15) An Organizational Stakeholder Model of Change Implementation Communication - Lewis

Communication Theory ISSN 1050-3293
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
An Organizational Stakeholder Model of

Change Implementation Communication
Laurie K. Lewis
Communication Department, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1071
Despite a growing interest in the communicative dimensions of planned change pro-

cesses in organizations, a comprehensive theoretical treatment of change implementa-
tion communication has not yet emerged in the literature. This essay offers a beginning
remedy by presenting a model situated within stakeholder theory. The model connects
implementers’ selection of communication strategies, stakeholders’ concerns, assessments,
and interactions with 3 critical features of the observable system after implementa-
tion has begun (fidelity, uniformity, and authenticity). Model linkages are supported by
current and recent scholarship in communication and change, and propositions and
hypotheses are generated to provide heuristic value.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00291.x
Communication matters in the processes involved in implementing planned orga-

nizational change. The outcomes that are achieved in the implementation of planned
organizational changes depend in part on the interactions of implementers and other
important stakeholders. Organizational scholars have long acknowledged the import-
ance of communication in explanations of organizational change processes (Lewis &
Seibold, 1993, 1996; Miller, Johnson, & Grau, 1994; Miller & Monge, 1985; Rogers,
1995; Van de Ven, Angle, & Poole, 1989). Such efforts have provided important
insights into the invention, design, adoption, and user responses to change efforts.
Currently, empirical and theoretical interest in implementation communication is on
the rise (Kuhn & Corman, 2003; Lewis, 1999, 2000, 2006; Sagie, Elizur, & Koslowsky,
2001; Timmerman, 2003; Zorn, 2002). Tornatzky and Johnson (1982) define imple-
mentation as ‘‘the translation of any tool or technique, process, or method of doing,
from knowledge to practice’’ (p. 193). The importance of this activity is explained
well by Real and Poole (2005) who argue that ‘‘. without implementation, the most
brilliant and potentially far-reaching innovation remains just that—potential’’ (p. 64).
Despite a growing interest in the communicative dimensions of planned change
processes in organizations, a comprehensive theoretical treatment of change imple-
mentation communication has not yet emerged in the literature. To this point, only
Corresponding author: Laurie K. Lewis; email: lewisl@rutgers.edu
176 Communication Theory 17 (2007) 176–204 ª 2007 International Communication Association

L. K. Lewis Change Implementation
a small number of models explicating a narrow range of antecedents and outcomes

exist (cf. Miller & Monge, 1985; Miller et al., 1994; Timmerman, 2003). Empirical
work has examined a variety of variable sets in isolation from one another includ-
ing the following: the importance of reducing uncertainty and clarifying the vision
of change (e.g., Bordia, Hobman, Jones, Gallois, & Callan, 2004; Fairhurst, 1993),
the roles of values and ideology (e.g., Amis, Slack, & Hinings, 2002; Klein & Sorra,
1996), trust and justice (e.g., Kickul, Lester, & Finkl, 2002; Morgan & Zeffane, 2003;
Paterson, Green, & Cary, 2002), emotion (Garrety, Badham, Morrigan, Rifkin, &
Zanko, 2003; Zorn, 2002), and participation in decision making (Coyle-Shapiro,
1999; Lewis, Hamel, & Richardson, 2001; Lewis, Richardson, & Hamel, 2003; Sagie
et al., 2001) in change processes. All the above efforts are examples of strong theo-
retical and empirical efforts that have explicated the role of communication in
implementation. However, we still lack a comprehensive perspective on how imple-
mentation communication practices and processes are interrelated and how they
ultimately give rise to important change process outcomes.
What follows is a theoretical treatment of organizational change implementation
communication highlighting a set of proposed relationships among key factors. The
goal of this presentation is to connect the increasingly rich and varied literatures
concerning the introduction of change, communication processes, and critical out-
comes of change efforts. This theoretical foundation is offered as a step toward
connecting important scholarship into a more comprehensive portrait of change
implementation communication than so far has been available.
The rationale for taking this theoretical step is threefold. First, the empirical data
are now strong enough to support more comprehensive theorizing. After a few
decades of first acknowledging the important role of communication in change
(cf. Rogers, 1995), developing a descriptive database of the ways in which commu-
nication is used in the context of implementation, and finally, taking tentative steps
toward forming and testing hypotheses about how communication may give rise to
certain effects, the time has come to take what is a particularistic and fragmented
literature and connect the ‘‘dots’’ into a larger picture.
Second, the empirical future of this literature requires theoretical direction and
guidance. Thus far, guidance has come primarily from a practitioner perspective:
‘‘How can I reduce resistance to change?’’ This approach runs the risk of reducing
growth in the literature to a sort of practice-driven faddishness. Alternatively,
a topic-focused perspective has been adopted asking such questions as ‘‘how does
uncertainty operate in the context of organizational change?’’ and ‘‘how does emotion
drive organizational change?’’ This approach has foregrounded the topic of the
moment and backgrounded organizational change processes. The time has come
to launch a more theoretically holistic perspective geared toward accounting for
communication processes and outcomes in change implementation that then can
be tested, altered, and developed.
Third, organizational communication is an area of the discipline that begs
for theoretical development—both analytical models as well as predictive theory
Communication Theory 17 (2007) 176–204 ª 2007 International Communication Association 177

Change Implementation L. K. Lewis
(Taylor, Flanigan, Cheney, & Seibold, 2001; Tompkins & Wanca-Thibault, 2001).
Scholars in this area have relied upon other sciences to provide theoretical templates
that are adopted and adapted. Implementation of change appears to be a subject
about which the development of communication theory is both necessary and
appropriate and thus provides an opportunity to heed the many calls for theory
building and creation in this subdiscipline (see similar argument in Jones, Watson,
Gardner, & Gallois, 2004). For these three basic reasons, it seems now is an appro-
priate time to begin to take steps toward theory development in implementation
communication.
A stakeholder perspective on change implementation

The model offered here is situated in the larger theoretical perspective of stakeholder
theory. Several scholars have acknowledged the importance of negotiation of stakes
of stakeholders in organizations (Heath, 1994; Lewis et al., 2003; Mumby, 1988;
Putnam, 1989). Research has called attention to the means by which stakeholders
assert and negotiate stakes (cf. Allen & Caillouet, 1994; Cheney & Christensen, 2001;
Cheney & Frenette, 1993).
Stakeholder theory is a family of related perspectives concerning ‘‘organizational
management and ethics’’ (Phillips, Freeman, & Wicks, 2003, p. 480) launched by the
now-classic text by Freeman, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (1984).
Stakeholder theory, although not a theory in the strictest sense, provides a view of
organizations—their internal and external relationships with individual and organi-
zational ‘‘stakeholders’’—and provides both researchers and practitioners with
frameworks to assess those relationships. Thus far, three main branches of this
perspective have developed in the literature. In the descriptive approach, stakeholder
relationships are depicted as they exist in organizations. The instrumental approach
posits that certain outcomes can be obtained if certain behaviors are adopted (Jones
& Wicks, 1999). Thus, for example, if stakeholders of a certain type are treated well,
the firm is likely to obtain a competitive advantage. In the normative approach,
scholars aim to specify the moral and ethical obligations of managers to various
important stakeholders.
All scholars making use of the stakeholder perspective address issues of how
organizational decision makers allocate stakes to stakeholder groups. ‘‘Stakes’’
include communicative ones (cf. Allen & Caillouet, 1994; Cheney & Frenette, 1993;
Lewis et al., 2003). As Frooman (1999, p. 193) argues, ‘‘[S]takeholder theory is about
managing potential conflict stemming from divergent interests [of stakeholders].’’
Mitchell, Agle, and Wood (1997) suggest that stakeholders be defined according to
three attributes: (a) power (i.e., ability of a stakeholder to impose its will), (b)
legitimacy (i.e., a generalized assessment that the stakeholder’s actions are desirable,
proper, or appropriate), and (c) urgency (i.e., the degree to which the stakeholder’s
claim is time sensitive, pressing, and critical to the stakeholder). Those stakeholder
groups that are perceived to possess all three characteristics are labeled ‘‘definitive

stakeholders.’’ These authors argue that organizational leaders have a clear and
immediate requirement to focus their attention and resources on definitive stake-
holders’ needs.
In the context of implementation of planned organizational change, this pers-
pective provides an explanatory framework that helps tie together disparate, but
insightful, approaches to the implementation communication dynamics cited above.
Stakeholder research calls attention to the fact that decision makers in organizations
do recognize, to one degree or another, a diversity of stakeholders surrounding
organizations and do make differential judgments about treatment of stakeholders.
Gallivan (2001) argues that various stakeholders, by virtue of different hierarchical
levels, occupational communities, or prior socialization into specific jobs, will have
different bases of experience and awareness, which impact the way they receive
messages about change. ‘‘As a result, employees who observe the same events or
receive the same messages will interpret these as signifying different implications for
the organization, even contradictory ones’’ (p. 244). Gallivan concludes that such
dynamics necessitate that implementers consider different stakeholder experiences
and perspectives when planning organizational change objectives, implementation
tactics, and employee communication programs.
Further, scholarship within stakeholder theory is beginning to acknowledge that
stakeholders other than high-level decision makers also recognize their own stakes,
other stakeholders, and the complimentary or competitive stakes held by others
(cf. Rowley, 1997). This is as true in the case of implementation of planned change
as in any other organizational context.
The model presented here embraces this perspective and uses it to help explain
the strategy choices of implementers, the reactions and interactions of various stake-
holders surrounding the change, and the predicted results for change outcomes. In
sum, this model posits that an implementer’s recognition of stakeholders, identifi-
cation of their relative stakes, and strategic adjustment to identified stakes and stake-
holders are key predictors in accounting for outcomes of planned change
implementation communication. It is further posited that the negotiation of stakes
among various stakeholder groups as they communicate with implementers and
other stakeholders exerts a powerful force on change outcomes. As Deetz (2001)
argues, ‘‘[T]he interaction among stakeholders can be conceived as a negotiative
process aiding mutual goal accomplishment. Communication is the means by which
such negotiation takes place’’ (p. 39). The model proposed here suggests that such
negotiation processes, whether collaborative, competitive, or otherwise, are central
to the production of change process outcomes.
Models of implementation communication

In 1993, Lewis and Seibold presented a model of innovation modification and intra-
organizational adoption (see Figure 1) that shared some of the same goals of this
theoretical effort. That model utilized a structuration framework to map out the key

Environment
Socioeconomic infrastructure
- Physical - Economic - Social
Institutional Environment
Organizational Structure
Specialization
Decentralization
Functional Differentiation
Formal Communication channels Stage of Organizational Development
Structured Implementation Scope, Novelty, and Complexity of Innovation

Activities
- Goals - Training
-Performance Criteria - Selection
Production:
System: Dimensions of
Users’ Emergent and Formal Structuring Interaction
Coping Tactics Form of Innovation In Use
Innovation-Role Involvement
-Enhance Performance Fidelity
Use of Innovation Structures
- Innovation Features - Intended Vision -Reduce Uncertainty Uniformity
-Protect Norms
Use of Organizational Structures
- Rules - Resources
Users’ Characteristics Users’ Perceptions of Innovation
Formal Concerns (performance, uncertainty, normative)

Personal Attitudes (respect and comfort)
Figure 1 Lewis and Seibold (1993) model of innovation modification and intraorganiza-
tional adoption.
factors leading up to the ‘‘modification’’ (i.e., degrees of fidelity and uniformity) of

a change program in use. Included in the model are macrocontextual features
(environment, organizational structural characteristics), implementers’ activities
(setting goals, performance criteria, training users, selecting users), and users’ char-
acteristics, perceptions, and interactions concerning the innovation. Interactions, in
this conceptualization, are formed on the basis of a structurational process (Giddens,
1984) where new rules and resources brought by the change effort (e.g., vision for the
change, features of the change program, new organizational practices) are invoked.
Although this treatment has merit in calling attention to the complexity of
factors that give rise to outcomes (which are also discussed in more complex terms
than they are in much previous work, which had focused only on degree of resistance
as an outcome), the model has some important gaps. First, it does not describe how
implementers’ communication choices play a role in change processes. Second, the
Lewis and Seibold model does not account in any detail for implementers’ commu-
nication strategy choices. Third, although the Lewis and Seibold model and their
later empirical work (Lewis & Seibold, 1996) do make contributions in elaborating
on users’ communicative responses to (i.e., coping tactics) and perceptions of (i.e.,
attitudes and concerns) change programs, the scholarship that has emerged in the

years since the model was published significantly expands the aspects of stakeholders’
concerns and assessments that may influence interactions surrounding change.
A new model of implementation communication

I offer here a reconceptualization of the Lewis and Seibold model with a different
focus: explanation of the selections of implementer communication strategies and
the relationships that those strategies, once enacted, have with stakeholders’ con-
cerns, their interactions, and, ultimately, the effects on three critical observable
features of the system in use (fidelity, uniformity, and authenticity). The current
model is depicted in Figure 2. Although this model owes an intellectual heritage to
the Lewis and Seibold model, it builds significantly from the recent theoretical
and empirical work that postdates the earlier model. The model proposed here
posits four critical components of implementation communication in the context
of change: (a) antecedents to implementation communication strategy selection,
(b) implementer strategy choice and enactment, (c) stakeholders’ concerns, assess-
ments, and interactions concurrent with and in response to implementer strategies,
and (d) observable features of the system after implementation has begun.
This model provides a complex and synthetic connection among a wide
spectrum of previously identified factors involved in change implementation
Antecedents to Strategies Enacted Stakeholders’ Perceptions, Concerns, Outcomes

Implementation Communication Assessments, & Interactions
Strategy Selection
Stakeholders’ Perceptions of
Implementers’ Perceptions of Change Context
Change Context Key values
Assessment of key stakeholders Org/individual change history
Org’s change history Evaluation of alternatives
Org readiness/willingness Evaluation of need for change
Need for efficiency Communication
Need for consensus Strategy Dimensions
Desire for uniformity/fidelity
Emphasize positive
Implementer Balanced message Stakeholders’ Concerns Observable System
Strategy Choices Uncertainty Uniformity
Institutional Factors Dissemination-focus
Normative Fidelity
Input-focus Performance
How other orgs implement Authenticity
(mimetic) Targeted messages
Blanket messages
Pressure to conform (coercive) Stakeholders’ Assessments
Method of training/background Discrepancy-focused of Each Other
(normative) Efficacy-focused Relative
o Leitimacy Results
o Urgency
o Power Goal accomplishment
Potential for alliance/ Material conditions
competition Unintended
consequences
Stakeholder Interactions
Interactions in support of
/against implementer vision
Interactions to explore /
demonstrate commitment
Other-focused/self-focused
Interactions
Figure 2 A model of implementation communication strategy selection, stakeholder con-

cerns, assessments, interactions, and outcomes.

communication and also adds new important constructs that have so far not been
considered in detail in the change literature. This model admittedly lacks in parsi-
mony. However, it provides a comprehensiveness that ties together the disparate
scholarship that has attended to isolated aspects of change processes but that has not
focused on important relationships among the elements. The model will be initially
presented in a linear fashion (working from antecedents to the system in use).
However, the conceptualizations of the processes modeled here are considered
dynamic, thus there are no true starting or end points.
Antecedents to implementation communication strategy selection

Much has been written about various approaches to the implementation of planned
change. The review of Lewis and Seibold (1998) of the implementation literature
discusses ‘‘rule-bound’’ and ‘‘autonomous,’’ ‘‘programmatic’’ and ‘‘adaptive,’’ and
‘‘breadth’’ and ‘‘depth’’ approaches. They define strategy as ‘‘the general thrust,
direction, and focus of the activities that make up the implementation effort’’ and
tactics as entailing ‘‘the more specific actions, messages, and events constructed and
carried out in service of some general strategy or goal’’ (p. 101). At the time of their
review, very little literature had yet specifically examined implementation commu-
nication at a tactical level, and only the broadest of brushstrokes had been made at
describing communicative strategy. Since their review, scholarship that speaks to the
factors that give rise to specific strategic, and sometimes tactical, choices of imple-
menters has accumulated. I propose two general categories of antecedents to imple-
mentation communication strategy selection: perceptions of the change situation
and institutional factors.
Implementers’ perceptions of the change situation

Implementers’ selection of strategies for introducing and managing change is due, in
part, to their own perceptions of the change situation, the goals of the change
initiative as they see it, and the perceived barriers or potential challenges faced in
the effort to install change. In the perspective offered here, the most critical of
implementer perceptions concerns key stakeholders. In the conceptualization of
Mitchell et al. (1997), the three qualities of power, legitimacy, and urgency—as
perceived by a manager—determine the degree of attention that a manager of an
organization pays to various stakeholder groups. In their scheme, combinations of
these three qualities result in eight classes of stakeholders. Included in that catego-
rization are the ‘‘dangerous stakeholder,’’ who has power and urgency but lacks
legitimacy; the ‘‘dormant stakeholder,’’ who has only power; and the ‘‘dependent
stakeholder,’’ who has urgency and legitimacy but lacks power. These and other types
of stakeholders make up a socially constructed map of the stakeholder world that any
particular manager may perceive and that will shift over the course of time.
Among the first tasks of the implementer of a change program is the assessment
of who has stakes in the change and the nature of those stakes. As Mitchell et al.

(1997) argue, not all stakeholders will be conscious of their stakes or of their attrib-
utes of power, legitimacy, and/or urgency. Even if they are conscious of these attrib-
utes, they may or may not choose to act upon them. In this process, implementers
who are assessing key stakeholders estimate the self-perceived stakes and the likely
demands of each group of stakeholders. Implementers then must determine how
much attention, and which communicative approach, is appropriate based upon the
stakeholders’ perceived attributes in this context. Thus, it is proposed that:
Proposition 1: Implementers will base strategy choices on assessments of the numbers of

stakeholder groups assessed to be of importance, the attributes that give them status,
and the stakes that each group is likely to assert.
The history of change in the organization is another key antecedent to imple-

menters’ strategy choices. Lewis (2000) found that problems concerning communi-
cation ranked among the most problematic as implementers looked back, in
hindsight, on changes they had implemented. The study also found that implement-
ers tended to overanticipate problem occurrence across types of problems. It appears
from these data that implementers are often gearing up for trouble and expect that
communication (e.g., communicating vision, lack of vision, confusion over goals,
communication about implementation) will be a focal point of that trouble. The
following model proposition is derived from these arguments:
Proposition 2: Implementers will base strategy choices on their perceptions of the key
problems experienced in the organization’s past change efforts.
In another approach that sheds light on antecedents to strategy, recent work has
focused on antecedents to willingness and readiness to change (Armenakis, Haris, &
Mossholder, 1993; Cunningham et al., 2002; Miller et al., 1994). These authors have
proposed models relating attitudinal and perceptional factors to employees’ willing-
ness to be open to and ready for change. Factors that are proposed to have import-
ance include the following: (a) having a high need for achievement, (b) degree of role
ambiguity, (c) level of organizational identification and felt level of information
accessibility in the organization, (d) perceptions that the change is needed (discrep-
ancy), and (e) beliefs that the organization (and the individuals who make it up) is
capable of closing the gap between the current and the desired state. At the outset of
change, implementers have some idea or belief of how ready and willing groups of
key stakeholders are for change, and the factors listed above play a role in how
implementers make assessments and assumptions about stakeholders’ readiness
and willingness to embrace change. These assessments and assumptions inform
how the implementers then design communication strategies to introduce change.
Thus, the model proposes that:
Proposition 3: Implementers make starting assessments about the readiness and
willingness of various stakeholder groups, and they base their strategy choices for
implementation on those assessments.

Another perception of the change situation influencing implementers concerns

the challenge presented by the degree of resources available for the implementation
and the degree to which cooperation and agreement on the part of diverse stake-
holders are necessary. Lewis et al. (2001) addressed these dimensions in their model
of efficiency and consensus in determining strategies for communication during
change. Through interviews of nonprofit change implementers, they determined
that key criteria driving the strategy choices of implementers had to do with the
need to communicate widely or narrowly, quickly or at ease, with many resources or
with few. In essence, there were times when getting the word out quickly, cheaply,
and without taking much time for debate was perceived as necessary. At other times,
paramount was the need to ensure that many key stakeholders throughout the
organization were on board with the changes and felt comfortable with them. Lewis
et al. (2001) constructed a 2 3 2 grid that reflects the various combinations of
perceived needs for efficiency and consensus during change implementation. The
balancing of these two needs (high–low combinations) directs how implementers
approach their communication strategies. It is proposed that such assessments are
routinely made by implementers and are a part of the features of the change situation
that drive strategy choices.
Proposition 4: Implementers’ perceptions that implementation initiatives require

efficiency and/or consensus to a high or low degree affect their strategy choices in
implementation communication.
Finally, it is critical to consider what the implementer conceives of as the desired

goal(s) of a change effort. It was long assumed in the change literature that the goal of
all change efforts is to have complete ‘‘adoption’’ as the decision makers of the
organization had envisioned. However, more recent work has come to recognize
this as a rare and possibly undesirable occurrence. Leonard-Barton (1988a) argues
that in order to create an ideal fit, it is absolutely essential for organizations to adapt
both the change program and the organization.
The model of intraorganizational adoption of Lewis and Seibold (1993) intro-
duced the terms of ‘‘fidelity’’ and ‘‘uniformity’’ to describe different dimensions of
change outcomes. Fidelity describes the degree of departure from the intended
design of the change. Uniformity describes the range of use of the change across
adopting unit(s). It is conceivable that either high or low degrees of each of these
dimensions can be desirable. In some cases, a high degree of flexible and highly
adaptive or creative use that will vary considerably from unit to unit (e.g., imple-
mentation of a new design technology) may be favored. It is also possible that high
degrees of both fidelity with regard to the designer’s intent and uniformity in adher-
ence to that fidelity would be desired (e.g., new sexual harassment policy). The off-
diagonal combinations give rise to other reasonable possibilities. For example, in
a case of high fidelity and low uniformity, we might see a new technology intended to
be used in unique ways by each unit. In a low-fidelity and high-uniformity case, we

might see the vision for the change uniformly rejected by all users who jointly alter
their participation in similar ways.
Implementers will usually have at least a vision of what they are expecting or
what they think is most desirable. They may be surprised to get something very
different and then readjust their expectations or continue to push for their planned
version of adoption. The point here is that knowing what they are aiming for (e.g.,
compliance or creativity) is a part of their decision making regarding how to com-
municate about the change. Thus, I introduce the following proposition:
Proposition 5: Implementers’ views of the goals of change programs to produce high
uniformity and/or fidelity in the outcomes of the change initiative will influence their
strategy choices in implementation communication.
Institutional factors
Institutional factors weigh in as antecedents to implementers’ strategy choices by
creating a background of influencers that compel and prohibit some choices from
being made. Additionally, these factors can be suggestive to –would-be implementers
of methods for framing communication about change that will be in accordance with
current institutional practice (Van de Ven & Hargrave, 2004). Institutional theory
(Meyer & Rowan, 1977) argues that components of formal structure become widely
accepted, deemed to be necessary or appropriate, and then their presence or absence
is used as a signal of organizational legitimacy. Institutional pressures act on organi-
zations to constrain decision makers’ choices of organizational and communication
structures and practices.
Institutional theory posits three forces of isomorphism (i.e., a constraining pro-
cess that forces similarity in organizational form and practice): mimetic, coercive,
and normative. These forces act on organizational actors to compel compliance with
similar practices found in the institutionalized field in which they exist. In this
application, I posit that these three forces of isomorphism act upon implementers
to constrain their choices concerning change communication strategy.1
Mimetic forces direct implementers to conform to established and well-known
routines for implementing change. Implementers seek this information from popu-
lar press books, consultants, and trade publications. Scholarship is increasingly iden-
tifying the isomorphic pressure of popular guru writings and presentations in
managerial practice (Clark & Greatbatch, 2004; Furusten, 1999; Watson, 1994; Zorn,
Page, & Cheney, 2000). Further, in a review and content analysis of the popular press
literature on communicating organizational change, Lewis, Schmisseur, Stephens,
and Weir (2006) discuss the potential influence of such literature in how they have
‘‘the potential to inspire feelings of confidence and competence in individual man-
agers’’ (p. 114).
Coercive forces of isomorphism direct implementers away from certain practices
(e.g., public humiliation of noncompliant employees, government employees being
paid large bonuses for mastering new technology) of implementation that would be

frowned upon by authorities such as unions, legal systems, government oversight

agencies, or watchdog groups. Some practices (e.g., the posting of documentation
notifying employees of a change in employment policy or safety regulations) might
be mandated by such authorities.
Finally, normative forces instill, through socialization and training, a professional
orientation toward the tasks of implementation of change. Implementers trained in
various professional traditions (e.g., human resource, MBA, government adminis-
tration, social work) will take from those experiences messages, beliefs, and tools
about how change communication ought to be done and with what goals. These
powerful socializing forces of training, combined with the socialization garnered
upon entry into an industry or specific organizational culture, provide a normative
force that encourages certain strategy choices (e.g., give everyone a chance to have
their say) and discourages others (e.g., allowing any resistance to be voiced). These
arguments are consistent with the following propositions:
Proposition 6: Implementers’ choices of implementation communication strategy are
influenced by their exposure to popular managerialist discourses.
Proposition 7: Implementers will base some strategy decisions, particularly the

avoidance of some practices, upon the dictates of one or more authority policing in
their organizational environment.
Proposition 8: Implementers’ professional training and socialization experiences will

influence how they approach selection of strategies for implementation
communication.
Four dimensions of communication strategy choices

Several authors have explored communication strategies during planned organiza-
tional change. Some of these have been very narrow in focus, such as Smeltzer’s
(1995) work on planning an effective announcement of change and the examination
of issue selling by Dutton, Ashford, O’Neill, and Lawrence (2001). Other approaches
have taken a more broad focus in describing a variety of models or types of strategies
across change initiatives (Lewis, 1999; Lewis et al., 2001; Nutt, 1987). The largest
category of literature on implementation communication strategy deals with partici-
patory approaches (e.g., use of input solicitation).
The proposed model posits four general communication strategy dimensions
that can be considered as orthogonally juxtaposed decision categories that imple-
menters utilize in designing their communication campaigns and messages to vari-
ous stakeholders. These strategy dimensions were identified from empirical and
theoretical scholarship in change communication as well as from literature that
addresses strategic tactics in persuasive and motivational communication.
Implied within these strategy choices are a myriad of other choices at the tactical
level. For example, once implementers make choices about whether to deliver a

message of a specific type, to deal with stakeholders more collectively or more

individually, and to focus on monologic versus dialogic communication with stake-
holders and other such strategic directions implied in these dimensions, they also
select channels, spokespersons, timing, venues, or forums for interaction, and parti-
cular presentation tactics (e.g., use of branding techniques). The aim of this model is
to build the predictive relationships around the more fundamental strategic direc-
tion of the communication rather than to create an effects model by tactical choices.
My argument is that general strategies may be executed through use of various
tactical combinations (e.g., use of more ‘‘rich’’ or ‘‘less rich’’ media). Therefore,
the strategic thrust of the communication, embodied in these four dimensions is
a far more meaningful and reliable level of abstraction on which to base predictions
about change implementation and the responses to it.
Although these four dimensions are viewed here as essential and basic to change
communication strategizing, they are not presented as an exhaustive list of possible
communicative dimensions. Additionally, although they are presented as a set of
contrasting options, they need not be thought of as mutually exclusive alternatives in
every case. In fact, the task of the implementer is likely to decide what balance of
these alternatives is appropriate rather than to select one of the two paired options.
In making strategy choices, implementers draw from their perceptions of the change
situation (described above) and are influenced by the institutional forces (also
described earlier) to determine what mix of communication choices they will make.
Positive versus balanced message

In considering the positivity or the balanced nature of the communication messages,
implementers decide whether positive aspects of the change should be emphasized or
whether emphasis of positives should be balanced with acknowledgment of negative
aspects of the change or the change process. In one empirical study, Covin and
Kilmann (1990) found, in compiling a list of 900 issues most affecting the success
or failure of change, that ‘‘secrecy’’ and ‘‘dishonesty’’ were among issues of concern.
Further, Miller and Monge (1985) found that employees preferred any information
about the planned change—even if it was negative. However, there is little empirical
organizational change literature that explicitly examines the issue of balancing these
emphases. An exception is the study of Griffith and Northcraft (1996) of balanced
versus positive messages during technology implementation. They found that bal-
anced information significantly affected performance; however, receiving only
positive information, if combined with time to learn the technology, also yielded
high performance.
The persuasion literature examining the issue of ‘‘sidedness’’ in persuasive com-
munication has found mixed support for the persuasiveness of two-sided (balanced)
and one-sided (positive) messages in a variety of other contexts (cf. Allen, 1993;
O’Keefe, 1993). Some scholars have concluded that both types of message strategies
can be persuasive (O’Keefe), whereas others have found that a number of
contingencies operate on the persuasiveness of messages presenting one or two sides

of an issue (Pratt, 2004). Investigations of sidedness are rarely carried out in context
or with subjects with sophisticated workplace experiences. In fact, no study to date
has explored the organizational context and formal organizational messages as an
exemplar of sidedness and its effects.
Dissemination focus versus input focus

In considering the focus of the communication campaign, implementers decide
whether to orient their communication resources toward sharing information about
change or toward soliciting input from stakeholders. This is essentially a question
about whether to engage in a participatory approach to implementation wherein
stakeholders at various locations around the organization are invited to be heard
and/or are empowered to make decisions. The alternative approach emphasizes
information or instruction about the change in top-down messages that attempt
to influence compliance.
Empirical efforts in this area have generally found that participation is beneficial
in lowering resistance or improving compliance with change initiatives (Edmondson,
Bohmer, & Pisano, 2001; Nutt, 1987; Sagie & Koslowsky, 1994; Sagie et al., 2001),
increasing satisfaction of stakeholders (generally employees) with the change initia-
tive (Coyle-Shapiro, 1999; Lewis, 2006; Sagie & Koslowsky), and reducing uncer-
tainty and increasing feelings of control (Bordia, Hobman, et al., 2004; Bordia, Hunt,
Paulsen, Tourish, & DiFonzo, 2004). Ironically, evidence also suggests that this is the
least utilized general approach to communication because most implementers em-
phasize downward dissemination about change programs over soliciting input of
stakeholders (Lewis, 1999, 2006; Lewis et al., 2003).
Targeted message versus blanket message

This dimension of the communication campaign deals with the degree to which
messages created about the change will be customized, targeted to specific stakehold-
ers or stakeholder groups, or whether the campaign will have a more blanket strategy
wherein the same basic messages are repeated across all stakeholder groups. Lewis
et al. (2001) found evidence that blanket strategies were used when resources were
slim and the change did not require a great deal of consensus seeking. Targeted strat-
egies were used when consensus seeking was viewed as necessary for at least some key
stakeholders. Clearly, a major determinant of this strategic dimension concerns the
variety of stakeholder groups and the commonalities they have in terms of their stakes.
Allen and Caillouet (1994) explored the use of influence strategies targeted to
different types of stakeholders in the context of organizational crisis management.
They found that organizations do adapt their communication strategies differently
for different stakeholders in those circumstances. They sometimes combine messages
intended for one stakeholder group (e.g., regulators) with those meant for other
audiences (e.g., media or community) and sometimes design messages directly for
individual stakeholders. This is a rare example of empirical investigation of message
strategies in stakeholder communication.

Discrepancy focus versus efficacy focus

This dimension of the communication campaign concerns the degree to which the
message is focused on creating an urgency that motivates the need for the change
(discrepancy) or on creating a belief that the organization and the individuals in it have
the resources necessary to close the discrepancy gap (efficacy). Armenakis et al. (1993)
have suggested that these two foci should be emphasized in early communication.
Scholars interested in psychological impacts and in cognitive and emotional pro-
cessing of messages have explored fear appeals (cf. Morrison, 2005; Ruiter, Abraham,
& Kok, 2001; Witte, 1994; Witte & Morrison, 2000). Ruiter et al. (2001) define a fear
appeal as ‘‘a persuasive communication attempting to arouse fear in order to promote
precautionary motivation and self-protective action’’ (p. 614). Such appeals are
designed to motivate behavior that will alleviate threat and reduce or eliminate fear.
Ruiter et al. conclude that such appeals, in combination with messages that arouse
feelings of self-efficacy and that provide specific action instructions, can be powerful
motivators for behavior change. Most of the fear appeal literature has addressed issues
related to health and other personal risk and has not yet been applied to situations
where one’s career, job security, personal esteem, or reputation is at risk. It is quite
possible that there are many applications of the fear appeal literature in this context.
Further, scholars concerned with motivation (in many contexts) have utilized
expectancy theory to account for individual behavior change. Vroom (1964) suggests
that individuals will change behavior when they perceive a positive reward connected
to the behavior, where there is belief that the reward will be given if the behavior is
embraced and when the individual feels he or she can achieve the behavior. As in the
case of fear appeals, there is an initial portion of information that convinces the
individual that there is discrepancy between a desired state (getting the reward) and
the current state. In the second part, the individual is convinced that he or she is able
to accomplish the desired behavior (i.e., has self-efficacy).
The exact mix of messages of discrepancy and efficacy in the context of organi-
zational change has yet to be investigated. We know little of the importance of these
potentially powerful motivational strategies in this context. However, in one inter-
esting study in the educational psychology literature, Abrami, Poulson, and Cham-
bers (2004) used expectancy theory and found that the use of an educational
innovation was predicted by expectancy of success and teachers’ beliefs that they
had appropriate skills and a context amenable to effective use of the innovation. This
study did not investigate the communication strategies of implementers as they
introduced this innovation.
Stakeholders’ perceptions of the change context

Similar to implementers, other stakeholders have initial perceptions of the change
situation prior to formal implementation. These perceptions may be created in
anticipation of a change that may come or may simply be the set of perceptions
about the general organizational context that is seen as ‘‘needing change,’’ ‘‘a lost

cause,’’ or ‘‘good enough as it is’’ among other possibilities. Stakeholders have

personal histories of participation in organizational change that affects their own
tolerance for change and their level of jadedness and enthusiasm about impending
change efforts. Individuals who have survived seven episodes of layoffs in a company
will likely react to the next layoff announcement with a different perspective than will
the young employee who has never experienced layoffs anywhere or ever lost a job
before. Additionally, individual stakeholders (who either might initially support or
oppose the change effort) have knowledge of alternatives to their participation in the
change and in the organization. If participation in the change initiative is viewed as
a less desirable alternative than others available to the stakeholder, they may be much
less motivated to receive and participate in the change communication. On the other
hand, where few or no real alternatives exist, the stakeholder may feel compelled to
engage in the implementation effort (whether it is active resistance, acceptance, or
negotiation). As Klein and Sorra (1996) argue, stakeholders of change have values
that predate the introduction of those changes. Some of these values are shared in
groups or within the organization as a whole. The degree to which the change either
fosters or inhibits the fulfillment of ‘‘high-intensity values’’ is predictive of stake-
holders’ reactions to change.
All these perceptions of the context of the change effort are part of what gives rise
to stakeholders’ concerns about the change. They are also impacted directly by the
communication of implementers (who will certainly attempt to influence how stake-
holders view this change in light of past change and in comparison with alternatives
and known values).
Stakeholders’ concerns
Lewis and Seibold (1993, 1996) argue that stakeholders’ responses to change are
rooted in performance, uncertainty, and normative concerns. These concerns
arise out of disruptions to critical processes and structures that accompany and
are integral to work and work environments (e.g., disruptions in procedures,
unsteady resource-dependency relationships and role relationships, shifting com-
munication networks, new standards for performance evaluation, and technical
upgrading). It is proposed in this model (as it was in the 1993 Lewis and Seibold
model) that these concerns give rise to the interactions that stakeholders have
with implementers and with one another, that those, in turn, account for much of
the outcomes of planned change programs. Since the Lewis and Seibold model
was published, there has been considerable empirical and conceptual work that
adds to our knowledge about how these groups of concerns surface and the issues
that become salient during change.
Uncertainty is perhaps the most well-researched concept related to stakeholders’
concerns during planned change. Lewis and Seibold (1996) defined uncertainty
concerns as ‘‘a heightened state of awareness of, or anxiety regarding, one’s own
and others’ information access and information use’’ (p. 135). Investigations and

conceptual work published since that model suggest that included in these concerns
are issues related to clarity and unity in perceptions of purpose, vision, and imple-
mentation plans for the change initiative (DiFonzo & Bordia, 1998; Fairhurst, 1993;
Gallivan, 2001; Kramer, Dougherty, & Pierce, 2004; Kuhn & Corman, 2003;
Tourish, Paulsen, Hobman, & Bordia, 2004) and perceived level of control afforded
through information possession (Bordia, Hobman, et al., 2004; Bordia, Hunt, et al.,
2004). As DiFonzo and Bordia argue, a characteristic of uncertainty is that it causes
a sense of doubt about future events or about cause-and-effect relationships in the
environment.2
Normative concerns encompass a wide range of issues involving stakeholders’
responses to change. Lewis and Seibold (1996) defined these concerns as ‘‘a height-
ened state of awareness of, or anxiety concerning one’s congruency in beliefs, actions,
and values with members of social groups with which he or she strongly identifies’’
(p. 135). Those stakeholders with normative concerns may be stressed that prized
group norms will be challenged by the changing circumstances, innovation, or
altered work practices that organizational change brings about. The normative con-
cern speaks to the meaning that alteration of work and organizational life has for
stakeholders. One may be able to stop telling sexist jokes (after the initiation of
a sexual harassment policy), but one may feel that such a change has destroyed
a means of male bonding or severely restricted a cultural practice valued in one’s
work group. One may feel they are capable of learning the new online course man-
agement but feel that the new practices threaten the nurturing of positive pedagog-
ical relationships.
In recent work, a new tide of interest in the change literature has turned to these
issues and generally falls into one of the following areas: values and ideology (Amis
et al., 2002; Kabanoff, Waldersee, & Cohen, 1995; Palgi, 2002; Van Wagoner, 2004);
trust, fairness, and justice (Kickul et al., 2002; Lusch, O’Brien, & Sindhav, 2003; Morgan
& Zeffane, 2003; Paterson et al., 2002); emotion (Dorewood & Benschop, 2003;
Garrety et al., 2003; Zorn, 2002); and identification and social networks (Chreim,
2002; Griffin, Rafferty, & Mason, 2004; Kuhn & Nelson, 2002; McGrath & Krackhardt,
2003; Mohrman, Tenkasi, & Mohrman, 2003; Papa & Papa, 1992; Tenkasi &
Chesmore, 2003). This collection of issues relates to concerns that individuals have
about their identities and relationships in and with the changing organization. Con-
cerns that individuals have about change are not always centered merely around
understanding what ‘‘I’m supposed to do’’ or around being able to do it (e.g., perfor-
mance concern) but might also surround ‘‘how I see myself in the organization’’ and
‘‘how I want to view my relationship to the organization and to other stakeholders.’’
Performance concerns relate to a stakeholder’s ‘‘heightened state of awareness of,
or anxiety about, his or her ability to perform, performance-related knowledge, or
performance evaluation’’ (Lewis & Seibold, 1996, p. 134). This concern revolves
around issues of capability, assessment, successfulness, and self-competence. Change
often gives rise to feelings of doubt about one’s ability to alter performance in a new
system of value or performance measurement.

It is somewhat surprising that more has not been written on the issues relating to
performance concerns within the context of planned change in the last decade. Scant
attention has been paid to issues of role clarity, feedback and appraisal, job security,
and the like. To some extent, there is overlap between these types of concerns and the
other two (particularly the uncertainty concern). In the Bordia, Hobman, et al.
(2004) investigation, uncertainty was broken down into three types: strategic, struc-
tural, and job-related. The third category is similar to the conceptualization of
performance concern posited here because it ‘‘includes uncertainty regarding job
security, promotion opportunities, changes to the job role’’ (p. 511). In the original
conception by Lewis and Seibold (1993), performance concerns also included the
needs of employees to seek feedback regarding performance, to discover the relative
importance of goals, to ascertain the potential rewards associated with achieving
goals, and to gain a sense of mastery and competence. Given the above arguments
about various concerns regarding organizational change, I propose that:
Proposition 9: Stakeholders’ perceptions of the change context (their own change
history, evaluation of alternatives, evaluation of the organization’s need to change)
will give rise to their concerns about change.
Proposition 10: Implementers’ selection of communication strategies with specific

dimensions of positive–balanced message, dissemination–input focus, targeted–
blanket approach, and discrepancy–efficacy focus will give rise to stakeholders’
perceptions of the change context.
Proposition 11: Selection of communication strategies with specific dimensions of

positive–balanced message, dissemination–input focus, targeted–blanket approach,
and discrepancy–efficacy focus will give rise to different types of stakeholder concerns.
Stakeholders’ assessments of each other

A hub-and-spokes metaphor (with a focal organization as the hub and spokes rep-
resenting links to the stakeholders of that organization) is commonly used to depict
stakeholder relationships of a firm and leads to a focus on isolated dyadic relation-
ships (i.e., focal organization and a single stakeholder group at a time). This depic-
tion neglects the network of dependencies and other relationships among
stakeholders. Few scholars have explicitly acknowledged this point or thoroughly
explored the implications of a more complex view of the relationships among
stakeholders surrounding a specific focal organization. In the investigation of stake-
holder relationships by Post, Preston, and Sachs (2002), they stress the importance of
interstakeholder relationships wherein the complex web of relationships is empha-
sized and not a ‘‘series of dyadic corporation-stakeholder links’’ (p. 8). Rowley
(1997) and Mitchell et al. (1997) have also noted the importance of these relation-
ships among stakeholders. Mitchell et al. note that potential partnerships among
stakeholders can improve their standing in leveraging stakes from the organization.

Alliances, or competitive relationships, among stakeholders of a given organiza-

tion (or in this case an organizational change program), give rise to a more complex
stakeholder picture than the portrait of a manager assessing stakes and stakeholders
and allocating resources accordingly. In the case of a planned change effort, if
a unionized organization undergoes a change that is objectionable to some groups
of nonunion employees, the unionized employees may be sought out as a potentially
more powerful ally to resist or reshape the change effort. In another case, the choice
to initiate a desirable change (e.g., new equipment) in one plant versus another may
set up a competitive stance between stakeholders in the two plants who are vying to
host the pilot phase of a new technology project. Another classic example of these
sorts of dynamics is illustrated in the antagonistic goals of shareholders and employ-
ees during an organizational downsizing effort.
Communication plays a vital role in affording both alliances and engaging in
competitive exchanges. Rowley (1997) forwards a number of hypotheses about how
network characteristics will play out in such circumstances. For example, dense
networks (with a higher level of institutionalized norms, values, shared information,
and agreed-upon behavioral constraints) of stakeholders will create a challenging
environment for decision makers to force their will. In such cases, implementers
would have ‘‘more difficulty playing one group against another or finding a sympa-
thetic group of stakeholders with whom it could form an alliance’’ (p. 897). Cen-
trality is also viewed as a key characteristic of the network of stakeholders in Rowley’s
scheme. To apply his arguments here, we could see that high centrality (high
betweenness centrality) of some stakeholders (including perhaps implementers
themselves) would position some individuals or groups to have great influence as
brokers or gatekeepers who can manipulate information, influence behavior expect-
ations, and manage information flows. In Rowley’s conceptualization, being highly
centralized in a less dense network is the ideal situation to exert maximum influence.
As one’s own centrality decreases or the density of the stakeholder network increases,
more compromising or subordinate roles must be adopted.
The communication strategies employed by implementers during change
episodes in organizations serve as catalysts for the creation, manipulation, and dis-
solution of relationships among stakeholders surrounding an organization. Com-
munication strategies trigger various concerns for different stakeholder groups and
lead some to see opportunity and others to see disaster. Concerns may result in the
change being viewed as a necessity for some and as an unreachable goal for others.
The network of stakeholder relationships is shaped by the resultant sensemaking and
the negotiation of stakes among stakeholders. Some stakeholders will see opportu-
nity for alignment of mutual goals with other stakeholder groups. Some may wish to
disassociate from former allies and become more independent in the network. The
more significant the change episode is in the organization, the more strident the
ripple effects throughout the network of stakeholder relationships are likely to be. As
the web of relationships changes, the position that implementers find themselves in
changes too.

In sum, it is proposed here that stakeholders make their own assessments of other
stakeholders, the stakes claimed during organizational change, including the relative
power, legitimacy, and urgency of those stakes, and the potential for alliances or
competitive relationships with other stakeholders (implementers included). Such
assessments influence the kinds of concerns that stakeholders have about changes
as well as their interactions about change. Thus, it is proposed here that:
and discrepancy–efficacy focus will give rise to stakeholders’ assessments of the
relative legitimacy, urgency, and power of stakes claimed by various groups of
stakeholders.
Proposition 13: Communication strategies with specific dimensions of positive–

balanced message, dissemination–input focus, targeted–blanket approach, and
discrepancy–efficacy focus will give rise to stakeholders’ assessments of the potential
alliances to be made with or competitive stances among the stakeholder groups
involved in change.
Stakeholder interactions
How stakeholders interpret and respond to implementation communication and
how they interact with one another and with implementers are critical determinants
of change outcomes and are also reciprocally predictive of implementers’ future
strategy choices. This model draws from the work of Lewis and Seibold (1993,
1996) in describing three dimensions of stakeholders’ interactions regarding change
initiatives: valence, decidedness, and self–other focus. These are considered orthog-
onal dimensions describing the behavior of stakeholders. Lewis and Seibold (1993,
1996) described and empirically verified (Lewis, 1997) these dimensions as under-
lying stakeholders’ coping tactics.
Valence of interactions regards the positivity or negativity of the tactic with
respect to the intended vision of the change initiative. The decidedness of interactions
describes the dimension of the interactions that demonstrates how certain the stake-
holder is concerning his or her opinion about the change. Interaction tactics high in
decidedness reflect a strong point of view. The third dimension, self–other focus,
concerns the degree to which the focus of the stakeholders’ coping tactics is more
on the self (e.g., taking on new roles, following rules, avoiding new work relation-
ships) or on influencing others (e.g., trying to convince management to discontinue
the change, educating others on why the organization is participating in the change).
Thus, these three dimensions come together to describe any given tactic (i.e., each
tactic can be located on all three dimensions: high–low in valence, more or less
decided, more self- or other-focused).
In summary, the various types of assessments of and interactions among stake-
holders discussed above are one intermediary product of the process described in the

model proposed here. Implementers’ communication strategies affect the ways in

which stakeholders assess and regard one another and themselves as an object of the
change process. Consistent with this discussion, I propose that:
and discrepancy–efficacy focus will give rise to different types of stakeholder
interactions.
Proposition 15: Assessments that stakeholders make about the relative legitimacy,
urgency, and power of their group(s) and other stakeholder groups in the
organization will influence the degrees of valence, decidedness, and focus in their
interactions.
Proposition 16: Assessments that stakeholders make about the potential for alliances or
competitive relations among stakeholders will influence the degrees of valence,
decidedness, and focus in their interactions.
Production of outcomes
The posited relationships among the stakeholders’ concerns and interactions are
depicted in Figure 2 as reciprocal. Thus, as concerns are triggered by communication
strategy choices, they give rise to stakeholder interactions (with more or less degrees
of valence, decidedness, and/or other–self focus). As those interactions take place,
they give rise to and/or quell various concerns of stakeholders—differently for dif-
ferent stakeholders. Those interactions will also alter the strategy choices of imple-
menters as those individuals’ attention structures call them to notice some aspects of
stakeholders’ responses (e.g., evidence of resistance, cooperativeness, understanding,
consensus). Further, these interactions also continue to inform stakeholders’ assess-
ments of one another and the potential for developing strategic relationships.
Observable system
At any given moment in time, we can assess the observable system of the change
effort. For the purposes of this model, three observable characteristics are considered
central: uniformity, fidelity, and authenticity. The first two have already been dis-
cussed (in terms of goals that are antecedents in this model), and so here the third,
authenticity, is elaborated. For some time, it has been recognized in the literatures
across managerial and organizational sciences that emotion and emotional displays
have become commercialized and are considered the purview of managerial direc-
tives (Hochschild, 1983). Empirical studies have demonstrated how emotional labor
has become a normalized component of performance of many service roles in
organizations (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993; Grandey, 2003; Grandey, Fisk, Mattila,
Jansen, & Sideman, 2005). Other research has documented this component as critical
across a variety of worker roles even outside the service sector (Erickson & Ritter,

2001). More recently, the role of emotion in the implementation of change has been
recognized (Schmisseur, 2005a, 2005b; Zorn, 2002).
Zorn (2002) provides several examples of the functions of emotion during orga-
nizational change including, ‘‘to signal engagement, disengagement, satisfaction or
dissatisfaction with the change’’ (p. 161). In the current model conceptualization,
authenticity is the degree to which stakeholders are able to perform support for
change initiatives that is genuine. Inauthenticity can arise through suppression of
emotion. The survey study of Erickson and Ritter (2001) found that ‘‘[T]he more
the respondents covered up their feelings of agitation, the more inauthentic they
were likely to feel. The highest levels of inauthenticity were experienced by those
who reported that they frequently covered up strong feelings of agitation’’ (p. 159).
When individuals in organizations experience perceptions of inauthenticity, nega-
tive outcomes can accrue, including increases in stress (Grandey, 2003), burnout
(Schmisseur, 2005a; Tracy, 2000), emotional exhaustion (Schmisseur, 2005b), and
depressed mood (Erickson & Wharton, 1997).
This model posits that such negative outcomes related to inauthenticity can be
detrimental to change programs and ought be monitored as important outcomes
alongside of observations of the use of changes in terms of uniformity and fidelity.
Inauthenticity in the context of change implementation may require stakeholders to
keep up the appearance of compliance in their participation in change programs
despite feelings of disappointment, fear, frustration, anxiety, and even rage.
Although implementers can observe uniform and high fidelity, in cases where imple-
mentation involves a mandated participation, where input by stakeholders is neither
invited nor tolerated, some stakeholders’ compliance may involve faking enthusiasm,
support, and/or approval. The direct costs of such inauthentic responses will likely
echo those documented above in studies of other forms of emotional labor. The
indirect costs of this outcome may include change burnout (i.e., an exhaustion
brought on by repeated engagement in change initiatives wherein inauthentic dis-
plays are continually called for), lack of vigilance in reporting and in working to
resolve problems in change implementation, and unit and organizational turnover.
These arguments and those presented earlier concerning uniformity and fidelity are
represented in the following proposition:
Proposition 17: Interactions, borne of communication strategies of implementers,
stakeholder concerns, and stakeholders’ assessments, will lead to the observable
system as the change is used and can be described in terms of uniformity, fidelity, and
authenticity.
Results
A different level of outcome is captured in the model component labeled results.
Results are those desired, undesired, or unintended consequences of the change as it
is put into use in an organization. Certainly, the degree to which implementers and
other high-level decision makers perceive they have achieved the goals of the change

initiative (e.g., raising revenues, raising market share, increasing production, reduc-
ing liability from lawsuit) would be included as results. Additionally, other stake-
holders will perceive and judge those and other goals individually. They may come to
see these goals as accomplished or not. The more qualitative the judgment of goals and
accomplishment, and the less agreement on criterion to judge outcomes, the more
variance in perceptions will exist. Further, stakeholders may experience alteration in
their material circumstances due to organizational change. Some will lose jobs during
layoffs. Others will gain financially from raises. Some will have new technology incor-
porated into their work routines. These examples serve to illustrate the vast possibility
in material changes that are also brought about through organizational change inde-
pendent of the perceptions of goal achievement or evaluation of the worth of the
change effort. Unintended consequences of all kinds are likely during change as well.
Unexpected turnover as a result of policy changes or a badly managed layoff slows
down in production as a result of new technology that does not function as promised
and resistance by employees in observance of new policy all serve as examples.
Proposition 18: The observable system of the change as it is used will give rise to results
of the change initiative.
Conclusion
This model is offered as a beginning theoretical depiction of change implementation
communication illustrating how key factors influence implementers’ strategy
choices; affect stakeholders’ perceptions, concerns, and interactions; and give rise
to change program outcomes. The reciprocal effects of stakeholders’ assessments and
interactions on implementer strategy choices and stakeholder concerns are also
depicted. This theoretical foundation is offered as a step toward connecting impor-
tant literatures into a more comprehensive portrait of change implementation com-
munication than so far has been available. It ties together much of the most centrally
communication-related empirical findings and conceptual–theoretical develop-
ments since the Lewis and Seibold (1993) model was published. In doing so, it
updates that model in ways that focus on the communicative actions of implement-
ers, more completely portrays the subcategories of concerns that these authors
originally conceptualized, and calls attention to the nature of stakeholders’ assess-
ments of one another as a basis for their own strategic action regarding change.
Further, it adds an important communication-related outcome of change commu-
nication processes: authenticity.
This essay has only been able to provide a tour of the basic elements of this model
and to provide citation of relevant literatures that support the proposed components
and linkages. The major contributions of this theoretical model are, first, its heuristic
value. Space limitations prohibit detailed development of arguments for the prop-
ositions that can be generated from this model. However, the list of propositions at
least provides a sense of the value of the model in aiding researchers in connecting
the major components of change processes.

Second, this model is framed within a larger theoretical perspective of stake-

holder theory that affords a view of organizations wherein relationships and inter-
action are highlighted. This framing enables us to examine some of the dynamics of
organizational planned change from a communicative perspective. Negotiation,
social sensemaking, interaction, and a relational rather than transactional view of
organizational dynamics are afforded through this lens. Rather than merely exam-
ining the effects implementers’ communication has on various stakeholders—or
simply ‘‘employees’’ (as a single entity)—this perspective pushes us to consider the
interactions within the web of definable stakeholder groups (e.g., multiple and
naturally occurring slices of the employee population, suppliers, customers–clients,
shareholders, community groups) within and around organizations that are under-
going change. This network–interaction approach is far more in keeping with com-
plex theoretical conceptualizations of organizations as systems than much of the
previous work on change communication.
Attention to stakeholder theory within this narrower domain may also help
resolve some debates within that larger literature along the way. Stakeholder
theorists argue over the definition of stakeholders, the stakes they have, their ‘‘legit-
imacy,’’ and the implications of tending to or ignoring self-proclaimed stakeholders
among other issues. Contextualizing those debates within this context, with the
added benefit of a communication–interaction perspective, may make more con-
crete the important questions surrounding stakeholder theory. Arguing about how
one defines a stakeholder relative to a hypothetical organization across many con-
texts (e.g., location of company, downsizing, pay policies, product decisions) may
simply be too abstract for healthy theorizing. It is likely that moving the grand theory
down to the meso level will enable more reliable claims to be made and then
empirically tested.
Third, what this model admittedly lacks in parsimony, it gains back in compre-
hensiveness. The real work of this model is helping us to tie together the disparate
literatures that have attended to isolated aspects of change without recognition of
important relationships among the elements. This depiction provides a starting
point to see those connections and prompts us to empirically explore them.
In selecting a communication-focused model, other important pieces of the
organizational change ‘‘pie’’ have been sacrificed. I would not want readers to assume
that I doubt the importance of other resources, structural, or physical issues in
change processes. For example, this model does not address the potential influences
of the features of changes themselves. As Leonard-Barton (1988b) argues, change
programs have ‘‘implementation characteristics’’ (e.g., transferability, complexity,
divisibility) that can impact how the change process unfolds and how stakeholders
respond to them. Although this model argues that such features are at least partially
socially constructed through the interaction of stakeholders, it does not deny that
there are some features that may stand aside from such constructions and set starting
parameters (e.g., the fact that the change involves laying people off vs. placing a new
technology within the organization).

We also need to be aware that stakeholders have starting characteristics as well—

personality characteristics, positional characteristics, and abilities to learn, take in
information, and deal with uncertainty (see Bostrom & Olfman, 1990). Stakeholders
(implementers included) are not blank slates at the outset of change initiatives. The
abilities, preferences, tendencies, and desires possessed by stakeholders set important
contingencies on how these communicative interactions play out.
Third, as Klein and Sorra (1996) remind us, the implementation climate pro-
vided during a change initiative may have powerful effects that interact with the
communicative component of the change implementation strategies. Provision of
adequate rewards, removal of obstacles, and creating support and infrastructure for
change all have real consequences both for how stakeholders will interact regarding
the change program and how the change communication strategy will be received.
This theoretical foundation in the area of change communication provides, I
hope, some useful beginning points to take what is a rich empirical literature and
a critically important practical concern in organizations and demonstrate how com-
munication theory can provide a useful synthesis and be catalytic in explanation.
Notes
1 It should be noted that institutional theory is a very broad organizational perspective
from which I have selected and adapted a number of narrow points that inform this
model.
2 Although a great deal of support can be found to bolster the problematic nature of
uncertainty and the general tendency for individuals to avoid it, some argue that indi-
viduals sometimes are attracted to or ignore uncertainty (cf. Babrow, 2001).
References
Abrami, P. C., Poulson, C., & Chambers, B. (2004). Teacher motivation to implement an
educational innovation: Factors differentiating users and non-users of cooperative
learning. Educational Psychology, 24, 201–216.
Allen, M. (1993). Determining the persuasiveness of message sidedness: A prudent note about
using research summaries. Western Journal of Communication, 57, 98–103.
Allen, M. W., & Caillouet, R. H. (1994). Legitimation endeavors: Impression
management strategies used by an organization in crises. Communication Monographs,
61, 44–62.
Amis, J., Slack, T., & Hinings, C. R. (2002). Values and organizational change. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 38, 436–465.
Armenakis, A. A., Haris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating readiness for
organizational change. Human Relations, 46, 681–703.
Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1993). Emotional labor in service roles: The influence of
identity. Academy of Management Review, 18(1), 89–115.
Babrow, A. S. (2001). Uncertainty, value, communication, and problematic integration.
Journal of Communication, 51, 553–573.

Bordia, P., Hobman, E., Jones, E., Gallois, C., & Callan, V. J. (2004). Uncertainty during
organizational change: Types, consequences, and management strategies. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 18, 507–532.
Bordia, P., Hunt, E., Paulsen, N., Tourish, D., & DiFonzo, N. (2004). Uncertainty during
organizational change: Is it all about control? European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 13, 345–361.
Bostrom, R. P., & Olfman, L. (1990). The importance of learning style in end-user training.
MIS Quarterly, 14(1), 100–120.
Cheney, G., & Christensen, L. T. (2001). Identity at issue: Linkages between ‘‘internal’’
and ‘‘external’’ organizational communication. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The
new handbook of organizational communication (pp. 231–269). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cheney, G., & Frenette, G. (1993). Persuasion and organization: Values, logics, and accounts
in contemporary corporate public discourse. In C. Conrad (Ed.), The ethical nexus
(pp. 49–73). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Chreim, S. (2002). Influencing organizational identification during major change: A
communication-based perspective. Human Relations, 55, 1117–1137.
Clark, T., & Greatbatch, D. (2004). Management fashion as image-spectacle. Management, 17,
396–424.
Covin, T. J., & Kilmann, R. H. (1990). Participant perceptions of positive and negative
influences on large-scale change. Group and Organization Studies, 15, 233–248.
Coyle-Shapiro, J. A. M. (1999). Employee participation and assessment of an organizational
change intervention: A three-way study of total quality management. Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 35, 439–456.
Cunningham, C. E., Woodward, C. A., Shannon, H. S., MacIntosh, J., Lendrum, B.,
Rosenbloom, D., et al. (2002). Readiness for organizational change: A longitudinal study
of workplace, psychological, and behavioural correlates. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 75, 377–392.
Deetz, S. (2001). Conceptual foundations. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new
handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods
(pp. 3–46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
DiFonzo, N., & Bordia, P. (1998). A tale of two corporations: Managing uncertainty during
organizational change. Human Resource Management, 37, 295–303.
Dorewood, H., & Benschop, Y. (2003). HRM and organizational change: An emotional
endeavor. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 16, 272–287.
Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S. J., O’Neill, R. M., & Lawrence, K. A. (2001). Moves that matter: Issue
selling and organizational change. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 716–736.
Edmondson, A. C., Bohmer, R. M., & Pisano, G. P. (2001). Disrupted routines: Team learning
and new technology implementation in hospitals. Administrative Science Quarterly,
46, 685–716.
Erickson, R. J., & Ritter, C. (2001). Emotional labor, burnout, and inauthenticity: Does
gender matter? Social Psychology Quarterly, 64(2), 146–163.
Erickson, R. J., & Wharton, A. S. (1997). Inauthenticity and depression: Assessing the
consequences of interactive service work. Work and Occupations, 24, 188–213.
Fairhurst, G. T. (1993). Echoes of the vision: When the rest of the organization talks total
quality. Management Communication Quarterly, 6, 331–371.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.

Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review,

24, 191–205.
Furusten, S. (1999). Popular management books. London: Routledge.
Gallivan, M. J. (2001). Meaning to change: How diverse stakeholders interpret organizational
communication about change initiatives. IEEE Transactions on Professional
Communication, 44, 243–266.
Garrety, K., Badham, R., Morrigan, V., Rifkin, W., & Zanko, M. (2003). The use of personality
typing in organizational change: Discourse, emotions and the reflexive subject. Human
Relations, 56, 211–235.
Giddens, A. (1984). Constitution of society. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Grandey, A. A. (2003). When ‘‘the show must go on’’: Surface acting and deep acting as
determinants of emotional exhaustion and peer-rated service delivery. Academy of
Management Journal, 46(1), 86–96.
Grandey, A. A., Fisk, G. M., Mattila, A. S., Jansen, K. J., & Sideman, L. A. (2005). Is ‘‘service
with a smile’’ enough? Authenticity of positive displays during service encounters.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96, 38–55.
Griffin, M. A., Rafferty, A. E., & Mason, C. M. (2004). Who started this? Investigating
different sources of organizational change. Journal of Business and Psychology,
18, 555–570.
Griffith, T. L., & Northcraft, G. B. (1996). Cognitive elements in the implementation of new
technology: Can less information provide more benefits? MIS Quarterly, 20, 99–110.
Heath, R. L. (1994). Management of corporate communication: From interpersonal contacts to
external affairs. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Jones, E., Watson, B., Gardner, J., & Gallois, C. (2004). Organizational challenges for the new
century. Journal of Communication, 54, 722–750.
Jones, T. M., & Wicks, A. C. (1999). Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management
Review, 24, 206–221.
Kabanoff, B., Waldersee, R., & Cohen, M. (1995). Espoused values and organizational change
themes. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1075–1104.
Kickul, J., Lester, S. W., & Finkl, J. (2002). Promise breaking during radical organizational
change: Do justice interventions make a difference? Journal of Organizational Behavior,
23, 469–488.
Klein, K. I., & Sorra, J. S. (1996). The challenge of innovation implementation. Academy of
Management Review, 21, 1055–1080.
Kramer, M. W., Dougherty, D. S., & Pierce, T. A. (2004). Managing uncertainty during
a corporate acquisition: A longitudinal study of communication during an airline
acquisition. Human Communication Research, 30(1), 71–101.
Kuhn, T., & Corman, S. (2003). The emergence of homogeneity and heterogeneity in
knowledge structures during a planned organizational change. Communication
Monographs, 70, 198–229.
Kuhn, T., & Nelson, N. (2002). Reengineering identity: A case study of multiplicity and
duality in organizational identification. Management Communication Quarterly, 16(1), 5–38.
Leonard-Barton, D. (1988a). Implementation as mutual adaptation of technology and
organization. Research Policy, 17, 251–267.

Leonard-Barton, D. (1988b). Implementation characteristics of organizational innovations:

Limits and opportunities for management strategies. Communication Research, 15,
603–631.
Lewis, L. K. (1997). Users’ individual communicative responses to intraorganizationally
implemented innovations and other planned changes. Management Communication
Quarterly, 10, 455–490.
Lewis, L. K. (1999). Disseminating information and soliciting input during planned
organizational change: Implementers’ targets, sources, and channels for communicating.
Management Communication Quarterly, 13, 43–75.
Lewis, L. K. (2000). ‘‘Blindsided by that one’’ and ‘‘I saw that one coming’’: The relative
anticipation and occurrence of communication problems and other problems in
implementers’ hindsight. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 28, 44–67.
Lewis, L. K. (2006). Employee perspectives on implementation communication as
predictors of perceptions of success and resistance. Western Journal of Communication,
70(1), 23–46.
Lewis, L. K., Hamel, S. A., & Richardson, B. K. (2001). Communicating change to nonprofit
stakeholders: Models and predictors of implementers’ approaches. Management
Communication Quarterly, 15, 5–41.
Lewis, L. K., Richardson, B. K., & Hamel, S. A. (2003). When the stakes are communicative:
The lamb’s and the lion’s share during nonprofit planned change. Human Communication
Research, 29, 400–430.
Lewis, L. K., Schmisseur, A., Stephens, K., & Weir, K. (2006). Advice on communicating
during organizational change: The content of popular press books. Journal of Business
Communication, 43(2), 113–137.
Lewis, L. K., & Seibold, D. R. (1993). Innovation modification during intraorganizational
adoption. Academy of Management Review, 18, 322–354.
Lewis, L. K., & Seibold, D. R. (1996). Communication during intraorganizational innovation
adoption: Predicting users’ behavioral coping responses to innovations in organizations.
Communication Monographs, 63(2), 131–157.
Lewis, L. K., & Seibold, D. R. (1998). Reconceptualizing organizational change
implementation as a communication problem: A review of literature and research agenda.
Communication Yearbook, 21, 92–151.
Lusch, R. F., O’Brien, M., & Sindhav, B. (2003). The critical role of trust in obtaining retailer
support for a supplier’s strategic organizational change. Journal of Retailing, 79, 249–258.
McGrath, C., & Krackhardt, D. (2003). Network conditions for organizational change. Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science, 39, 324–336.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutional organizations: Formal structure as myth and
ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.
Miller, K. I., & Monge, P. R. (1985). Social information and employee anxiety about
organizational 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.
Mitchell, R., Agle, B., & Wood, D. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and
salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management
Review, 22, 853–886.

Mohrman, S. A., Tenkasi, R. V., & Mohrman, A. M. (2003). The role of networks in
fundamental organizational change: A grounded analysis. Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 39, 301–323.
Morgan, D. E., & Zeffane, R. (2003). Employee involvement, organizational change, and
trust in management. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(1),
55–75.
Morrison, K. (2005). Motivating women and men to take protective action against rape:
Examining direct and indirect persuasive fear appeals. Health Communication, 18,
237–256.
Mumby, D. K. (1988). Communication and power in organizations: Discourse, ideology, and
domination. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Nutt, P. C. (1987). Identifying and appraising how managers install strategy. Strategic
Management Journal, 8, 1–14.
O’Keefe, D. (1993). The persuasive effects of message sidedness variations: A cautionary note
concerning Allen’s (1991) meta-analysis. Western Journal of Communication, 57, 87–97.
Palgi, M. (2002). Organizational change and ideology: The case of the kibbutz. International
Review of Sociology, 12, 389–402.
Papa, W. H., & Papa, M. J. (1992). Communication network patterns and the re-invention of
new technology. Journal of Business Communication, 29(1), 41–61.
Paterson, J. M., Green, A., & Cary, J. (2002). The measurement of organizational justice in
organizational change programmes: A reliability, validity, and context-sensitivity
assessment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 393–408.
Phillips, R., Freeman, R. E., & Wicks, A. C. (2003). What stakeholder theory is not. Business
Ethics Quarterly, 1, 479–502.
Post, J. E., Preston, L. E., & Sachs, S. (2002). Managing the extended enterprise: The new
stakeholder view. California Management Review, 45(1), 6–28.
Pratt, C. B. (2004). Crafting key messages and talking points—or grounding them in what
research tells us. Public Relations Quarterly, 49(3), 15–20.
Putnam, L. L. (1989). Negotiation and organizing: Two levels within the Weickian model.
Communication Studies, 40, 249–257.
Real, K., & Poole, M. S. (2005). Innovation implementation: Conceptualization and
measurement in organizational research. Research in Organizational Change and
Development, 15, 63–135.
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Rowley, T. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences.
Academy of Management Review, 22, 887–910.
Ruiter, R. A. C., Abraham, C., & Kok, G. (2001). Scary warnings and rational precautions:
A review of the psychology of fear appeals. Psychology and Health, 16, 613–630.
Sagie, A., Elizur, D., & Koslowsky, M. (2001). Effect of participation in strategic and
tactical decisions on acceptance of planned change. Journal of Social Psychology, 130,
459–465.
Sagie, A., & Koslowsky, M. (1994). Organizational attitudes and behaviors as a function of
participation in strategic and tactical change decisions: An application of path-goal
theory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 37–47.
Schmisseur, A. M. (2005a). The art of well-being: Managing emotional dissonance in the
workplace. Unpublished manuscript.

Schmisseur, A. M. (2005b). Beyond the client service interaction: An examination of the

emotional labor of change implementers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Texas at Austin.
Smeltzer, L. R. (1995). Organization-wide change: Planning for an effective announcement.
Journal of General Management, 20, 31–43.
Taylor, J. R., Flanigan, A. J., Cheney, G., & Seibold, D. R. (2001). Organizational
communication research: Key moments, central concerns, and future challenges.
Communication Yearbook, 24, 99–137.
Tenkasi, R. V., & Chesmore, M. C. (2003). Social networks and planned organizational
change: The impact of strong network ties on effective change implementation use.
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 3, 281–300.
Timmerman, C. E. (2003). Media selection during the implementation of planned
organizational change: A predictive framework based on implementation approach and
phase. Management Communication Quarterly, 16, 301–340.
Tompkins, P. K., & Wanca-Thibault, M. (2001). Organizational communication: Prelude and
prospects. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational
communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. xvii–xxxi). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tornatzky, L. G., & Johnson, E. C. (1982). Research on implementation: Implications for
evaluation practice and evaluation policy. Evaluation and Program Planning, 5, 193–198.
Tourish, D., Paulsen, N., Hobman, E., & Bordia, P. (2004). The downsides of downsizing:
Communication processes and information needs in the aftermath of a workforce
reduction strategy. Management Communication Quarterly, 17, 485–516.
Tracy, S. J. (2000). Becoming a character for commerce: Emotion labor, self-subordination,
and discursive construction of identity in a total institution. Management Communication
Quarterly, 14(1), 90–128.
Van de Ven, A. H., Angle, H. L., & Poole, M. S. (1989). Research on the management of
innovations. New York: Ballinger.
Van de Ven, A. H., & Hargrave, T. J. (2004). Social, technical, and institutional change: A
literature review and synthesis. In M. S. Poole & A. H. Van de Ven (Eds.), Handbook of
organizational change and innovation (pp. 259–303). New York: Oxford University Press.
Van Wagoner, R. J. (2004). Influencing the perception of organizational change in
community colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 28, 715–727.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
Watson, T. J. (1994). Management ‘‘flavours of the month’’: Their role in managers’ lives.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 5, 893–909.
Witte, K. (1994). Fear control and danger control: A test of the extended parallel process
model (EPPM). Communication Monographs, 61, 113–154.
Witte, K., & Morrison, K. (2000). Examining the influence of trait anxiety/
repression-sensitization on individuals’ reactions to fear appeals. Western Journal of
Communication, 64(1), 1–27.
Zorn, T. E. (2002). The emotionality of information and communication technology
implementation. Journal of Communication Management, 7(2), 160–171.
Zorn, T. E., Page, D. J., & Cheney, G. (2000). Nuts about change: Multiple perspectives on
change-oriented communication in a public sector organization. Management
Communication Quarterly, 13, 515–566.

15) An Organizational Stakeholder Model of Change Implementation Communication - Lewis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

15) An Organizational Stakeholder Model of Change Implementation Communication - Lewis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

15) An Organizational Stakeholder Model of Change Implementation Communication - Lewis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Communication Theory ISSN 1050-3293

An Organizational Stakeholder Model of

Despite a growing interest in the communicative dimensions of planned change pro-

Communication matters in the processes involved in implementing planned orga-

Corresponding author: Laurie K. Lewis; email: lewisl@rutgers.edu

176 Communication Theory 17 (2007) 176–204 ª 2007 International Communication Association

a small number of models explicating a narrow range of antecedents and outcomes

Communication Theory 17 (2007) 176–204 ª 2007 International Communication Association 177

A stakeholder perspective on change implementation

178 Communication Theory 17 (2007) 176–204 ª 2007 International Communication Association

Models of implementation communication

Communication Theory 17 (2007) 176–204 ª 2007 International Communication Association 179

Structured Implementation Scope, Novelty, and Complexity of Innovation

Users’ Characteristics Users’ Perceptions of Innovation

Formal Concerns (performance, uncertainty, normative)

factors leading up to the ‘‘modification’’ (i.e., degrees of fidelity and uniformity) of

180 Communication Theory 17 (2007) 176–204 ª 2007 International Communication Association

A new model of implementation communication

Antecedents to Strategies Enacted Stakeholders’ Perceptions, Concerns, Outcomes

Figure 2 A model of implementation communication strategy selection, stakeholder con-

Communication Theory 17 (2007) 176–204 ª 2007 International Communication Association 181

Antecedents to implementation communication strategy selection

Implementers’ perceptions of the change situation

182 Communication Theory 17 (2007) 176–204 ª 2007 International Communication Association

Proposition 1: Implementers will base strategy choices on assessments of the numbers of

The history of change in the organization is another key antecedent to imple-

Communication Theory 17 (2007) 176–204 ª 2007 International Communication Association 183

Another perception of the change situation influencing implementers concerns

Proposition 4: Implementers’ perceptions that implementation initiatives require

Finally, it is critical to consider what the implementer conceives of as the desired

184 Communication Theory 17 (2007) 176–204 ª 2007 International Communication Association

Communication Theory 17 (2007) 176–204 ª 2007 International Communication Association 185

frowned upon by authorities such as unions, legal systems, government oversight

Proposition 7: Implementers will base some strategy decisions, particularly the

Proposition 8: Implementers’ professional training and socialization experiences will

Four dimensions of communication strategy choices

186 Communication Theory 17 (2007) 176–204 ª 2007 International Communication Association

message of a specific type, to deal with stakeholders more collectively or more

Positive versus balanced message

Communication Theory 17 (2007) 176–204 ª 2007 International Communication Association 187

Dissemination focus versus input focus

Targeted message versus blanket message

188 Communication Theory 17 (2007) 176–204 ª 2007 International Communication Association

Discrepancy focus versus efficacy focus

Stakeholders’ perceptions of the change context

Communication Theory 17 (2007) 176–204 ª 2007 International Communication Association 189

cause,’’ or ‘‘good enough as it is’’ among other possibilities. Stakeholders have

190 Communication Theory 17 (2007) 176–204 ª 2007 International Communication Association

Communication Theory 17 (2007) 176–204 ª 2007 International Communication Association 191

Proposition 10: Implementers’ selection of communication strategies with specific

Proposition 11: Selection of communication strategies with specific dimensions of

Stakeholders’ assessments of each other

192 Communication Theory 17 (2007) 176–204 ª 2007 International Communication Association

Alliances, or competitive relationships, among stakeholders of a given organiza-

Communication Theory 17 (2007) 176–204 ª 2007 International Communication Association 193

Proposition 13: Communication strategies with specific dimensions of positive–

194 Communication Theory 17 (2007) 176–204 ª 2007 International Communication Association

model proposed here. Implementers’ communication strategies affect the ways in