Organizational Restructuring and Trust: Exploring the effects of restructuring during a time of crisis
Charlene Martinez Advisor: Chris Quinn Trank Partner Organization: EdConsult
Table of Contents
Dedication... 3
Executive Summary... 4
Introduction: COVID-19 and Early Impacts... 7
About the Organization: EdConsult... 10
Problem of Practice... 12
Problem Statement... 13
Research Questions:... 15
Literature Review... 15
Conceptual Framework... 21
Project Design... 27
Sample Size and Demographics... 29
Data Analysis... 30
Results... 31
Qualitative Data... 33
Recommendations... 44
Limitations... 50
Conclusion... 50
Figur FIGURE 1: SCHOOLS CLOSEDDUETO COVID-19 IN MARCHOF 2020...7
FIGURE 2: STUDENTSIMPACTEDBY COVID-19 CLOSURES...8
FIGURE 3: TEACHER MORALEINTHEEARLYONSETOF COVID-19 PANDEMICANDSCHOOLCLOSURES ...10
FIGURE 5: ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE COMPONENTS (COLQUITT, 2001)...22
FIGURE 6: DUCHEK’SCAPABILITY-BASEDCONCEPTUALIZATIONOFORGANIZATIONALRESILIENCE....23
TablesY TABLE 1: COLQUITT’S MEASUREOF ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE- OUTOFA 5-POINTSCALE...31
TABLE 2: MAYERAND GAVIN’S MEASUREOF ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR – ABILITYTO FOCUS...31
TABLE 3: SOMERS MEASUREOF RESILIENCE POTENTIAL...32
TABLE 5: SUMMARYOF FINDINGSAND RECOMMENDATIONS...49
Dedication
To those who have supported and encouraged me along the way, thank you. Allison, Kip, and Michael: you three have been my rocks in this program- I would not, could not have done this without you. To my partner organization, thank you for your honesty, your vulnerability, and your time. To the faculty at Peabody, especially Dr.
Chris Quinn-Trank, I have learned so much under you and I am forever in your debt.
Lastly, to the absent; COVID has taken so much and so many from us, may those who remain make our way forward with a vision of a better and more inclusive world.
Executive Summary Background and Organizational Information
During the months of February and March of 2020 as COVID-19 was beginning to spread from Washington state to New York, school leaders and politicians across the country made the difficult decision to close public schools from grades kindergarten all the way up to college. In the span of just a few weeks, over 50.8 million K-12 students, their families, educators, and all those working in sectors adjacent to schools were forced into a new normal with no clear end in sight.
EdConsult, an educational consulting firm whose name has been changed for confidentiality purposes in this paper, was one of the many organizations impacted by the sudden market shifts caused by COVID-19.
Problem of Practice
Like many organizations, EdConsult had to make quick and difficult decisions in order to remain financially solvent. Prior to the pandemic, EdConsult had many large contracts with school districts across the country. As school closures hit, contracts were canceled and educational conferences, the place where consultants were able to share their expertise and engage with potential clients, moved to virtual format or could not be held at all. To stay in business, EdConsult leadership believed they had to terminate their contracted partner consultants and reconfigure the responsibilities of the remaining full- time employees to new work designs.
Research Questions & Findings
This project will use the conceptual frameworks of Colquitt (2001) and Duchek (2020) to answer the following questions.
1) What is the current level of trust in the top management team after the job redesign changes?
2) To what extent are members of the organization ready to change given the likelihood of change in the future?
a. What supports will employees need to engage in future changes?
Finding 1: People have found their redesigned roles and responsibilities to be reflective of their performance and that the changes were justified.
Finding 2: The majority of employees at EdConsult find the work climate allows them to focus on their work and do their job without focusing on internal politics.
Finding 3: Procedural justice and informational justice domains were not perceived to be at the same levels of interpersonal justice and distributive justice. This would indicate that employees want more information from their employer about how decisions are made and why procedures exist.
Finding 4: Employees feel like they can share their views and feelings with their employer.
Finding 5: EdConsult is not yet above the conceptual center of Organizational Resilience Potential Scale, indicating that the organization has some work to do to be prepared for future change.
Finding 6: Employees desire clearer and more open communication pathways with their employer and their colleagues.
Recommendations
Recommendation 1: Implement a unified communication and collaboration system to allow for ongoing and transparent communication.
Recommendation 2: Build mechanisms to support building the self-efficacy of employees to excel in their expanding roles
Recommendation 3: Craft a clear set of values that the organization will use as the guide for future crisis response.
Introduction: COVID-19 and Early Impacts
At the time of this research, the COVID-19 global pandemic has shifted to an endemic illness, but the specter of future variants and potential disruption remains. In the United States, the field of education has been forever impacted by COVID-19 through interrupted instruction, low teacher and staff morale, the mental health implications of a year of remote instruction, and in many settings the loss of a loved one (Goldberg, 2021;
Decker et al., 2021).
During the months of February and March of 2020 in response to the rapid spread of COVID-19, almost all of the public schools and colleges across the country shut down and most for the remainder of the school year(Goldberg, 2021). This decision and the decisions that followed impacted the lives of at least 50.8 million public school students, their families, educators, EdTech companies, and educational consulting firms (Decker et al., 2021).
Figure 1: Schools Closed due to COVID-19 in March of 2020
Source: (Decker et al., 2021)
Figure 2: Students impacted by COVID-19 closures
Source: (Decker et al., 2021)
In early March, with cases numbering less than 118 in about 16 states, both public and private sectors were faced with immediate impacts on large-scale education-related meetings—specifically sectors that centered on face-to-face encounters such as
educational conferences, academic conferences, conventions, and festivals (Noonoo, 2020). Of the 38 education and industry conferences scheduled to take place between January of 2020 and end of March 2020 tracked by Catalano and Wan of EdSurge, ten were cancelled outright, and of the remaining thirty would choose to meet virtually only four were able to take place virtually as scheduled. For many companies that serve the education sector, conferences are where client connections take place and business deals are made.
Consulting firms both stateside and across the globe felt the early impact of COVID-19 as conference closures and immediate crisis interventions superseded the
professional development plans to be enacted by already contracted firms (Noonoo, 2020;
Somers, 2020; Edweek, 2020). Tata consulting reported in mid-November that the global consulting industry had a potential 19% loss in market value, equating to almost 30 billion in lost revenue for companies across the world (Patil & Bonodkar, 2020).
As travel bans, social distancing, and shelter-in-place orders were established across the US, consultants who spent almost 80% their pre-pandemic working lives away from home, were forced to remain in place and find alternative ways of gathering,
pitching plans and generating client revenue (Somers, 2020).
While education consultants serve school districts and their leaders in a multitude of ways prior to the pandemic, the immediate impact of COVID-19 had a swift and dramatic impact on educators in ways that had not been seen before and required a very different type of response from those who support educators (Edweekly, 2021; McLeod
& Dulsky, 2021). Where school districts and leaders used to need support in budgeting, strategic planning, and coaching on leadership, clients needed assistance in launching a digital school, providing emotional support to teachers who reported some of the lowest morale in decades, and the steep learning curve of running a school during a pandemic (McLeod & Dulsky, 2021).
Figure 3: Teacher Morale in the early onset of COVID-19 pandemic and school closures
Source: (Decker et al., 2021)
By February 2022, over 450 educators have died due to COVID (Decker et al., 2021). According to the CDC an average of 252 people died each week in the month of March 2020 and spiked up to almost 15,000 deaths per week in April 2020. Faced with such unprecedented numbers and no clear end in sight, the education sector had no choice but to completely restructure and re-envision in order to keep students, teachers, and their families safe. No clear roadmap existed and so all parties were faced with the question, what now?
About the Organization: EdConsult
Currently headquarted in the West Coast, EdConsult is a small, private
educational consulting firm that is dedicated to helping its client schools in expanding holistic, learner-centered systems. EdConsult serves as a platform for well-regarded thinkers in the education sphere to market their services to a large, national market of
schools, conference organizers, and large school districts. Services offered by EdConsult include customized professional development and coaching, national professional
development sessions, and a series of professional publications all centered around bringing a social justice lens to supporting school leaders and teachers as they work with students.
EdConsult is made up of fifteen employees and about fifty contracted partner consultants, authors, and speakers. Partner Consultants at EdConsult are encouraged to contract themselves not only with EdConsult but with other organizations as well.
EdConsult also sells a variety of professional development texts through their imprint EdConsult Press, most of which are targeted to school leaders and educators. A select group of authors are also invited to serve as public speakers—some in panel or keynote presentations. EdConsult is also host to eight different Learning Teams, a facilitated professional learning community that collaborates with educators alongside students to build collective efficacy and build a community that is centered on learning. Learning Teams are facilitated by EdConsult internal staff and, if needed, partner consultants.
Internal employees make up the organizational hub of the company--co-facilitating professional learning communities, providing direct consultation, speaking at
conferences, organizing professional development sessions, and marketing their services to schools around the nation.
Problem of Practice
Prior to the COVID-19 epidemic in 2020 EdConsult was continuing to grow as a nationally known organization with contracts in the New York City school district as well as major school districts in California, Colorado and Illinois. The organization had hired additional partner consultants and built a more robust sales and marketing team. Then, on March 13, 2020, a large number of contracts were canceled due to the intense shift in the ways in which education would be presented to children across the country. Because the majority of the organization’s funding came from large consultancy contracts with school districts, EdConsult needed to make quick and exacting budgetary decisions to keep the company solvent. The CEO of the company, and the executive leadership team made the decision to re-envision their current staffing plan and find ways to expand the current roles of their employees to keep the organization functioning. In order to lower company expenses, contracts with partner consultants and external contractors were cancelled. The recently expanded sales and marketing team shifted from forty employees, the majority of whom were partner consultants, to a team of three of the direct employees at
EdConsult. Other staff members were assigned additional roles in order to keep the company running. In this restructuring, some employees who were originally hired to be directors of learning and development also took on the roles and responsibilities of operations directors in organizing and planning online professional development sessions.
There was no additional training or stipend attached with these new responsibilities.
As the pandemic continues to reshape and refine systems of practice in companies large and small, the founder and the executive leadership team are committed to
designing a more resilient organizational structure while also acknowledging that the
restructuring had an unknown impact on the direct employees in their organization as they had to take on additional job challenges and responsibilities while also managing a pandemic. As with any organizational change, EdConsult acknowledges that they are not yet fully aware of the impact the restructuring had on their team and know that as the educational landscape continues to change, future restructuring may be needed.
The leadership team reports that the reorganization, as well as the ongoing impact of COVID-19, has impacted their team’s functioning toward their delivered outcomes and relationship to the organization itself. They have asked me to investigate what impact this reorganization of job structures has had on their full-time employees and use this information to provide guidance as they assess preparedness for future reorganizations of the company, as well as the for potential growth. The leadership team wants to learn from their experience with rapid restructuring and prepare their team to be resilient and nimble in the face of other types of disruptions that may occur in the market.
Problem Statement
As an education centered organization, the leadership team at EdConsult knows that to work in the field they must always be ready to respond to the shifts and changes in the market; however the rapid and swift changes in how schools managed their funds and viewed external consultation during COVID-19 had a major impact on the firm. COVID- 19 closures also brought attention to the systemic failures that continue to impact public education, including but not limited to political pressure, budgeting and administrative innovations, along with long-standing racial and class inequalities. Remote
instruction and the ongoing debate as to the purpose of schools led by pundits to increase the scrutiny of others on the purpose and responsibilities of educators. As EdConsult
looks to the future they know that major redesigns of the organization may be needed in the future as they work to build back contracts with school districts and begin to hold in- person consulting and professional development sessions again. The educational
consulting firms that survived the pandemic did so by remaining flexible and creative;
shifting quickly from in-person meetings to virtual check-ins and Zoom professional development sessions. As schools re-open, the shift back to in-person consulting and conferences while also maintaining robust online programming will require an equal level of nimbleness and flexibility as schools and companies alike must react to the ever changing landscape of professional development. EdConsult reports that their
professional development has expanded from curriculum and design support to also include a more holistic approach that supports the emotional needs of school leaders as well as providing guidance for leaders to support their teachers.
Leadership is also aware that in the reorganization process employees may have been negatively impacted and have lost confidence in themselves and the organization as they have noticed a clear difference in their employees’ self confidence in their expanded roles and responsibilities during one-on-one check ins. As such the executive leadership team is looking to identify the current level of employee trust in the top management team after the job redesign change and to what extent members of the organization are ready and able to change given the likelihood of change in the future. To meet the needs of the organization, this research focuses on employee trust in the organization and what supports will be needed for employees to engage in future change. My research will be guided by the following questions.
Research Questions:
1) What is the current level of trust in the top management team after the job redesign change?
2) To what extent are members of the organization ready to change given the likelihood of change in the future?
2a) What supports will employees need to engage in future changes?
Literature Review
Much has been researched, written, and discussed about organizational
restructuring during times of crisis and its impact on employees and management teams.
When major change happens within an organization, trust, change readiness, and resilience are topics that have been ripe for organizational leadership research and have offered up some relevant insights for this quality improvement project.
Trust
Trust Defined
Trust and trustworthiness are two separate constructs (Mayer & Gavin, 2005, pp.
711, 729): trustworthiness is a quality that the trustee has, while trusting is something that the trustor does (Dietz & Hartog, 2006). While there are many ways one could describe trust, this paper will use the definition articulated by Dietz and Hartog (2006) as, “an expectation, a willingness to be vulnerable and a risk-taking act.”
Trust in Organizations. Intra-organizational trust, the trust between employees
and supervisors/managers, and also the trust between co-workers is a key lever in an organization’s success or failure. When trust is missing in an organization, individuals will work to protect their own interests, at the cost of their long-term gain and at the cost of the entire organizational system (Deming, 1994).
Dietz and Hartog (2006) in their work on measuring trust inside of organizations explore the concept of trust and view trust as relating to two specific parties, Party A (the trustor) and Party B (the trustee). In their study they found that both parties had clear needs from each other required maintain the ability to vulnerable, or trust, the other.
How we trust others is tightly knit with our beliefs, personal traits, political leanings, and previous behaviors. Even the most objectively trustworthy party may not be trusted because of the trustor’s prior experience or beliefs. People will often make new information fit into their previous attitudes and beliefs rather than changing their minds to accommodate new learning; this is also true when it comes to trust. The degree to which one trusts another varies along a continuum of intensity (Williams, 2001, p.379). The lowest form of trust is actually distrust or “deterrence-based trust” and the greatest level of trust is ‘identification-based trust (Rousseau et al., 1998, p.339).’ Deterrence-based trust is when parties only act in self-preservation as there is a threat of punishment if they do not comply with requests for action or disclosure. Identification-based trust is when both parties assume a common identity, and each party can represent the other’s interests with their full confidence (Dietz & Hartog, 2006, p.564).
Trust Process. Trust is highly correlated to performance in intra-organizational
relationships. When an employee lacks trust in management their cognitive resources will be preoccupied with non productive issues, with the primary focus being on self-
protection or defensive behaviors (Mayer & Gavin, 2005).
As a foundation for my research, I will be looking at the trust process through the research on psychological contracts.
Psychological Contracts
Organizations dedicated to their success and growth often use some form of contract to outline their expectations for employees, and employees in turn use the contracts to understand what the organization will offer in return for their services.
However, the written contract between two parties is not the only way that employees and employers understand their obligations to each other. A psychological contract, as researched and defined by Rousseau (1994) is the perceived obligations that define a relationship. These perceived obligations could be specifically related to the tasks of one’s job or perceived obligations as to how parties engage with each other relationally.
Much like trust, the psychological contract is developed over time and is influenced by previous experiences (Rousseau, 1989). Employees’ observations and interactions with their employer will impact what employees perceive is owed to them by their employer and what they owe in return. Over an employee’s tenure in an
organization these contracts are built, breached, repaired, and built again
(Rousseau, 1989). In most cases, these contracts are built through interactions and inferences and not directly defined by either party, but instead built through feelings (Rousseau, 1989).
When a psychological contract is violated, there is a cost. Employees who perceive employer violations often begin to change what they believe they owe their employer as an act of retribution or a way of becoming even in obligations (Robinson et al., 1994). Commitment to an organization is intertwined with maintaining a relationship of consistency and good faith and research suggests that organizational leaders pay close attention to employee beliefs and perceptions of their psychological contract. Once a violation occurs it is very difficult to rebuild the trust that is lost and develop a psychological contract that meets the needs of both parties (Robinson et al., 1994).
Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) is defined as the positive actions and contributions employees make beyond their job description (Mayer & Gavin, 2005). In order for employees to engage in organizational citizenship behavior they must have trust in the organization and be able to give their attention and focus while at work (Mayer &
Gavin, 2005). When employees are able to demonstrate high levels of organizational citizenship behavior the organization is better able to respond in crisis, as employees are able to observe and respond to stimuli.
Resilience Literature
The literature on psychological contracts becomes particularly important in times of organizational stress or change. At these times a psychological contract that enables change is essential to an organization’s resilience. Resilience is defined as the
persistence of positive systems behavior in the face of challenging conditions in such a manner that allows the organization to come out of these situations stronger and more resourceful (Holling, 1973; Duchek, 2020; Vogus & Sutcliffe, 2007; Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001; Crichton et al., 2009). Challenging conditions include High Impact Low
Probability (HILP) events such as natural disasters, economic downturns, and global pandemics such as COVID-19 (Vogus & Sutcliffe, 2007). While HILP events are one type of challenging condition that require organizational resilience, Vogus and Sutclife’s research also reminds us that the “accumulation of small interruptions” can disturb a system just as significantly as an HILP (Vogus & Sutclife, 2007). Organizational resilience using the definition above requires active development, assessment, and management to ensure that future challenges can be met with equal success as previous challenges.
Organizational resilience literature has found a series of common behaviors in resilient organizations (Holling, 1973; Duchek, 2020; Vogus & Sutcliffe, 2007; Weick &
Sutcliffe, 2001; Crichton et al., 2009). These behaviors include:
1) A hyper-focus on failure
2) An attitude of questioning assumptions and reluctance to simplify situations 3) A strong attunement to operations
4) An emphasis and respect of expertise within organizations
5) A focus on learning from organizational failure and the failures of other organizations
Resilient organizations while highly attuned to potential hiccups, also maintain hope in the organizations ability to identify, acknowledge, and respond to challenges in the environment (Vogus & Sutcliffe, 2007).
Change and Sensemaking
While resilience is a phenomenon authors have discussed at the organizational level, it is important to understand how change (and resilience) is experienced at the individual and group level. Change occurs in all aspects of life and in organizations change can cause disruptions that can impact stakeholders in a variety of ways. When organizations go through major changes, especially ones caused by crisis, people seek to create meaning as a way to understand what has happened. The individual process of connecting cues and frames to create a story of what is going on is the act of sensemaking (Weick, 1988; Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010; Steigenberger, 2015). In an organizational crisis, where the viability of the organization is threatened conditions of ambiguity are amplified by the belief that decisions must be made quickly. Stakeholders engage in sensemaking to help navigate appropriate next steps (Maitlis & Soneshein, 2010).
Collective and individual sensemaking can result in a process called ‘bricolage,’ the ability to improvise and engage in creative problem solving (Weick,1993). How organizations, from top level management to middle managers to low-level employees engage in collective sensemaking and subsequent change has an impact on organizational success or failure (Weick, 1988; Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010;Steigenberger, 2015;
Rafferty et al., 2013).
Change, Sensemaking, and Emotions
Emotions play a big role in sensemaking and thus any successful implementation of change in organizations relies on understanding the emotions of all involved
(Steigenberger, 2015). As people engage in sensemaking, their storytelling interacts with the stories of others and individuals may try to influence others as they try to anchor their perspective and story as the story and experience of the group (Steigenberger, 2015). In order for change to successfully occur in an organization there must be a collective belief that change is needed, that the organization has the capabilities to successfully undertake change and that this change will lead to success for the whole (Rafferty et al., 2013). As change is presented and enacted in groups, managers must be sure to attend to the emotions of their employees as Raferty et al. (2013) found that when managers noticed and attended to the emotions of their employees, managers were more likely to have success in their change implementation efforts.
Conceptual Framework
As EdConsult seeks to understand the current levels of employee trust in senior management and the extent to which members are ready to participate in future changes, I will be using Colquitt’s (2001) framework on organizational justice and Duchek’s (2020) framework on organizational resilience to structure my research.
Colquitt’s (2001) framework and measure of organizational justice was designed to bring the four components of organizational justice—procedural, informational, distributive, and interpersonal—into a uniform and consistent measure that can be used across studies.
Figure 5: Organizational Justice Components (Colquitt, 2001)
Procedural Justice
Informational Justice
Distributive Justice
Interpersonal Justice Definition Fairness
associated with management policies and procedures that are used to regulate a process leading to decision outcomes
Perceived adequacy of explanations as to why decisions are made and why procedures exist
Fairness
associated with the decisions related to the distribution of resources within an organization
The
interpersonal treatment people receive as procedures are enacted
Impact on organizationa l trust
When people feel that policies and procedures are held across the organization, employees are more likely to trust their organization and employer
When people feel like the information they receive from their supervisor is accurate and full, they are more likely to trust the
organization and employer
When people feel like resources are fairly
distributed within the organization, they are more likely to trust the organization
When people feel as those they have been treated fairly and respectfully they are more likely to trust the organization
Colquitt’s work is heavily influenced by justice literature and Rousseau’s work on organizational trust. Each of the components of organizational justice connect to how employees perceive the levels of trust with their managers and organizational leadership, especially in times of change.
This study seeks to answer the question of the current levels of trust with the leadership team at EdConsult. Colquitt’s framework will provide insight to the different dimensions of trust through employees’ experiences of procedural, informational, distributive and interpersonal justice.
Duchek’s capability-based conceptualization of organizational resilience will be used to frame my research on EdConsult employees’ openness to future change.
Duchek’s framework, while presented in a linear format, (see figure 4) takes on an understanding that the temporal stages of resilience are interconnected and work both forwards and backwards.
Figure 6: Duchek’s capability-based conceptualization of organizational resilience
Source: (Duchek, 2020).
The three resiliency stages are strongly connected and cannot be separated. These three stages—anticipation, coping, and adaptation—take into consideration the
availability of resources both physical and social as well as the power and responsibility of those engaged in the change process. Organizations that wish to be resilient must develop skills required for all three stages of resiliency; building competency in one stage
while a start, is not enough to allow for resilience to occur on a regular basis (Duchek, 2020).
Anticipation
The anticipation stage includes three behaviors: “the ability to observe internal and external developments, the ability to identify critical developments and potential threats and, as much as possible, the ability to prepare for unexpected events” (Duchek, 2020). Observation and identification, known in other research as threat detection, is the ability to recognize early signals of crisis to respond quickly in a way that avoids
escalation whenever possible. When organizations have the capacity to observe and identify potential threats, they are able to effectively react to these changes in a reasonable timeframe.
Preparation is defined as a capability needed in high reliability organizations (HROs) and resilient organizations (Somers,2009; Duchek, 2020) and requires team members be able to handle any unforeseen challenge and can also lean into unforeseen opportunities (Duchek, 2020).
Coping
Duchek’s framework breaks coping into two subcategories: ability of an
organization to accept a problem as a problem and the capability to design and implement solutions. Resilient organizations accept and embrace reality. When developing and implementing solutions, resilient organizations use collective sensemaking to understand crisis situations. Bricolage pushes groups to continue to make sense and remake sense of situations as they improvise solutions. However, bricolage doesn’t just stop at the
sensemaking and solutions generation process but continues forward to the on-the ground implementation process.
Adaptation
Resilient organizations adapt and reflect when faced with a challenge and use their change process and learning to prepare for future challenges. This means that resilient organizations use challenges and subsequent adaptation to direct organizational advancement and integrate their learning into the existing knowledge base. Duchek (2020) describes this learning process as second order learning, where organizations develop new norms and practices. Resilient organizations need to both believe in and question their past experience.
Antecedents and drivers in the framework:
Knowledge Base. Having a deep and varied knowledge base provides a strong
foundation for a resilient organization. Each phase described in the framework includes learning, and knowledge then serves as a mediator between each phase of resiliency. As organizations go through the resilience process the knowledge base of the organization is deepened and allows for learning to build future resilience capabilities (Duchek, 2020).
Resource Availability. Resource availability is a critical component in an
organizations ability to be resilient in the face of challenges. When employees are
expected to pay attention to the day-to-day operational business they are unable to deepen their knowledge of the landscape and identify potential threats or developments that are of importance. Thus, resilient organizations have slack in their resources. Slack can be created through some aspects of redundancy and additional financial resources to allow for flexible responses to crisis (Duchek, 2020; Vogus & Sutcliffe, 2007).
Ability to Focus: All of the domains described in resilience framework require high levels of organizational citizenship behavior from employees in order to quickly identify and respond to both external and internal threats. When employees do not have
the capacity to focus while at work they do not have capacity to anticipate, cope, and adapt in moments of organizational need thus setting the organization up for potential failure (Duchek, 2020; Vogus & Sutcliffe, 2007).
Project Design
Organizations that have built up social capital and positive relationships within and beyond the firm are able tap into these resources when faced with a challenge and need help and insight. Duchek (2020) highlights the relationship between strong relationships and social capital and the recovery of an organization from a challenge or crisis.
Research Question Number Data Type Data Collection Tool 1) What is the
current level of trust in the top management team after the job redesign change?
Quantitative Survey
& Gavin (2005) Colquitt
2) To what extent are members of the organization ready to change given the likelihood of change in the future?
Quantitative Somers (2009)
Organizational Resilience Potential Scale
2a) What supports will employees need to engage in future changes in organizational structure?
Qualitative Open-ended response
question in survey measure
Resilient organizations are deliberate about where power and responsibility are distributed. In most cases, resilient organizations tend not to be managed hierarchically but instead are decentralized and encourage shared decision-making (Duchek, 2020).
EdConsult seeks to understand their employees’ readiness for change and this project will use this multilevel framework to explore the outcomes of previous change to determine their openness for future change.
Methods
This study relied on qualitative and quantitative data to reach its research goals.
The table above provides a summary of this distribution. Additional detail about each method of data collection tool will be discussed in greater depth below.
Proposed Survey Design
One survey (See Appendix 1) was generated to answer research questions described above. To answer research question one, examining the current levels of trust employees have in their organization, I used Colquitt’s measure on organizational justice.
This measure allowed me to explore the different dimensions of justice across domains:
procedural, distributive, interpersonal, and informational. Together these domains allowed me to interpret the ways in which employees trust or don’t trust their
organizational leadership as it relates to the change that has occurred in the organization.
All items in this scale use a 5-point Likert scale with 1 equaling to a small extent and 5 equaling to a large extent. Part of Gavin and Meyer’s measure on Organizational
Citizenship Behavior was also used to explore employee’s self-reported ability to focus.
The second half of the survey was designed using Somers’ (Somers, 2009) Organizational Resilience Potential Scale, which measures latent resilience in
organizations to provide me with data to answer my second research question. The scale
uses a seven-point visual analog sale. On this scale there are three anchor points: two at the far end of the extremes and one mid-point benchmark. Each of the questions
measured one of the six factors that measure organizational resilience: goal directed solution seeking, risk avoidance, critical situational understanding, ability of team members to fill multiple roles, degree of reliance on informational sources, and access to resources.
At the end of the survey there were two open-ended questions to allow for respondents to provide any personal notes as to their experience with the organizational restructuring. The open-ended questions focused on what employees perceived as the current needs in organizations similar to their own and describe the supports needed to meet these needs from their colleagues and supervisors.
The survey was given to all employees at EdConsult during a whole team meeting. As the lead researcher, I introduced the topic of my research to the team via Zoom and provided time during the team meeting to encourage all employees to
participate. As there are a few employees who have recently joined EdConsult, the survey was only sent to the eleven employees who were present during the restructuring and still a part of EdConsult. While EdConsult did not terminate employees during the
restructuring process, some employees did choose to leave the organization between the restructuring and my survey administration.
Sample Size and Demographics
Participation in the survey reached 91% providing an sample of 10.
Demographics of employees who participated were representative of the organization in terms of years within the organization with the majority of those participating reporting
that they had been with the organization between three and five years. The gender identity of participants is not as evenly spread as more men participated than women;
however gender was a question that two participants chose to skip and may be why the reported gender participation appears more male heavy.
Data Analysis
Due to the data set’s size, descriptive statistics are used to provide findings. The data will be used alongside the literature review to inform recommendations for
EdConsult.
For Somers’ measure, responses at the lower numerical anchor of the scale correspond with the lowest level of resilience potential. Each factor was averaged along with identifying the standard deviation between response rates.
Open response questions were coded and used to identify additional resources and supports that current employees anticipate needing to be able to perform their job and to respond to changes in the market. I used a deductive and inductive approach to code open response data. Using Duchek’s framework as a guide, I grouped responses into three categories: tangible resources to allow for response to the market, tangible supports from co-workers such as meetings, check-ins, use of shared calendars or task lists, and lastly non-tangible but equally important supports from their co-workers such as words of affirmation, whole team celebrations. I used an inductive approach to identify new concepts not covered in Duchek’s framework that emerge in the open response data.
Results
Table 1: Colquitt’s Measure of Organizational Justice- out of a 5-point scale
Component Mean Median SD
Procedural Justice 3.98 4 0.84
Distributive Justice 4.62 5 0.49
Interpersonal Justice 4.06 5 0.59
Informational Justice 4.06 4 0.84
Table 2: Mayer and Gavin’s Measure of Organizational Citizenship Behavior – Ability to Focus
Ability to focus Mean Median SD
N=10 2.78 3 1.34
Table 3: Somers Measure of Resilience Potential
Element Scores
Low resilience
Mid-point High resilience
Mean SD
Goal-directed solution seeking
Work teams are expected to follow standard operating procedures
There is an ability to adjust procedures within established guidelines
Teams are systematicall y rained to improvise solutions
5.4 1.07
Risk
avoidance Employees avoid taking any
significant risks
Employees seek specific direction from supervisors
Employees address problems with minimal supervisor intervention
5.3 1.05
Critical situation understandin g
System and process information is access protected
Employees given access; must put
problems into context
Employees gather information;
consider consequences of alternative fixes
5.8 1.54
Ability to fill multiple roles
Key
positions are highly specialized
Cross training and or job rotation are systematic
Key positions are
generalists
4.2 1.93
Reliance on
information Supervisors alone define direction
Employees given structured decision- making tools
Employees given knowledge;
there is minimal supervisor intervention
4.1 1.97
Access to resources
Work teams have access to a central supply cache
Work teams have access to multiple sources of materials
Work teams have
authority to purchase materials as needed
5.5 .94
N=10
Range of scores: 1-7
Qualitative Data
Eight of the ten respondents chose to participate in the open response questions. I first read through the responses using Duchek’s (2021) conceptual framework. I
developed a word bank that would allow for sorting responses into three potential categories of resilience: anticipation, coping, adaptation.
For anticipation I searched for words such as preparation, observation,
identification, and resource availability. I searched for words or phrases that included acceptance, developing, solutions, implementation, and social resources. To code under adaptation I searched for terms that included reflection, learning, change, and
responsibility.
Adaptation was a common code throughout the responses and demonstrates that respondents were keen to learn from their prior experiences and wanted to implement new behaviors to really engage in change. For example, respondent 3 said, “We have to be responsive to the market political climate nationally and the pandemic. We have been improving a lot and we have had to change directions a lot to keep a float.” Respondent 3 here highlights a few of the key concepts outlined in Duchek’s model of the adaptation stage in resilience. They demonstrate reflection on the current market and the work that the organization is doing to reach these markets. This respondents is also aware of the changes that have had to be made in order to remain a viable organization. Other respondents had similar observations that indicated a strong attunement to adaptability.
Respondent 1 also noted the ongoing shifts in what is required in an organization similar to theirs, “with the need for professional learning comes challenges on how best to deliver PD to schools and systems with the greatest need. The system/school often deals
with the additional challenges of staffing shortages, lack of substitute teachers, and an ever-changing pandemic.” Again, this respondent highlights the ways in which their organization has had to make changes based on the needs of their clients. This respondent shows a strong level of responsibility in their writing, when they state, “how best to deliver PD…” This respondent clearly wants the work they do to fit the needs of their client.
While the positive aspects of adaptation were present in the responses, so were areas of development in adaptation. Respondent 4 noted, “We do a great job at
encouraging and supporting ongoing education/learning. However, we need to up our technical game and know-how to respond to situations deftly. There have been few instances lately of systems maxing out and not performing as swiftly and efficiently as they can. This can put us at a disadvantage in meeting the needs of our clients if left unchecked.” This respondent is highlighting a space where the organization is not yet learning from its mistakes and has not implemented the lasting change needed to remain resilient in the future. Additionally, respondent 7 stated, “The ability to be honest with all of our team if there are roadblocks to achieving the goal.” This response brings up a few key concepts in adaptation including responsibility and power. When teammates are note able to speak directly with their colleagues about their progress toward a goal they are not able to show responsibility nor are they showing reflection on the power they have over to their teammates.
From responses there also emerged some thematic findings that are helpful in understanding where the organization stands in becoming a more resilient company.
What is the current environment for organizations similar to yours?
Always changing and impacted by COVID-19
Almost all of the respondents made note of the impact of COVID-19 on the industry and that while business is back, it is not certain for how long. Three different respondents used words such as “always changing,” “stressful,” and “tension” to describe the environment of organizations. Respondent 6 wrote, “Our current environment is demanding flexibility, vulnerability, and appreciative inquiry in order to work through problems of practice.”
While these words bring up strong emotional responses, almost all of these phrases were followed with a positively phrased mindset, or an appreciation for the dedication of those who work with educators.
All of the respondents indicated the need for organizations to be responsive or flexible to the current political climate, the ongoing impacts of COVID-19, and educational market. In some cases, respondents used language that indicated that responsiveness isn’t a choice for organizations but a ‘demand’, demonstrating that organizations do not have the luxury of not paying attention to national politics or global health crisis.
What kinds of resources and support do you think you need to successfully navigate the environment you described?
Time
Time was listed by the majority of respondents as a resource that is needed to navigate the current environment for organizations similar to theirs. In many cases the resource of time was listed as a need for time together with their colleagues and in other
cases, time was referred to as a planning tool that allowed for flexibility or clearer expectations.
Respondents indicated that they need more time to collaborate with their peers and that while they have found ways to navigate their current schedule to make time for collaboration on their own, more deliberate time planning is needed. Respondent 3 wrote,
“Our biggest need has been time together. We’ve had to find ways to create holes in the schedule so we can meet to plan and work on specific projects.” Others indicated that timelines needed to be more flexible to allow for changes to be made in the middle of projects as they responded to client needs, the impacts of COVID-19 and political landscape. Respondent 5 wrote, “I need timelines that allow for changes”.
Communication
Respondents highlighted over and over that they wanted more communication- be it verbal communication or written in order to be able to meet the needs of their clients.
Participants wanted to hear from their leadership and their teammates more frequently, especially when “roadblocks” occur that keep them from meeting deadlines or prevent the organization from reaching previously outlined goals. Respondent 5 wrote,
“vulnerability in communication- the ability to be honest with all of our team if there are roadblocks to achieving the goal” In this case, the communication needed is sharing an update on progress toward a shared goal or deadline.
Others were more vague in their description of when communication is needed and instead wanted more frequent communication. Respondent 7 stated, “clear and open communication”. In this case, the participant is not delineating who needs clear and open communication but asks of it from the entire organization.
Additional Staffing and Development
Additional resources in the form of additional employees were noted as a resource that could help improve the overall experience. However, participants noted that this may not be possible due to financial constraints and described ways that current employees could become more supportive within their own roles as they developed their skills and took more initiative. One participant noted that there had been instances where different systems or subgroups weren’t able to problem solve as quickly as they needed because the group did not have the training or skills to do so. Respondent 4 wrote, “However, we need to up our technical game and know-how to respond to situations deftly. There have been few instances lately of systems maxing out and not performing as swiftly and efficiently as they can.
Multiple respondents indicated that they wanted further support and training to grow not only in their roles but to be able to tackle new jobs and tasks. Not only did respondents want to grow in their own skills, they noted the need for their teammates to do the same. It was noted that some employees felt like more collaboration could occur if more role specific training was provided. Respondent 2 wrote, “ I need my tem members to collaborate and take initiative as their efficacy grows” As team members build their capacity they can begin to share these learnings with their peers and thus allow for greater self-efficacy and team efficacy.
Findings
Question One: What is the current level of trust in the top management team after the job redesign change?
Finding 1:
People have found their redesigned roles and responsibilities to be reflective of their performance and justified.
In an item-by-item analysis of the Mayer and Gavin survey, respondents all indicated that they felt that their job roles and responsibilities are reflective of their performance and were justified. When asked, “does your current job and responsibilities reflect the effort you have put into your work”, all participants responded with “to a large extent” or a “very large extent.” In addition, when asked, “are your current job
responsibilities appropriate for the work you have completed?”, all participants
responded “to a large extent” or “to a very large extent.” These types of questions were asked in multiple ways and garnered the same results.
While the organization required employees to take on new responsibilities during the restructuring, this survey suggests that these new responsibilities were still in
alignment with what employees feel match their performance and were justified in the moment and remain justified at the time of the survey.
Finding 2:
The majority of employees at EdConsult find the work climate allows them to focus on their work and do their job.
Employees’ survey results indicate that the majority of employees trust in their employer and can spend the majority of their time at work doing their job and not distracted by off-task thoughts and behaviors.
When employees trust in the management of an organization they are able to focus on the work that needs to be done instead of worrying about their employment status or gathering information to protect themselves or prevent damage to their position in the organization. (Mayer & Gavin, 2005)
In an item-by-item analysis of the ability-to-focus measure the majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the work climate allowed them to focus.
Similarly, the majority of respondents indicated that they did not need to cover their
“backside” or seek information to protect themselves. Almost all of the respondents reported that they did not need to take into consideration the politics of their workplace.
To the item, “Work climate allows me to focus” the majority answered that they agree/strongly agree with the statement.
One person reported that they needed to cover their back, find information to protect them and worry about the politics of the company while completing tasks. This same respondent did report that they are not able to fully focus while at work and need to protect their position by covering their backside and seeking out information that can protect them.
However, in looking at the rest of this respondents in the survey, they believe that they have been able to share their views and feelings about the changes that have
occurred. Furthermore, they believe that the procedures that led to changes were moral, just, and that they have been treated in a polite manner. It is possible that this employee may have recently had an experience not related to the COVID-19 restructuring that has made them reconsider their trust in the organization, but that the restructuring process
may not be the cause of their lack of current trust in the organization. All of these results indicate that, overall, current employees have trust in their employer.
Finding 3:
Procedural justice and informational justice domains were not experienced at the same levels of interpersonal justice and distributive justice, leaving employees wanting more information from their employer about how decisions are made and why procedures exist.
Interpersonal justice measures and distributive justice measures indicate a high level of perceived fairness, which also has an impact on the perceived trust in the organization.
During and after major changes within organizations, employees need to be able to make sense of their current and future situations (Kernan & Hanges, 2002; Weick, 1993). In order to engage in the sensemaking process, employees need ongoing
communication that they perceive to be accurate, timely, and helpful (Kernan & Hanges, 2002). While it is both commonly known, and backed by research, that communication during change should be more open and increased, research also shows that
communication deteriorates and becomes reduced and restricted.
EdConsult is no different than many other organizations undergoing change, employees needed more frequent and transparent communication as well as access to information during and after the restructuring caused by COVID-19. The Colquitt measure found that informational justice and procedural justice were the lowest ranked by employees. Procedural justice measured an average of 3.98 out of 5 with a median of 4 and informational justice produced an average of 4.6 out of 5 and a median of 5. Item analysis shows that consistency of application of procedures and tailored communication
were lacking during the restructuring process with an average score of 3.5 and 3.33 respectively.
Finding 4:
Employees feel like they can share their views and feelings with their employer.
Findings in the employee survey, both in quantitative data and qualitative datam indicates that employees felt like they could share their views and feelings with their employer. In the item-by-item analysis all employees stated that they felt like they could express their feelings and views with their employer about the policies and procedures.
Additionally, all employees felt they could appeal decisions within the organization, again highlighting that employees feel like they are able to share their thoughts with their employer, even when sharing disagreements.
In the open-ended survey questions, a few different employees noted, without prompting, that they feel comfortable sharing with their employer and did so regularly.
As this research is focused on employee feelings of trust, that employees feel comfortable taking a risk in sharing their views with their employer might indicate that trust is there between employees and their employer
Question Two and Two a: To what extent are members of the organization ready to change given the likelihood of change in the future? What supports will employees need to engage in future changes in organizational structure?
Finding 5:
EdConsult is not yet above the conceptual center of Organizational Resilience Potential Scale indicating that the organization is not yet prepared for future change
Using Somers’ (Somers, 2009) measure of Organizational Resilience Potential Scale (ORPS), all survey participants responded to each of the six factors on a seven-
point visual analog scale. The lowest score in the sample was a 1, with the majority of rankings at 5 or above. Based on the scale, the mean of 5.08 indicates that it is above the conceptual center and suggests that they are likely to show higher levels of organizational resilience when faced with future challenges.
The three factors that had the highest means were goal-directed solution seeking, critical situation understanding, and access to resources. Comparing these factors to Duchek’s framework on resilience, which filters organizational resilience into three major stages of anticipation, coping, and adaptation, these factors fit the major stages.
Employee access to resources is closely linked with Duchek’s proposition that when employees have a high level of access to resources, organizations can better anticipate needs (Duchek, 2020). The domain of critical situation understanding, with a mean of 5.66 provides insight into how organizations are able to cope with crisis, a stage
described in Duchek’s framework of organizational resilience (Duchek, 2020). Somers’
measure describes critical situation understanding as the ability to use information to put problems in context and then consider the consequences of alternative fixes. The survey mean of 5.01 indicates that EdConsult falls in the mid-point range of resilience and may need support in building more resilient behaviors.
Duchek argues that in order to cope with crisis, organizations must be able to accept problems as they come up and be able to generate and implement solutions. Based on the survey data, employees that responded show a high chance of being able to
complete the coping stage should another crisis unfold. Lastly, goal-directed solution seeking behaviors also fit into the coping stage of Duchek’s framework. When described in the survey, highly resilient organization teams are systematically trained to improvise
solutions. As the ORPS survey is one that measures potential in organizational resilience, no factor in the survey closely matches with the adaptation stage of resilience described by Duchek. However, in the open-ended response section of the survey, employees were able to name the needs of their organization in order to engage with future change.
Employees listed the need to develop timelines that are more flexible to adapt to client needs, suggesting that employees are open to engaging in true organizational change where they integrate lessons learned from the past restructuring into new practices (Duchek, 2020).
Finding 6:
Employees desire clearer and more open communication pathways
Throughout the survey, employees noted the need for clearer and more open communication pathways. In the Somers measure the lowest score was on reliance on information sources with a mean of 4.1 and standard deviation of 1.97 indicating that there was a large spread in responses across participants. In the description of this
element, resilient organizations have knowledgeable employees with minimal supervisor intervention. EdConsult scored at a 4, a mid-point of resilience where employees are given structured decision making tools but still require supervisory input.
In the open-ended response questions, employees also noted that they needed more access to information. One respondent stated that they needed for leadership to be more vulnerable in their communication and describe the roadblocks that are preventing the organization from meeting their shared goals. Furthermore, the open and clear communication pathways closely link with the need for de-centralized power structures
and shared responsibilities, which have a positive impact on an organization’s resilience (Duchek, 2020).
Recommendations Recommendation 1:
Implement a unified communication and collaboration system
Bricolage is a key component in the resiliency framework. In order for
organizations to successfully engage in bricolage, decision makers need to have a shared and accurate picture of the situation. But in order for decision makers to have shared and accurate information, there must be a unified communication and collaboration system that allows for frequent updates what has been described as, “one eye in the microscope and the other in the telescope” (Beijani in D’Auria, 2022). There are 2 key information processing aspects in resiliency – updating and doubting (Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010).
By providing a transparent and frequent communication system, teams can remain updated on the progress of projects and when more parties have access to information, they are able to bring their expertise in structured spaces to discuss the possible doubts that should be voiced in order to make space for learning (Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010;
Weick, 1993).
While many organizations, including EdConsult, have transitioned to remote work models and have put in place multiple modes of communication such as g-chat, text, or email, these modes of communication can often silo off even the smallest of teams and don’t always allow for different projects to be described within the same thread.
I recommend that EdConsult identify the best shared and unified communication tool that can allow for employees to share what they are currently working on, what they are seeing as successes and challenges and allow for fellow teammates to perhaps
integrate the learning of another colleague into their own projects.
Employees have demonstrated through their surveys in both qualitative and quantitative ways that they want this same level of communication from their
supervisors. All employees regardless of their status in the organization should use this tool with regularity to model the level of communication they wish to receive. With increased communication, decision making participants can be moved from a decision making hierarchy in which leaders hold information to, instead, decentralized decision making where people with the most expertise needed for a specific problem can make the best decision regardless of their rank. Increased communication will also allow for employees to participate in respectful interaction and begin learning the virtual role system as they learn more about the work their colleagues. (Weick, 1993) This
“respectful interaction” will allow for a more resilient response (Vogus & Sufcliffe, 2007; Crichton et al., 2004). In addition, resilience results from bringing diverse perspectives to bear on both unexpected events and audits of ongoing operations can result from channels for interaction across diverse groups and cross checking (Vogus &
Sufcliffe, 2007; Weick, 1993).
Communication is linked to personal/informational justice and is strongly linked to trust in organization (Kernan & Hanges, 2002). As people see more, they are more likely to notice things they can do something about, which enhances the perception of
control and also reduces crisis intensity to lower levels by virtue of early intervention in its development (Weick, 1988).
Recommendation 2:
Build mechanisms to support building the self-efficacy of employees to excel in their expanding roles
Resilient organizations are ones where employees can quickly shift and respond to the needs of the organization and its clients. In order for this to happen, employees need to receive ongoing coaching and support in developing new skills as they become experts in their ever-widening field (Weick, 1993).
Implementation of this recommendation could involve establishing improvement groups. Improvement groups can help to grow the jobs by empowering employees to have greater role responsibilities and tasks while also providing employees with greater opportunity to provide input and obtain decision making power. As employees increase their role responsibilities, it is critical that as the tasks increase so must their input and decision making power (Axtell & Parker, 2003). Improvement group training should include development of employee interpersonal skills as well as technical mastery in the new role responsibilities.
The initial improvement groups should be made up of employees that express interest in growing their skill set. Individual creation of change requires workers to approach work proactively by taking initiative – employees are less likely to keep the learning if they only acquire skills in responsive to obvious cues (Hetzner et al.,2012).
These employees can then serve as ambassadors to newer employees who may have at first been reticent to expand their role through positive emotional contagion. When employees feel the positive about their work, it can spread to others and positive
