JSPM Vol 5 Issue 4

RESISTANCE FACTORS FACED BY TELENOR FOR STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT DURING RESTRUCTURING

Muneza Naeem and Nadeem Kureshi. Center for Advance Studies in Engineering, Islamabad, Pakistan. munezanaeem30@gmail.com

Citation: Naeem, M, and Kureshi. N, (2017). Resistance factors faced by Telenor for Strategic Alignment during Restructuring, Journal of Strategy and Performance Management, 5(4), 136-158.

ABSTRACT

With the growing economic and financial distress, the organizations these days resort to organizational restructuring and reorganization for strategic alignment to achieve short term goals and accomplish long term missions. Considering the fact that restructuring is primarily focused on aligning the organization with the strategy, it may or may not help in the reinforcement of strategy as several factors affect the progress of the organizations e.g. employee motivation, turnover rates, innovation, organizational culture etc. Some of these factors become more observable following the restructuring in the organizations, these factors are the ones which act as hurdles for management to align the organization completely with the strategy or get things rolling in the intended direction. This study is aimed to find the factors which caused resistance for Telenor in coping with a changed organizational structure, the impact of those factors which management faces following an organizational change and what to expect from the employees. This may also help the management set up mitigation plans to avoid hurdles in the successful roll out of the organizational change, reduce the resistance faced from employees, recover from the distress and bring things back to normal. The study will help the management layer of other organizations in the pre-planning for organizational restructuring. It will help them predict the employee expectations and prepare for techniques to mitigate the resistance. Telenor Global Shared Services is case study which underwent a restructuring in 2014 and is also susceptible to frequent organizational changes. Keywords: Organizational Restructuring, Change Management, Reorganization, Organizational Change.

!136

JSPM Vol 5 Issue 4

INTRODUCTION

This research is focused on studying the outcomes of organizational restructuring at Telenor. Telenor has always been inclined towards adoption of new technologies to improve service quality and reduce the costs. Due to this inclination, the organization has seen several reorganizations in the past at management, organizational and business units level. Telenor has seen multiple reorganizations across different business units but Telenor Global Shared Services has been picked to have a deeper understanding about the employee perceptions about organizational change and their expectations from the management and the organization.

This study can be a learning opportunity to explore about the types of resistance faced by organizations while undergoing organizational change i.e. restructuring. The study will cover a spectrum of reasons why employees resist the change and how that is poses difficulties for management to fully deploy the organizational change.

There are three research questions in this study. The first research question is to have a deeper understanding of the positive and negative impacts of the organizational restructuring on the employees and the the organization itself. The second research question is to find the resistance factors and hurdles in the way of successful organizational change. And the third research question revolves around giving feedback to management on employee resistance and how to manage a successful organizational change.

The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 covers the literature review and section 3 describes the research methodology. Section 4 presents analysis and section 5 covers findings, conclusions and recommendations.

LITERATURE REVIEW Restructuring for Strategic Alignment

Strategic alignment is a continuous process of adaption and change at the organizational level. Strategy of the organizations is not only limited to the internal organizational processes. Strategic alignment requires a combination of strategic fit and functional integration. Strategic fit involves addressing both external domains that is the environment in which the firm operates and internal domains. (Henderson & Venkatraman, 1993). Strategy as a practice is not limited to only internal firm processes and it also yields performance outcomes (Girod, & Whittington, 2017). Companies engage themselves in organizational change to align its internal and outsourced units. The strategic alignment can be more effective if companies choose a design that works and then a system should be put in place to align the organizational structure to the strategy (Kaplan & Norton, 2006).

Corporate restructuring can be defined as a major change in the firms assets along with the change in the corporate strategy and can be explained in terms of efficiency gain (Heugens & Schenk, 2004). The major modifications in the job responsibilities that constitute restructuring are change in responsibilities, change in reporting lines, added

!137

JSPM Vol 5 Issue 4

coworkers and introduction of new policies or organizational structure Allen et al (2001). Firms aim to achieve value by matching their structure to the strategy (Kaplan & Norton, 2006). The organizations gain financial and strategic benefits as a value from restructuring and that the outcome of the restructuring is aimed to be productivity, cost effectiveness and more agility at organizational level (McKinley & Scherer, 2000). The companies continuously need to evolve to accommodate change which is because of the complex and dynamic process (Coates, MacCarthy & Guinery, 2005). To accommodate this change, corporate reorganization may provide the formal structures for the change but cannot develop the required skills (Beer, Eisenstat & Spector, 1990). To further implement the change general managers are following a six step process: first step is the identification of the business problem; the second step is to develop a vision that is shared by all members; the third step is to get acceptability and commitment to the new vision; the fourth step is to spread the change horizontally across different departments; the fifth step is to give the change a shape by enforcing organizational policy and structure; the sixth step is to keep a check on the issues arising and accommodating those by change in the previously set processes. To spread an organization wide change, the change process described by Beer, Eisenstat & Spector (1990) need to be run over and over. The change programs sometimes do not produce change because they are using a flawed underlying theory. The long lasting organizational change can be achieved only if it initiates at the corporate core and grows outward (Beer, Eisenstat & Spector, 1990).

Resistance faced by Organizational Change

Resistance can be defined as the force which opposes to maintain the current position and this definition of resistance can be extended to organizations as well. Bovey & Hede (2001) have proposed a conceptual framework of the resistance to change. It shows that resistance is the final outcome of the process which starts from perception i.e. impact of change, goes to cognitions i.e. irrational ideas, then comes the effect of change i.e. emotions and the eventual outcome is resistance. According to Vakola, Armenakis & Oreg (2013), the consequences of the organizational change include long term indirect outcomes which could be related to work and personal as well. The two important consequences of restructuring are creation of short term order at the management level and then creation of long term turbulence at the organizational level which implies that reorganization distorts the stability of the organizational environment. The unstable environment will again be visible to the top management level thus giving reasons to drive further restructuring. (McKinley & Scherer, 2000).

Heugens & Schenk (2004) highlight three very important forces opposing the corporate restructuring. The first one is the inertia and the pressure on the organization to demonstrate reliability and accountability which makes restructuring very difficult. The second force opposing restructuring is loss of legitimacy and reputation in the organizational field by engaging in radical organizational change. The third opposing force to corporate restructuring is from the stakeholders as it might not always be beneficial to them. Vakola, Armenakis & Oreg (2013) classify the explicit reactions from organizational change recipients in three types namely affective, cognitive and behavioral. Affective reactions include what the change recipients feel, cognitive reactions include what they think and behavioral reactions include what they do to halt it. Moreover, the employees

!138

JSPM Vol 5 Issue 4

resist the change only after considering the negative consequences and some express the resentment using humor (Piderit, 2000). Further, Heugens & Schenk (2004) say that a by-product of corporate restructuring process is social and political resistance which causes hindrance in the way of achieving the aimed efficiency gains but can be managed through carefully executed public affairs activities.

Sorre suggests that people are averse to transition phase of the change rather than the change itself. The change does not naturally exist so organizations have to initiate the change and start the transition phase. Organizational change especially downsizing results in lowered morale and organizational memory that was built over time (Bellefeuille, 1996). Sorre has identified several causes of resistance to organizational change. The first most important one is that the individuals tend to resist when they have to learn new things. The next cause is linked to the first one such that individuals resist change because they are not confident if they will be able to develop the new skill. The change is perceived to be unfair by the disgruntled employees. Further, the staff considers that a new change would alter their current standing. Whereas the reorganizations might not always pose negative impact on all employees as some get the opportunity to grow from restructuring Allen et al (2001). Bovey & Hede (2001) prove that the resistance would be higher when irrational ideas are more and emotions are related to strength or the irrational ideas and behavioral resistance. Thus, there would be different level of resistance posed by different people. Watson (1982) states that what organizations refer as resistance might only be reluctance in adopting the change. Also, Bews & Uys (2002) highlight that it is not necessary for all employees to perceive organizational restructuring as negative and cause resistance to it. The reactions of people to organizational change depend greatly on how the restructuring is affecting them. Some people would take restructuring as the opportunity for growth and others would be indifferent if it is a no loss no gain situation for them. Piderit (2000) states that the negative responses to the organizational change may be the outcome of positive intentions. While it may be important to over the employee resistance, success of the organizational change is highly reliant on the support and interest of the employees. Understanding the employee attitudes to the change can help very much in managing the organizational change effectively. In addition to that, the employee reactions keep evolving over time, so it is very crucial to keep close attention on that.

Further, the resistance to organizational change not always yield negative results. The resistance to organizational change also has some positive role to play. The criticism would give rise to healthy discussion which would eventually result in the better understanding of change as well as exploration of more options and solutions. The employee resistance can probe the management to evaluate the change deeply and also explore all possible options of change and select the most suitable one. Legitimate resistance may also bring about additional organizational change.

Restructuring at Telenor

Telenor as an international organization has undergone several reorganizations. Some of the reorganizations from 2010 to 2017 have been included here for reference.

!139

JSPM Vol 5 Issue 4

In 2010, Telenor Group Business Development and Research announced changes in resource allocation. This was a result of competence mapping assessment and increase in focus on having an organization which reflects the strategic priorities marking 59 employees were marked redundant in this whole process. Further, in the same year, Telenor Group Units announced new organizational structure to have a direct link between its strategy and that of Telenor Group Strategy. The changes primarily involved mixing and merging the teams.

In 2011, Groups Units proposed further organizational changes, this time in HR area. The human resource was split into people processes and strategic HR development and Executive sourcing unit was split into Executive Sourcing & Mobility and Remuneration. This restructuring was done to ensure dedicated resources for improving Telenor’s Global HR Processes; the need for this was raised from the Business Units.

In 2014, new organizational structure was introduced in a Telenor Business Unit (DiGi) with re-energized management team. The new management was supposed to lead organizational growth with deeper business and enhanced customer focus. Further, Telenor Global Shared Services announced to transfer a substantial part of production within F&A, Service Desk and IT Operations from delivery centers in Norway and Pakistan to GPIT and other Accenture hubs as well as to GSS Delivery Centre Pakistan. Later in the same year, Telenor Denmark announced to simplify the organization. The simplification implied that the organization aimed to be more dynamic and close 13 retail shops across the country.23 Telenor employees along with 33 full time employees and 14 hourly workers from Telenor shops were laid off as an outcome of this restructuring.

In 2015, DTAC announced change in corporate affairs group by creating a new position of acting Deputy Chief Executive of Corporate Affairs (Acting Body CCAO). The change was done to increase focus on making DTAC a leader in internet in Thailand.

In 2016, the new TnCO organizational structure was announced as Telenor Bulgaria also joined the previous three business units i.e. Telenor Hungary, Telenor Serbia and Telenor Montenegro to achieve a collaborative technological support and synergy of four business units. Later in October, it was published on Norway today that Telenor Norway has announced to close its several offices in Norway affecting 180 employees.

In 2017, Telenor Group introduced cluster model for Busi- ness Units. Resultantly, Telenor Pakistan announced structural changes in Commercial, Digital and Technology Divisions. Further, Telenor India’s changes in structure were focused on making clusters, transformation, products & marketing, technologies & services and support functions.

Importance of Managing the Resistance

O′ Connor (1993) states that despite the resistance, it is very important for the change initiators to manage the resistance. Beer, Eisenstat & Spector (1990) state that the managers define their role as being facilitators for change who make the environment for change suitable. Thus, the management is required to deal with several outcomes of the change process as well. Bovey & Hede (2001) also states that it is important for the

!140

JSPM Vol 5 Issue 4

management to manage human aspects along with the technical aspects of the change which include cognitive and affective processes. Thus, it would be in managements interest to develop self-awareness and then develop processes to minimize resistance. Resistance posed by people to organizational change depends on the personal growth and development. According to Vakola, Armenakis & Oreg (2013), organization leaders could make change more effective by identifying the individuals who are likely to support the change in the start and seek their advice and support for the successful deployment of the organizational change. The individuals posing resistance to the organizational change can be managed through specialized skills of change agents who can engage them in trainings. (Beer, Eisenstat & Spector, 1990) further state that management can take some actions to make the organizational change more effective through creating an environment of change, units with successful changes can be used as models and develop leadership attitude. The most important thing is that the leaders should portray what they preach. The survivors of the organizational restructuring are required to make all functions work for the organization and that too with fewer personnel. Grieving is a reaction to organizational restructuring in the transition period and the positive emotions evolve after the stability Allen et al (2001). Bellefeuille (1996) states that to manage resistance, careful communication needs to be setup with aim to improve employee engagement and improve performance. To mitigate the anxiety of the employees, the managers can conduct regular meetings to show they are important and the objectives can be focused on long term objectives for business performance. But despite everything, organizational restructuring is deemed to be a stressful life event. Employees face low morale related issues as an outcome of downsizing but the intensity if the attitudes mitigate over time and improve. The survivors of the restructuring respond negatively if they lack trust in the competence of the management and if their day to day work is overloaded. Employee reactions to organizational change include slackness at work and decreased commitment. The reduced commitment of the employees can be managed by providing the clarity of roles, managing the workload, and enhancing satisfaction with security and top management Allen et al (2001). The survivors of the organizational change are expected to make the organizations work with fewer resources.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This section covers the approach used to conduct the re- search and find answers to the questions identified in the introductory chapter of the thesis. Also, it covers how the qualitative data analysis software has been used to sort the responses from the interviewees and extract useful information.

The primary method of research used in the study is qualitative. Creswell (2009) proposes to use this design if the aim is to explore and understand the issue from human perspective and this study explores the factors from employees who resist an organizational change or restructuring. The information collected through collective research is assumed to be rich and deep concerning the phenomenon under study.

!141

JSPM Vol 5 Issue 4

The research paradigm or the worldview that is being utilized for this research is The Social Constructivist Worldview. The research conducted at Telenor focuses entirely on the employees views and opinions about the restructuring taking place at Telenor. The data will be collected through open ended questioning with the employees regarding restructuring, its impacts on their work and personal life and that how they feel about restructuring at the organization level. (Creswell, 2009).

Figure 1 elaborates the research process of the study.

Figure 1: Research Process

Data Collection

For the study, the source of primary data is from the open ended interviews conducted with employees of Telenor Global Shared Services. Open ended interviews were conducted with Telenor employees which were either affected or not affected by restructuring. The interviews helped in gathering views of the employees on restructuring and how they tend to resist the change.

Data Analysis

Qualitative research was conducted with the research type classified as Exploratory Research. Data collection was primarily done through interviews from the employees who

!142

JSPM Vol 5 Issue 4

have seen reorganization at Telenor. The focus was to gather information on how the employees would want to resist the reorganization.

Single case study design was used on the basis of below rationale (Yin, 2009).

- Unique Case: Reorganization at Telenor is one case that is being considered

- Representative/Typical Case: Circumstances faced by Telenor as a result of reorganization will be studied.

Further, as there is one unit of analysis so holistic case study has been opted as no logical subunits have been identified. Thus, single case holistic design is being used as design type for the research. The analytic technique being used for the study is explanation building as the aim is to study the data captured for the case study and build an explanation around it. (Yin, 2009)

Data analysis method has been visualized in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Data Analysis Methods

ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION The section covers the in depth analysis of the reorganizations at Telenor, the impact of reorganization on employees and organization, resistance during the transition process and eventually moving towards feedback to management from the employees.

Analysis of the Negative Impacts of Reorganization on Employees

All the responses from the interviews have been summarized in Table 1. The negative impact factors for employees have been identified and coded from the responses

!143

JSPM Vol 5 Issue 4

of the employees. The respondent whose response has been coded into the impact factor has been marked in columns R1, R2, R3 etc. The score column has been calculated by counting the flags in respondents columns.

The top most reason of demotivation identified by the respondents was Uncertainty about the organizational change. The two reasons attributed to uncertainty during reorganizations at Telenor were job security and acknowledgement. Job security can have two aspects i.e. job security and role security. Reorganization impacts jobs such that either the positions are dissolved or the responsibilities are changed. In both the cases, the employees are uncertain about the outcome. If the position is dissolved, the employees come in directly impacted employees category and enter the cycle of finding new jobs. If the role is changed, it results in employees having to change their responsibilities which might not map with their competence. So, they either will have to develop new skill and that depends whether the employees perceive it as a change of professional track or diversification of skills. Uncertainty about acknowledgement is because employees continuously seek acknowledgement as a way to progress in their jobs. And if employees feel that the work they are doing might not yield any acknowledgement for them, they halt putting in effort.

The next three negative impacts of reorganization at Telenor are:

- Demotivated employees - Increased stress for employees - Hindrance in personal and professional goals

Table 1: Negative Impact of Restructuring on Employees

The employees feel highly demotivated from the time the talks about reorganization start. There are several factors due to which this organization wide demotivation varies. If the organizational change is announced abruptly, the demotivation is much higher in the employees compared to when reorganization is announced well in advance. The reason for that is the employees get time to adjust themselves and plan things ahead of time. Further, for a directly affected employee who is either being laid off in the reorganization the demotivation depends whether the severance package is handsome or not. The reason for

!144

JSPM Vol 5 Issue 4

that is it provides a sense of security to the laid off employee if he fails to find a job early. Further, there is an organization wide demotivation in employees if reorganization is targeted towards layoffs as the number of employees to be laid off and the positions impacted is not announced in the start. So, practically everyone is under the fear of losing their job. There are always some people in the organization who plant the seeds of demotivation in the employees and are responsible for the spread of negative energy in the organization.

The next most important negative impact identified by employees during reorganization is that they continuously feel stressed about the organizational change at Telenor. The prime reason for this is financial responsibilities and dependents. If those responsibilities are less, the stress will be due to the person himself. Further, the employees continuously muse about how soon the change is planned to take place. The stress will be higher if time is less. Further, the reorganizations are usually perceived to involve layoff and even if the organization plans to reorganize its day to day operations, employees always second guess the intention of the management. If the reputation of the employer is such that it has seen frequent reorganizations, the employees feel that reorganization might start any time and this leads to employees being continuously stressed about their future with the organization.

Long with negative emotional outcomes of the reorganization, employees have reported that the personal and professional development targets also get impacted during the process of reorganization. Employees usually put in targeted efforts towards rewards like increments, bonuses and promotions. During the reorganization period, the organization goes in a stagnant period for a couple of months and such rewards are resumed after the organizational changes are effective. If an employee gets laid off there would be a career break for him. Such career breaks might bring a question on the employees profile from other employers. Further, the attention of the employees is shifted to surviving the reorganization rather than focusing on their personal and professional development goals.

Depression and anxiety kicks in when the employees know they are the ones being affected in the change process. Prior to it is just musing about the upcoming change. There are two fold outcomes after the change is announced. Two types of employees are there

- Directly affected employees

- Indirectly affected employees

The directly affected employees are the ones who are being laid off and indirectly affected employees are the ones who not being laid off but face similar symptoms. The negative feelings from the directly affected employees propagate to the indirectly affected employees who would be required to deliver on the organizational goals. So, is the two fold impact of layoff; one on the directly affected employees and other on the organization itself through indirectly affected employees.

!145

JSPM Vol 5 Issue 4

The two negative low ranked impacts of reorganization at Telenor are identified to be finding new job and employee discouragement. Finding a new job in the market with usually the same responsibilities is a hard task for the employees and they usually are expected to change their track by either the new employer or the employee has to take a job with different track due to growing financial and career break pressure. In addition to that, the employees feel demotivated as not all the employees are laid off which creates a sense of inequality in the employees.

Analysis of the Negative Impacts of Reorganization on Organization

All the responses from the interviews have been summarized in Table 2. The negative impact factors for the organization have been identified and coded from the responses of the employees. The respondent whose response has been coded into the impact factor has been marked in columns R1, R2, R3 etc. The score column has been calculated by counting the flags in respondents columns.

The highest negative impacts of the reorganization identified for Telenor are demotivated and unproductive employees and high turnover ratio. These two negative impacts are also linked as well. The higher the number of demotivated employees the turnover ratio would be higher for the organization.

Table 2: Negative Impact of Restructuring on Telenor

The second highest negative outcome of reorganization identified for Telenor were impact on operational deliveries and organizational goals and tarnished company reputation. The indirectly affected employees in the organization with low morale are expected to perform for the operational deliveries which ultimately results in the achievement of organizational goals. The company reputation starts being affected from the time reorganization discussions start. The outside professionals tend to believe the word of mouth from the employees so this also adds to the harm done on the company reputation. The last and minor negative impact of reorganization for Telenor was identified to be organizational instability. This starts from the onset of the reorganization and stays till the organizational change is effective. Sometimes it lingers on some extra time as an extra outcome of reorganization along with changed structure or way of work.

!146

JSPM Vol 5 Issue 4

Analysis of the positive outcomes of Reorganization

All the responses from the interviews have been summarized in Table 3. The positive outcomes from the restructuring have been identified and coded from the responses of the employees. The respondent whose response has been coded into the impact factor has been marked in columns R1, R2, R3 etc. The score column has been calculated by counting the flags in respondents columns.

The most important positive outcome of reorganization at Telenor was identified to be the exposure which the employees get. The exposure can be in terms of introduction of employees to new way of work, movement to another team, a new position either in the same level or senior level. The helps the employees train to be more adaptive to change and have a mindset that is more agile.

For some employees, their new position in the revamped organization got aligned with their skills. This led to the career alignment of those employees and showed increased interest in the new role.

It was identified in the previous section that the employees were continuously anxious about the monetary benefits from the reorganization. But some employees also got monetary benefits from the reorganization in the form of severance packages for directly affected employees or raised salaries for indirectly affected employees.

Other positive outcomes of reorganization at Telenor include creation of jobs, skill development and financial gain for the organization. The creation of new jobs indicates that the organization is progressing. The skill development for the employees depends how the employees perceive it to be. Some employees take it as a change in career and other take it as diversification of their skills. Further, the organization is always aimed to yield financial gains for the organization either by layoffs or hiring new employees.

Employees who get benefits from reorganization are motivated; they act as change agents and drive reorganization. It has been identified that what you are getting from the reorganization impacts the motivation levels of employees a lot. The motivation is higher if employees are getting benefits from the reorganization especially monetary benefits.

Table 3: Positive Outcomes of Restructuring

!147

JSPM Vol 5 Issue 4

The internal or affected employees may be given preference for the newly created positions but employees always tend to doubt the organization rather than focusing on the positive outcomes. In addition those employees see boost in confidence for future after getting positive outcome from reorganization. The benefits result in improved trust in management and organization. The confidence and motivation was increased. The focus on work increases which results in performance improvement. People who get benefit from reorganization become more confident and receptive to organizational change. And they prove be the positive agents for any organization during reorganization by giving their own example. People who get benefits have a changed perception of the organization and their trust in the management improves. They are motivated to work, their focus increases and the employer becomes the best employer for the short term. If a laid-off employee who has received a severance package gets a job next day, he will have severance as a lottery. People, who get benefits from reorganization, become receptive to organizational change.

Employees change in perception of Telenor after Restructuring

The organizational restructuring is an activity which leaves long term impression on the perception of employees about the organization. Whether that impression is negative or positive, it can seriously tarnish or build the reputation of the organization in the industry. Telenor has a customer centric model of operation and always is focused on providing best of the services to its customers. Along with being customer centric, the organization has always been the first priority of employees for long term employment for open culture and values. One of the respondents pointed out, Telenor has gone from customer centric model to cost reduction model which is not very employee and customer friendly. This has resulted in Telenor being a cost engine than a valuable asset.

Telenor is an international organization and always bases the reorganizations on the industry best practices. This is a positive side of this organization that it continues to improve itself to stay competitive in the market. The organization no doubt continues to improve the financials gains by streamlining the organization and reducing the waste of finances but the employees have pointed out that there is a downside to it as well and that is the organization is losing valuable talent in which it has expended time and resources.

One of the employees pointed that previously he has entirely positive views about Telenor but after such frequent reorganizations at local and global level, it is a mixture of both negative and positive views as the organization might be saving big by reorganizing and improving, it gives an impression that the organization might not be very sound financially and it needs to conserve resources by cost cutting techniques and fighting for sustenance.

The frequent reorganizations have instilled a fear in the minds of the employees and they continuously feel that there is a lot of uncertainty associated with the organization. The organization will be able to overcome this mindset by not reorganizing for some time and showing a stable growth track. Employees also point out that they perceive Telenor to be unsuitable for long term employment.

!148

JSPM Vol 5 Issue 4

Considering the competition in telecom sector at Pakistan, Telenor had least record of reorganizing but things are changing now and the organization may be assumed to be unstable.

Considering all the changed perceptions about Telenor after frequent reorganizations, the employees point out that the organization tries to adjust most of the laid off employees for other internal job openings. Further, they usually opt a way of freezing the hiring from outside and look for adjusting the internal competence. The example of this is that one of the respondents was laid off twice in reorganizations at Telenor but is still serving the organization. Further, he points out that even being laid off twice I am still very positive about Telenor as it is an organization which cares for its employees and tries to compensate them in every possible way.

About the employees recommending the organization to outsiders there are very interesting opinions that surfaced. Most of the employees pointed that they would not recommend someone with more experience to join Telenor. Most people pointed that they would recommend fresh graduates to join the organization for learning and grooming. This would mean that Telenor is continuously training the fresh graduates and supplying them to other organizations.

Analysis of the Employee Views about Resistance Factors to Restructuring at Telenor

All the responses from the interviews have been summarized in Table 4, which includes views about resistance to organizational changes at Telenor. The respondent whose response has been coded into general employee opinion has been marked in columns R1, R2, R3 etc. The score column has been calculated by counting the flags in respondents columns.

The overall trend seen in the table above indicates that employees are not all against organizational change and their views about resistance too are positive with the exception of a few factors which define the intensity of resistance shown by employees.

Table 4: Employees View on Restructuring

!149

JSPM Vol 5 Issue 4

The first and foremost factor identified was that employees understand that organizations need to change continuously in order to stay competitive in the market. Employees also are of the view that if an organization has not revamped itself in a couple of years, it might become inefficient in its process and that is the time reorganization proves to be fruitful for the long term competitiveness of the organization. Along with the employees acknowledging the need for organizations to revamp it, employees also acknowledge the need for employees to be more receptive to organizational change. This will have benefits for the employees as well which include exposure to new way of work, expansion of skills, potential monetary and non-monetary gains. But despite two positive views, there is a very interesting outcome about how employees accept the organizational change. The employees are of the view, that even if they feel the need to resist organizational change, they would eventually give in and stop resisting. This state can be explained such that employees enter don't care stage for the changes at the organization and they also might not be contributing very positively.

Some employees also see reorganization as a way to their benefit as well. Reorganization can expose the employees to a learning opportunity from which there is a possibility of gaining monetary and non-monetary benefits. The monetary benefits are when employees are getting a senior or more powerful position. There are also non-monetary benefits associated to this such that boost in the confidence, change in the perception about reorganization and act as positive agents for future reorganizations. Employees generally understand that reorganization is usually the last resort for management to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the organization. Organizational changes usually take up a lot of time and energy of management and in depth thought process as well and in addition organizations consider reorganization when they have explored other simpler options of increasing the organizational efficiency and effectiveness. There is yet another very positive response from the employees about a way to resist organizational change i.e. by showing their intent to work with the organization and putting in more effort to save the work. This shows loyalty of the employees to Telenor and intent to work.

There are less number of employees who personally want to resist the change but that too varies depending on the ambiguity of the change for them. And the level of resistance to organizational change depends on how soon the news is disclosed to the employees.

Analysis of the Reasons of Resistance to Organizational Change

All the responses from the interviews have been summarized in Table 5, which includes the reasons why the employees resisted organizational changes at Telenor. The respondent whose response has been coded into the impact factor has been marked in columns R1, R2, R3 etc. The score column has been calculated by counting the flags in respondents columns.

The two prime reasons identified by the respondents about the reasons they would resist organizational change are demotivation and ambiguity about change.

!150

JSPM Vol 5 Issue 4

Employees generally feel demotivated when the organization starts exploring the option about reorganization. There are several underlying reasons which result in this emotional outcome for employees. Demotivation in the employees act to pull the organization backward or brings it in a position when employees are not striving for its growth and progress.

Ambiguity about organization change arises when employ- ees are not sure about how they would be impacted by the organizational change. Whether there will be a role change, team change, responsibilities change or the position is being dissolved. Employees also want to know the motives behind the reorganization. If the organization fails to clarify the motives, the employees tend to think negatively and assume that organization could be under financial stress or losing business and this would have a direct impact on the jobs.

The next four reasons about resisting organizational change are:

- Change in comfort zone

- Monetary impact

- Effect on career and development

- Loss of trust in the organization

Table 5: Reasons of Resistance to Organizational Change

Employees generally want to stick to their old routines and ways of work and this has been pointed out by Telenor employees as well in response to the organizational change. Employees are reluctant to change their set routines. Reorganization involves change in team, change in responsibilities, and change in role. Further, employees might have to learn new skills. This all leads to change in comfort zone of employees.

Reorganization comes with monetary impacts on employees as well which could be positive or negative. Positive impact of reorganization involves employees getting salary raise maybe by getting senior position. But the employees do not resist due to positive

!151

JSPM Vol 5 Issue 4

monetary impact, employees resist because of negative monetary impact which can be due to layoffs. Employees have also identified that the severance package might be good or might not be good depending on the seniority level. There could be situations when a laid off employee with severance package gets job the next day and has a couple of salaries extra; it is a case of positive monetary impact. There could also be a situation in which laid off employee with severance package not getting a new job in several months; this is a case of negative monetary impact.

The effect on career and development paths of employees is impacted adversely during the reorganization and this is one of the reasons employees resist organizational change. The employees put in their effort and energy towards set targets of development and when the reorganization starts all the attention is diverted to surviving the organizational change. Further, if the employees are being terminated, it would result in the laid off employees having a career break. The employees feel that the next employer would question their capabilities. Since not all the employees are laid off the one getting laid off also might face decline in confidence.

Employees in Telenor have a general perception about reorganization that if it can happen once it can happen again. This led to the employees losing trust in the organization. The employees move out on getting the first opportunity outside. Further, the stable employers tend to hire more competent employees from an unstable organization. So, the turnover ratio for an organization which has reorganized itself increases.

Sometimes the employees are directly or indirectly affected by the organizational change. The general perception about organizational restructuring is that it involves layoffs i.e. employees being directly affected who have to put up with the stress after reorganization and face the difficulty of finding a new job along with other negative impacts identified earlier. Fir indirectly affected employees, they face decline in energy after seeing their peers getting laid off. Further, if a hardworking and diligent employee gets laid off, the indirectly affected employees feel higher demotivation.

Further, if the employer previously had good reputation and had better industry standing as the case of Telenor, the employees do not want the employer to reorganize itself as they want to stay with the employer for longer span of time.

Analysis of Resistance to Organizational Change

This section explores how employees practically resist the organizational change. All the responses from the interviews have been coded and summarized in Table 6.

Below is the detailed discussion about the factors of resistance to organizational changes at Telenor and can be extrapolated to any organization undergoing restructuring.

Reduced effort: According to the employees, they stop putting in effort in the work after the announcement of reorganization. They continuously let the work get impacted and fail to maintain an efficiency standard. Employees are continuously distracted by the outcomes of reorganization and have a reduced span of attention to work deliveries.

!152

JSPM Vol 5 Issue 4

Leaving the organization: The employees tend to leave the organization at the prime time when they are needed to roll out the organizational changes or perform transition activities. The competent employees are taken first by the competitors and this creates more hurdles for the organization. The employees would be using the office facilities to apply for new jobs during the work hours. And if an employee has an interview scheduled, wither he will take a day off or will be preparing for the interview at work the whole time. This is again linked to first factor i.e. reduced effort at work.

Cascading Negativity: The directly or indirectly employees are continuously spreading negativity in the organization and this leads to an overall decline in the morale of employees. The directly affected employees are the prime reason of the decline in morale of the employees and cascade negativity. The indirectly affected employees are the ones who take this effect from them and start to lose trust in the management and organization. Telenor did not set up any controls or established any understanding with the retained employees. Those are the ones who need to be in full alignment with the organization to deliver the future goals. Also, the indirectly affected employees feel that if this has happened once, it can happen again as well. The outcomes of this negativity are two fold i.e. employees stop putting in effort in the work and they start applying elsewhere and leave the organization at the prime time on the first opportunity they get. Showing lack of ownership: The lack of ownership mindset develops in the employees when there is mounting ambiguity about the organizational changes to be made. The employees stop taking ownership of the work they are doing to point to the fact they have not been taken into confidence. This can be improved if the management continues to update the employees regarding the transition process and makes them a part of it.

Showing lack of trust: The lack of trust in the employees developed after the management did not onboard the employees in either opinion taking or the transition activities. This feeling in the employees got strong after the employees were laid off in Telenor as part of reorganization. Lack of trust is on two levels from the employees side; one is lack of trust in the management and the other is overall lack of trust in the organization. As pointed out by the employees, this can also be mitigated by keeping the employees updated about the decisions, plan and involvement in the transition activities

Table 6: Resistance to Organizational Change

!153

JSPM Vol 5 Issue 4

Lapse in transition Activities: After the decision of the restructuring has been made and the transition activities to another organization or closure formally start, the employees have reported to not perform the transition activities very diligently. This can lead to much more adverse effects on the organization and the management needs to be very vigilant about the transition activities for the long term success of the organization. The management should set up KPIs to ensure the completion and quality of the transition activities.

Putting in more effort: Last outcome of the resistance factors to reorganization is very interesting and not many employees would consider doing this i.e. to put in more effort in work. The reasons for such a response from the employees can be because employees want to stay with the organization, want to prove themselves to be worth, want to change management decision to reorganize. But the not employee would be reacting to organizational change this way. And this also does not seem to be a very viable way to stop the organization from reorganizing because it has been identified previously as well that organizations consider reorganization as a last resort to improve organizational efficiency.

Restructuring and Resistance Management

The employees were surveyed for feedback to management about how the resistance management was done at Telenor during the restructuring. The intent of this was to help the management of any organization have a better understanding of the opinions about resistance. The employees generally are of the view that management did not effectively cope with the resistance from the employees.

The employees have highlighted that although the organization tried to accommodate the directly impacted employees on the newly advertised positions, role mapping was done hastily by the management and some of the employees were accommodated on roles for which they did not have competence.

The employees were not informed about the changes that the management planned to make in the restructuring. The impact on the employees was not communicated and the details around it like number of employees to be laid off during the restructuring, number of employees with changed responsibilities or the root causes of restructuring.

The employees acknowledge that the management and HR conducted sessions with the directly affected employees to mitigate the stress they were facing but the employees highlighted that those sessions were not useful and did very little to help the employees in the reduction of stress and depression. The employees were also given hopes about good recommendations to other employers which the employees intend to join. But this can be explained by the fact that if abrupt reorganization is not announced, the employees are able to handle the change and accept it as inevitable.

If the employees are working in an organization with good repute and better industry standing, the expectations of the employees also increased. Telenor being a trusted and most preferred employer was expected manage reorganization smoothly and efficiently with reduced impact on the employees.

!154

JSPM Vol 5 Issue 4

Severance packages offered to the employees were good but not all the employees got equal treatment e.g. contractual employees.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations to Employees

Based on the study conducted, there is a set recommendation to the employees when they are expecting an organizational change.

1)  Employees should take the change positively as they might get positives outcomes as well like promotions, role and skill alignment.

2)  Employees should not all of a sudden stop spending energy in the work as this might worsen the situation and might result in far worse outcomes from the re- structuring.

3)  Employees should not hastily start moving out of the organization; rather they should wait until the manage- ment announces the changes.

4)   Employees should strive to understand the situation of the organization to meet organizational and financial goals to keep the business up and running.

Recommendations to Management

Based on the study conducted, there is a set recommendation to the employees when they are expecting an organizational change.

1) Management should keep the employees informed about the organizational change at all times.

2) Management should start working to reduce the resistance from the employees as soon as the talks about reorganization start.

3)  Management should try to avoid frequent reorganizations; rather they should opt for changes in one restructuring and then spent time and energy on stabilizing the organization.

4)  Management should strive to keep the employees en- gaged at all times even during the restructuring and for restructuring as well.

!155

JSPM Vol 5 Issue 4

5)  Role mapping of the employees for the changed organization should be done very carefully.

6)  Time to restructure should be as much stretch as possible for employees to accept the changes.

CONCLUSIONS

Conclusions from the impacts of reorganization

The impacts of organizational restructuring could be positive as well as negative. Also, the negative impacts have been identified to be targeted to employees as well as the organization. As identified in the findings, the negative impacts are more in number as compared to the positive impacts.

1)  Negative impacts are more in number compared to the positive outcomes which implies that employees have a tendency to weight a negative experience more than a positive experience.

2)   The negative impacts are more adverse and affect the employees on personal, professional as well as psycho- logical levels.

3)   The negative impacts indirectly affect the employees as well and their perception about the organization is changed.

4)   Organization has to face long term consequences of the reorganization when it comes to achieving organizational goals.

5)  The directly affected employees may have to face long term consequences in their careers as being a terminated employee brings a question on their capabilities even though it might not the scenario.

6)  According to the study, most employees benefitted from the reorganization but they tend to give less weight to the gain from the restructuring than the loss endured.

Conclusions from the resistance factors to reorganization

Below conclusions have been made after the identification of the resistance factors to the organizational change:

1)   Employees understand the need for organizations to continuously bring changes within themselves. Such mindset can be used by the organizations to achieve organizational goal after reorganization if the employees are informed about the changes and are taken in confidence.

!156

JSPM Vol 5 Issue 4

2)   Resistance to the organizational change varies with the time between the actual change and its announcement. If this time is more the employees do not resist very aggressively. Thus, if the management is doing good planning and announcing the changes to made well in advance; there is a good possibility that organization would face less difficulty in implementing the organization changes.

3) The organizations face resistance if the employees are uncertain about the change to be made. If the employees are kept informed about the organizational change, the organization would face less resistance from the employees.

4) Employees who are not taken into confidence by the organization may pose long term harm to the organization if they do not perform the handover activities completely. And those flaws may sustain resulting in long term inefficiency in achieving the goals.

5) A lot of good employees resist the organizational change by switching their job. This result in added instability for the organization as the competent employees required to achieve the new organizational goals and build momentum.

6) If there are some employees who are being directly affected by the restructuring like layoffs, they would cascade negativity in the organization and thus resulting in a higher number of indirectly affected employees. The management should start expending energy on managing the expectation of the indirectly affected employees as it would have to achieve it goals with the retained indirectly employees.

REFERENCES

Allen, T. D., Freeman, D. M., Russell, J. E., Reizenstein, R. C., & Rentz, J. O. (2001). Survivor reactions to organizational downsizing: Does time ease the pain?. Journal of Occupational and Organizational psychology, 74(2), 145-164.

Patricia Bazeley and Kristi Jackson (2013). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. Sage Publications Limited.

Michael Beer, Russell A Eisenstat, and Bert Spector (1990). Why change programs dont produce change, T&D Sourcebook.

Joseph H Bellefeuille (1996). Surviving downsizing. In ELECTRO’96. Professional Program. Proceedings., pages 27–28. IEEE.

Neville Bews and Tina Uys (2002). The impact of organisational restructuring on perceptions of trustworthiness. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 28(4):21–28.

Wayne H Bovey and Andy Hede (2001). Resistance to organizational change: the role of cognitive and affective processes. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22(8):372–382.

!157

JSPM Vol 5 Issue 4

David Coates, Bart MacCarthy, and Jane Guinery (2005). Coping with restructuring [organizational restructuring]. Manufacturing Engineer, 84(1):30–35.

John W Creswell (2009). Qualitative procedures. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, pages 173–202.

Girod, S. J., & Whittington, R. (2017). Reconfiguration, restructuring and firm performance: Dynamic capabilities and environmental dynamism. Strategic Management Journal, 38(5), 1121-1133.

Henderson, J. C., & Venkatraman, H. (1993). Strategic alignment: Leveraging information technology for transforming organizations. IBM systems journal, 32(1), 472-484.

Heugens, P. P., & Schenk, H. (2004). Rethinking corporate restructuring. Journal of Public Affairs, 4(1), 87-101.

Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2006). How to implement a new strategy without disrupting your organization. Harvard business review, 84(3), 100.

McKinley, W., & Scherer, A. G. (2000). Some unanticipated consequences of organizational restructuring. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 735-752.

O′ Connor, C. A. (1993). Resistance: The repercussions of change. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 14(6), 30-36.

Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of management review, 25(4), 783-794.

Benard Mwori Sorre. Resistance to organizational change.

Vakola, M., Armenakis, A., & Oreg, S. (2013). Reactions to organizational change from an individual differences perspective: A review of empirical research. The psychology of organizational change: Viewing change from the employee's perspective, 95-122.

Tony J Watson. Group ideologies and organizational change. Journal of management studies, 19(3):259–275, 1982.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research, Design & Methods 4th ed.

!158