Communication Strategies for
Implementing Organizational Change
Travis L. Russ
Fordham University
Abstract
This work advances a stronger conceptual and empirical understanding of two broad, conceptual communicative treatments for implementing change: programmatic and participatory. These theoretical approaches are elucidated respectively through established communication models, activities, and strategies
advanced by previous scholarship within the communication and business disciplines. In addition, conclusions are drawn about the supposed limitations and benefits of using these change implementation approaches in applied settings. This article concludes with potential strategies for advancing for research in this arena.
Introduction
The implementation phase is perhaps the most critical stage of change. As Real and Poole (2005) advise: "Without implementation, the most brilliant and potentially far-reaching innovation remains just that—potential. It is in the implementation that organizations perfect the promise of innovation. In implementation, organizations put ideas, designs, and visions to work" (p. 64).
Communication plays a critical role during throes of the implementation phase; for, at its root, organizational change is a communication problem. Organizations do not change through automation. Rather, change is implemented and sustained through human communication.
An extant body of research has attempted to conceptualize the various approaches for implementing organizational change (for a full review see, Lewis & Seibold, 1998). Yet, much of this literature is problematic. Although insightful, such conceptualizations are disparate and fraught with disagreement about the base approaches for implementing organizational change. This dissertation synthesizes the general conceptual and empirical treatments of organizational change implementation into two broad theoretical categories: programmatic and participatory. The programmatic approach emphasizes the transmission of
monologic communication about organizational change in a top-down manner to generate stakeholder compliance and/or stimulate desired positive attitudes and beliefs about the planned change. Alternatively, the participatory approach
leverages dialogic communication so as to involve most or all stakeholders
through solicitation of their ideas and input about the change and the
implementation process.
Although communication is crucial in the success or failure of an organization's
change effort, little is known about these two implementation approaches.
Therefore, this work aims to advance a stronger conceptual and empirical
understanding of these two treatments of change communication. While the
following discusses the two implementation approaches of programmatic and
participatory change independently, this is not to suggest that they are
automatically mutually exclusive. A fusion of these approaches by implementers
is indeed possible. Still, they are set apart by their internal logic or coherence
(Lewis, Hamel, & Richardson, 2001). Therefore, autonomous examinations of
these approaches will be presented. Separate examinations of these approaches
will allow for theoretical critical analyses of each of their unique strengths and
limitations on both theoretical and practical levels. Specifically this work seeks to
clarify the unique natures of these two implementation approaches by: a) defining
each communicative approach; b) categorizing established communication
models, activities, and strategies under each rubric; and c) leveraging previous
scholarship to draw some conclusions about the anticipated limitations and
benefits associated with each implementation approach.
Programmatic Change Communication
The primary characteristic of programmatic approaches is that they are focused on
"telling and selling." Such approaches emphasize the top-down dissemination of
information to "tell" employees about the change and delivered in such a way so
as to "sell" them on why they should be committed to implementing it. As Lewis
(1999) notes, a key component of programmatic approaches is "the dissemination
of information, which concerns the downward dispersal of knowledge, ideas,
training, facts, and requests or directives for action concerning the change" (p. 48).
From this perspective, a high degree of fidelity is sought where the message sent
is identical to the one received.
Implicit in these approaches is that implementers (who are the formal decision-
makers or at least have an alliance with them) hold the power and that gaining the
compliance of stakeholders is of utmost importance. Programmed implementation
"assumes that implementation problems can be made tolerable, if not eliminated,
by careful and explicit preprogramming of implementation procedures" (Bermann,
1980, p. 205). The logic behind this perspective is that the "right" message
communicated using the "right" approach can diminish or circumvent
implementation challenges including employees' resistance. To this end,
compliance is often sought from organizational stakeholders who have a "stake"
in the operational execution of the implementation of the planned change. From
the implementers' perspective, compliance is perceived as essential to achieving
their vision of successful change implementation.
Fairhurst (1993) describes programmatic internal campaigns as "planned,
organized efforts to mold corporate images, manage issues, and articulate values"
(p. 334). In this sense, programmatic approaches emphasize the cognitive aspects
of change implementation efforts. That is, do employees comprehend and
understand the essence of the organization leaders' vision? Further, these
approaches emphasize the importance of employees perceiving the vision as being
relevant, practical, and urgent to their job and immediate responsibilities.
Information and knowledge are perceived as primary catalysts for diffusing
innovation throughout organizations.
Communication Models
A number of communication models identified in the landscape of literature on
organizational change fall under the programmatic rubric. Such models are often
tagged with disparate names such as "commander" (Bourgeois & Brodwin,
1984),"edict" (Nutt, 1986, 1987), "persuasion," (Nutt, 1986, 1987), and "rule
bound" (Marcus, 1988). However, such models share some basic core
characteristics. For instance, such models utilize highly centralized, controlled,
and prescribed communication approaches toward change implementation. That is,
because these models presume change is most effective as a top-down approach,
there is little to no organizational participation. Most or all control is held by a
few decision-markers, usually at the top of an organization's hierarchy. Further,
little to no power or influence is held by the employees or those who may have
some expertise in the areas being changed (e.g., subject matter experts). When
using these implementation models, organizational leaders explicitly articulate
central direction for what is to be changed and how it will be changed vis-à-vis
the delegation of highly programmed tasks.
Communication Activities
Communication activities classified under the programmatic umbrella include:
presentations, general information meetings, memos, newsletters,
pamphlets/brochures, posted information (e.g., posters, signs, bulletin boards,
charts, dashboards, scorecards, and so on), one-way media (e.g., websites,
listservs, videos, and podcasts), and informal small group information meetings as
well as word-of-mouth (interpersonal communication about change that
informally trickles downward in the organization). A recent survey of 76
implementers found that the two most commonly used channels to disseminate
information during organizational change were small informal discussions and
general information meetings (Lewis, 1999).
These types of programmatic communication activities are typically used to
disseminate information in a one-way fashion—a linear transmission from source
to receiver. This linear transmission creates a sense of monologic organizational
communication where messages are sent downward to lower echelons, but rarely,
if ever, upward. The objective of using programmatic activities is not to solicit
input, but rather, to convince the target population to comply with the planned
change and to communicate what "right" looks like; that is, the implementers'
(leaders') desired vision for the change.
Although programmatic activities are likely to have a significant impact on
planned change efforts, a scant amount of research has examined their influence
over the implementation process. Curiously, while programmatic approaches are
the most frequently used activities in change implementation efforts (when
compared to participatory approaches), they make up the smallest category of the
literature that exists on implementation communication strategies (Lewis, 1999).
Communication Strategies
Because the "success" of programmatic implementation approaches rests on what
change messages are communicated, the communication strategy of "framing"
(Fairhurst, 1993; Fairhurst, Jordan, & Neuwirth, 1997) demonstrates particular
relevance. This strategy emphasizes the use of linguistics and the management of
meaning to successfully diffuse change downward in organizations where
managers sell and spread the word of change by providing information to help
their employees "make sense" of the organizational leaders' vision for the change.
Another strategy relevant to the "success" of programmatic implementation
approaches involves targeting the "right" audience in which to "receive" the
carefully crafted messages about the planned change. To this end, implementers
may choose to use the "equal dissemination" (Lewis, Hamel, & Richardson, 2001)
strategy by canvassing all levels of an organization, exhibiting a type of blanket-
style strategy to disseminate updated and detailed information on all matters about
the planned change throughout the entire process. Previous research has found
that implementers use this strategy to minimize complaints from employees who
decry, post-implementation, that they did not receive enough information about
the change. Conversely, implementers may choose to use the "need to know"
strategy which reflects a selective communication philosophy and audience
analysis technique whereby messages are carefully chosen, edited, and adapted to
appeal to the unique backgrounds and interests of diverse stakeholders. Since
different stakeholders are likely to have different needs, implementers can
highlight certain elements of change that are most salient and persuasive for each
group. In other words, implementers can "frame" how stakeholders perceive
planned change. This strategy may be used to forestall some critics' objections
and/or to avoid overburdening employees with unnecessary information about the
change process (Lewis, Hamel, & Richardson, 2001, p. 23).
Anticipated Limitations
While implementers most commonly use programmatic approaches to bring about
planned organizational change (Lewis, 1999, 2006; Nutt, 1986, 1987), they are
deemed less effective by implementers (Nutt, 1987) and stakeholders (Lewis,
2006) than participatory approaches.
Two core limitations are associated with using programmatic implementation
approaches. First, organizational change is not a one-way communication process;
yet, programmatic approaches often perpetuate the obsolete model of conduit-like
communication, suggesting that a message sent is identical to the one received
(Shannon & Weaver, 1949). This one-way model has long been refuted by
communication scholars who have underscored its neglect of negotiated meaning
construction (Berger & Luckman, 1966). Further, the downward dispersal of
information can also create monologic communication about change, thus limiting
the level of interaction and participation between levels of an organization (e.g.,
between organizational leaders and employees, as well as among employees
themselves).
Second, programmatic approaches may cause an avalanche or abundance of
unnecessary communication; thus, overwhelming participants. Also, because
traditional programmatic approaches typically disseminate information about
change in a downward didactic manner they may disengage stakeholders and
cause negative effects for the change, the implementation attempt, and potentially
the organization itself. In this vein, traditional programmatic approaches are not
likely to build consensus nor foster organizational engagement from employees
since their experiences with and reactions to the planned change are often
overlooked. Depending on the type of planned change and the way the
information is disseminated (i.e., the source and channel), monologic efforts may
backfire by fostering disengagement among employees who may resist the
planned change and even become resentful of the change and the organization's
leaders. As a result, employees may distance themselves from the organization by
expressing dissent or exiting the organization altogether (i.e., disidentification).
Because of these factors, it is questionable whether programmatic approaches
actually help employees learn how to implement long term organizational change
or simply elicit short-term compliance. Also, excessive dissemination may cause
stakeholders to become flooded with information which may potentially lead to
greater anxiety, confusion, uncertainty, and resistance about the organizational
change effort.
Anticipated Benefits
Several benefits are associated with programmatic implementation approaches.
First, previous research has found that the dissemination of formal, quality
information from organizational leadership is an important variable during
planned change efforts. To this end, Fidler and Johnson (1984) maintain that
employees' ultimate acceptance of an innovation "often rests on the extent to
which communication can act to reduce uncertainty by ameliorating such factors
as risk and complexity" (p. 704). Specifically, communication about change from
organizational leaders can decrease uncertainty and increase understanding about
the change (Lewis & Seibold, 1996; Washington & Hacker, 2005), aid in the
reduction of anxiety about change (K. I. Miller & Monge, 1986; Smeltzer, 1991;
Washington & Hacker, 2005), decrease negative feelings about the change effort
as well as expectations that the initiative will fail (Washington & Hacker, 2005),
and lower resistance while increasing willingness to participate in planned change
(Lewis, 2006; V. D. Miller, Johnson, & Grau, 1994; Washington & Hacker, 2005).
In a related vein, Covin and Kilmann (1990) amassed a list of 900 major issues
that participants of organizational change believed to influence the success or
failure of large-scale transformation efforts. They found that "failure to share
information or to inform people adequately of what changes are necessary and
why they are necessary were viewed as having a highly negative impact" (p. 239).
A second benefit of programmatic implementation approaches is that they can be
used to provide the perception of fair dissemination of information; that is, they
can be used to create the perception that quality information was disseminated on
all organizational echelons and that information was not withheld because of an
employee's role or status. This is likely to foster perceptions of organizational
justice and fairness as well as candor and openness from the vantage point of
leaders and, possibly, employees.
Third, programmatic approaches have the appeal of high communication
efficiency. That is, they can be relatively quick and inexpensive to produce and
disseminate throughout an organization.
Participatory Change Communication
Curiously, participatory approaches make up the largest category of extant
research, even though they are used less infrequently than programmatic
approaches (Lewis, 2006; Lewis, Hamel, & Richardson, 2001). In contrast to
programmatic efforts, participatory approaches invite input, using involving and
empowering methods to gain the insights of various stakeholders to shape the
change program and not merely to "receive it." Participatory approaches involve
stakeholders in the change process through the solicitation of their input.
According to Lewis (1999), "Soliciting input concerns downward requests for and
active gathering of ideas, opinions, suggestions, evaluations, and reactions related
to a change" (p. 50). Implementers may opt to solicit input from stakeholders
during the development, decision-making processes, and/or implementation of
organizational change efforts using communication-based strategies. Participatory
approaches are grounded in the basic assumption that employees should be active
participants in the change process. This approach is not necessarily about the
basic act of participation, but whether employees, in the end, have a voice during
planned organizational change. The logic driving this approach is employees'
participation is perceived as the catalyst for implementing sustained
organizational change.
The participatory approach necessitates more dialogic communication tactics
whereby input is gathered and used to shape the change, the organization, and the
constituents (users/stakeholders). The objective is to build consensus and
galvanize support for the change as well as to allow affected stakeholders to make
improvements they feel are needed to ensure the successful implementation of the
change. Thus, instead of simply hearing about change from the top, stakeholders
are brought into the folds of change and invited to actively participate in the
shaping, construction, and implementation of organizational change.
Participatory change processes are often grounded in the theoretical traditions of
democratic workspaces. In these cultures there is a delayering of formal
organizational structures; that is, erosions of traditional top-down hierarchies and
attritions of job-status. In such environments, employees, despite their
organizational title or role, come "to expect involvement in decisions about
organizational change" (Piderit, 2000, p. 783). More specifically, in a democratic
workplace, change "becomes a sweeping imperative that the whole organization
is talking about and presumably doing … all employees are being asked to see
themselves as entrepreneurs at the level of their jobs" (Zorn, Christensen, &
Cheney, 1999, p. 12).
Communication Models
Several models advanced by previous organizational change scholarship are
categorized under the participatory umbrella. These participatory models use
divergent labels including: "participation" (Nutt, 1986, 1987, 1989, 2002),
"intervention" (Nutt, 1986, 1987), "autonomous" (Marcus, 1988), "adaptive"
(Bermann, 1980), and "crescive" (Bourgeois & Brodwin, 1984). Still, these
models exhibit several core similarities. Most notably, these models are
characterized by varying levels of involvement and input from stakeholders from
myriad organizational levels; participation is not reserved for individuals in the
company's upper echelons. Further, these models do not treat change as a static
event. Rather, change is perceived as a dynamic process which is deemed most
effective when employees flex and adapt to events and decisions as they unfold.
As such, decisions are often made autonomously by an organization's lower
echelons on how (and sometimes if) to implement the change. In other cases, the
bottom, middle, and/or top layers of an organization collaborate on how to best
implement change.
Communication Activities
Examples of participatory communication activities include open forums (large
formal meetings or smaller informal ones where feedback is given and ideas are
exchanged), working groups (problem solving teams, ad hoc groups, committees,
councils, and task forces), informal conversations (checking in with line
supervisors or lower level employees for on-the-spot feedback regarding change
efforts and/or implementation processes), focus groups and brainstorming
sessions (live or electronic), morale, attitude, and opinion surveys, formal
assessments and evaluations, and unsolicited complaints or praise (verbal or
written feedback; suggestion boxes).
The core objective of participatory communication activities is to build consensus
among relevant stakeholders by fostering their involvement and soliciting their
ideas and input. As evidenced by the preceding list of activities, implementers can
use multiple channels with which to achieve this objective. The nature of these
channels range from the very formal to the very informal. Input and feedback can
be obtained via multiple communication channels, verbal (large or small groups,
interpersonal communication) and nonverbal (written) feedback. The
multidirectional nature of participatory approaches offers the potential to create a
sense of dialogic communication in organizations where change messages flow up,
down, and sideways.
Although seemingly versatile in nature, current research suggests that
implementers typically do not use participatory communication activities to solicit
input from staff (Lewis, 1999). If participatory communication activities are used,
they are typically informal such as casual discussions with employees, informally
checking in with staff supervisors, as well as receiving unsolicited complaints and
praise about the change (Lewis, 1999).
Communication Strategies
As involvement is at the heart of participatory approaches, previous research has
identified core communication strategies for identifying who to involve during the
implementation process as well as when to involve them. First, the "equal
participation" strategy advocates the integration of two-way communication to
disseminate information to all relevant stakeholders about the planned change,
while simultaneously soliciting input from them (Lewis, Hamel, & Richardson,
2001, p. 20). From this perspective, all stakeholders are perceived as having an
important and equitable voice during the change implementation.
In the second communication strategy, "quid pro quo," "something of value is
exchanged for the communicative access granted by implementers" (Lewis,
Hamel, & Richardson, 2001, p. 21). To put it a little differently, implementers
extend a great deal of involvement and participation in the decision making
process to stakeholders who they perceive as having valuable commodities (e.g.,
money, expertise, veto/approval power, and resources). Implementers who
leverage this communication strategy often see a direct proportional relationship
between the value and vital nature of stakeholders' contributions and their allotted
participation in the change process. Often, a perceived positive correlation exists
between stakeholders' contributions and the amount of involvement and
participation they are allotted. Such stakeholder participation may manifest itself
in directing the nature, scope, direction, and, in some cases, the very existence of
organizational change (Lewis, Hamel, & Richardson, 2001).
Some limitations are inherent in participatory approaches. First, while traditional
programmatic approaches can suffer from rigidity, lack of holistic engagement,
and excessive top-down control, traditional participatory approaches can lead to
significant ambiguity where the original intent of the change gets lost in the rush
to involve too many actors. In a similar vein, some organizational stakeholders
may prefer more explicit, parametered direction from the formal leadership team.
Such direction-oriented individuals may grow weary of, and possibly frustrated
with, the lack of focus and clear course of action and may, subsequently, evaluate
the implementation process as inefficient and unsuccessful. To this end, it is
possible that participatory approaches may incite some unintended consequences
such as disengagement and other adverse feelings that at best, stall, and at worst,
reverse, progress toward the full implementation of organizational change.
Second, some participatory efforts may be perceived as insincere. Thinly-veiled
attempts at creating participation, such as solicitations that are executed for solely
symbolic purposes (i.e., no sincere interest in employees' opinions or no follow-
up on suggestions) can be quickly dubbed disingenuous and spawn distrust and
resentment throughout the organization, potentially jeopardizing current as well as
future change efforts. Employees take a personal risk and invest a great deal when
sharing their views on organizational change. Only genuine calls for participation
that actually value stakeholders' input have the possibility of bringing about
organizational change (Cotton, 1993). As Cheney et al. (2004) note, "Attention to
specific communicative practices (or lack thereof) will reveal whether claims by
an organization to be democratic or to have meaningful employee participation
are valid" (p. 224). Lewis (2006) established this link finding a positive
correlation between employees' perceptions that their input was valued and their
evaluations that the implementation was "successful."
Third, participatory approaches often exhibit low communication efficiency; that
is, they typically require a great deal of organizational resources. For instance,
participatory approaches usually require employees to spend time away from
work reviewing planned changes and providing feedback, often in meetings. A
great deal of investment is also made by implementers who must listen to,
compile, and sort through input, making agreed-upon alterations to the change
implementation process, follow-up with revisions to the involved parties, and
repeat this intensive process until the desired level of consensus has been reached.
In addition to being time consuming, soliciting participation and input from
stakeholders can be a tedious task, complicated further by organizational politics.
Fourth, participatory approaches assume that most employees want to be involved
and are intrinsically motivated to fully implement planned changes in the day-to-
day operations of organizations. Perhaps for this reason, previous research has
found that some employees perceive negative relationships between their
involvement in change efforts and their evaluations of change success (Lewis,
2006). This limitation may seem counter-intuitive to those implementers who may
feel obligated to solicit input and please everyone.
Perhaps it is because of the aforementioned limitations that participatory
approaches are often viewed as a "nice to have" by implementers while
programmatic approaches tend to be the "strategy-of-choice" in bringing about
planned change in organizations (Lewis, 1999, 2006). As previously established,
evidence suggests that participatory change is used infrequently since most
implementers emphasize downward dissemination about change programs versus
soliciting stakeholders' input (Lewis, 1999, 2006; Lewis, Richardson, & Hamel,
2003). This research finding corresponds with reports of real-world organizational
practice. Young and Post (1993) reported that the formal solicitation of input was
inconsistent, even in exemplary companies (as identified by peer organizations).
They noted, "In some cases, top managers should enumerate the types of upward
communication available, but lower level employees could not. In other cases the
commitment varied among managers with the same company" (p. 36).
Anticipated Benefits
Previous research has indicated that participatory approaches are likely to be
perceived as more effective in implementing planned organizational than
programmatic approaches (Lewis, 2006; Nutt, 1986, 1987, 1989, 2002). As such,
participatory approaches are linked to several anticipated benefits.
First, participatory approaches can help stakeholders achieve several desired
"stakes" including "access to information, opportunities to participate in
conversations about critical operations, involvement in decision making, and
access to channels for influence" (Lewis, Richardson, & Hamel, 2003, p. 401). In
the context of planned change, the facilitation of employee participation and input
has been predicted to be an important variable during planned transformation
efforts (Cotton, 1993). Studies on this topic have typically found that facilitating
participation among stakeholders is beneficial in minimizing resistance while
enhancing motivation to implement planned change efforts (Argote, Goodman, &
Schkade, 1983; Edmondson, Bohmer, & Pisano, 2001; Lewis, 2006; Nutt, 1987;
Sagie, Elizur, & Koslowsky, 2001; Sagie & Koslowsky, 1994), increasing
accuracy in stakeholders' perceptions about the rationale behind change initiatives
and related goals (Brown, 1991), enhancing overall satisfaction with the change
initiative (Coyle-Shapiro, 1999; Sagie & Koslowsky, 1994), reducing uncertainty
while increasing a sense of control (Bordia, Hunt, Paulsen, Tourish, & DiFonzo,
2004; Mainiero & DeMichiell, 1986) and enhancing employees' perceptions of
implementation success (Lewis, 2006).
Second, on a more theoretical note, participatory change can enable leaders and
their constituencies to socially construct the change together. Through
participation, leaders and constituencies have the opportunity to collectively
discuss their shared visions of the planned organizational change. This shared
collusion or collaborative framing process can allow leaders to tap into the
perceptions of the receivers of their change-based messages. In turn, employees
can have the opportunity to provide feedback on the direction of the organization
as well as discuss specific opportunities and challenges related to the change
implementation (Ruben, Russ, Smulowitz, & Connaughton, 2007). Such
interactions may have the potential to create metaphoric organizational "dinner
tables" where ideas are exchanged across levels and realities are co-constructed,
fostering employee commitment versus compliance. This dialectical process may
help frame the context and rationale for organizational change, the negotiation of
change-related behaviors, as well as shared-meanings of successful and
unsuccessful change implementation.
Conclusion
Because the implementation process is often fraught with problems that are
communicative in nature a great urgency exists to identify approaches for
effectively bringing about planned change in organizational settings. As such, this
article has sought to advance a stronger conceptual and empirical understanding
of two communicative treatments for communicating change: programmatic and
participatory. The articulation of these two communicative frameworks lays the
groundwork for future scholarship to measure the efficacy of these
implementation approaches in applied organizational settings; a promising and
fertile field of future academic research.
Bibliography
Argote, L., Goodman, P. S., & Schkade, D. (1983). The human side of robotics: How workers
react to a robot. Sloan Management Review, 24, 31-41.
Berger, P. L., & Luckman, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday.
Bermann, P. (1980). Thinking about programmed and adaptive implementation: Matching
strategies to situations. In H. M. Ingram & D. E. Mann (Eds.), Why policies succeed or
fail (pp. 205-227). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Bordia, P., Hunt, E., Paulsen, N., Tourish, D., & DiFonzo, N. (2004). Uncertainty during
organizational change: Is it all about control? European Journal of Work &
Organizational Psychology, 13(3), 345-365.
Bourgeois, L. J., & Brodwin, D. R. (1984). Strategic implementation: Five approaches to an
elusive phenomenon. Strategic Management Journal, 5(3), 241-264.
Brown, R. J. (1991). Cooperatives in managerial transition: What is the least disruptive way to
introduce change? Management Quarterly, 32(1), 22-24.
Cheney, G., Christensen, L. T., Zorn, T. E., & Ganesh, S. (2004). Organizational communication
in an age of globalization: Issues, reflections, practices. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland
Press.
Cotton, J. L. (1993). Employee involvement: Methods for improving performance and work
attitudes Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Covin, T. J., & Kilmann, R. H. (1990). Participant perceptions of positive and negative influences
on large-scale change. Group & Organization Studies, 15(2), 233-248.
Coyle-Shapiro, J. (1999). Employee participation and assessment of an organizational change
intervention. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35(4), 439-456.
Edmondson, A. C., Bohmer, R. M., & Pisano, G. P. (2001). Disrupted routines: Team learning and
new technology implementation in hospitals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(4),
685.
Fairhurst, G. T. (1993). Echoes of the vision: When the rest of the organization talks total quality.
Management Communication Quarterly, 6(4), 331-371.
Fairhurst, G. T., Jordan, J. M., & Neuwirth, K. (1997). Why are we here? Managing the meaning
of an organizational mission statement. Journal of Applied Communication Research,
25(4), 243-263.
Fidler, L. A., & Johnson, J. D. (1984). Communication and innovation implementation. Academy
of Management Review, 9, 704-711.
Lewis, L. K. (1999). Disseminating information and soliciting input during planned organizational
change: Implementers' targets, sources, and channels for communicating. Management
Communication Quarterly, 13, 43-75.
Lewis, L. K. (2006). Employee perspectives on implementation communication as predictors of
perceptions of success and resistance. Western Journal of Communication, 70, 23-46.
Lewis, L. K., Hamel, S. A., & Richardson, B. K. (2001). Communicating change to nonprofit
stakeholders: Models and predictors of implementers' approaches. Management
Communication Quarterly, 15, 5-41.
Lewis, L. K., Richardson, B. K., & Hamel, S. A. (2003). When the "stakes" are communicative:
The lamb's and the lion's share during nonprofit planned change. Human Communication
Research, 29, 400-430.
Lewis, L. K., & Seibold, D. R. (1996). Communication during intraorganizational innovation
adoption: Predicting users' behavioral coping responses to innovations in organizations.
Communication Monographs, 63, 131-157.
Lewis, L. K., & Seibold, D. R. (1998). Reconceptualizing organizational change implementation
as a communication problem: A review of literature and research agenda. In M. E. Roloff
(Ed.), Communication yearbook 21 (pp. 93-151). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mainiero, L. A., & DeMichiell, R. I. (1986, July). Minimizing employee resistance to
technological change. Personnel, 32-37.
Marcus, A. A. (1988). Implementing externally induced innovations: A comparison of rule-bound
and autonomous approaches. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 235-256.
Miller, K. I., & Monge, P. R. (1986). Participation, satisfaction, and productivity: A meta-analytic
review. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 727-753.
Miller, V. D., Johnson, J. R., & Grau, J. (1994). Antecedents to willingness to participate in a
planned organizational change. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22(1), 59-
80.
Nutt, P. C. (1986). Tactics of implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 230-261.
Nutt, P. C. (1987). Identifying and appraising how managers install strategy. Strategic
Management Journal, 8, 1-14.
Nutt, P. C. (1989). Selecting tactics to implement strategic plans. Strategic Management Journal,
10(2), 145-161.
Nutt, P. C. (2002). Why decisions fail: Avoiding the blunders and traps that lead to debacles. San
Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional
view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 25,
783-794.
Real, K., & Poole, M. S. (2005). Innovation implementation: Conceptualization and measurement
in organizational research. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in
Organizational Change and Development (Vol. 15, pp. 63-134). Oxford, UK: JAI.
Ruben, B. D., Russ, T. L., Smulowitz, S. M., & Connaughton, S. L. (2007). Evaluating the impact
of organizational self-assessment in higher education: The Malcolm Baldrige/Excellence
in Higher Education framework Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 28,
230-250.
Sagie, A., Elizur, D., & Koslowsky, M. (2001). Effect of participation in strategic and tactical
decisions on acceptance of planned change. The Journal of Social Psychology, 130(4),
459-465.
Sagie, A., & Koslowsky, M. (1994). Organizational attitudes and behaviors as a function of
participation in strategic and tactical change decisions: An application of path-goal theory.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(1), 37-47.
Shannon, C., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana, IL:
University of Illinois Press.
Smeltzer, L., R. (1991). An analysis of strategies for announcing organization-wide change.
Group & Organization Studies, 16(1), 5-24.
Washington, M., & Hacker, M. (2005). Why change fails: Knowledge counts. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 26(5), 400-411.
Young, M., & Post, J. E. (1993). Managing to communicate, communicating to manage: How
leading companies communicate with employees. Organizational Dynamics, 22, 31-43.
Zorn, T. E., Christensen, L. T., & Cheney, G. (1999). Do we really want constant change? San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Biography
TRAVIS L. RUSS, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of Business and Professional Communication
in the School of Business Administration at Fordham University. As a professional consultant, he
has designed and facilitated learning solutions for clients in the corporate, educational, and non-
profit sectors on myriad topics including organizational change, business communication,
leadership, and diversity. His research has been published in a number of journals including
Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, Communication Education, and
Communication Teacher.
0 comments:
Post a Comment