Lewis // Vol.

MCQ PLANNED
13, No. ORGANIZATIONAL
1, August 1999 CHANGE
This study examined implementers’ uses of channels to disseminate information to and so-
licit input from staff members during planned change. How communication was differently
directed to paid and volunteer staff and the degree to which channel use is predictive of im-
plementers’ assessments of success of change efforts was also assessed. Implementers of 89
planned change efforts across a wide variety of geographic and business sectors served as re-
spondents for the study. Potential applications of findings for organizational practitioners are
discussed.

DISSEMINATING INFORMATION
AND SOLICITING INPUT DURING
PLANNED ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
Implementers’ Targets, Sources, and
Channels for Communicating

Laurie K. Lewis
University of Texas at Austin

Most organizations make moderate to major changes at least

every 4 or 5 years (Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979). This trend has only
increased in the past decade and a half (Cushman & King, 1994),
and rapid change likely will continue to be a cornerstone of organ-
izational life into the next century. The implementation of change
programs is costly in terms of financial resources, employee time
investment, managerial time, and oftentimes in terms of employee
morale (Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979). Challenges for organiza-
tional “change masters” to successfully implement changes into
organizational practice are formidable (Kanter, 1983), and as Ford
and Ford (1995) argue, those challenges are often communication
related—“change is created, sustained, and managed in and by
communication” (p. 560).
Organizational scholars have long acknowledged the impor-
tance of communication in explanations of organizational change
processes (Albrecht & Hall, 1991; Albrecht & Ropp, 1984; Fair-
hurst & Wendt, 1993; Fulk, Schmitz, & Steinfield, 1990; Lewis &
Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 13, No. 1, August 1999 43-75
© 1999 Sage Publications, Inc.
43

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at Northeastern University on January 4, 2015

44 MCQ / Vol. 13, No. 1, August 1999

Seibold, 1993, 1996; Rogers, 1995; Van de Ven, Angle, & Poole,
1989). One critical point in change in which communication plays
a role is during implementation. Tornatzky and Johnson (1982)
define implementation as

the translation of any tool or technique, process, or method of doing,

from knowledge to practice. It encompasses that range of activities
which take place between adoption of a tool or technique (defined as
a decision or intent to use the technology) and its stable incorpora-
tion into on-going organizational practice. (p. 193)

Lewis and Seibold (1993) conceptualize structured implementa-

tion activities as “designed and enacted by internal or external
change agents to specify usage of innovations and influence users’
innovation-role-involvement, their formal (prescribed) and emer-
gent patterns of interactions with and concerning the innovation”
(p. 324). Such activities might include the formation of implemen-
tation teams, announcement of change programs, selection and
training of users, development and communication of new perfor-
mance criteria, and assessment of implementation outcomes.
The empirical picture that is slowly emerging indicates that
communication process and organizational change implementa-
tion are inextricably linked processes. Studies illustrate the impor-
tance of communication in several aspects of change implementa-
tion, including creating and articulating vision (Fairhurst, 1993);
channeling feedback between implementers, key decision makers,
and key users (Lewis, 1997); providing social support (Ashford,
1988; Miller & Monge, 1985); and appropriating and adapting fea-
tures of proposed changes (Johnson & Rice, 1987; Poole &
DeSanctis, 1990). Theory and evidence continue to accumulate and
underscore the importance of talk in propelling, forestalling, and
altering the paths of change in organizations.
Interestingly, this literature often calls for more attention to the
formal communication about change that gives rise to reactions and
responses of organizational members. For example, Papa and Papa
(1990) suggest that there is a need to pinpoint when employee per-
ceptions of new technologies are formed.

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at Northeastern University on January 4, 2015

 Lewis / PLANNED ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE 45

It may be possible that employees form perceptions of a change as

soon as they hear about it from management or through the grape-
vine. If this is true, it may be important for managers or trainers to
consider how they initially spread information about a change. (p. 37)

In another study, Ford and Ford (1995) examine the conversations

that change agents have in organizations. They call for more atten-
tion to the sequence and content of these conversations to deter-
mine how sequences of speech acts and content may affect results.
Despite this increasingly vocal call for focus on formal implemen-
tation communication, scholars in the discipline have had relatively
little to say on the subject (Lewis & Seibold, 1998).
The study presented here concerns implementers’ selections for
formal communication as they introduced planned organizational
changes. While faced with multiple potential problems concerning
design, training, resource allocation, reward systems, and top- and
midlevel management politics among others, implementers must
execute basic communication tasks concerned with educating,
informing, persuading, and overcoming resistance to changes they
seek to introduce. Among the many choices that implementers
must and do make are those concerning (a) communicative strate-
gies for introducing change and for monitoring responses of inter-
nal audiences to change and (b) audiences (targets) for messages
concerning the change.
The general importance of communication during planned
change has already been empirically demonstrated and generally
agreed among practitioners to be significant (Covin & Kilmann,
1990). The specific communicative actions taken by implementers,
patterns of their communicative approaches, and the particular
effects of specific communicative actions are still left unexplained.
As Lewis and Seibold (1998) argue, implementers’ communicative
actions—as opposed to general strategy preferences and orienta-
tions—have rarely been studied. They further argue that an absence
of data concerning implementers’ specific activities precludes
theoretical understanding of the critical step of strategy enactment.
A description provides a platform for explanation and prediction of
communicative processes involved during planned organizational
change. In a domain in which so little empirical or theoretical work

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at Northeastern University on January 4, 2015

46 MCQ / Vol. 13, No. 1, August 1999

exists, a generalizable description of the phenomenon permits a

basis on which conceptual and theoretical claims may be con-
structed and eventually tested. Furthermore, as Klein and Sorra
(1996) note, “Although cross-organizational studies of the determi-
nants of innovation adoption are abundant . . . , cross-organizational
studies of innovation implementation are extremely rare” (p. 1056),
and thus, we have little ability to make meaningful comparisons of
findings across types of organizations, types of changes, environ-
mental sectors, and types of implementers.
In light of the state of the empirical record to date, the purposes
of this study were to describe some of the actions taken by imple-
menters in internally communicating planned change to internal
organizational stakeholders and to ascertain the level at which
implementers associated these actions with ultimate success of
change efforts. The value in this approach is first to gain a compara-
tive (and potentially normative) database that begins to describe
how implementers (from a broad cross-section of sectors and
organizations) actually communicate change. Such a description
allows us to determine whether our common categories of commu-
nication channels (e.g., face-to-face, small group settings, large
formal meetings) are representative of the channels actually used
by implementers for talk about change and whether these channels
are used with similar frequency. The description undertaken in this
study was also aimed at comparing the degree of similarity that two
different audiences are targeted for implementers’ communication
about change. Such insights, among others, provide important points
of departure for theorizing about formal change communication.
A second aim of this study was in providing evidence to enhance
our understanding of whether and under what conditions imple-
menters connect communicative action with outcomes of change
programs. The results of this study enable identification of poten-
tially important associations between communication and organ-
izational outcomes. Where implementers hold such associations,
they may be more attentive to communicative processes (and
advice about communicative practices) than in cases in which they
see no association. In either case, investigation of this question pro-
vides a basis for us to theorize about the motives for implementers’

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at Northeastern University on January 4, 2015

 Lewis / PLANNED ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE 47

communicative actions (e.g., for purposes of altering outcomes of

change effort vs. because communication is nice to have).

LITERATURE REVIEW

DISSEMINATING INFORMATION DURING

ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE

Uncertainty has been noted by communication scholars, both

within and beyond the planned change literature, as a key concern
in organizations (Eisenberg & Riley, 1988; Feldman & March,
1981; Lewis & Seibold, 1998; Redding, 1972). Fidler and Johnson
(1984) argue that the ultimate acceptance of an innovation “often
rests on the extent to which communication can act to reduce uncer-
tainty by ameliorating such factors as risk and complexity” (p. 704).
Empirical evidence underscores the importance of addressing
members’ information needs during organizational change. For
example, Covin and Kilmann (1990) in compiling a list of 900
issues that most affect the success or failure of large-scale organiza-
tional change, found,

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. Secrecy, dishonesty, and the failure
to assess dysfunctional rumors were also issues of concern. (p. 239)

Other empirical work has established the necessity of informa-

tion in reducing anxiety about change (Miller & Monge, 1985;
Smeltzer, 1991) and in increasing willingness to participate in
planned change (Miller, Johnson, & Grau, 1994). Papa and Papa
(1990) concluded that more research is needed into the relative
weight and importance of informal and formal information about
change. In their study, they found that receiving task-related mes-
sages and receiving negative evaluations of the new technology
were the strongest predictors of employee productivity with a new
technology. Fairhurst’s (1993) case study of the implementation of
a total-quality program found that framing devices that were used

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at Northeastern University on January 4, 2015

48 MCQ / Vol. 13, No. 1, August 1999

by managers and other opinion leaders have much to do with gain-

ing acceptance of a planned change. She characterizes implementa-
tion as an internal campaign in which top leaders both sell and
spread the word of change programs; she argues that these internal
campaigns are “planned, organized efforts to mold corporate
images, manage issues, and articulate values” (p. 334).
Evidence suggests that a key component of implementation
activity is related to the dissemination of information, which con-
cerns the downward dispersal of knowledge, ideas, training, facts,
and requests or directives for action concerning the change. How-
ever, we know very little about how this gets done within the con-
text of change. Rogers (1995) defines a communication channel as
“the means by which messages get from one individual to another”
(p. 18). Several authors writing in the change literature make broad
distinctions between interpersonal and mediated channels
(Dewhirst, 1971; Fidler & Johnson, 1984; Rogers, 1995). Interper-
sonal channels involve primarily face-to-face communication, and
mediated channels make use of some form of mass media or tech-
nology. Fidler and Johnson (1984) forward several propositions
concerning the use of these channel types for communication dur-
ing planned change implementation. They propose that interper-
sonal channels are more likely to meet specific needs of organiza-
tional members in overcoming risk and complexity associated with
a change. When high risk or complexity are not major factors, they
suggest that mediated channels are more effective in providing gen-
eral information. Rogers (1995) makes similar arguments about
these channel types and their effectiveness in communicating dur-
ing diffusion of innovations.
Larkin and Larkin (1994) support the use of interpersonal chan-
nels for implementation of change. They argue that most mediated
communications (e.g., reports, newspapers, videos, posters, CEO
presentations, closed-circuit TV shows) are centered on the CEO’s
message. Larkin and Larkin suggest that “above everything else,
communication should be about changing employees. And senior
executive communication doesn’t do that—only communication
between a supervisor and employees has the power to change the
way employees act” (p. 87).

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at Northeastern University on January 4, 2015

 Lewis / PLANNED ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE 49

Young and Post (1993) found, in their study of exemplary com-

panies (so identified by peer organizations), that managers strongly
endorse face-to-face communication in communicating about
major organizational change. Managers made use of company-
wide meetings, unit meetings, site visits, and the use of ambassador
teams to answer nitty-gritty questions that were of concern to
employees. Other mediated channels were also included in this
study’s list of best practices. Use of television, videos, e-mail, and
publications were found to be considered an effective part of the
communication package when introducing change. These organi-
zations seemed to share a philosophy of using multiple channels for
communicating during times of crisis or major organizational
change.
In reviewing the empirical evidence to date, we actually know
very little about the prevalence of use of formal mechanisms to
communicate about change. Although Young and Post’s (1993)
study gives us some idea of the practices of exemplary companies,
the common practices of less well-known, smaller organizations,
and those of organizations without such banner reputations, are
unknown. Put simply, we have little knowledge of the communica-
tive actions taken by implementers in disseminating information
about change. Although the practitioner-oriented literature con-
tains much advice about which methods of dissemination are bet-
ter, research to date provides scant insight into patterns of use of
various channels or comparative use of methods for various audi-
ences. To eventually theorize about the variables that predict use of
these communicative actions and likely outcomes of use, such
descriptions will prove useful. Thus, it is appropriate to ask,

Research Question 1: Which communication channels do implement-

ers use to disseminate information to organizational staff concern-
ing planned changes?

In addition to comment on channels for communicating, several

authors have noted the importance of the source of information
about planned organizational change. Larkin and Larkin (1994),
based on a review of internal company research (e.g., General

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at Northeastern University on January 4, 2015

50 MCQ / Vol. 13, No. 1, August 1999

Motors, General Tire & Rubber, Hewlett-Packard, Cadbury

Schweppes General Electric, AT&T) and benchmarking studies,
argue that change is best implemented by targeting supervisors as
the mouthpiece for change initiatives rather than using top-level
managers to communicate directly to the front line. They also
eschew use of middle management as a conduit of information.
They suggest that employees most prefer supervisors as a source of
information because they are considered opinion leaders and are
the most trusted component of management.
In contrast, while acknowledging employees’ preference to hear
news from line supervisors, Young and Post (1993) stress the
importance of CEO involvement in change communication. They
suggest that “The CEO must be philosophically committed to the
notion that communicating with employees is essential to the
achievement of corporate goals” (p. 34). Furthermore, Young and
Post argue that top management must be willing to deliver key mes-
sages themselves and not delegate that task to others. Visibility of
top management support is considered by these authors to be a key
to success.
Although the debate rages in the proscriptive literature, little in
empirical evidence is available concerning commonly used sources
for change information. We have some sense of the preference of
employees for sources of communication but little generalizable
evidence of the most and least used sources for information dis-
semination during planned change. Thus, the second research
question asks,

Research Question 2: Who is the primary source of information about

planned organizational change?

SOLICITING INPUT DURING ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE

Soliciting input concerns downward requests for and active

gathering of ideas, opinions, suggestions, evaluations, and reac-
tions relating to a change. Several advantages are said to accrue
from participation during implementation decision making, includ-
ing increased commitment to the change (Argote, Goodman, &

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at Northeastern University on January 4, 2015

 Lewis / PLANNED ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE 51

Schkade, 1983), increased accuracy in perceptions about the rea-

sons for and goals of change initiatives (Brown, 1991), improve-
ment in system design from a user perspective (Leonard-Barton,
1987; Mankin, Bikson, & Gutek, 1984), and decreased employee
resistance to change (Mainiero & DeMichiell, 1986). In their study of
implementation of organizational downsizing, Cameron, Freeman,
and Mishra (1993) found evidence for the efficiency of involving
users at the lowest levels of the organization during planned
change. Effective downsizing strategies were recommended and
designed by lower level employees. In another study, Johnson and
Rice (1987) found a relationship between openness of channels of
communication and adaptiveness of the change program in sites
implementing word-processing systems. However, Lewis and
Seibold’s (1998) review of the implementation literature suggests
that empirical researchers have yet to agree on the exact form,
amount, and approach to participation that is most beneficial.
Insofar as practice is concerned, Young and Post (1993) report
that even in exemplary companies, formal solicitation of input was
inconsistent. They note, “In some cases, top managers could enu-
merate 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).
Although a growing body of research evidence indicates the
potential benefits of participation of lower level employees in
change decision making, and practitioner-oriented literature con-
tinues to recommend participatory practices, we have little idea
how often and in what forms this advice is heeded by implementers.
Furthermore, little is said in any of the literature regarding the
proper mix of communicative attention to dissemination of infor-
mation and soliciting of input. Certainly, implementers must balance
these two orientations for communicating about change. Although
on the one hand, implementers must recognize the information
needs of employees, they too are likely aware of some benefits
related to gathering bottom-up input. In what direction do they tend
to devote most of their communicative efforts? Answers to this
question yield important insights into the priorities of implement-
ers and may lead to theorizing about their beliefs about

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at Northeastern University on January 4, 2015

52 MCQ / Vol. 13, No. 1, August 1999

relationships between communicative style and outcomes for

change efforts (e.g., a certain balance of information dissemination
and soliciting input is more likely to produce more positive results).
Understanding both the general means used for soliciting input as
well as the relative attention devoted to disseminating information
and soliciting input are the subjects of the third and fourth research
questions.

Research Question 3: Which communication channels do implement-

ers use to solicit input from organizational staff concerning their
ideas, opinions, suggestions, evaluations, and reactions about
planned change?
Research Question 4: Do implementers devote more communication
during planned change to disseminating information or to soliciting
input?

COMMUNICATION WITH DIFFERENT AUDIENCES

DURING ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE

One weakness of the change literature has been a treatment of

receivers of change programs as a single entity, users. The failure of
most researchers to make important distinctions among the various
internal audiences who are receivers of information regarding
planned organizational change is problematic, indeed. Those who
write about organizational change as a political event demonstrate
the importance of such distinctions. DeLuca (1984) distinguishes
between three types of actors in the change process: controllers (set
of actors with power to sanction or terminate change efforts), tar-
gets (set of actors in which change is desired), and interventionists
(set of actors employed to bring about change in the targets). These
groups can further be divided into categories reflecting members’
amenability to the change (e.g., promoters, detractors, neutrals).
Certainly, the differences in informational needs, assessment of
risk and complexity regarding the planned change, and the desire to
give input about change programs differ for these groups. It may
also be true that implementers distinguish among them in strategies
for introducing change.
Schein (1985) argues that change is such a political process that
threats to current power distributions may become a central issue

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at Northeastern University on January 4, 2015

 Lewis / PLANNED ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE 53

that determines a change program’s survival: “Many high-quality

and seemingly beneficial change attempts can be thwarted by
political strategies employed by organizational members who seek
to maintain their own power or eliminate the power of the change
agent” (pp. 87-88). Coalition formation, resource bargaining, and
use of political games are only a few ways in which individuals
invoke power relationships during planned change. Schein argues
that individual influence strategies often focus on the manipulation
of communication channels and/or information.
Although a fair amount of attention has been paid to how politi-
cal players in an organization use change as an opportunity to form
coalitions, upset power distributions, and the like (Frost & Egri,
1991), little empirical work has addressed precisely how imple-
menters tailor their use of communication channels with different
internal audiences at the outset of change implementation. Are
there marginalized groups within organizations that, due to lack of
perceived power and resource control, get less attention from
implementers? This study sought to address that question by exam-
ining one contrasting internal audience to paid staff members (the
traditionally examined group in empirical investigations of
planned change) and posed the following question.

Research Question 5: Do implementers communicate differently (in

terms of disseminating information and soliciting input) with paid
staff than they do with volunteer staff regarding planned organiza-
tional change?

CONNECTING COMMUNICATION TO OUTCOMES

Although descriptions of the ways in which implementers com-

municate during planned change has merit in its own right, its value
is increased by connecting these practices to outcomes for organi-
zations. This study sought to make such a connection. It is widely
acknowledged in the practitioner-oriented literature that communi-
cation is a vital part of any change effort (Ackerman, 1982; Argote
et al., 1983; Baronas & Louis, 1988; Beatty & Gordon, 1990; Main-
iero & DeMichiell, 1986). The extent to which implementers actu-
ally connect the degree and type of communicating they do and the

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at Northeastern University on January 4, 2015

54 MCQ / Vol. 13, No. 1, August 1999

achievement of positive outcomes for the organization is unknown

and has important implications for their openness to advice and the
degree of prioritization they place on communicative processes.
Thus, the final research question asks,

Research Question 6: To what extent do implementers’reports of com-

municating about the change account for the variance in evaluations
of the success of the planned change effort?

METHOD

RESPONDENTS AND ORGANIZATIONS

A total of 76 questionnaires were returned by respondents, who

were paid staff at the organizations, about which they were report-
ing. One volunteer and 12 nonstaff (presumably outside consult-
ants) responded. Table 1 provides a summary of the respondents’
areas of role expertise on the implementation team on which they
served. Of the respondents’ organizations, 30 had fewer than 100
employees; another 30 had between 100 to 1,000 employees; and
24 had more than 1,000 employees. Twenty of the respondents’
organizations had volunteer staff. Five respondents gave no answer
to the questions concerning numbers of staff.
All organizational sectors were included in the sample, with
49.4% reporting for-profit organizations, 20.2% reporting not-for-
profit or nonprofit, 20.2% reporting governmental, and 10.1%
reporting “other” as the type of organization. Table 2 reports the
industry of the organizations represented by the implementers
responding to this questionnaire. Respondents reported implemen-
tation programs that had taken place in a variety of states and coun-
tries. Twenty-four states and 11 countries (Argentina, Belgium, Can-
ada, Egypt, Germany, Japan, Mexico, Singapore, Taiwan, United
Kingdom, and the United States) were listed as sites for the imple-
mentation efforts described in the questionnaire (while only some
of these questionnaires were returned from respondents presently
located outside of the United States, 11 concerned non-U.S.

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at Northeastern University on January 4, 2015

 Lewis / PLANNED ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE 55

TABLE 1: Areas of Respondents’ Expertise on Implementation Team (N = 88)

Percentage
Area of Expertise Reporting Frequency

Human resources 33.7 30

Volunteer coordination 11.2 10
Change process expertise 40.4 36
Training expertise 23.6 21
Group or organizational expertise 40.4 36
Line experience (e.g., production workers, staff) 23.6 21
Technical expertise (e.g., hardware, software, procedures) 12.4 11
Other 14.6 13

NOTE: Respondents could report as many areas of expertise as applied to themselves in their
role on the implementation team.

TABLE 2: Type of Organization Reported by Implementers (N = 89)

Percentage
Type of Organization Reporting Frequency

Service or retail 21.3 19

Manufacturing 20.2 18
Research and development 1.1 1
Military 2.2 2
Human service, or medical or health 24.7 22
Governmental or political advocacy 6.7 6
Educational 11.2 10
Other 12.4 11

implementation efforts). Some implementation efforts reportedly

took place in multiple countries and states.

PROCEDURES

Respondents for this study were recruited by one of three meth-

ods. Several respondents were recruited through direct contact by
the researcher or her assistant. Others were recruited by way of a
snowball sample in which participants were asked to recruit col-
leagues and professional acquaintances. Most respondents were
recruited through their membership in professional associations.

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at Northeastern University on January 4, 2015

56 MCQ / Vol. 13, No. 1, August 1999

The researcher contacted several professional associations as well

as numerous affiliated groups involved in human resource manage-
ment, volunteer administration, quality program management,
management consulting, and health and human services manage-
ment. Representatives of these associations and groups were asked
to distribute questionnaires at meetings of their members. The goal
of the sampling method was to gain respondents from many sectors
of organizational life in the United States and abroad. We recruited
both nonprofit organizational representatives as well as govern-
mental and for-profit representatives. Attempts to gain access to
non-U.S. organizations, and non-U.S. branches of U.S. organiza-
tions were also made.
Respondents’ self-reports of experiences implementing a
planned organizational change were elicited with the use of a self-
administered questionnaire. Individual prospective respondents
received a copy of the questionnaire and a cover letter explaining
the purpose of the research project. They were asked to complete
the questionnaire if they had helped to implement a planned change
in an organization in the past 5 years. Helping was defined in the
cover letter as “planning, coordinating, training, evaluating, and/or
monitoring.” Participants were also told to respond whether they
had led the implementation effort or had been a part of an imple-
mentation team. Questionnaires were returned in postage-paid
envelopes to the researcher.
Of the 848 questionnaires that were sent out to potential respon-
dents, 89 usable questionnaires were returned from self-
determined eligible respondents. Although this is a small absolute
return rate (10%), a much healthier return rate is undoubtedly obtained
when using only eligible respondents in the calculation. The method
used to disseminate the questionnaires necessitated sending out many
more questionnaires to potential respondents than there were of eli-
gible respondents. Furthermore, many of the questionnaires that
were sent out to association meetings did not reach even potential
respondents because groups disseminating the survey did not know
exact numbers of attendees that would be at their meetings. Of
those potential respondents who did receive the questionnaire,

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at Northeastern University on January 4, 2015

 Lewis / PLANNED ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE 57

many more likely were never involved in leading an implementa-

tion effort and thus self-selected themselves out of the study.
Therefore, there is good reason to believe that the true response
rate is much higher than it appears, although a precise estimate can-
not be calculated due to the logistics of the sampling method.
Although this collection method leaves open the possibility of bias
in the final sample, there is good evidence that the sample is repre-
sentative of the population sought. The respondents come from all
sectors of the economy (nonprofit, for-profit, governmental or mili-
tary), many types of organizations (service or retail, manufactur-
ing, human service, education, research and development, and
military), and organizations of small (less than 100 staff members),
medium (between 100 and 1,000 staff), and large (more than 1,000
staff) size. The sample also includes a wide range of states and sev-
eral foreign countries as sites for implementation efforts. The goal
of the study was to get a wide range of respondents from a wide
range of organizational settings, with wide ranges of experiences
implementing planned organizational change. This goal appears to
have been achieved.

MEASUREMENT OF VARIABLES

Implementers’ use of channels to disseminate information to

staff members was measured on a seven-point scale, with the
anchors not used and frequently used. Frequency of use of six chan-
nels were reported: general informational meetings, small informal
discussions, posted information (signs, bulletin boards, computer),
handouts given to staff, asking line supervisors to hold meetings,
and word of mouth (employee to employee). This list of channels
was developed from the researcher’s observations of organizations
undergoing change programs. These channels are meant to repre-
sent commonly used channels for dissemination of information.
Although other possible channels may be used by implementers
(see discussion of limitations), understanding use of these basic
channels is a fruitful beginning point. Different sets of identical

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at Northeastern University on January 4, 2015

58 MCQ / Vol. 13, No. 1, August 1999

items were used to collect data concerning communication with

paid and with volunteer staff.
Respondents were asked to report the primary source of infor-
mation about the change for most of the paid and volunteer staff by
responding to a single item. They were asked to check one of the
following seven sources: top management, middle management,
line supervisors, human resources, implementation team, experts
or consultants, coworkers. “Other” was also a possible response to
this item.
Implementers’ use of channels to solicit input from staff mem-
bers was measured on the same 7-point scale used to measure dis-
semination of information. Respondents reported use of six chan-
nels to solicit input, including large formal meetings, small
informal discussions, checking in with staff supervisors, attitude
and opinion surveys, formal evaluations, and unsolicited com-
plaints or praise. As in the case of the dissemination channels, this
list was developed from observations of organizational change
efforts as a representative set of possible channels. Different sets of
identical items were used to collect data concerning communica-
tion with paid and with volunteer staff.
Evaluation of success was measured with a single item on a
7-point Likert-type scale with the anchors, not at all successful and
very successful. The item asked the respondents to provide their
own ratings of the success of the planned change effort they had
described in the questionnaire.

RESULTS

TYPES OF PLANNED CHANGES

Respondents were asked to describe a planned organizational

change effort that “you helped to implement within the past 5 years
in your own organization or in another organization.” Planned
changes included self-directed work teams, strategic management,
transformational management, work task analyses, reorganization

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at Northeastern University on January 4, 2015

 Lewis / PLANNED ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE 59

TABLE 3: Dimensions of Change Brought by Implementation Effort (N = 89)

Percentage
Changes Brought by Implementation Effort Reporting Frequency

Changes in job descriptions, job duties, or job responsibilities 87.6 78

Changes in status of some employees
(e.g., promotions, demotions) 50.6 45
Changes in type or amount of rewards for some employees
(e.g., pay, benefits) 43.8 39
Changes in the way work is done 95.5 85
Downsizing (that is, the reduction of jobs) 31.5 28
Restructuring of organizational departments or jobs 78.7 70
Changes in performance evaluation methods
(e.g., appraisal system) 40.4 36
Changes in who reports to whom 65.2 58
Changes in work group, team, or unit work assignments 71.9 64
Changes in individuals’ work assignments
(e.g., schedules, work area, coworkers) 75.3 67

NOTE: Respondents could report as many dimensions of the change as applied to this
implementation.

of client services, division of one company into three, computer

system, on-the-job training program, financial or accounting pro-
cedures, benchmarking, restructuring, customer relations program,
reengineered production method, merger, quality programs, elec-
tronic system, volunteer recruitment process, reward systems, soft-
ware installation, goal-setting efforts, production technologies,
consolidation of regional offices, reallocation of staff, voice-
response technology, computer system conversion, database man-
agement system, and downsizing.
Narrative descriptions were followed by a number of closed-
ended items. Asked for the one best description of the planned
change, 15% of respondents (11/80) indicated technology, 13.8%
(11/80) indicated policy, and 71.3% (57/80) indicated program.
However, the vast majority of the respondents (94%, 81/86) indi-
cated that the planned change involved some combination of tech-
nological, policy, and program changes. The dimensions of the
changes brought by these implementation efforts are summarized
in Table 3.

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at Northeastern University on January 4, 2015

60 MCQ / Vol. 13, No. 1, August 1999

TABLE 4: Mean Use of Communication Channels for Disseminating Information to

Paid Staff (N = 85-88)

Use for Paid Staff

Channel M SD

General informational meetings 4.84 1.84

Small informal discussions 5.03 1.65
Posted information (signs, bulletin boards, computer) 3.95 2.07
Handouts given to staff members 4.14 2.04
Asking line supervisors to hold informational meetings about change 4.00 2.03
Word of mouth (staff to staff) 4.72 1.90

DISSEMINATING INFORMATION

Research Question 1 asks about the relative use of various chan-

nels for disseminating information during planned change. Results
(see Table 4) indicate that the two most commonly used channels
were small informal discussions (M = 5.03; SD = 1.65) and general
informational meetings (M = 4.84; SD = 1.84). The least commonly
used channel for disseminating information to paid staff were ask-
ing line supervisors to hold meetings (M = 4.00; SD = 2.03) and
posted information (M = 3.95; SD = 2.07). Face-to-face channels
appear to be the most commonly used for disseminating informa-
tion, mediated channels being used less often. Interestingly, use of
line supervisors (a highly recommended strategy by some authors
in the practitioner literature) is one of the least used channels.
Regarding Research Question 2, the primary source of informa-
tion about the change was most often identified as the implementa-
tion team (30.3%), followed by top management (27%), middle
management (16.9%), line supervisors (10.1%), human resources
(4.5%), experts or consultants (3.4%), and coworkers (1.1%).
These results indicate that, at least in terms of what implementers
perceive, the source of information tends to be formally designated
and nearer the top of the organization. Again, line supervisors do
not appear to be used as the main conduit of information from an
implementer perspective. Rather, change agents consider them-
selves to be the main provider of information about the change
programs.

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at Northeastern University on January 4, 2015

 Lewis / PLANNED ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE 61

TABLE 5: Mean Use of Communication Channels for Soliciting Input From Paid
Staff (N = 86-87)

Use for Paid Staff

Channel M SD

Large formal meetings 3.52 2.15

Small informal discussions 4.83 1.78
Checking in with line supervisors 4.02 1.95
Attitude and opinion surveys 2.38 1.69
Formal evaluation 2.63 2.05
Unsolicited complaints or praise 3.79 1.93

SOLICITING INPUT

Research Question 3 asks about the relative use of various chan-

nels for soliciting input. The two most commonly used channels for
soliciting input were reported to be “small informal discussions”
(M = 4.83; SD = 1.78) and “checking in with line supervisors” (M =
4.02; SD = 1.95), both informal and most likely face-to-face chan-
nels (see Table 5). The least frequently used channels for soliciting
input were “attitude and opinion surveys” (M = 2.38; SD = 1.69)
and “formal evaluation” (M = 2.63; SD = 2.05). These data indicate
that the most rigorous methods of measurement of results and
responses to change are used only to a very small degree by
implementers.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DISSEMINATING

INFORMATION AND SOLICITING INPUT

To answer Research Question 4, which asks about relative atten-

tion given to dissemination of information and solicitation of input,
comparisons were made between the means for the channels used
for each purpose. In general, channels for soliciting input were used
less often than were channels for disseminating information (four
of the six channel means for soliciting input were below 4.0 on the
7-point response scale. Only one channel mean for disseminating
information was below 4.0). In addition, for each respondent, a
summary score for use of channels to disseminate information and

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at Northeastern University on January 4, 2015

62 MCQ / Vol. 13, No. 1, August 1999

TABLE 6: Differences in Channel Use in Disseminating Information to Paid and Vol-

unteer Staff (N = 21)

Paid Staff Volunteer Staff

Channel M SD M SD df t

General informational meetings 5.38 1.69 4.62 2.40 20 2.05**

Small informal discussions 5.14 1.71 3.67 2.06 20 2.66**
Posted information
(signs, bulletin boards, computer) 3.45 1.99 3.25 2.27 19 .42
Handouts given to staff members 4.50 2.16 3.80 2.46 19 1.22
Asking line supervisors to hold
informational meetings about change 3.47 2.32 2.89 2.26 18 1.38
Word of mouth (staff to staff) 4.45 2.06 3.35 2.30 19 1.87*

*p < .10. **p < .05.

a summary score for use of channels to solicit input were created

and compared. Summary scores represent the mean use of the spe-
cific category (dissemination or solicitation) of channels. The aver-
age dissemination summary score (M = 4.46) was higher than the
average solicitation summary score (M = 3.48). This result was
confirmed with a t test that determined a statistically significant dif-
ference (t = 8.53, p < .0001) between use of a dissemination
approach and a solicitation approach to change communication.
These implementers tended to disseminate information signifi-
cantly more often.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PAID

AND VOLUNTEER STAFF

Research Question 5 concerns the differences between commu-

nication approaches to paid and volunteer staff. For the 20 organi-
zations that reported communicating with volunteers about
planned change efforts, t tests were conducted to determine if sig-
nificant differences exist between implementers’ uses of these
channels to communicate with paid and volunteer staff. Results of
paired t tests are included in Tables 6 and 7. In terms of disseminat-
ing information, results of the t tests (see Table 6) show that there
are significant differences (p < .10) for three channels. Respon-
dents reported differences in use of small informal discussions (t =

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at Northeastern University on January 4, 2015

 Lewis / PLANNED ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE 63

TABLE 7: Differences in Channel Use for Soliciting Input From Paid and Volunteer
Staff (N = 19-20)

Paid Staff Volunteer Staff

Channel M SD M SD df t

Large formal meetings 4.05 2.33 3.30 2.41 19 1.60

Small informal discussions 5.05 1.57 3.75 2.15 19 3.11***
Checking in with line supervisors 4.00 2.06 2.89 1.94 18 2.96***
Attitude and opinion surveys 3.42 3.42 2.84 2.84 18 1.42
Formal evaluation 3.11 2.00 3.05 2.07 18 .11
Unsolicited complaints or praise 3.95 2.04 3.11 2.16 18 2.00*

*p < .10. ***p < .01.

2.66, p < .015), general informational meetings (t = 2.05, p < .053),

and word of mouth (staff to staff) (t = 1.87, p < .077) in disseminat-
ing information. In each case, these channels are used to communi-
cate with paid staff more often than they are used to communicate
with volunteers.
Results of the t tests and means for measures related to soliciting
input (see Table 7) show that there are differences that appear sig-
nificant (p < .10) in the use of three channels to solicit input from
paid and volunteer staff. Respondents reported more frequent use
of small informal discussions (t = 3.11, p < .006), checking in with
line supervisor (t = 2.96, p < .008), and unsolicited complaints and
praise (t = 2.00, p < .061) with paid staff than with volunteer staff.

CHANNEL USED TO COMMUNICATE

AND EVALUATIONS OF SUCCESS

In analyzing Research Question 6, the degree to which imple-

menters’ communication approaches account for evaluations of
success, the respondents’ self-reports of implementation success
were used (M = 5.02, SD = 1.59, N = 86). Hierarchical Regression
analyses were used to determine the effect of use of channels to dis-
seminate information and use of channels to solicit input from paid
staff on implementers’ evaluations of success. The model was con-
structed for paid staff only (to maximize the number of respondents
in the equation). Use of channels to disseminate information were
entered first to test the effect of communicating information to paid

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at Northeastern University on January 4, 2015

64 MCQ / Vol. 13, No. 1, August 1999

TABLE 8: Hierarchical Regression Analyses: The Effects of Channel Use to Dissemi-

nate Information and Solicit Input on Implementers’ Evaluations of Suc-
cess (N = 76)

Variable Blocks R2 Adjusted R2 F Change in R2 F

Step 1—disseminating information .28 .22 4.63**** .28 4.63****

General informational meetings
Small informal discussions
Posted information
Handouts given to staff members
Line supervisors holding meetings
Word of mouth (staff to staff)
Step 2—soliciting input .32 .20 2.55*** .04 .63
Large formal meetings
Small informal discussions
Checking in with supervisors
Attitude and opinion surveys
Formal evaluation
Unsolicited complaints or praise

***p < .01. ****p < .001.

staff on the successful outcome of the planned change. Channels

used to solicit input were entered on a second step in the regression
to determine whether they would add significantly to the variance
explained by the dissemination channels.
The results (presented in Table 8) of the hierarchical regression
analyses (N after listwise deletion = 76) indicate that the first block
of variables, use of channels for dissemination of information, adds
significantly to the value of R2 (F = 4.63, p = .0005). These channels
accounted for 28% of the variance in implementers’ evaluations of
the success of planned change efforts. The use of the channels to
solicit input from paid staff, entered on the second step of the
model, did not add significantly to the model (Change in R2 = .04, F =
.627, p = .71).
Interpretations of the standardized beta weights (see Table 9) of
the reduced model (variables entered on the first step) indicate that
the use of general informational meetings (t = 3.22, p = .002) has a
positive effect on implementers’ evaluations of success of
planned change efforts. The more frequently this channel was

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at Northeastern University on January 4, 2015

 Lewis / PLANNED ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE 65

TABLE 9: Beta Weights for Reduced Model: The Effects of Channel Use for Dissemi-
nating Information on Implementers’ Evaluation of Success (N = 76)

Variable B SE B Beta

Disseminating information
General informational meetings .34 .11 .39***
Small informal discussions .16 .11 .16
Posted information .11 .09 .14
Handouts given to staff members –.09 .09 –.11
Line supervisors holding meetings .09 .08 .12
Word of mouth (staff to staff) –.02 .10 –.02
2
NOTE: R = .28, F = 4.63, p < .001.
***p < .01.

used to disseminate information, the higher the evaluation of suc-

cess by the implementer. The other channels for disseminating
information do not appear to contribute significantly to implement-
ers’ evaluations.

DISCUSSION

This study makes several contributions to the literature on

planned change implementation. First, it provides the first gener-
alizable description of methods that implementers are using to
communicate about planned change in their organizations. These
data suggest that implementers tend to use small informal discus-
sions and general informational meetings most frequently in dis-
seminating information about planned change. They also acknowl-
edge that the third most frequently used channel is word of mouth
from employee to employee. Written information (posted and
handouts) as well as use of line supervisors acting as conduits of
information dissemination are the least frequently used channels.
On average, implementers appear to solicit input much less fre-
quently than they disseminate information. The most frequently
used channels for soliciting input are more informal ones (e.g.,
small informal discussions, checking in with staff supervisors,
unsolicited complaints and praise).

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at Northeastern University on January 4, 2015

66 MCQ / Vol. 13, No. 1, August 1999

One of the implications of this usage pattern is the surprisingly

little use that is made of line supervisors in implementing planned
change. One might expect these lower level management personnel
to play a critical role in communicating the desires and rationale of
top management regarding new initiatives. Line supervisors may
be best suited to translate and interpret abstract organizational poli-
cies and goals and make them relevant to daily work tasks. Line
supervisors are well positioned to observe and upwardly communi-
cate problems and concerns of their subordinates. And yet, here we
find them playing a minimal role in most planned change efforts.
Interestingly, line supervisors were considered the primary source
of information about these planned changes in only 10% of the
organizations.
These data also suggest some important similarities and differ-
ences between the means used to communicate to paid and volun-
teer staff in organizations. The most frequently used channels for
communicating with paid staff are the same as those most used to
communicate with volunteer staff. However, in each instance in
which a significant difference in frequency of use of channels is
found, the channel was used less frequently in communicating with
volunteers. It may be that due to the nature of volunteer work, in
terms of the work tasks, location of work, and interdependence of
work, that these differences in communication frequency are negli-
gible in their effects. However, if the work of these volunteers is
integral to the operation of the organization and to the success of the
planned change effort, differences may be dysfunctional for imple-
mentation efforts.
This study also addressed the question of the effectiveness of
these communication strategies. Although implementers’ evalua-
tions of success are only a partial description of effectiveness, they
at least represent a potentially important voice in organizations’
self-evaluations of success and failure of change efforts. What we
find here is that implementers appear to associate successful out-
comes with use of channels to disseminate information. Particu-
larly, use of general informational meetings is associated with high
evaluations of success. Although there is much more to explain in
the variance of implementers’ evaluations of outcomes (72%), this

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at Northeastern University on January 4, 2015

 Lewis / PLANNED ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE 67

one factor is fairly powerful as a predictor. This finding suggests

that implementers perceive getting the word out as a critical step in
change implementation but that they may perceive participation of
staff in implementation as less critical to success.
Finally, these data reinforce what we already suspected, that
organizations are changing in deep and enduring ways. As the data
in Table 3 make clear, a single planned change often gives rise to a
high degree of discontinuity and disruption in organizational work
methods, relationships, and roles. Planned change appears to
involve much more than the presence of new procedures, ideas,
people, and machinery. Planned change also often involves new
organizational structures, new rules, new roles, new values, new
rewards, and new ways of doing work. And for some, it means
being relocated, reorganized, or released from the organization.
Several limitations of this study should be noted. One set of
potential limitations is due to use of a single method in this investi-
gation. This study used self-administered questionnaires as its only
method. Although self-report indices have been found to be as reli-
able—and in some cases, more reliable—as other methods for
measuring behavior (Howard, 1994), they certainly may yield an
incomplete image of organizational life. Self-reports are useful in
this study for two major reasons. First, this method allows us to
understand something about what implementers believe they are
doing. These data may be even more useful when compared with
what other constituents perceive within a given organization, but
they are also valuable solely as a description of implementers’ rep-
resentations of the process of installing planned organizational
change. These data tell us something about the priorities of imple-
menters and the value they have for various communication activi-
ties during implementation. Second, these self-reports provide
information that is unlikely to be known at other levels of organiza-
tions. Although other constituents in organizations may have per-
ceptions of received information or of desired information, they are
not likely to have knowledge of what channels were intended to be
used for communication and with what frequency.
A second limitation concerns the unknown bias in the sample,
due to the incalculable response rate. As is argued above, the

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at Northeastern University on January 4, 2015

68 MCQ / Vol. 13, No. 1, August 1999

method for gathering data necessitated sending out more question-

naires than there were known eligible respondents to receive. If the
true response rate (calculated as actual respondents divided by eli-
gible respondents) is very low, there is a possibility that bias exists
in the sample. For example, implementers having had extreme nega-
tive experiences with planned change may be disproportionately
underrepresented. Other similar biases are possible. However, the
wide variation in the type of implementer, organization, and sectors
represented in the sample achieved discourages such conclusions.
A third potential limitation of this study stems from the closed-
ended form of many of the questions. Respondents were able to
report only on channels the researcher included in the questionnaire
and some important channels may have been ignored. This study
did not ask specifically about newsletters or internal news flyers,
although it did ask about postings and handouts. Similar to this, the
questionnaire did not include questions about video recordings,
interactive, internal television, and radio shows that have also been
used in some organizations in the implementation of change
(Larkin & Larkin, 1994; Young & Post, 1993). Although some of
these channels represent avenues for communication that are more
the exception than the rule (and likely only affordable for the very
largest organizations), they are potentially powerful and important
channels. To the extent that the list of channels was incomplete,
conclusions about channel use should be considered tentative.
Fourth, aside from general characterizations of dissemination of
information and solicitation of input, respondents were not asked to
report about the specific content of their communication with staff
members. They were asked merely to report frequency of use of
channels in their communication. Although this study yields more
specific knowledge than what has existed in the literature to date, it
still represents broad strokes at describing communication about
planned change.

APPLICATIONS

What should implementers take from these data? There are three
potential lessons for implementers embedded in these data. First,

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at Northeastern University on January 4, 2015

 Lewis / PLANNED ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE 69

these reports serve as a point of comparison that may sensitize

implementers to their own use of communication channels to dis-
seminate information and to solicit input. Although only one study,
this study’s fairly large heterogeneous sample provides something
of a normative database for implementers (although practitioners
should be cautioned that normative may not necessarily equate to
effective or successful). There may be channels that individual
implementers routinely ignore, and this study’s results may prompt
them to make better use of all the channels available in their own
organizations. Too, these data point to the likelihood that some
internal constituencies (e.g., volunteers) become “information
poor” during planned change implementation. Implementers are
advised to consider the balance of communication directed to and
requested from various groups within their organizations. Even
where volunteers are not present, contingent or off-site workers
may also be overlooked when communicating about change. Tem-
porary workers, telecommuters, satellite office staff, and part-time
workers are likely candidates for information segregation.
Second, the results of this study point to neglect of two commu-
nication strategies by implementers. First, as noted above, line
supervisors appear to be underused. Although much has been writ-
ten about the benefits of supporting and addressing needs of users
during implementation (Argote et al., 1983; Beatty & Gordon,
1990; Brown, 1991, Mainiero & DeMichiell, 1986), only a handful
of authors (Baronas & Louis, 1988; Larkin & Larkin, 1994;
Mankin et al., 1984) have addressed the role of line supervisors in
accomplishing these goals. As Argote et al. (1983) conclude in
their study about the implementation of a robot in a factory, “In
times of change workers are likely to go to their supervisors more
frequently for information and advice. The attitudes and behaviors
of supervisors are likely to have a big effect on the success of [the
change program]” (p. 39).
Evidence in a study by Fairhurst (1993) demonstrates the poten-
tially important role that lower level leaders may play in framing
the vision of a planned change. Fairhurst concludes that articula-
tion of the vision of a planned change by senior management is not
enough and that attention needs to be paid to the “foot soldiers” in

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at Northeastern University on January 4, 2015

70 MCQ / Vol. 13, No. 1, August 1999

the internal campaign used to manage the vision: “It is the lower
participants of the organization who manage the culture and do the
work of the organization—with or without the vision as they see
fit” (p. 366).
The results of this study also call attention to the lack of use of
communication channels to solicit input from staff. Although
implementers in this study made some efforts to solicit input, those
efforts could be characterized mostly as informal and relatively
infrequent. In light of evidence suggesting the importance of chan-
nels for upward feedback—participation—generally (Cotton,
1993), and specifically, in the case of planned change (Argote et al.,
1983; Baronas & Louis, 1988; Mankin et al., 1984), implementers
would be well advised to consider increasing such efforts. Partici-
pation of lower level staff in implementation decisions has been
recommended by numerous authors as a way to increase employee
morale, satisfaction, and job involvement (Miller & Monge, 1985).
And as Cotton (1993) argues,

A highly involved workforce is essential to implementing many of

the new technologies, techniques, and practices used in organiza-
tions today. Employees must be involved if they are to understand
the need for the innovations and how they operate; they must by
[sic] involved if they are to be committed to changing their behav-
iors to work in new, improved ways. (p. vii-viii)

Third and finally, these data serve to remind implementers of the

significant ways in which organizations are altered by planned
change efforts. The changes brought by implementation efforts
summarized in Table 3 highlight the numerous issues to which
introduction of policies, programs, and technologies give rise.
Changes in status, reward structures, job descriptions, roles, work
methods, work relationships, and procedures bring significant
organizational issues to the surface. Implementers, often caught up
in the specific steps to get new programs up and running, may
neglect to address these critical and connected side issues.
Although the questionnaire in this study did not address specific
content of communication, implementers can use these results to

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at Northeastern University on January 4, 2015

 Lewis / PLANNED ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE 71

question their own practices of addressing the web of potential con-

cerns and ripple effects that come with major organizational
planned change.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

A few directions for future research are immediately suggested

by this study’s results. First, as mentioned above, more specific
attention needs to be paid to the content of implementers’ commu-
nication with staff. It would be useful to know what topics (e.g.,
rationale, goals, timetables, implementation steps, incentives or
rewards, installation procedures, corrective feedback, performance
evaluations, training) implementers prioritize to communicate to
staff members. Also, it would be useful to know types of informa-
tion, if any, that implementers purposefully withhold from lower
level staff. A logical extension of such work would be to determine
if different content is transmitted through different channels or
sources. Research concerning the content or channel or sources
will provide a much clearer picture of implementer communication
during planned organizational change and can provide a basis for
beginning to judge what is most effective and why. A similar set of
questions should be posed concerning channels and topics priori-
tized by staff members in their communication to implementers
about planned changes.
In a second area of research, longitudinal analyses can usefully
be applied to discover the degree to which implementers make
adjustments in their communication strategies over the lifetime of
an implementation effort. Previous research suggests that time-
based dynamics do effect implementation efforts. Tyre and
Orlikowski (1994) found that a relatively brief window of opportu-
nity exists to adapt change programs before “the technology and its
context of use tend to congeal, often embedding unresolved prob-
lems into organizational practice” (p. 98). And, Van de Ven (1993)
contends that “interest and commitment wane with time. Thus,
after the honeymoon period, innovations terminate at dispropor-
tionately higher rates, in proportion to the time required for their

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at Northeastern University on January 4, 2015

72 MCQ / Vol. 13, No. 1, August 1999

implementation” (p. 286). It is likely that implementers begin

implementation efforts with mostly downward communication
dominated by use of formal channels. As level of implementation
success begins to be determined at some midpoint, implementers
likely seek out more informal communication opportunities and
solicit more input. However, other patterns and trends are possible
in less traditionally arranged organizations and by implementers
with different sorts of problems and interests. Such a research
approach would provide the most process-oriented picture (movie)
of planned change communication yet.
A third direction for research is suggested by the above finding
concerning differential treatment of internal audiences. Several
organizational internal constituencies may be subjected to the role
of the “information poor” during planned change efforts. Research
should be directed at uncovering the depth of this information seg-
regation, the affected groups, and the ultimate effects on change
efforts in organizations. Increasing evidence points to the unbal-
anced treatment of the disposable worker (e.g., temporary workers,
part timers) and more isolated workers (e.g., telecommuters, poorly
networked staff, satellite office staff). Empirical investigation of
information gaps and participation gaps of such groups will add tre-
mendously to our understanding of the communication patterns
surrounding implementation of planned change.

REFERENCES

Ackerman, L. S. (1982). Transition management: An in-depth look at managing complex

change. Organizational Dynamics, 11(3), 46-66.
Albrecht, T. L., & Hall, B. (1991). Relational and content differences between elites and out-
siders in innovation networks. Human Communication Research, 17, 535-561.
Albrecht, T. L., & Ropp, V. A. (1984). Communicating about innovation in networks of three
U.S. organizations. Journal of Communication, 4, 78-91.
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.
Ashford, S. J. (1988). Individual strategies for coping with stress during organizational tran-
sitions. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 24, 19-36.
Baronas, A.M.K., & Louis, M. R. (1988). Restoring a sense of control during implementa-
tion: How user involvement leads to system acceptance. Management Information Sys-
tems Quarterly, 12, 111-124.

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at Northeastern University on January 4, 2015

 Lewis / PLANNED ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE 73

Beatty, C. A., & Gordon, J.R.M. (1990). Advanced manufacturing technology: Making it
happen. Business Quarterly, 54, 46-53.
Brown, R. J. (1991) Cooperatives in managerial transition: What is the least disruptive way
to introduce change? Management Quarterly, 32, 22-24.
Cameron, K. S., Freeman, S. J., & Mishra, A. K. (1993). Downsizing and redesigning organi-
zations. In G. P. Huber & W. H. Glick (Eds.), Organizational change and redesign
(pp. 19-63). New York: Oxford University Press.
Cotton, J. L. (1993). Employee involvement. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Covin, T. J., & Kilmann, R. H. (1990). Participant perceptions of positive and negative influ-
ences on large-scale change. Group and Organizational Studies, 15, 233-248.
Cushman, D. P., & King, S. S. (1994). High speed management. Albany: SUNY Press.
DeLuca, J. R. (1984). Managing the socio-political context in planned change efforts. In
A. Kakabadse & C. Parker (Eds.), Power, politics, and organizations: A behavioral sci-
ence view (pp. 127-147). New York: John Wiley.
Dewhirst, H. D. (1971). Influence of perceived information-sharing norms on communica-
tion channel utilization. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 305-315.
Eisenberg, E. M., & Riley, P. (1988). Organizational symbols and sense-making. In G. M.
Goldhaber & G. A. Barnett (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication
(pp. 131-150). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Fairhurst, G. T. (1993). Echoes of the vision: When the rest of the organization talks total
quality. Management Communication Quarterly, 6, 331-371.
Fairhurst, G. T., & Wendt, R. F. (1993). The gap in total quality: A commentary. Management
Communication Quarterly, 6, 441-451.
Feldman, M. S., & March, J. G. (1981). Information in organizations as sign and symbol.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 171-186.
Fidler, L. A., & Johnson, J. D. (1984). Communication and innovation implementation.
Academy of Management Review, 9, 704-711.
Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (1995). The role of conversations in producing intentional change
in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20, 541-570.
Frost, P. J. & Egri, C. P. (1991). The political process of innovation. In L. L. Cummings &
B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 13, pp. 229-295). Green-
wich, CT: JAI.
Fulk, J., Schmitz, J. A., & Steinfield, C. W. (1990). A social influence model of technology
use. In J. Fulk & C. Steinfield (Eds.), Organizations and communication technology
(pp. 117-140). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Howard, G. S. (1994). Why do people say such nasty things about self-reports? Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 15, 399-404.
Johnson, B. M, & Rice, R. E. (1987). Managing organizational innovation: The evolution
form word processing to office information systems. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Klein, K. J., & Sorra, J. S. (1996). The challenge of innovation implementation. Academy of
Management Review, 21, 1055-1080.
Kotter, J. P., & Schlesinger, L. A. (1979). Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business
Review, 57(2), 106-114.
Larkin, T. J., & Larkin, S. (1994). Communicating change: Winning support for new busi-
ness goals. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Leonard-Barton, D. (1987). The case for integrative innovation: An expert system at Digital.
Sloan Management Review, 29, 7-19.

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at Northeastern University on January 4, 2015

74 MCQ / Vol. 13, No. 1, August 1999

Lewis, L. K. (1997, November). Implementation of quality programs: Multiple perspectives

of four organizational cases. Paper presented to the Organizational Communication
Division at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Chicago.
Lewis, L. K., & Seibold, D. R. (1993). Innovation modification during intra-organizational
adoption. Academy of Management Review, 18, 322-354.
Lewis, L. K., & Seibold, D. R. (1996). Communication during intraorganizational innova-
tion adoption: Predicting users’ behavioral coping responses to innovations in organiza-
tions. 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). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Mainiero, L. A., & DeMichiell, R. L. (1986, July). Minimizing employee resistance to tech-
nological change. Personnel, 32-37.
Mankin, D., Bikson, T. K., & Gutek, B. (1984). Factors in successful implementation of
computer-based office information systems: A review of the literature with suggestions
for OBM research. Journal of OB Management, 6, 1-20.
Miller, K. I., & Monge, P. R. (1985). Social information and employee anxiety about organ-
izational change. Human Communication Research, 11, 365-386.
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, 59-80.
Papa, M. J., & Papa, W. H. (1990). Perceptual and communicative indices of employee per-
formance with new technology. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 54, 21-41.
Poole, M. S., & DeSanctis, G. (1990). Understanding the use of group decision support sys-
tems. In C. Steinfield & J. Fulk (Eds.), Organizations and communication technology
(pp. 175-195). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Redding, W. C. (1972). Communication within the organization: An interpretive review of
theory and research. New York: Industrial Communication Council.
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Schein, V. (1985). Organizational realities: The politics of change. In D. Warrick (Ed.), Con-
temporary organizational development (pp. 86-97). Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
Smeltzer, L. R. (1991). An analysis of strategies for announcing organization-wide change.
Group & Organization Studies, 16, 5-24.
Tornatzky, L. G., & Johnson, E. C. (1982). Research on implementation: Implications for
evaluation practice and evaluation policy. Evaluation and Program Planning, 5,
193-198.
Tyre, M. J., & Orlikowski, W. J. (1994). Windows of opportunity: Temporal patterns of tech-
nological adaptation in organizations. Organization Science, 5, 98-118.
Van de Ven, A. H. (1993). Managing the process of organizational innovation. In G. P. Huber
& W. H. Glick (Eds.), Organizational change and redesign (pp. 269-294). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Van de Ven, A. H., Angle, H. L., & Poole, M. S. (1989). Research on the management of
innovations. New York: Ballinger.
Young, M., & Post, J. E. (1993). Managing to communicate, communicating to manage:
How leading companies communicate with employees, 22, 31-43.

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at Northeastern University on January 4, 2015

 Lewis / PLANNED ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE 75

Laurie K. Lewis (Ph.D. 1994, University of California at Santa Barbara) is an assis-

tant professor in the Department of Speech Communication at the University of
Texas at Austin. She specializes in the study of planned organizational change and
has research interests in nonprofit organizations and interorganizational and
extraorganizational communication. Her work has appeared in Communication
Yearbook, Journal of Technology Transfer, Communication Monographs, and
Academy of Management Review.

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at Northeastern University on January 4, 2015