark & Estes, 2008). The strategy must first be known before roles or goals
with respect to the strategy can be determined. Consequently, declarative knowledge of the
strategy was prioritized over declarative knowledge of technical staff roles with respect to the
strategy and feedback to on performance relative to supervisor expectations. Clark and Estes
(2008) proposed the use of a job aid may aid in knowledge transfer. Therefore, the
recommendation to provide a job aid containing definitions and examples of key elements of the
strategy may allow the technical staff to connect the strategy to prior experiences thereby
improving the likelihood of knowledge transfer and a successful organizational change.
In their revision of Bloom’s taxonomy, Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) suggested
remembering and understanding declarative knowledge may clarify procedural knowledge.
Declarative knowledge is comprised of factual and conceptual knowledge, which are the
building blocks of procedural knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002). As presented in Table 57, the
recommendation to provide a job aid containing definitions and examples of key elements of the
strategy may allow the technical staff to connect the strategy to prior experiences and thereby
improve the likelihood for knowledge transfer and increase procedural knowledge (Clark &
Estes, 2008). Procedural knowledge is necessary to implement a strategy and an effectively
communicated strategy will improve the likelihood of achieving the desired outcome of the
organizational change (Rosendahl, Olaisen, & Oivind, 2014). Thus, providing a job aid with
examples may allow the technical staff to practice and apply declarative knowledge of the
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 172
strategy and increase procedural knowledge related to implementing the organizational change
strategy.
Procedural knowledge description of needs. The technical staff need procedural
knowledge of how to implement the technical group strategy for organizational change to
achieve the desired outcomes. Clark and Estes (2008) proposed declarative knowledge, in the
form of information and examples, may aid in knowledge transfer and improve procedural
knowledge. Furthermore, procedural knowledge may be clarified through transfer of declarative
knowledge (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Therefore, the recommendation to provide a job aid
that provides examples of the key steps necessary to implement the strategy may allow the
technical staff to connect to existing heuristics and thereby improve implementation of the
organizational change strategy.
Procedural knowledge involves organizing declarative knowledge into procedural steps
and Schraw and McCrudden (2006) suggested how individuals organize knowledge influences
how they learn and apply what they know. Relatedly, procedural knowledge aligned with
declarative knowledge of the strategy allows stakeholders to organize their tasks into manageable
parts to implement the strategy (Kirschner, Kirschner, & Paas, 2006). Likewise, procedural
knowledge may be gained through job aids and may result in competitive advantage when the
job aids consider the stakeholder environment (Grossman & Salas, 2011). Therefore, knowledge
of the strategy, and how to implement the strategy via job aid, may enable the technical staff to
reflect on their performance in achieving the strategy and improve the likelihood the desired
outcomes of the organizational change will be achieved.
Metacognitive knowledge description of needs. To achieve the desired outcomes of
the organizational change, the technical staff need to reflect on their performance in
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 173
implementing the strategy based on feedback from their supervisor relative to expectations.
Clark and Estes (2008) submitted expertise often begins with declarative knowledge about
procedural steps. Relatedly, Baker (2006) proposed the use of metacognitive reflection to
promote learning. The recommendation for the supervisor to provide feedback on performance a
job aid that provides case study examples of desired performance in implementation of the
strategy may allow the technical staff to reflect on their performance as compared to a rubric of
expected performance. Additionally, clear examples aligned with the strategy should be
provided in the job aid (Biron, Farndale & Paauwe, 2011). Consequently, a synthesis of the
previously mentioned research literature suggested reflection on performance against a set of
expectations may lead to mastery of desired tasks and therefore reflection via job aid and training
may allow the technical staff to develop expertise related to strategy implementation aligned
with organizational change.
To develop mastery, individuals must acquire component skills, practice integrating
them, and know when to apply what they have learned (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006).
Relatedly, implementation strategies related to information processing theory include the use of
examples that connect new knowledge to prior experiences and understanding the appropriate
use of new skills during strategy implementation (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006; Mayer, 2011).
Likewise, Shute (2008) suggested performance feedback related to new skills is most effective
when aligned with the strategy of the firm. Therefore, a synthesis of the aforementioned
research literature suggested the recommended training and job aid which provided case study
examples of desired strategy implementation performance to be most effective in developing
mastery, which may lead to improved self-efficacy, motivation, and successful organizational
change.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 174
Motivation Recommendations
Introduction. The methodology described in Chapter Three was used to collect and
triangulate quantitative and qualitative data to validate the assumed motivation influences
inhibiting the technical staff from achieving their goal. Relatedly, Clark and Estes (2008)
proposed effective change begins with motivation and choice, persistence, and mental effort are
indicators related to the motivation of an individual to perform a task. Subsequent analysis of
the data suggested the technical staff was largely motivated to conduct their work; yet, the
motivation influence of goal orientation was still validated as an influence on the technical staff.
This influence was compared to existing research literature and a context specific
recommendation was suggested to address goal orientation, as presented in Table 58.
Table 58
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Motivation
Influence
Priority
(Yes, No)
Principle and Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
The technical
staff believe
that creating
goals will
contribute to
improving
their
performance
relative to the
strategy
Yes Motivation is improved when an individual
has confidence in their ability to achieve a
meaningful goal. Conversely, motivation
is diminished when goals and feedback are
vague or inconsistent (Clark & Estes,
2008).
Self-efficacy and motivation are improved
when individuals have confidence in their
ability to perform a task and receive timely
and actionable feedback on their
performance (Pajares, 2006)
Provide specific,
challenging, and
achievable short-
term SMART
goals aligned with
the strategy
followed by
unambiguous and
actionable
feedback.
Goal Orientation. To improve the likelihood of a successful organizational change, the
technical staff need to believe that creating SMART goals will contribute to improving their
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 175
performance relative to the strategy. Clark and Estes (2008) proposed motivation is improved
when an individual has confidence in their ability to achieve a meaningful goal and that
motivation is diminished when goals and feedback are vague or inconsistent. Furthermore,
Dembo and Eaton (2000) suggested people should set specific goals and Clark and Estes (2008)
proposed motivation may be improved when performance goals are measurable and achievable.
Relatedly, Doran (1981) proposed goals are easier to understand and achieve when they are
written as SMART goals, which is an acronym for specific, measurable, assignable, realistic, and
time-related. Therefore, motivation of the technical staff may be improved by the
recommendation to provide specific, challenging, and achievable short-term goals aligned with
the strategy followed by clear and actionable feedback in person and immediately after the task
is completed.
Motivation and self-efficacy are improved when individuals have confidence in their
ability to perform a task and receive timely and actionable feedback on their performance
(Pajares, 2006). Goals motivate individuals (Pintrich, 2003) and examine the rationale for why
work is done (Anderman & Anderman, 2006). Providing specific, interesting, and challenging
goals promotes mastery and enhances motivation (Yough & Anderman, 2006). With respect to
organizational change implementation strategies, Pintrich (2003) proposed goals should focus on
mastery whereas Yough and Anderman (2006) suggested goals should focus on self-
improvement supported by specific feedback. Furthermore, Rueda (2011) proposed clear and
actionable feedback with respect to competency on challenging tasks may improve self-efficacy
and motivation. Combining the strategies, the recommendation to provide specific, challenging,
and achievable short-term SMART goals aligned with the strategy followed by unambiguous and
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 176
actionable feedback may enhance the motivation of the technical staff and improve the
likelihood of a successful organizational change.
Organization Recommendations
Introduction. The collection, analysis, and triangulation of the quantitative and
qualitative data validated the assumed organizational influences inhibiting the technical staff
from achieving their stakeholder goal. Performance gaps rooted in organizational influences are
related to insufficient material resources or ineffective organizational workflows, policies, or
processes (Clark & Estes, 2008). Relatedly, organizational issues can be the root of performance
problems and lead to decreased motivation if the problem persists (Rueda, 2011). Organizational
culture is also an organizational influence and Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) proposed
culture is comprised of both models and settings. The former is related to the shared values and
beliefs of individuals and groups within an organization whereas the latter is linked to the
physical setting in which the work is conducted (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Both culture
and settings were considered and the themes generated from the data analysis validated
organization influences as inhibiting the technical staff from achieving their goal. These
influences were compared to existing research literature and context-specific recommendations
were proposed for each of the assumed organization influences, as presented in Table 59. The
following sections will describe the recommendations related to four organizational influences
respectively.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 177
Table 59
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Organization
Influence
Priority
(Yes,
No)
Principle and Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
The behaviors
modeled by
leadership need to
be congruent with
the strategy
communicated to
the technical
staff.
Yes Organizational performance
improves when modeled behavior
is congruent with the strategy and
culture of the organization (Clark &
Estes, 2008)
Leaders who model congruent
behavior are more likely to be
trusted (Van den Akker, Heres,
Lasthulzen, & Six, 2009)
Leaders will personally
communicate to
technical staff the
congruency between
expected behaviors and
the company strategy
and demonstrate
consistency in
modeling desired
behavior.
The technical staff
need to
communicate in
the dual reporting
nature of the
matrix
organizational
structure.
Yes
Communicate plans and progress
clearly and candidly to all
stakeholders to improve
organizational performance (Clark
& Estes, 2008)
Lateral communication is required
for a matrix organization to be
effective (Galbraith, Downey, &
Kates, 2002)
Support matrix
communication
through building and
using the existing
lateral communication
networks.
Leadership needs
an effective
process to
communicate
decisions and
timely, concrete
feedback to the
technical staff.
Yes Performance is improved when
leaders communicate and provide
stakeholders with constant and
candid feedback with respect to
progress toward plans (Clark &
Estes, 2008)
The use of scorecards may help
align stakeholders toward a
common goal and provide and
accountability in achieving the
desired outcome (Bensimon, Hao,
& Bustillos, 2007)
Leaders will use a
scorecard to clearly
communicate
expectations to the
technical staff with
respect to the plan and
establish regular
feedback sessions to
monitor progress
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 178
The priorities
necessary to
implement the
strategy are clear
to the technical
staff and the
organization
recognizes and
rewards behavior
congruent with
the strategy.
Yes Desired outcomes are more likely
to be achieved when there is
congruency across the structure,
processes, goals, and strategy of the
organization (Clark & Estes, 2008)
The performance of an organization
is likely to improve when leaders
provide clear priorities aligned with
the vision and mission (Schein,
2010)
Leaders will
collaborate with
technical staff to ensure
priorities are clear and
aligned with company
goals so that all activity
is aligned with the
vision, mission, and
strategy of the
organization.
Technical staff need to see leadership model desired behaviors. To achieve the
desired outcomes of an organizational change, the behaviors modeled by leadership need to be
congruent with the strategy communicated to the technical staff. Organizational performance
improves when modeled behavior is congruent with the strategy and culture of the organization
(Clark & Estes, 2008). Similarly, attributions of current leader behavior are used by followers as
a predictor of future behavior (Moorman & Grover, 2009) and congruency in modeling desired
behavior may lead to improved performance. Implementation strategies include demonstrating
consistency with company values, keeping commitments, and making the right decision for the
organization despite external influences (Edmondson & Schein, 2012). Therefore, the success
rate of organizational change may be improved by the recommendation that leaders are
accountable to consistently model the desired behavior and personally communicate the
congruency between expected behaviors and the company strategy.
Leaders who model congruent behavior are more likely to be trusted (van den Akker,
Heres, Lasthulzen, & Six, 2009). Likewise, the modeled behavior is more likely to be adopted if
the leader is trusted and the behavior has functional value (Denler, Wolters, & Benzon, 2009).
Moreover, the adoption of modeled behavior occurs through observational learning as staff
observe leaders visibly modeling the desired behaviors (Mayer, 2011). Consequently, leaders
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 179
account for 55% of all influence on staff (Shaffer, 2000) and desired outcomes are more likely
when leaders develop leaders at multiple levels of the organization (Fullan, 2004). Conversely,
if leader behavior is not congruent with the organizational value or strategies, trust may be
broken and lost credibility is difficult to regain (Strebel, 1996). Thus, the recommendation to
establish expectations that leaders consistently model the desired behavior and personally
communicate the congruency between expected behaviors and the company strategy may
improve organizational performance and the likelihood of a successful organizational change.
Technical staff need to see leaders communicating effectively within the matrix
structure. Successful organizational change requires the technical staff to communicate within
the dual reporting nature of the matrix organizational structure. Leaders of effective
organizations communicate plans and progress clearly and candidly to all stakeholders to
improve organizational performance (Clark & Estes, 2008). Moreover, Clark and Estes (2008)
suggested lateral communication is improved when the flow of information is coordinated across
various stakeholder groups. Consequently, Lewis (2011) proposed leaders should provide
central connectors with the desired messaging to ensure a consistent message was flowing
through the lateral communication network. These central connectors are similar to the coalition
and change champions who improve the likelihood of organizational change as proposed by
Kotter (1996). Hence, the recommendation to support matrix communication through building
and using existing lateral communication networks may improve the organizational effectiveness
of the company and the likelihood of achieving the desired outcome of the organizational
change.
Lateral communication is required for a matrix organization to be effective (Galbraith,
Downey, & Kates, 2002). Trust is fostered when leaders communicate clearly and candidly with
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 180
respect to the organizational vision, strategy, and progress toward goals (Dixon, 1994).
Relatedly, Conger (1991) submitted effective leaders ensure the vision and strategy of the
organization are aligned with the culture and are communicated in a manner that inspires the
organization to achieve the strategy. However, the flow of information becomes more
challenging in a matrix organization and effective leaders build networks to spread a consistent
message throughout the organization (Runardotter, 2011). Consequently, the change to a matrix
organization relied upon lateral communication that was not a strength of Premier Energy and
resulted in challenges in the effective flow of information, thereby inhibiting the ability of the
technical staff to achieve their stakeholder goal. Accordingly, the recommendation to establish
expectations for leaders to support matrix communication through building and using existing
lateral communication networks may improve the likelihood that the stakeholder goal and
desired outcomes of the change will be achieved and improve the performance of the firm.
Technical staff need to receive timely communication of decisions and feedback. The
success rate of organizational change will likely be improved with leadership has an effective
process to communicate decisions and timely, concrete feedback to the technical staff.
Performance is improved when leaders provide stakeholders with consistent and candid feedback
with respect to progress toward plans (Clark & Estes, 2008). Similarly, organizational
performance may be improved when goals are aligned with the strategy and feedback on those
goals is timely and specific (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). Furthermore, Shute (2008) suggested the
use of common metrics may improve performance if supported with private and precise
feedback. Consequently, the recommendation that leaders use an internally created scorecard to
clearly communicate expectations to the technical staff with respect to the plan and establish
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 181
regular feedback sessions to monitor progress may enhance performance and improve the
likelihood of achieving the desired outcomes of the change.
The use of scorecards may help align stakeholders toward a common goal and provide
accountability in achieving the desired outcome of the organizational change (Bensimon, 2005).
Likewise, the use of effective scorecards allows both leaders and stakeholders to monitor
progress and determine if the desired outcomes are likely to be achieved (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Similarly, leaders of effective organizations communicate a clear vision, goals aligned with the
vision, and progress toward those goals (Dixon, 1994). Moreover, with respect to progress
toward goals, feedback that is private and precise may enhance performance (Shute, 2008) and
Tuckman (2006) proposed feedback should occur immediately after a task is completed.
Relatedly, Pajares (2006) suggested feedback may increase self-efficacy when consistent,
reliable, specific, and private feedback is provided on progress and performance. Therefore,
success rate of organizational change, and therefore organizational performance, may be
improved with a scorecard to clearly communicate leader expectations to the technical staff with
respect to the plan and establish regular feedback sessions to monitor progress.
Technical staff need to see priorities clearly aligned to the company strategy. The
success rate of organizational change is improved when the priorities necessary to implement the
strategy are clear to the technical staff and the organization recognizes and rewards behavior
congruent with the strategy. Desired outcomes are more likely to be achieved when there is
congruency across the structure, processes, goals, and strategy of the organization (Clark &
Estes, 2008). Similarly, structures and policies influence the achievement of goals; however,
care must be taken to ensure changes to structures and policies are refocused on the desired
outcome or the changes will accumulate and decrease the ability of the staff to achieve their
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 182
goals (Rueda, 2011). Moreover, aligning the plan with the vision and mission of the firm allows
leaders to communicate a consistent message and focus stakeholders on a single strategy
(Rosendahl, Olaisen, & Oivind, 2014). Consequently, as lateral communication was not a
strength of the organization, the move to a matrix organization inhibited the ability of the
organization to communicate a consistent message and focus stakeholders on a single strategy.
Thus, the recommendation to establish expectations for leaders to collaborate with technical staff
to ensure priorities are clear and aligned with company goals so that all activity is aligned with
the vision, mission, and strategy of the organization may improve the likelihood of successful
organizational change and the performance of the firm.
The desired outcomes of organizational change and the performance of an organization
are likely to improve when leaders provide clear priorities aligned with the vision and mission
(Schein, 2010). Furthermore, it is imperative that the organization have a singular vision and
strategy for the staff to align their respective efforts toward as people can become paralyzed
when multiple priorities exist (McPhee & Zaug, 2001). Relatedly, internal communication from
leaders about strategic priorities is important in achieving the objectives of the organization
(Berger, 2008). Moreover, routine communication processes may improve performance by
ensuring priorities are known throughout the organization (Walters, Marzano, & McNulty,
2003). Therefore, the success rate of organizational change and the performance of Premier
Energy may be improved by leaders collaborating with technical staff to ensure priorities are
clear and aligned with company performance goals so that all activity is aligned with the vision,
mission, and strategy of the company.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 183
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The New World Kirkpatrick Model proposed by Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) was
used to inform the framework for the implementation and evaluation plan used in this study.
This model is based on the original Kirkpatrick Four Level Model of Evaluation (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2006) yet reverses the order of the implementation by first focusing on outcomes.
Consequently, Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) proposed establishing targeted outcomes
aligned with the organizational goal as a key first step in an implementation and evaluation plan.
The New World Kirkpatrick model then turns focus to the behavior of stakeholders in
application of learning new skills or tasks. Relatedly, the third step in the model is to focus
stakeholders on learning the intended knowledge and skills required to achieve the desired
outcome. Lastly, the New World Kirkpatrick Model focuses on stakeholder reaction to the
relevance of the training to their jobs. Hence, Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) suggested
designing the implementation and evaluation plan with outcomes aligned to organizational goals
may improve the likelihood of achieving the intended behavior and learning outcomes of the
plan.
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
The mission of Premier Energy suggests a desire to consistently deliver top-quartile total
shareholder return (TSR) compared to a peer group of companies and do so through a highly-
engaged culture focused on innovation, safety, operational excellence, environmental
stewardship, and social responsibility. Similarly, the organizational performance goal is to
adhere to the organizational mission and deliver two consecutive years of top-quartile TSR
relative to the peer group by the end of December 2020. This objective was established by the
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 184
executive leadership of the firm to remedy several years of underperformance and execution of
the objective falls to the Premier Energy technical group management and technical staff.
Relatedly, the stakeholder group goal is by the end of December 2019, 100% of technical staff
annual goals will be aligned with the organizational strategy and accomplished with a 100%
completion rate. To achieve this goal, the technical staff will likely need to communicate
effectively, exhibit proficiency in their respective functional responsibilities, and demonstrate an
ability to work in a collaborative matrix organization. These capabilities will aid the technical
staff in developing and achieving annual goals aligned with the company vision and strategy.
Accomplishment of the collective goals of the technical staff is an important step to achieve the
organizational performance goal of Premier Energy.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) suggested leading indicators may help an
organization understand if progress is being made toward the organizational goal. These leading
indicators may be both internal or external to the firm. Consequently, the proposed internal and
external leading indicators are presented in Table 60 and categorized outcomes, metrics, and
methods. The underlying theme of Table 60 is that external outcomes will follow the internal
outcomes. Thus, TSR and positive external news flows should follow if Premier Energy delivers
on the budget and the technical staff know the priorities to implement the strategic plan, their
roles with respect to the plan, and communicate effectively in a matrix organization.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 185
Table 60
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome
Metric(s)
Method(s)
External Outcomes
1. TSR consistently in the top-
quartile of a peer group of
publicly traded companies
Annual TSR in top-quartile as
compared to a peer group of publicly
traded companies
Compare TSR performance of peer
group over last five years
2. Company CSR initiatives are
noticed and valued by the
general public
2a. Percent of positive news flow from
media and compared to a peer group of
companies
2a. Compare % positive news flow
across peer group over last five years
2b. Percent of positive news flow from
stakeholder action hotline
2b. Review % positive news flow
attributed to each corporate value over
last five years
Internal Outcomes
3. Internal budget outcomes
delivered by technical staff
within expected range
Capital within +/- 5% of plan
Expenses within +/- 3% of plan
Production within +/- 3% of plan
On a weekly basis, review % variance
to plan report for exceptions
4. Increased feedback between
supervisors and technical staff
4a. 100% of technical staff know the
strategy and the steps to implement the
strategy.
4a. 100% of leader communications
with technical staff during meetings
should reference the company strategy.
4b. 100% of technical staff know the
priorities to implement the strategy.
4b. Review progress on priorities
toward achieving the strategy during
weekly meetings with technical staff
4c. 100% of technical staff know their
roles and responsibility with respect to
the strategy.
4c. One-on-one reviews of
performance with respect to the
expectations outlined in the roles and
responsibilities job aide.
4d. 100% of technical staff goals will
be aligned with company strategy.
4d. One-on-one reviews of employee
goals and progress toward achieving
those goals.
4e. Leaders will timely communicate
decisions on 100% of technical staff
recommendations.
4e. Leaders will communicate
decisions to recommending
individual(s) and stakeholders within
2-business days of recommendation
5. Increased lateral
communication between
technical groups
A cross-functional team building event
will be held each month for a total of
12 events each year.
Monthly social events designed to
build relationships and strengthen the
informal communication network
between the teams.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 186
Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. Although the technical staff of Premier Energy is the stakeholder
group of focus for this study, many of the critical behaviors are directed toward the technical
group leadership. These critical behaviors are outlined in Table 61 according to the critical
behavior and associated metric, method, and frequency. First, technical group leadership will
monthly review and discuss the TSR performance of the firm compared to a peer group of
companies. This discussion will be held with the technical staff during with technical staff
during the executive leadership meeting. Second, technical group leaders will monthly review
and discuss the alignment of company activities with Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
values during the executive leadership meeting. These discussions will include reviews of the
positive news flow compared to the peer group of companies and with respect to each CSR
value. Third, during the executive leadership meeting, technical group leadership will weekly
discuss with technical staff the performance of the plan with respect to expected outcomes.
Fourth, communication and feedback between technical group leadership and staff will improve
technical staff knowledge of the strategy, priorities, roles, goals, and decisions. Lastly,
communication will be further improved through cross-functional social events designed to
strengthen the relationships necessary for effective lateral communication within the
organization.
Table 61
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Technical Staff and Leaders
Critical Behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
1. Leaders will discuss
TSR performance with
technical staff during
executive leadership
meeting
Annual TSR in top-
quartile as compared to a
peer group of companies
Review and discuss TSR
performance of peer group
with technical staff during
executive leadership meeting
Monthly
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 187
2. Leaders will discuss
current activity aligned
with corporate CSR values
with technical staff during
executive leadership
meeting
2a. Percent of positive
news flow from media
2a. Review and discuss %
positive news flow attributed
to each corporate value
during executive leadership
meeting
Monthly
2b. Percent of positive
news flow from media
compared to peer group
2b. Review and discuss %
positive news compared to a
peer group of companies
during executive leadership
meeting
Monthly
2c. Percent of positive
news flow from
stakeholder action hotline
2c. Review and discuss %
positive news flow attributed
to each corporate value
during executive leadership
meeting
Monthly
3. Leaders will discuss
performance of plan with
respect to expected
outcomes with technical
staff
Capital within +/- 5% of
plan
Expenses within +/- 3% of
plan
Production within +/- 3%
of plan
Compare and discuss
projections to plan during
technical group leadership
meeting with exceptions
communicated during
executive leadership meeting.
Weekly
4. Improve communication
and feedback between
supervisors and technical
staff
4a. 100% of technical staff
know the strategy and the
steps to implement the
strategy.
4a. Leaders will incorporate
strategy and implementation
steps into 100% of leader
communications.
Continuous
4b. 100% of technical staff
know the priorities to
implement the strategy.
4b. During staff meetings.
leaders will review priorities,
obtain updates from staff on
progress toward achieving
the strategy, and make
changes as needed.
Weekly
4c. 100% of technical staff
know their roles and
responsibility with respect
to the strategy.
4c. Leaders will meet with
each employee one-on-one to
review employee
performance with respect to
the expectations outlined in
the roles and responsibilities
job aide.
Monthly
4d. 100% of technical staff
goals will be aligned with
company strategy.
4d. Leaders will meet with
each employee one-on-one to
review employee goals and
progress toward achieving
those goals.
Monthly
4e. Leaders will timely
communicate decisions on
technical staff
recommendations.
4e. Leaders will
communicate decisions
directly to the recommending
individual(s) and make the
decision known to all
stakeholders via intranet
Continuous. Decisions
communicated to staff
within two-business
days of recommendation
5. Increased lateral
communication between
technical groups
Monthly cross-functional
team building events.
Leaders will host social
events designed to build
relationships and strengthen
the informal communication
network between the teams.
Monthly
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 188
Required drivers. Drivers are required to support and encourage the critical behaviors
necessary for the stakeholders and organization to achieve their respective goals. The New
World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) suggested these required drivers
may be related to reinforcing, encouraging, rewarding, and monitoring critical behaviors, which
are presented in Table 62 along with the expected timing of each behavior. These required
drivers will support the previously discussed critical behaviors of both the technical staff and
leadership of the Alpha Group in their pursuit of their stakeholder and organizational goals.
Table 62
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors of Technical Staff and Leaders
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing
Provide a job aid containing definitions and
examples of key elements of the strategy.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3, 4
Provide a job aid containing definitions of roles
and examples of roles as they relate to the
strategy.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3, 4
Provide a job aid containing expectations for each
role and examples of those expectations in
practice.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3, 4
Provide a job aid that provides examples of the
key steps necessary to implement the strategy.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3, 4
Leaders will provide clear personal value
associated with accomplishing the goal as well as
the risks of not achieving the goal during one-on-
one meetings with technical staff.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3, 4
Leaders will personally communicate to technical
staff the congruency between expected behaviors
and the company strategy job aids with and
demonstrate consistency in modeling desired
behavior.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3, 4
Encouraging
Provide feedback to technical staff that compares
staff performance against a job aid that provides a
case study examples of desired performance in
implementation of the strategy.
Monthly 1, 2, 3, 4
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 189
Provide specific, challenging, and achievable
short-term SMART goals aligned with the strategy
followed by unambiguous, timely, and actionable
feedback.
Monthly 1, 2, 3, 4
Rewarding
Provide opportunities for staff to publicly discuss
their work, both formally during meetings and
informally during conversations, and compliment
the positive impact their performance afforded the
organization through achieving a challenging task.
Weekly 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Support employee engagement, relationships, and
matrix communication through building and using
the existing lateral communication networks to
spread positive examples of desired behavior and
performance.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Monitoring
Leaders will use a scorecard to clearly
communicate expectations to the technical staff
with respect to the plan and establish regular
feedback sessions to monitor progress
Weekly 1, 2, 3, 4
Leaders will collaborate with technical staff to
ensure priorities are clear and aligned with
company goals so that all activity is aligned with
the vision, mission, and strategy of the
organization.
Monthly 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Organizational support. The implementation and development of critical behaviors
within Premier Energy will require support from the organization to ensure the required drivers
are implemented. Leaders will model desired behavior by establishing a cadence within the
existing weekly executive leadership meeting to review and discuss a scorecard of key business
performance indicators with technical staff. These indicators include TSR performance, CSR
alignment, and exceptions to expected performance and how those metrics relate to the vision
and strategy of the firm. Furthermore, this alignment will be reinforced through timely decision
making by leadership. Relatedly, monthly one-on-one feedback sessions will be established with
the technical staff for discussion of group performance, related decisions, and individual
performance. Moreover, performance compared to expectations put forth in the job aids will be
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 190
discussed and plans for improved performance made, as necessary. Similarly, leaders will
improve the lateral communication network through hosting monthly cross-functional social
events to foster relationship building within the organization.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Subsequent to implementation of the recommended solutions, the
technical staff will be able to:
1. Recognize the technical group strategy with 100% accuracy, (Declarative)
2. Recognize their role as it relates to the strategy, (Decorative)
3. Recognize performance expectations associated with their role, (Declarative)
4. Recognize the priorities to implement the strategy, (Declarative)
5. Apply the steps to implement the strategy, (Procedural)
6. Reflect on performance and feedback, (Metacognitive)
7. Value goal setting and achievement, (Goal, Value)
8. Value the alignment between goals and organizational strategy, (Goal, Value)
9. Demonstrate confidence in the organizational strategy, (Confidence)
10. Demonstrate confidence in information from matrix counterparts (Confidence)
Program. The previously described learning goals will be achieved through a three-
phase implementation program. During the first phase, the Alpha Technical Group leadership
team will meet during a four-day offsite workshop to ensure alignment to the technical group
strategy, job aids and expectations for each role, priorities to implement the strategy, goal setting
and achievement, and use of lateral communication. Subsequent to the leadership offsite, phase
two will begin with a technical group town hall to provide an overview of the upcoming changes.
Directly after the town hall, each leader will meet one-on-one with their technical staff for one-
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 191
hour to reinforce the town hall message, discuss alignment of the role toward the strategy, and
reestablish expectations for performance. The use of scorecards in the hour-long weekly
executive leadership meeting will begin the following week and subsequent hour-long one-on-
one feedback sessions with the technical staff will be scheduled for the remainder of the year.
Furthermore, monthly social events will be scheduled and invitations sent to the cross-functional
teams. Lastly, the third phase of the implementation will consist of 10-minute survey scheduled
six months after the implementation to measure learning improvements from the baseline survey
created by this study.
Components of learning. Recognition and application of declarative and procedural
knowledge are important components the technical staff achieving their stakeholder goal.
Likewise, reflection on performance feedback, alignment of goals to the strategy, and confidence
the strategy may also improve stakeholder performance toward achieving their goal. However,
demonstration of knowledge, attitude, and confidence must be evaluated to ensure learning has
occurred. As such, Table 63 presents the evaluation methods and associated timing for each
component.
Table 63
Components of Learning for the Program.
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Knowledge checks using multiple choice
survey.
In phase three of the implementation with 10-
minute surveys three, six, and twelve months
after implementation.
Knowledge checks through bi-monthly
opportunities for staff to publicly discuss their
work, both formally during meetings and
informally in conversations.
In phase two of the implementation during
weekly staff meetings and alignment to
strategy documented via observer notes.
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Verbally describe the steps and priorities to
implement the strategy.
In phase two of the implementation during
one-on-one feedback sessions.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 192
Demonstration of using the job aids to
successfully perform respective roles.
Continually via leader observation with
feedback during one-on-one feedback sessions.
Quality of the feedback from peers following
peer review of work in weekly staff meetings
In phase two of the implementation during
weekly staff meetings and alignment to
strategy documented via observer notes.
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Discussions of the value and alignment of
goals and responsibilities with the
organizational strategy.
In phase two of the implementation during
weekly staff meetings and alignment to
strategy documented via observation notes.
Observation of leader behavior and leader
engagement
In phase one of the implementation during the
offsite workshop documented via observer
notes
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Self-efficacy checks using multiple choice
survey.
In phase three of the implementation with 10-
minute surveys three, six, and twelve months
after implementation.
Discussions of confidence with technical staff
in their ability to perform required tasks.
In phase two of the implementation during
one-on-one feedback sessions.
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Discussions of commitment with technical
staff following practice and feedback.
In phase two of the implementation during
one-on-one feedback sessions.
Commitment check using multiple choice
survey.
In phase three of the implementation with a 10-
minute surveys six months after
implementation.
Level 1: Reaction
Understanding stakeholder reaction to new learning events, such as one-on-one
performance feedback sessions focused on strategic alignment of priorities and responsibilities,
is an important aspect of implementing a learning and evaluation program. These stakeholder
reactions may describe the extent to which the stakeholders found the actions favorable, relevant,
and engaging in their current role. Consequently, Table 64 describes the components to measure
reactions to the implementation program.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 193
Table 64
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program.
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Observation by leadership peers During the phase one leadership offsite
workshop
Observation by technical staff peers In phase two of the implementation
Observation by leaders during one-on-one
sessions
In phase two of the implementation during
one-on-one feedback sessions.
Engagement checks using multiple choice
survey.
In phase three of the implementation with 10-
minute surveys three, six, and twelve months
after implementation.
Relevance
Pulse-check by leaders with technical staff
during one-on-one sessions
In phase two of the implementation during
one-on-one feedback sessions.
Relevance checks using multiple choice
survey.
In phase three of the implementation with 10-
minute surveys three, six, and twelve months
after implementation.
Customer Satisfaction
Pulse-check by leaders with technical staff
during one-on-one sessions
In phase two of the implementation during
one-on-one feedback sessions.
Satisfaction checks using multiple choice
survey.
In phase three of the implementation with 10-
minute surveys three, six, and twelve months
after implementation.
Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. During phase two of the
implementation, leaders will meet one-on-one with the technical staff to discuss alignment of
their role toward the strategy and reestablish expectations for performance. These conversations
will be facilitated through using a job aid which explains the role and expectations with both
technical staff and leaders discussing performance with respect to expectations on the job aid.
The collective performance will be reviewed by the leadership team for trends or gaps in role
clarity alongside observer notes from leadership. Developing an understanding of technical staff
reactions to the new learnings will be done informally through pulse-checks during one-on-one
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 194
sessions between the technical staff and leadership. Similarly, Level 2 learnings will be
evaluated informally during one-on-one feedback sessions where staff compare and realign their
priorities and goals to expectations and responsibilities defined by the job aid. For reference, the
job aid is presented in Appendix G. Level 2 learnings will also be evaluated through a survey
conducted three, six, and twelve months after the implementation. Relatedly, the survey
examines the Anderson and Krathwohl (2000) cognitive processes of remembering,
understanding, and applying, as shown in Table 65.
Table 65
Anderson and Krathwohl (2000) Cognitive Processes Examined Through the Survey.
Cognitive Process Assessment - Type Assessment Format
Remember Recognizing -
Forced Choice
Survey questions 17-21. Demonstrate declarative
knowledge through recognition on multiple choice
question.
Understand Classifying -
Selection Task
Survey questions 1-16. Portray confidence in
outcomes based on various statements
Understand Comparing -
Mapping
Survey questions 45-50. Detect similarities and
make appropriate selection
Analyze Attributing -
Selection Task
Survey questions 22-44. Selection task to
determine if stakeholders agree or disagree with a
statement
Furthermore, the survey will also be used to measure the Level 1 factors of satisfaction, reaction,
engagement, and relevance of the changes with respect to the roles of technical staff. For
reference, the survey is presented in Appendix F.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. Alpha Group leadership will
administer a survey six months after implementation of the program. The survey is presented in
Appendix F and will provide a longitudinal view of how Level 2 learnings have changed over
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 195
time. The protocol used in this dissertation will serve as the baseline but augmented to include
measures of satisfaction, reactions, engagement, and relevance of the changes (Level 1) and
confidence applying the learning will improve performance and technical staff commitment to
apply the learnings (Level 2). Furthermore, the survey will measure organizational support
(Level 3) and the extent to which the technical staff know the strategy, how to perform the
strategy, their role in implementing the strategy, and the alignment of goals and priorities to
achieve the strategy in service of the organizational goal (Level 4).
Data Analysis and Reporting
Scorecards align stakeholders toward a common goal and provide and accountability in
achieving the desired Level 4 outcomes (Bensimon, 2005). Likewise, effective scorecards
enable stakeholders to monitor progress and determine if the desired outcomes are likely to be
achieved (Clark & Estes, 2008). Similarly, leaders of effective organizations communicate
progress toward goals aligned with the organizational strategy (Dixon, 1994). Consequently,
Figure 37 presents an example of a Level 4 scorecard which will be updated by the accountable
stakeholder on a weekly basis and reviewed monthly during an executive leadership meeting.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 196
Figure 37: Example of scorecard used in weekly meetings to monitor progress toward outcomes.
Accordingly, a single member of the technical group leadership will be accountable for each of
the desired outcomes and are expected to work with the appropriate stakeholders to progress
each outcome toward the desired metric. Similarly, comparable dashboards will be created to
monitor progress on Levels 1, 2, and 3 as well as the internal outcomes for Level 4.
Summary
The New World Kirkpatrick model proposed by Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) was
used to inform the framework for the implementation and evaluation plan used in this study. The
plan to implement and evaluate began with Level 4 results and leading indicators measuring key
Desired Outcome Metric
1. TSR consistently in
the top-quartile of a
peer group of publicly
traded companies
Annual TSR in top-
quartile as compared
to a peer group of
publicly traded
companies
Top
quartile
2nd
quartile
3rd or 4th
quartile
2. Company CSR
initiatives are noticed
and valued by the
general public
2a. Percent of positive
news flow from media
and compared to a
peer group of
companies
Top
quartile
2nd
quartile
3rd or 4th
quartile
Trend&
improving&
after&
investor&day
2b. Percent of positive
news flow from
stakeholder action
hotline
Top
quartile
2nd
quartile
3rd or 4th
quartile
Internal&
review&
scheduled
Fully%
Meets
Meets%
Some
Does%Not%
Meet
Trend%%%
[W5W]
Variance%
Comments
3. Internal budget
outcomes delivered
by technical staff
within expected range
Capital within +/- 5%
of plan
Top
quartile
2nd
quartile
3rd or 4th
quartile
Trend&
improving&
after&
internal&
review
Expenses within +/- 3%
of plan
Top
quartile
2nd
quartile
3rd or 4th
quartile
Vendor&
meeting&
scheduled
Production within +/-
3% of plan
Top
quartile
2nd
quartile
3rd or 4th
quartile
Internal&
review&
scheduled
Trend%%%
[W5W]
Variance%
Comments External view of our company
Internal view of our company
Fully%
Meets
Meets%
Some
Does%Not%
Meet
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 197
external and internal outcomes required to achieve the organizational goal. Subsequently, the
Level 3 critical behaviors and required drivers considered necessary to achieve the desired
outcomes were contemplated. Afterward, the Level 2 learning goals were clarified for the
technical staff as was the program to achieve those learning goals. Lastly, Level 1 envisioned
stakeholder reaction, engagement, relevance and satisfaction to the learning program.
Accordingly, each of the four levels will have a scorecard, similar to the Figure 37, to measure
progress toward the desired outcomes, behaviors, and objectives. These scorecards will be
updated weekly and used on a monthly cadence during the executive leadership meeting to
provide accountability toward achieving the desired outcomes associated with improving lateral
communication within Premier Energy. Furthermore, Table 66 presents an overview of the
program and expectations relative to each of the four Levels.
Table 66
Program Expectations Relative to Kirkpatrick Levels.
Level 1: Reaction Rating
Engagement: does participant engagement during the program meet
expectations?
Fully Meets
Relevance: does relevance of the program to participant job
responsibilities meet expectations?
Fully Meets
Satisfaction: does participant satisfaction with the program meet
expectations?
Fully Meets
Level 2: Learning Rating
Knowledge: does participant knowledge obtained or demonstrated during
the program meet expectations?
Fully Meets
Skill: does participant skill demonstrated during the program meet
expectations?
Fully Meets
Attitude: does participant attitude about performing new skills on the job
meet expectations?
Fully Meets
Confidence: does participant confidence to apply knowledge and skills on
the job meet expectations?
Fully Meets
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 198
Commitment: does participant commitment to apply knowledge and skills
on the job meet expectations?
Fully Meets
Level 3: Behavior Rating
Critical Behavior: do performance of critical behaviors on the job meet
expectations?
Fully Meets
Does the level of on-the-job learning meet expectations? Fully Meets
Required Drivers:
Does the quality and amount of performance
monitoring meet expectations?
Fully Meets
Does reinforcement of critical behaviors meet
expectations?
Fully Meets
Does encouragement to perform critical behaviors
meet expectations?
Fully Meets
Does the alignment of reward systems and
performance of critical behaviors meet
expectations?
Fully Meets
Level 4: Results Rating
Do movement of leading indicators meet expectations? Fully Meets
Do movement of desired outcomes meet expectations? Fully Meets
The problem of high failure rate during organizational change is well researched with
ineffective communication as a common theme across the three primary failure modes.
Consequently, ineffective lateral communication was validated as a problem within Premier
Energy by both quantitative and qualitative data. Accordingly, senior leadership, technical group
leadership, and the technical staff recognize communication as a problem. Relatedly, the
program is rooted in research literature and is implemented with a technical group that is
motivated to improve their performance. Furthermore, the program is congruent with the
organizational culture, technical group strategy, and initiated according to best practices and
therefore, the program is expected to meet expectations. Successful implantation of the program
will help close gaps remaining from the organizational change to a matrix structure by improving
lateral communication and thereby enabling the technical staff to achieve their goal that 100% of
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 199
stakeholder annual goals will be aligned with the organizational strategy and accomplished with
a 100% completion rate by the end of December 2019.
Limitations and Delimitations
Bias
Based on past experiences, the researcher imputed assumptions and an inherent bias into
this study. After working within the Premier Energy culture, the experiences within the
organizational context certainly biased the assumptions of the researcher within this study.
Likewise, experiences with other companies within the industry also contributed to the bias of
the researcher. Assumptions relative to this study may include: (a) due to ineffective
communication, not all stakeholders understand the vision, strategy, their role in executing the
strategy, or how to evaluate their performance; (b) the technical staff see the value of their role in
achieving the strategy and desire to set goals to improve their performance; (c) there is a culture
of resistance among the technical staff due ineffective communication; (d) there is a culture of
pervasive change which creates confusion among the technical staff.
The biases and assumptions the researcher brought into the study were beyond the control
of the researcher; however, Maxwell (2013) proposed the experiential knowledge of a researcher
may benefit the study if researcher bias is controlled for within the study. Merriam and Tisdell
(2016) proposed the survey and focus group protocols be reviewed to ensure the questions are
not leading or reflective of researcher bias. Similarly, Maxwell (2013) suggested an independent
validation, or member check, be conducted to gain the perspective of respondents and validate
conclusions the researcher has drawn from the data and thereby identify potential researcher
biases. Relatedly, Merriam and Tisdell (2016) submitted another method of controlling for
researcher bias is to give equal importance to each piece of information collected to reduce the
potential for the researcher to selectively analyze data that aligns with their bias. Recognizing
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 200
the potential for researcher bias is an important step in protecting the analysis of the study as is
an understanding of other limitations, which will be described in the following section.
Limitations
This study contains both methodological and researcher limitations. The survey
employed a census approach and only willing participants from the survey were selected for the
focus groups. Although triangulation of documents, survey results, focus groups, and validation
interviews were conducted, it was possible the perspectives of the focus group participants
reflected only their perception and not reality. Additionally, the responses collected during the
survey, focus groups, and validation interviews were all self-reported. Thus, the responses may
have contained bias related to the ability of the participant to accurately remember past events
and not attribute events from one time period to another period. Relatedly, the participants may
have exaggerated outcomes or represent positive outcomes as a result of their effort yet consider
negative outcomes as a result of outside influences. Furthermore, the study was limited from a
longitudinal perspective as the duration of the study was constrained and only reflected the
current condition of the organization.
Delimitations
Ineffective communication during organizational change is a common problem across
many organizations; however, the findings from this project are generalizable only to the
technical group of Premier Energy. This stakeholder group was selected for the study as they are
responsible for exploration and production activities, which is the core business of the company.
The influence of other stakeholder groups, including senior leadership of the company may be an
opportunity for future research. A census approach was taken for the survey to ensure all
members of the stakeholder group felt they had an opportunity for their views to be included in
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 201
the study. The use of document analysis, survey results, focus groups, and validation interviews
allowed the researcher to triangulate the data and provide a robust view of the perspectives of the
stakeholder group. These perspectives may be valuable to the leadership of Premier Energy and
may result in opportunities for further research.
Recommendation for Further Inquiry
This study and subsequent recommendations were limited to the technical staff of the
Premier Energy Alpha Technical Group. However, several opportunities for further inquiry were
recognized. First, a similar study could be conducted within each of the respective Premier
Energy technical groups as a singular study or as a study examining the interactions and
similarities between the technical groups. Relatedly, the same study could be conducted with
each of the respective technical group leadership as the stakeholder group of focus. Furthermore,
the study could be extended to the senior leadership of the organization as well as the non-E&P
groups within the organization. Moreover, the opportunities for further inquiry described above
were primarily focused in the headquarters and did not contemplate the influences on the field
workers doing the physical labor, which may be another area for future inquiry. Lastly, a study
examining congruency across the entire Premier Energy organization could also be conducted.
Conclusion
This dissertation addressed the high failure rate of organizational change initiatives and
the importance of effective communication during those changes. The project examined the
change initiative to restructure Premier Energy from a functionally structured organization to a
matrix organization. Consequently, a gap analysis was conducted to understand the residual
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that prevent the stakeholders from
achieving their goal that 100% of stakeholder annual goals will be aligned with the
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 202
organizational strategy and accomplished with a 100% completion rate by the end of December
2019. Additionally, this study sought to determine if stakeholders understood the organizational
strategy, if stakeholder efforts were aligned with the strategy, if the strategy was aligned with the
organizational culture, and the influence communication had in achieving the strategy.
Subsequent to the analysis, recommendations for knowledge, motivation, and organizational
solutions were presented to help the stakeholders achieve their goal.
The research was conducted within the Alpha Technical Group of Premier Energy, a
leading E&P company headquartered in North America. Moreover, the stakeholder group of
focus was the technical staff, a group of employees who are responsible for completing the work
and comprise the bulk of the headcount of the company. The Alpha Group technical staff
participated in a survey and subsequent focus group sessions and the technical group leadership
participated in interviews as well as the survey. Consequently, the quantitative results and
qualitative findings were compared to the assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences preventing the technical staff from achieving their stakeholder goal. Accordingly,
gaps were identified in nine of the twelve assumed influences and recommendations were
proposed. These recommendations sought to improve knowledge and expectations related to the
strategy; implement goals aligned to the strategy; communicate clear priorities; model behavior
aligned with the strategy; improve lateral communication within the organization; and monitor
progress with job aids and scorecards. In simplest terms, the strategic intent of the organization
needs to be focused on the highest strategic priorities, these priorities need to be communicated
both vertically and laterally within the firm, and all activities within the organization should be
congruent with the strategic intent.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 203
The recommendations in this dissertation are grounded in research literature and
congruent with the organizational culture, technical group strategy, and are to be implemented
according to best practices. Thus, the focus and congruency of the program will increase the
likelihood desired outcomes will be achieved. Furthermore, achievement of the program will
likely remedy the residual gaps from the failed organizational change thereby resulting in
improved lateral communication throughout the Alpha Technical Group. The improved flow of
trusted and actionable information should allow the technical staff to understand the relationship
between priorities and the technical group strategy and thereby achieve their goal and align
100% of their annual goals with the organizational strategy with a 100% completion rate by the
end of December 2019. Consequently, research literature suggested firms with consistently
effective and congruent communication improved organizational value by 20-30% (Axelrod,
Hadfield-Jones, & Welsh, 2001; McDonald & Smith, 1995; Watson Wyatt, 2004). Therefore,
successful implementation of the recommendations will provide value to the employees,
leadership, shareholders, and stakeholders of Premier Energy.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 204
References
Agocs, C. (1997). Institutionalized resistance to organizational change: Denial, inaction, and
repression. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 917-931.
Akker, van den, L., Heres, L., Lasthuizen, K., & Six, F. (2009). Ethical leadership and trust: It's
all about meeting expectations. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(2), 102-
122.
Anderman, E. & Anderman, L. (2006). Attributions. Retrieved from http://www.education.
com/reference/article/attribution-theory/.
Anderson, L. & Krathwohl, D. (2000) A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A
Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Allyn & Bacon.
Armenakis, A. & Harris, S. (2002). Crafting a change message to create transformational
readiness. Journal of Organizational Management, 15, 169-183.
Artley, J. & Macon, M (2009). Can’t we all just get along? A review of the challenged and
opportunities in a multigenerational workforce. International Journal of Business
Research, 9(6), 90-94.
Axelrod, E., Handfield-Jones, H., & Welsh, T. (2001). War for talent, part two. The McKinsey
Quarterly, (2), 9-12.
Baker, L. (2006). Metacognition. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/reference/article/
metacognition/.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78.
Bandura, A. (2006). Self-efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents. Information Age Publishing.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 205
Battilana, J. & Casciaro, T. (2013). The network secrets of great change agents. Harvard
Business Review, 91(7-8), 62-68.
Beer, M. & Nohria, N. (2000). Cracking the code of change. Harvard Business Review, 78(3),
133-141.
Bensimon, E., Hao, L., & Bustillos, L. (2007). Measuring the state of equity in higher education.
In P. Gandara, G. Orfield, & C. Horn (Eds.), Expanding opportunity in higher education:
Leveraging promise (pp. 143–166). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Bensimon, E. (2005). Closing the achievement gap in higher education: An organizational
learning perspective, New Directions for Higher Education, 131, 99–111.
Berbarry, D. & Malinchak, A. (2011). Connected and engaged: The value of government
learning. The Public Manager, Fall, 55-59.
Berger, B. (2008). Employee/Organizational Communication. Institute for Public Relations.
Berger, B. (2014). Read my lips: Leaders, supervisors, and culture are the foundations of
strategic employee communications. Research Journal of the Institute for Public
Relations, 1(1).
Biron, M., Farndale, E., & Paauwe, J. (2011). Performance management effectiveness: lessons
from world-leading firms. International journal of human resource management, 22(6),
1294-1311.
Boeh, K & Beamish, P. (2006). Mergers and Acquisitions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bolman, L. & Deal, T. (1994). Looking for leadership: Another search party’s report.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(1), 77–96.
Clark, R. & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results. Charlotte, North Carolina:
Information Age Publishing Inc.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 206
Conger, J. (1991). Inspiring others: The language of leadership. Academy of Management
Perspectives, 5(1), 31-45.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory.
Los Angeles: SAGE.
Corkindale, G. (2008, June 23). Lost in Matrix Management. Retrieved Nobember 8, 2017 from
https://hbr.org/2008/06/lost-in-matrix-management.
Creswell, J. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Cross, R. & Prusak, L. (2002). The people who make organizations go - or stop. Harvard
Business Review, 80(6), 104-112.
Darling-Hammond, L. & Snyder, J. (2015). Meaningful learning in a new paradigm for
educational accountability: An introduction. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(7).
Deal, T. & Kennedy, A. (1982). Corporate cultures: the rites and rituals of corporate life.
Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Dembo, M., & Eaton, M. (2000). Self-regulation of academic learning in middle-level schools.
The Elementary School Journal, 100(5), 473–490.
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2009). Social cognitive theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/social-cognitive-theory/.
Dixon, J. (1994). Business process reengineering: Improving in new strategic directions.
California Management Review, 36, 93-108.
Doran, G. (1981). There’s a SMART way to write management’s goals and objectives.
Management Review, 70, 35-36.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 207
Drucker, P. (2004, June). What makes an effective executive. Harvard Business Review, 82(6),
25-33.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/.
Edmondson, A., & Schein, E. (2012). Teaming What Leaders Must Do to Foster Organizational
Learning. Chichester: Wiley.
Eisenbach, R., Watson, K., & Pillai, R. (1999). Transformational leadership in the context of
organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(2) 80–89.
Eisenstat, T., Foote, N., Galbraith, J., & Miller, D. (2001). Beyond the business unit. The
McKinsey Quarterly, (2), 54-63.
Elmore, R. (2005). Accountable leadership. The Educational Forum, 69, 134–142.
Erez, M & Gati, E. (2004). A dynamic, multi-level model of culture: From the micro level of the
individual to the macro level of a global culture. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 53(4), 583-598.
Fernandez, S. & Rainey, H. G. (2006). Managing successful organizational change in the public
sector. Public Administration Review, 66(2), 168-176.
Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Fortune. (2016). Fortune 500 companies 2016: Who made the list (n.d.). Retrieved March 20,
2016, from http://fortune.com/fortune500/.
Fullan, M. (2004, Winter). Leadership across the system. Insight, 14-17. Retrieved from
http://www.michaelfullan.ca/media/13396061760.pdf.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 208
Galbraith, J. (1995). Designing organizations: An executive briefing on strategy, structure, and
process. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Galbraith, J. (2002). Organizing to Deliver Solutions. Organizational Dynamics, 31(2), 194-207.
Galbraith, J. (2010). The Multi-Dimensional and Reconfigurable Organization. Organizational
Dynamics, 39(2), 115-125.
Galbraith, J. (2014). Designing Organizations: An Executive Guide to Strategy, Structure, and
Process (3rd ed.). Somerset: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.
Galbraith, J., Downey, D., & Kates, A. (2002). How networks undergird the lateral capability of
an organization: Where the work gets done. Journal of Organizational Excellence,
Spring, 67-78.
Getz, F., Jones, C., & Loewe, P. (2009). Migration management: An approach for improving
strategy implementation. Strategy & Leadership, 37(6), 18-24.
Ghosh, P. & Soupa, O. (2014). Is the industry ready for a change in leadership? The Way Ahead,
10(3), 26-28.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Grossman, R. & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: What really matters. International
Journal of Training and Development, 15(2), 103-120.
Grunig, L., Grunig, J., & Dozier, D. (2002). Excellent Public Relations and Effective
Organizations. Marwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hackman, M. & Johnson, C. (2009) Leadership: A communication perspective. Ong Grove, IL:
Waveland Press, Inc.
Haeberle, K., Herzberg, J., & Hobbs, T. (2009). Leading the multigenerational workforce.
Healthcare Executive, 62-67.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 209
Hancock, P. & Raeside, R. (2010). Analysing communication in a complex service process:
an application of social network analysis in the Scottish Prison Service. The Journal of
the Operational Research Society, 61(2). 265-274.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research,
77(1), 81–112.
Hentschke, G. & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of accountability. University of
Southern California Urban Education, Spring/Summer, 17–19.
Hill, S., Kogler, T., & Keller, L. (2009). A collaborative, ongoing university strategic planning
framework: Process, landmines, and lessons. Planning for Higher Education, 37(4), 16–
26.
Irwin, C. W., & Stafford E. T. (2016). Survey methods for educators: Collaborative survey
development (part 1 of 3) (REL 2016-163). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for education Evaluation and
Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast & Islands. Retrieved
from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.
Izzo, J., & Withers, P. (2000). Values Shift: The New Work Ethic and What It Means for
Business. Prentice Hall Canada.
Johnson, A. (2006). Privilege, power, and difference. New York: McGraw Hill.
Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Smith, K. (2007). The state of cooperative learning in postsecondary
and professional settings. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 15-29.
Kates, A. & Galbraith, J. (2007). Designing your organization using the star model to solve 5
critical design challenges. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kanter, R. (1999, Summer). The enduring skills of change leaders. Leader to Leader, 15–22.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 210
Kapoor, C. & Solomon, N. (2011). Understanding and managing generational difference in the
workplace. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 3(4), 308-318.
Kezar, A. (2000). Pluralistic leadership: Incorporating diverse voices. The Journal of Higher
Education, 71(6), 722–743.
Kezar, A. (2001a). Theories and models of organizational change. Understanding and facilitating
organizational change in the 21st century: Recent research and conceptualizations.
ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report Volume 28(4), 25-‐58.
Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. D. (2002). The effect of institutional culture on change strategies in
higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(4), 435-460.
Kirkpatrick, D., & Kirkpatrick, James D. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels.
San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Kirkpatrick, J., & Kirkpatrick, W. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.
Kirschner, P., Kirschner, F., & Paas, F. (2006). Cognitive load theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/cognitive-load-theory/.
Kluger, A., & DeNisi, A. (1998). Feedback interventions: Toward the understanding of a double-
edged sword. Current Directions in Psychology, 7(3), 67–72.
Knodel, T. (2004). Preparing the organizational "soil" for measurable and sustainable change:
Business value management and project governance. Journal of Change Management, 4,
45-62.
Korsgaard, M., Brodt, S., & Whitener, E. (2002). Trust in the face of conflict: The role of
managerial trustworthy behavior and organizational context. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87(2), 312-‐319.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 211
Kotter, J. (1996). Leading Change, Boston Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.
Kotter, J. (2007). Leading Change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review,
85(1), 96-103.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41(4), 212–218.
Krueger, R., & Casey, M. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Larson, E. & Gobeli, D. (1987). Matrix management: Contradictions and insights. California
Management Review, 29(4), 126-138.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field Theory in Social Science: Selected theoretical papers, New York, New
York: Harper & Brothers Publishers.
Lewis, L. (2000a). ""Blindsided by that one" and "I saw that one coming": The relative
anticipation and occurrence of communication problems and other problems in
implementers' hindsight. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 28(1), 44-67.
Lewis, L. (2006). Employee perspectives on implementation communication as predictors of
perceptions of success and resistance. Western Journal of Communication, 70(1).
Lewis, L. (2011). Organizational change: Creating change through strategic communication
(Vol. 4). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Lewis, L. & Seibold, D. (1993). Innovation modification during interorganizational adoption.
Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 322-354.
Madoff, D., DeWine, W., & Butter, J. (2008). Organizational Communications: Foundations,
challenges, and misunderstanding (2nd Ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 212
Mangundjaya, W. (2013). The predictor of affective commitment to change: Attitude vs
individual readiness for change. Romanian Economic and Business Review, 1, 198-202.
Maurer, R. (2010). Applying what we’ve learned about change. The Journal for Quality and
Participation, 33(2), 35-38.
Mayer, R. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Maxwell, J. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.
McDonald, D. & Smith, A. (1995). A proven connection: Performance management and
business results. Compensation and Benefits Review, 27. 59-62.
McDonald, R. (2007). An investigation of innovation in non-profit organizations: The role of
organizational mission. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(2), 256–281.
McGowan, P. & Miller, J. (2001, November). Management vs. leadership. School Administrator,
58(10), 32-34.
McLean, R. & Antony, J. (2014). Why continuous improvement initiatives fail in manufacturing
environments? A systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management 63(3), 370-376.
McPhee, R. & Zaug, P. (2001). Organizational theory, organizational communication,
organizational knowledge, and problematic integration. Journal of Communication,
51(3), 574-591.
Meaney, M. & Pung, C. (2008). McKinsey global results: Creating organizational
transformations. The McKinsey Quarterly, August, 1-7.
Merriam, S. & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 213
Miles, M., Huberman, A., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis: A methods
sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Miller, D. (2001). Successful change leaders: What makes them? What do they do different?
Journal of Change Management, 2(4), 359-368.
Moorman, R., & Grover, S. (2009). Why does leader integrity matter to followers? An
uncertainty management-based explanation. International Journal of Leadership Studies,
5(2).
Moran, J. & Brightman, B. (2000). Leading organizational change. Journal of Workplace
Learning: Employee Counseling Today, 12(2), 66-74.
Morrison, E. & Milliken, F. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development
in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review 25(4), 706-725.
Nicol, D., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2007). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A
model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education,
31(2), 199–218.
Northouse, P. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers.
O’Keefe, D. & Jensen, J. (2006). The advantages of compliance or the disadvantages of
noncompliance? A meta-analytic review of the relative persuasive effectiveness of gain-
framed and loss-framed messages. Communication Yearbook 30. Manwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/.
Pincus, J. (1986). Communication satisfaction, job satisfaction and job performance. Human
Communications Research, 12(2), 395–419.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 214
Pintrich, P. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
Porter, M. (1987). From competitive advantage to corporate strategy. Harvard Business Review,
65, 43-59.
Powers, V. (1996-1997). Benchmarking study illustrates how best-in-class achieve alignment,
communicate change. Communication World, December/January, 30-33.
Rizzuto, T. & Reeves, J. (2007). A multidisciplinary meta-analysis of human barriers to
technology implementation. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research,
59(3), 226-240.
Rosenberg, S. & Mosca, J. (2011). Breaking down the barriers to organizational change.
International Journal of Management and Information Systems, 15(3), 139-146.
Rosendahl, T., Olaisen, J., & Oivind, R. (2014). Internal communication as value creation in a
change process: A case study of Norwegian Statoil. Journal of Applied Management and
Entrepreneurship, 19(3), 101-128.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Runardotter, M. (2011). Organizational corporation for cultural heritage - a viable systems
approach. Systems Research and Behavioral Science. 28(1), 77. doi:10.1002/sres.1047.
Schein, E. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.
Schneider, B., Brief, A., & Guzzo, R. (1996). Creating a culture and climate for sustainable
organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 7-‐19.
Schraw, G. & Dennison, R. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 19, 460-475.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 215
Schraw, G. & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory. Retrieved from http://
www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/.
Senge, P. (1990). The leader’s new work: Building learning organizations. Sloan Management
Review, 32(1), 7–22.
Shaffer, J. (2000). The Leadership Solution. New York: McGraw-Hill
Shute, V. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–
189.
Slater, S. (1995). Learning to change. Business Horizons, 38(6), 13-20.
Standard & Poors. (n.d.). Retrieved March 20, 2016, from
http://us.spindices.com/indices/equity/sp-500.
Stanleigh, M. (2013). Leading change. The Journal for Quality and Participation, 36(2), 39-40.
Stengel, R. (2008, July 9). Mandela: His 8 lessons of leadership. Time Magazine, 172(3), 29-33.
Strebel, P. (1996). Why do employees resist change? Harvard Business Review, 74(3), 86-92.
Switzer, C. (2008). Time for change: Empowering organizations to succeed in the knowledge
economy. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(2). 18-28.
Tuckman, B. (2006). Operant conditioning. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/ article/operant-conditioning/.
Vantrappen, H. & Wirtz, F. (2016, March 01). Making organizations actually work. Retrieved
from https://hbr.org/2016/03/making-matrix-organizations-actually-work.
Waters, T., & Grubb, S. (2004). Leading schools: Distinguishing the essential from the
important. Aurora, CO: McREL.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 216
Wyatt, W. (2014, October 19). Connecting Organizational Communication to Financial
Performance-2003/2004 Communication ROI Study. Retrieved February 8, 2017, from
http://www.instituteforpr.org/organizational-communication-and-financial-performance/
Wyatt, W. (2014, October 19). Connecting Organizational Communication to Financial
Performance-2009/2010 Communication ROI Study. Retrieved February 8, 2017, from
http://www.instituteforpr.org/organizational-communication-and-financial-performance/
Wyatt, W. (2014, October 19). Connecting Organizational Communication to Financial
Performance-2011/2012 Communication ROI Study. Retrieved February 8, 2017, from
http://www.instituteforpr.org/organizational-communication-and-financial-performance/
Wyatt, W. (2014, October 19). Connecting Organizational Communication to Financial
Performance-2013/2014 Communication ROI Study. Retrieved February 8, 2017, from
http://www.instituteforpr.org/organizational-communication-and-financial-performance/
Weber, L. (2014, April 23). Many workers don't trust their employers. Available online at:
http://online.wsj.com/news/article.
Wheeler, D., & Sillanpa’a, M. (1998). Including the stakeholders: The business case. Long
Range Planning, 31(2), 201–210.
Young, M. & Post, J. (1993). Managing to communicate, communicating to manage: How
leading companies communicate with employees. Western Journal of Communication,
22, 31-43.
Yough, M., & Anderman, E. (2006). Goal orientation theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/goal-orientation-theory/.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 217
Appendix A
Survey Items
Thank you for your willingness to consider participating in this research study. Each question
must be answered to advance to the next question; however, participants will not have the ability
to revisit questions once they have advanced to the next question. Please review the participant
information sheet and, if you agree to participate, click next to begin the study.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 218
The following general questions are for demographics purposes only and will not be
attributed to survey responses.
If you are willing to participate in a focus group to further explore the results of this
survey, click on the link at the end of the survey.
1) Gender.
a. Female
b. Male
2) Age range.
a. 70-90
b. 50-69
c. 35-49
d. 20-34
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 219
Questions 1-11 use the scale below to measure how confident you are as of today in your
ability:
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
|
Cannot do at all
|
Moderately can do
|
Highly certain can do
1) To identify the vision for the company
2) To identify the strategy for the company
3) To identify the steps necessary to implement the company strategy
4) To identify the primary role of the Alpha Technical Group relative to the company
strategy
5) To describe your role relative to the company strategy
6) To identify the vision for the Alpha Technical Group
7) To identify the strategy for the Alpha Technical Group
8) To identify the steps necessary to implement the Alpha Technical Group strategy
9) To describe your role relative to the Alpha Technical Group strategy
10) To describe the expectations your supervisor has for you in your role
11) To describe your performance relative to the expectations your supervisor has for
you in your role
Questions 12-16 use the scale below to measure, as of today, how certain you are that:
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
|
Cannot do at all
|
Moderately can do
|
Highly certain can do
12) Implementing the company strategy will improve company performance
13) The company can achieve the company strategy
14) Implementing the Alpha Technical Group strategy will improve the performance of
the Alpha Technical Group
15) The Alpha Technical Group can achieve the technical group strategy
16) The Alpha Technical Group strategy will improve company performance
COMMUNICATING CHANGE
220
Questions 17-21 are related to identifying vision and strategy:
17) Which of the following is the vision for the company?
a. To be the premier operator in each of our core areas.
b. To deliver premier, top-quartile performance for our shareholders.
c. To be the premier independent oil and gas company in North America.
d. To deliver premier performance by creating value every day.
18) Which of the following is the strategy for the company?
a. To generate the best rates of return by controlling operating and capital costs
while maximizing oil and natural gas reserve recoveries.
b. To manage and operate our properties with integrity and in a manner consistent
with our core values.
c. To create value by responsibly producing oil and natural gas vital to meet the
energy needs of the world.
d. To deliver top-quartile share price performance through superior execution, a
sustainable and industry leading portfolio, and an excellent financial position.
19) Which of the following is the vision for the Alpha Technical Group?
a. To be the best operator in our fields.
b. To be the recognized technical leader in maximizing value through dedicated
teamwork and innovation.
c. To dominate the basin.
d. Focus on our people and culture to be the best operator in the region.
e. To be a premier and resilient operator in our field to maximize value for the
company.
20) Which of the following is the strategy for the Alpha Technical Group?
a. To focus on safety and emissions while delivering free cash flow through
development plans, building for the future, and operational excellence.
b. To prioritize opportunities, appraise our resource, plan our work, and work our
plan to monetize and progress our assets.
c. To swiftly move to full field development through technical and operational
excellence, integrated planning, and superior execution.
d. To be the best operator with a focus on environmental compliance, maximizing
cash flow, characterizing our resource portfolio and execute a disciplined capital
program plan.
e. To maintain our license to operate while maximizing cash flow and accelerating
value.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE
221
21) Which of the following is the primary role of the Alpha Technical Group relative to
the company strategy?
a. Emerging Growth Area: appraising the asset to become a core growth area.
b. Core Growth Area: developing the asset to grow future production.
c. Base Production: producing the asset to deliver consistent cash flow.
d. Non-core Area: optimize the asset during last years of cash flow.
Questions 22-36 use the scale below:
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4
22) The work I do in my role is important to achieve the company strategy
23) I want to improve my performance to achieve the company strategy
24) I often set goals to improve my performance to achieve the company strategy
25) Senior leadership exhibits behaviors aligned with the company strategy
26) The work I do in my role is important to achieve the technical group strategy
27) I want to improve my performance to achieve the technical group strategy
28) I often set goals to improve my performance to achieve the technical group strategy
29) I often do you ask myself if I am meeting performance expectations
30) Alpha Technical Group leadership often communicates effectively
31) Alpha Technical Group leadership often effectively communicates decisions relative to the
strategy
32) Alpha Technical Group leadership often effectively communicates decisions relative to the
strategy in a timely manner
33) The priorities to implement the Alpha Technical Group strategy are clear
34) I often have the information I need to do my job within the Alpha Technical Group
35) Alpha Technical Group leadership often exhibits behaviors aligned with the technical
group strategy
36) My direct supervisor often provides me with performance feedback based on their
expectations for my role
Questions 37-42 are related to information sources and performance:
37) Which of the following sources provides you with the most actionable information?
a. Staff
b. Supervisor
c. Manager
d. Vice-president
e. Senior leader
COMMUNICATING CHANGE
222
38) Which of the following sources provides you with the least actionable information?
a. Staff
b. Supervisor
c. Manager
d. Vice-president
e. Senior leader
39) Which of the following sources of information do you trust the most?
a. Staff
b. Supervisor
c. Manager
d. Vice-president
e. Senior leader
40) Which of the following sources of information do you trust the least?
a. Staff
b. Supervisor
c. Manager
d. Vice-president
e. Senior leader
41) Which of the following give you the most confidence in the Alpha Technical Group’s
ability to perform?
a. Strategy and direction
b. Organizational structure and decision making
c. Processes and communication
d. Metrics and rewards
e. Roles and Responsibilities
42) Which of the following give you the least confidence in the Alpha Technical Group’s
ability to perform?
f. Strategy and direction
g. Organizational structure and decision making
h. Processes and communication
i. Metrics and rewards
j. Roles and Responsibilities
COMMUNICATING CHANGE
223
Appendix B
Focus Group Protocol
Setting: conference center of Premier Energy headquarters. Session will last 60-90 minutes and
consist of
Introduction: David Ferris.
Thank you for your willingness to participate in this study and in this focus group. As
you know from the survey, the purpose of this study is to examine the knowledge, motivation,
and organizational influences that inhibit the technical staff of this company from achieving their
goal. Consequently, the study will evaluate several components of communication including
what is being communicated, the frequency of communication, and the manner in which
communication occurs between senior leadership and the technical staff of the company.
Ultimately, this study aims to improve the success rate of organizational change and thereby aid
Premier Energy in achieving the company goal of consistently performing in the top quartile of
total shareholder return among a peer group of companies.
This focus group will be facilitated by a qualified research professional to minimize any
potential influence I may have on your discussion. The session will be recorded and transcribed
and I will only see the transcription. Any direct quotes will be attributed a pseudonym. Please
feel free to speak candidly and be thoughtful of each other and leave the conversation in this
room. On the table in front of you is the participant information sheet. The questions in this
focus group will explore the responses from the survey which had the widest and narrowest
range of answers. A few other questions will be asked as well. You may decline answering any
question. Thank you again for your participation. I will now turn the session over to _______.
Thanks again, everyone.
Facilitation of focus group by third party researcher.
Question 1: The results from the survey showed your team had different perspectives related to
___________. The responses were highest for “a” with X% followed by “b” with Y%, and “d”
with Z%. What do you think is creating the different perspectives within your team?
Probes:
A) Describe how these different perspectives may influence communication within the
technical group.
B) Describe how these different perspectives may influence the performance of the
technical team.
Question 2: Conversely, the results from the survey showed your team had similar perspectives
related to __________. The responses were highest for “a” with X%. What do you think is
creating the alignment within your team?
Probes:
A) Describe how alignment may influence communication within the technical group.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE
224
B) Describe how alignment may influence the performance of the technical team.
Question 3: Describe how you would go about implementing the strategy for your technical
group.
Probes:
A) How does implementing the strategy for your technical group compare to
implementing the strategy for the company?
Question 4: Describe your role as it relates to the strategy of your technical group.
Probes:
A) How does your role relate to the strategy of the company?
Question 5: What information do you receive from your supervisor to help you understand your
performance relative to their expectations for your role?
Questions 6-N: repeat questions one and two for the remaining survey questions with the widest
dispersion as well as any major differences between this technical group and other technical
groups. Continue with these questions until the time is complete or participants stop providing
new information.
Conclusion: third party facilitator.
We have come to the end of our scheduled time and I want to respect your schedules. Thank you
again for your participation in this focus group. Should you want to make an additional
comment or further clarify a point made during the focus group, I will extend my time in this
room for the next hour and you are welcome to stay afterward for a few minutes. We will keep
these individual conversations confidential and for no longer than ten minutes. In the event more
than one focus group participant desires to participate in the validation interviews, those not in
the validation interview will be asked to wait in the conference center reception lounge, located
outside of the conference room. Thank you again for your time and perspectives.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE
225
Appendix C
Validation Interview Protocol
Setting: conference center of Premier Energy headquarters. Session will last 5-10 minutes and
consist of
Introduction: Third Party Researcher.
I appreciate your willingness to share a bit more about your perspective. Just as a
reminder, we will keep this discussion limited to ten minutes and focused on the topics most
important to you.
Question 1: What topic did you want to discuss in further detail?
Probes:
A) Describe how this topic may influence communication within the company.
B) Describe how this topic may influence the performance of the company.
Question 2-N: What additional topic did you want to discuss?
Probes:
A) Describe how this topic may influence communication within the company.
B) Describe how this topic may influence the performance of the company.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE
226
Appendix D
Personal Interview Protocol
Setting: personal offices within Premier Energy headquarters. Session will last 60-90 minutes
with each of the 10-20 respective interviews including managers and senior leaders.
Introduction: David Ferris.
Thank you for your willingness to participate in this study and in this interview. As you
know from the survey, the purpose of this study is to examine the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences that inhibit the technical staff of this company from achieving their
goal. Consequently, the study will evaluate several components of communication including
what is being communicated, the frequency of communication, and the manner in which
communication occurs between senior leadership and the technical staff of the company.
Ultimately, this study aims to improve the success rate of organizational change and thereby aid
Premier Energy in achieving the company goal of consistently performing in the top quartile of
total shareholder return among a peer group of companies. The technical staff participated in a
series of focus groups and this interview is part of a series of interviews with management and
senior leadership to compare the perspectives of leadership with those of the technical staff.
This interview will be given a pseudonym, recorded, and transcribed and any direct
quotes will be attributed the pseudonym. Please feel free to speak candidly as this conversation
will be left in this room. On the table in front of you is the participant information sheet. The
questions in this interview will explore the responses from the survey which had the widest and
narrowest range of answers. A few other questions will be asked as well. You may decline
answering any question. Thank you again for your willingness to participate in this study.
Question 1: The results from the survey showed the company had different perspectives related
to ___________. The responses were highest for “a” with X% followed by “b” with Y%, and
“d” with Z%. What do you think is creating the different perspectives within the company?
Probes:
C) Describe how these different perspectives may influence communication within the
company.
D) Describe how these different perspectives may influence the performance of the
company.
Question 2: Conversely, the results from the survey showed the company had similar
perspectives related to __________. The responses were highest for “a” with X%. What do you
think is creating the alignment within the company?
Probes:
A) Describe how alignment may influence communication within the company.
B) Describe how alignment may influence the performance of the company.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE
227
Question 3: What information do you receive from your supervisor to help you understand your
performance relative to their expectations for your role?
Question 4: Who do you typically get your most trusted information from?
Probes:
A) Describe examples of how communication works in this matrix organization.
B) Describe examples of how information flows laterally in the organization.
Question 5: Lateral communication within a matrix organization has been correlated with
empowerment of employees. Describe examples of what empowerment might look like in your
organization.
Probes:
A) Describe examples of how you have experienced (or have not experienced)
empowerment in your role.
B) Describe examples of how you could empower your staff.
C) Describe how your think your staff would respond to these examples.
Questions 6-N: repeat questions one and two for the remaining survey questions with the widest
dispersion as well as any major differences between this technical group and other technical
groups. Continue with these questions until the time is complete or participants stop providing
new information.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE
228
APPENDIX E
Survey Results
Q1. As of today, how confident are you in your ability to identify the vision for the company?
Motivation | Self Efficacy | The technical staff is confident in their individual and collective
ability to achieve the strategy and that implementing the strategy will improve company
performance
Leadership
Functional Group 2
Functional Group 3
Functional Group 4
Functional Group 5
Functional Group 6
Functional Group 7
Functional Group 8
Population
Min 50% 30% 30% 0% 30% 30% 50% 30% 0%
Median 80% 80% 70% 80% 70% 80% 75% 80% 80%
Mode 80% 80% 80% 80% 90% 80% 70% 90% 80%
Mean 81% 71% 72% 69% 64% 78% 77% 76% 74%
Max 100% 90% 100% 100% 90% 100% 90% 100% 100%
Standard Deviation 17% 20% 19% 26% 23% 20% 12% 16% 19%
Range 50% 60% 70% 100% 60% 70% 40% 70% 100%
Confidence Interval Low 64% 52% 53% 43% 41% 57% 65% 60% 55%
Confidence Interval High 97% 91% 91% 95% 87% 98% 88% 92% 94%
Count 19 8 27 17 8 9 12 30 130
COMMUNICATING CHANGE
229
Q2. As of today, how confident are you in your ability to identify the strategy for the company?
Motivation | Self Efficacy | The technical staff is confident in their individual and collective
ability to achieve the strategy and that implementing the strategy will improve company
performance
Leadership
Functional Group 2
Functional Group 3
Functional Group 4
Functional Group 5
Functional Group 6
Functional Group 7
Functional Group 8
Population
Min 20% 20% 30% 20% 30% 30% 30% 30% 20%
Median 80% 75% 70% 60% 55% 80% 70% 80% 70%
Mode 80% 75% 70% 60% 80% 80% 70% 80% 80%
Mean 75% 65% 68% 62% 59% 77% 63% 71% 68%
Max 100% 90% 100% 100% 90% 100% 90% 100% 100%
Standard Deviation 21% 24% 14% 16% 21% 19% 20% 17% 19%
Range 80% 70% 70% 80% 60% 70% 60% 70% 80%
Confidence Interval Low 53% 41% 54% 46% 38% 57% 44% 54% 49%
Confidence Interval High 96% 89% 83% 78% 80% 96% 83% 88% 87%
Count 19 8 27 17 8 9 12 30 130
COMMUNICATING CHANGE
230
Q3. As of today, how confident are you in your ability to identify the steps necessary to
implement the company strategy?
Motivation | Self Efficacy | The technical staff is confident in their individual and collective
ability to achieve the strategy and that implementing the strategy will improve company
performance
Leadership
Functional Group 2
Functional Group 3
Functional Group 4
Functional Group 5
Functional Group 6
Functional Group 7
Functional Group 8
Population
Min 10% 20% 0% 20% 20% 20% 30% 40% 0%
Median 80% 65% 70% 60% 50% 70% 60% 70% 70%
Mode 80% 65% 80% 70% 50% 70% 80% 80% 70%
Mean 67% 56% 63% 59% 53% 71% 58% 69% 63%
Max 100% 90% 90% 100% 80% 100% 80% 90% 100%
Standard Deviation 25% 22% 21% 17% 19% 21% 18% 14% 20%
Range 90% 70% 90% 80% 60% 80% 50% 50% 100%
Confidence Interval Low 42% 34% 42% 42% 34% 50% 41% 54% 43%
Confidence Interval High 93% 79% 83% 76% 71% 92% 76% 83% 84%
Count 19 8 27 17 8 9 12 30 130
COMMUNICATING CHANGE
231
Q4. As of today, how confident are you in your ability to identify the primary role of the Alpha
Technical Group relative to the company strategy?
Motivation | Self Efficacy | The technical staff is confident in their individual and collective
ability to achieve the strategy and that implementing the strategy will improve company
performance
Leadership
Functional Group 2
Functional Group 3
Functional Group 4
Functional Group 5
Functional Group 6
Functional Group 7
Functional Group 8
Population
Min 40% 40% 30% 50% 30% 40% 30% 40% 30%
Median 90% 85% 80% 80% 65% 80% 75% 80% 80%
Mode 90% 85% 80% 80% 80% 80% 70% 80% 80%
Mean 82% 75% 71% 72% 64% 80% 74% 74% 74%
Max 100% 90% 90% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Standard Deviation 16% 19% 16% 14% 25% 18% 18% 13% 17%
Range 60% 50% 60% 50% 70% 60% 70% 60% 70%
Confidence Interval Low 66% 56% 55% 58% 39% 62% 56% 61% 57%
Confidence Interval High 98% 94% 88% 87% 89% 98% 92% 87% 91%
Count 19 8 27 17 8 9 12 30 130
COMMUNICATING CHANGE
232
Q5. As of today, how confident are you in your ability to describe your role relative to the
company strategy?
Motivation | Self Efficacy | The technical staff is confident in their individual and collective
ability to achieve the strategy and that implementing the strategy will improve company
performance
Leadership
Functional Group 2
Functional Group 3
Functional Group 4
Functional Group 5
Functional Group 6
Functional Group 7
Functional Group 8
Population
Min
20% 20% 30% 50% 40% 50% 50% 10% 10%
Median
80% 70% 80% 80% 55% 90% 80% 80% 80%
Mode
80% 70% 80% 80% 50% 90% 90% 90% 80%
Mean
80% 64% 76% 76% 65% 81% 78% 79% 76%
Max
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Standard Deviation
19% 24% 18% 12% 23% 17% 15% 20% 19%
Range
80% 80% 70% 50% 60% 50% 50% 90% 90%
Confidence Interval
Low
61% 40% 58% 64% 42% 64% 63% 59% 57%
Confidence Interval
High
99% 88% 93% 88% 88% 98% 92% 98% 95%
Count
19 8 27 17 8 9 12 30 130
COMMUNICATING CHANGE
233
Q6. As of today, how confident are you in your ability to identify the vision for the Alpha
Technical Group?
Motivation | Self Efficacy | The technical staff is confident in their individual and collective
ability to achieve the strategy and that implementing the strategy will improve company
performance
Leadership
Functional Group 2
Functional Group 3
Functional Group 4
Functional Group 5
Functional Group 6
Functional Group 7
Functional Group 8
Population
Min 50% 20% 0% 20% 20% 30% 50% 50% 0%
Median 80% 80% 80% 70% 60% 90% 75% 80% 80%
Mode 100% 80% 90% 80% 40% 100% 70% 90% 80%
Mean 84% 71% 73% 65% 60% 78% 76% 77% 74%
Max 100% 90% 100% 100% 90% 100% 90% 100% 100%
Standard Deviation 15% 23% 20% 24% 26% 24% 13% 15% 20%
Range 50% 70% 100% 80% 70% 70% 40% 50% 100%
Confidence Interval Low 68% 48% 52% 41% 34% 54% 63% 63% 54%
Confidence Interval High 99% 94% 93% 88% 86% 102% 88% 92% 94%
Count 19 8 27 17 8 9 12 30 130
COMMUNICATING CHANGE
234
Q7. As of today, how confident are you in your ability to identify the strategy for the Alpha
Technical Group?
Motivation | Self Efficacy | The technical staff is confident in their individual and collective
ability to achieve the strategy and that implementing the strategy will improve company
performance
Leadership
Functional Group 2
Functional Group 3
Functional Group 4
Functional Group 5
Functional Group 6
Functional Group 7
Functional Group 8
Population
Min 20% 20% 0% 20% 20% 30% 30% 40% 0%
Median 90% 80% 70% 70% 50% 80% 70% 80% 70%
Mode 100% 80% 80% 70% 40% 100% 70% 80% 80%
Mean 75% 70% 70% 65% 58% 77% 66% 73% 70%
Max 100% 90% 100% 100% 90% 100% 90% 90% 100%
Standard Deviation 27% 22% 19% 23% 25% 24% 18% 15% 22%
Range 80% 70% 100% 80% 70% 70% 60% 50% 100%
Confidence Interval Low 48% 48% 51% 41% 33% 53% 48% 57% 48%
Confidence Interval High 102% 92% 89% 88% 82% 100% 83% 88% 92%
Count 19 8 27 17 8 9 12 30 130
COMMUNICATING CHANGE
235
Q8. As of today, how confident are you in your ability to identify the steps necessary to
implement the Alpha Technical Group strategy?
Motivation | Self Efficacy | The technical staff is confident in their individual and collective
ability to achieve the strategy and that implementing the strategy will improve company
performance
Leadership
Functional Group 2
Functional Group 3
Functional Group 4
Functional Group 5
Functional Group 6
Functional Group 7
Functional Group 8
Population
Min 10% 20% 0% 20% 30% 30% 30% 40% 0%
Median 80% 70% 70% 60% 45% 70% 65% 70% 70%
Mode 90% 70% 70% 80% 40% 100% 70% 80% 80%
Mean 71% 63% 66% 61% 55% 71% 63% 71% 66%
Max 100% 90% 100% 100% 90% 100% 90% 100% 100%
Standard Deviation 26% 23% 22% 23% 21% 23% 16% 16% 22%
Range 90% 70% 100% 80% 60% 70% 60% 60% 100%
Confidence Interval Low 46% 39% 44% 38% 34% 48% 47% 55% 45%
Confidence Interval High 97% 86% 88% 83% 76% 94% 80% 87% 88%
Count 19 8 27 17 8 9 12 30 130
COMMUNICATING CHANGE
236
Q9. As of today, how confident are you in your ability to describe your role relative to the Alpha
Technical Group strategy?
Motivation | Self Efficacy | The technical staff is confident in their individual and collective
ability to achieve the strategy and that implementing the strategy will improve company
performance
Leadership
Functional Group 2
Functional Group 3
Functional Group 4
Functional Group 5
Functional Group 6
Functional Group 7
Functional Group 8
Population
Min 30% 20% 30% 20% 30% 50% 30% 10% 10%
Median 90% 75% 80% 70% 60% 80% 70% 80% 80%
Mode 90% 75% 80% 70% 40% 70% 70% 90% 90%
Mean 80% 65% 73% 70% 64% 78% 73% 77% 74%
Max 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 90% 100% 100%
Standard Deviation 20% 25% 20% 19% 25% 16% 17% 20% 21%
Range 70% 80% 70% 80% 70% 50% 60% 90% 90%
Confidence Interval Low 60% 40% 53% 51% 38% 62% 56% 57% 53%
Confidence Interval High 100% 90% 93% 89% 89% 94% 89% 96% 94%
Count 19 8 27 17 8 9 12 30 130
COMMUNICATING CHANGE
237
Q10. As of today, how confident are you in your ability to describe the expectations your direct
supervisor has for you in your role?
Motivation | Self Efficacy | The technical staff is confident in their individual and collective
ability to achieve the strategy and that implementing the strategy will improve company
performance
Leadership
Functional Group 2
Functional Group 3
Functional Group 4
Functional Group 5
Functional Group 6
Functional Group 7
Functional Group 8
Population
Min 0% 10% 30% 30% 20% 30% 10% 30% 0%
Median 90% 70% 70% 80% 85% 90% 70% 90% 80%
Mode 90% 70% 70% 80% 100% 90% 70% 100% 90%
Mean 75% 60% 69% 72% 74% 79% 63% 85% 74%
Max 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Standard Deviation 26% 34% 19% 20% 30% 21% 25% 15% 24%
Range 100% 90% 70% 70% 80% 70% 90% 70% 100%
Confidence Interval Low 48% 26% 51% 52% 44% 58% 38% 70% 50%
Confidence Interval High 101% 94% 88% 92% 104% 100% 87% 100% 97%
Count 19 8 27 17 8 9 12 30 130
COMMUNICATING CHANGE
238
Q11. As of today, how confident are you in your ability to describe your performance relative to
the expectations your direct supervisor has for you in your role?
Motivation | Self Efficacy | The technical staff is confident in their individual and collective
ability to achieve the strategy and that implementing the strategy will improve company
performance
Leadership
Functional Group 2
Functional Group 3
Functional Group 4
Functional Group 5
Functional Group 6
Functional Group 7
Functional Group 8
Population
Min 50% 20% 20% 30% 30% 50% 10% 40% 10%
Median 90% 65% 80% 80% 75% 80% 70% 90% 80%
Mode 90% 65% 80% 80% 30% 80% 70% 90% 80%
Mean 78% 63% 72% 72% 71% 80% 65% 84% 75%
Max 100% 90% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Standard Deviation 18% 26% 20% 17% 26% 16% 26% 16% 21%
Range 50% 70% 80% 70% 70% 50% 90% 60% 90%
Confidence Interval Low 60% 37% 53% 55% 45% 64% 39% 68% 54%
Confidence Interval High 97% 88% 92% 89% 97% 96% 91% 100% 96%
Count 19 8 27 17 8 9 12 30 130
COMMUNICATING CHANGE
239
Q12. As of today, how certain are you that implementing the company strategy will improve
company performance?
Motivation | Self Efficacy | The technical staff is confident in their individual and collective
ability to achieve the strategy and that implementing the strategy will improve company
performance
Leadership
Functional Group 2
Functional Group 3
Functional Group 4
Functional Group 5
Functional Group 6
Functional Group 7
Functional Group 8
Population
Min 30% 40% 0% 20% 30% 30% 50% 50% 0%
Median 70% 75% 70% 70% 70% 80% 65% 80% 70%
Mode 60% 75% 80% 70% 70% 90% 80% 80% 80%
Mean 68% 70% 67% 65% 61% 73% 70% 83% 71%
Max 100% 90% 100% 100% 90% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Standard Deviation 18% 17% 23% 19% 20% 20% 17% 14% 20%
Range 70% 50% 100% 80% 60% 70% 50% 50% 100%
Confidence Interval Low 51% 53% 44% 46% 41% 53% 53% 69% 51%
Confidence Interval High 86% 87% 90% 85% 82% 93% 87% 97% 91%
Count 19 8 27 17 8 9 12 30 130
COMMUNICATING CHANGE
240
Q13. As of today, how certain are you that the company can achieve the company strategy?
Motivation | Self Efficacy | The technical staff is confident in their individual and collective
ability to achieve the strategy and that implementing the strategy will improve company
performance
Leadership
Functional Group 2
Functional Group 3
Functional Group 4
Functional Group 5
Functional Group 6
Functional Group 7
Functional Group 8
Population
Min 20% 40% 40% 30% 30% 40% 50% 50% 20%
Median 70% 60% 70% 60% 70% 80% 75% 90% 70%
Mode 70% 60% 60% 60% 70% 90% 80% 90% 80%
Mean 66% 64% 71% 63% 69% 76% 74% 85% 73%
Max 100% 90% 100% 100% 100% 100% 90% 100% 100%
Standard Deviation 20% 17% 15% 18% 25% 19% 11% 14% 19%
Range 80% 50% 60% 70% 70% 60% 40% 50% 80%
Confidence Interval Low 46% 46% 56% 45% 44% 56% 63% 71% 54%
Confidence Interval High 87% 81% 86% 81% 94% 95% 85% 100% 91%
Count 19 8 27 17 8 9 12 30 130
COMMUNICATING CHANGE
241
Q14. As of today, how certain are you that implementing the Alpha Technical Group strategy
will improve the Alpha Technical Group’s performance?
Motivation | Self Efficacy | The technical staff is confident in their individual and collective
ability to achieve the strategy and that implementing the strategy will improve company
performance
Leadership
Functional Group 2
Functional Group 3
Functional Group 4
Functional Group 5
Functional Group 6
Functional Group 7
Functional Group 8
Population
Min 40% 20% 40% 30% 30% 30% 50% 50% 20%
Median 80% 75% 80% 80% 75% 90% 70% 90% 80%
Mode 100% 75% 80% 80% 90% 90% 90% 100% 80%
Mean 79% 69% 73% 71% 68% 78% 72% 84% 76%
Max 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 90% 100% 100%
Standard Deviation 18% 25% 16% 17% 25% 21% 16% 15% 19%
Range 60% 80% 60% 70% 70% 70% 40% 50% 80%
Confidence Interval Low 61% 44% 57% 54% 42% 56% 56% 69% 57%
Confidence Interval High 97% 93% 89% 89% 93% 99% 87% 99% 95%
Count 19 8 27 17 8 9 12 30 130
COMMUNICATING CHANGE
242
Q15. As of today, how certain are you that the Alpha Technical Group can achieve the Alpha
Technical Group strategy?
Motivation | Self Efficacy | The technical staff is confident in their individual and collective
ability to achieve the strategy and that implementing the strategy will improve company
performance
Leadership
Functional Group 2
Functional Group 3
Functional Group 4
Functional Group 5
Functional Group 6
Functional Group 7
Functional Group 8
Population
Min 20% 40% 40% 10% 30% 30% 50% 50% 10%
Median 80% 70% 80% 70% 60% 80% 80% 90% 80%
Mode 80% 70% 80% 70% 50% 100% 80% 90% 80%
Mean 79% 69% 76% 66% 66% 77% 76% 85% 76%
Max 100% 90% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Standard Deviation 20% 15% 16% 21% 26% 24% 14% 14% 19%
Range 80% 50% 60% 90% 70% 70% 50% 50% 90%
Confidence Interval Low 59% 53% 60% 45% 40% 53% 61% 71% 57%
Confidence Interval High 99% 84% 92% 88% 92% 100% 90% 99% 95%
Count 19 8 27 17 8 9 12 30 130
COMMUNICATING CHANGE
243
Q16. As of today, how certain are you that the Alpha Technical Group strategy will improve
company performance?
Motivation | Self Efficacy | The technical staff is confident in their individual and collective
ability to achieve the strategy and that implementing the strategy will improve company
performance
Leadership
Functional Group 2
Functional Group 3
Functional Group 4
Functional Group 5
Functional Group 6
Functional Group 7
Functional Group 8
Population
Min 10% 40% 40% 10% 30% 30% 50% 50% 10%
Median 80% 75% 80% 70% 65% 90% 80% 90% 80%
Mode 80% 75% 80% 80% 90% 100% 80% 90% 80%
Mean 79% 68% 74% 67% 65% 78% 74% 86% 76%
Max 100% 90% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Standard Deviation 23% 20% 17% 21% 25% 24% 17% 14% 20%
Range 90% 50% 60% 90% 70% 70% 50% 50% 90%
Confidence Interval Low 56% 48% 57% 46% 40% 54% 57% 72% 56%
Confidence Interval High 102% 87% 92% 88% 90% 102% 91% 99% 96%
Count 19 8 27 17 8 9 12 30 130
Q17. Which of the following is the vision for the company?
Knowledge | Declarative | The technical staff know the strategy for the
company
Leadership
Functional Group 2
Functional Group 3
Functional Group 4
Functional Group 5
Functional Group 6
Functional Group 7
Functional Group 8
Population
% Correct 84% 88% 56% 76% 75% 89% 67% 67% 72%
% Incorrect 16% 13% 44% 24% 25% 11% 33% 33% 28%
Count 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130
COMMUNICATING CHANGE
244
Q18. Which of the following is the strategy for the company?
Knowledge | Declarative | The technical staff know the strategy for the
company
Leadership
Functional Group 2
Functional Group 3
Functional Group 4
Functional Group 5
Functional Group 6
Functional Group 7
Functional Group 8
Population
% Correct 95% 88% 78% 76% 88% 67% 75% 67% 78%
% Incorrect 5% 13% 22% 24% 13% 33% 25% 33% 22%
Count 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130
Q19. Which of the following is the vision for the Alpha Technical Group?
Knowledge | Declarative | The technical staff know the strategy for the
company
Leadership
Functional Group 2
Functional Group 3
Functional Group 4
Functional Group 5
Functional Group 6
Functional Group 7
Functional Group 8
Population
% Correct 84% 75% 59% 71% 88% 100% 67% 60% 71%
% Incorrect 16% 25% 41% 29% 13% 0% 33% 40% 29%
Count 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130
COMMUNICATING CHANGE
245
Q20. Which of the following is the strategy for the Alpha Technical Group?
Knowledge | Declarative | The technical staff know the strategy for the
company
Leadership
Functional Group 2
Functional Group 3
Functional Group 4
Functional Group 5
Functional Group 6
Functional Group 7
Functional Group 8
Population
% Correct 58% 88% 22% 38% 0% 33% 17% 30% 34%
% Incorrect 42% 13% 78% 63% 100% 67% 83% 70% 66%
Count 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130
Q21. Which of the following is the primary role of the Alpha Technical Group
relative to the company strategy?
Knowledge | Declarative | The technical staff understand their role as it relates
to the strategy
Leadership
Functional Group 2
Functional Group 3
Functional Group 4
Functional Group 5
Functional Group 6
Functional Group 7
Functional Group 8
Population
% Correct 74% 100% 85% 76% 63% 78% 83% 62% 76%
% Incorrect 26% 0% 15% 24% 38% 22% 17% 38% 24%
Count 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130
COMMUNICATING CHANGE
246
Q22. The work I do in my role is important to achieve the company strategy.
Motivation | Utility Value | The technical staff value achieving the goal and their role
in that achievement
Leadership
Functional Group 2
Functional Group 3
Functional Group 4
Functional Group 5
Functional Group 6
Functional Group 7
Functional Group 8
Population
Strongly Agree 58% 25% 33% 29% 63% 67% 50% 40% 43%
Agree 42% 63% 67% 71% 38% 33% 50% 60% 56%
Disagree 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Strongly Disagree 0% 13% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%
Count 19 8 27 17 8 9 12 30 130
Q23. I want to improve my performance to achieve the company strategy.
Motivation | Goal Orientation| The technical staff believe that creating goals will
contribute to improving their performance relative to the strategy.
Leadership
Functional Group 2
Functional Group 3
Functional Group 4
Functional Group 5
Functional Group 6
Functional Group 7
Functional Group 8
Population
Strongly Agree 74% 63% 48% 35% 88% 56% 50% 53% 55%
Agree 26% 38% 52% 59% 13% 44% 50% 47% 44%
Disagree 0% 0% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%
Strongly Disagree 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Count 19 8 27 17 8 9 12 30 130
COMMUNICATING CHANGE
247
Q24. I consistently set and review goals to improve my performance to achieve the
company strategy.
Motivation | Goal Orientation| The technical staff believe that creating goals will
contribute to improving their performance relative to the strategy.
Leadership
Functional Group 2
Functional Group 3
Functional Group 4
Functional Group 5
Functional Group 6
Functional Group 7
Functional Group 8
Population
Strongly Agree 21% 0% 26% 29% 25% 22% 25% 20% 22%
Agree 68% 100% 63% 65% 63% 56% 67% 70% 68%
Disagree 11% 0% 11% 6% 13% 22% 0% 10% 9%
Strongly Disagree 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% 0% 1%
Count 19 8 27 17 8 9 12 30 130
Q25. Senior leadership exhibits behaviors aligned with the company strategy.
Organizational | Modeling| The behaviors modeled by leadership need to be congruent with
the strategy communicated to the technical staff.
Leadership
Functional Group 2
Functional Group 3
Functional Group 4
Functional Group 5
Functional Group 6
Functional Group 7
Functional Group 8
Population
Strongly Agree 16% 0% 30% 18% 38% 33% 25% 33% 25%
Agree 68% 50% 70% 59% 50% 67% 75% 67% 65%
Disagree 11% 50% 0% 24% 13% 0% 0% 0% 8%
Strongly Disagree 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%
Count 19 8 27 17 8 9 12 30 130
COMMUNICATING CHANGE
248
Q26. The work I do in my role is important to achieve the Alpha Technical Group
strategy.
Motivation | Utility Value | The technical staff value achieving the goal and their role
in that achievement
Leadership
Functional Group 2
Functional Group 3
Functional Group 4
Functional Group 5
Functional Group 6
Functional Group 7
Functional Group 8
Population
Strongly Agree 74% 38% 41% 29% 63% 67% 67% 50% 52%
Agree 21% 50% 56% 71% 38% 33% 33% 50% 46%
Disagree 5% 13% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2%
Strongly Disagree 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Count 19 8 27 17 8 9 12 30 130
Q27. I want to improve my performance to achieve the Alpha Technical Group
strategy.
Motivation | Goal Orientation| The technical staff believe that creating goals will
contribute to improving their performance relative to the strategy.
Leadership
Functional Group 2
Functional Group 3
Functional Group 4
Functional Group 5
Functional Group 6
Functional Group 7
Functional Group 8
Population
Strongly Agree 74% 50% 52% 41% 75% 56% 42% 53% 55%
Agree 26% 50% 48% 53% 25% 44% 58% 47% 45%
Disagree 0% 0% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%
Strongly Disagree 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Count 19 8 27 17 8 9 12 30 130
COMMUNICATING CHANGE
249
Q28. I consistently set and review goals to improve my performance to achieve the
Alpha Technical Group strategy.
Motivation | Goal Orientation| The technical staff believe that creating goals will
contribute to improving their performance relative to the strategy.
Leadership
Functional Group 2
Functional Group 3
Functional Group 4
Functional Group 5
Functional Group 6
Functional Group 7
Functional Group 8
Population
Strongly Agree 26% 25% 30% 29% 38% 22% 25% 23% 27%
Agree 63% 75% 59% 71% 50% 56% 67% 63% 63%
Disagree 11% 0% 11% 0% 13% 22% 0% 13% 9%
Strongly Disagree 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% 0% 1%
Count 19 8 27 17 8 9 12 30 130
Q29. I often ask myself if I am meeting performance expectations.
Knowledge | Metacognitive | The technical staff reflect on their performance based
on feedback from their supervisor relative to expectations
Leadership
Functional Group 2
Functional Group 3
Functional Group 4
Functional Group 5
Functional Group 6
Functional Group 7
Functional Group 8
Population
Strongly Agree 37% 25% 41% 47% 63% 56% 8% 13% 33%
Agree 47% 75% 48% 41% 13% 33% 83% 53% 50%
Disagree 16% 0% 11% 12% 13% 0% 0% 27% 13%
Strongly Disagree 0% 0% 0% 0% 13% 11% 8% 7% 4%
Count 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130
COMMUNICATING CHANGE
250
Q30. Alpha Technical Group leadership often communicates effectively.
Organizational | Feedback | Leadership needs an effective process to communicate
decisions and timely, concrete feedback to the technical staff
Leadership
Functional Group 2
Functional Group 3
Functional Group 4
Functional Group 5
Functional Group 6
Functional Group 7
Functional Group 8
Population
Strongly Agree 5% 0% 7% 24% 13% 33% 0% 23% 14%
Agree 63% 38% 70% 71% 25% 56% 67% 73% 64%
Disagree 21% 50% 22% 0% 63% 11% 33% 3% 19%
Strongly Disagree 11% 13% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3%
Count 19 8 27 17 8 9 12 30 130
Q31. Alpha Technical Group leadership often effectively communicates decisions
relative to the strategy.
Organizational | Feedback | Leadership needs an effective process to communicate
decisions and timely, concrete feedback to the technical staff
Leadership
Functional Group 2
Functional Group 3
Functional Group 4
Functional Group 5
Functional Group 6
Functional Group 7
Functional Group 8
Population
Strongly Agree 0% 13% 15% 18% 13% 33% 8% 20% 15%
Agree 58% 38% 63% 71% 25% 33% 75% 73% 61%
Disagree 32% 38% 22% 6% 63% 33% 17% 7% 22%
Strongly Disagree 11% 13% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3%
Count 19 8 27 17 8 9 12 30 130
COMMUNICATING CHANGE
251
Q32. Alpha Technical Group leadership often effectively communicates decisions
relative to the strategy in a timely manner.
Organizational | Feedback | Leadership needs an effective process to communicate
decisions and timely, concrete feedback to the technical staff
Leadership
Functional Group 2
Functional Group 3
Functional Group 4
Functional Group 5
Functional Group 6
Functional Group 7
Functional Group 8
Population
Strongly Agree 5% 25% 7% 18% 0% 33% 8% 20% 14%
Agree 53% 13% 70% 71% 38% 44% 83% 67% 61%
Disagree 26% 50% 22% 6% 63% 22% 8% 13% 22%
Strongly Disagree 16% 13% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4%
Count 19 8 27 17 8 9 12 30 130
Q33. The priorities to implement the Alpha Technical Group strategy are clear.
Organizational | Priorities | The priorities necessary to implement the strategy are
clear to the technical staff and the organization recognizes and rewards behavior
congruent with the strategy.
Leadership
Functional Group 2
Functional Group 3
Functional Group 4
Functional Group 5
Functional Group 6
Functional Group 7
Functional Group 8
Population
Strongly Agree 11% 0% 4% 12% 0% 22% 8% 17% 10%
Agree 42% 63% 67% 65% 38% 44% 67% 57% 57%
Disagree 37% 38% 30% 24% 50% 33% 25% 27% 31%
Strongly Disagree 11% 0% 0% 0% 13% 0% 0% 0% 2%
Count 19 8 27 17 8 9 12 30 130
COMMUNICATING CHANGE
252
Q34. I often have the information I need to do my job within the Alpha Technical
Group.
Organizational | Lateral Communication | The dual reporting nature of a matrix
organizational structure makes communication difficult for the technical staff.
Leadership
Functional Group 2
Functional Group 3
Functional Group 4
Functional Group 5
Functional Group 6
Functional Group 7
Functional Group 8
Population
Strongly Agree 21% 0% 19% 18% 25% 44% 42% 30% 25%
Agree 58% 50% 59% 76% 50% 56% 42% 63% 59%
Disagree 16% 50% 22% 6% 25% 0% 17% 7% 15%
Strongly Disagree 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%
Count 19 8 27 17 8 9 12 30 130
Q35. Alpha Technical Group leadership often exhibits behaviors aligned with the
Alpha Technical Group strategy.
Organizational | Modeling| The behaviors modeled by leadership need to be
congruent with the strategy communicated to the technical staff.
Leadership
Functional Group 2
Functional Group 3
Functional Group 4
Functional Group 5
Functional Group 6
Functional Group 7
Functional Group 8
Population
Strongly Agree 32% 13% 22% 12% 25% 33% 17% 30% 24%
Agree 53% 63% 74% 82% 50% 56% 83% 70% 68%
Disagree 11% 25% 4% 6% 25% 11% 0% 0% 7%
Strongly Disagree 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%
Count 19 8 27 17 8 9 12 30 130
COMMUNICATING CHANGE
253
Q36. My direct supervisor often provides me with performance feedback based on
their expectations for my role.
Knowledge | Declarative | The technical staff know their performance relative to
expectations
Leadership
Functional Group 2
Functional Group 3
Functional Group 4
Functional Group 5
Functional Group 6
Functional Group 7
Functional Group 8
Population
Strongly Agree 26% 13% 33% 29% 25% 44% 8% 27% 27%
Agree 58% 50% 56% 41% 50% 56% 67% 67% 57%
Disagree 11% 38% 4% 24% 13% 0% 8% 7% 11%
Strongly Disagree 5% 0% 7% 6% 13% 0% 17% 0% 5%
Count 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130
Q37. Which of the following sources provides you with the most actionable
information?
Organizational | Lateral Communication | The dual reporting nature of a
matrix organizational structure makes communication difficult for the
technical staff.
Leadership
Functional Group 2
Functional Group 3
Functional Group 4
Functional Group 5
Functional Group 6
Functional Group 7
Functional Group 8
Population
Staff 26% 38% 26% 53% 63% 56% 42% 23% 35%
Supervisor 21% 25% 56% 18% 25% 44% 8% 77% 42%
Manager 26% 38% 15% 29% 13% 0% 50% 0% 18%
Vice-president 26% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4%
Senior Leader 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%
Count 19 8 27 17 8 9 12 30 130
COMMUNICATING CHANGE
254
Q38. Which of the following sources provides you with the least actionable
information?
Organizational | Lateral Communication | The dual reporting nature of a
matrix organizational structure makes communication difficult for the
technical staff.
Leadership
Functional Group 2
Functional Group 3
Functional Group 4
Functional Group 5
Functional Group 6
Functional Group 7
Functional Group 8
Population
Staff 11% 13% 22% 6% 13% 11% 27% 30% 18%
Supervisor 16% 13% 11% 12% 0% 0% 45% 4% 12%
Manager 5% 13% 4% 6% 0% 0% 0% 11% 6%
Vice-president 11% 25% 19% 24% 50% 56% 18% 11% 21%
Senior Leader 58% 38% 44% 53% 38% 33% 9% 44% 43%
Count 19 8 27 17 8 9 11 27 126
Q39. Which of the following sources of information do you trust the most?
Organizational | Lateral Communication | The dual reporting nature of a
matrix organizational structure makes communication difficult for the
technical staff.
Leadership
Functional Group 2
Functional Group 3
Functional Group 4
Functional Group 5
Functional Group 6
Functional Group 7
Functional Group 8
Population
Staff 11% 13% 22% 29% 25% 33% 17% 3% 17%
Supervisor 16% 13% 22% 0% 63% 11% 17% 55% 26%
Manager 32% 38% 41% 65% 13% 56% 67% 28% 41%
Vice-president 32% 13% 7% 6% 0% 0% 0% 7% 9%
Senior Leader 11% 25% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 6%
Count 19 8 27 17 8 9 12 29 129
COMMUNICATING CHANGE
255
Q40. Which of the following sources of information do you trust the least?
Organizational | Lateral Communication | The dual reporting nature of a
matrix organizational structure makes communication difficult for the
technical staff.
Leadership
Functional Group 2
Functional Group 3
Functional Group 4
Functional Group 5
Functional Group 6
Functional Group 7
Functional Group 8
Population
Staff 32% 63% 50% 15% 63% 44% 45% 67% 47%
Supervisor 11% 13% 13% 8% 0% 11% 36% 0% 11%
Manager 11% 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4%
Vice-president 5% 0% 8% 15% 0% 22% 9% 0% 7%
Senior Leader 42% 0% 29% 62% 38% 22% 9% 33% 32%
Count 19 8 24 13 8 9 11 21 113
COMMUNICATING CHANGE
256
Q41. Which of the following give you the most confidence in the Alpha Technical
Group's ability to perform?
Organizational | Priorities | The priorities necessary to implement the strategy are
clear to the technical staff and the organization recognizes and rewards behavior
congruent with the strategy.
Leadership
Functional Group 2
Functional Group 3
Functional Group 4
Functional Group 5
Functional Group 6
Functional Group 7
Functional Group 8
Population
Strategy and direction
58% 38% 44% 50% 13% 88% 25% 45% 46%
Organizational structure
and decision making
11% 13% 7% 13% 13% 0% 25% 17% 13%
Processes and
communication
0% 13% 7% 13% 13% 0% 17% 10% 9%
Metrics and rewards
11% 25% 11% 6% 25% 0% 17% 0% 9%
Roles and Responsibilities
21% 13% 30% 19% 38% 13% 17% 28% 24%
Count
19 8 27 16 8 8 12 29 127
COMMUNICATING CHANGE
257
Q42. Which of the following give you the least confidence in the Alpha Technical
Group's ability to perform?
Organizational | Priorities | The priorities necessary to implement the strategy are
clear to the technical staff and the organization recognizes and rewards behavior
congruent with the strategy.
Leadership
Functional Group 2
Functional Group 3
Functional Group 4
Functional Group 5
Functional Group 6
Functional Group 7
Functional Group 8
Population
Strategy and direction 5% 13% 0% 7% 0% 13% 0% 4% 4%
Organizational structure
and decision making 26% 25% 22% 7% 63% 13% 18% 14% 21%
Processes and
communication 37% 38% 52% 20% 38% 63% 45% 61% 46%
Metrics and rewards 21% 13% 11% 47% 0% 13% 27% 11% 18%
Roles and Responsibilities 11% 13% 15% 20% 0% 0% 9% 11% 11%
Count 19 8 27 15 8 8 11 28 124
COMMUNICATING CHANGE
258
APPENDIX F
Post-Training Survey Items Measuring Kirkpatrick Levels 1-4
Thank you for your willingness to consider participating in this research study. Each question
must be answered to advance to the next question; however, participants will not have the ability
to revisit questions once they have advanced to the next question. Please review the participant
information sheet and, if you agree to participate, click next to begin the study.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE
259
The following general questions are for demographics purposes only and will not be
attributed to survey responses.
If you are willing to participate in a focus group to further explore the results of this
survey, click on the link at the end of the survey.
1) Gender.
a. Female
b. Male
2) Age range.
a. 70-90
b. 50-69
c. 35-49
d. 20-34
COMMUNICATING CHANGE
260
Questions 1-11 use the scale below to measure how confident you are as of today in your
ability:
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
|
Cannot do at all
|
Moderately can do
|
Highly certain can do
1) To identify the vision for the company
2) To identify the strategy for the company
3) To identify the steps necessary to implement the company strategy
4) To identify the primary role of the Alpha Technical Group relative to the company
strategy
5) To describe your role relative to the company strategy
6) To identify the vision for the Alpha Technical Group
7) To identify the strategy for the Alpha Technical Group
8) To identify the steps necessary to implement the Alpha Technical Group strategy
9) To describe your role relative to the Alpha Technical Group strategy
10) To describe the expectations your direct supervisor has for you in your role
11) To describe your performance relative to the expectations your direct supervisor
has for you in your role
Questions 12-16 use the scale below to measure, as of today, how certain you are that:
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
|
Cannot do at all
|
Moderately can do
|
Highly certain can do
12) Implementing the company strategy will improve company performance
13) The company can achieve the company strategy
14) Implementing the Alpha Technical Group strategy will improve the performance of
the technical group
15) The Alpha Technical Group can achieve the technical group strategy
16) The Alpha Technical Group strategy will improve company performance
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 261
Questions 17-21 are related to identifying vision and strategy:
17) Which of the following is the vision for the company?
a. To be the premier operator in each of our core areas.
b. To deliver premier, top-quartile performance for our shareholders.
c. To be the premier independent oil and gas company in North America.
d. To deliver premier performance by creating value every day.
18) Which of the following is the strategy for the company?
a. To generate the best rates of return by controlling operating and capital costs
while maximizing oil and natural gas reserve recoveries.
b. To manage and operate our properties with integrity and in a manner consistent
with our core values.
c. To create value by responsibly producing oil and natural gas vital to meet the
energy needs of the world.
d. To deliver top-quartile share price performance through superior execution, a
sustainable and industry leading portfolio, and an excellent financial position.
19) Which of the following is the vision for the Alpha Technical Group?
a. To be the best operator in our fields.
b. To be the recognized technical leader in maximizing value through dedicated
teamwork and innovation.
c. To dominate the basin.
d. Focus on our people and culture to be the best operator in the region.
e. To be a premier and resilient operator in our field to maximize value for the
company.
20) Which of the following is the strategy for the Alpha Technical Group?
a. To focus on safety and emissions while delivering free cash flow through
development plans, building for the future, and operational excellence.
b. To prioritize opportunities, appraise our resource, plan our work, and work our
plan to monetize and progress our assets.
c. To swiftly move to full field development through technical and operational
excellence, integrated planning, and superior execution.
d. To be the best operator with a focus on environmental compliance, maximizing
cash flow, characterizing our resource portfolio and execute a disciplined capital
program plan.
e. To maintain our license to operate while maximizing cash flow and accelerating
value.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 262
21) Which of the following is the primary role of the Alpha Technical Group relative to
the company strategy?
a. Emerging Growth Area: appraising the asset to become a core growth area.
b. Core Growth Area: developing the asset to grow future production.
c. Base Production: producing the asset to deliver consistent cash flow.
d. Non-core Area: optimize the asset during last years of cash flow.
Questions 22-43 use the scale below:
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4
22) The work I do in my role is important to achieve the company strategy
23) I want to improve my performance to achieve the company strategy
24) I often set goals to improve my performance to achieve the company strategy
25) Senior leadership exhibits behaviors aligned with the company strategy
26) The work I do in my role is important to achieve the Alpha Technical Group strategy
27) I want to improve my performance to achieve the Alpha Technical Group strategy
28) I often set goals to improve my performance to achieve the Alpha Technical Group
strategy
29) I often do you ask myself if I am meeting performance expectations
30) Alpha Technical Group leadership often communicates effectively
31) Alpha Technical Group leadership often effectively communicates decisions relative to
the Alpha Technical Group strategy
32) Alpha Technical Group leadership often effectively communicates decisions relative to
the Alpha Technical Group strategy in a timely manner
33) The priorities to implement the Alpha Technical Group strategy are clear
34) I often have the information I need to do my job within the Alpha Technical Group
35) Alpha Technical Group leadership often exhibits behaviors aligned with the Alpha
Technical Group strategy
36) My direct supervisor often provides me with performance feedback based on their
expectations for my role
37) After my one-on-one meeting with my direct supervisor, I am clear of what is expected of
me
38) During my one-on-one meetings with my direct supervisor, I receive helpful information
39) The information I receive from my direct supervisor is relevant to my role
40) The information I receive from my direct supervisor will be worthwhile to apply in my
role
41) I am committed to applying the information and feedback I receive from my direct
supervisor
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 263
42) I believe I will see a positive impact if I consistently apply what I learn from my direct
supervisor
43) I have the knowledge and skills necessary to perform what is expected of me
44) My direct supervisor and I set expectations for applying feedback in my role
Questions 43-50 are related to information sources and performance:
45) Which of the following sources provides you with the most actionable information?
a. Staff
b. Supervisor
c. Manager
d. Vice-president
e. Senior leader
46) Which of the following sources provides you with the least actionable information?
a. Staff
b. Supervisor
c. Manager
d. Vice-president
e. Senior leader
47) Which of the following sources of information do you trust the most?
a. Staff
b. Supervisor
c. Manager
d. Vice-president
e. Senior leader
48) Which of the following sources of information do you trust the least?
a. Staff
b. Supervisor
c. Manager
d. Vice-president
e. Senior leader
49) Which of the following give you the most confidence in the Alpha Technical Group’s
ability to perform?
a. Strategy and direction
b. Organizational structure and decision making
c. Processes and communication
d. Metrics and rewards
e. Roles and Responsibilities
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 264
50) Which of the following give you the least confidence in the Alpha Technical Group’s
ability to perform?
a. Strategy and direction
b. Organizational structure and decision making
c. Processes and communication
d. Metrics and rewards
e. Roles and Responsibilities
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 265
APPENDIX G
Technical Staff Job Aid
Focus
Area
Technical
Staff Level 1
Technical
Staff Level 2
Technical
Staff Level 3
Technical
Staff Level 4
Technical Staff
Level 5
Work Summary and Experience
Works under
immediate
supervision in
an entry-level
position,
gaining
experience
while
developing
academic
knowledge
and skills.
Works under
general
supervision
and continues
growth in
knowledge and
skills.
Carries out
relatively
complex
assignments
and projects
independently.
Functions as a
technical
specialist.
Carries out
complex
assignments
independently.
Functions as a
technical advisor
with the ability
to develop
unique and
innovative
solutions to
problems of
unusual
complexity.
Completes
routine tasks
of limited
scope using
proven
techniques.
Completes
mostly routine
tasks of
moderate
scope and
complexity
using proven
techniques.
Uses skills and
extensive
knowledge of
technical
principles,
theories and
concepts to
contribute to
multiple and
mostly
complex
issues/projects.
Uses advanced
knowledge of
discipline to
provide
solutions and
support to
leadership.
Uses expert
knowledge of
discipline and
overall company
objectives to
envision projects
that are strategic
in nature.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 266
Work
reviewed by
supervisor
/mentor.
Work reviewed
by supervisor.
May act as
team lead and
guides/advises
others. May be
asked to assist
in mentoring
and reviewing
the work of
less
experienced
professionals.
May be asked
to assist in
mentoring and
reviewing the
work of less
experienced
professionals
and validating
technical
decisions on
complex
problems.
Held
accountable for
reviewing and
validating
technical
decisions on
highly complex
problems with
divisional
impact on the
business.
Skills acquired
by a bachelor's
degree with 0-3
years of directly
related technical
work
experience.
Skills acquired
by a bachelor's
degree with 3-
8 years of
directly related
technical work
experience.
Able to handle
multiple
projects at
once.
Skills acquired
by a bachelor's
degree with 15
or more years
of directly
related
technical work
experience.
Delivers outputs
that drive both
current and
future economic
decisions and
provide best
practices for
others to follow.
Skills acquired
by a bachelor's
degree with 8-
15 years of
directly related
technical work
experience.
Has acquired
experience in
multiple
diverse
projects/assets.
Skills acquired
by a bachelor’s
degree with 15
or more years of
directly related
technical work
experience.
Has acquired
experience in
multiple
diverse
projects/assets.
Has acquired
experience in
multiple diverse
projects/assets.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 267
Adapting to Change
Accepts
change as it
impacts work.
Supports
change as it
impacts work.
Champions
and develops
new initiatives
in response to
business goals.
Champions
long-term
change efforts
that positively
impact the
company.
Champions
change
initiatives that
impact the
business
direction and/or
strategy.
Recommends
and
implements
modifications
to routine
tasks.
Recommends
and
implements
modifications
to routine
tasks.
Leads others to
take action
supporting the
change.
Leads others to
take action
supporting the
change.
Leads others to
take action
supporting the
change.
Anticipates
potential
resistance to
change and
communicates
to overcome
resistance.
Demonstrates
record of
introducing
and
implementing
improvements,
process or
technology
changes.
Demonstrates
record of
introducing and
implementing
improvements,
process or
technology
changes on a
large-scale.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 268
Continuous Improvement
Actively
demonstrates
continuous
improvement
principles.
Supports and
participates
continuous
improvement
initiatives in
discipline.
Initiates and
leads
improvement
initiatives that
result in value
generation,
efficiencies
and/or
reduction of
risk.
Leads more
complex
continuous
improvement
initiatives
within
discipline.
Identifies and
leads
comprehensive
improvement
initiatives within
the department
that result in
tangible value
generation,
efficiencies
and/or reduction
of risk.
Drives
improvement
initiatives
within the
team that
result in
tangible value
generation,
efficiencies
and/or
reduction of
risk.
Trains and
mentors less
experienced
employees on
continuous
improvement as
required.
EHS
Participates in
proactive
safety
activities/proc
esses.
Demonstrates/i
nfluences/incor
porates EHS
into planning
and execution.
Is a safety
leader whose
actions and
words
positively
impact safety
culture.
Is a safety
leader whose
actions and
words
positively
impact safety
culture.
Is a safety leader
whose actions
and words
positively
impact safety
culture.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 269
Demonstrates
visible
commitment
to EHS.
May be
required to
lead safety
activities/proce
sses.
Fully versed in
Premier's EHS
program and
project-
specific EHS
risks.
Accountable
for decisions
and
recommends
priorities for
the team
Accountable for
the technical
validity and
appropriateness
of decisions
within discipline
Aware of
safety and
environmental
impact on job.
Recognizes
safety and
environmental
significance
related to
actions.
Makes
decisions and
recommends
with priorities
placed on
EHS.
Actively
demonstrates
and mentors
others in EHS
Attributes.
Actively
demonstrates
and mentors
others in EHS
Attributes.
Held
accountable
for safety
metrics.
Held
accountable for
safety metrics.
Held
accountable
for safety
metrics.
Held
accountable
for safety
metrics.
Held
accountable for
safety metrics.
Evaluating and Implementing Solutions
Effectively
evaluates and
recommends
solutions to
basic business
and technical
issues.
Effectively
evaluates and
recommends
solutions to
business and
technical
issues of
moderate
complexity
based on
functional
expertise,
industry
experience and
discussions
with peers.
Functions as
team lead to
define, plan
and execute
complex
projects
supporting
business
objectives.
Functions as
team lead to
define, plan
and execute
complex
projects
supporting
business
objectives.
Identifies, plans
and executes
highly complex
projects
supporting
broader
company
objectives.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 270
Oversees the
development
and execution
of project
/program
objectives,
deliverables
and deadlines
on technical
issues.
Oversees the
development
and execution
of project
/program
objectives,
deliverables
and deadlines
on technical
issues.
Directs and
oversees the
work of project
teams.
Manages
changing
priorities as
job
requirements
dictate.
Manages
changing
priorities as
job
requirements
dictate.
Drives
discussions
determining
operating
policies.
Accountable for
technical
components of
those policies.
Manages
changing
priorities as job
requirements
dictate.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 271
Planning
Plans work to
support
business
objectives.
Develops clear
planning
objectives
needed to
reach desired
results within
discipline for
two or more
concurrent
projects.
Develops clear
team planning
objectives
needed to
reach desired
results for two
or more
concurrent
projects of
increasing
complexity.
Develops clear
team planning
objectives
needed to
reach desired
results for
concurrent
projects of
increasing
complexity.
Develops clear
team planning
objectives
needed to reach
desired results
for concurrent
projects of
increasing
complexity.
Articulates
plan and
alternatives.
Articulates
plan and
alternatives.
Articulates
plan and
alternatives.
Articulates plan
and alternatives.
Applies
technology to
address
/resolve issues
and to
determine best
course of
action.
Applies
technology to
address
/resolve issues
and to
determine best
course of
action.
Recognizes
mission
critical path
and applies
technology to
address
/resolve issues
and to
determine best
course of
action.
Recognizes
mission critical
path and applies
technology to
address /resolve
issues and to
determine best
course of action.
Provides
technical
direction and
guidance for
complex
problems.
Provides
technical
direction and
guidance for
complex
problems.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 272
Risk Management
Understands
risk (financial,
operations,
EHS)
associated
with
discipline.
Understands
and considers
risks when
making
business
decisions.
Proactively
identifies areas
of risk to
business
deliverables
and develops
mitigation
strategies.
Proactively
identifies areas
of risk to
business
deliverables
and develops
mitigation
strategies.
Proactively
identifies areas
of risk to
business
deliverables and
develops
mitigation
strategies.
Works with
experienced
team members
on risk
management
initiatives to
gain
understanding
of how to
identify
discipline-
specific risk.
Works with
team members
to identify
possible
technologies
/procedures to
improve
performance
and manage
risk.
Provides
recommendati
ons on
technologies
/procedures to
improve
performance
and manage
risk.
Applies
advanced
knowledge to
address complex
risk
management
issues.
Manages risk
exposures to
deliver best
overall value
to the
business.
Creates written
risk
assessment for
assigned area.
Initiates the
development of
technologies
/procedures to
improve
performance and
manage risk.
Manages risk
exposures to
deliver best
overall value
to the
business.
Creates written
risk assessment
for assigned
area.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 273
Technical Recommendations
Provides
technical
plans.
Provides
technical plans
and
understands
business
impact.
Provides
technical plans
that include
detailed
implications
for risk,
business
priorities and
value.
Builds
technical plans
and provides
business case
to leadership
in a concise,
constructive,
knowledgeable
format that
includes
detailed
implications
for risk,
business
priorities and
value; and
includes full
consideration
of technical,
timing and
internal
/external
stakeholder
impacts.
Expected to
provide business
case and
technical plans
to leadership in
a concise,
constructive,
knowledgeable
format that
includes detailed
implications for
risk, business
priorities and
value; and
includes full
consideration of
technical, timing
and internal
/external
stakeholder
impacts.
Applies
multiple
methodologies
in analysis.
May
communicate
technical plans
to leadership.
Develops best
practices and
provides
technical plans
that may affect
entire company
and/or
individual
divisions.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 274
Span of Influence
Establishes
effective
working
relationships
with multiple
internal
and/or
external
stakeholders.
Establishes
effective
working
relationships
with multiple
internal and/or
external
stakeholders.
Establishes
effective
working
relationships
with multiple
external
stakeholders.
Establishes
effective
relationships at
high levels
with multiple
external
stakeholders.
Establishes
effective
relationships at
high levels with
multiple external
stakeholders.
Internal and External Professional Influence
Provides
influence over
projects.
Provides
influence over
projects.
Provides
influence over
projects,
stakeholders,
less
experienced
technical staff
and leadership.
Exerts
influence over
complex
projects, multi-
disciplined
teams,
stakeholders,
technical staff
and leadership.
Exerts a high
degree of
influence over
complex
projects,
stakeholders,
multi-
disciplined
teams, technical
staff and
executive
leadership.
Supports
negotiations
for terms and
conditions and
reaches
resolution of
conflicts and
disputes.
Supports
negotiations
for terms and
conditions and
reaches
resolution of
conflicts and
disputes.
Supports
negotiations for
terms and
conditions and
reaches
resolution of
conflicts and
disputes.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 275
Champions
technical
results and
interpretation
to other
stakeholders
and ensures a
positive
business
impact.
Representing Premier
May represent
Premier on
external
technical
boards or
committees.
Attends
industry
events and
networks.
May represent
Premier on
external
technical
boards or
committees
and may make
presentations
at industry
conferences.
May represent
Premier on
external
technical
boards or
committees.
Has technical
credibility
with external
peers, and uses
professional
network to
understand
business
impact.
Acts as
department
representative
on corporate and
industry
committees
related to
business systems
and processes,
EHS and
operations.
May make
presentations
at industry
conferences.
Represents
Premier on
external
technical
boards or
committees, as
required.
Has technical
credibility with
external peers,
and uses
professional
network to
understand what
is happening in
the industry.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 276
May make
presentations
at industry
conferences.
Represents
Premier on
external
technical boards
or committees,
as required.
May make
presentations
and/or submit
papers or
publications to
industry
conferences.
Training and Mentoring
Works under
immediate
supervision
and receives
training in
various
aspects of the
discipline
from
experienced
personnel to
learn
fundamentals.
Works under
general
supervision
and receives
mentoring,
training and
direction from
supervisors
and/or
experienced
personnel.
Actively
mentors
employees in
acquiring
technical and
other required
skills.
Assists in the
development
of other
employees.
Established
mentor and
trainer of staff.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 277
Seeks
mentoring for
knowledge
transfer as
needed.
Seeks
mentoring for
knowledge
transfer as
needed.
Seeks
opportunities
to mentor and
knowledge
transfer in
group/area.
Is a discipline
technical
mentor.
Assists in
oversight of
rotational
program
including level
of support,
training and
mentorship of
less experienced
professionals.
Shares
knowledge
with less
experienced
employees.
Helps to
identify gaps
in technical
knowledge and
points out
development
areas related to
discipline
technical
training.
Seeks
opportunities
to mentor
outside of
group/area.
Identifies gaps
in knowledge
and points out
development
areas.
Acts as a team
lead and
guides/advises
others.
Identifies gaps
in knowledge
and points out
development
areas as
required to
help in the
development
and
implementatio
n of technical
training
programs.
Develops and
implements
technical
training
programs and
audits existing
training
programs.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 278
Continually
sought out by
peers and
proactively
seeks
opportunities
for technical
knowledge/
Provides cross-
function
technical
training and/or
knowledge
transfer, as
required.
Continually
sought out by
peers and
proactively
seeks
opportunities
for technical
knowledge/adv
ice on the most
complex
issues.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 279
Business Acumen
Demonstrates
basic
knowledge of
business
principles,
industry
practices and
standards.
Demonstrates
working
knowledge of
business
principles,
industry
practices and
standards.
Demonstrates
business
acumen
through a
detailed
functional
knowledge of
business
principles,
industry
practices and
standards with
a strong
understanding
of financial,
economic and
accounting
tools and
terminologies.
Demonstrates
business
acumen
through a
detailed
functional
knowledge of
business
principles,
industry
practices and
standards with
a strong
understanding
of financial,
economic and
accounting
tools and
terminologies.
Demonstrates
expert business
acumen through
a detailed
functional
knowledge of
business
principles,
industry
practices and
standards with a
strong
understanding of
financial,
economic and
accounting tools
and
terminologies.
Begins to
develop
business
acumen by
gaining an
understanding
of financial,
economic and
accounting
tools and
terminologies.
Understands
long term-
plans and
objectives and
makes
decisions
based on
overall value
and business
impact.
Understands
long-term
plans and
objectives and
makes
decisions
based on
overall value
and business
impact.
Understands
long-term plans
and objectives
and makes
decisions based
on overall value
and business
impact.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 280
Communication
Demonstrates
verbal and
written skills
with the
ability to
present ideas
clearly and
concisely.
Demonstrates
verbal and
written skills
with the ability
to present ideas
clearly and
technical work
concisely in a
variety of
settings and
audiences.
Demonstrates
strong verbal
and written
skills with the
ability to
present ideas
and technical
work clearly
and concisely
for a variety of
settings and
audiences.
Demonstrates
strong verbal
and written
skills with the
ability to
present ideas
and technical
work clearly
and concisely
for a variety of
settings and
audiences.
Demonstrates
strong verbal
and written
skills with the
ability to present
ideas and
technical work
clearly and
concisely for a
variety of
settings and
audiences.
Exhibits
effective
interpersonal
skills to
collaborate
work within a
team to
achieve project
related goals.
Exhibits
effective
interpersonal
skills to
collaborate
work within a
team to
achieve
project-related
goals.
Exhibits
effective
interpersonal
skills to
collaborate
work within a
team to
achieve
project-related
goals.
Exhibits
effective
interpersonal
skills to
collaborate work
within a team to
achieve project-
related goals.
Effectively
facilitate group
discussions.
Effectively
facilitate group
discussions.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 281
Multi-Discipline Knowledge
Demonstrates
an
understanding
of basic
technical
principles,
theories and
concepts in
discipline.
Demonstrates a
working
knowledge and
application of
most technical
principles,
theories and
concepts in
discipline.
Demonstrates
detailed
functional
knowledge and
application of
technical
principles,
theories
concepts in
discipline.
Demonstrates
and utilizes a
detailed
functional
knowledge and
application of
technical
principles,
theories and
concepts in
discipline.
Demonstrates a
detailed
functional
knowledge of
technical
principles and
mastery
application of
technical
principles,
theories and
concepts within
discipline.
Has exposure
to other key
disciplines.
Has developed
an
understanding
of other key
disciplines
with direct or
indirect impact
on discipline
performance
and is able to
collaborate
closely and
efficiently.
Has extensive
understanding
of other key
disciplines
with direct or
indirect impact
on discipline
performance
and is able to
collaborate
closely and
efficiently.
Has working
knowledge of
other key
disciplines
with direct or
indirect impact
on discipline
performance
and is able to
collaborate
closely and
efficiently.
Has working
knowledge in
one or more key
operational
disciplines with
direct or indirect
impact on
discipline
performance and
is able to
collaborate
closely and
efficiently.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 282
Problem Solving
Identifies
routine
problems of
limited scope
and solutions
based on
training and
knowledge of
functional
practice and
procedures.
Evaluates and
recommends
solutions to
business and
technical
problems
based on
functional
expertise,
industry
experience and
discussions
with peers.
Identifies,
diagnoses and
recommends
solutions to
complex
business and
technical
problems.
Identifies,
diagnoses and
recommends
solutions to
issues of
importance to
the company.
Identifies,
diagnoses and
recommends
solutions to
strategic issues
of importance to
the company.
Frequently
uses more
experienced
peers for
guidance.
Asks relevant,
probing
questions as a
way to reveal
potential
problems to
ensure best
solutions.
Uses
originality and
ingenuity for
devising
appropriate
and
economical
solutions to
problems.
Uses originality
and ingenuity
for devising
appropriate and
economical
solutions to
companywide
problems.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 283
Project Management
Develops
basic project
management
skills,
including the
basics of cost,
schedule and
scope
management.
Demonstrates
awareness
level project
management
skills with a
basic
understanding
of how to
organize work
utilizing
project
management.
Demonstrates
effective
project
management
skills with a
solid
understanding
and
competency
relative to
organizational
change
management.
Demonstrates
strong project
management
skills.
Demonstrates
strong project
management
skills.
Advises team
members on
all aspects of
project
management.
Advises team
members on all
aspects of
project
management.
Develops
project
management
skills in others.
Develops project
management
skills in others.
Functions as a
project leader
on more
complex
projects.
Functions as a
project leader of
multiple
complex
projects and
programs.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 284
Workload Management
Prioritizes,
organizes,
schedules and
completes
basic
assignments
on a timely
basis with
some
direction and
frequent
review.
Prioritizes,
organizes,
schedules and
completes
assignments on
a timely basis.
Proactively
leads,
prioritizes,
organizes,
schedules and
completes
multiple
concurrent
projects and
assignments
corresponding
to team
/divisional
goals.
Proactively
leads in
prioritizing
and bringing to
completion
multiple
concurrent
projects that
are strategic in
nature and
involve several
different
functional
areas.
Proactively
develops,
prioritizes,
organizes,
schedules and
completes
multiple
concurrent
projects and
assignments that
are strategic in
nature and
involve several
different
functional areas
or may be
companywide.
Organizes
workload with
ease and
consistency.
Organizes
workload with
ease and
consistency.
May at times
be responsible
for one
primary,
critical project.
May at times be
responsible for
one primary,
critical project.
Discipline and technical skills
Demonstrates
an awareness
and
understanding
of critical
skills required
for current
assignment as
defined by
supervisor.
Demonstrates
working
knowledge and
application of
critical skills
required for
current
assignment as
defined by
supervisor.
Demonstrates
detailed
functional
knowledge and
application of
critical skills
required for
current
assignment as
defined by
supervisor.
Demonstrates
detailed
functional
knowledge and
proficiency of
critical skills
required for
current
assignment as
defined by
supervisor.
Demonstrates
detailed
functional
knowledge and
proficiency of
critical skills
required for
current
assignment as
defined by
supervisor.
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 285
Appendix H
Participant Information Sheet
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education | 3470 Trousdale Pkwy, Los Angeles, CA 90089
INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
The role of communication during organizational change
You are invited to participate in a research study. Research studies include only people who
voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information about this study. You should
ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to examine the role of communication during organizational change.
Specifically, this study will examine knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that
inhibit the technical staff of Premier Energy (pseudonym) from achieving their goal.
Consequently, the study will evaluate several components of communication including what is
being communicated, the frequency of communication, and the manner in which communication
occurs between senior leadership and the technical staff of the company. Ultimately, this study
aims to improve the success rate of organizational change and thereby aid Premier Energy in
achieving the company goal of consistently performing in the top quartile of total shareholder
return among a peer group of companies.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to participate in this study, you will be asked to complete a multiple-choice survey,
which should take approximately 15-mintues to complete. During the survey, you may decline
answering any question by clicking “next” to move to the next question.
A small number of survey participants will be asked to participate in a focus group. You may
indicate your willingness to participate in the focus group by selecting “yes” when asked during
the survey. You may participate in the survey and decline to participate in the focus group.
Likewise, you may later decide not to participate in the focus group. The focus group will last
approximately one-hour and will be used to better understand general themes from the survey.
Participants in the focus group will be asked to provide their perspective on these themes.
Questions will be posed to the group and you may decline to answer any question by not
participating in the discussion. Focus group participants will also have an opportunity to further
clarify their responses during a validation interview scheduled in ten-minute increments
subsequent to the conclusion of the focus group. Additionally, a small number of managers and
senior leaders will be selected to participate in a personal interview. The interview will last
COMMUNICATING CHANGE 286
approximately one-hour and will be used to compare the perspectives of the technical staff and
those of leadership. Similar to the focus groups, the participants in the interview will be asked to
provide their perspectives on themes generated from the survey as well as other related questions.
Interview participants may decline to answer any question.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
Participants in the survey, focus groups, validation interviews, and personal interviews will not
receive compensation for their participation.
CONFIDENTIALITY
The survey will be conducted via an internet survey and will be confidential. You will not be
asked for personal information which could be used to identify you and any potentially identifiable
information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential. Responses from a
company computer (or remotely via Citrix) will have the same IP address and will not be
attributable to an individual. The survey responses will be compiled and only general themes from
the survey will be published. The data will be stored on a password protected computer for three
years after the conclusion of the study and then destroyed.
The focus group will be conducted in the office and any identifiable information obtained in
connection with this study will remain confidential. Only general themes which arise during the
focus groups will be used in the study and any individual responses published will be attributed a
pseudonym. The data will be stored on a password protected computer for three years after the
conclusion of the study and then destroyed.
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects
Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies
to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
When the results of the research are published, or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
Principal Investigator: David Ferris
via email: dsferris@usc.edu
via phone: +1.405.596.7724
Faculty Advisor: Melora Sundt
via email: Sundt@rossier.usc.edu
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This study sought to understand the high failure rate of organizational change initiatives and the importance of effective communication during those changes. The complex global economy requires leaders to effectively manage change, yet 70% of organizational change initiatives fail to achieve a positive outcome (Maurer, 2010). A review of research literature revealed these initiatives often fell short of expectations due to a poor strategy (Rosenberg & Mosca, 2011), poor execution (Getz, Jones, & Loewe, 2009
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Increasing institutional retention: a gap analysis
PDF
The role of the public child welfare leaders in reducing undesired employee turnover and promoting wellbeing: a gap analysis
PDF
An improvement study of leading a sustainable electric utility future through organizational change effectiveness
PDF
Developing the next generation of organization leaders: a gap analysis
PDF
A gap analysis of course directors’ effective implementation of technology-enriched course designs: An innovation study
PDF
Factors impacting the quality of first-line supervisor behavior in the Federal Government: a gap analysis
PDF
Improving pilot training by learning about learning: an innovation study
PDF
Knowledge, motivation and organizational influences impacting recruiting practices addressing the gender gap in the technology industry: an evaluation study
PDF
Uncovered: finding and being authentically myself in the workplace: an evaluation study
PDF
Knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences within leadership development: a study of a business unit in a prominent technology company
PDF
The role of organizational leaders in creating sustainable diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in the workplace
PDF
Cultural competency for academic counselors in the California community college systems to increase African-American male students' success: a gap analysis
PDF
Achieving high levels of employee engagement: A promising practice study
PDF
The barriers and facilitators of academic success for Black male students at a community college: a gap analysis
PDF
Establishing a systematic evaluation of positive behavioral interventions and supports to improve implementation and accountability approaches using a gap analysis framework
PDF
Building academic vocabulary for English language learners through professional development: a gap analysis
PDF
Military instructor critical thinking preparation
PDF
Examining the faculty implementation of intermediate algebra for statistics: An evaluation study
PDF
Examining the relationship between doctoral attrition and a redefined fatherhood: a gap analysis
PDF
The moderating role of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on employee turnover: A gap analysis
Asset Metadata
Creator
Ferris, David Scott
(author)
Core Title
Effective communication during organizational change: a gap analysis
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)
Publication Date
03/01/2018
Defense Date
01/17/2018
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
change initiative,Communication,congruent communication,effective communication,goals,implementation,informal network,lateral communication,leader behavior,matrix organization,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational change,organizational culture,priorities,strategy
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Sundt, Melora (
committee chair
), Cummings, Tom (
committee member
), Raines, John (
committee member
)
Creator Email
davidsferris@yahoo.com,dsferris@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-479402
Unique identifier
UC11266741
Identifier
etd-FerrisDavi-6069.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-479402 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-FerrisDavi-6069.pdf
Dmrecord
479402
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Ferris, David Scott
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
change initiative
congruent communication
effective communication
goals
implementation
informal network
lateral communication
leader behavior
matrix organization
organizational change
organizational culture
priorities
strategy