Large companies’ change management practices: a multi-industry study

Organizational change and change management are considered central to the field of organization studies (Gay du and Vikkelsø, 2012). Although debates continue regarding the existence of a “best way of managing organizational change” (Burnes, 1996, 2007), abundant theories and models suggest differing approaches to the subject matter (Al-Haddad and Kotnour, 2015). While thousands of documents have been written on theories and approaches to managing change (Da Ros et al., 2023), change management theories and approaches directed to academics and practitioners can also be contradictory (By, 2005).

As futures shift rapidly, change has become the norm for organizations to sustain their success and existence (Al-Haddad and Kotnour, 2015; Jørgensen et al., 2009). The current business environment is marked by an unprecedented pace of change, forcing organizations to continually reinvent themselves to remain competitive (Warrick and Cady, 2023; By, 2005). Consequently, mastering strategies and approaches for managing change has become critical (Warrick and Cady, 2023). In this context, the present paper is part of a larger study examining large companies’ change management.

This paper focuses on organizational change management practices (CMPs: Clarke and Garside, 1997; Raineri, 2011; Jansson, 2013) – that is, the practices organizations use to manage change. This focus is of interest to scholars and practitioners (Jansson, 2013) because how organizations apply these practices has a direct impact on the outcomes of change programs (Raineri, 2011). The study is confined to the management of planned change (Lewin, 1947; Kotter, 1996), which refers to intentional change typically represented through various models, steps or phases.

Recent empirical research on CMPs has predominantly focused on specific industries and particular change initiatives (Ajani, 2022; Sopa, 2022; Aldossari et al., 2021; Maali et al., 2020; Lines and Smithwick, 2019; Higdon, 2016; Yamakawa et al., 2012), with relatively few studies spanning multiple industries (Raineri, 2011; Clarke and Garside, 1997). Consequently, limited empirically grounded knowledge exists about the use of CMPs across various industries. Furthermore, extant studies describe CMPs independently, and previous empirical studies on CMPs do not link CMPs to change management models. In addition, some studies argue that CMPs in the preparation phase are preferred over those in the implementation phase (Raineri, 2011; Yamakawa et al., 2012), although these conclusions are not supported unanimously. In summary, several aspects related to CMPs appear to warrant further research.

Addressing these gaps in extant CMP studies leads to the research questions guiding this paper:

And, consequently:

A qualitative multiple case research design (Yin, 1994; Stake, 1995) is adopted to answer these questions, studying 11 large companies from Finland via 33 interviews with managers, executives and specialists involved in planned change management.

Consequently, the main results and contributions of this paper are as follows.

First, this paper adds to the current scarce research offering empirical multi-industry approaches on CMPs. The results differ from previous CMP studies, as this study suggests variation in the most used CMPs when compared to suggestions from extant studies.

Second, this paper shows that CMPs are parts of change management models. To begin with, although previous empirical CMP research has been focused on distinct CMPs, this study shows that in the studied organizations, CMPs are used jointly, sequenced and structured within change management models. Subsequently, this paper introduces a “CMP Matrix” where the studied organizations are grouped into four categories, based on (a) companies’ frequency of CMPs and (b) the change management models that companies identify using. This paper suggests that companies that identify using change management models also identify more CMPs being used in planned change management.

Third, this paper suggests that implementation phase CMPs are favored over preparation phase practices. From a practitioner perspective, the paper’s results can be used as a practical benchmark for developing CMPs in organizations.

The paper is structured as follows. The next section reviews the literature on CMPs and introduces change management models. Subsequently, the methods and research setting are presented, followed by the findings from the case study. The final section discusses this paper’s contributions and suggests research limitations and future research directions.

This section of the paper presents a literature review on CMPs, followed by an introduction of change management models. This section concludes by summarizing gaps in extant knowledge leading to this paper’s research.

What are CMPs? This paper adopts the definition of CMPs as “…including a variety of organizational interventions that, when executed properly and in consistency with internal and external organizational events, facilitate the enactment of organizational change processes” (Raineri, 2011, p. 266).

When looking at the definition of CMP, it bears similarity with other concepts such as “change management strategy” or “change management principle.” To this end, Phillips and Klein (2022) define a change management strategy as “a process or action from a model or framework,” presenting a definition resembling “CMPs.” However, a difference exists. Phillips and Klein (2022) identify change management strategies comprising organizational imperatives such as “create a vision for the change that aligns with the organization’s mission.” Similarly, Stouten et al. (2018) propose 10 “change management principles,” for example, to “develop and communicate a compelling change vision” (p. 775). Both principles and strategies appear to differ from practices via characteristics associated with directiveness. Namely, CMPs are not imperative like strategies or principles, that is, they do not command an action. Instead, CMPs group an array of interventions (or, if you will, strategies or principles) under one umbrella (e.g. “communication practices”). While acknowledging that the concepts of change management strategy, principle and practice are somewhat similar and that boundaries may at times be blurry, for this paper’s scope, CMPs are chosen as the lens of study.

Taking a closer look at prior research, numerous CMPs have been identified. Examples of studies on specific CMPs include those on communication practices in change (Mansoor et al., 2023; Shrivastava et al., 2022; DuFrene and Lehman, 2014), training practices in change (Ferrari, 2023; Kim et al., 2019; Wallace, 1991) and change leadership practices (Onia et al., 2021; Haake et al., 2017; Rowland and Higgs, 2008; Herold et al., 2008). All the above-mentioned research focuses on single CMPs.

Meanwhile, CMP studies have also focused on multiple CMPs (e.g. communication AND training AND leadership practices). These studies mainly examine CMPs in specific industries, with only a few studies spanning across multiple industries. Table 1 displays empirical single-industry and multi-industry studies covering multiple CMPs, which are further discussed next.

Beginning with single-industry studies, Yamakawa et al. (2012) studied organizations from the finance industry, showing that the firms with higher use of CMPs achieved higher levels of Information Technology Infrastructure Library compliance. CMPs most frequently used by Yamakawa et al.’s (2012) case organizations were the formulation of a powerful guiding coalition, creation of a vision, creation of short-term wins and communication of the vision, with the CMPs of the study being adapted from Kotter (1996). Continuing, Higdon (2016) found CMPs that integrated facility management leaders use for successful management in outsourcing initiatives. Four CMP clusters were identified: communication, data and scope, training and education and process and procedures. Lines and Smithwick (2019), in turn, studied CMPs in the electrical contractors’ industry. Their study identified seven high-ranking CMPs: change agent effectiveness, a realistic timescale, change-related training, senior leadership commitment, performance benchmarks, sufficient resources and effective change message communication. Maali et al. (2020) identified seven key CMPs and of these, they identified that key CMPs most related to successful change in the architecture, engineering and constructing (AEC) industry were change agent effectiveness, measured benchmarks, a realistic timeframe and communicated benefits. Furthermore, in the AEC industry, Aldossari et al. (2021) propose five CMPs linked to successful adaptation of alternative project delivery methods. These are: the adoption of a realistic timeframe, effective change agents, workload adjustments, senior-leadership commitment and sufficient change-related training. Moving to a logistics industry viewpoint, Sopa (2022) has identified the most important practices of change management enabling successful change as diagnosis and compatibility, communication, leadership and compensation and incentives. Finally, Ajani, (2022) revealed that CMPs such as communication, education and training, human resource and capability, reward and reinforcement and leadership have a significant effect on job satisfaction, job security, employee participative decision-making and employee commitment in the fast-food industry in Nigeria. All these recent advances show interest in understanding how multiple CMPs can be identified within specific industries, and what industry-specific CMPs might be preferred.

To continue, examining scarce multi-industry studies covering several CMPs, Clarke and Garside (1997) studied both literature and multiple industries’ companies in aiming to build a “best practice change management model” for organizations. Clarke and Garside identified best general practices organizations use in change management. They then further grouped these under five areas: commitment, social and cultural aspects, communication, tools and methodology and interactions. Notwithstanding, Clarke and Garside (1997, p. 542) noted that it was difficult to assess the relative weight of the best CMPs in their model: “Although all practices can equally contribute to successful change management, in reality there are likely to be some practices which have greater leverage than others and should be carried out first.” It is difficult to determine which practice may be more important than another and it might be challenging to provide universal “best practices for change.” As both context and human action differ in organizations, particularity is omnipresent (Jansson, 2013).

To date, it appears that Raineri (2011) has studied CMPs with perhaps the widest empirical sample across industries. In their study, Raineri identified 11 CMPs, which they separated into “preparation” phase CMPs and “implementation” phase CMPs. On the one hand, the preparation phase includes the following CMPs: diagnosing and analyzing the organizational system and its environment, identifying change needs, developing a new organizational vision, developing a detailed plan of how change will be implemented (including ambitious but realistic objectives, stages to be achieved and the timing necessary to coordinate the change project), understanding and considering the needs and interests of relevant individuals and groups (to anticipate their intentions and reactions, persuade them to support the change process and diminish potential resistances to the process), creating a sense of urgency among employees (to generate a state of motivation and expectations that facilitate the process, sometimes by generating reactions of dissatisfaction with the status quo) and spreading a feeling of change necessity among stakeholders.

On the other hand, the implementation phase includes the following CMPs: facilitating communication during the change process (which allows different stakeholders to understand what, when and why the organization is changing, facilitating the acceptance and adaptation of new circumstances), leadership during the change implementation stage (employees need to perceive that their leaders are actively involved and committed to the change process), formal and informal training and coaching to teach employees the knowledge and skills necessary to carry out the new tasks and the alignment of compensation and incentive systems with the new objectives defined in the change plan (to consolidate the change implementation process). Raineri (2011) studied four sets of CMPs (diagnosis and alignment, communication, leadership and compensation and incentives) with an extensive sample of 90 organizations in Chile, making their study among the most comprehensive empirical approaches studying CMPs.

In summary, a twofold analysis emerges. For one, based on recent empirical advances on CMPs (in Table 1), most suggested CMPs are as follows:

• Leadership-related practices (Clarke and Garside, 1997; Raineri, 2011; Yamakawa et al., 2012; Lines and Smithwick, 2019; Maali et al., 2020; Aldossari et al., 2021; Sopa, 2022; and Ajani, 2022).

• Formal and informal training and coaching practices (Clarke and Garside, 1997; Raineri, 2011; Higdon, 2016; Lines and Smithwick, 2019; Maali et al., 2020; Aldossari et al., 2021; and Ajani, 2022).

• Communication-related practices (Clarke and Garside, 1997; Raineri, 2011; Yamakawa et al., 2012; Higdon, 2016; Maali et al., 2020; Sopa, 2022; and Ajani, 2022).

For another, regarding preference for what CMPs are more frequently used by change strategists than others, only Raineri’s (2011) and Yamakawa’s et al. (2012) studies distinguish between “preparation” and “implementation” stage CMPs and advocate preference between these. Raineri (2011) and Yamakawa et al. (2012) suggest that during organizational change management, firms more frequently use practices related to the change “preparation” stage in comparison to practices related to the change “implementation” stage. However, this notion of preference does not appear supported, since, based on the above list of the most suggested CMPs, all three most preferred CMPs are from Raineri’s “implementation” phase CMPs. Based on these findings from extant literature, more research on CMP use across industries may be required to further investigate which CMPs organizations prefer when managing change, as current suggestions appear contradictory.

Furthermore, although previous studies display multiple CMPs used in organizations (Table 1), these practices are discussed separately. Studies of CMPs in change management models appear absent.

To be able to appreciate the connection between CMPs and models, in this section the focus shifts to well-known planned change management models.

Generally, models:

Models consider interrelations among factors, providing roadmaps to guide analysis and action (Nadler and Tushman, 1992). Thus, change management models can be used to group CMPs and facilitate change management as a process. Change management models anchor and sequence individual CMPs to a larger setting or system. However, previous empirical studies on CMPs rarely appear to discuss CMPs as parts of change management models.

Planned change models describe intentional organizational change, usually portrayed via different steps or phases. Models are abundant: from Lewin’s (1947) seminal three-step model of planned change (unfreeze-change-refreeze), approaches have evolved and advocate various means of managing planned change. The more specific approaches can be viewed by change agents as guides, advocating actions to perform. For example, Bullock and Batten (1985) propose four stages in change and Bridges (2003) identifies specific action points that must be considered for each of the three recognized phases in planned change (ending, neutral zone and new beginning). Taffinder (1998), in turn, identifies an eight-step “action list” to be followed in change. Moreover, Kotter’s (1996) eight-step model is well-known among scholars and practitioners. Planned change models can also be more systemic (e.g. Senge et al., 1999), or focused on distinct types of change (e.g. Dunphy et al., 2003, change toward organizational sustainability). Kübler-Ross (1969), in turn, presented “the change curve” and facilitated studies focusing on the human aspect of planned change.

Some change management models are more conceptual and structural in their approach, offering more of an overall framework within which change occurs. From the more conceptual frameworks, Hayes (2002) suggests a seven-step change management model, also containing feedback loops and iterations. In addition to the more academic models, practitioner-based models of change management are often used. Peters and Waterman (1982) introduced the memorable “7S” model, Prosci Ltd (2020) popularized the “ADKAR” model, and the Association of Change Management Professionals (ACMP) developed a comprehensive model for change management (2019).

From scarce studies combining CMPs and change management models, Pollack and Pollack (2014) studied CMPs via Kotter’s (1996) eight-step model, in an empirical setting. Similarly, Chappell et al. (2016) also studied Kotter’s model and CMPs in empirical settings. As both Pollack and Pollack (2014) and Chappell et al. (2016) used a predetermined change management model with set CMPs (Kotter, 1996), other CMPs or change management models were not studied. Apart from these two approaches, empirical studies combining CMPs and change management models are not abundant.

Summarizing this literature review, empirical multi-industry studies on CMPs appear scarce, warranting more research. Furthermore, CMPs appear to lack a connection with change management models. Empirical studies of CMPs in change management models appear absent. In addition, based on findings from extant literature, current suggestions on preferences for CMP use appear contradictory. This paper’s research lies within these shortcomings in extant CMP literature.

The guiding research paradigm is based on critical realism (Hoddy, 2019). An important phase of the research on CMPs was the careful selection of a suitable approach “for getting from here to there” (Yin, 1994, p. 19). As suggested by Strauss and Corbin (1990, p. 12), the research questions guided the selection of methodology used to conduct the research. As the research questions were of the nature of “what” and “how,” a quantitative approach would risk omitting something meaningful. A qualitative approach was pursued to truly “maximize what we can learn” (Stake, 1995, p. 4) and avoid overseeing meaningful explanations. Qualitative work often favors an inductive, interpretative approach, relying on multiple information sources (Van Maanen, 1998; Yin, 1994), being a process of examining and interpreting data to elicit meaning, gain knowledge and develop empirical knowledge (Corbin and Strauss, 2008, p. 1).

To be able to answer the research questions guiding this paper (what kind of CMPs large companies use in planned change and how are these CMPs parts of change management models), real-life units from the field (namely, companies) are needed as cases to study. Case research is a research method that involves investigating one or a few social entities or situations (cases) about which data are collected using multiple data sources and developing a holistic description through an iterative research process (Easton, 2010, p. 119). Case studies are particularly well-suited for a critical realism research paradigm (ibid., p. 119). Consequently, in seeking to study CMPs across industries, a multiple case study approach was chosen. Multiple cases can fortify the basis for theory-building (Yin, 1994) and provide more robust, generalizable and testable theory than single case studies (Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007).

Following theoretical sampling (Glaser and Strauss, 1967), cases and informants are selected based on the perception that their ability is “to illuminate and extend relationships among constructs” (Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007, p. 27). When building theory rather than testing it, cases are selected based on the perception of how they could bring novel information to the research questions. Since the aim was to study large companies, companies from the “top 100 largest companies in Finland” list (according to annual income and personnel number in 2020, Finnish Asiakastieto, that is, customer information, ranking) were selected. All the case companies are large companies, with over 1,000 to over 20,000 employees and an annual income ranging from €250m to almost €50bn. Moreover, all case companies represent different industries since the researcher wanted to investigate CMPs in multiple industries. Thirteen companies representing different industries were originally asked to join the study, but due to the COVID-19 pandemic, two companies withdrew their participation before the first informant interviews were held. As Eisenhardt (1989) affirms, between 4 and 10 cases can provide a starting point for theory building, so 11 cases were regarded as sufficient for the study.

Consequently, the research design comprises 11 case companies, as per Table 2.

More detailed descriptions of case companies can be found in  Appendix 1, “Information on studied case companies.”

As deliberating on the most suitable mediums of data collection, it was deemed that interviews would be useful in gathering detailed information from informants. However, following Yin’s (1994, p. 80) notion of no single data source being superior to others, multiple data sources were used to allow triangulation. Sources of data consisted of:

• informant interviews;

• companies’ documentation (with most companies but not with all) such as organizational charts, (change) practice/process/program descriptions, policies, scorecards, key performance indicator (KPI) – charts and project portfolio materials;

• secondary sources such as company internet pages; and

• archival records such as old surveys about personnel satisfaction which some informants exhibited.

Throughout the research, the interview data were the main source of information, since documents (Sources 2 and 4) were labeled confidential and not physically given to the researcher. Thus, data were collected primarily via recorded semi-structured informant interviews of an open-ended nature (Yin, 1994), containing also closed-ended questions. The strength of this method is that it is highly flexible (Easton, 2010).

Although the researcher acknowledges that data from informant interviews are always to some extent “partial, incomplete and always being retold and remembered” (Jackson and Mazzei, 2013, p. 263), generally people in organizations “know what they are trying to do and can explain their thoughts, intentions and actions” (Gioia et al., 2012, p. 17). Based on these preconditions, 33 informants across 11 case companies (see Table 2) were interviewed. Twenty-nine informants were interviewed individually, while four informants from the same company (Company H) were interviewed in pairs due to informant requests among tight work schedules. Company H had six informants interviewed, which is the largest number of informants per case company in this study.

The interviews were organized between January and August 2020. The first third of the interviews were held face to face; however, due to the COVID-19 pandemic in spring 2020, two-thirds of the interviews were held via video meeting tools. As video meeting tools such as Teams, Zoom and Google Meet were already widely used in the case companies, video interviews did not differ significantly from live interviews. Interview durations varied between 1.5 h and over 3 h, depending on the time that informants were willing and able to allocate to the researcher.

Informants were selected to represent professionals best placed to help the researcher understand the case (Stake, 1995). With Raineri’s (2011) distinction between change strategists (responsible for conducting organizational change) and change receptors (impacted by change interventions), the informants interviewed for this paper represent the change strategist group. Informants thus have responsibilities in planning and executing change management, although in some cases, informants can be part of both groups (strategists and receptors) simultaneously.

Based on a pre-study on LinkedIn and company webpages, the researcher had planned who to consider a primary contact in case companies. Primarily, the targeted informants were executives (executive board level or director level) with the terms “change,” “transformation,” “development” or “strategy” in their titles. Following Glaser and Strauss (1967) on theoretical sampling, the collection of data and informants to be interviewed cannot be planned in advance, so the final number of informants was not known at the beginning of data collection.

Continuing, a “snowball-method” of recruiting informants was used. Here, the recruitment of (further) informants occurred either via the first contacts or first interviews. In these instances, the primary contact person or interviewed informant referred to (an) other person(s) who could be interviewed – that is, persons formally responsible for planned change management in the company. Consequently, the informants interviewed represent functions such as change management, human resources (HR), transformation, strategy and project management office. Roles such as executive vice president/head of strategy/transformation or executive vice president/head of HR, commercial manager, HR manager, business unit manager and change manager were represented among informants. The reader is advised to refer to Table 2 for details, and  Appendix 2 for further information about informant-researcher affiliations.

Solid rapport building and the relationship between researcher and informant are meaningful in informant interviews. Ideally, building rapport is successful when the informant is relaxed and reassured of their role and confidentiality (Dundon and Ryan, 2010). Especially for executives, directors and senior managers as informants, rapport building can also be more affected by pragmatic matters, such as time constraints, or managers having knowledge of sensitive information involving their roles (Laurila, 1997). Nevertheless, all informants welcomed the researcher openly and people were cooperative.

When research is built on data, the process includes not only gathering data but also adjusting data collection in real time and adapting to changing circumstances or requirements (Eisenhardt et al., 2016; Glaser and Strauss, 1967). Thus, interview questions can be further adjusted as the research advances (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Gioia et al., 2012; Pratt et al., 2020). The informant interviews involved close-ended and open-ended questions. An example of close-ended questioning is asking all informants if their company has “formalCMPs” or “formal change management models.” Straightforward “yes” or “no” answers could be obtained to these types of questions.

During the first interviews, the researcher quickly noticed that ensuring the validity of collected data required emphasizing to informants that formal planned CMPs or models are practices or models that are, for example, identified and documented by multiple change strategists in the company (as opposed to practices or models that the informant supposes might exist). This definition considerably helped informants in framing the discussions.

Open-ended questions, such as “please, could you walk me through your CMPs?” or “please, tell me more about how your company manages planned change,” provided more descriptive and detail-rich answers about companies’ CMPs, change management models and activities. At the beginning of the research, open-ended conversations were lengthy, and many themes were covered. However, as the research progressed, emerging patterns helped shape questions regarding emerging theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). This helped the informants focus most discussions on CMPs and their link to change management models.

The data were analyzed as follows.

With informant interviews, all interviews were recorded. After interviewing the first informant from a company, the researcher reviewed their notes and the recording, making an initial synthesis of the interview. This synthesis was reconsidered before interviewing the next informant from the same case company. The synthesis was valuable in providing preliminary observations and guiding the researcher to determine whether any topics were unclear.

Since case company data were analyzed during the study and syntheses were conducted after each informant interview, emerging themes such as CMPs mentioned by informants could be observed from the interview material at this stage (partially corresponding to first-order codes, Gioia et al., 2012), while still conducting informant interviews. As further interviews progressed, following Glaser and Strauss’s suggestions (1967), categories were discovered by examining the data and more themes emerged. An example of this was noticing that case companies were not discussing one change management model; instead, several case companies appeared to have multiple change management models (incorporating varying CMPs) in parallel use. When interviews and research progressed further, emerging themes were concurrently adjusted and further validated (partially corresponding to second-order themes, Gioia et al., 2012). The analysis was iterative, working back and forth between the data and emerging strategies (Strauss and Corbin, 1990, p. 56). Categories and findings emerged based on collected data. Hence, an initial analysis was achieved while still collecting data, but a conclusive data analysis was conducted only after all data were collected.

Consequently, after performing all the interviews, a comprehensive data analysis was conducted in three rounds:

1. The first round of data analysis included transcribing interviews from audio recordings to written transcripts with corresponding timestamps.

2. In the second round of analysis, the researcher reviewed their notes from informant interviews, contrasting notes with the recorded information and replenishing transcripts accordingly. This round strengthened observations made in the first round.

3. In the third round of data analysis, the researcher reviewed their notes related to other data sources (documentation such as organizational charts, [change] process/program descriptions, policies, scorecards, KPI-charts and project portfolio materials) and included relevant data in transcripts. No major additions to the master data were made after the third round.

Due to these three data analysis rounds, the individual transcripts were detailed, abundant and conclusive.

With the informant data analyzed and the focus shifting from informants to the case level, a central dimension in building theory from case studies is replication logic (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 1994), where each case is a separate analytical unit. Consequently, the focus of data analysis was changed from individual informants to individual case companies. Analysis was conducted case company by case company, where data were examined by first reviewing all data from Company A, then all data from Company B and so on. As Yin (1994, p. 49) proposes, the researcher first sought to understand CMPs within one case.

Thereupon, cases were compared with each other. This comparison presented the researcher with important findings between cases, such as differences in the number of identified CMPs, variance in the existence of change management models and links between these two themes. After all the aforementioned data analysis phases, the researcher was equipped with consistent results. Figure 1 introduces the main phases of the data analysis process.

As multiple data sources are used in this research, the data analysis process occurred in loops where data from audio, transcripts and notes were verified to ensure consistency in their information. While case studies can indeed contain many data sources (such as interviews, archival data, survey data, ethnographies and observations), Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007) state that interviews often become a central data source – especially when cases explore more complex phenomena, such as CMPs and change management models in large companies. Furthermore, Yin (1994) and Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007) suggest that challenges concerning interview data are best reduced by data collection approaches that limit bias, such as involving multiple sources of evidence and having diverse perspectives among informed participants. Both techniques have been applied in this paper.

As this paper aims to develop empirically built theory, literature on CMPs was revisited after the data analysis phase. The researcher then compared their categorizations and multiple case study results to CMPs suggested in previous studies (Table 1 in Section 2). This comparison is presented in Section 5.

The paper’s first research question, what kinds of CMPs do large companies use in the management of planned change, is examined via the following results. Table 3 collates CMPs identified by case companies.

As Table 3 shows, this paper’s case companies show substantial variation in identifying CMPs used for managing planned change across industries. At one extreme, Company B identifies 13 CMPs that the company uses. At the other extreme, Company G identifies only two CMPs that are used. Most companies, that is, eight out of 11, identify between four and eight CMPs in their planned change management. The results portray large variation in companies’ CMP usage, and their approaches to managing planned change.

In summary, the most often mentioned CMPs were related to planning (mentioned by 10/11 case companies), communication (10/11), training and coaching (7/11) and leadership (6/11). All other CMPs were mentioned by less than half of the case companies. Next, findings as regards these four CMPs are detailed.

Most case companies, namely, 10 out of 11 (A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I and J), mention creating detailed change implementation plans. However, planning practices differ substantially from formal to informal, structured to unstructured and by who participates in the planning process – whether this includes individuals from various levels of the organization, or whether planning is done by the project team. Some companies also mention using IT programs to help with the planning and follow-up practices of change management. Company J stated that CMPs are heavily coupled with the project model used for a certain project; thus, they depended on the change (IT change, cultural change, etc.). An important viewpoint mentioned by informants is that in some cases, resourcing change management considerably affected planning practices. As an example, in Company E, the change projects where Company E’s change management resources are involved have a more comprehensive change management and implementation plan than those where change management resources do not support the planning phase.

Furthermore, it appears that diligent follow-up and measurement policies affect the quality and quantity of change management planning practices in case companies. If change management planning is not an obligatory practice and plans are not followed, planning may be conducted poorly or not at all. The following quotation also exemplifies the importance of the follow-up procedures of planning practices:

Communication-related practices appear as a focal part of planned change management in companies. Of 11 case companies, 10 mention communication (A, B, C, E, F, G, H, I, J and K). Communication practices range from structured/planned to more iterative approaches (communicating “as we go”). Some case companies primarily focus on creating communication structures. For example, Companies I’s and H’s informants state that information channels in change are critical: establishing and resourcing relevant communication channels is a key communication practice.

Company A states that communication – making change visible throughout the change process – is the most important CMP, as the below quote shows:

Conversely, an important viewpoint surfaced. Some informants also believed that over-emphasizing communication practices may risk neglecting other, much-needed CMPs for supporting successful change:

Companies B, C, D, E, F, H and J mention disparate training and coaching approaches as part of the companies’ CMPs. These practices involve formal training, given by dedicated instructors or coaches, and additional support, such as informal coaching for leaders.

In Companies C and E, informants state that although many change projects are centrally launched, the execution part is determined by the business areas or similar functions. This leads to a situation where business areas or equivalents are given responsibility for executing training and coaching practices. This, in turn, can often lead to variation in training content and, consequently, deviation in change outcomes inside the organization. As an informant from Company C explains:

Conversely, Company J uses a dedicated centralized training unit, responsible for helping in designing and executing training sessions in change processes. Thus, Company J has structured practices and scalable resources for conducting many types of training in change. Some companies, such as B and D, have additionally used internal change agents to train and help colleagues in specific change management initiatives. The approach is less formal than with most training practices. Interestingly, many informants raised the notion that managers and leaders must also be trained to lead change if successful change management is to be achieved. Especially, informants from Companies C and F stated that change leaders should be supported, as the quote below from Company F exemplifies:

The data collected from case companies indicates that managers and leaders play a ubiquitous, yet relatively undefined, role in change management. Companies explain many CMPs linked to leadership, and many informants list managerial expectations and tasks that leadership/managers should cover in change. Six companies (A, B, C, I, J and K) discuss leadership CMPs.

Initially, Company B’s informant 1, a seasoned senior executive, states that:

Overall, B appears to consider most leadership practices and CMPs as a joint part of daily leadership. Furthermore, in Company A’s CMPs linked to leadership, managers are expected to lead change “by example” and execute “systematic leadership” (informant 3, Company A). Also here, the management of planned change is treated as management or leadership work “as business as usual.” Thus, for some informants, it is challenging to state which leadership practices are specifically associated with change management and whether these should differ from regular leadership practices.

Furthermore, informants indicate that middle managers’ roles are crucial since although the executives usually make the decisions on change initiatives, middle management and leaders are the ones managing and implementing the changes and executing daily practicalities. However, it is also acknowledged by informants that middle managers might often be too busy to lead change, as the following quotation illustrates:

Similarly, Company C’s informant states that with better structured CMPs supporting leaders, actions and responsibilities would also be clearer for leadership. Here, leaders have a responsibility to voice what support they would need, as the following quotation illustrates:

In summary, the four above-mentioned CMPs (planning, communication, training and leadership practices) disclose results on the most used CMPs in case companies, and describe how their usage differs. However, an additional important element of the study was to research whether these, and other mentioned CMPs, are parts of change management models or equivalent frameworks.

The paper’s second research question addresses the topic of CMPs (identified by case companies in Section 4.1) as part of change management models.

In addition to CMPs, five of 11 case companies identify CMPs as parts of change management models (A, B, C, F and I). In turn, six case companies do not identify the company using planned change management models (D, E, G, H, J and K), although CMPs are used. Figure 2 provides an overview of change management models in case companies.

At the other end of the spectrum is Company B, which has numerous systematic change management models and uses a vast array (13) of CMPs. Conversely, Company G does not identify having any change management models, and the use of CMPs is low-numbered (two) and infrequent. The results of this paper show an important factor: the companies identifying high numbers of CMPs also identify having change management models, while the companies identifying only a few CMPs do not identify having change management models. However, although, for example, Company G does not identify having change management models and uses only a few CMPs, the following quotation indicates that ambitions may be contrary:

Alternatively, although Company J identifies using seven CMPs, the aspiration for more structured change management models is evident:

Within the five companies using change management models, differences exist in model numbers, contents and usage.

Starting with Company B, informants identify multiple change management models used. Primarily, B is the only company identifying a change management model at the company level, meaning that the model is to be used for managing all planned changes. This “Business Change Management” (BCM) model gathers CMPs as a sequenced process and advocates on the usage of CMPs. Although the core model remains the same in every change or transformation in the company, it is built to be scalable to fit different types and sizes of change. The selected approaches and pace of change management may vary. For example, in B’s leadership culture change, the selected approach is gradual, and changes involve generating small developments in daily work. Here, the change management model works more via iteration loops than as a linear process. However, more administrative changes, such as implementing General Data Protection Regulation, are done straightforwardly. These types of changes follow a strict change management and implementation model focusing more on implementation practices such as scheduling, training and communications, than planning-related practices such as defining the change or stakeholder management.

The BCM model should be used in all planned change management; however, the reality in a large corporation such as B might differ. Informants explain that Company B follows the usage of the change management model and measures how change implementation is advancing. However, this follow-up is not always simple nor straightforward, as the below quote illustrates:

Moving to Company A, it identifies having a change management model supporting the implementation of the company’s strategy. Strategy is divided into so-called “must-win battles” (Informant 1, Company A) and these are divided into smaller strategic programs or projects. The change management model starts with the planning phase, where Company A has structured practices regarding how to execute change projects in detail. The model does not strongly advocate specific practices – such as training or communications; instead, it serves as a higher-level framework, to which all CMPs are anchored.

Company A’s change management model differs from Company B’s in the sense that although it anchors CMPs sequentially to a model, the model might be difficult to scale for planned change management other than strategic change projects. In addition, the model is much less detailed and does not advocate the detailed use of CMPs as does B’s model, which contains featured task lists and such. In Company A, planned change is heavily managed and implemented via target setting, and the change management model in strategic change projects is built around KPIs. Informants describe that formal top-down targets mainly steer how strategic change is managed. Every change is divided into targets and goals, as the below quotation elaborates:

Company C raises an interesting perspective, as informants discuss IT tools to guide planned change management processes. C states that all strategy-related planned change initiatives led by the company’s “Transformation Office” (TO) are coupled with an IT tool, following a specific change management model. In the IT tool, change management is divided into five different planning and change execution levels, and the system tracks set goals. However, the IT tool does not advocate detailed practices or actions in the change management model: instead, it appears to provide a blueprint on what high-level steps should be followed. Divergent practices are then fitted to the blueprint provided by the IT tool. What is interesting in this setting is the use of an IT tool’s scheme as a model for managing planned change:

As a final set of planned change management models, Companies F, I and C all identify change management models linked to merger and acquisition (M&A) processes.

To begin with, Companies F and I share similarities in their business activities. F’s business involves acquiring certain services via intakes, that is, taking over a certain service from an old service provider and ramping up new services as substitutes. The “intake model” for change management is described as relatively straightforward and the intake process has clear phases, CMPs, tasks and accountabilities. Company I, in turn, operates in the service industry. Company I has a business model including often-occurring mergers and acquisitions, primarily buying other companies. Therefore, the company has established a change management model to support M&A changes.

Company F’s intake model contains many checklist-type sections and tools for those managing the change. When the scope of the intake is defined, the change management model is activated. With each intake project, choices are made regarding, for example, CMPs and tools. The intake model is scalable: the essence is not to use all the CMPs and tools the intake model contains, but to decide which are required for the intake project. CMPs and actions listed in the model appear as detailed as advice on the frequency of holding meetings (communication practices), making written plans (planning practices), scheduling (planning practices) and so on, as the following quotation illustrates:

The starting point for Company I’s M&A model differs. Informants state that Company I’s model is initially structured by embedding all relevant data and information from the acquired company into Company I’s IT systems. In addition, Company I’s informants state that establishing information flow between people is critical from day one. Hence, communication practices are key. Company I’s model follows a systematic flow of CMPs, applied methodically. The M&A change management model also considers coupling activities with dedicated resources: there are set timelines, task lists and responsible people are named for each practice. In this sense, Company F’s model differs since it relies more on applying CMPs case by case for intake projects. Although Company I’s change management model covers all the necessary technical aspects, such as data and finance matters, informants underline that practices related to the people involved and affected by the M&A are more critical for success than the technical practices of the model:

The companies share similarities regarding the fact that change management models are active also after the intake or M&A is finalized. After the intake project is complete, a retrospective occurs where Company F’s project team reflects and evaluates the chosen change management model practices versus the outcome and results of the intake project. The aim is to learn from what has been achieved and reflect on the used CMPs. With Company I’s large mergers and acquisitions, a 6-month period is dedicated to building the new joint venture and substantial use of CMPs occurs systematically. Company I is convinced that this initial period is essential for successful change.

Finally, Company C’s informants describe a specific change management model related to mergers and acquisitions. The model is built for the use of Company C’s finance functions, and is activated when Company C buys or sells a company. In Company C’s M&A finance model, the narrow scope of its utilization is problematic, as the below quotation illustrates:

Differing from Companies F and I, Company C’s merger and acquisition-related activities are much less frequent – meaning that the change management model is not used often. This might explain why the model’s usage has not grown to become a regular practice in the company, as opposed to Companies F and I, which use their change management models with every intake and M&A situation.

In conclusion, five case companies identify change management models – either on a company level or used for the management of distinct types of planned change initiatives. Models contain divergent CMPs, and many models appear scalable for different types and sizes of planned changes. The most frequent specifically built planned change management models are linked to M&A-related changes in case companies. For example, based on companies such as F and I, a key reason for developing systematic change management models is that M&A-type of changes occur frequently in these companies. Thus, it is logical to build structures for managing them. Furthermore, mergers and acquisitions can be costly endeavors incorporating large-scale risks, and systematic CMPs may be used to mitigate the risks involved.

This section discusses the paper’s research implications, practical implications, limitations and future research directions.

In terms of research implications, three contributions are made to prior research, as detailed next.

Starting with the first contribution, linked to the primary research question of what kinds ofCMPs do large companies use in the management of planned change, this paper contributes to literature by adding to empirical multi-industry studies on CMPs, which are currently scarce. This study encompasses multiple CMPs that 11 organizations are using in planned change management, providing empirically grounded insights replenishing CMP studies.

Regarding CMPs identified in most case companies, this paper’s results were partly in line with previous empirical CMP studies. The CMPs most often suggested in extant literature, in both single and multi-industry settings, are leadership-related practices (Clarke and Garside, 1997; Raineri, 2011; Yamakawa et al., 2012; Lines and Smithwick, 2019; Maali et al., 2020; Aldossari et al., 2021; Sopa, 2022 and Ajani, 2022), formal and informal training and coaching practices (Clarke and Garside, 1997; Raineri, 2011; Higdon, 2016; Lines and Smithwick, 2019; Maali et al., 2020; Aldossari et al., 2021 and Ajani, 2022) and communication-related practices (Clarke and Garside, 1997; Raineri, 2011; Yamakawa et al., 2012; Higdon, 2016; Maali et al., 2020; Sopa, 2022 and Ajani, 2022).

In this study, however, case companies’ most frequently used CMPs are linked to planning-related CMPs (as also suggested by Raineri, 2011; Higdon, 2016; Lines and Smithwick, 2019; Maali et al., 2020 and Aldossari et al., 2021), communication-related practices (as suggested by Clarke and Garside, 1997; Raineri, 2011; Yamakawa et al., 2012; Higdon, 2016; Maali et al., 2020; Sopa, 2022 and Ajani, 2022) and formal and informal training and coaching practices (as suggested by Clarke and Garside, 1997; Raineri, 2011; Higdon, 2016; Lines and Smithwick, 2019; Maali et al., 2020; Aldossari et al., 2021 and Ajani, 2022). Table 4 illustrates the CMPs most suggested in previous CMP studies, and CMPs most used by this study’s case companies.

However, although leadership practices appear to be the single most recognized CMP in previous empirical CMP studies, this study challenges this result, since only a small majority (6/11) of case companies’ informants identified using leadership practices linked to the management of planned change. Leadership practices are only ranked in fourth place, as the three above-mentioned CMPs (planning, communication and training) are substantially more used by this study’s case companies. The result is surprising since, in planned change management literature, managers are often those given primary active roles in planned change management (ACMP, 2020; Bridges, 2003; Senge et al., 1999; Peters and Waterman, 1982; Nadler and Tushman, 1992; Taffinder, 1998; Prosci Ltd, 2020; Kotter, 1996; Carnall, 1990; Beckhard and Harris, 1977, 1987). However, this study’s discovery complies with the findings from Karasvirta and Teerikangas (2022), where managerial roles were deemed important in managing planned change in empirical settings, but existing practices to support managers in planned change management were limited.

From other CMPs previously identified in literature, five companies discuss diagnosis and analysis practices regarding change management (Raineri, 2011; Sopa, 2022), and three describe CMPs linked to the needs and interests of relevant individuals and groups (Raineri, 2011; Clarke and Garside, 1997). Change agent usage (Aldossari et al., 2021; Maali et al., 2020; Lines and Smithwick, 2019) is identified and discussed in detail by five case companies, encouraging the notion that although not used by most of this study’s case companies, change agent usage is indeed an important practice used for the management of planned change initiatives.

Surprisingly, with the interviewed case companies, no informant brought up CMPs linked to developing a new organizational vision, as suggested by Raineri (2011) and Yamakawa et al. (2012). In addition, the CMP of efficient use of HR, as suggested by Ajani (2022), was not brought up by any of the case companies. Notwithstanding, several informants in five companies mentioned the HR function’s role in change management, and some of the informants work in HR. The role of HR is much discussed, but not established in the case companies’ planned CMPs.

Furthermore, this paper presents a CMP that is not represented in the empirical literature on CMPs but is mentioned by informants from three Companies (B, E and F). Namely, stakeholder management is mentioned as an important part of planned CMPs. The aim of this CMP is first to ensure that all relevant internal stakeholders, especially middle managers, are mapped and second, that change in these groups is managed. None of the previous empirical CMP approaches appear to cover stakeholder analysis and stakeholder management practices, although the wider literature on change management discusses the subject (see Jones and Recardo, 2013). More empirical research is required to promote incorporating stakeholder management practices as parts of CMP studies. An interesting direction of inquiry could be found from the project management literature (e.g. van Offenbeek and Vos, 2016; Mok et al., 2015; Aaltonen, 2011; Walker et al., 2008), where stakeholder management and stakeholder analysis have been studied especially related to change projects. This paper’s results are a call for more empirical research on stakeholder management practices in the context of CMPs in managing planned change.

As a second contribution, linked to the research question of how CMPs are part of change management models, this paper contributes to research on CMPs by studying them as parts of change management models. Change management models were identified by the case companies, without the researcher attempting to spot Kotter’s (1996), Peters’ and Waterman’s (1982) or any other existing models from the case companies.

Previous empirical CMP research has focused on isolated CMPs. This includes studies on communication practices in change by Mansoor et al. (2023), Shrivastava et al. (2022), DuFrene and Lehman (2014), training practices in change by Ferrari (2023), Kim et al. (2019), and Wallace (1991) and change leadership practices by Onia et al. (2021), Haake et al. (2017), Rowland and Higgs (2008), and Herold et al. (2008). Extant literature rarely links CMPs to change management models, except for studies concerning the study of distinct CMPs in distinct change management models (e.g. Pollack and Pollack (2014) and Chappell et al. (2016) studying Kotter’s model and CMPs in empirical settings).

This study validates that in empirical settings CMPs are used jointly, sequenced and structured – as change management models. An important observation of this paper is that the companies identifying change management models, also identify using more CMPs. This result might suggest that when change management is more structured (e.g. following a framework such as a change management model), CMPs are used more frequently. This study shows that if a case company has a multitude of CMPs, these are probably parts of change management models. Consequently, if a case company identifies having change management models, multiple CMPs are part of that model (at least six practices, based on this study). Thus, CMPs and models affect one another. To conceptually make this connection, the case organizations can be grouped into a “CMP Matrix.” This matrix has four categories based on (a) the companies’ frequency of planned CMPs and (b) change management models the companies use. These categories are as follows:

1. Practice-filled change management models (change management models containing a vast array of CMPs).

2. Multiple practices but few models (a multitude of CMPs not structured as change management models).

3. Independent practices (few CMPs, no change management models).

4. Change management models with only a few practices (change management models containing only a few practices – not found in the study).

The CMP Matrix, presented in Figure 3, can contribute to further studies of CMPs in planned change management models by providing a useful tool for grouping organizations.

The first group, “Practice-filled change management models,” entails case Companies B and C. These case companies identify the largest number of CMPs (8 and 13), and these practices are used systematically in multiple change management models. Planned change management appears as rather systematic in these companies, as a wide number of CMPs are used and structured into models. The second group, “Multiple practices but few models,” hosts Companies A, F and I. These companies identify having six to eight CMPs in use but identify only singular change management model used for specific planned change management. These companies would have good opportunities to develop further in planned change management by using existing CMPs to build more change management models, or by scaling current planned change management models to facilitate change management with additional types of change in the company. The third group, containing most of this study’s case Companies (D, E, G, H, J and K) is home to companies identifying fewer CMPs being used (two to seven). However, case companies do not have change management models including these practices. These “Independent practices” case companies, however, differ substantially from one another. While Companies G and K have only a few CMPs and no change management models, Companies E, H and J have multiple CMPs used systematically – although not embedded in models. These case companies could structure their CMPs into one or several models with reasonable effort, relocating, for instance, to group number two relatively rapidly. The last group, “Change management models with only a few practices,” was left empty in this study. The results show that if a case company has a multitude of CMPs, they are likely to be parts of change management models. Consequently, if a case company identifies having change management models, multiple CMPs are part of that model (at least six practices, based on this study – Company I’s change management model). Hence, this box was left empty.

Following Yin’s (1994, pp. 31–32) suggestions, if two or more cases are shown to support the same theory, replication may be claimed and analytical generalizations made to some extent. As this paper aims to build empirically grounded theory, the CMP Matrix can be used as a starting point for further studies on CMPs in planned change management models. This paper demands a more systematic link between CMPs and change management models.

As a third contribution, this paper challenges some existing CMP studies. This article’s results are not consistent with Raineri’s (2011) or Yamakawa et al.’s (2012) suggestions of “preparation” phase CMPs being favored over “implementation” phase practices. This article suggests that change strategists favor “implementation” phase practices over preparation phase practices in the management of planned change in their respective companies. This observation evidences that more research is required on preferences related to CMP usage in multi-industry empirical settings.

In a broader perspective, there is a school of thought arguing for a shift away from prescriptive theoretical models, such as classic planned change management models and prescriptive CMPs. To this end, authors, like Tsoukas and Chia (2002) see change as an ongoing process (organizational becoming) of human sensemaking and action. Organizations do not simply experience change, but they are continuously being constituted and reconstituted by it. As By (2005) notes, organizational change by nature can be more of an open-ended and continuous process than strictly managed via timetables, objectives and methods. Furthermore, rooted in empirical research on change readiness, leadership, implementation science and employee attitudes, evidence-based practice offers a systematic, context-sensitive alternative to traditional prescriptive models and practices (Rousseau, 2006; Weber et al., 2024). Consequently, searching for one “right” approach to change might be pointless (Smits and Bowden, 2015), as organizational realities constantly shift.

This paper provides organizations with practical learning and benchmarks on CMPs and change management models. Table 3 can be used to benchmark one’s CMPs in comparison with this case study’s participants, and the CMP Matrix (Figure 3) offers a good starting point for organizations to reflect on their positioning toward CMPs as parts of change management models.

Throughout the study, case companies’ aspirations toward more systematic change management became evident:

Developing organizations’ planned change management can occur via fortifying CMPs and these as parts of change management models. This paper supports companies and organizations in these advances.

As this paper studies CMPs via the lens of CMP studies, it must be noted that when considering, for example, literature on change management strategies (Phillips and Klein, 2022) or change management principles (Stouten et al., 2018), the theoretical framework would be broader. However, for this paper’s purpose and scope, the study focus was CMPs.

This paper studies CMPs in large Finnish companies. Although generalizations might be made to similar types of economies (well-developed countries with relatively small economies), larger generalizations for “all large companies” cannot be made. Furthermore, each case represented a different industry, operating in a different environment. Thus, industry-specific generalizations cannot be made.

In addition, what must be noted is that answers and explanations consistently reflect the informants’ individual perceptions about the subject matter. All informants represented change strategists rather than change recipients (Raineri, 2011), which affected the data obtained from the informants. Further studies on CMPs from the viewpoint of change recipients are welcomed.

Furthermore, this paper provides a general “snapshot” of CMPs and change management models, describing what was visible at the exact moment of study. More research over a longer period is required to explore creation, emergence and development of CMPs and models. In addition, quantitative studies could add more depth to the analysis.

The researcher sincerely hopes that further empirical studies on CMPs in planned change will be conducted. As Raineri (2011) suggests, more empirical research is required to further fill the gap between the more conceptually oriented and the more case-oriented practitioner literature on CMPs. As multi-industry case studies on CMPs are scarce, it is suggested that these be conducted. An interesting direction would be studying CMPs from the viewpoint of change recipients and change strategists (Raineri, 2011). These studies could reveal interesting dichotomies between perceived CMP use from various perspectives: from the viewpoint of those in charge of executing change and the perspective of those receiving change. This would promote further understanding of which CMPs are preferred/considered efficient by both groups, guiding CMP selection and preference in planned change initiatives.

New advances may challenge current assumptions and test this study’s results. As Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007, p. 25) affirm, theory building from cases produces new theory from data, and deductive theory testing can complete the cycle by using data to test theory. From this perspective, it is important to test this study’s results on CMP preference via additional multiple case studies. The CMP Matrix should be tested in further empirical CMP studies.

The link between CMPs and change management models should be further studied. In further multiple case studies, the CMP Matrix can function as a useful tool in classifying organizations based in their CMP usage and change management models. Furthermore, leadership practices should be further studied, as extant studies on CMPs position these practices as preferred. However, this study’s results are inconsistent with this suggestion.

In addition, based on the CMP Matrix, the researcher suggests studies especially related to organizations in the “Independent practices” group. Here, companies that identify having multiple CMPs, but no change management models, are of great interest. In this context, organizations having established CMPs that are, however, not used in change management models provide an interesting research avenue. The goal could be to examine what is required for an organization to move from Group 3 (“Independent practices”) to Group 2 (“Multiple practices but few models”) or eventually, to Group 1 (“Practice-filled change management models”).

For a researcher, it was surprising that some case companies had so few CMPs, and that under half the case companies identified using change management models. As the participants were among the economy’s largest companies, this was not foreseen. More research is warranted to answer questions related to why large companies appear to have few structured change management models in use.

The author expresses their deepest gratitude to the companies involved in the study.

Company A is a large company working in the infrastructure and construction industry, specializing in designing, building and maintaining transport and energy infrastructure. In 2020, the company’s revenue for the year exceeded €500m and staff were approximately 2,000 people. Within recent years, Company A has faced planned changes regarding ownership and company structure, as well as significantly digitalizing its operations. Efficiency and measurability have been key targets regarding change initiatives. Company culture can be described as engineer-like, valuing number-oriented and purposeful action.

Company B is among the largest Nordic telecommunications and digital services companies. It provides a wide range of services, including mobile and fixed network services, digital services and ICT solutions. In 2020, Company B’s revenue exceeded €1.8bn, and it employed over 5,000 people. Regarding planned change, Company B has invested much in digital transformation, sustainability initiatives and especially mergers and acquisitions. In addition, developing their internal operating model has been a key target. Company B’s culture can be characterized as constantly seeking innovation, although still operating in traditional business areas of telecommunications.

Company C represents food and consumer goods. In 2020, the company’s revenue exceeded €1bn, with over 8,000 employees. Company C has undertaken many planned changes, for example, via the sales and purchasing of various parts of the company, expanding to new product segments due to changing customer preferences, investing in innovation and sustainability changes and digital transformation. Furthermore, as the company exports many of its products, the COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath have been challenging. The company has long roots and traditions, which sometimes makes change challenging as “old” and “new” worlds collide, for example, in mergers and acquisitions and as expanding to new products/markets.

Company D is a large transportation industry company. In 2020, the company faced unprecedented challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which significantly impacted the industry worldwide. As informants describe, although change initiatives related to fleet modernization, sustainability and digitality had been “business as usual” for many years, COVID-19 was, for their industry, something never previously experienced. In 2020, Company F’s revenue exceeded €800m, which is a significant decrease from previous years. The company employed over 6,000 people. Although many planned changes have been undertaken in recent years, the company was more in “survival mode” due to the global pandemic and related uncertainty.

Company E is a large energy sector company operating across Northern Europe. Its strategy is aimed at a cleaner energy future, and sustainability is visible via many planned changes executed by Company E. In 2020, Company E’s revenue was almost €50bn, and the company employed almost 20,000 people. The numbers show that Company E’s operational scale is significant. In the energy sector, as well as in other industries, many planned changes are related to digital transformation. Thus, Company E’s recent planned changes have involved digitalization, as well as multiple mergers and acquisitions and product development toward carbon-neutral energy. The vision of the company, built around sustainability, strongly guides the organization’s culture and actions.

Company F is a facility services provider. Company F offers a wide range of services including cleaning, catering, technical services and facility management. The annual revenue in 2020 exceeded €400m and Company F employed around 8,000 people. Recent planned changes have been heavily linked to a renewed strategic direction: parts of the organization have been sold and key offerings further sharpened and developed. In addition, digital transformation and sustainability changes have been on the agenda. The organization’s operations are labor-intensive, reflecting its culture and methods. Furthermore, being part of a large global organization, a “them (global) versus us (local)” mentality is somewhat visible in the organization. In this case study, only Finnish operations (the Finnish company) were studied.

Company G, a chemical company, develops chemical solutions for water-intensive industries, including pulp and paper, oil and gas and water treatment. In 2020, Company G’s revenue was around €2.4bn, with around 5,000 employees. Recent planned change initiatives have focused on mergers and acquisitions, operational efficiency, digital transformation and sustainability. The company is a relatively “traditional” engineer-led company, with many developments related to R&D and product/service innovations. Although operational efficiency has been a key target, tangible means to improve actions and culture are difficult to grasp, as described by informants.

Company H is among Finland’s largest finance and insurance companies. In 2020, Company H’s revenue was around €250m, and they employed almost 3,400 people. As a mutual company, H is owned by its clients, leading to multiple subsidiaries across a large geographical area. This results in a complex organizational and decision-making structure, affecting development and planned change management. Significant planned changes have recently been related to an expansion of product portfolios, digitalization of services and sustainability.

Company I represents private health care and social care services, as a rapidly growing company operating in Finland and Northern Europe. Company I had a revenue of €1bn, and they employed over 22,000 employees and private practitioners in 2020. In recent years, the company has expanded its services and facilities, focusing on organic growth and acquisitions. Other recent planned changes are related to digital transformation and corporate responsibility. Company I’s culture promotes innovativeness, and the company has developed several health-care services and products.

Company J acts in retail, with a reach also in Finland’s neighboring countries. As a major Finnish retailing cooperative, Company J reported revenue of over €11bn and employed approximately 40,000 people in 2020. Like Company H, Company J works within a large geographical reach and a complex organizational structure. In recent years, Company J has expanded its service offerings, including the growth of its supermarket chains and the development of a new service station store. Other planned changes have been related to digitalization and sustainability initiatives. For Company J, operational efficiency has been an important change initiative, with a focus on, for example, supply chain and logistics efficiency.

Company K is in the gaming and gambling industry. In a highly regulated competitive environment, the company’s gross gaming revenue was over €1bn in 2020, with over 1,500 employees. The company faced significant challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic, as many arcades and gaming halls needed to be closed. In recent years, Company K has undergone a major merger, where two other companies merged into Company K. Planned change initiatives regarding responsible gaming have been multiple, and digital transformation includes many concrete changes undertaken and still to be managed. As gaming and gambling are increasingly moving toward digital spaces, the company’s overall operating model is changing.

With these descriptions of participating case companies and the landscapes they are operating in, the reader obtains an overview of the cases studied.

All the informants are divided into three groups regarding their relationship with the researcher:

1. The researcher and informant were already connected and had met before (in a context not related to this study).

2. The researcher and the informant were introduced via someone who knew both the researcher and the informant.

3. The researcher and informant had no previous common contact.

One company fell into Group 1. The researcher knew all the informants (from the same company) after working as a change management practitioner in the respective company during the study. This facilitated building a trusting and honest atmosphere and enabled open discussion of sensitive topics. Since this group knew the researcher beforehand, personal introductions were omitted from the interviews, and discussion about the research topic could start immediately.

Within Group 2, seven primary contacts (first informants in the company) were reached by the researcher’s and contact person’s mutual connection, who made introductions. Having a trusted person present on behalf of the researcher considerably helped the recruitment of informants. Notably, a total of 17 informants fell into this category after using a snowball method, where the informant introduces the researcher to the next informant.

Three companies and people were in Group 3, meaning that the researcher approached primary contacts as “cold contacts,” after conducting thorough background research on the companies and suitable roles to be approached for the study. All three previously unknown contacts agreed to join the study. These three cold-contacted informants then introduced further informants to the researcher, making the next informants from these companies eligible for Group 2 (researcher and informant introduced by a common acquaintance).

The interviews started with practical matters such as introductions, non-disclosure agreements and articulating the purpose of the interview. A short briefing of the research and objectives followed. The agenda and structure of the interview (themes to be covered) were sent to all informants beforehand via e-mail so they could prepare for the discussions. Notes were taken and all interviews recorded with the informants’ consent. When conducting interviews, the chosen technique involved more facilitating discussion with open-ended questions than a courtroom technique with strict, fact-based questions. The researcher functioned as an active listener, allowing conversation to flow freely, posing elaborating questions and ensuring that all interview themes and sub-questions were nevertheless covered, and questions were answered before completing the interviews.