Divergent acceptance of change in a public health organization

Abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to explore the way in which health professional (HP)-based subcultures interpret reform-based changes. Design/methodology/approach -A three-phase study is carried out using thematic analysis to examine data from semi-structured interviews held with 19 HPs to examine their responses to change. Also, responses from 639 self-completion questionnaires and focus group interviews with 44 women provide insight into the influence of the change on end-users of the service. Findings -This study extends previous work through inductive examination of the interpretations of two subcultures, which reveal that acceptance of the strategic change objective is subsequently undermined by divergence in the way members of the subcultures interpret and seek to enact change -a divergent acceptance.Research limitations/implications -The findings result from a single case-study healthcare setting. Future studies can extend the research to other settings. Practical implications -The insight into the way HP-based subcultures interpret reform-based changes may advance the public service that these health care organisations strive to provide; much more broadly, it may advance the understanding of change. Originality/value -This paper shows that any significant change must accommodate existing assumptions and values and the way they colour the interpretation and enactment of change, even when agreement on superordinate objectives exists.

The multi-dimensional nature of resistance to change

“…While not Conscious/unconscious-deliberate/ not deliberate The next form of resistance refers to how consciously or deliberately people respond to organizational change. Within the three dimensions noted by Piderit (2000), staff may consciously resist change or not be aware that their response could be construed as resistant (Brunton & Matheny, 2009;Fineman, 2003). Cognitive and social psychology researchers (e.g., Bargh & Chartrand, 1999;Bargh & Williams, 2007) have noted that perception, emotion and behaviour frequently operate in unconscious or semiconscious ways.…”

“…First-level employees may also resist change recommended by peers or union officials (Real & Putnam, 2005). Resistance may be an individual response to change but is also shown by departments, divisions, unions, professional groups (Ashcraft, 2005;Brunton & Matheny, 2009;Real & Putnam, 2005), other sub-cultural groups (Harris & Ogbonna, 1998;Kan & Parry, 2004) and a variety of outside stakeholders (Chreim, 2007). Organizations themselves may resist change dictated by government (Binning, 2010) or by competitive and other external forces (Palmer, Dunford, & Akin, 2009).…”

Service response to economic decline: Innovation actions for achieving strategic renewal

“…There are also consequences on how scientists make sense of the restructuring of PROs guided by private sector models. The transition of PROs and, broadly, public service organizations toward postbureaucratic or collaborative types of organization presents intrinsic difficulties, particularly those associated with the way individuals recognize, contradict, and make sense of changes in their work role and identity (Josserand et al, 2006;Brunton and Matheny, 2009). The limited scope of knowledge about professional role transition in public science theory may be contributing to scientists' unfamiliarity with and lack of preparedness for organizational innovations designed to promote change.…”

Individual Cognitive Effort and Cognitive Transition During Organization Development

“…Schema-related organizational change research has examined the role that collective schema play in interpreting change which is external to an organization (e.g., Greve & Taylor, 2000; Nigam, Huising, & Golden, 2016). It has also looked at the role schemata play in the acceptance of planned internal organizational change at the collective level (e.g., Bess, 2015; Konlechner, Müller, Güttel, Koprax, & Link, 2016; Mohrman, Tenkasi, & Mohrman, 2003; Rerup & Feldman, 2011) and at the individual level (e.g., Bailey & Raelin, 2015; Brunton & Matheny, 2009; Helpap, 2016). In this study, by contrast, we are interested in the effects of an OD process on transitions in the personal schemata of participants.…”