8/13/2019 07 Codreanu

1/8

to new technology, restructuringand remodeling organizationalprocesses, reinventing organizationalimage [4] or its type of response toexternal challenges (i.e. reactiveor proactive) the most importantresource needed in the transformation

process is the human one [5]. Asa result, its values, attitudes andbehaviors are of utmost importance.Their proper understanding andmanagement with tangible resultsin terms of employee involvementand commitment to organizationalobjectives are the keystone insupporting and accomplishing thechange desideratum. On the other

hand, poor management or disregardfor the aforementioned aspects both

1. INTRODUCTION

Organizational change is asalient feature of organizationaldevelopment [1]. In this respect, theresearch in the eld [2] denes it as aproactive search and identication of

development opportunities. Hence,organizational change involvesidentifying and/or formulatingexible answers to the economic,social, technological and politicaldynamics of an organizationsexternal environment [3].

Regardless of its target (i.e.changing an organizations legalstatus, organizational services/product

diversication, redening individualand team tasks and activities, adapting

ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE: A MATTER

OF INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP BEHAVIORTRANSFORMATION

Aura CODREANU

Regional Department of Defense Resources Management Studies

Abstract: Contemporary life is raising a plethora of challenges for all organizations.Therefore, exibility and continuous change ought to be their priorities. The main

problem is how to actually implement change and make it work. The answer suggested

by this article is that by transforming peoples behavior and attitudes one can actually

lead to organizational change. However, some insight into the prerequisites needed to

transform individual and work group attitudes and behavior is required. As a result,

in order to identify and list a set of principles that should play the role of the 10

Commandments in any organizational change process the aim of this article is to take

a theoretical approach to this issue.

Keywords: organizational change, behavior transformation, attitude, group dynamics

8/13/2019 07 Codreanu

2/8

at organizational level, involvescreating an imbalance in the eldof forces that lead to a behavioralstatus quo.

Concerning the rst hypothesis,Lewin emphasizes that understandingand predicting individual behaviorrequires grasping the interdependencebetween an individual and hisconditioning environment. The latterhas an important say in consolidatingsocial habits and group norms andrules that underlie individual andorganizational behavior. Therefore,

long lasting behavioral changesand transformations consist indeconstructing the equilibrium ofthese habits and norms. Moreover, themore valued the latter are, the greaterthe change effort required. Hence,the ensuing dilemma: what actionsare required to produce behavioralchange not only at an individual levelbut also in the environment to whichbelongs the individual.

Lewins solution is to rst changegroup norms by creating a stateof disequilibrium (the unfreezingstage, as called by the theorist) inthese forces, namely a feeling ofdissatisfaction and discomfort. Theultimate aim of such an action isto undermine the self- satisfaction

feeling induced by group normsacceptance. In practice, such action ispossible by confronting the individualwith a set of information that comes incontradiction with his expectations.However, the information must belinked to what the same individualvalues most [9].

Second, a transition stage(moving) is needed. The latter

involves identifying unproductivebehavioral patterns, dening the

at group and individual level can leadto apathy, passive, active or, at worst,aggressive resistance [6].

Based on the above observations,

the aims of this article are threefold.First, a theoretical model describingthe link between organizationalchange and individual and groupbehavior transformation will bebriey overviewed. Moreover,a set of principles grounded inbehavioral psychology, underlyingany description of human behaviorin terms of values and attitudes and

enabling the view on organizationalchange as an unfolding processwill be presented. These theoreticalassumptions will contribute to theidentication of a number of factorsthat need to be taken into accountwhen approaching attitude (and,inherently, behavior) transformationas a necessity for organizationalchange. All this will result in anumber of laws that should governany organizational change attempts.

2. KURT LEWIN: ATHEORETICAL MODEL OF

ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE

One of the theoretical modelsof great impact upon research and

practice in the eld of organizationalchange was developed by Kurt Lewin[7]. The propositions underlying itcan be formulated as follows [8]: Individual behavior is a merger

between personality traitsand environmental features.Therefore, the best means tochange behavior is to change theenvironment.

Facilitating behavioral change atindividual level and, as a result,

8/13/2019 07 Codreanu

3/8

and ensuing individual roles. Fromthis point of view, Homans [11]formulates a number of theoreticalpropositions derived from behavioral

psychology: Behavior is the result of thebenets it yields.Thus, individual behavior

is described by a set of actionsundertaken in a given environment.Their consequences may be positiveones (such as rewards, incentives,positive reinforcers) or negativeones (such as sanctions, punishments

or other negative reinforcers).Therefore, behavioral alternativesare modeled in accordance with theresults of initially made decisions. Social behavior is an exchange

process.From this point of view, the

exchange process can be dened as thesocial interaction between behavioralsystems. Such an interaction, alsoknown by the name of action andreaction [12], is grounded in thebenets gained by an individualfrom another individuals behaviorand it takes the form of sociability,cooperation, competition, etc.

The theoretical principlesaccounting for individual and groupbehavioral variations are formulated

as follows [13]: The success principle: the

more frequent an actionsreinforcement, the greater thelikelihood of that action to berepeated.

The principle of stimulisimilarity upholding thatsimilar situations yield generalreinforcing effects. Thus, if a

certain stimulus was used as anaction reinforcer in the past, the

desirable ones. In this respect,changes in organizational processesand structures are required. Someof the most important include

the following: redening roles,responsibilities and organizationalrelationships, developing skills andcompetencies, encouraging changepromoters and removing changeresistance agents [10].

As a result of the two previousstages a new organizationalequilibrium (refreezing) is needed.The solution towards creating

it consists of consolidatingorganizational culture and structure,as well as the reward system.

The conclusions that can bedrawn from this theoretical input canbe formulated as follows: Individual behavior change is

possible by acting upon the groupnorms enforcing it.

Behavioral change rests uponidentifying and acting upon thevalues upholding the attitudes ofafliation to group norms.As a result, organizational change

must be rst and foremost groundedin understanding individual andgroup values, attitudes and behaviors.Therefore, to accomplish it one needsa better theoretical understanding

of these concepts and of theirinterrelationships.

3. INDIVIDUAL BEHAVIOR:SOME THEORETICAL

PROPOSITIONS

Social systems and social behavior(and in the case of organizationsindividual and group behavior) can

be dened and explained in termsof values, norms, communities

8/13/2019 07 Codreanu

4/8

reinforcers and, inherently, on acomplex set of expectations derivedform them. As a consequence,these principles are important to

remember when attempting toinduce organizational change sincethey underlie a spontaneous order[14] within social systems and arestrongly connected to reinforcementstrategies.

Two concepts complementary tothese principles are necessary to beunderstood before taking any changeeffort. These are: expectancy and

value.As far as expectancy is

concerned, the latter is the result ofprevious experience and inuencesfuture behaviors. It cannot be heldunder scrutiny like behavior but itestablishes the values underlyingbehavioral variables and thus playsan important role in inuencingbehavior. As a result, alongside withits positive or negative assessments, itis an inherent component of attitudes.

Value, from the perspective ofthe above principles, is denedas the frequency of the choicesmade by an individual to performor not a series of actions based onthe benets or costs they incur ata personal level. These costs and

benets are nothing but means anddesirable goals [15], even if in anidealistic denition they are equaledto universal values such as equality,freedom, etc. [16] or individual oneslike self- development, recognition,love, security, etc.[17]. Thus, eventhough generally speaking values aredescribed as more abstract and all-inclusive compared to the attitudes

they uphold, this article will bereferring to values in terms of the

more future stimuli resemblethat specic stimulus, the greaterthe likelihood for an individualto perform identical or similar

actions to the one previouslyreinforced. The value principle: the

more valued an actions result,the greater the likelihood ofreiterating that very action.

The deprivation/sufciencyprinciple: the more frequentlyused a reinforcer, the lessvaluable the latter becomes to an

individual. The aggressiveness/approval

principle:- when the reward or sanction receivedfor a specic action contradict theindividuals expectations, the latterwill react emotionally. Hence,the likelihood of an aggressivebehavior increases and, in the end,its results may be positively valuedby that person. (the aggressivenessprinciple).- when the reward for a specicaction meets or even exceeds theindividuals expectations or when anaction is not sanctioned as expected,the likelihood of valuing the resultsof the ensuing behavior and, hence, ofrepeating it increases. (the approval

principle).Referring to the latter principle,

Homans introduces the distinctionbetween reex and voluntarybehavior. Thus, if in the initial stagesan emotional outburst can only be amatter of reex behavior, the positivereinforcement of its results may leadto future voluntary behavior.

The above principles are based

on the hypothesis of a personalhistory of positive and negative

8/13/2019 07 Codreanu

5/8

automatic association (an associationwhich in its turn is the result of acontinuous process of learning andupdating) between the features of an

object and its assessment in termsof the strong emotions it yields.On the other hand, a low intensityattitude results from the associationbetween an object and its medium toneutral emotional assessment. In thisrespect, it is important to emphasizethat an individual may be familiarwith an objects features withoutautomatically associating them with

their positive or negative evaluation.The conclusions emerging from

the experiments done in order toappropriately describe the conceptof accessibility and, inherently, therelationship between behavior andattitude [21] are as follows: The more frequent the mental

association between an object andits emotional assessment, the morecomplex their interrelationship.From this point of view, the object

of love or of hatred is associatedwith negative or positive feelings,as the case may be. Thus, the moreautomatic the association is, the moreintense and the more inuential theattitude at a subconscious level forindividual behavior becomes.

Humans are more likely to paymore attention to the objectsassociated with accessibleattitudes.In other words, the more intense

the feeling towards certain objects,the more likely for those objects todraw our attention. Accessible attitudes act as lters

for information processing.

The likelihood of processinginformation in a biased manner is

costs and benets an individualattaches to his actions.

An important argument in favorof such an approach is brought

by Muzafer Sherif and CarolynSherif [18]. According to them,the assessment of an individual,object, situation (in other words,the attitude) does not depend on thequality of the arguments presentingthe advantages and disadvantages,but on its alignment with an alreadyexisting attitude and on the resultsit may have upon future individual

actions (in other words, on the costsand benets).

4. ATTITUDE CHANGE:A PREREQUISITE FORBEHAVIORAL CHANGE

A denition of attitudes highly

relevant for the purposes of thisarticle suggests the following [19]:

When we talk about attitudes weactually talk about what a person haslearnt as a result of his integrationinto a family, group, or society and,hence, about what enables him toreject transitory reactions in favor ofa constant and characteristic mannerof acting. As a result, such a personcan no longer be neutral in assessing

the surrounding environment andtherefore it includes it in the dichotomiccategories of pleasant- unpleasant,favorable-unfavorable,agreementdisagreement.

The more frequent an object(e.g. a person, place or problem) isassessed, the more likely a certainattitude to emerge (the concept ofattitude accessibility) [20]. Thus, an

attitude of high intensity (i.e. highlyin favor or against) is the result of an

8/13/2019 07 Codreanu

6/8

to listen to a sources message and,eventually, to change his attitudeand behavior. Moreover, the greaterthe need to understand certain issues

is, the more open the receiver is tomessage processing. In this respect,competence plays a major role inmaintaining or changing attitudes:the more knowledgeable someoneis, the more difcult it becomes toconvince that person.

The impact of a message aimedat transforming an attitude/behaviordepends on the quality of arguments

and on the conversational style (i.e.uency, rhetorical devices, etc.)chosen to present them.

5. ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE- A MATTER OF INDIVIDUAL

AND GROUP BEHAVIORTRANSFORMATION.

SOME PREREQUISITES

Based on the theoreticalinput overviewed in the previoussubchapters some fundamentalprerequisites for organizationalchange can be formulated. They areas follows: Change involves undermining

the self- sufciency feeling byhelping individuals and groups

unlearn some attitudinal habits; Change is a matter of

interrelationships and that,in its turn, is facilitated byorganizational infrastructure;

Change is synonymous to learningby continuously questioningindividual and group habits andnorms;

Change is a process of discovery,

of testing and validatingalternatives (rst, the ones

heavily inuenced by the automaticactivation of attitudes whenencountering real life situations.The more associated the latter with

powerful feelings (whether negativeor positive), the more likely for themto act as triggers for attitudes.

As for the factors that contributeto attitude change and, inherently,to behavior transformation they aredivided into four categories [22] (themessage- learning approach): thesource, the message, the receiver, thetarget.

Concerning the source of themessage aimed at changing attitudesand behaviors, its inuence dependson: Credibility: a highly credible

source is more likely to inuencea receiver. From this point ofview, the assessment criteriafor a sources credibility arecompetence and honesty.

Sources attractivity for thereceiver. The latter can be bestassessed by the following criteria:familiarity, similarity with thetarget and liking. Thus, a liking,physically attractive or similarsource is much more convincingthan its less attractive alternatives.

Power. From this point of view,

a source perceived as able toreward or to punish can inuencea lot publicly or privately heldopinions.As for the message target [23]

there are two important factors usedby any receiver to process messages,namely: motivation (dened as thedegree of commitment and the needto learn) and competence. The more

interesting and relevant a problemis, the more motivated a receiver is

8/13/2019 07 Codreanu

7/8

Heinemann, p. 22[3] Huber, G.P., (1993) Understandingand predicting organizational changequoted in Huber, G.P., Glick, W.H.

(eds.) (1993) Organizational changeand redesign: ideas and insights forimproving performance. New York:Oxford University Press, p. 215-254.Cummings, T.G., Worley, C.G.,(2008) Organization developmentand change. Cengage Learning, p. 94.Oden, H.W., (1999) Transformingthe organization: A Socio-TechnicalApproach. Greenwood Publishing

Group, p. 3-9.[4] Kubr, M. (1992) Managementconsulting. Manualul consultantuluin management, AMCOR, Bucureti[5] Bogathy, Z. (coord) (2004)Manual de psihologia muncii iorganizaional. Iai: Polirom, p.283.[6] Spector, B. (2007) ImplementingOrganizational Change. Theory andPractice. New Jersey:Pearson, p. 37.[7] Cummings, T.G., Worley, C.G.,(2008) Organization developmentand change.Cengage Learning, p. 24.[8] Spector, B. (2007) ImplementingOrganizational Change. Theory andPractice.New Jersey:Pearson, p. 27.[9] Schein, E. (1996) Kurt LewinsChange Theory in the Field and in the

Classroom: Notes Toward a Model ofManaged Learning, Systems Practice,No. 9, p. 28[10] Spector, B. (2007)ImplementingOrganizational Change. Theory andPractice. New Jersey:Pearson, p. 29.[11] Fararo, T. J. ( 2 0 0 1 )Social Action Systems. Foundationand Synthesis in SociologicalTheory, Westport, Connecticut,

London:Praeger, p.221.[12] Parsons and Shils quoted in

pertaining to individual andgroup attitudes and behaviorsand second, the ones related toan organizations mission and

objectives); Change is the result oftaking responsibility for theconsequences of ones behavioron the other individuals;

Change is a matter of honesty tooneself and to the others;

Change is a matter of competence; An individuals motivation to

change depends on the costs/

benets ratio.All of the above prerequisites are

based on interaction. The latter isactually the keystone to organizationaldevelopment and change [24].

Therefore, in order to understandhow organizational change can takeplace by transforming individual andgroup behavior one rst needs tounderstand the organizational scriptsthat generate this behavior and itsunderlying attitudes. Hence, the goalof organizational change ought tobe the rewriting, the renegotiationof those scripts and of the contractsthey generate for each and everyindividual. Thus, by meeting theprerequisites above a coherentcontribution of an organizations

employees to the latters attempts atchanging itself becomes possible.

REFERENCES

[1] Martin, G. (2006) ManagingPeople and Organizations inChanging Contexts, Butterworth-Heinemann, p. 21[2] Martin, G. (2006) Managing

People and Organizations inChanging Contexts, Butterworth-

8/13/2019 07 Codreanu

8/8

(1967) Attitude, ego-involvement,and change, pg. 105-139, New York:Wiley[19] idem, p. 2.

[20] Fazio, R. H. (1990)Multipleprocesses by which attitudes guidebehavior: The MODE model asan integrative framework. quotedin M. P. Zanna (ed.), Advancesin experimental social psychology(Vol. 23, pp. 75-109). San Diego:Academic Press.[21] Fazio, R. H. (2000)Accessibleattitudes as tools for object

appraisal: Their costs and benets.quoted in G. R. Maio & J. M. Olson(Ed.), Why we evaluate: Functionsof attitudes Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.pp. 1-36Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R.(1997)Attitude accessibility and persuasion:Review and a transactive model.quoted in B. R. Burleson (ed.),Communication Yearbook, 20,185-225.Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R., Arpan-Ralstin, L., & St. Pierre, J. (2002)Attitude accessibility and persuasion:The quick and the strong. quoted inJ. P. Dillard and M. Pfau (Ed.), Thepersuasion handbook: Developmentsin theory and practice (pg. 3961).Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.

[22] Hovland et.al., 1953[23] Perloff, R. M. ( 2 0 0 3 )The Dynamics of Persuasion.Communication and Attitudes in the21st Century, ed. a II-a, LawrenceErlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NewJersey London, pp. 134-136.[24] Heritage, J., Clayman, S. (2010)Talk in action. Interactions, identities,and institutions. Wiley Blackwell

Fararo, T. J. (2001) Social ActionSystems. Foundation and Synthesisin Sociological Theory, Westport,Connecticut, London:Praeger, p.

223-224.[13] Homans, G.C. (1950) TheHuman Group.New York: HarcourtBrace Jovanovich, citat n Fararo, T.,J. (2001) Social Action SystemsFoundation and Synthesis inSociological Theory. Westport,Connecticut, London: Praeger[14] Fararo, T. J. ( 2 0 0 1 )Social Action Systems. Foundation

and Synthesis in SociologicalTheory, Westport, Connecticut,London:Praeger, p.225[15] Kluckhohn, C. (1951) Valuesand value-orientations in the theoryof action: An exploration in denitionand classication. quoted in T.Parsons, E. A. Shils (eds.), Towarda general theory of action (pg. 388433). Cambridge: Harvard UniversityPress. (Kluckhohn,1951.[16] Rokeach, M. (1973) The natureof human values.New York: FreePress.Schwartz, S. (1996) V a l u epriorities and behavior: Applying atheory of integrated value systems.citat n C. Seligman, J. M. Olson, &M. P. Zanna (Ed.), The psychology of

values: The Ontario symposium (Vol.8, pg. 124). Mahwah, NJ:LawrenceErlbaum Associates.[17] Kahle, L. R. (1996) Socialvalues and consumer behavior:Research from the list of values.quoted in C. Seligman, J. M. Olson,& M. P. Zanna (Ed.), The psychologyof values: The Ontario symposium,(Vol. 8, pp. 135-151). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.[18] Sherif, C. W., Sherif, M. (Ed.)