0, C

uennalngechaforcharactn sicee aceid e

2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Today's organizations experience frequecessesy progtemptlogies,staff, oal liteort theand Be

among others). Nevertheless signicant gaps in the understanding of internal and external organizational events, facilitate the enactment

Journal of Business Research 64 (2011) 266272

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Businboth how these practices work, and in their effectiveness exist (Doyleet al., 2000; Lewis et al., 2006). This study is an empirical research onchange management practices (CMPs) which expands currentliterature in three ways. First an analysis is made of the differencesin the perceptions of two groups of employees about the use of CMPsduring organizational change processes: Those in charge of planningthe change program (change strategists) and those employees who

of organizational change processes. Acording to Kanter (2001) thosewho direct or participate in the change processes often forget thesepractices, which sometimes might seem obvious principles based oncommon sense, generating a more inefcient and sometimes chaoticprocess than necessary. Different authors propose lists of CMPs thathave strong similarities, usually presented as suggestions of how tomanage organizational change processes more effectively. Literaturereceive the impact of the change program (chprevious research results (Raineri, 1998), thmore frequently CMPs related to the changethan CMPs more closely related to the imchange processes, are tested. Third and nall

E-mail address: araineri@faceapuc.cl.

0148-2963/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier Inc. Aldoi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.11.011nter, 2001; Kotter, 1996;helan-Berry et al., 2003,

Change management practices include a variety of organizationalinterventions that, when executed properly and in consistency withet al., 2005; Casio, 2002; Jones et al., 2004; KaMeyer and Stensaker, 2006; Nadler, 1998; Wchange through practices such as promergers, acquisitions and total qualitthese programs into practice in an atexternal forces such as new technoor internal forces such as changes inprocedures. Academic and professionmanagerial practices that better supptional change processes (Armenakisnt, diverse and intenseredesign, restructuring,rams. Organizations putto anticipate or adapt tomarkets or legislations,r tuning of policies andrature propose a set ofenactment of organiza-deian, 1999; Buchanan

impact these change management practices have on the outcomesof organizational change programs and on perceptual measures oforganizational performance. To address these issues the presentarticle rst describes previous literature on CMPs and presentsresearch hypotheses. Second, the paper describes the methodologyused to test the hypotheses. The third section presents the results.Finally, in the fourth section, the paper discusses the implications andlimitations of these ndings.

2. Managing change in organizationsange receptors). Second,at show that rms usepreparation stage ratherplementation stage of

y, the paper assesses the

frequently preseconcepts such abeing habitual. Csuch as the diagnenvironment, thof a new organizO'Reilly, 1997; Wto execute durin

l rights reserved.Change management practices: Impact on

Andrs B. RaineriPonticia Universidad Catlica de Chile, Escuela de Administracin, Vicua Mackenna 486

a b s t r a c ta r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 1 March 2009Received in revised form 1 September 2009Accepted 1 November 2009Available online 19 January 2010

Keywords:Organizational changeChange management practices

Management literature freqmanagement of organizatiosuch practices, between chaoutcomes of organizationalin Chile. Results show that,management practices thanrms use more frequently pto the change implementatioprogram intensity, and servhas a signicant impact on thnot show an impact on peroperational productivity, anperceived change results

asilla 76, Correo 17, Santiago, Chile

tly proposes the use of a set of managerial practices in order to facilitate thechange processes. This paper analyses differences in perception in the use ofstrategists and change receptors, and the impact these practices have on thenge programs and on organizational results, in a sample of 90 organizationsthe same change processes, change strategists report a higher use of changenge receptors. Results also show that, during organizational change processes,ices related to the change preparation stage in comparison to practices relatedtage. Finally, results show that, after controlling for organizational size, changeversus manufacturing industries, the use of change management practicesccomplishment of the change program objectives and deadlines, but results doved organizational outcomes (changes in sales, nancial results of the rm,mployee performance).

ess Researchnts a temporal point of view to group CMPs, withs change preparation and change implementationhange preparation CMPs usually include suggestionsosis and analysis of the organizational system and itse identication of change needs, and the developmentational vision (Buchanan et al., 2005; Tushman andhelan-Berry et al., 2003). Some authors also suggestg the change preparation stage, the development of a

267A.B. Raineri / Journal of Business Research 64 (2011) 266272detailed plan of how changewill be implemented, including ambitiousbut realistic objectives, stages to be achieved, and the timing necessaryto coordinate the change project (Nguyen Huy, 2001; Whelan-Berryet al., 2003). Also frequently suggested is the understanding andconsideration of the needs and interests of relevant individuals andgroups, in order to anticipate their intentions and reactions, persuadethem to support the change process, and diminish potential resistancesto the process (i.e. Jones et al., 2004; Holt et al., 2007). Other authorssuggest the creation of a sense of urgency among employees, in order togenerate a state of motivation and expectations that facilitate theprocess, sometimes by generating reactions of dissatisfaction with thestatus quo (Beer andWalton, 1990) or by spreading a feeling of changenecessity among stakeholders (Tichy and Devanna, 1986).

Literature also proposes another set of CMPs, more closely related tothe implementation of change. Several authors argue that facilitatingcommunication during the change process, allows different stakeholders tounderstandwhat,whenandwhy theorganization is changing,facilitating the acceptance and adaptation of new circumstances (Duttonet al., 2001; Lewis et al., 2006). Different authors emphasize theimportance of leadership, during the change implementation stage.(Buchanan et al., 2005; Kotter, 1996). Employees need to perceive thattheir leaders are actively involved and committed to the change process.Other CMPs related to the implementation stages refer to formal and/orinformal training and coaching in order to teach employees theknowledge and skills necessary to carry out the new tasks (Nadler,1998). Finally, other authors suggest the alignment of compensation andincentive systemswith the new objectives dened in the change plan inorder to consolidate the change implementation process (Kanter, 2001;Kotter, 1996). The practicesmentioned above,whichdon't pretend to bean exhaustive list, capture some of the most frequent advice offered atthe time of managing a change program within an organization. Asliterature suggests, the use of these practices is a key element to thesuccess of change programs, but the opportunity and form in whichexecutives use these practices are dependent on their adaptation to thecharacteristic of the organization and change program under consider-ation (Meyer and Stensaker, 2006; Nguyen Huy, 2001).

Most previous change management literature has been conceptualor case oriented in nature. Academic literature tends to be conceptualoriented, while practitioner literature tends to be case oriented.According to Bartunek (2008) linking the missing gap between theoryand practice in change management literature requires more empiricalresearch. Despite the abundance of literature with advice on changemanagement for practitioners, a lack of research on how these practiceswork and on their effectiveness subsists (Doyle et al., 2000; Buchananet al., 2005). This study is an empirical research on CMPs, using a sampleof Chilean organizations that had recently undergone an organizationalchange process, which expands current literature in three ways. First,some authors have suggested that different stakeholders within anorganization experience differently the same organizational changeprocesses. Jick (1992) identies at least two critical groups of employeesto consider in an organizational change process: those in charge ofplanning the change program (change strategists) and those employeeswho receive the impact of the change program (change receptors).Change strategists are responsible for conducting the organizationalchange programwhile the interventions implemented by them impacton change receptors. By denition, change strategists are responsible forthe useof CMPs. Therefore, due to a self-serving bias, they could bemoreinclined to judge that these practices were used especially if they aremade accountable for the use of CMPs. This predisposition could betrue if their superiors exercise control or if the use of these practicesis socially desirable (Ganster et al., 1983). A rst hypothesis will testfor differences in the perceptions of these two groups of employeesabout the use of CMPs during organizational change processes.

Hypothesis 1. Change strategists report a higher rate of use of CMPs

when compared to change receptors.A second contribution of this paper is an attempt to conrmpreviousresults which show that rms use more frequently CMPs related tothe change preparation stage in comparison to CMPs related to theimplementation stage of change processes (Raineri, 2002). Severalarguments support this proposition. First, the potential of failure ofthe early stages of the change program (i.e. developing a new vision,diagnosing the organization, and preparing a change plan) mightpreclude the execution of the program in later stages, that requireimplementation practices such as communicating the change plan ormeasuring change results (Holt et al., 2007). Second, since changestrategists are primarily responsible for planning change programs, andthey also occupy the executive positions which control most resourcesin a rm, they could have a bias towards allocating a disproportionateamount of the rms resources (human and capital) to the rst stages ofthe change process, therefore leaving change implementers and changereceptors with less resources to execute the latter stages of the changeprogram. A third argument to support this proposition is that changepreparation practices, such as performing anorganizational diagnosis ordeveloping a change plan program, emphasize the use of analyticalskills, for whichmanagers usually receive considerable training (Porter,1997; Shipper, 1999). On the contrary, implementation practices, suchas communicating the change plan, or understanding and managing avariety of social and interest groups, require an emphasis on the use ofinterpersonal and political skills. Several authors argue that these latterset of skills tend to be distributed irregularly amongmanagers (Higginset al., 2002; Groves, 2005). Specically Raineri (1998) reported, in asample of Chileanmanagers, a higher presence of analytical skills whencompared to their emotional and interpersonal skills. The implicationsof such results would help understand, and better advice, changestrategists, on the need to persevere in the latter stages of the changeimplementation process.

Hypothesis 2. Firms show a higher rate of use of change preparationpractices in comparison to the use of change implementation practices.

Finally, the third contribution of this paper is to test the impactthat the use of CMPs has in the outcomes of the organizational changeprocess and its consequences in organizational result measures. Asstated earlier, most literature argues that the use of these practices hasa positive effect on the speed and quality of the change process and onorganizational results. Nevertheless very little empirical evidenceexists to support this argument. This paper tests the relationshipbetween perceptions about the use of CMPs and the accomplishmentof the change program objectives (and of their impact on organiza-tional results). In order to ameliorate the impact of potential biasesthat might occur when the same subjects report both dependent andindependent measures, such as the perceptpercept ination bias(Crampton and Wagner, 1994) and the common method variance(Podsakoff et al., 2003), the researcher measured the independentvariable, degree of use of CMPs, using change receptors' perceptions.The author also measured the dependent variables, change processresults and their impact on organizational results, using changestrategists' perceptions.

Hypothesis 3. Change receptors' perceptions about the use of CMPsrelates positively to change strategists' perceptions about theaccomplishment of the change program objectives and deadlinesand to change strategists' perceptions of the impact of the changeprocess in organizational result variables, including perceptions ofchanges in sales, nancial results of the rm, operational productivity,and employee performance.

3. Sample

The sample consisted of a total of 90 rms operating in Chile. Inrelatively similar proportions, the companies in the sample belong

to a wide variety of industries, including agriculture, forestry,

268 A.B. Raineri / Journal of Business Research 64 (2011) 266272manufacturing, construction, information and telecommunications,educational services, mining, professional services, nance andinsurance and retail. The average size company varied widelybetween 24 and 8500 employees, with an average of 1304 employees.All organizations had lived through a change program within the last2 years. A total of 570 change receptors and 208 change strategistsanswered a survey, with an average of 6.06 change receptors and2.24 change strategist responses per company. The type of subjectssurveyed in the organizations as change strategists were mainlyexecutives that served in the company as general managers orfunctional area top managers and who had participated in a strategistrole in the change program. In order to classify as change receptors,the researcher required subjects to be employees without supervisionduties and to describe themselves as not having participated in thepreparation stages of the change program. The companies in thesample had undergone a wide variety of change processes. The mostfrequent types of change programs reported as the primary changeprocess were: restructuring programs (26.0%), mergers (20.8%),acquisitions (8.4%), strategy changes (13.0%), reengineering (14.9%),product innovations (7.8%), total quality programs (5.8%), growththrough opening of new units or subsidiaries (7.1%), CEO change(9.1%) and introduction of a new technology (16.2%).

4. Measures development

A set of surveys measured the use of CMPs, change programoutcomes, and change program impact in organizational results.The use of perceptual data to measure behavioral practices (Huselid,1995; Delantey and Huselid, 1996), organizational change processes(Holt et al., 2007) and organizational results (Ketokivi and Schroeder,2004), has become a frequent measurement method in literature.Weick and Roberts (1993) argue that subjective perceptions aboutorganizational events are crucial, since people behave in accordancewith their perceptions, not in accordance with more objective data.

4.1. Dependent variables

The researcher created several perceptual measures of organiza-tional change results and organizational performance. Change strate-gists judged the degree of attainment of the change program objectivesand deadlines with two questions, and a corresponding Likert scaleranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (completely). Another four questionsrequested for a numerical assessment (in percentages) of the impactthat respondents perceived that the change program had in fourorganizational outcomes (sales, prots, operational productivity andemployee performance).

4.2. Control variables

Nadler (1998) suggests that the larger an organization the moredemanding it is to manage its change processes. A rst controlvariable is the company size effects, represented by a dummy variableregistering the natural logarithm of the number of employees in theorganization (Huselid, 1995). A second control variable is the industrysector, where another dummy variable represented service sectorcompanies with a value of 1 and the manufacturing sector with avalue of 0. A third control variable is the intensity of the changeprogram. A measure developed by Romanelli and Tushman (1994)assessed organizational change intensity. These authors propose thatchange programs vary in a continuum between incremental adjust-ments to current organizational architecture versus radical changesof all or most organizational activities and structures. Under thesetwo extreme forms of organizational change CMPs might require adifferent emphasis in their use. For example, a radical transformationmight require a high degree of involvement of the organizational

leaders while in an incremental change leaders might just delegatethe decision and implementation to middle managers (Nadler, 1998).In a similar manner, the need for a complete organizational diagnosis,or the persistence required to communicate new forms of workmight be different for a radical transformation versus an incrementalchange. Following Romanelli and Tushman (1994) change strategistsidentied, using forced choice alternatives of yes or no, if majorchanges had occurred in the company as part of the change processin ve domains of organizational activities: organizational culture,strategy, structure, power distributions, and control systems. Acontinuous variable added the number of domains of organizationalactivities affected by the change process, therefore having a range ofresponses that varied from 1 to 5 domains. This variable representsthe degree of how radical or intense is a change process.

4.3. Independent variables

The development of a survey to assess respondents' perceptionsabout the use of CMPs in their companies emphasized item develop-ment in four areas of change management interventions: organiza-tional diagnosis and alignment, change program planning andcommunication, leadership and incentive alignment. Both practitioneroriented literature and academic literature suggest these four areas(Armenakis and Bedeian, 1999; Buchanan et al., 2005; Casio, 2002;Kanter, 2001; Jones et al., 2004; Kotter, 1996; Meyer and Stensaker,2006;Nadler, 1998 andWhelan-Berry et al., 2003). Companies executeorganizational diagnosis and alignment of CMPs during the early stageof change preparation. The other three areas are representatives ofCMPs closely related to the stage of change implementation. Toestablish the content validity for the items in the CMP survey severalactions were taken. First, as mentioned, item generation followed theliterature review. Second, a panel of four experts and four practitionersclassied the items into the four CMP dimensions described earlier,and judged the clarity of the items and the degree in which the itemswere representative of their dimensions (McGartland Rubio et al.,2003). Two versions of the surveywere developed. One version for thechange strategists and another for the change receptors. Subjectsresponded to items measuring the use of CMPs by using a Likert scaleranging from 1 (absolutely disagree that the practice was used) to 5(completely agree that the practice was used). A pilot study tested therespondent's comprehension of all items in the three surveys. Theresearcher made item deletions and corrections when necessary.Table 1 presents the list of CMPs appearing in the nal survey.

5. Results

In order to assess the content validity for the items correspondingto the four areas of CMPs measured a panel of four experts and fourpractitioners identied the CMP area to which each item belonged.The author included items for which at least an 80% agreement ofmembership among the judges existed (McGartland Rubio et al.,2003). Judges in the panel rated each item on a scale from one (verylittle) to four (very much) for the items' dimension representative-ness and clarity. The percentage of judges rating the items with athree or four score for clarity ranged from 75% to 100% with an overallaverage rating of 94%. Judges' rating of items for representativenessranged from 75% to 100% with an overall average rating of 95%. Theseresults reect a high degree of clarity and dimension representative-ness for all items included in the nal survey (McGartland Rubio et al.,2003).

Because no previous literature has empirically analyzed the factorstructure of change management practices, and because of theconceptual and empirical overlap among these practices, theresearcher conducted a factor analysis to uncover their underlyingfactor structure in order to proceed with hypotheses testing. Theauthor performed a factor analysis in both the change strategists and

change receptors' independent variable data sets. The factor analyses

Table 1Change management practices survey items.

Index 1: Diagnosis and alignmentThe company analyzed its strengths and weaknesses to face the change program.Existing opportunities and threats were considered when developing the changeprogram.

Work processes were analyzed in order to identify activities and areas that could beimpacted by the change program.

Resistance to change was appropriately diagnosed.

Index 2: CommunicationThe company communicated with clarity individual and work unit objectives and

Table 3Paired t-tests between indexes, for independent variable indexes of CMPs within eachdata set.

Change strategists Change receptors

Index 2 Index 3 Index 4 Index 2 Index 3 Index 4

Index 1: Diagnosisand alignment

3.31*** 1.10 n/s 7.94*** 3.91*** 1.93 n/s 8.85***

Index 2:Communication

4.38*** 6.35*** 6.07*** 8.20***

Index 3:Leadership

9.52*** 9.94***

269A.B. Raineri / Journal of Business Research 64 (2011) 266272results showed that the items better load on a set of four factors forthe change strategists' data set similar to the four original topics for

challenges.Change program objectives have been clearly stated throughout the company.The action plans to pursue the change program were well known throughoutthe company.

The company makes an effort to understand how employees understood itsmessages.

The company made frequent communication efforts to ensure understanding andsupport of the change program.

Index 3: LeadershipThe change program was lead by individuals who had high credibility withinthe company.

Executives demonstrated publicly their commitment with the change process.Strong charismatic leaders were used to drive the change process.

Index 4: Compensation and incentivesThe company adapted compensation systems in order to promote newresponsibilities and job demands.

The company developed incentive systems in order to reward newly expectedbehaviors.

The company identied and rewarded the achievement of partial goals in theproper direction.

The company rewarded employees when they attained change program goals.which items were developed. The factor analysis of the changereceptors' data set loaded on a set of factors very similar to the fourfactors in the strategists' data set and very similar to the four originalareas of item development. Themain difference in the factor structureof the change receptors' data set, is that in the latter group, changereceptors perceived items related to communication and itemsrelated to leadership as being part of the same factor. A possibleexplanation for this difference in both factor structures is that thechange receptors' main sources of information are their leadersand managers, therefore their perceptions of communication andleadership during the change process might be highly interrelated.Given the similarity in the factor structure of both data sets withthe intended areas of item development, and the need to compareperceptions of CMPs between both groups, the author conductedfurther statistical analysis for both data sets using the original fourdimensions of CMPs that were dened when items were constructed:diagnosis and alignment of the organization, communication withinthe change process, presence of leadership in the change program,and alignment of compensation and incentives with the new object-ives stated in the change program. The items' factor loadings for the

Table 2Means, standard deviations and Chronbach's alpha for all four CMPs indexes for change stratt-tests for comparison of means between data sets for the four indexes.)

Change strategists

Mean Std. Dev. Chronbach''s alpha

Index 1: Diagnosis & Alignment 3.84 0.75 0.83Index 2: Communication 3.61 0.78 0.86Index 3: Leadership 3.93 0.86 0.85Index 4: Compensation and incentives 3.01 0.92 0.87

***pb0,001.change strategists' factors ranged from 0.83 to 0.87 and for the changereceptors' factors ranged from 0.87 to 0.93. The researcher deletedthree items from any further analysis in both data sets because eitherthey did not complywith theminimumestablished standard of an 80%agreement among the judges rating their membership into one of thefour intended categories of CMPs, and/or because they showed highfactor loadings with more than one factor. The author grouped theresulting items into indexes averaging the items in each of the fournal dimensions. Table 2 shows the mean, standard deviation andCronbach's alpha for both data sets. Table 2 also shows the correlationsfor the four indexes between the strategists and receptors' data sets,and paired sample t-tests results for the comparisons of the meansof the four indexes between the two data sets. The Cronbach's alphascores showed a strong internal consistency of the indexes in both datasets. The correlations of CMP indexes betweenbothdata sets show thatchange strategists and receptors have amoderate agreement about theuse of CMPs in their organizational change processes. The comparisonsin Table 2 show that change strategists report a higher rate of use ofCMPs in all four indexes when compared to change receptors. Theseresults conrm Hypothesis 1.

The t-tests in Table 3 compare the means between index averagesof all four factors within each data set. These comparisons supportHypothesis 2: in both data sets rms showed a higher rate of useof change preparation practices when compared to use of changeimplementation practices. The t-test comparisons show that thediagnosis and alignment and leadership indexes show the highestscores, a signicantly lower score in the communication index and thelowest score in the compensation and incentive indexes.

Table 4 presents the basic statistics about the outcomes of thechange program and organizational results attributable to the changeprogram as perceived by the change strategists. Table 4 shows that thedependent variable scores present a bias towards successful organiza-tional change programs. These results would be inconsistent with the

Index 4:Compensation &incentives

***pb0,001.claim of some authors (Beer and Nohria, 2000; Doyle et al., 2000) whohave estimated that up to 70% of organizational change programs fail.Other authors argue that the use of a convenience sample might lead toanoverrepresentation of the successes andanunderrepresentation of thefailures of organizational behavior events (Becker and Gerhart, 1996).

egists and change receptors data sets. (This table also shows the correlations and paired

Change receptors R Paired t-tests (t score)

Mean Std. Dev. Chronbach's alpha

3.41 0.74 0.87 0.39*** 4.80***3.21 0.66 0.90 0.50*** 5.19 ***3.54 0.66 0.83 0.51*** 4.67 ***2.57 0.84 0.93 0.45*** 4.56 ***

The main focus of this paper is on the analysis of the coefcientsthat describe the association between the CMPs and the perceptualmeasures of organizational performance. The author conducted amultiple regression analysis on the ve perceptual measures of

deadlines exists, but not to organizational result variables. Table 5shows that not all Beta scores obtained in the regression analyses weresignicant. The author expected these results due to the highcollinearity between indexes. In additional analyses not presented

Table 4Dependent variables maximum scores, minimum scores, means and standard deviation.

Minimum Maximum Mean Standard deviation

Degree of attainment of change program objectives and deadlines [Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (completely)]Degree in which the objectives pursued by the change program were attained 2.0 5.0 3.83 0.73Degree in which the deadlines pursued by the change program were attained 1.0 5.0 3.57 0.89

Percentage in which the following organizational outcomes increased/decreased due to the change programThe company's sales increased/decreased 30% 210% 19.4% 0.379The company's prots increased/decreased 17.5% 100% 14.4% 0.238The company's operational performance increased/decreased 20% 100% 20.7% 0.243The company's employees performance increased/decreased 30% 100% 19.2% 0.243

ressead

270 A.B. Raineri / Journal of Business Research 64 (2011) 266272organizational performance previously discussed using as indepen-dent variables the indexes grouping the items that measured thechange receptors' perceptions of the use of CMPs. Even thoughindexes receive conrmation from the original data, correlationsbetween indexes still persist, ranging between 0.31 and 0.64 forthe strategists' data set and between 0.31 and 0.73 for the receptors'data set. Because of the signicant correlation between most of theindependent variable indexes the author conducted a collinearityanalysis. For the variables involved in the following regressionanalyses, the Variance Ination Factors (VIF) ranged between 1.00and 2.07 for the change strategists' data and between 1.00 and 3.57 forthe change receptors' data. These values are well below the suggestedcut-off of 10.0 (Chatterjee and Price, 1991: 191). Thus, collinearitymay attenuate the estimates for these variables, but does not appearto be harmful.

Table 5 shows themultiple regression analysis results for the changereceptors' data set. Themodel includes the four predictors (indexes 1, 2,3 and 4) and the three control variables entered simultaneously. Inthe few cases that the three control variables attained signicanceBeta scores were in the correct direction. The CMPs indexes obtainedfrom the change receptors' perceptions predict the accomplishment ofchange program objectives and deadlines. In both cases the diagnosisand alignment and the compensation and incentive indexes showsignicant Beta scores, all in the correct direction. No signicantBeta scores for anyof the indexes appearwhenpredicting sales,nancialresults, operational productivity or employee performance. Theseresults give only a partial support to Hypothesis 3. A positive relationbetween change receptors' perceptions of the use of CMPs andperceptions of accomplishment of change program objectives and

Table 5Regression coefcients, F for R2, Beta coefcients and their standard error for the regorganizational result variables and accomplishment of change program objectives and d

signicant).

Sales Prots Operation

Beta Beta Beta

Constant 0.14 n/s (0.26) 0.12 n/s (0.16) 0.01 n/sLn of number of employees 0.11 n/s (0.03) 0.03 n/s (0.02) 0.04* (0Industry dummy 0.17* (0.08) 0.10 n/s (0.05) 0.07 n/sChange Magnitude dummy 0.11** (0.04) 0.05* (0.03) 0.01 n/sIndex 1: Diagnosis & Alignment 0.04 n/s (0.08) 0.01 n/s (0.06) 0.04 n/sIndex 2: Communication 0.09 n/s (0.12) 0.07 n/s (0.07) 0.07 n/sIndex 3: Leadership 0.03 n/s (0.09) 0,01 n/s (0.07) 0.01 n/sIndex 4: Compensation & incentives 0.02 n/s (0.06) 0.03 n/s (0.04) 0.02 n/sR2 0.18 0.17 0.18Adjusted R2 0.11 0.09 0.10F for R2 2.39* 2.13 n/s 2.27*here, following all signicant regression models in Table 5, the authorconstructed other regressionmodels using as a predictor oneCMP indexat a time. In those analyses most CMP indexes achieved signicance,even though the signicance of some indexes is lost when enteringall indexes simultaneously in the regression equations, as shown inTable 5. Thus collinearity among indexes might be hindering thesignicance of someof theBetaweights inTable 5. Inadditional analysesnot presented here, the researcher used identical CMP indexesconstructed fromchange strategists' perceptions aspredictors of changeprocess results and organizational results. These additional analysesconrmed the results presented in Table 5 but the author did notpresent them because they had the potential to be biased by theperceptpercept ination bias and/or from common method variance.Nevertheless, when in these additional analyses the author controlledfor common method variance using the Lindell and Whitney (2001)technique, regression results were still signicant.

6. Discussion and conclusions

Literature reports a signicant amount of organizational changeprocesses that fail and proposes a set of changemanagement practicesin order to enhance the success of such programs (Kotter, 1996).Nevertheless signicant gaps in the understanding of how thesepractices work and in their effectiveness still persist. This paperexpands the empirical research on CMPs in three ways. First, thepaper conrms the differences in the perceptions of the use of CMPsduring organizational change processes between change strategistsand change receptors. The rst group perceives a larger use of CMPsat their companies suggesting that the intent of executing these

ion analyses using the indexes of CMPs use as predictors of perceptions of change inlines. Standard errors for beta coefcients in parenthesis. (*pb0,05; **pb0,01; n/s: notal performance Employee performance Program objectivesaccomplished

Program deadlinesaccomplished

Beta Beta Beta

(0.17) 0.05 n/s (0.17) 3.08** (0.45) 2.33** (0.58).02) 0.03 n/s (0.2) 0.07 n/s (0.05) 0.06 n/s (0.06)(0.05) 0.01 n/s (0.06) 0.01 n/s (0.15) 0.03 n/s (0.18)(0.03) 0.02 n/s (0.03) 0.01 n/s (0.07) 0.01 n/s (0.08)(0.06) 0.06 n/s (0.06) 0.45** (0.15) 0.43* (0.19)(0.08) 0.04 n/s (0.08) 0.06 n/s (0.21) 0.08 n/s (0.25)(0.06) 0.02 n/s (0.6) 0.18 n/s (0.15) 0.10 n/s (0.19)(0.04) 0.01 n/s (0.04) 0.19* (0.09) 0.33* (0.13)

0.08 0.20 0.200.03 0.13 0.13

0.97 n/s 2.79* 2,87**

Crampton S, Wagner JA. Preceptpercept ination in micro-organizational research: an

experience of organizational change. Br J Manage 2000;11:S5980 [Special Issue].Dutton J, Ashford S, O'Neill R, Lawrence K. Moves that matter: issue selling and

271A.B. Raineri / Journal of Business Research 64 (2011) 266272practices not always reaches those to whom they target. One possibleexplanation for this difference in perceptions is the existence of a self-serving bias: change strategists are accountable in their organizationsfor using CMPs, therefore theywill tend to report a higher use of them,especially if their superiors exercise control, or if social desirabilityexists for the use of these practices (Ganster et al., 1983). Second, thispaper conrms previous research results that rms use more fre-quently CMPs relating to the change preparation stage in comparisonto CMPs used in later stages of change implementation. Severalarguments could help explain this nding. First, failure rates at therst stages of the change process (i.e. developing a new vision)might make harder or impossible to execute later stage practices(i.e. communication of change plan). Second, since change strategistsare primarily responsible for preparing the change program, and theyalso control most resources in a rm, they could have a bias towardsallocating a disproportionate amount of the rms' resources (i.e.human and capital) to the rst stages of the change process, and beless sensitive to the resources needed for later stages, which otheremployee groups, such as change receptors, might execute. Finally,change preparation practices (i.e. organizational diagnosis), empha-size the use of analytical skills, for which managers are usually highlytrained, while implementation practices, such as communicating thechange plan or understanding and managing a variety of social andinterest groups, require an emphasis on the use of interpersonal andpolitical skills. Managers show a more irregular distribution of theselatter skills (Higgins et al., 2002; Groves, 2005).

Finally, one of the most important contributions of this paper, is theevidence that suggests that the use of these CMPs has an impact on theoutcomes of organizational change programs but not on perceptualmeasures of organizational performance. After controlling for organi-zational size, change program intensity and industry sector, the useof CMPs has a positive relation with the accomplishment of changeprogram objectives and deadlines, and no impact on perceivedorganizational outcomes (changes in sales, nancial results of therm, operational productivity, and employee performance). Onepossible explanation for the lack of relation between CMP use andperceived organizational results, is that CMPs are intentionally executedto impact the change program and not necessarily the organizationalresults. If the changeprogram is theadequate response to organizationalneeds, and its implementation is successful, the program shouldimpact organizational results. But if a successfully implemented changeprogram is not the adequate response to organizational needs, theprogram might not produce better organizational results. In the samemanner, the impact of a changeprogramonorganizational resultsmightoccur only in the long run (i.e. development of new products).

Multiple limitations to this study exist. Some limitations haverelationwith the sample, others with the instrument of data collectionand others with the scope of the results. Limitations due to the samplecome from the convenience origin of the surveyed companies. In spiteof the diversity of industries included, the sample derives from theavailability of contact with the companies. In this sense the sampleprevents generalizing these ndings to other rms. Stronger restric-tions come from the fact that all rms in the sample were operating inChile thus allowing for the existence of non controlled local culturalbiases.

Another limitation comes from the selection of CMPs included inthe survey. As stated earlier literature discusses a wide variety ofCMPs and there is no consensus upon a denitive set of practices.Even though this paper included a wide variety of CMPs suggested inliterature, plenty of space exists to improve in the renement andclassication of CMPs. The study includes deleting item number 5(appropriate use of training) because of statistical reasons (highcorrelation with all indexes). But this item is conceptually differentfrom all indexes resulting from the factor analyses here executed.Future research should consider and study the relevance of training as

a practice that helps in the success of change programs.organizational change. Acad Manage J 2001;44:71636 [August].Ganster D, Hennessey H, Luthans F. Social desirability response effects: three alternative

models. Acad Manage J 1983;26(2):32131.Groves KS. Gender differences in social and emotional skills and charismatic leadership.

J Leadersh Org Stud 2005;11:3046.Higgins CA, Judge TA, Ferris GR. Inuence tactics and work outcomes: a meta-analysis.

J Organ Behav 2002;24(1):89-106.Holt DT, Armenakis AA, Field HS, Harris SG. Readiness for organizational change: the

systematic development of a scale. J Appl Behav Sci 2007;43:23255.Huselid M. The impact of human resources management practices on turnover,

productivity, and corporate nance management. Acad Manage J 1995;38:63572[June].

Jick TD. Managing Change: Cases and Concepts. McGraw-Hill; 1992.Jones J, Aguirre D, Calderone M. 10 Principles of change management: tools and

techniques to help companies transform quickly. Resilence report. Booz, Allen &Hamilton; 2004 [April].

Kanter RM. Evolve!: succeeding in the digital culture of tomorrow. Chapter 9: Leadershipfor change: new challenges and enduring skills. Harvard Business School Press; 2001.

Ketokivi M, Schroeder R. Perceptual measures of performance: fact or ction? J OperManag 2004;22(3):24764.

Kotter J. Leading change. Harvard Business School Press; 1996.Lewis LK, Schmisseur AM, Stephens KK, Weir KE. Advice on communicating during

organizational change: the content ofpopular press books. J BusCommun2006;43(2):11337.

Lindell MK, Whitney DJ. Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectionalinvestigation of prevalence and effect. J Appl Psychol 1994;79:6777.Delantey J, Huselid M. The impact of human resource management practices on

perceptions of organizational performance. Acad Manage J 1996;39(4):94969.Dollinger MJ, Golden PA. Interorganizational and collective strategies in small rms:

environmental effects and performance. J Manag 1992;18:695715.Doyle M, Claydon T, Buchanan D. Mixed results, lousy process: the managementThe use of perceptual measures of rm performance in thisresearch also limits the strength of current ndings. The use of moreobjective performance measures is certainly desirable. Neverthelessperceptual measures should not be discarded. Several researchershave shown that perceptual data of organizational performance has apositive moderate to strong correlation with objective measures ofrm performance (Dollinger and Golden, 1992; Powell, 1992; Huselid,1995). Equally important is the fact that the use of perceptualmeasures of rm performance allows the estimation of measures ofperformance which are not publicly available. Finally, strong limita-tions are associated with the use of cross-sectional data whenattempts to establish causality relations among its variables. Thisresearch does not preclude that an inverse relation between CMPs andrm performance might occur. That is, that rms whose performanceis systematically superior, might be the ones that tend to invest morein the use of CMPs. Appropriate measures that allow the eliminationof concerns for a simultaneity bias remains a challenge for futureresearch, as well as the use of longitudinal research designs in order toclarify temporal order and causality among the variables studied.

Acknowledgment

The author thanks the reviewers of this paper whose contributionsstrongly enhance its quality.

References

Armenakis AA, Bedeian AG. Organizational change: a review of theory and research inthe 1990s. J Manag 1999;25(3):293315.

Bartunek JM. You're an organization development practitionerscholar: can youcontribute to organizational theory? Organ Manag J 2008;5:6-16.

Becker B, Gerhart B. The impact of human resource management on organizationalperformance: progress and prospects. Acad Manage J 1996;39(4):779802.

Beer M, Walton E. Developing the competitive organization: interventions and strategies.Am Psychol 1990;45(2):15461.

Beer M, Nohria N. Cracking the code of change. Harv Bus Rev 2000:13341 [May-June].Buchanan D, Fitzgerald L, Ketley D, Gollop R, Jones JL, Lamont SS, et al. No going back: a

review of the literature on sustaining organizational change. Int J Manag Rev2005;7:189205 [September].

Casio W. Strategies for responsible restructuring. Acad Manage Exec 2002;16:8091[August].

Chatterjee S, Price B. New York: John Wiley; 1991.research designs. J Appl Psychol 2001;86(1):11421.

McGartland Rubio D, Berg-Weger M, Tebb SS, Lee ES, Rauch S. Objectifying contentvalidity: conducting a content validity study in social work research. Soc Work Res2003;27:94-104 [June].

Meyer CB, Stensaker IG. Developing capacity for change. J Chang Manag 2006;6:21731[June].

Nadler D. Champions of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1998.Nguyen HuyQ. Time, temporal capability, and planned change. AcadManag Rev 2001;26:

60123 [October].Podsakoff P, MacKenzie S, Lee J, Podsakoff N. Common method biases in behavioral

research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J ApplPsychol 2003;88(5):879903.

Porter LW. A decade of change in the business school: from complacency to tomorrow.Selection 1997;13(2):18.

Powell TC. Organizational alignment as competitive advantage. StrategManage J 1992;13:11934.

Raineri A. Habilidades Gerenciales: Anlisis Emprico de una Muestra de Administradoresy Profesionales en Chile. Rev Abante 1998;1(2):21334.

Raineri A. Administracin del Cambio Organizacional en Empresas Chilenas. Estud Adm2002;8(2):1-40.

Romanelli E, TushmanM. Organizational transformation as punctuated equilibrium: anempirical test. Acad Manage J 1994;37(5):114166.

Shipper FA. Comparison of managerial skills of middle managers with MBAs, with othermasters' and undergraduate degrees ten years after the Porter and McKibbinreport. J Manag Psychol 1999;14(12):15063.

Tichy N, Devanna M. The transformational leader. New York: John Wesley; 1986.Tushman M, O'Reilly C. Winning through innovation: a practical guide to leading

organizational change and renewal. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press;1997.

Weick KE, Roberts KH. Collective mind in organizations: heedful interrelating on ightdecks. Adm Sci Q 1993;38:35781.

Whelan-Berry KS, Gordon JR, Hinings CR. Strengthening organizational changeprocesses: recommendations and implications from a multilevel analysis. J ApplBehav Sci 2003;39:186207 [June].

272 A.B. Raineri / Journal of Business Research 64 (2011) 266272

Change management practices: Impact on perceived change resultsIntroductionManaging change in organizationsSampleMeasures developmentDependent variablesControl variablesIndependent variables

ResultsDiscussion and conclusionsAcknowledgmentReferences