Hi

We recently switched over to a new database at work. The database went live a few days ago but it was quite stressful to become skilled and get to know the system, even though we had been given training, presentations etc. I think the company managed the project nicely but released the new database to soon.

Have you recently had a change at your work place and did it affect you?

Thanks

__________________
The Web Directory l Link Bid

Hi GKD,

I think this shows that even when a change goes well it can still feel stressful, but I have seen change where it is done badly and then the stress levels go so over the top people are off sick - sometimes long term!

I remember when I was in one company we purchased a new computer system and one of the guys decided it was just too modern and complicated and he left!


But I think it was badly handled, lack of training etc.

No one likes change. I esp. hate moving to a new city what a hassle

Hello, everyone:

I experienced an unpleasant change at the beginning of the year in learning that the company for which I consult has outsourced its vendor support for invoicing issues to the Philippines. Whether the process of adapting to the change or the language-barrier was the reason, it took two weeks to get my problem resolved. It was a problem that had never occurred before, and resulted in my having to go two weeks without getting paid. The interesting thing was that I knew instantly that the service had been outsourced and that this was not going to be an easy solution simply by reading one word in an e-mail. A response to my initial query said that my payment request did not "prosper." I've never heard "prosper" used that way before, and I realized immediately that the response was written by someone who uses English as a second-language. I knew this was not going to be an easy fix or a quick one.

My problem did get resolved eventually; but it illustrates a growing frustration and a great source of dissatisfaction regarding my relationship with this organization... and it goes to the very issue of what the organization is. I report to one group of people for assignments yet deal with the parent company for payment issues. There isn't even a name to put with the latter. I don't know how one is supposed to have a psychological contract with an organization when the identity of the organization is so fragmented. I like and respect the people I work for, but I'm always on-guard and am becoming increasingly cynical about the parent organization because I don't even know what it is -- only that it keeps pushing my payment terms further and further back and dictating procedures that I must follow. This is the very definition of French & Raven's (1958) "coercive power."

It also brings in Morgan's (1986; in Davey, 2003) ideas about how organanizations can be defined. He says that maybe we shouldn't even try to define what an organization is because it's too abstract. Particularly with constructs such as the psychological contract, definitions are not useful. Rather he believes that we inappropriately reify organizations through the use of metaphor when what we should be going instead is looking at them through lenses. He says there are three lenses: a microscope, a telescope and groups and individuals.

This bears some discussion. If we look at organizations through a telescope, the best we're going to get is a cross-sectional, historical view. Telescopes are used to study the heavens, and the light we see through them has traveled millions, even billions, of years. It actually reflects conditions not as they really are, but only as we perceive them based on how they once were. (Greene, 2004).

Turning to the microscope, we can take a cross-sectional view if we're looking at dead cells... something a little more recent than galactic light. But we can also take a real-time view if we are looking at live organisms. However, the problem here, is that by virtue of taking these organisms and putting them on a slide, we have made a change in their envirnoment, and we can't be sure that we have not changed the way they will behave. This view is supported by Heisenberg's (1927; in Green, 2004) uncertainly principle, which states that merely by measuring something, we change it. We contaminate our own results. Though this refers to physics *quantuum mechanics, actually), Greene (2004) says it applies to everything.

Finally, arriving at individuals/groups as lenses, the metaphor unfortunately breaks down because; unlike telescopes and microscopes, individuals and groups do not have concrete lenses, unless we think of lenses in individuals eyes... but that doesn't work very well. So I will take liberty here and say that rather than groups/individuals, Morgan's third lens can be thought of as a bubble. Those inside it can only perceive from inside it. Thus, their view is restricted, even distorted, by the curvature of the bubble. I was unable to find a reference for this "bubble" as lens thinking, but something by Brewer in Cassell & Symon (2004) at least does address individual perception and lenses. He talks about ethnography, which relies upon interpretive methods for studying how people perceive things. Ethnographers cannot help but influence their research findings, and that influence is acknowledged as the findings are reported. Brewer says that if these researchers "see themselves as cameras... the picture is blurred because there is more than one image on the lens." Hmm...

So with regard to change and the psychological contract, and the intent to offer a more appropriate way of characterizing organizations, I'm unable to see the lens view as particularly useful. It really doesn't "prosper."

Kind regards,
Jan

References
I am not citing the full references here but will be happy to provide if anyone wants them.

Hi:

This question is for Roy. (Sorry, I couldn't find your last name.) Stephanie advised that she would ask you to have a look.

I am a student in the external Msc Organizational Psychology program at Birkbeck.

Are you aware of any research that has addressed what the organization is the mind of the individual?

I have searched the literature for this in vain and now, trying to read ahead for OC during Term 3, I see that the definitions/characterizations in the study guide don't help much either.

What I'm getting at here is that the employee may have very different feelings about different functions and people within the organization. He may like and respect his immediate manager yet disdain purchasing because its policies prevent him from using the vendor he believes he needs. Or take downsizing for example. It's possible to forgive the organization after being downwsized but still harbor unforgiveness for the individual who did the firing -- or vice versa. If the employee views his psychological contract as having been breached after being downsized, where was the greater weight placed in a way that reflects this kind of fragmentation?

I hope I'm being clear...

Ironically, Morgan (1986) found definitions not useful and suggested that viewing through lenses might help. His individual/group lens comes the closest; but I don't see where that helps us here. Maybe we need the lens of a prism...

All just guesswork; but if you know of anything that I've missed in the literature, I'd be grateful. If there isn't anything there, do you share the opinion that research needs to address this?

Thank you,
Jan

Hi Jan,

When reading through your post it struck me that there are three main theoretical resources that could be called on in answering the question you posed: The Justice Literature, Leadership theories and Identity. All of these can play a role in the scenario you have sketched.

From a procedural justice perspective, followers, or in this case the ones on the 'receiving end' of the change will judge the leadership exercised as to the degree which it is fair for example. That is leaders can motivate followers by enacting 'fair procedures' and followers can as a result become more supportive of the direction or goals being proposed and exercise good organisational citizenship - even when the goal being proposed is adversely affecting them. This can be sharply contrasted if you think of a more distributive type of process where the person affected by the change considers only the instrumental issues - how the change (outsourcing) materially affects them. What you could consider is how different levels of analysis with the organisation could be used to inform how a person could simultaneously 'respect' the person who is carrying out the action as distinct this from perceived poor justice at an organisational level or another person elsewhere in the organisation (your purchasing guy) - i.e. is it seen as fair what the company is proposing. For example in outsourcing in order to gain cost advantages over an incumbent workforce would I suspect be judged adversely in a justice sense, whereas the correct and fair application of the selection of the people directly affected by the outsource, as done by the manager, would be as procedurally fair - you would probably hear things like 'he's only doing his job etc but he's a good chap.'

You could also take another view more directly related to identity theory and leadership: How followers internalise the leaders perspective and construct an identity congruence to the leaders (buy in to the vision) as well as the issues around Identity in terms of the organisation letting go (and the processes involved in breaking the psychological contract) and constructing a new identity with the incoming organisation in outsourcing or a new one in 'downsizing' (or being stuck between - known as liminality). These types of processes also affect those left behind - i.e. be distanced from the organisation as a consequence of a poor process (at Org level). These processes thus could also 'explain' a differential response to the different layers or actors within the organisation (respect the manager despise the organisation) - this is seen a lot in downsizing or outsourcing organisations.

All in all rich pickings from this short case and I would trawl through the areas I suggested above - there's tons of material - Stephanie may also want to say something about how to tackle this.

Royston

Hi Jan, Royston,

I agree that justice is a key theory to help here, and in particular the evidence that good procedural and interactional justice (especially by the manager) can reduce the problems linked to change even when the distributive justice is viewed as unfair!

Distributive justice considers perceptions of fairness of outcomes (equity, equality, and needs). Procedural justice emphasises the importance of fairness of the methods or procedures used (decision criteria, voice, control of the process). Interactional justice is based on the perceived fairness of the interpersonal treatment received, whether those involved are treated with sensitivity, dignity and respect, and also the nature of the explanations given.

Justice is linked to the psychological contract (see other posts on that, although feel free to ask questions here too). However, not so much is done about the aspect you are raising - the foci of the feelings.

There has been more work done on different 'foci' though in the commitment literature. There studies have analysed differences between commitment to the supervisor, team/co-workers, organization, and indeed the career. Similarly some studies on identification at work have considered different foci, but there needs to be more.

I think it might be useful to consider foci more explicitly when analysing these other forms of attachment, justice perceptions, and responses to change such as downsizing. In my own research I did ask people about how they felt explicitly (if they did not bring the subject up themselves) regarding their immediate manager/supervisor, versus senior managers and also the organization itself.

The responses were very complex, with some people blaming the organization but a lot of others blaming senior management. Some picked on one or two people very explicitly. I think perhaps it is hard for people to target 'the organization' as it is too abstract?

On the other hand there was a lot of 'I would not like to go back there' and 'the organization had changed, it was no longer a good place to work' type discussions, so there is some generalization going on.

I also found some 'switching' - when people could no longer feel committed to the organization, they became seemingly more committed to the project (for example).

I am probably going off-track here - let me know if you want to pick up on any of this.

kind regards

Stephanie

__________________
Dr Stephanie Morgan
Crosslight Management
www.crosslight.co.uk

Thank you, Stephanie & Royston:

You've both provided lots to think about. It seems that a massive literature review is necessary to delve into this further; so I will have to return to that later and just be on the lookout for the justice, leadership and identity theorioes as OC progresses. So, from what you both have said, it looks like we really don't have a useful definition of "organization" to present to the individual when assessing psychological contract breach or violation. (None of the definitions in the OC subject guide seem to be an obvious fit).

Roy, thanks for introducing the term "liminality." I have not come across that yet. And, Stephanie, I am interested in your research that you allude to. Have you published this yet or is this something done for a specific client? Your mention of foci and feelings hits a nerve; but unfortunately, I haven't studied anything about feelings yet either -- or foci, for that matter. Still, it resonates. If that research his something you can share, I'd love to have a look. If not, I have plenty else to stay occupied.

I do have a consultancy question for either or both of you. As a consultant would you ever make a call on an HR VP or other high-ranking executive and try to sell them on the idea of doing an organizational commitment diagnostic for their organization?

Thanks very much. I do appreciate your time and responses.
Jan