What is the future of relationships in work and how does this impact on organisational change? Are the psychological contracts in the modern workplace significantly different from those of the past and how does this impact on we manage Organisational Change? Are potentially leading to lower supervision, increasing intensity of social exchanges, fewer face to face interactions etc In this session I will be deep diving into the importance of relationships in Organisational Change and how they might be changing.

1. Jan 28, 2021
Presented by Alex Boulting
Relationships
Building Organisational Change Capability Talks # 5

2. 2
Building Change Capability Talks

3. Content

4. WHY…?
1
4
are RELATIONSHIPS important ?
1

5. Early 1900’s 1977 1986 2020’s
1936 1976 2010’s
Emile Durkheim early 1900’s “collective
consciousness” (norms beliefs &
values) form the basis of social
integration
Social Exchange Theory assumes
that the basis of social life is
exchange theorists agree that social
exchange involves a series of
interactions that generate obligations
(Emerson 1986)
Social Cohesion Social Exchange
Theory
Prosocial Behaviour
Meta Analysis
Virtual Working
High quality metanalysis on Team
Diversity, (Bell, 2011,), Goal Directed
Behaviour (Kleingeld, 2011) Collective
Memory (Gino, 2010), Prosocial
Behaviour (Hu 2015), Intra Team Trust
(De Jong, (2016) Individual
Trustworthiness (Capiola, 2019)
People care more for the ‘ingroup’
than ‘out group’. Thinking as ‘we’
people can co-operate and care for
each other (Leaky & Lewin 1977)
Originally developed to gain an
understanding of the psychological
basis of intergroup discrimination.
Minimal conditions that allow one
group to discriminate in
favour/against of another (Tajfel
1978)
Social Identity
Conformity
People conform to social
norms because they expect
that others see the world the
same way they do. (Sherif
1936) People overestimate
this leading to a ‘false
consensus’ (Ross, Green &
House 1977)

6. 6
Why is it important?
Need for strong
stable relationships
is basic human need
= BELONGING
Critical for Team
Performance e.g.,
Collaboration, Co-
ordination etc
Complex Systems
need numerosity,
feedback, diversity &
non-equilbrium
Creates inclusive
cultures
Adaptive prosocial
behaviours e.g.,
OCB
Strong relationship
help survive change
(Robustness)

7. 7
Enhancing organisational change capability
UNIQUENESS
Drive to flourish
DOING –
External Perspective
BELONGING–
Drive to belong
BEING –
Internal Perspective

8. 8
Diagnosing Relationships
COMPLEX SYSTEMS… CAN BE SIMPLIFIED

9. 9
Do Relationships matter?
Outcomes
Predictors

10. Employee Engagement
A Work Motivation
C Employee’s sense of
belonging to the
organisation
Organisational
Identification B
Organisational
Commitment
Wietrak, E., Rousseau, D. and Barends, E. (2021) Work motivation, Organisational Identification & Organisational
Commitment : an evidence review. Scientific summary. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
Goal Setting
Feedback
Person-
Organisational Fit
Organisational
Prestige
A+B+C
Employee
Engagement
Recognition
Rewards
Meaning
Empowerment
Social Support
Psychological Safety
Task & Skill Variety
Energy levels within
the organisation.
Employee emotional
attachment to the
organisation
Employee energy to do
work & attain a goal
Role Clarity
Leadership : Trust &
Positive Relationships
Organisational Justice

11. WHAT…
2
11
Do we mean by ‘Relationships’

12. 12
Belonging & Acceptance = Syncing
• Understanding ourselves in relation to others
Individual Identity
• Connecting with others through reciprocation
Emotion-Sharing
• Reaching out to others for emotional support
Support
• Identifying with similar others
Social Identity
• Tying ourselves to events in our environment
Environmental
Satisfaction
• There is use for me in this world
Feeling Useful
• Feeling satisfied with events in ones life
Positive
• More I am accepted the less likely I am to
change
Attitude To Change
Belonging
Acceptance
Pardede, S., Gausel, N., & Høie, M. M. (2021). Revisiting
the “the breakfast club”: Testing different theoretical models
of belongingness and acceptance (and social self-
representation). Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 604090.
No support for any of the individual
or global definitions of belonging &
acceptance
BUT… 3 things
“Belongingness” = being alike
reciprocal connectedness - cohesion
“Emotional Acceptance” – being
oneself - Uniqueness
“Social-self Representation” –
being useful/worthy – contributing to
purpose

13. Building an Inclusive Culture
Differentiation
Exclusion Assimilation
Individual is not treated as an
organisational insider in the work group,
but their unique characteristics are seen
as valuable and required for
group/organisational success
Individual is not treated as an
organisational insider with unique value
in the work group but there are other
employees or groups who are insiders
Individual is treated as an insider in the
work group when the conform to the
organisational/dominant culture norms
and downplay uniqueness
UNIQENESS
–
Drive
to
stand
out
BELONGING - Drive to fit in (Cohesion)
Shore, Lynn & Randel, Amy & Chung, Beth & Dean, Michelle & Ehrhart, Karen & Singh, Gangaram. (2011). Inclusion and
Diversity in Work Groups: A Review and Model for Future Research. Journal of Management. 37. 10.1177/0149206310385943.
Inclusive cultures are those where
uniqueness and belonging come
together
When an individual’s unique
characteristics are accepted into a
group it improves performance
while creating a sense of
belonging
These feelings of psychological
safety where people feel safe
taking interpersonal risks are
critical to building inclusive
cultures
(Separation)
Inclusion
Individual is treated as an insider and
allowed/encouraged to retain uniqueness
within the work group .

14. Complexity & Organisational Change
Characteristic 5: Spontaneity & Self Order
Dynamically Organised
(Variable Relationships)
Forced Organised
(Invariant Relationships)
More Structure
More Agency Purpose
Co-operation
Employee Voice
Employee Commitment
Social Exchange
Organisational Justice
Separation = Agile Cohesion = Waterfall

15. Complexity & Organisational Change
Characteristic 6: Non-linearity
Group of 2 = 1 two-way interaction Group of 4 = 6 two-way interactions
plus 4 three-way and one four-way = 11
interaction
Group Cohesiveness through:
Task Commitment
Positive Attitude
Pride
Group of 3 = 3 two-way + 1
three-way = 4 interactions
Increasing Complexity through non-linearity

16. Mechanics of Complex Systems - Free Energy
FREE ENERGY
=
Divergence –Evidence
Discrepancy between our model & the world = prediction error
PERCEPTION – change beliefs to
minimise divergence
ACTION – change observations to
maximise evidence
CHANGE YOUR MIND CHANGE YOUR WORLD
PREDICTION
Showing ourselves to
the world
OBSERVATION
How the world receives
us
BEING – Sensory States DOING – Active States

17. 17

18. 18
High quality LMX relationship
Member
Leader
Exchanges (e.g., reciprocity) alter the
nature of relationships
Relationships alter the nature of exchanges
DIALOGUE ?
DOING – Active States
BEING – Sensory States

19. • Why do people in social situations support and help one
another?
• Organisations are forums of transactions Michel & Gonzalex
Morales (2013)
• Based on the norm of reciprocity, which states that people
treat others as they would like to be treated, repaying kindness
with kindness and retaliating against those who inflict harm –
Gouldner 1960
19
Social Exchange Theory

20. • As Kahn (2007, p. 190) has argued, scattered research across
different literatures has ‘‘led to a fragmented understanding of
the nature, meaning, and impact of work relationships.’’
• ‘‘a mutually reinforcing process of interaction between
communication and relationships carried out for the purpose of
task integration’’ (Gittell, 2002, p. 301)
20
High Quality Relationships
Relationships Team Effectiveness

21. WHAT…
2
21
Do we mean by ‘Team Effectiveness’

22. 22
What is Team Effectiveness ?
1) Formally established,
2) Assigned (some) autonomy
3) Interdependent
- Task Performance
- Contextual/adaptive Performance,
(e.g., learning, creativity, decision making)
- Behaviours = actions to achieve goals e.g., feedback
seeking, reflectivity, information sharing, communication,
co-ordination etc
- Emergent Cognitive states = respect, psychological
safety, caring, enjoying each other’s company
- Permanent States
- Outcomes = consequences of behaviours e.g., items
sold, clients served etc
- Effectiveness = results
- Efficiency = cost of achieving results
TEAM EFFECTIVENSSS

23. TEAM COGNITION
Information Sharing
Collective Memory
Cognitive Consensus
Intrateam Trust
Psychological Safety
Team Cohesion
Team Identification
DIVERSITY
Protected
Characteristics
Organisational
Tenure
Experience
EFFECTIVE
TEAM
COGNITIVE
STATES
TEAM
COMPOSITION
SOCIAL
STATES
Debriefing
Sessions
PERSONALITY
(Big Five)
Agreeableness
&
Conscientiousness
TEAM LEARNING
Questioning
Challenging
Reflecting
Team learning
mediates cognition
Teamwork
Training
Team
Building
Group
Goals
Attributes of Effective Teams & Interventions
A Rapid Evidence Assessment of the Scientific Literature on the Attributes of
Effective Teams and Interventions Increasing Team Effectiveness (CEBMa 2019)
Context rather than composition
determines team performance
Information
Sharing
drives
Trust
&
Cohesion

24. 1
2
3
4
Will others give you the benefit of doubt
when you take a risk? Group belief
People acknowledge and value being part
of a team
Friendships, caring for one another &
enjoying each other’s company
Will you give others the benefit of doubt
when you take a risk? Individual belief
Social States - Belongingness
Intrateam Trust
Psychological Safety
Team Cohesion
Team Identification
Group Learning
Accepting vulnerability &
Learning
1 3
Critical for Virtual Teams & Inclusive
teams
3
Organisational Citizenship
Behaviours
Clear
Goals
4
4
Social
Support
Wellbeing

25. 5
6
7
8
9
10
Collective Memory - An indexing system that allow
the team to understand who knows what
Overlapping mental representation of knowledge,
Skills, Attitudes, Dynamicity & Environment
Cognitive Consensus - How ideas are defined,
conceptualised & interpreted – we all know what
we are talking about
Information Sharing - Are all team members able
to bring in their expertise to their full potential?
Promotes trust & social cohesion Drives trust &
cohesion
How accurate and similar the Shared Mental
Models are
Group learning – are we able to question,
challenge & reflect on our mental models –
assumptions we are making?
Team Cognition - Usefulness
Information Sharing
Collective Memory
Cognitive Consensus
Reflexivity & Learning
Shared Mental Models
Group Learning
Team Mental Models

26. 26
Which is the best teamwork survey to use?
Communication
Is there sufficiently frequent, informal, direct, and open
communication?
Coordination
Are individual efforts well structured and synchronized within the
team?
Collaboration (Balance of Member Contributions)
Are all team members able to bring in their expertise to their full
potential?
Mutual Support (Help each other share workload)
Do team members help and support each other in carrying out their
tasks?
Shared Decision Making
Active Conflict Management
Are team members motivated to maintain the team?
Effort
Do team members exert all efforts to the team’s tasks?
Respect
Do team members treat each other with dignity and respect ?
Cohesion (Shared Identity)
Is there team spirit?
Accountability (Role Responsibility)
Are roles & responsibilities clear within the team?
Shared Objectives
How clear are you about what your team's objective are?
How far are you in agreement on your objectives?
Belongingness
Usefulness
Purpose
Measuring Teamwork in Health Care Settings: A Review of Survey Instruments Melissa A. Valentine Ingrid M.
Nembhard Amy C. Edmondson 2012

27. 27
Most evidence based team models

28. INDIVIDUAL - Job Demands Resources Model
DEMANDS RESOURCES
Career opportunities
Supervisor support
Role-clarity
Autonomy
Psychological Safety
Crisis Management
Weak Leadership
Poor Decisions
Criticism
Unrealistic Targets
Energy
Wellbeing
Engagement
Burnout etc

29. Challenging
Shared
Feedback
Accountability
Task Clarity
Autonomy
Decision
Making
Communication
Co-ordination
Reflection
Challenge
Question
GRPI
Model
GOALS
ROLES
PROCESS
INTERACTIONS
TEAM Effectiveness
Where is Trust
&
Psychological Safety?

30. 30
Attributes of effective teams
1. A large number of meta-analyses have consistently demonstrated that team virtuality
negatively affects team effectiveness
2. Computer mediated communication is negatively related to team effectiveness
(Baltes, 2002)
3. Several controlled studies, however, found no difference between video-conferencing
and face-to-face communication (Lira, 2007; Martinez-Moreno, 2012), suggesting
that video-conferencing can be a good alternative for face-to-face communication
4. Physical dispersion and asynchronicity is negatively related to team effectiveness
5. There are some indications that team virtuality may affect worker-related outcomes
(wellbeing, , but the evidence is limited and the effect sizes small
6. Transformational = social cohesion + qualitative performance,
Transactional = task cohesion + quantitative performance
7. Co-ordination has a positive effect on the effectiveness of virtual teams
8. Team-building, especially at the start, has a positive effect on the effectiveness of
virtual teams
9. Guided reflexivity and debriefing sessions have a positive effect on the effectiveness
of virtual teams e.g., reflecting on goals, decision making process

31. Paradox of Virtual Working?
Opportunities
Challenges
Satisfaction
Work life Balance
Efficiency
Wellbeing
Decision Accuracy
Knowledge Sharing
Intra-team conflict
Project Satisfaction
Findings
based
on
virtual
short-term
student
teams
in
‘labs’
NOT
long-term
organisational
teams
Business Flexibility
ATTRIBUTES OF EFFECTIVE VIRTUAL TEAMS CIPD (2020)
AN UPDATE ON FLEXIBLE AND HYBRID WORKING PRACTICES CIPD (2022)
Purvanova, R. K., & Kenda, R. (2022). The impact of virtuality on team effectiveness in
organizational and non‐organizational teams: A meta‐analysis. Applied
Psychology, 71(3), 1082-1131.

32. Costs
Benefits
Individuals in larger groups have less time to
engage in relational behaviors focusing time on
their tasks and coordinating with others (Muller
2011)
Groups can make costly and seemingly
avoidable errors when all members focused
their thinking on the same assumptions and
information
Group Think
Sharing the responsibility for decisions can
mitigate associated distress
Stress Reduction
People in larger groups tend to reduce effort
because responsibility becomes more diffused
Groups allow people to be individually identified
and/or make a distinct contributions to the
‘system’
Differentiation
Groups of people become ‘superminds’ which
can learn & adapt more effectively than
individuals to complex tasks & make better
decisions
Collective Intelligence
Team / Group Dynamics – A Fine Balance
Social Loafing
Larger groups share information they have in
common rather than information others don’t
have.
Information Hogging
Allows individuals to build social bonds with
others which and people want to perform well
so others will think well of them
Social Facilitation
Keeping the balance through:
Personal Identity
Benevolence & Support
Procedural Fairness
Satisficing
Baumeister, R. F., Ainsworth, S. E., & Vohs, K. D. (2016). Are groups more or less than the
sum of their members? The moderating role of individual identification. Behavioral and Brain
Sciences, 39.
Relational Loss
Accountability
Indispensability
Alignment (Mental Models)
Critical Thinking
Constructive Criticism
Novel insights
Differentiation
Integration
Positive
feedback
loops
Negative
feedback
loops

33. Different Types of Conflict
Can be positively related
to performance particularly
amongst senior
management. unless it
creates relationship
conflict.
Type of task doesn’t affect
conflict
Task
Always associated with
negative impact on group
outcomes
Process
Negatively related to group
performance particularly if
there is task conflict
Relationship
De Wit, F. R., Greer, L. L., & Jehn,
K. A. (2012). The paradox of
intragroup conflict: a meta-
analysis. Journal of applied
psychology, 97(2), 360.

34. 34
Psychological safety in hybrid working
01
STEP
Set the Scene
To create shared ownership of problems. Clarify what is at stake and the
needs of the work & importance to jointly own responsibility
02
STEP
Lead the Way
Lead with behaviours. Expose your vulnerability sharing your own stories
being candid & humble.
03
STEP
Take Baby Steps
It takes time to build trust and people will open-up about different things at
different times
04
STEP
Share Positive Examples
Examples of where there is increased transparency. Having fair processes
helps here – why somethings are shared and others not
05
STEP
Be A Watchdog
Psychological safety can be slow to build but easily destroyed. So monitor
people’s behaviour and whether it is allowing people to speak-up
“savvy managers should not underestimate the extent of
congruent communication and intentional intervention
required for psychological safety to be consistently
effective.”

35. 35
‘Agile’ Teams = Effective Teams
teamwork structure
team management structure
team development through training
team empowerment / autonomy
team communication
team motivation
team productivity
shared responsibility
common ownership
etc
“agile thinking is a people-centric view to
software development.”

36. HOW…
3
36
•Do RELATIONSHIPS work?

37. “Teenage school
disco, where people
nervously edge
around each-other
self-consciously not
wanting to cause
offence and
maximizing the
possibility they will be
'liked’.” Steve Hearsam
Critical Thinking – Getting the Process Right

38. Nonviolent
communication
• State the observations
• State the feeling
• State the need that is the
cause of that feeling
• Make a concrete request
Getting the Relationships Right
“Constructive dissent v destructive
consent“
Angus
Beveridge
DESCRIBE
EFFECT
SOLUTION
CONCLUSION

39. Mind The Organisational Learning Gap!
APPROACHES
Five building blocks - Garvin (1993) Organizational knowledge creation theory
- Nonaka (1991)
(Argyris & Schön,
1978)
Systematic problem
solving Experimentation
Learning
from past
experience
Learning
from
others
Transferring
knowledge Socialization Externalization Combination Internalization
Singleloop
learning
Doubleloop
learning
INTERVENTIONS Action learning      
Communities of
practice        
Cross-functional
teams    
Experience factory       
Leaving expert
debriefing     
Postmortem
evaluations       
Project briefings    
Research and
development      
Training     


= Intervention directly corresponds to OL approach
= Intervention indirectly corresponds to OL approach
Basten, D., & Haamann, T. (2018). Approaches for organizational learning: A literature review. Sage Open, 8(3), 2158244018794224.

40. 40
Layering & Phasing conversations
Performance
(Expert)
Development
(Novice)
Relationship
(All)
• Honouring
• Experimenting
• Appreciating
• Removing Barriers
• Empathy
• Acceptance
• Reframing
• Sharing
• Reflecting
• Enquiry
• Affirmation
• Listening
Psychological
Safety
Listening
- Reduces Threat
- Signals Attention
- Non-judgemental
- Listening = High
correlation with
psychological safety
- Listening = attention +
comprehension
- Listening creates
creativity as free’s up
cognitive bandwidth

41. 41
Measuring Listening (Sensing) Behaviour
“Emotional Intelligence” ?

42. • Active Listening
• Open questions
• Listening circles
• Motivational Interviewing (Rollnick &
Miller 1995)
• Feedforward
• Getting to know ‘you’ stories
List of interventions here https://osf.io/bf7k6
42
Listening Training
Weger Jr, H., Castle, G. R., & Emmett,
M. C. (2010). Active listening in peer
interviews: The influence of message
paraphrasing on perceptions of
listening skill. The Intl. Journal of
Listening, 24(1), 34-49.

43. LISTENING
Understanding the speaker’s
message without judgement
ENQUIRING
Questioning the speaker to
elaborate on their beliefs/feelings
REFLECTING
Non - judgmental paraphrasing of
the speaker’s message
ATTENTION
Indicating unconditional
attention to the speaker
ACTIVE (EMPATHETIC) LISTENING
Weger Jr, H., Castle, G. R., & Emmett, M. C. (2010). Active listening
in peer interviews: The influence of message paraphrasing on
perceptions of listening skill. The Intl. Journal of Listening, 24(1), 34-
49.
“paraphrasing a speaker's
message increases perceptions
of the listener's likeability.“
“paraphrases were not
associated with increases in
conversational satisfaction or
feeling understood”
It demonstrates a “tacit
endorsement of the speaker's
message and perhaps create a
greater sense of closeness or
immediacy between the
interviewer and the interviewee”

44. 44
Team Relationship Management
• PURPOSE
• JOB DESIGN
• PSYCH SAFETY
Team Fundamentals
• GOAL DIRECTED
• EFFICACY
• AUTONOMY
Individual
Motivations
• FAIRNESS
• DIALOGUE
• ACCOUNTABLITY
Key Relationships
Creating clarity of purpose & healthy
‘social norms’ & upholding AI values
Understanding individual
psychological needs to motivate,
inspire & engage
Coaching key inter team
relationships to ensure horizontal
accountability
STRUCTURE
AGENCY

45. AND ...
Thank you!
from Alex Boulting
Owner | ebbnflow
+44 7562570000
alex@ebbnflow.co.uk
www.ebbnflow.co.uk
Stay tuned and check our newest videos on YouTube:

46. Change Commitment
Organisational Citizen behaviours
Supervisor Satisfaction
4 Ways to be fair
PROCEDURAL - Is the process fair?
DISTRIBUTED
Are outcomes fair?
INTERPERSONAL & INFORMATIONAL - Are people treated fairly? + Are
explanations provided?
Job Satisfaction
Organisational & Change Commitment
Trust in the Organisation
Performance
AGENCY
STRUCTURE

47. 6 REASONS TO BE EVIDENCE-BASED
Clarity & robustness of decision-making
allows organisations to quickly respond to
external challenges
.
AGILITY 01
as it creates a process to
understand & interrogate
decision-making
CONFIDENCE 06
because decision-making
processes have integrity &
gravitas
TRUST 02
Creates transparency &
objectivity around decision-
making
FAIRNESS 05
clear decision-making
structures creates efficacy,
agency & autonomy
EMPOWERMENT 03
to organisational values such as respect &
fairness
CONGRUENCE 04