Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Role of Conditional Cooperation in Organizing Change

Establishing Cooperation Norms and Practices as Change Enablers

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Management of Permanent Change

Abstract

Change initiatives have the tendency to fail in organizations because the employee’s central role in the process of change is disregarded. With the focus on the individual in corporate change, management has to create an environment which encourages change in organizations. In this work we recommend cooperation as being one important change enabler in a way that cooperation positively supports and increases employees’ participation in change initiatives. We thus show how the conditions can be designed to support employees’ cooperation during their change processes – even if the cooperation is against the employee’s benefit. Besides a human actor in business who cooperates in change initiatives in the case of colleague's cooperation (conditional cooperation), we refer to the importance of cooperation norms in order to establish cooperation supportive conditions. We conclude by emphasizing how these cooperation norms can create stability in the long-run through cooperation rules and opportunities for participation as important structural components for change.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Agboola, A. A., & Salawu, R. O. (2011). Managing deviant behavior and resistance to change. International Journal of Business and Management, 6(1), 235–242.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Armenakis, A. A., & Harris, S. G. (2002). Crafting a change message to create transformational readiness. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(2), 169–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Armenakis, A. A., & Harris, S. G. (2009). Reflections: Our journey in organizational change research and practice. Journal of Change Management, 9(2), 127–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Armenakis, A. A., Bedeian, A., & Niebuhr, R. (1979). Planning for organizational intervention: The importance of existing socio-psychological situations in organizational diagnosis. Group & Organization Studies, 4(1), 59–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating readiness for organizational change. Human Relations, 46(6), 681–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Feild, H. S. (1999). Making change permanent: A model for institutionalizing change. In W. Pasmore & R. Woodman (Eds.), Research in organization change and development, vol. XII (pp. 97–128). Greenwich: JAI.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Arrow, K. J. (1974). The limits of organization. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Balogun, J., & Hope Hailey, V. (2004). Exploring strategic change (2nd edn.). London: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Battilana, J., & Casciaro, T. (2013). The network secrets of great change agents. Harvard Business Review, July-August, 91, 62–68.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Beck, N., Bruderl, J., & Woywode, M. (2008). Momentum or deceleration? Theoretical and methodological reflections on the analysis of organizational change. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 413–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Beer, M., Eisenstat, R. A., & Spector, B. (1990). Why change programs don’t produce change. Harvard Business Review, Nov-Dec, 68, 158–166.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bekmeier-Feuerhahn, S. (2009). Mechanisms of teleological change. Management Review, 20(2), 126–127.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Birkinshaw, J., & Pedersen, T. (2009). Strategy and management in MNE subsidiaries. In A. M. Rugman & T. Brewer T (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of international business (2nd edn., pp. 367–387). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Bohnet, I., & Zeckhauser, R. (2004). Social comparisons in ultimatum bargaining. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 106(3), 495–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Carr, D. K., Hard, H. J., & Trahant, W. J. (1996). Managing the change process: A field book for change agents, consultants, team leaders, and reengineering managers. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Coch, L., & French, J. R. P. (1948). Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relations, 1, 512–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Cole, M., Harris, S. G., & Bernerth, J. (2006). Exploring the implications of vision, appropriatedness, and execution of organizational change. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27(5), 352–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Crémer, J. (1993). Corporate culture and shared knowledge. Industrial and Corporate Change, 2, 351–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 522–537.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Dawes, R. M., van de Kragt, A. J. C., & Orbell, J. M. (1988). Not me or thee but we: The importance of group identity in eliciting cooperating in dilemma situations-Experimental manipulation. Acta Psychologica, 68, 83–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Deutsch, M. (1969). Conflicts: Constructive and destructive. Journal of Social Issues, 25(1), 7–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice. Journal of Social Issues, 31, 137–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Elger, C. E. (2008). Neuroleadership: Erkenntnisse der Hirnforschung für die Fführung von Mitarbeitern, (1. Aufl.). Hamburg: Haufe-Lexware.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Falk, A., Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2003). On the nature of fair behavior. Economic Inquiry, 41(1), 20–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2000). Fairness and retaliation: The economics of reciprocity. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(3), 159–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (2001). Theories of fairness and reciprocity. Munich Discussion Paper 2001-2, Volkswirtschaftliche Fakultät, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, München.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Fischbacher, U., Gächter, S., & Fehr, E. (2001). Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment. Economic Letters, 71(3), 397–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Floyd, S.W., & Lane, P.J. (2000). Strategizing throughout the organization: Managing role conflict in strategic renewal. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 154–177.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Forde, C., Slater, G., & Spencer, D. A. (2006). It’s the taking part that counts? Participation, performance and external labour market conditions. Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations, 61(2), 296–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Frey, B. S., & Benz, M. (2007). Die psychologischen Grundlagen des Marktmodells (homo oeco-nomicus). In L. von Rosenstiel & D. Frey (Eds.), Marktpsychologie. Enzyklopädie der Psychologie, Bd 5 (pp. 1–26). Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Frey, B. S., & Meier, S. (2004). Social comparisons and pro-social behavior: Testing “conditional cooperation” in a field experiment. American Economic Review, 94(5), 1717–1722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Frey, B. S., & Osterloh, M. (2002). Managing motivation: Wie Sie die neue Motivationsforschung für Ihr Unternehmen nutzen können (2. Aufl). Wiesbaden: Gabler.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  34. Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Gouldner, A. W., & Gouldner, H. P. (1963). Modern sociology-An introduction to the study of human interaction, harcourt, brace & world. New York: Burlingame.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Kanter, R. (1983). The change masters: Innovation for productivity in the American corporation. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Keicher, I. (2013). Change im change? Warum das Change Management jetzt mutiger warden muss. Organisationsentwicklung, 13(1), 53–56.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Kollock, P. (1998). Social dilemmas: The anatomy of cooperation. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 183–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kotter, J. (1996). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Kotter, J. P., & Cohen, D. S. (2002). The heart of change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Kurzban, R., et al. (2001). Incremental commitment and reciprocity in a real-time public goods game. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(12), 1662–1673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Lehman, K., & Linsky, M. (2008). Using conflict as a catalyst for change-Organizational transformation can elicit intense conflict. Here’s how to harness it as a positive force. Harvard Management Update, April, 3–5.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Lewin, K. (1958). Group decision and social change. In E. E. Maccoby, et al. (Eds.), Readings in social psychology (pp. 197–211). New York: Hartley, Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Lewin, K. (1999). Experiments in social space (1939). Reflections, 1(1), 7–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Lines, R., Sáenz, J., & Arramburu, N. (2011). Organizational learning as a byproduct of justifications for change. Journal of Change Management, 11(2), 163–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Long, C. P., Bendersky, C., & Morrill, C. (2011). Fairness monitoring: Linking managerial controls and fairness judgements in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5), 1045–1068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Meifert, M. T., & Kesting, M. (2004). Gesundheitsmanagemen-tein unternehmerisches Thema? In M. T. Meifert & M. Kesting (Eds.), Gesundheitsmanagemnet im Unternehmen (pp. 3–13). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Messick, D. M. (1999). Alternative logics for decision making in social settings. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 39(1), 11–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Messick, D. M., & Brewer, M. B. (1983). Solving social dilemmas. In L. Wheeler & P. Shaver (Eds.), Review of personality and social psychology, 4 (pp. 11–44). Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Mohr, R. D., & Zoghi, C. (2008). High-involvement work design and job satisfaction. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 68(3), 275–296.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Monin, P., Noorderhaven, N., Vaara, E., & Kroon, D. (2013). Giving sense to and making sense of justice in postmerger integration. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 256–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Morner, M., & Wälder, N. (2013). Auf dem Weg zu einem kooperativen Menschenbild: Überlegungen zur Organisation der Kooperation. Zeitschrift für Wirtschaft und Unternehmensethik, 14(2), 178–194.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Mudambi, R., & Swift, T. (2012). Multinational enterprises and the geographical clustering of innovation. Industry & Innovation, 19(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Nielsen, B. B. (2005). The role of knowledge embeddedness in the creation of synergies in strategic alliances. Journal of Business Research, 58, 1194–1204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Nielsen, B. B. (2010). Strategic fit, contractual, and procedural governance in alliances. Journal of Business Research, 63, 682–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Nooteboom, B. (2000). Learning by interaction: Absorptive capacity, cognitive distance and governance. Journal of Management and Governance, 4, 69–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Osterloh, M., & Frey, B. S. (1997). Sanktionen oder Seelenmassage? Motivationale Grundlagen der Unternehmensführung. Die Betriebswirtschaft, 57, 307–321.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Osterloh, M., & Weibel, A. (2009). The governance of explorative knowledge production. In N. J. Foss & S. Michailova (Eds.), Knowledge governance-processes and perspectives (pp. 138–165). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons-The evolution of institutions for collective action. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  60. Ostrom, E. (1998). A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action. American Political Science Review, 92(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Ostrom, E. (2000). Collective action and the evolution of social norms. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(3), 137–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Ostrom, E. (2010). Beyond markets and states: Polycentric governance of complex economic systems. American Economic Review, 100(3), 641–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Ouchi, W. G. (1979). A conceptual framework for the design of organizational control mechanisms. Management Science, 25(9), 833–848.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Ouchi, W. G. (1980). Markets, bureaucracies, and clans. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 129–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Owen, H. (2008). Open space technology-A user’s guide (3rd edn.), San Francisco, Berrett-Koehler.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Perlman, K., & Leppert, J. (2013). Engage the unengaged. T + D, May, 58–63.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 10, 783–794.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Posner, R. A., & Rasmusen, E. B. (1999). Creating and enforcing norms, with special reference to sactions. International Review of Law and Economics, 19(3), 369–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Poteete, A. R., Janssen, M. A., & Ostrom, E. (2010). Working together-collective action, the commons, and multiple methods in practice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  71. Potters, J., Sefton, M., & Vesterlund, L. (2001). Why announce leadership contributions? An experimental study of the signaling and reciprocity hypothesis. Tiburg University, Working paper no. 100.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Rabin, M. (1993). Incorporating fairness into game theory and economics. American Economic Review, 83, 1282–1302.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Rafaeli, A. (1985). Quality circles and employee attitudes. Personnel Psychology, 38, 603–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Scarlett, H. (2013). Neuroscience…helping employees through change. Melcrum Connecting Communications, SCM, 32–36.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Schmidt, W. (1974). Conflict, a powerful process or (good or bad) change. Management Review, 63(12), 4–10.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Seabright, P. (1993). Managing local commons: Theoretical issues in incentive design. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 7(4), 113–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Seredynski, M., & Bouvry, P. (2012). Direct reciprocity-based cooperation in mobile ad-hoc networks. International Journal of Foundations of Computer Science, 23(2), 501–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Sobrero, M., & Schrader, S. (1998). Structuring interfirm relationships: A meta-analytic approach. Organizational Studies, 19, 585–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Strauss, G. (1998). An overview. In F. Heller, et al. (Eds.), Organisational participation: Myth and reality (pp. 8–39). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 09–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Tjosvold, D. (2008). The conflict-positive organization: It depends upon us. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(1), 19–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Toralla, M. S. P., Falzon, P., & Morais, A. (2012). Participatory design in lean production: Which contribution from employees? For what end? Work (Reading, Mass. ), 41, 2706–2712.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm net-works. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 464–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Van Knippenberg, B., Martin, L., & Tyler, T. (2006). Process-orientation versus outcome-orientation during organizational change: The role of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 685–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Vesterlund, L. (2003). The informational value of sequential fundraising. Journal of Public Economics, 87(3–4), 627–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. von Krogh, G., & Roos, J. (1994). Knowledge in organizations, knowledge kransfer and cooperative strategies. International Business Review (Special Issue), 3, 331–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. von Krogh, G., & Roos, J. (1996). Managing knowledge: Perspectives on cooperation and competition. London: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  88. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Reinhard-Mohn-Institute for Management and Corporate Governance, Alfred-Herrhausen-Str. 50, 58448, Witten, Germany

    Nadine Finkbeiner & Prof.Dr. Michèle Morner

  2. Chair of Public Management and Leadership, German University of Administrative Sciences, Speyer Freiherr-vom-Stein-Str. 2, 67346, Speyer, Germany

    Prof.Dr. Michèle Morner

Authors
  1. Nadine Finkbeiner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Prof.Dr. Michèle Morner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nadine Finkbeiner .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Leipzig, Germany

    Horst Albach

  2. Münster, Germany

    Heribert Meffert

  3. HHL Leipzig Graduate School of Management, Leipzig, Sachsen, Germany

    Andreas Pinkwart

  4. & Cooperation, Handelshochschule Leipzig Center for Leading Innovation, Leipzig, Germany

    Ralf Reichwald

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Finkbeiner, N., Morner, M. (2015). The Role of Conditional Cooperation in Organizing Change. In: Albach, H., Meffert, H., Pinkwart, A., Reichwald, R. (eds) Management of Permanent Change. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-05014-6_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation