Change experience and employeereactions: developing capabilities

for changeInger G. Stensaker and Christine B. Meyer

Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration, Bergen, Norway

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore how experience with organizational changeinfluences employees’ reactions to change. While exposure to an increasingly frequent organizationalchange can lead to change fatigue and cynicism, it can also generate more positive reactions to change.The authors identify experience-based change capabilities and explore conditions for developing suchcapabilities.

Design/methodology/approach – The paper draws on qualitative interview data from two studiesof reactions to planned change. The authors probe employees’ accounts of their reactions to changeand show how they vary depending on employees’ level and type of experience.

Findings – The findings suggest that experience provides opportunities for employees to developtheir change capabilities, which leads to milder and more constructive reactions to subsequent changeinitiatives. However, negative experiences can lead to loyal behavior that is based on cynical attitudes.

Research limitations/implications – The findings contribute by identifying experience-basedcapabilities among change recipients. The limitations of the study include the threat of self-selection asemployees who remain in the organization may be more prone to loyal behavior.

Practical implications – When employees have extensive change experience, managers mustadjust their way of thinking about change. Managers need to be alert to the prominence of more loyalbehavior. They should also recognize their own role in generating positive process experience, which isa precondition for developing change capabilities at the employee level.

Originality/value – The study adds to the increasing focus on change recipient perspectives duringchange and shows how change capabilities can be developed among employees.

Keywords Reactions to change, Change capabilities, Change experience, Organizational change,Change management, Employees attitudes

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionThe ability to manage complex and parallel changes (Pettigrew and Whipp, 1991) andthe ability to predict and handle different responses to change among employees arekey management challenges. An increasing pace of change is making employees moreexperienced with organizational change, yet little is known about how experience withchange affects employee’s reactions to large-scale organizational change.

A growing body of literature focuses on change recipients and the reactions toplanned change by those who carry out organizational interventions initiated by others(Bartunek et al., 2006). However, although organizations frequently initiate newlarge-scale change projects, limited research exists regarding how reactions to changedevelop over time (Piderit, 2000) and the role that change experience plays. Forinstance, a key question is whether individuals with extensive change experience reactsimilarly and follow the same patterns of reactions as those with little or no experiencewith organizational change.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm

PR41,1

106

Personnel ReviewVol. 41 No. 1, 2012pp. 106-124q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0048-3486DOI 10.1108/00483481211189974

In this study, we address the influence of experience with previous organizationalchange on reactions to subsequent change initiatives. In particular, we are interested inexamining whether individuals develop change capabilities or whether there is a linkbetween exposure to repeated change processes and more negative outcomes. Previousliterature has indicated that pursuing multiple change processes can create changefatigue (Abrahamson, 2000), cynicism (Reichers et al., 1997), or even burn-out (Lee andAshforth, 1996). However, experience with multiple change processes can also providean arena for learning, in which there is the potential to transfer experiences. Theempirical evidence indicating that experience with change processes can lead to morepositive reactions to change is limited (Thornhill and Saunders, 2003), and the findingsare inconclusive (Smollan, 2006).

We examine the role of experience empirically based on inductive and comparativeanalyses of data from two studies which include a wide range of Scandinaviancompanies, some with change-experienced employees and others with employees whohad less change experience. Our findings suggest that there are indeed distinctivedifferences in general patterns of reactions among employees based on their level ofexperience with organizational change. Employees with limited change experienceexhibit strong behavioral and emotional reactions, while employees with extensivechange experience use less effort to resist change and show more loyal reactions tochange. However, loyal behavior takes on two different forms, and only one of theseprovides opportunities for developing change capabilities. Illustrating and explainingdifferent patterns of reactions as well as identifying potential change capabilities ofemployees who have extensive change experience constitute the main focus of ouranalyses.

One of the main contributions of this study is the focus on change capabilities at theemployee level. While there exists an extensive literature on change capabilities at theorganizational level (Teece et al., 1997) and how firms can develop dynamic capabilitiesthrough learning and experience transfer (Zollo and Winter, 2002; Gavetti, 2005), fewstudies have focused on how capabilities for change are developed at the individuallevel. Studies that address change capabilities tend to focus primarily on managerialchange capabilities (Lopez-Cabrales et al., 2006) while research on change capabilitiesat the change recipient level is virtually non-existent. This is unfortunate, given theincreasing frequency of organizational change projects and hence the opportunities forlearning from experience.

This paper is organized as follows: first, we present existing literature on reactionsto change and discuss how learning from experience might influence reactions tochange. We then describe our methodological approach before the findings arepresented. In the findings section, we first briefly present and describe reactions amongemployees with limited versus extensive change experience. Our primary focushowever is to identify experience-based capabilities for change among changerecipients and probe the conditions under which change capabilities are most likelydeveloped. The paper concludes with implications and suggestions for future research.

Theoretical backgroundReactions to changeA large and fragmented body of research deals with how change recipients react andrespond to change. According to Piderit (2000), reactions to change involve affective,

Changeexperience

107

cognitive, behavioral components; however, research on reactions to change seldomcovers all three components. Some studies focus on employee attitudes towards change(Lines, 2004) while other studies predominantly map feelings (Perlman and Takacs,1990), thoughts about change (Armenakis et al., 1993), or behavioral intentions. Studiesthat examine what employees actually do in terms of behavior tend to focus onresistance to change (Guth and MacMillan, 1986).

Indeed, employee resistance has been documented as the most frequent problemencountered by management when implementing change (Bovey and Hede, 2001). It isoften argued that resistance and reluctance to adapt to change are common reactions ofhumans in an organizational environment (Worrall et al., 2004) because change bringsuncertainty and perceptions of uncertainty are detrimental to well-being (Elrod andTippett, 2002). The emphasis within this literature has predominantly been onexplaining reasons for resistance and ways of handling resistance (see for instanceGuth and MacMillan, 1986). An important point made through the literature is thatresistance must be handled differently depending on its underlying reason. While theresearch on resistance provides valuable insight and direction for managers whostruggle with resistance, an overemphasis on negative reactions risks self-fulfillingprophecies. One recent study indicates that constructive input (voice) from employeeswas wrongfully perceived by management as resistance (Bryant, 2006). Studies onresistance have furthermore neglected to address how experience with change mightinfluence the level of resistance.

Another stream of change studies has focused on developing typologies andcategories of reactions to change (Mishra and Spreitzer, 1998; Bourantas andNicandrou, 1998; Hirschman, 1970; Stensaker et al., 2002; Chreim, 2006). The categoriesof reactions typically differ along two dimensions:

(1) active or passive reactions; and

(2) constructive (likely to lead to implementation of change) or destructive (notlikely to lead to implementation of change).

For instance, Stensaker et al. (2002) present six categories of reactions:

(1) taking charge means to take active initiative to push implementation of changefurther;

(2) loyally implementing change means to make the suggested changes while alsoattending to daily operations;

(3) BOHICA (Bend over, here it comes again) refers to distancing oneself from thechange and doing a minimum of the suggested changes;

(4) paralysis means not attending to change and not being able to attend to dailyoperations;

(5) exiting the organization refers to voluntarily leaving the organization; and

(6) sabotaging the change initiative, which is to actively resist change for instanceby making fun of the change initiative, or the people who support or try toimplement change.

While these studies serve to extend more general categorizations such as exit, voiceand loyalty, they do not specifically address different dimensions of reactions (Chreim,

PR41,1

108

2006) is a notable exception), hence they fail to sufficiently incorporate moreambiguous responses to change (Piderit, 2000). In addition, the categories appearrather static and have seldom been applied to understand or explain how reactionsmight shift over time or vary across different change efforts. Finally most of thesestudies which map different behavioral or attitudinal reactions have been tied tospecific types of change: downsizing (Mishra and Spreitzer, 1998), acquisitions(Bourantas and Nicandrou, 1998), or change that was perceived as excessive (Stensakeret al., 2002), while a more general applicability has not been attempted.

In summary, the literature on reactions to change has predominantly beenconcerned with identifying and explaining negative reactions to change that act asbarriers to change implementation. Less is known about more supportive reactionsamong employees and differences in patterns of reactions over time. Below we discusshow experience might affect reactions.

How experience affects reactionsThere is increasing evidence that employees react to change with cynicism.Organizational change cynicism has been defined as “a complex attitude that includescognitive, affective and behavioral aspects resulting in increased beliefs of unfairness,feeling of distrust and related actions about and against organizations” (Bommer et al.,2005, p. 736). While some argue that cynicism is linked to personality disposition,Wanous et al. (2000) argue it is a learned response. Past failures in organizationalchange have been found to breed cynicism; this includes failure to keep peopleinformed, not caring about employees and failure to try to understand employee’s pointof view (Reichers et al., 1997; Wanous et al., 2000). On a similar note, research on“survivors” of change suggests that survivors often display less commitment andloyalty to the organization (Ebadan and Winstanley, 1997). Thornhill and Saunders(2003) found that those who felt negative about change were likely to be cynical abouthow they had been treated by management. An interesting finding from their study isthat a number of employees reported positive affective reactions to change. Theseemployees were more likely to feel they had been listened to and treated with dignityand respect. Overall, these studies suggest that as employees gain experience withchange they draw on their previous experience to interpret subsequent changes(Randall and Procter, 2008). Employees learn from experience and can potentiallydevelop change capabilities in two ways, either by:

(1) transferring specific skills or knowledge; or

(2) by process-based learning, which means absorbing and applying newknowledge more efficiently (Schilling et al., 2003).

We approach our study of experience-based capabilities in two steps. First we map thepatterns of categories of reactions that are most common among experienced versusinexperienced change recipients. Similar to Chreim (2006) we focus on generalexperience with large-scale organizational change rather than a specific changesituation. By experience we refer to more than one previous encounter with differenttypes of large-scale change, for example mergers, acquisitions, restructuring ordownsizing. We first apply the categories developed by Stensaker et al. (2002) toidentify different reactions. As many of the experienced change recipients were foundto react with loyal behavior, but for different reasons, we develop this reaction further.

Changeexperience

109

The second step of our study involves identifying potential change capabilities. Webase our understanding of employee change capabilities on the dictionary definition ofcapabilities as: the qualities, abilities or features that can be used or developed in thecontext of organizational change.

MethodologyStudying more general patterns of reactions required a need to incorporate varioustypes of change and different organizational contexts. We therefore chose to firstconduct a multiple case study, which was later followed by an additional comparativecase study. The two studies were consecutively designed to supply insights on changerecipient reactions to change and how employees contribute (or not) to an organizationscapacity to implement a multitude of planned changes. Although the design follows areplication logic, insights gained in the first study contributed in focusing thesubsequent study, both in terms of target organizations and the questions that wereasked (Langley, 2009). The complete data set consists of 50 interviews at variousorganizational levels in ten Scandinavian companies. Sampling and interviewquestions were informed by a pilot study. The organizations and data collected areillustrated in Table I.

A pilot study was first conducted in an executive MBA program. A total of 30 top-and middle managers worked in focus groups of four or five participants. Their taskwas to describe and discuss, based on their personal experience with large-scalechange, how they and others in their organization reacted to frequent organizationalchange. Insights from the pilot study lead us to believe that employee experience couldbe important for understanding reactions to change. We therefore attempted to selectorganizations which to various degrees had pursued frequent large-scale plannedchange. In our first study, organizations within the financial service industry weretargeted. Since deregulation in the middle of 1980s it has been undergoing majorchanges with technological innovations, substantial downsizing, and a large number ofmergers and acquisitions with following organizational restructuring. Four bankinginstitutions (targeting change experienced employees) and four insurance companies(targeting less experienced employees) were sampled. We interviewed 22organizational members at various levels in 2004/2005 asking both about reactionsand different ways of managing change. An additional eight interviews wereconducted in 2006 within two of the banks probing further employee reactions tochange. A total of 30 interviews were thereby conducted in the first study. In thesecond study we targeted other industries that had gone through dramatic changeswithin the last decade in order to compare reactions among change experiencedemployees across industries. 20 change recipients were interviewed: ten in apharmaceutical company and ten in a postal services company.

All interviews were semi-structured and lasted approximately 90 minutes. We usedan interview guide that was based on the review of theory and the pilot study. Likeprevious research based on a series of studies, we attempted to develop cumulativeinsights which is facilitated by similar research questions (Lozeau et al., 2002), while atthe same time taking advantage of the possibility to adjust the focus in the interviewsas new insights emerged. The interviews were tape recorded and transcribed in fulllength with the exception of two interviews where respondents were reluctant to berecorded.

PR41,1

110

Pil

otS

tud

yS

tud

y1

Stu

dy

2T

otal

Ind

ust

ryan

dfi

rms

Aw

ide

ran

ge

ofco

mp

anie

sfr

omv

ario

us

ind

ust

ries

;,e.

g.

Oil

and

ener

gy

,te

leco

mm

un

icat

ion

s,h

ealt

hca

re,

fin

anci

alse

rvic

es

Fin

anci

alS

erv

ices

Sec

tor.

Fou

rb

ank

san

dfo

ur

insu

ran

ceco

mp

anie

s:D

nB

Nor

,H

and

elsb

ank

en,S

par

eban

ken

Ves

t,N

ord

ea,

Try

gV

esta

,V

ital

Gje

nsi

dig

e,S

tore

bra

nd

Ph

arm

aceu

tica

lin

du

stry

:A

stra

Zen

eca

Pos

tal

serv

ices

ind

ust

ry:

Pos

ten

Ty

pe

ofst

ud

y/d

ata

Foc

us

gro

up

stu

dy

ofm

idd

lem

anag

ers

wh

op

arti

cip

ated

inan

exec

uti

ve

MB

Ap

rog

ram

In-d

epth

inte

rvie

ws

and

anal

yse

sof

how

org

aniz

atio

ns

can

dev

elop

aca

pac

ity

for

chan

ge

bas

edon

chan

ge

man

agem

ent

pra

ctic

esan

dre

acti

ons

toch

ang

e

In-d

epth

inte

rvie

ws

and

com

par

ativ

ean

aly

ses

ofre

acti

ons

toch

ang

ean

dth

ero

leof

chan

ge

exp

erie

nce

inor

gan

izat

ion

sth

ath

ave

bee

nth

rou

gh

mer

ger

s,re

stru

ctu

rin

gan

dd

own

sizi

ng

Tim

ing

2004

2004

-200

620

07T

opm

anag

ers

40

4T

otal

nu

mb

erof

chan

ge

reci

pie

nts

3026

2046

(þ30

pil

ot)

Les

sex

per

ien

ced

chan

ge

reci

pie

nts

112

(þac

cou

nts

from

18ex

per

ien

ced

)13

(þ18

)

Ex

per

ien

ced

chan

ge

reci

pie

nts

1518

33

Table I.Data collection

Changeexperience

111

In identifying different reactions we draw primarily on the interview data from changerecipients (middle management and employees). In order to determine their level ofexperience, we asked the respondents in both studies to first describe which large-scalechanges had been pursued in their organization within the past 10-15 years, and if andhow these changes had affected their own work situation. Based on this, we were ableto divide our respondents into experienced versus inexperienced change recipients. Wealso checked for tenure and potential experience respondents may have from previousemployment in other organizations. Employees that had experienced more than onelarge-scale change process and had experience with different types of change processeswere categorized as change experienced. As Table I shows, our final material consistedof 33 accounts from experienced change recipients and 31 accounts of reactions frominexperienced change recipients.

In the first study, we allowed the respondents to speak freely about their own andtheir colleagues’ reactions to change; then we categorized their reactions using thetypology developed by Stensaker et al. (2002). For example, statements that were in thefirst round of coding categorized as loyal reactions included:

People are very loyal – it’s a positive kind of loyalty and people are very good at adjusting(loyal reaction; later labelled acceptance).

You just have to keep at it and do what you are supposed to be doing (loyal reaction; laterlabeled acceptance).

. . .others distance themselves a bit and say that this is not our responsibility. We deal withwhatever is decided – you become more distanced. You provide your input into a black boxand then you are informed about the decision (loyal reaction, later labelled compliance).

I find myself increasingly doing my job without thinking. This can be good in a way. I don’thave time for gossiping in the hallways, which rarely brings anything good. In a way I justignore thoughts about how things will go (loyal reaction, later labelled compliance).

In the second study, like Saunders and Thornhill (2003), we focused our data collectionfurther using cards that were labeled with different reactions (and definitions) and askedrespondents to pick the cards that best fit their own and their colleagues’ reactions to twodifferent changes (one early and one recent). While drawing on existing categories ofreactions facilitates comparison of reactions across change initiatives and over time, onelimitation of these categories is that they were developed based on explanations of waysof handling excessive changes. The categories may therefore be more negatively framedthan in a more neutral change setting. We therefore also included blank cards allowingrespondents to develop additional categories if necessary and to place these within thefigure of different reactions. The “compliant” reaction emerged as a new category. Asthey identified reactions, respondents were also asked to elaborate and reflect on if andwhy experience made them react differently.

In the analysis, we first compared typical reactions described by change recipientswith limited versus extensive change experience. The strongest evidence of differentreactions to change appeared to be based on retrospective accounts by respondentswho compared current reactions to change with previous reactions. This is conducivewith other studies of employee accounts of change where retrospective views havebeen found valuable for understanding how employees view and respond tosubsequent changes (Chreim, 2006, p. 319).

PR41,1

112

Our preliminary analyses showed that many of the experienced change recipientsreacted loyally to organizational change. However, the reasons for their loyal behaviorappeared to differ and the second study indicated that there might be additionalconstructive but passive categories. We therefore distinguished between “loyal”employees by applying more fine-tuned categories of reactions which include all threedimensions of reactions: feelings, thoughts and actions (Piderit, 2000). Two newcategories were employed during analysis: acceptance (defined as positive cognition,behavior, emotions) and compliance (defined as positive behavior, but negativecognition and emotion) (Chreim, 2006).

Separating the loyal reactions into these two categories allowed us to probedifferences in employees’ experiences. Our interest in employee level capabilitiesemerged in this process. The study was not designed with specific questions tied toemployee capabilities, but rather initially focused on organizational capacity andcapabilities. We therefore proceeded inductively to tease out the capabilities that ourrespondents appeared to describe while elaborating and reflecting on their ownreactions. For this analysis, the change-experienced employees who had describedaccepting reactions were the primary focus. Returning to the interview protocols andperforming a wider search in these particular interviews allowed us to probe theunderlying mechanisms that resulted in accepting loyal reactions. This step lead us tosee that accepting reactions were tied to descriptions of becoming used to change, animproved understanding of the need for change, and reporting of less uncertainty andambiguity during change. Our next step involved linking these statements andreflections to the underlying capabilities that are needed to, e.g. increase theunderstanding of change. Through this process, the first-order descriptions by theinformants (becoming used to change etc.) were grouped into three change capabilities,which were labeled based on what our informants appeared to be describing. Thecapabilities (coping with uncertainty; maintaining control; increasing own market value)are presented in the second part of the findings, where we first describe each capability,then provide empirical evidence and finally link our findings to existing research.

Typical reactions by change experienced employeesIn this section, we first describe how change recipients with limited versus extensivechange experience react to change. Our analysis suggests that change experiencedemployees react with more loyal behavior. However loyal behavior can be a result ofeither change capabilities or cynicism. In the second part of our findings we elaborateon the capabilities that are developed and examine the conditions under which changeexperience generates capabilities rather than cynicism.

From active resistance to more passive and loyal reactionsOur analyses suggest that the reactions to change differ based on the level ofexperience employees have with large-scale changes. In our studies, employees withlimited change experience exhibited strong emotional reactions, whereas employeeswith extensive change experience were not frustrated by the uncertainty and insecurityof change.

I was here for the first large downsizing processes in Sparebanken NOR in 1992. There weremuch stronger reactions and more insecurity because no one had experience with suchprocesses (Union rep, DnBNor).

Changeexperience

113

Change-experienced employees did not show the same emotional reactions, and interms of behavioral reactions, they described loyal implementation of the changes.

Earlier I experienced some resistance, people working against you, especially in the hallwaysand behind your back. They tried to make sure that you didn’t succeed [with changes]. Butthere’s none of that now . . . (Employee, DnBNor)

This [more recent change] was a much more positive . . . people were very positive (Employee,AztraZeneca).

As shown in Figure 1, our data suggest that when individuals have experienced anumber of previous change processes, their behavior appears more supportive of thechange initiative and through their loyal behavior they contribute to successfulimplementation of change. While intuitively positive, the loyal reactions were not alwayscoupled with positive cognitions and feelings about change. Some employees reactedwith loyal behavior based on positive thoughts and feelings, while others loyallyimplemented change in spite of negative thoughts and feelings. This was by somedescribed as the best way to react. This second group of loyal employees had becomecynical towards change. In order to distinguish between these two types of reactions, wedraw on Chreim (2006) who distinguishes between acceptance and compliance, whichboth incorporate loyal behavior. We elaborate on each of these below.

Experience leading to acceptanceAs they gained experience with organizational change, one group of employeesappeared to become prepared for and receptive to change while only a limited effortwas used to resist change. They had become used to change and developed ways ofhandling continuous change processes in the organization. Below we describe howaccepting employees drew on their previous experience to facilitate their personaltransition and implementation of change.

Mere experience with large-scale change processes caused employees to beaccustomed to change and the sense of familiarity affected individual reactions tochange.

Figure 1.How change experienceinfluences reactions

PR41,1

114

I think we have become better at changing. Those of us that have worked here a while havelived with changes for a long time and we react to change in a different way now as comparedwith the beginning. Previously, even a small adjustment was perceived as a crisis by us. Now,there needs to be a lot more going on in order to create a crisis (Employee, DnBNor)

As individuals became used to change, they perceived change as less threatening. Theuncertainty that is often described as problematic during change was reduced. Therewere still a number of unknown factors, but accepting employees had faith that theywould pull through. The quote below indicates that although the types of changes thatwere introduced varied, there was something that was perceived as similar across thedifferent types of change initiatives.

It [having change experience] is positive because change is easier to handle if you have beenthrough it before, even if the changes are different (Employee, Posten).

Experience also influenced employees’ understanding of the need for change.Employees with limited change experience struggled to understand why they neededto make changes. In contrast, accepting employees seldom asked why changes werebeing made. Instead, they focused on grasping what the newest changes were about.

In addition, employees learned how to handle change. Several employees describedthat they had begun to view change as the “normal” situation and as a part of thecontextual or external conditions with which they have limited influence:

Today the reaction is more, “okay, now there will be changes. I do my job as usual untilsomeone tells me that this concerns my department.” So I guess there is some kind ofprotection mechanism that works as long as no one has said anything (Union rep, DnBNor).

Accepting employees focused instead on those factors that they felt were within theirrealm of control, which included daily operations and business as usual.

. . . business has to continue. Regular tasks have to be performed. Maybe that’s what makesyou function as well as you do, because you don’t have time to think about other things . . .You don’t have time to worry . . . (Employee, AstraZeneca).

Another important issue had to do with attending to one’s own professional situation.Accepting employees took measures to make sure that they were “fit” for the future interms of their job competency and their job performance. Accepting employeesdescribe a greater set of career alternatives and also explain how to go aboutevaluating different options, for instance by contacting headhunters or others in theindustry, or by showing and “selling” their competencies to the management.

Finally, accepting employees pointed out the importance of positive previousexperiences with change for developing change capabilities. The quotes below suggestthat positive process experience provides a sense of security and trust in management:

Our people have gotten used to change. There have been transfers, downsizing, and thesehave been handled in a good way. That’s very important. Experience with change then showsthat it’s not the end of the world. It’s easier to accept that change is taking place (Union rep,Nordea).

Employees were repositioned within the firm. This provides a great sense of security/safety.Experiences with good ways of handling such things [as downsizing] make us trust ourmanagers (Employee, Vesta).

Changeexperience

115

Experience leading to compliance and cynicismA second group of employees behaved loyally while expressing negative thoughts andfeelings about change. Some explained that they viewed this as the least conspicuousbehavior, as it created the least attention and commotion. Hence loyal behavior wassometimes based on cynicism.

The dumbest thing you can do is to resist change. The best thing for yourself, colleagues andeveryone, and the company is to comply with the changes (Employee, AstraZeneca).

Compliant employees distanced themselves from the changes and the organizationexemplified by statements such as “if they don’t need me, I don’t need them”. Someemployees also appeared to increasingly focus on themselves. Unlike the group ofaccepting employees, they did not focus on developing professional capabilities, butrather on how changes would affect their own personal situation.

Once that process [downsizing] started, it was not smart to do like some people who called insick or cried and criticized and were negative. Talk positive. Try to find out why changes arebeing made. I wanted to stay in the organization. . .and I was cynical about gettinginformation from the union representatives . . . (Employee, Posten).

Several of the compliant employees described that based on previous change processesthey had learned not to trust management. This was particularly the case whenchanges involved downsizing.

If changes involve downsizing then you just sit by your PC and work as best as you can andtry to move very quietly about. But when no one makes resistance, it is possible to getsituations where Swedish systems that simply don’t work in Norway are implemented(Employee, Vesta).

In summary, while both acceptance and compliance are loyal reactions that supportchange implementation, the consequences of each reaction are quite different. In theshort-term, compliant reactions imply that change moves slower because employeestend to distance themselves from the changes and do only what is expected of them interms of changes. Also there will be a lack of constructive input. This might not seemso bad when compared with active resistance which appears to be more commonamong inexperienced change recipients. In the long-term however, submissive andpassive reactions to change are likely to negatively affect employee commitment andmotivation, as well as reduce the quality assurance employees apply through theircontribution and input to organizational change processes. In addition, compliantreactions based on bad process experience will not likely contribute in developingchange capabilities.

Experience-based capabilities for changeThe findings we presented in the previous section indicate that experience tends togenerate loyal reactions to change, but loyal behavior can be tied both to changecapabilities and cynicism. Below, we develop theory on the change capabilities thatpositive process experience can generate at the employee level. We refer to these aschange capabilities because they allow individuals to pursue the changes in an efficientmanner, while attending to daily operations.

Accepting employees appear to have developed three capabilities for handlingcontinuous large-scale change processes:

PR41,1

116

(1) coping with uncertainty;

(2) maintaining control; and

(3) increasing their own market value (see Figure 2).

Employees who have been through a series of changes become used to change andrecognize the process by which change was implemented. As illustrated in the quotebelow, this familiarity, when linked to positive experiences, reduces some of theuncertainty related to change and makes employees more prone to cope with theuncertainties of organizational change.

You get used to changes going on all of the time. This makes it much easier to make changes,and they are quicker . . . The process takes less time because people approach the situationmore quickly with experience. It has to do with uncertainty (Middle Manager, Posten).

You just have to accept it [change] in a way – for your own sake and to be able to have anokay worklife. It’s too exhausting to be frustrated all of the time. When you have thatexperience you just don’t get as frustrated (laughs) (Union rep., Storebrand Bank).

Experience-based coping does not require reflection by the individual and as such it issimilar to in-deliberate learning. Mere experience provides a sense of familiarity andemployees, deliberately or not, draw on their previous process experience in a numberof ways: they are more prepared for their own reactions; they are more aware of theircareer alternatives because they have previously identified a range of alternatives; theyare less frightened and frustrated by uncertain outcomes. In short, they know moreabout the process and recognize procedures and activities that have been initiated.Hence, although the future remains uncertain, the process is familiar. This indicatesthat experience with different types of large-scale change can contribute to generalprocess knowledge resembling what Schilling et al. (2003) referred to as process-basedlearning, as opposed to learning specific skills or knowledge about one type of change.Although getting used to change does not require any deliberation, recognizing processsimilarities requires an ability to abstract across change initiatives. Well-known and

Figure 2.Experience-based change

capabilities amongemployees

Changeexperience

117

positively framed memories of change procedures and routines reduces the uncertaintyand ambiguity and allows employees to spend less time figuring out what is going onand they quickly orient themselves about the latest planned change initiative and howthis might affect them.

Change capabilities among accepting employees also involved ways of dealing withfast-paced changes, such as viewing change as an external condition and focusing onbusiness as usual.

Today change has become a part of everyday work-life, so I focus on operations and businessas usual. You can’t affect everything that comes along anyway (Employee, DnBNor).

[Experience with change] has a positive effect. You have been through it before and it workedout fine. You didn’t think it would [work out well], but then you end up enjoying your newwork (Employee, Posten).

Change always involves some level of uncertainty, which can reduce an individual’ssense of control (Eilam and Shamir, 2005). Our findings suggest that “accepting”employees not only reduce uncertainty by looking for similarities across changeprocess, but also find ways to maintain or take control.

Employees have become much better at reasoning about their options and choices . . .Previously they would become paralyzed. . .That doesn’t happen any more . . . Of course eachindividual reacts differently, but our employees are more aware of making explicit decisionsthemselves. . .Many of them have witnessed colleagues who have actually gotten a better lifeafter changing jobs (Union rep. DnBNor).

A merger is an external thing – even if it is also internally steered. For our organization thisbecomes an external condition that we have to deal with. We don’t have to communicate therationale behind the change. It’s more about getting to work, because there it is not somethingwe can fight against. The decision has been made and it cannot be reversed. This can createpositive energy (HR Manager, DnBNor).

By viewing change as an external condition, as the quote above indicates, employeesdefine change as beyond their realm of control – hence organizational change will nolonger lead to perceptions of lost control. Employees are focusing on things that theyperceive are within their realm of control, such as business as usual. This in turnincreases the likelihood that they will succeed in reaching their goals. Externalizingchange thereby allows employees to maintain a sense of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997).Having mastered a previous change, makes these employees feel more in control.Interestingly several respondents referred to the experiences of previous colleagues whohad been subject to downsizing. They described that as they had seen relevant otherspull through and prosper in their new job, they gained increased faith in their own abilityto do so. Recall that in the Scandinavian context, most employees have not traditionallybeen exposed to frequent job shifts to the same extent as many other western countries.

Finally, accepting employees develop capabilities on how to upgrade theirprofessional competencies. Because of frequent organizational changes they becomeextremely aware of their own competencies and the ways in which these can be used inthis or any other organization.

You perhaps get in touch with other employers, check the market. Then possibilities open up.If you have been through this before, it is easier to handle . . . you know what to do. Yourreactions become more constructive for yourself (Employee, AstraZeneca).

PR41,1

118

Our most change willing employees are the ones who have experienced change – experiencedbeing in a number of different positions and it has to do with competencies. Being confidentabout your level of competence – confident that it can be used in a number of different places(Union rep., DnBNor).

Some employees use organizational change initiatives as a deliberate way of upgradingtheir own competencies, either by making use of professional advice or accepting offersfor executive programs. The reasons for focusing on their own professionalcompetences may be tied to the previous point about taking control over those thingsthat are within employees’ realm of control. However, it may also reflect a moreindividualized focus in organizations, where employees strive to take care ofthemselves, as the organization no longer can provide any long-term guarantees. Thisis also conducive with the union representatives’ perspective, as illustrated in thesecond quote below.

Yes you get used to changes. But the first question you ask yourself is always if this willaffect me? You become egotistical (Employee, Vesta).

Our ambition is to provide possibilities for career development and security. But security isnot employment from age 20 to 67, but the possibility to develop and become attractive on thegeneral job market (Union rep, Nordea).

Some researchers question the demand on employees to be flexible and argue that therelationship between managers and employees has been altered and that employees arenow “expected to work longer hours, accept greater responsibility, be more flexible andto tolerate continual change and ambiguity” which can negatively affect employeessense of worker dignity (Cartwright and Holmes, 2006). Likewise, the literature ondownsizing and organizational commitment suggests that several rounds of downsizinghave changed how employees perceive their commitment to organizations and that thebond between employee and organization has declined (Naus et al., 2007). Hence, whilethe tendency to focus on own competencies is positive for the organization, it isimportant to bear in mind that this could be a reflection of a perceived need to upgradecompetencies in order to be attractive for this (and other) organizations in the future anda focus on one’s own market value, perhaps at the expense of organizational needs.

Learning to lay low and keep quiteCompliant employees developed experience-based capabilities for handling change aswell. Our data on compliant and cynical reactions suggests that employees with badprocess experience had learned to distance themselves, lay low and keep quiet. Althoughthese capabilities do not fall within our definition of change capabilities as they fail tocontribute in driving the change forward, it is important to understand these reactions.Our findings suggest that bad process experience is an important explanatory factor.

Organizational history is very important. How did you handle downsizing in the previousprocess? If poorly, then any new change process is doomed to fail . . . . This [previousexperience] is the basis for whether or not employees will want to be a part of future changeprocesses (Union rep, DnBNor).

Previous studies on reactions to change have argued that in some cases, employees havelearned that loyal and passive reactions pay off (Bryant and Wolfram Cox, 2004). Thereis evidence that “not saying the wrong things” becomes important as those people who

Changeexperience

119

speak up are punished, while those who remain quiet benefit from the changes (Bryantand Wolfram Cox, 2004, p. 585). Morrison and Milliken (2000, p. 706) argue: “employeesoften feel compelled to remain silent in the face of concerns or problems”. We did not findevidence of specific benefits that were provided for those who kept quiet in theorganizations we studied, but our data do suggest that with experience, fewer peoplewere willing to voice disagreement. The management in one organization expressed aconcern about the lack of input and enthusiasm for change among some employees andtherefore launched a project aiming to energize and activate employees.

In summary, employees with positive change experience appear to have developedchange capabilities that make them more flexible and change willing. This isparticularly interesting in the Scandinavian work context, which tends to becharacterized by lower mobility (particularly Norway and Sweden) than many of itsEuropean and North-American counter-parts. In Scandinavia there is also a propensityto voice disagreement due to the low power-distance between management andemployees, which appears to be reduced as employees become more experienced. Ouranalyses suggest that change capabilities can be developed among employeesprovided the processes are well-managed. Poorly managed change processes on theother hand result in learning how to distance oneself from the organization.

Management’s role in developing employee capabilities for changeWe have argued that experienced employees react more loyally to change, but there isalso a risk of more passive reactions. Management needs be aware of commonreactions when employees have been through a multitude of planned changes overtime. Change-experienced employees emphasize the procedures through whichchanges are made (how change is implemented) and activate memories about howprevious processes were managed. Management plays a pivotal role in generatingpositive change process experiences. Previous research has argued thatexperience-based reactions depend on relational aspects such as how managers treatemployees during change (Thornhill and Saunders, 2003). Our findings support this,but in addition, our respondents point out the importance of structural aspects, such asplanning and organizing the process. Managers who had experience with continuousand multiple changes had developed routines and procedures which createdpredictability for employees.

Change experience allows you to capitalize on the structural capital in the organization, whichmeans that you don’t need so much trial and error. You have a good idea of how this is goingdown, but then it has to be adjusted to the situation at hand. So it won’t be exactly the same,and you have to be careful not to think to that two situations are identical. But you have astructure and a way of thinking that will help you (Top manager, DnBNor).

Although new change projects involved ambiguous and uncertain outcomes, theroutines through which the changes were implemented had several similar features.This reduced uncertainty about the process and provided a sense of security and trustbetween employees and manager supporting and facilitating the development ofemployee-based capabilities for change.

Conclusions and implicationsWe have examined how experience influences employee reactions to change. Ourfindings suggest that some employees develop capabilities to cope with fast-paced

PR41,1

120

change initiatives. However, the picture is not one-sidedly positive. While one group ofemployees effectively implemented change by drawing on experience-basedcapabilities, another group of employees implemented change in a passive mannerwithout any enthusiasm, because their experience suggested that this was the leastconspicuous way to react.

Our findings make three contributions to the existing literature. First, our studysupports and extends recent studies indicating that experience is an important factor forunderstanding reactions to change (Thornhill and Saunders, 2003; Bryant, 2006).Previous literature has focused predominantly on explaining reactions based onpersonality factors, the type of change (e.g. alliances), or characteristics of the changeprocess. Our findings suggest that experienced employees do not actively resist change,but instead show loyal reactions. Hence the literature on negative reactions to change canonly provide limited insight to reactions among change-experienced employees.

Second, our findings indicate that not only the level of experience but also the typeof experience matters for employee reactions. These findings contribute in explainingthe opposing effects of experience found in recent literature on experience andreactions. Thornhill and Saunders (2003) reported that experience had both negativeand positive influences on change reactions and that change experienced employeesfelt both more secure and became more resigned. Our study shows similar findings inthat employees can both develop capabilities for change and cynicism towards change.We extend current insights by providing additional explanations for this dual picture.Our findings point to the important role management plays in terms of planning andorganizing the change process and hence providing a familiar structure on theactivities that take place during implementation of change.

Third, our study identifies change capabilities that are developed at the employeelevel. Previous literature has emphasized dynamic capabilities at the firm level as wellas managerial capabilities for change. Our study shows that positive experience withchange can contribute to the development of change capabilities also at the employeelevel, by generating an ability to cope with the uncertainties of change, maintainingcontrol and increasing one’s own market value. Managers play an important role infacilitating the development of employee change capabilities.

There are some limitations to our findings. First, there is the issue of self-selection inour data set. Employees who remain in the organization after many fast-paced changesmay be those who are prone to loyal behavior. We attempted to reduce this limitationby including employees who had exited the organizations we studied as well. However,our studies mainly consisted of “survivors” of multiple change processes. Second, thereis also a risk that employees respond what they believe is politically correct. One wayin which we attempted to handle this was to probe employees about other people’sreactions as well as their own reactions. The variety in the responses suggests thatemployees are not only reiterating what they believe management wants to hear.Third, in focusing on general change process experience rather than a specific type ofchange, there is a risk of undermining effects based on specifics about the changecontents, such as whether the changes involved structural or cultural changes or both,or specifics about the change process, such as whether hard or soft levers were used toimplement change. Finally, the cultural context of our studies may have influenced ourfindings. All of our studies took place in Scandinavia, in a national context based onlong traditions of work-place democracy, a relatively stable workforce, and power

Changeexperience

121

balance between employer and employee. On the other hand, one might therefore haveexpected much more active employee reactions, regardless of the level of experience.

The findings we have presented have implications for change managers, as theywill need to adjust their change management approach depending employees level andtype of change experience. Particularly in organizations with a long track record ofchange, management should be wary of relying on traditional techniques for mappingand reducing resistance, as reactions will likely be more passive than active. While theliterature has emphasized the importance of analyzing change content in order toinform about process and understand reactions, the change capabilities we haveuncovered seem to be tied to changes in general and not to any particular kind ofchange initiative. As suggested by Chreim (2006) it appears that process capabilitiescan be applied across a variety of changes. Future studies are needed in order to testthe extent to which these capabilities can be applied across a wide set of changeinitiatives and across various organizational and cultural contexts.

References

Abrahamson, E. (2000), “Change without pain”, Harvard Business Review, July-August, pp. 75-9.

Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G. and Mossholder, K.W. (1993), “Creating readiness fororganizational change”, Human Relations, Vol. 46, pp. 681-702.

Bandura, A. (1997), Self-efficacy. The Exercise of Control, Freeman, New York, NY.

Bartunek, J.M., Rousseau, D.M., Rudolph, J.W. and DePalma, J.A. (2006), “On the receiving end:sensemaking, emotion, and assessments of an organizational change initiated by others”,Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 42, pp. 182-206.

Bommer, W.H., Rich, G.A. and Rubin, R.S. (2005), “Changing attitudes about change: longitudinaleffects of transformational leader behavior on employee cynicism about organizationalchange”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26, pp. 733-53.

Bourantas, D. and Nicandrou, I. (1998), “Modeling post-acquisition employee behavior: typologyand determining factors”, Employee Relations, Vol. 20, pp. 73-91.

Bovey, W.H. and Hede, A. (2001), “Resistance to organizational change: the role of cognitive andaffective processes”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 22, pp. 372-81.

Bryant, M. (2006), “Talking about change. Understanding employee responses throughqualitative research”, Management Decision, Vol. 44, pp. 246-58.

Bryant, M. and Wolfram Cox, J. (2004), “Conversion stories as shifting narratives of organizationalchange”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 17, pp. 578-92.

Cartwright, S. and Holmes, N. (2006), “The meaning of work. The challenge of regainingemployee engagement and reducing cynicism”, Human Resource Management Review,Vol. 16, pp. 199-208.

Chreim, S. (2006), “Postscript of change: survivors’ retrospective views of organizationalchanges”, Personnel Review, Vol. 35, pp. 315-35.

Ebadan, G. and Winstanley, D. (1997), “Downsizing, delayering and careers: the survivors’perspective”, Human Relations Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 79-91.

Eilam, G. and Shamir, B. (2005), “Organizational change and self-concept threats: a theoreticalperspective and a case study”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 41, pp. 399-421.

Elrod, P.D. and Tippett, D.D. (2002), “The ‘Death Valley’ of change”, Journal of OrganizationalChange Management, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 273-91.

PR41,1

122

Gavetti, G. (2005), “Cognition and hierarchy: rethinking the microfoundations of capabilitiesdevelopment”, Organization Science, Vol. 16, pp. 599-617.

Guth, W.D. and MacMillan, I.C. (1986), “Strategy implementation versus middle managementself-interest”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 313-27.

Hirschman, A.O. (1970), Exit, Voice and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizationsand States, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Lee, R.T. and Ashforth, B.E. (1996), “A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of the threedimensions of burnout”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81, pp. 123-33.

Lines, R. (2004), “Influence of participation in strategic change: resistance, organizationalcommitment and change goal achievement”, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 4,pp. 193-215.

Langley, A. (2009), “Studying processes in and around organizations”, in Buchanan, D.A. andBryman, A. (Eds), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Methods, SagePublications, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 409-26.

Lopez-Cabrales, A., Valle, R. and Herrero, I. (2006), “The contribution of core employees toorganizational capabilities and efficiency”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 45,pp. 81-109.

Lozeau, D., Langley, A. and Denis, J. (2002), ““The corruption of managerial techniques”, HumanRelations, Vol. 55, pp. 537-64.

Mishra, A.K. and Spreitzer, G.N. (1998), “Explaining how survivors respond to downsizing:the role of trust, empowerment, justice and work redesign”, Academy of ManagementReview, Vol. 23, pp. 567-88.

Morrison, E.W. and Milliken, F.J. (2000), “Organizational silence: a barrier to change anddevelopment in a pluralistic world”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25, pp. 706-25.

Naus, F., Iterson, A. and Roe, R. (2007), “Organizational cynicism: extending the exit, voice,loyalty and neglect model of employees’ responses to adverse conditions in theworkplace”, Human Relations, Vol. 60, pp. 683-718.

Perlman, D. and Takacs, G.J. (1990), “The ten stages of change”, Nursing Management, Vol. 21,pp. 33-8.

Pettigrew, A.M. and Whipp, R. (1991), Managing Change for Competitive Success, BlackwellPublishers, Oxford.

Piderit, S.K. (2000), “Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: a multidimensionalview of attitudes toward an organizational change”, Academy of Management Review,Vol. 25, pp. 783-4.

Randall, J. and Procter, S. (2008), ““Ambiguity and ambivalence. Senior managers’ accounts oforganizational change in a restructured government department”, Journal ofOrganizational Change Management, Vol. 21, pp. 686-700.

Reichers, A., Wanous, J.P. and Austen, J.T. (1997), “Understanding and managing cynicism aboutorganizational change”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 11, pp. 48-59.

Saunders, M.N.K. and Thornhill, A. (2003), “Organisational justice, trust and the management ofchange: an exploration”, Personnel Review, Vol. 32, pp. 360-75.

Schilling, M.A., Vidal, P., Ployhart, R.E. and Marangoni, A. (2003), “Learning by doing somethingelse: variation, relatedness and the learning curve”, Management Science, Vol. 49, pp. 39-56.

Smollan, R.K. (2006), “Minds, hearts and deeds: cognitive, affective and behavioural responses tochange”, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 143-58.

Changeexperience

123

Stensaker, I., Meyer, C., Falkenberg, J. and Haueng, A.C. (2002), “Excessive change: copingmechanisms and consequences”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 31, pp. 296-312.

Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997), “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management”,Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18, pp. 509-33.

Thornhill, A. and Saunders, M.N.K. (2003), “Exploring employees’ reactions to strategic changeover time: the utilisation of an organisational justice perspective”, Irish Journal ofManagement, Vol. 24, pp. 66-86.

Wanous, J.P., Reichers, A.E. and Austin, J.T. (2000), “Cynicism about organizational change:measurement, antecedents, and correlates”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 25,pp. 132-53.

Worrall, L., Parkes, C. and Cooper, C.L. (2004), “The impact of organizational change on theperceptions of UK managers”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,Vol. 13, pp. 139-63.

Zollo, M. and Winter, S.G. (2002), “Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities”,Organization Science, Vol. 13, pp. 339-51.

Further reading

Antonacopoulou, E.P. and Gabriel, Y. (2001), “Emotion, learning and organizational change”,Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 14, pp. 435-51.

Corresponding authorInger G. Stensaker can be contacted at: inger.stensaker@nhh.no

PR41,1

124

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints