Change Factors by Hilde Johannessen

CHANGE FACTORS Hilde Dybdahl Johannessen

PURPOSE

The common understanding of what the change is meant to achieve, and why it is necessary.

L I M I TAT I O N S

VISION

A desirable, feasible and easily communicable picture of how the future will be.

IT CHANGE

I N V O LV E M E N T

The act of including the intended adopters when defining the problem and designing the solution.

I T & C U LT U R E

The limitations of using a collaborative approach within the context of large organizations.

Some of the issues that might arise during IT based change initiatives.

The significance of culture on IT based changes and an introduction to the elements of organizational culture.

ROLE MODELS

M O T I VA T I O N

B E H AV I O U R

The impact of managerial behaviour on change initiatives and the ambiguity managers often face.

How motivation influences behaviour and how it can be increased to encourage behavioural change.

A collection of behavioural principles that highlight some of the cognitive limitations to change.

This is a small overview of relevant theory that concerns organizational change processes. It is meant to give a brief introduction to some of the more influential factors that affect the the assimilation and implementation of change initiatives. There is a predominant focus on IT and technology based changes, however most of these principles are applicable to change processes in general. To the left is an overview of the different topics, they can be read either individually or as

Theoretical research area no. 1

PURPOSE A fundamental prerequisite for supporting a change initiative is understanding the need for change. The intended adopters must know why the new system is being implemented (Beer, Eisenstat and Spector, 1990; Saunders, 1999), and endorse the underlying reason for this. According to Pihl the context of the change must be established so that employees can rationalize the convictions of their leaders. This enables them to appreciate the underlying need that has instigated the change initiative. If the new system meets an identified need, or a felt need, by the intended adopter, the likelihood of adoption and consequent assimilation increases (Greenhalgh et al. 2004; Keen, 1981; Senge et al 1999; Denis et al 2002; Rogers, 1995). In essence, the affected stakeholders must realize that “the platform is burning” and that change is necessary. Kotter (1995), dubbed this: “creating a sense of urgency”, where the status quo seems more dangerous than launching into the unknown. Understanding why one must change seems quite obvious, but according to Jørgensen employees don’t always see why a new system or technology is necessary (i.e. why they have to alter their work habits to accommodate the new system). This will vary according to context, since the reason for the change will significantly impact the intended adopters sense of urgency. If the organization is on the brink of bankruptcy there will be no need to build a foundation for the change initiative, because the existing sense of urgency will already be sufficient (Pihl). The collective understanding regarding the purpose of the change is therefore crucial for the implementation to succeed. The intended adopter must understand the change in a way that makes sense (Bartunek, 1984; Ranson, Hinings and Greenwood, 1980, cited

by Gioia and Chittipeddi, 1991), and this understanding must be shared among all the different stakeholders (Greenhalgh et al, 2004). However there often seems to be a perception gap between those instigating the change and the intended adopters. “It’s surprising how often something senior executives believe is a good thing is seen by staff as a bad thing, or a message that senior executives think is perfectly clear is misunderstood.” (Sirkin, Keenan and Jackson, 2005). Keen (1981) observes that the management literature tends to assume far more commonality of purpose than is the actual case. This is an assumption that top-down decision-making strategies are completely dependant upon and it might explain why the failure rates with these types of approaches are so high. A recurring assumption within IT management is that the purpose and meaning of IT systems are set. However these are not fixed attributes, and can therefore be altered through discourse and dialogue within the organization (Greenhalgh et al, 2004). This is not unique to the realm of IT, Gioia and Chittipeddi (1991) observed that the original meaning of a change initiative is often “re-envisioned” by intended adopters of the change, and in a reciprocal negotiating process it is redefined until there is consensus of the meaning. Understanding and communication are intrinsically linked during change initiatives. According to Kotter failed communication strategies are often to blame for misaligned perceptions regarding the need and purpose of the change. Furthermore Garvin and Roberto (2005) emphasize the importance of running “persuasion campaigns” prior to the implementation, in order to foster a common understanding of the change. Communication is no less important during IT 4

based changes. The ability to visualize and communicate the value offered by emerging IT to intended adopters is said to be a key quality for companies that wish to successfully change (Sambamurthy and Zmud, cited by Cameron & Green, 2012). However some people contend that communication is insufficient to create a true sense of understanding, and that one must make key actors experience the underlying problems (Kim and Mauborgne, 2003). This is supported by Weick’s (1995) claim that sensemaking, the act of understanding, is always preceded by action. Ford and Ogilve (1996) go even further, stating that “understanding does not lead to action, but rather action leads to understanding”. Thus one can argue that the best way to understand the purpose of the change is to experience it.

KEY POINTS 1. Convey why adopters should change, by communicating the rationale & purpose. 2. Identify potential perception gaps between adopters & implementers. 3. Make adopters experience the need &/or value of the change initiative.

P U R P O S E

R E A L I Z I N G T H AT T H E P L AT FO R M & T H AT YO U M U S T J U M P

I S

BU R N I N G

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_well_fire

H AV I N G

Source: Shutterstock.com

D E S I R A B L E

P L AC E TO

J U M P

Theoretical research area no. 2

VISION Vision is intertwined with understanding the purpose of the initiative, however I choose to separate these two subjects. Where the previous section can be seen as the realization among adopters that the platform is burning and they have to jump, the vision aspect is more concerned with the adopter having a desirable place to jump towards. Vision is all about communication. The role of a clear and adequately framed vision is seen as a key aspect of successful change initiatives (Vuuren et al, 2008; Bridges, 1991; Rowland and Higgs, 2008; Schein, 1984). The vision must be compelling (Kotter, 1995; Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991; Beer et al, 1990), as well as being perceived as attainable (Kim & Maubourgne, 2003, Kotter, 1995; Beckhard et al, 1987; Beer et al, 1990). Kotter (1995) emphasizes the importance of having an easily communicable vision, rather than detailed descriptions of the intended change process. Additionally the vision should be “translatable” by managers and employees into actions (Beer et al, 1990). Kotter (1995) and Saunders (1999) state that broad and on-going communication of the vision is necessary for it to stick. According to Duck (1998) the message won’t get through “until you are so sick of talking about it that you can hardly stand it”. During periods of uncertainty, which will be present in most change initiatives, people will actively seek information to reduce the ambiguity of the situation (Berger and Calabrese, 1975). Thus the importance

of persistent and coherent communication throughout the change effort cannot be stressed enough. The format of the vision varies, but it is often described as a picture or graphic representation of how the future will be after the change initiative (Bridges, 1991; Kotter, 1995; Saunders, 1999), it can also be a “slogan” of sorts (Kim & Maubourgne, 2003) or a story/narrative (Vuuren et al, 2008). Cameron and Green (2012) highlight storytelling as one of the more promising tools in order to convey the desired vision. Weick (1995, cited by Vuuren et al, 2008) suggests that storytelling as a medium might limit the amounts of misinterpretations and communication failures. Stories also enable people to view things from a different perspective, and can help people see things they are not currently seeing (Cameron & Green, 2012). Thus stories can be used not only for conveying the vision, but also to reinforce the purpose and rationale behind the change. Vision is a natural entry point for service design, since design largely concerns communicating how things could be. Storytelling and visualization are techniques actively used by designers, thus they already possess many of the necessary capabilities for engaging people in regards to the change. However, vision alone is insufficient to ensure change.

KEY POINTS 1. Create a vision that is desirable, feasible, easy to communicate and that can be translated into concrete actions. 2. Communicate persistently and coherently throughout the entire change process. 3. Designers already possess many of the techniques necessary to convey the vision of a change program. But this alone is not enough to guarantee change.

Theoretical research area no. 3

USER I N V O LV E M E N T Traditionally management has assumed that employees within organizations have great comfort in the status quo and are therefore reluctant to change. This has led to the prevailing belief that a top down approach to change initiatives is necessary (Nutt, 1986; Garvin & Roberto, 2005; Stanley et al, 2005). With this approach, targeted users may be forced to adopt the new innovation/system, with no particular power to affect the decisions regarding the adoption or implementation process (Nutt, 1986). However, according to Beer et al (1990) people will resist solutions that are imposed by others who lack intimate familiarity with their day-to-day operations. This resistance results in a lack of motivation and commitment to the change initiative, which are essential features for effective change programs (Luecke, 2003).

and Timpka, 2007). Although it was originally valued for the ability to increase support among intended users, active participation of the intended users is now deemed one of the preconditions for good design and increases the likelihood that a system will be “useful and well integrated into the work practices of the organization” (Bødker, Kensing and Simonsen, 2004). Beer et al (1990), reinforce the positive effects of user involvement, stating that a joint diagnosis of both the problem and solution makes for a more successful change process as it increases employee motivation and commitment. Davenport (1994) went even further and claimed that an individual’s willingness to use a new innovation (in that case a new information format) was directly proportionate to how much they had participated in defining the solution.

Sangiorgi (2011) compared the top down approach to societal models where citizens are not allowed to participate in decision-making. Instead the ruling body attempts to educate and persuade the population about the benefits of existing plans and programs. This is reminiscent of Garivin and Roberto’s (2005) description of “persuasion campaigns” used to generate consensus and compliance prior to change initiatives. Although persuasion is to a certain degree necessary, there are other approaches that can be used to foster consensus. Cooperative approaches, such as co-creation and participatory design hold a great deal of potential in regards to enabling agreement and establishing commitment towards change initiatives.

User involvement is a core capability of service design, and thus a natural area in which design could contribute. According to Stickdorn and Schneider (2010) one of the defining principles of service design is its dedication to co-creation. Despite being a relatively new field service design already boasts a wide repertoire of projects displaying high degrees of user involvement strategies and cooperative approaches (Holmlid, 2009). Examples of service design combined with change management highlight the collaborative nature of service design as an essential competence in the facilitation of change efforts. John Holager (Livework) cited several cases where they had developed and utilized methods in order to include employees in identifying and developing solutions.

Participatory design was developed during the 1970’s, and introduced to the field of information systems as a means to empower users by letting them take an active role in the design of their work environment (Pilemalm

The emerging field of transformation design displays similar attributes. According to Burns et al (2006) one of transformation design’s great strengths is the ability to mediate diverse view8

points and thereby facilitate collaboration. Projects within this field actively employ participatory design techniques, where the objective is to leave behind the collaborative capacities and skills within the organization so that the organization will be equipped to deal with on-going change (Sangiorgi, 2011).

KEY POINTS 1. Management has traditionally assumed that a top-down approach to change is necessary, but this will normally increase employee resistance. 2. Collaborative approaches can be used to foster consensus and increase commitment towards the change. 3. By involving users engagement will increase and the solution will better suit their needs. 4. Service design already possesses a large repertoire of different collaborative techniques that can be used when facilitating change processes.

I N V O LV E M E N T

E N GAG I N G

P E O P L E T H R O U G H 9

E M P OW E R M E N T

L I M I TAT I O N S

U S E R

I N VO LV E M E N T

1 0 10

0 0 0 . N OT T H AT

S I M P L E

Theoretical research area no. 4

L I M I TAT I O N S A collaborative approach is the norm within service design, and consequently it represents one of the underlying assumptions that we operate with. Therefore it deserves a critical reflection as there are multiple concerns regarding user involvement approaches, especially within large organizations. Despite traditional participatory design approaches being universally praised by participants, attempts to involve users in the development and design of organizational changes are seldom applied twice within the same organization (Hirschhelm, 1983). Such collaborative approaches have also been criticized for hampering efficiency and reducing the coherent architecture of the change program (Pilemalm & Timpka, 2007). In addition not all of the affected stakeholders can be directly represented in a design group (Pilemalm & Timpka, 2007). There have been some attempts to apply participatory design of information systems throughout large organizations, among them a project conducted by Bødker. In that case the core participatory design activities were complemented with newsletters and public demonstrations of prototypes for the larger organization. But only those interested in systems design evaluated the prototypes, thus important user perspectives were left out (Bødker, 1994). Organizations tend to employ user involvement tactics to ensure that the system suits the designated user needs. According to Jørgensen IT changes generally consist of a bottom up specification process where users, or people with equivalent disciplinary competence are involved in order to ensure the accuracy of the IT specifications. It should be noted that this

process focuses predominantly on functionality rather than usability of the system. Co-creative approaches of this nature increase the likelihood of system fit, but they do little to increase buy-in among the intended adopters. A pilot study regarding co-creative techniques in change processes revealed; “those who were less involved or not involved at all quickly criticized the ideas that had been developed by some of their teammates” (Lin et al, 2011). This indicates that user involvement will only increase commitment to change among direct participants. Involving all employees within the organization during change efforts has been promoted by the likes of change guru Richard Axelrod. He recommends that the entire organization participate in multi-day workshops, stating that the benefits of employee engagement exceed the short-term loss of productivity. However I find it very hard to believe that this approach is feasible for larger organizations. The costs of shutting down operations combined with the necessary accommodations and flight arrangements would be astronomical. Even if one ignores the issue of ROI and shareholder expectations, the sheer logistical challenge of gathering an entire multinational organization in one location would be enough to deter anybody. There are of course more moderate approaches to large-scale user involvement. An example of this is the Transport for London project, where Livework designed a six-month engagement program that enabled 2,500 staff members to give their views on how they should change. Sam Palmisano (former CEO of IBM) used a similar tactic, opening a three day forum to 11

involve users in a debate regarding the future direction of the organization. But there are pitfalls here as well. As Pihl notes, any user involvement must be perceived as sincere and the employees must feel that their contribution has an impact. This entails that the organization should generate an understanding among employees that even though you are asked, your opinion may not be taken into account, or may be triumphed by other arguments. In large organizations change initiatives are dynamic processes and there will be friction due to contradicting interests. Pihl emphasizes that change processes always involve a trade off between user involvement and progress. Effective user involvement requires a considerable amount of time and resources and is therefore not suited for all change endeavours. This is something that service designers should acknowledge before entering the field of organizational change.

KEY POINTS 1. Collaborative approaches have negative traits (e.g. reduced efficiency) that must be taken into consideration by designers. 2. Large organizations can’t involve everybody, and since commitment towards change does not increase among non-participants this approach will not solve resistance to change. 3. More moderate collaborative approaches can be used, but employees must perceive them as sincere.

Theoretical research area no. 5

IT CHANGES When implementing new IT systems the people side of change is often neglected (Keen, 1981; Cameron & Green, 2012; Davenport, 1994). This despite IT changes always involving people. New or improved IT systems are brought in to either increase efficiency or to enhance innovation, not to simply automate what is already there, so process change almost always occurs (Cameron & Green, 2012). Consequently human behaviour must adapt to accommodate these new processes. And herein lies one of the major challenges of IT implementation. Organizations cannot exclusively rely on the availability of IT equipment and systems if they wish to generate a substantial shift in behaviour. Davenport (1994) suggests that a cultural change might be necessary in order to achieve this since IT systems alone will not suffice. There is a slight tendency for IT departments to focus on getting the new systems and automation first, believing that increased efficiency (or whatever the goal is) will automatically ensue. This clearly illustrates the predicament of implementation versus adoption. In innovation literature adoption is referred to as the decision to use an innovation, whereas implementation is deemed to be “the period during which individuals become increasingly skilful, consistent and committed in their use of an innovation. Implementation is the critical gateway between the decision to adopt the innovation and the routine use of the innovation.” (Klein & Sorra, 2005, cited by Klein & Knight). Clearly there is a fundamental difference between the two concepts, and yet they are often treated as the same.

Adoption of a system can be likened to the purchase of exercise equipment (e.g. running shoes). Through the adoption I have acquired equipment that enables me to exercise and thereby reach my intended goal (e.g. get into shape, complete a marathon etc.). But adoption alone is insufficient in order to create value. I must use the equipment consistently, with enough competence over a period of time for the value to be realized (I won’t complete a marathon if the shoes stay in the box). The role of implementation is to turn the use of the equipment into a consistent habit. Thus, without successful implementation the potential benefits of adopting the new equipment are not realized, and the resources spent on adoption are wasted. The underlying assumption held by IT departments can be paralleled to a goods dominant logic point of view. The IT system is believed to contain the value in itself; so all one has to do to realize the value is to install it. From a service dominant logic perspective, value is only created during actual use of the system, and the value is equivalent to that which the user experiences. A similar challenge with IT implementation is that business strategy and IT decision-making processes can become dangerously decoupled (Cameron & Green, 2012). Jørgensen states that failure during the implementation phase is often a consequence of the different roles and responsibilities involved in this process. Since IT departments are responsible for the functional demands of the system, major problems can arise if IT and Strategy units aren’t well integrated. Jørgensen 12

emphasizes that IT projects and change programs are the same, just with varying degrees of technical needs. An IT system should never be a goal in itself; it is simply the means to get there. Another issue is that the implementation of new systems will often necessitate intended adopters to acquire new technical knowledge and skills (Klein & Knight, 2005). User satisfaction of new systems, and the time necessary to become adept at using those is negatively related to the innovation complexity: “the extent of which the new technology is more complicated than the technology it replaces”(Aiman-Smith & Green, 2002).Therefore one should assess not only the functional aspects of a new system, but also the perceived complexity held by intended adopters. This perception might be slightly distorted by unrealistic expectations among employees, since they are inclined to compare corporate technologies with those of the consumer market (Jørgensen). Consumer technologies tend to have larger customer bases and therefore more resources to spend on design and development. Additionally, consumer technology is chosen specifically by the user. In a corporate setting the choice of systems will always be a trade off between divergent user requests. According to Jørgensen most of the systems employed by organizations are existing solutions. Although these can be slightly adjusted to better fit the companies needs, the systems are generally quite fixed. An example was given that an organization with roughly 30 000 employees, has 4000 different IT systems. It simply is not feasible for

Theoretical research area no. 5

KEY POINTS organizations like these to develop all their systems internally, and they will only do so if the system is core to their business operations. To further complicate matters, organizations tend to have a set budget for IT projects, resulting in a continuous struggle for IT resources among different divisions. Customizing a system will significantly increase the cost of maintenance and upgrading, and therefore has a major impact on the life-cycle-cost analysis*. This analysis is used to determine whether an IT project is cost effective, and is therefore a key priority among the different leaders.

1. The people side is often neglected, even though IT changes always require behavioural change among employees. 2. IT tends to assume that system adoption is sufficient, but the value is not embedded in the system and is only realized through consistent and adequately competent use. 3. In most cases the system will not be customized to fit the organization due to a drastic increase in overall life-cycle costs. Thus the demand specification is vital for ensuring system/organization fit.

Since the IT system is static once it has been installed the specification process is paramount in order to ensure system fit. However getting the specification right is not easy, even if one employs user centred techniques. JĂ¸rgensen stresses the difficulty of assessing who the representative users actually are. Since organizations often are global and users will vary in age, experience, and disciplinary and cultural backgrounds.

*92% of the costs of a system are generated from maintenance and other activities post-implementation.

CHANGES

I F T H E

S N E A K E R S

S TAY

I N T H E 15

B OX YO U

WO N ’ T

G ET

F I T.

IT & CULTURE

S YS T E M

I M P L E M E N TAT IO N

I S

C U LT U R A L LY

C O N T I N G E N T

Theoretical research area no. 10

I T & C U LT U R E

“Businesses are social systems, not machines. To be effective, a technical fix must fit comfortably within the social fabric of the workplace, otherwise the workplace’s immunity system will attack it” (Luecke, 2003). The implication that an organization has a social fabric, or a specific culture, is not taken sufficiently into account when implementing new IT systems. According to Leidner and Kayworth (2006) organizational culture can influence the success of IT implementation. For the IT system to be successfully assimilated it must either fit the existing organizational culture, or the culture must be adjusted to fit the behavioural requirements of the new technology (Cabrera et al, 2001). Research concerning Total Quality Management systems identified culture as a core factor in the failure of institutionalizing the new systems and behaviours (Leidner & Kayworth, 2006). Similar conclusions have ben reached during studies of knowledge management systems (Baltahazard & Cooke, 2003; Long & Fahey, 2000) and ERP systems (Davenport 1998). So, what exactly is culture? O’Reilly and Chatman (1996) define culture as “a system of shared values defining what is important, and norms, defining appropriate attitudes and behaviours, that guide members’ attitudes and behaviours”. Thus corporate culture can have a serious impact, affecting behaviours such as innovation, decision-making, communication, organizing, measuring success and rewarding achievement (Hai 1986). There are also various cultural levels one needs to take into consideration when implementing IT systems, in-

cluding national, organizational, and group cultures (Leidner & Kayworth, 2006). Von Meier (1999) found that two different occupational subcultures (engineers and operators) had entirely different cultural interpretations of proposed technologies and, as a result, experienced conflict and resistance to adopting certain technologies. This stems from an often-neglected element of IT. That it is symbolic (Feldman and March 1981; Robey and Markus 1984; Scholz 1990) and therefore subject to various cultural interpretations. This makes it particularly challenging for large multinational organizations to find solutions that cater to the diverse cultural needs of their employees. Leidner and Kayworth (2006) state that conflicts with IT systems are quite probable when organizations install systems without modifying them to better suit the cultural values of the designated user group. Without any modification the IT system will be embedded with values from the cultural group that initially developed it. Often these stem from different types of organizations or even completely different countries. They posit that resistance towards a new system will be affected by the degree of divergence between the values of the intended adopters, and values that have already been integrated within the system. The research of Leidner and Kayworth (2006) regarding IT conflict highlights several implications for system implementation. 1. The greater the breadth of IT implementation across groups, the greater the system conflict* experienced by the organization. 2. The greater the cultural distance

between the group responsible for championing the IT (development and implementation) and the group adopting the IT, the greater the system conflict experienced by the intended adopters of the IT solution. In most cases system modification will not be feasible due to the increase in life-cycle costs. Consequently either IT must fit the culture, or if the purpose of the IT system and the larger change initiative are deemed important enough, the organizational culture must be aligned with that of the IT systems.

KEY POINTS 1. Organizational culture will affect the success of IT implementation. If the cultural values of the organization are not compatible with those of the IT solution a system conflict will arise, and resistance to change will ensue. 2. In addition to the organizational culture, the implementation will also be affected by national, local and disciplinary culture. This implies that IT implementation will be more difficult for large organizations dealing with a diverse spectre of cultures. 3. If there is no initial system fit, the system will have to be modified to fit the existing culture, or the existing culture must be altered to fit the new system.

* Discrepancy between cultural values and system values creates a system conflict, which results in resistance towards adopting and using the system.

Theoretical research area no. 11

C U LT U R A L D I M E N S I O N S

A general knowledge of culture is required to adequately design for IT changes. This section briefly highlights what it is, how one can identify a given culture and finally what material one can work with in order to change it. Scott et al (2003) suggest that culture is generated by pervasive, normative beliefs and values and is expressed through common patterns of behaviour drawing on “vast pools of tacit knowledge, which natives understand, but are not conscious of knowing’”. This interpretation of culture highlights the more unconscious aspect of culture. In general the culture of an organization is not explicitly known by its members. According to Schein there are three basic levels of culture with varying degrees of awareness*. The most evident level is that of artefacts and creations. These are the tangible manifestations of culture and include technology, art and visible and audible behavioural patterns. The second level consists of organizational values, things considered to be important such as loyalty, efficiency or customer service. These are not completely obvious, but can be inferred through interviews or by observing the actions of employees. The final level is that of underlying assumptions. These are completely unconscious, yet they govern our behaviour since they shape our worldview and consequently the lens with which we approach all of our challenges. Since this level is so difficult to observe much research has instead focused on the organizational values when trying to analyse why employees behave the way they do.

Detert et al (2000) have defined 8 general dimensions of organizational culture (at the value level) found to be relevant for the success of IT implementations within organizations. These principles might be useful when assessing whether there is a fit between the given IT system and the recipient organizational culture. If the organizational culture and IT system aren’t compatible it is easier to find an alternative IT system rather than transform the culture. However, if one operates with the assumption that IT changes are intentionally planned from a strategic point of view, then they actually represent the desired behaviours of the organization. Purchasing exercise equipment strongly indicates that one desires to become more active. The same applies to IT systems. If an organization goes through the trouble of purchasing and installing collaboration software, it is safe to assume that they wish to improve collaboration skills. This implies that IT conflict is often the manifestation of tensions between existing organizational culture and strategic objectives. Therefore it will in some instances be necessary to change the organizational culture if there is a system conflict. Transforming an organizational culture is very difficult. Part of this difficulty lies in the fact that it is part of a larger cultural system (e.g. national, local, disciplinary). Additionally it consists of individuals that affect the culture through their own personal norms, values and beliefs. However, it is possible. Bang (1999?) states that an or-

ganization must first become aware of its existing culture in order to induce cultural change. During IT changes this understanding could be used to evaluate the fit between the system and the organizational culture. In addition the desired culture (that which is represented by the values of the IT system/ the objectives of the change initiative) must be defined. To make the concept of cultural values more tangible the desired culture can be viewed as the behaviours and norms the change is meant to evoke (e.g. increased collaboration, customer focus etc.). According to Bang the next step is to ensure that the structural and material conditions within the organization are aligned with the values, behaviours and norms related to the intended change initiative. These are expressions of the culture and represent what the organization deems valuable and worth prioritizing. The structural material and conditions include systems and procedures, organizational structures and the physical design of the workspace. All of these contribute to maintaining the status quo (Berger & Luckmann, 1979) and should therefore be reviewed in order to determine whether they are aligned with or contradict the desired culture (Bang). Cameron and Green (2004) argue that organizational processes and standards must support the intended behaviours of the change initiative. If they are not supportive, the employees will simply not have the ability to act in the desired manner. Kotter notes that even when employees understand the vision and want to make it a reality they are often impeded by formal structures within

Theoretical research area no. 11

the organization. Thus, for a change initiative to be successful it is important to design enabling mechanisms such as reward and performance management systems â&#x20AC;&#x153;that support the objectives and preferred behaviours of the new cultureâ&#x20AC;? (Cameron & Green, 2004).

KEY POINTS 1. Culture has three different levels of manifestation. The first is that of artefacts and tangible behavioural patterns (e.g. always asking the superior prior to action). The second is that of cultural values which are the things considered to be important by members of that culture (e.g. efficiency, customer focus) and the final level is completely unconscious and constitutes the underlying assumptions of the organization (e.g. shareholder value is the number one priority).

In addition to the structural and material conditions the desired (and undesired) behaviours must be met with systematic and intentional consequences from the managers within the organization (Bang). These rewards and sanctions arenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t necessarily monetary in nature; they can also consist of praise, interesting tasks, new career options and the recognition of effort that is aligned with the objectives of the change initiative. For example a manager could reward an employee who collaborates across divisions by publicly acknowledging the importance of this type of work.

2. Since the underlying assumptions are difficult to uncover it might be more useful to focus on the values of the organization, and how these manifest into normative behaviours. 3. If one is to transform the organizational culture one must first know which culture one is dealing with, and what the desired culture is (this can be viewed as the desired behaviours of the organization). After this one must align structural elements (e.g. KPIs) and managerial behaviour (e.g. who they promote and praise) in order to encourage the emergence of the desired culture.

The primary function of these behavioural consequences is to give feedback to employees regarding what is considered appropriate/desired behaviour within the organization. This is a critical part of any successful change initiative, and is completely dependent on the actions of managers. Yet managers often underestimate the impact of their own behaviour (Bang), and therefore a major opportunity to influence the normative behaviour of the organizational culture is not utilized. The double bind situation is a deterring factor, in this context and without creating a framework for managers to behave in the desired manner it will be impossible to leverage their effect as role models.

* These cultural levels exist within one culture and should not be confused with levels described in the previous section. 19

Gener al dimensions of

O R GA N I Z AT I O N A L C U LT U R E

1 . The basis of truth and rationality in the organization What does decision making rely on? Factual information, qualitative or quantitative data, gut feeling, explorative approach, authority etc.

2 . The nature of time and time horizons Which time horizons does the organization typically operate with (which are prioritized)? Long-term vs. short-term orientation

3 . Motivation What are the motivational drivers for employees? Extrinsically motivating behaviours vs. intrinsically motivated behaviours.

4 . Stability vs. change/innovation How does the organization view change/how willing is it to change? Examples of this can be viewing change as a continuous process, as unnecessary or as an event.

5 . Orientation to work, task and co-workers What is the purpose of the organization and how is this objective reached? (purpose? customer focus, internal process improvement, reducing costs)

6 . Isolation vs collaboration/cooperation To what degree is collaboration necessary for success and what is the nature of the collaboration? (individual work vs sharing culture)

7 . Control, coordination, and responsibility How is decision making authority distributed across the organization? (top-down, high levels of user involvement, autonomous bodies of decision making etc.)

8 . Orientation and focus Is the organization focused internally or externally? (customer driven, process driven, research driven)

Developed by Detert et al, 2000 (composed from an assessment of organizational culture literature)

THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN MATERIAL (Adapted from Bang)

Bang (xxxx) posits that there are three main categories of â&#x20AC;&#x153;structuralâ&#x20AC;? materials that can be used to change organizational culture.

Practices & Procedures

This category of influential material concerns the practices, procedures and systems which the organization operates with. These include pay roll and career systems, budgeting systems, reporting procedures, meeting practices, government regulations, security protocols, incentive systems and various measurement systems (e.g. KPIs). These can be official or unofficial, but will inevitably affect employee behaviour.

Organizational Structures

This category relates to the more formal structures within the organization, such as the divsion of different business units and departments. It also concerns the hierarchical structures and how these impact the distribution of responsibility. In addition the criteria for how sections and divisions are divided can be interesting leverage points.

Physical Workspace

The design of the physical workspace constitutes the third type of structural material that one can use in order to alter behaviour. This relates to the physical environment and how it has been designed. Where people work in relation to other employees (e.g. open office workspaces, different divisions on different floors) and the conveyed values of the interior (e.g. round tables for collaboration, mahogany desks for the executives) will have an impact on how people behave.

Theoretical research area no. 6

ROLE MODELS

An organization is a social system, thus its behaviour cannot solely be explained through biological or mechanistic models (Gharajedaghi, 2011). Organizations consist of multiple interdependent individuals; who independently decide their own actions, yet are highly influenced by the actions of others. Accordingly, social influence plays a significant role during change initiatives (Greenhalgh et al, 2004) Adoption is both affected by the individuals’ social network (Valente 1996; West et al 1999), and may also be affected by “key influencers” within that network. Key influencers are defined as individuals who have a particular influence on the beliefs and actions of their colleagues (Becker 1970; et al, 1966). There is a widespread belief in management practice that motivating key influencers and gaining their support for the change initiative is an effective way to spread the change throughout the organization. However harnessing the “power” of these key opinion leaders has proved to be difficult when trying to actively disseminate the change (Locock et al. 2001). The reason for this being that key influencers are difficult to identify, and it is even more difficult to determine in which areas they will be influential. This does not imply that one should neglect the social part of implementation. There exists a large body of research that supports the effect social influence has on human (and consequently organizational) behaviour. Thus one should focus efforts on the social roles of managers and leaders, instead of attempting to locate and utilize these elusive key opinion leaders. The importance of management during change initiatives is well documented in change management literature. They play a critical role in conveying the purpose and vision of the change. Ideally, intended adopters should hear information from managers they trust one on one (Litre et al 2011) instead of corporate mail campaigns and in-

tranet articles. Because it isn’t the grand visions from top executives, but rather the local version from direct management that will really influence behaviour among employees (Stacey 2001). In order to do so Pihl states that management must be adequately informed so they can communicate the change in a clear and understandable way to employees. However, communication alone is insufficient to create engagement and commitment to the change. Managers must “walk the talk” and visibly act upon the statements given about the change (Senge et al, 1999; Schein, 984; Garvin & Roberto, 2005; Hillestad, 2008). If management isn’t convincing, well informed and doesn’t demonstrate support for the change initiative, “employees are likely to conclude that the innovation is a passing managerial fancy: Ignore it and it will go away” (Klein and Knight 2005). Hillestad notes that employees are most affected by their experience of what management does, rather than what management says. Managerial behaviour signalizes and clarifies what is deemed important within the organization, and what is applauded versus what is punishable. Managers must therefore use their symbolic position to create consistency between the stated and enacted intentions of the change initiative. Getting managers committed to the initiative is therefore essential for the change to succeed. However change initiatives take energy and focus away from normal business activities and are therefore not always supported by managers (Beer et al, 1990). Repenning and Sterman (2002) observed that even the most beneficial of innovations is likely to result in poorer performance in the short run. The implementation phase necessitates substantial investments of both time and money, and will initially cause a drop in performance. Consequently managers (and employees) often feel a greater pressure to maintain previous levels of performance rather than 22

commit to the change (Repenning & Sterman, 2002). In such instances managers experience a conflict between the overarching strategic direction of the change and the reality of the organizational culture (Hillestad, 2008). This results in a “double bind” where managers are expected to support the change initiative, and simultaneously reach targets or adhere to norms that are incompatible with the desired behaviours of the change. A consequence of this is a “do what I say, not what I do” managerial approach (Hillestad, 2008), which will in effect also create a double bind situation for the employees. According to Kotter (1995) managers might intentionally or unintentionally discourage actions aimed at implementing the change, thus managerial behaviour is a potentially significant barrier to the change efforts. Repenning and Sterman (2002) propose that for implementation to be successful managers must have a long-term time orientation, where they understand and accept that productivity may diminish. When designing the implementation process one must be aware that managers are likely to be in an ambiguous position. These competing commitments must be taken into account if one is to gain managerial support for the change initiative.

KEY POINTS 1. Organizations are social systems; therefore one must consider the network effect that will occur during change processes. 2. There is little empirical evidence that supports the effect key influencers have on change efforts; instead focus on managers. 3. Management plays a critical role during the change process, and must communicate the change not only through words, but also through their actions. However these actions are often impeded by conflicting commitments (e.g. to maintain previous production levels).

ROLE MODELS

TA L K

1 0 % . WA L K 23

9 0 %

Theoretical research area no. 7

M O T I VA T I O N Motivation is recognized as a key aspect for driving change (Kim & Maubourgne, 2003); however there seems to be a lack of understanding regarding fundamental motivational principles. One of the key assumptions among management is that monetary incentives are instrumental in shaping behaviour, an idea that stems from early behaviourist theories (Cameron & Green). This approach proves to be inadequate as the problems employees face today are of a far more heuristic nature, meaning that they require imagination and higher levels of cognition than was previously required (Pink, 2009). Extrinsic motivation, motivation powered by rewards separate from the behaviour itself, is less effective than intrinsic motivation in such contexts. Ironically intrinsic motivation is reduced by expected external rewards, such as money or titles (Deci & Ryan, 2002). Hence purely relying on monetary incentives to induce behavioural change might be detrimental to the cause. This does not suggest that one shouldnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t take rewards or sanctions into account when trying to alter behaviour. Reward mechanisms and incentive structures that oppose the desired behaviour should be eliminated or adjusted to better reflect the intentions of the change initiative. In addition one should consider alternative forms of rewards that will not reduce internal motivation. An example of this is positive performance feedback, which actually increases levels of intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2002). According to Self-Determination Theory (Deci and Ryan, 2002) people are intrinsically motivated by relatedness (social cohesion), competence (the sense of mastery) and autonomy. Where autonomy is believed to be the

strongest of the three, and refers to the need to perceive oneself as the origin of ones behaviour (DeCharms, 1968; Deci and Ryan, 1985b; Ryan and Connell, 1989). Intrinsic motivation is therefore enhanced by providing people with choice regarding what to do or how to do it (Zuckerman et al, 1978; Swann and Pittman, 1977). The positive effect of autonomy is noted in a lot of management literature. Rogers (1995) observed that top-down decisions increased initial adoption among employees, but reduced the long-term likelihood of the innovation being fully implemented and routinized. This indicates that for a system implementation to be effective the intended adopters must have a sense of autonomy regarding the change, otherwise the desired behaviour will not persist. The impact of autonomy sheds light on some of the reasons why user involvement can be such a powerful method to create buy-in among intended adopters. When people are included in decision-making processes their sense of autonomy increases, because they have been active in determining their own future behaviour. A study conducted by Cadwallader et al (2010) further supports the effect of autonomy. Frontline employees who were free to decide how to conduct their tasks were more likely to be motivated to pursue the intended behaviour of a change program than those who werenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t.

KEY POINTS 1. Motivation is necessary for driving change, yet the nature of behavioural change and motivation is often misunderstood. 2. Management tends to rely on extrinsic motivation in order to induce behavioural change, however this reduces the intrinsic motivation related to that behaviour. 3. Intrinsic motivation is more effective when aiming for consistent and long-term behavioural change. This is greatly increased if the intended adopter perceives the desired behaviour as autonomous.

M OT I VAT I O N

CA R R OT S

S T I C K S

AU TO N O M Y 25

P U R P O S E

Theoretical research area no. 7

SELFD E T E R M I N AT I O N THEORY

Again the understanding of the purpose regarding the change initiative plays a decisive role. For behaviour to become more intrinsically motivated the person expected to perform the behaviour must comprehend the meaning of it, and they must at a deeply personal level endorse it. This is most likely to occur when the person experiences a sense of choice, volition and freedom from external demands. Accordingly supporting autonomy is a prerequisite for a person to transform the intended behaviour and accompanying values into their own. (Adapted/interpreted from Deci & Ryan, 2002) Another relevant aspect of self-determination theory is their work on behavioural persistence. Deci and Ryan (2002) posit that there are three factors that can enhance the perseverance of behaviour (which is essential to the success of any change effort). A meaningful rationale. This clearly relates to the understanding of the purpose, and reinforces the need to properly communicate the rationale behind the change. Acknowledgment of the personâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s perspective. This can be achieved through user involvement techniques or other ways in which one turns the change into a dialogue. Provision of choice rather than pressure. Purely top down decision-making is not ideal for any type of transformation, and if the change is driven from the top there should be a high degree of freedom regarding how to realize the intentions of the change.

SELF-DETERMINATION CONTINUUM (Ryan & Deci, 2002)

intr insic motivation

extr insic motivation

a-motivation

Internalization of motivation can be viewed as a continuum, where the reason for the given behaviour is integrated with the self.

NonRegulation

Complete lack of motivation. People either don’t act or act unknowingly (lacking intention).

External Regulation

The reason for action is to satisfy an external demand. E.g. risk of losing job, or wanting to get a bonus.

Introjected Regulation

Here the reason to perform the action is to avoid guilt and shame. E.g. “Dugnad”.

Identified Regulation

When a person identifies with an action or the value it expresses. It is then personally endorsed, and thus accompanied by a high degree of perceived autonomy. E.g. Environmentalism.

Integrated Regulation

The most autonomous form of extrinsic motivation. It occurs when the action corresponds with the personally endorsed values, goals, and needs that are already part of oneself.

Intrinsic Regulation

Behaviours that are motivated by the inherent satisfaction of the activity itself, rather than in contingencies or reinforcements that are operationally separable from those activities.

Theoretical research area no. 7

T H E

FO G G

B E H AV I O U R

M O D E L

Action will only occur if the person has sufficient motivation and ability while there is a trigger present.

Trigger

Motivation

internal/external

Ability

Fogg, B. J. (2011). www.behaviormodel.org

Theoretical research area no. 7

M O T I VA T I O N & ABILITY Parameters that affect ability

According to Sirkin et al (2005) organizations fail to take into account the lack of enthusiasm among the people who must deal with the new systems. They tend to assume far more motivation than is actually the case. In addition it seems that the amount of effort required by the intended adopters is significantly underestimated. Organizations operate with the assumption that employees are sufficiently able to properly adopt and employ the new systems if they simply have access to e-training programs. The combination of these two assumptions (more motivation present, less ability necessary) is devastating for the success of the implementation.

Time the amount of time necessary to conduct

the action including preparation (e.g. training). Money the monetary “sacrifices” that the action

requires from the user (e.g. forego a pay rise). Physical Effort the physical effort required by

action (e.g. go to support for system installation). Brain Cycles the mental effort or focus required

to complete the action. Social Deviance how accepted the action is

Ability and motivation are the foundations upon which all human behaviour is based. A person must have sufficient motivation and the ability to complete the desired action in order for it to occur (Fogg, cited by Eyal, 2014). In addition Fogg posits that there must always be a trigger present to initiate the action. This trigger is any cue that moves us to action (Eyal, 2014) and can be external or internal. An example of an external trigger is a ring tone, which triggers you to pick up the phone. An internal trigger could be boredom, which might trigger you to check your inbox.

perceived within the existing culture. Non-routine the extent to which the desired

action is aligned with existing behaviour.

This concept of behaviour is illustrated in Fogg’s behavioural model. The simplicity of the model makes it very versatile, and it can be used as a framework for assessing how likely the intended behaviour of the change initiative actually is. I believe this model can be used to challenge our assumptions regarding the intended adopters likelihood of pursuing the desired behaviour. And it might also function as a simple reminder when designing for the implementation process.It is important to note that this model is not an accurate depiction of reality, but can instead be viewed as a rule of thumb when trying to alter behavioural patterns. The term motivation has already been reviewed in the previous section, therefore I will not elaborate upon what this entails. However the concept of ability should be more thoroughly understood for the use of this model. Fogg states “ability is the capacity to do a particular behaviour.” And it is affected by various parameters, which Fogg has organized into 6 different categories. 29

Theoretical research area no. 8

A P P L I E D B E H AV I O U R A L S C I E N C E S

Almost any change effort within an organization will require that people alter their behaviour. This includes implementation of new IT systems, since the system itself is ultimately just a tool meant to facilitate desired employee behaviours. Thus it is paramount to have a general understanding of what affects our behaviour beyond purely motivation and ability. The field of applied behavioural sciences has much to offer in this regard. It posits that human behaviour is universally affected by a range of different mental heuristics, or mental shortcuts, that are regularly and unconsciously used to reduce cognitive effort. These can be viewed as rules of thumb that are generally quite useful, but can result in systematic biases (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). I propose that these can be viewed as the “ergonomics of the brain”, which we must take into consideration in order for our designs to be compatible with the existing mental limitations we all possess. I have compiled a small collection of mental heuristics* and biases that I believe to be particularly relevant for organizational change processes. There are many others, and one will never be able to take them all into account, but this is at least a start.

*Heuristic; a simple procedure that helps find adequate, though often imperfect, answers to difficult questions. (Kahneman)

Status quo bias. Is an innate resistance towards change (inertia) and results in humans generally sticking to default options or the option that requires the least amount of effort. This is further fuelled by loss aversion; the mental evaluation that deems losing something to be twice as bad as gaining something is good (Thaler & Sunstein). Consequently we are risk averse, and will not change unless we have to.

we do things simply because many other people are also doing them. This is especially true when situations are ambiguous (Cialdini, 2009), which often is the case during change initiatives. Pluralistic ignorance is a direct consequence of these heuristics, and it refers to the state where “each person decides that since nobody is concerned, nothing is wrong” (Kahneman, 2011).

Availability heuristic. Is “the ease with which instances come to mind”. These instances (e.g. previous technical failures) are assessed as more important or true than instances that are harder to evoke (Kahneman, 2011). Instances are more available for the mind if they are recent, have been repeated often, or if they stem from personal experience or vivid examples (e.g. film). This heuristic results in a distorted perception of what is important or probable and will therefore affect how we prioritize. It also entails that statistics or other passive forms of communication will not be that effective, simply because they are more difficult to recall and hence considered less important.

Reciprocity. The rule of reciprocity concerns our obligation to repay favours, gifts, or other positive attentions received from another person. Reciprocity also encompasses the obligation to repay concessions (Cialdini, 2009). So if one is in a negotiating process and the other party compromises, you will be far more likely to concede yourself. In addition you will also be more satisfied with result, solely because of the concession. A reciprocal negotiating process will result in heightening the involved parties sense of autonomy, since they feel that they have had an impact on the outcome.

Affect heuristic. This entails that people let their likes and dislikes determine their beliefs about the risks and benefits of different things. “When people were favourably disposed toward a technology, they rated it as offering large benefits and imposing little risk; when they disliked a technology, they could think only of its disadvantages, and few advantages came to mind” (Kahneman, 2011). Social heuristics. This is a large category that involves multiple different biases. One of these is in regards to how we evaluate information. According to Cialdini (2009) we are affected by “social proof ”, in where we determine what is correct based on what other people believe is correct. This is closely linked to the bandwagon heuristic (Thaler & Sunstein), where 30

Commitment and consistency. Cialdini posits that the desire for consistency (in our own behaviour) is a central motivator for the way we act. This is a very powerful heuristic when combined with that of commitment. Social scientists have determined that we accept inner responsibility for our behaviour when we believe we have chosen to perform an action of our own free will (Cialdini, 2009), and due to our desire for consistency we will continue to behave in a manner accordant with our previous actions. Experiments have shown that even minor actions can prime a person into complying with much larger requests at a later stage.

Affect heuristic Evaluating things based on likability

Halo effect A single good trait makes people inclined to believe that other traits will also be good. (e.g. looks equal kindness).

Mental Framework

Reciprocity The inclination to give back.

Availability Heuristic Assessing importance based on how easy it is to remember.

WYSIATI What you see is all there is. Human incapacity to make decisions based on known unknowns.

T H E

E R G O N O M I C S 31

O F T H E

B R A I N

We design for the limitations of the body, yet neglect limitations of the mind.

B E H AV I O U R

Aiman-Smith, L. & Green, S.G. (2002). Implementing new manufacturing technology: The related effects of technology characteristics and user learning activities. Axelrod, R. H. (2010). Terms of Engagement. Baltahazard, P. A., and Cooke, R. A. (2003). Organizational Culture and Knowledge Management Success: Assessing the Behavior Performance Continuum. Bang, H. (1999?). Å endre bedriftskulturen. Bartunek, J. M. (Chair). (2004, August). Is design science better at creating actionable research and knowledge than action research is? Beckhard, R., & Harris, R. (1987). Organization transitions: Managing complex change. Beer, Eisenstat & Spector, (1990) Why change programs don’t produce change. Berger, C.R. and Calabrese, R.J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Berger, P.L., & Luckmann, T. (1979). Den samfundsskapte virkelighed. Becker, M. H. (1970). Factors Affecting the Diffusion of Innovations among Health Professionals. Bridges, W. (1991). Managing Transitions. Burns, C., Cottam, H., Vanstone, C. & Winhall, J. (2006). Transformation design. Red Paper 02. Bødker, K., Kensing, F. & Simonsen, J. (2004). Participatory IT Design. Designing for Business and Workplace Realities. Cabrera, A., Cabrera, E. F., & Barajas, S. (2001). The Key Role of Organizational Culture in a Multi-System View of Technology Driven Change. Cadwallader, S., Jarvis, C. B., Bitner, M. J. & Ostrom, A. L. (2010), Frontline employee motivation to participate in service innovation implementation. Cameron & Green, (2012), Making sense of Change Management. Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence. Coleman, J. S., Katz, E. & Menzel, H. (1966). Medical Innovations: A diffusion Study. Davenport, T.H (1994). Saving IT’s soul. DeCharms, R. (1968). Personal causation: The internal affective determinants of behaviour. Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (1985b). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behaviour. Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (2002). The Handbook of Self-Determination Research. Denis, J. L., Hebert, Y., Langley, A., Lozeau, D. & Trottier, L. H. (2002). Explaining Diffusion Patterns for Complex Health Care Innovations. Detert, J. R., Schroeder, R. G. & Mauriel, J. J. (2000). A Framework for Linking Culture and Improvement Initiatives in Organizations. Eyal, N. (2014). Hooked: How to Build Habit-Forming Products. Feldman, M. S., & March, J. G. (1981). Information In Organizations As Signal And Symbol. Ford, C., & Ogilvie, D. (1996). The role of creative action in organizational learning and change. Fogg, B. J. (2011). www.Behaviormodel.org Garvin & Roberto, (2005). Change through Persuasion. Gharajedaghi, J. (2011). Systems Thinking: Managing Chaos & Complexity. Gioia & Chittipeddi (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in Strategic Change Initiation. Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., MacFarlane, F., & Kyriakidou, O. (2004). Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organizations: Systematic Review and Recommendations. Hai, D. M. (1986). Organizational Behaviour : Experiences and cases. Hillestad, T. (2008). Den krevende reisen fra hierarki til team; Lederen som kulturell arktitekt. Hirschheim R. (1983). Assessing participative systems design: some conclusions from an exploratory study. Holmlid S. (2009), Participative, co-operative, emancipatory: From participatory design to service design. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Jørgensen, O. A. (Personally conducted in-depth Interview). Keen, P. (1981). Information Systems and Organizational Change. Kim and Mauborgne, (2003). Tipping point leadership. Klein, K. J. & Knight, A. P. (2005). Innovation Implementation. Overcoming the Challenge. Klein, K.J., & Sorra, J.S. (1996). The challenge of innovation implementation. Kotter, J.P. (1995). Leading Change. Leidner, D. E., & Kayworth, T. (2006). A Review of Culture in Information Systems Research: Toward a Theory of Information Technology Culture Conflict. Lin, M., Hughes, B., Katica, M., Dining-Zuber, C., & Plsek, P. (2011). Service design and change of systems: Human-centered approaches to implementing and spreading service design. Litre, Bird, Carey & Meehan, (2011). Busting three common myths of change management. Locock, L., Dopson, S., Chambers, D. & Gabbay, J. (2001). Understanding the Role of Opinion Leaders in Improving Clinical Effectiveness. Long, D. W. & Fahey, L. (2000). Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management. Luecke, R. (2002) Managing Change and Transition. Nutt, P. C. (1986). Tactics of implementation. O’Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. A. (1996). Culture as Social Control: Corporations, Cults, and Commitment. Pihl, H. F. (Personally conducted in-depth Interview). Pilemalm, S. & Timpka, T. (2007). Third generation participatory design in health informatics; Making user participation applicable to large-scale information system projects. Pink, D. H. (2010). Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us. Senge, P. , Keliner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Roth, G., & Smith, B. (1999). The Dance of Change. Repenning, N.P., & Sterman, J.D. (2002). Capability traps and self-confirming attribution errors in the dynamics of process improvement. Robey, D., & Markus, M. L. (1984).Rituals in Information Systems Design. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. Rowland, D. & Higgs, M. (2008). Sustaining Change: Leadership that works. Ryan, R. M. & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Sangiorgi, D. (2011). Traansformative services and transformation design. International Journal of Design, 5(2), 29-40. Saunders R. (1999). Communicating Change. Schein, E. (1984). Coming to a New Awareness of Organizational Culture. Scholz, C. (1990). The Symbolic Value of Computerized Information Systems,” in Symbols and Artifacts: Views of the Corporate Landscape. Scott, T., Mannion, R., Davies, H.T.O. & Marshall, M. (2003). Healthcare performance and organisational culture. Sirkin, Keenan & Jackson, (2005). The hard side of change management. Stanley, D.J., Meyer, J.P. and Topolnytsky, L. (2005). Employee cynicism and resistance to organizational change. Stickdorn, M. & Schneider, J. (2010), This is Service Design Thinking. Swann, W. B., & Pittman, T. S. (1977). Initiating play activity of children: The moderating influence of verbal cues on intrinsic motivation. Thaler, R. H. & Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Tversky & Kahneman, D. (1974). Valente, T. W. (1996). Social Network Thresholds in the Diffusion of Innovations. Von Meier, A. (1999). Occupational Cultures as a Challenge to Tech nological Innovation. Vuuren & Elving, (2008). Communication, sensemaking and change as a chord of three strands. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. West, E., Barron, D. N., Dowsett, J. & Newton, J. N. (1999). Hierarchies and Ciques in the Social Networks of Health Care Professionals: Implicationsfor the Design of Dissemination Strategies. Zuckerman, M., Porac, J., Lathin, D., Smith, R., & Deci, E. L. (1978). On the importance of self-determination for intrinsically motivated behaviour.

C O N TAC T Hilde Dybdahl Johannessen Hildedyjo@gmail.com +47 93265491 33