Tag Archives: Participation

dock.io (distributed control over our professional data). Join!

Worth a try as it promises more control over our data! You can join at

https://dock.io?r=mathiassager:aaaaOu60

https://dock.io/how-it-works

Some potential questions/points to discuss, especially for the Platform Cooperativism community:

  • Voting rights according to token value (not one member, one vote). So, it is “only” some participation instead of real cooperation
  • Referral program that is giving (what part exactly?) increasing platform value back to referrers. Possible for voters to determine the algorithm for the economic participation?
  • A good example of how network effect can be used to crowd-source/crowd-fund a platform
  • Openness of the network thanks to public blockchain technology
  • Accurate analysis of the current centralized platform issue. However, how will dock.io avoid becoming a centralized platform on its own?

dock io how it works.png

dock io how it works 2.png

dock io how it works 3.png

dock io how it works 4.png

Leading the Threat of Change

mathias-sager-change-threat-psychology-leadership

Change: Improvement or loss?

Choosing not to change risks failing if change is understood as improvement [1]. In organizations, mainly the investors, but also drivers like competition, globalization, technology, and employees require change [2]. Change always signifies loss that prompts threatening emotions, which cause resistance. Therefore, resistance to change needs to be understood from an individual’s emotional perspective [3]. For example, people mostly don’t alter their change decisions related to moral dilemmas solely based on reason [4]. Often, leaders and managers have a better understanding of the organizational situation than of individuals [5]. Change antecedents, reactions to and consequences from changes like, for example, organizational commitment and job satisfaction, have to be carefully considered. Commitment can positively correlate with a favorable perception of proposed change, while commitment to the status quo can be negatively related [6].

Personality differences in predispositions to resist change

Helping conquering limitations in improving is a core function of leadership, and it is relieving for people to feel understood in their resistance to change [7]. Indeed, supervisory support is a key factor in positively influencing people’s commitment to change [8]. However, there might also be personality differences in predispositions, i.e., having negative thoughts, feelings, and behaviors towards organizational change [9]. It is more difficult to positively influence job satisfaction for people characterized by lower levels of openness to change [10]. Increased mindfulness (i.e., engagement in new and healthy thoughts and habits) and tolerance of ambiguity (i.e., tolerance of lack of clarity and uncertainty) predict a more positive attitude toward change [1].

Trust and authenticity in transformational leadership

Change follows a process [11], most simply described as ‘unfreeze,’ ‘mobilize,’ and ‘re-freeze’ [2]. To help people through these phases, understanding their emotional and intellectual needs seems to be essential. Transformational leadership ought to consist of these qualities, but some researchers suggest a broader integration of leadership dimensions, including spiritual elements to bridge the gap between profit strategies and quality of life [12]. Studies found that transformational leadership, regardless of the leaders’ behavior, was positively associated with promoting acceptance of change. Even change-specific leadership behavior could not compensate for transformational leadership, especially when there was a lot at stake personally for the change receivers. A history of long-term trustful relationships with their followers may be the reason for this as consistent research of authenticity in leadership evidenced too. In cases where the job impact of the change was low, rather than transformational leadership, proper change management practices were sufficient for effective change. This finding speaks for a close integration of the change leadership and change management disciplines [13]

We change for what we have chosen for ourselves

Resistance can be a capacity for change itself [14], sometimes coming from positive intentions too [15], and providing feedback from people who may know best about the day-to-day operational details [16]. To support effective change, leadership should involve change-related training [17], possibly also in early developmentally sensitive school years [18]. It is crucial to help individuals experiencing close and successful participation in the change process [19] because people are more likely to adapt what they have chosen for themselves [20].

Photo credit: Geralt (pixabay.com)

References

[1] Dunican, B., & Keaster, R. (2015). ACCEPTANCE OF CHANGE: EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG PSYCHOMETRIC CONSTRUCTS AND EMPLOYEE RESISTANCE. International Journal Of The Academic Business World, 9(2), 27-38.

[2] Higgs, M. (n.d.). Change and its leadership. [Video]. Retrieved February 10, 2018 from http://hstalks.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/main/view_talk.php?t=1104&r=396&c=250

[3] Bailey, J. R., & Raelin, J. D. (2015). Organizations Don’t Resist Change, People Do: Modeling Individual Reactions to Organizational Change Through Loss and Terror Management. Organization Management Journal (Routledge), 12(3), 125-138. doi:10.1080/15416518.2015.1039637

[4] Stanley, M. L., Dougherty, A. M., Yang, B. W., Henne, P., & De Brigard, F. (2017). Reasons Probably Won’t Change Your Mind: The Role of Reasons in Revising Moral Decisions. Journal Of Experimental Psychology: General, doi:10.1037/xge0000368

[5] Clarke, H. (2013). Context, Communication and Commiseration: Psychological and Practical Considerations in Change Management. Perspectives: Policy And Practice In Higher Education, 17(1), 30-36.

[6] Oreg, S., Vakola, M., & Armenakis, A. (2011). Change recipients’ reactions to organizational change: A 60-year review of quantitative studies. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(4), 461-524.

[7] Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. L. (2001). The Real Reason People Won’t Change. Harvard Business Review, 79(10), 84-92.

[8] Jaros, S. (2010). Commitment to organizational change: A critical review. Journal of Change Management, 10(1), 79-108.

[9] Erwin, D. G., & Garman, A. N. (2010). Resistance to organizational change: Linking research and practice. Leadership & Organization Development Journal31(1), 39-56.

[10] Hinduan, Z., Wilson-Evered, E., Moss, S., & Scanell, E. (2009). Leadership, work outcomes and openness to change following an Indonesian bank merger. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 47(1), 59-78.

[11] Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, (March-April), reprint No: 95284.

[12] Gill, R. (2002). Change management or change leadership? Journal of Change Management, 3(4), 307-318.

[13] Herold, D. M., Fedor, D. B., Caldwell, S., Liu, Y. (2008). The effects of transformational and change leadership on employees’ commitment to a change: A multilevel study. Journal of Applied Psychology93(2), 346-357.

[14] Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & D’Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change: The rest of the story. Academy of Management Review, 24, 274-288.

[15] Clayton, M. (2016). RESISTANCE TO CHANGE. Training Journal, 16.

[16] Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (2009). Decoding Resistance to Change. Harvard Business Review, 87(4), 99-103.

[17] Whelan-Berry, K., & Somerville, K. (2010). Linking Change Drivers and the Organizational Change Process: A Review and Synthesis. Journal of Change Management, (2). 175.

[18] Haig, E. L., & Woodcock, K. A. (2017). Rigidity in routines and the development of resistance to change in individuals with Prader-Willi syndrome. Journal Of Intellectual Disability Research, 61(5), 488-500.

[19] Choi, M. (2011). Employees’ attitudes toward organizational change: A literature review. Human Resource Management, 50(4), 479-500. doi:10.1002/hrm.20434

[20] Kettleborough, J. (2014). Time to change the way we change. Training Journal, 60-63.