7.1.1 Detecting the crisis & its importance
The first step for realizing that a system experiences a crisis and that the need for taking action is evident, is reached in the unconscious level, during which leaders sense the triggering event of an existing or imminent change (Keown-McMullan, 1997). As it has already been demonstrated (ch.5), the triggering event is understood as a discrepancy
(Armenakis & Harris, 2002; Armenakis, Harris & Feild, 2000) that elicits the basic emotion of surprise. Once this essential feeling of surprise is experienced (Faulkner, 2001; Hermann, 1972:13; Reilly, 1987), the conscious and phenomenally reflective mode of analysis is set in motion (ch.6). At this state, leaders establish, or have to establish, the perception of a crisis through a set of evaluations of the already sensed discrepancy regarding its “seriousness” for the involved unit (distinction between discrepancy detection and further evaluations inspired by Billings, Milburn & Schaalman, 1980).
The first of the necessary appraisals refers to the acceptance of the problem-crisis. In his problem-recognition model Cowan (1986) suggests that realizing the existence of a problem requires one to classify the sensed discrepancy as such (fig.18, Process step: problem detection). Indeed, a situation can be called a crisis, if, and only if, the triggering event constitutes a threat to the survival and the important goals of the involved unit (Faulkner, 2001; Hermann, 1972:13; Keown-McMullan, 1997). It is
argued, therefore, that leaders who sense a discrepancy precociously, have to reflectively verify its impact (Reisenzein, 2000), by evaluating the level of congruency
(Lazarus, 1991a:150; Scherer, 2001:97) between the discrepancy at hand and already established business goals (fig.18, Gnosis-driven evaluation: Business goal congruency). In this way, they develop the necessary awareness regarding the problematic status of the situation (Majone, 1980:9) and, consequently, set a crucial steppingstone towards the initiation of the necessary cognitive reframing (Klein, 2005) and, thereby, problem-solving process (Smith, 1989).
7.1.2 Ego-involvement & trivialization of the discrepancy
The realization of the problem-crisis, though, is not that straightforward. More precisely, along with their impact on business goals, faced discrepancies will have implications for leader’s exclusively personal motives and concerns (Liu & Perrewé, 2005). On this basis, it is suggested that the whole phase of problem detection will be driven by an intuitive appraisal (logic of duality: sec. 6.2) that evaluates the type of leader’s ego involvement with the evidence at hand (Lazarus, 1991a:150). As it has already been demonstrated (sec. 6.3), leaders hold various personal goals (Crown & Rosse, 1995), or else ego-commitments, which, similar to business goals, can be either promoted or inhibited by the faced situation (self-discrepancy theory: Higgins, 1987). In this sense, the intuitive appraisal at this stage is, also, an evaluation of the case’s congruency with goals that are held by the individual (Schere, 2001;Lazarus, 1991a). However, instead of having exclusively business-“cold” goals at stake, the individual engages personal-“hot” motives as well (term from Roseman, 2013), which within the scope of this work refer to personal ego-commitments (fig.18, Ego-driven appraisal: Ego-commitment congruency) that reflect a self-ideal (q.v. sec. 4.3).
As long as a relationship of threat is appraised (negative valence: Higgins, 1987), a motivational impulse to respond defensively by trivializing the importance (Simon, Greenberg & Brehm, 1995) of the discrepant evidence that indicate a need for change will be formulated (defence mechanism: Trivialization). In particular, a discrepancy that challenges a fundamental aspect of the ego-self (i.e. attitude, belief, act, behaviour cognition; Starzyk, Fabrigar & Soryal, Fanning, 2009), will indicate the existence of underlying psychological costs of changing (Zell, 2003). Thereby, leaders will be driven to protect the held “cognition” by responding with trivialization (Draycott, & Dabbs, 1998) to the cognitive dissonance that has already been produced (sec. 5.4) due
to the experienced discrepancy (George and Jones, 2001)7. In this way, the sensed discrepancy remains in existence but its importance, as an indicator of a need for personal and business change is minimized (Baumeister, Dale & Sommer, 1998). Also, this could be accompanied by a simultaneous devaluation of the domain that the discrepancy refers to (Nussbaum & Steele, 2007; sec. 5.3.2). Consequently, then, the adopted response is by no means adaptive, since in crisis situations the magnitude of the problem is high (Reilly, 1987), and, thus, a large scale change is required (sec. 3.2). 7.1.3 Mapping problem detection: The three potential outcomes
Following the previous analysis, it is suggested that the classification of a discrepancy could produce three potential outcomes (table 17). On the one hand, there is the adaptive scenario according to which leaders realize the crisis and its negative impact on held goals (Faulkner, 2001). It should be clarified that a precise understanding of the problem and the way it should be solved follows after the realization of the problematic situation (Majone, 1980:9) and, therefore, does not interest the current research. Nevertheless, a mere realization of the incongruence between stimulus-event and goals, personal or business ones, is achieved at this stage, which automatically prepares leaders for a large scale action (Bartunek & Moch, 1987). In addition, this realization is expected to be accompanied by negative emotions-feelings, which are brought on due to the incongruent nature of the evidence (terminology adopted by Lazarus, 1991a).
On the other hand, there is the maladaptive scenario which is separated into two distinct cases. This distinction is legitimized as long as the variation regarding the l evel of goal obstruction that is caused by the case at hand (Scherer, 2001:96), is considered along with the way cognitive psychologists have treated trivialization. In particular, theorists like Starzyk, Fabrigar, Soryal & Fanning (2009) propose that cognitive change and trivialization could occur simultaneously. From this perspective, it is possible to have leaders that minimize the magnitude of the discrepant evidence, which, in its turn, will
7 Theorists have used the aspect of trivialization mainly, if not exclusively, within the concept of cognitive dissonance. In their papers they discuss specific types of change, such as attitude, belief and sometimes cognitive. This terminology is not followed here, since the current research considers trivialization from a wider perspective, which derives from the fact that change refers to an alteration of current mental representations and business practices.
drive them to accept the need for minor adjustments in cognitive schemas (Johnson, 1988). As a result, schemas and mental models (Senge, 2006) are not challenged and change adequately enough (George & Jones, 2001) to trigger a transformation, and, hence, smaller scale changes will take place (Sheldon, 1980). In contrast, theorists like
Joule & Martinie (2008) treat trivialization and cognitive change as alternate modes of dissonance reduction (Simon, et al. 1995). The researcher adapts this latter view to the logic of this work, and recommends the case of extreme assimilation (Piaget, 1954; sec. 3.2.3), in which the already sensed discrepancy is trivialized to such an extent that a realization of no need for change is reached.
Appr aisals (D ef enc e) Problem / Business goal incongruence Slight Problem / Business goal incongruence (Slight Trivialization) Not a Problem / Business goal congruence (Trivialization) C ognit ive Unde rsta nding Realize the problematic situation and its
magnitude.
Realize a need for smaller, compared to
the one the evidence suggest, change.
Realize no need for change. Progress toward the achievement of goals. C oping beha viour – inst anc es
Prepare for a large scale action.
Minimize the importance and impact
of the discrepant information and prepare
for minor adjustments.
Deny completely the existence of a problematic situation
and prepare for no change. F ee li ngs P romoted
Negative feelings (Guilt, Shame)
Positive feelings (Gratitude, Pride) Maximum intensity Reduced intensity
Hope Heroic, Democratic or Transcendental Pragmatic C entra l Sadness
Fear (Anxiety & Fright) Happiness Table 17. Map for the classification step
Regarding the emotional experience, the initial step of classification provides a crucial distinction between the two basic coping tendencies of seeking more (positive emotion)
vs less (negative emotions) of the faced situation (Roseman, 2013), or else the problematic status quo. Correspondingly, the emotions of happiness (Heading toward
the realization of goals:Lazarus, 1991a:267) or sadness (Irrevocable loss of the current status quo: Lazarus, 1991:248), which are general and independent from any causal attributions, are expected to be felt at this stage (Weiner, Russell & Lerman, 1979; Weiner, 1985). Respectively, in case of slight trivialization, similar to the adaptive scenario, sadness is promoted (Lazarus, 1991a), which, nevertheless, differ in terms of intensity compared to cases of full realization of the problem (level of obstruction Scherer; 2001:96). While in case of extreme trivialization, leaders appraise the evidence as goal congruent (no need for change), and, therefore, happiness is promoted
(Lazarus, 1991a).
In addition, apart from this basic distinction, special attention should be paid to goal incongruent cases, where fear is triggered (Lazarus, 1991a:235), in terms of both fright
(Physical consequences from the loss of resources) and anxiety (Threat to the ego- identity and uncertainty regarding the response and the future). Essentially, the uncertainty that characterizes change initiatives (Liu, Perrewé, 2005) render the sense of fear and anxiety a matter of course for the individual (Senge & Kaeufer, 2000). How the experience of loss (Bailey & Raelin, 2015) as well as the uncertainty and the concomitant ego-threat, which are manifested as fear for the unknown, will be treated
(Eagle, 1999), is going to play a determinant role on the outcome of the change process
(q.v. subsequent sections & ch.8). Such considerations, though, exceed the step of discrepancy classification and call for additional appraisals to specify the emotional experience and the coping response to be adopted (Moors, De Houwer, Hermans & Eelen, 2005).