1. travel
2. tourist destinations
3. united kingdom

FACULTEIT ECONOMIE EN BEDRIJFSKUNDE
VAKGROEP MANAGEMENT, INNOVATIE EN ONDERNEMERSCHAP
What is crucial in developing a positive attitude toward
change? The role of content, context, process and
individual variables in understanding readiness for
change
Dave Bouckenooghe
Submitted to the Faculty of Economics and
Business Administration in partial fulfilment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor in Applied Economics
Supervisor: Prof Dr Herman Van den Broeck
September 2008
Acknowledgements
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Based upon my personal experience, I compare the writing of a
dissertation to an athlete preparing for the Olympics. Athletes endure lots
of pain during the many training sessions that precede the Games, but
once on track for that medal they forget about all their pain and sacrifices
made. Writing my dissertation was similar in the sense that I often
questioned the value add, but in the end I am pleased that the right
decision was not to quit!
Although it is often said that doing research is a lonely activity, I
never experienced loneliness. With the constant help of lots of people, this
dissertation has been made possible. Therefore I want to take this
opportunity to acknowledge the contribution of those people who coached
me, shared their knowledge, their experiences, and constantly motivated
me to focus.
First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisors
Prof Dr Herman Van den Broeck and Prof Dr Geert Devos for the
chance to work on this doctoral project and for their continuous support
during the entire process. I want to thank Geert Devos because he
initiated me in the field of organizational change and I hope we can
continue our collaboration in this domain. Also a special thanks to Herman
Van den Broeck for encouraging me to see things from another
perspective, and challenging my ideas and thoughts throughout this
project. This doctoral thesis is the result of our joint effort, understanding,
and learning.
Moreover, I am indebted to Prof Dr Aime Heene. He has acted
more than just as a member of my advisory committee. He has always
iii
Acknowledgements
been generous to share his wide knowledge on organization science and
research. Furthermore, I am pleased with his readiness to provide me the
administrative help whenever needed.
I also want to express my gratitude to Prof Dr Achilles Armenakis,
Prof Dr Jaap Boonstra, and Prof Dr Marc Buelens for being part of the
jury of my doctoral thesis. It was a great honor to meet and learn about
you at the Academy of Management Conferences in Philadelphia (2007)
and in Anaheim (2008). Your comments and feedback have inspired me to
broaden my thinking on organizational change and research.
I also would like to thank the people in my department and close
working environment for their helpful comments, constructive advice on
the study, and careful reviews on the final version of the study. This thesis
is the result of your encouragements, feedback, and sounding boards.
First I would like to address the three people with whom I share the office.
Dr Eva Cools, thank you for your scientific point of view and detailed
information provided about the paperwork that accompanies a doctoral
defense. Ann-Sophie De Pauw and Melissa Horlait thank you for your
relevant feedback, your words of encouragement and motivation. Inge
Degraeve also deserves my special gratitude because during the study
she helped me to organize the meetings with Herman, assisted me in
administrative matters of the study, and edited the dissertation. Mia
Demeyer and Gust Devolder, thank you for your assistance with
organizing
the
doctoral
defenses.
Furthermore,
I
would
like
to
acknowledge Prof Dr David Venter, Dr Annick Van Rossem, Dr
Kathleen Park for reviewing the language throughout several parts of this
manuscript.
There are many other people I want to thank for their interest in my
work and their genuine words of support: Kim Beeckmans, Amber
iv
Acknowledgements
Cooreman, Katleen De Stobbeleir, Sophie De Boiserie, Prof Dr Karlien
Vanderheyden, and Veronique Warmoes.
Finally, I thank my family and friends and in particular my parents
who supported me morally in difficult times. I know I have not always been
the easiest son during this process. But know that without your help it was
impossible to achieve all of this. Thank you for being there and supporting
me throughout this challenge. Thank you for being present in good times
and bad times. Thank you for always listening to my concerns. I am
eternally grateful to all of you!
v
Table of contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................
Table of contents..........................................................................................
List of tables .................................................................................................
List of figures................................................................................................
List of publications and conference presentations........................................
Samenvatting promotieonderzoek................................................................
Summary of dissertation ..............................................................................
Chapter 1: Defining and positioning change recipients’ attitudes
toward change in the organizational change literature ..........................
1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................
1.2 Underlying paradigms and frameworks ..................................................
1.2.1 Nature of change ..........................................................................
1.2.2 Level of change.............................................................................
1.2.2.1 The cognitive process: a person-centered perspective..........
1.2.2.2 Need for research into people’s attitudes toward change ......
1.2.2.3 The culture approach: a meso-level perspective ...................
1.2.3 Underlying view of human functioning ..........................................
1.2.4 Research method..........................................................................
1.2.4.1 The variance strategy ............................................................
1.2.4.2 The process strategy .............................................................
1.3 Conceptual overview of attitudes toward change ...................................
1.3.1 A brief word about the history .......................................................
1.3.2 Readiness for change and resistance to change ..........................
1.3.2.1 Problems with research on resistance to change ..................
1.3.2.2 Reflections about readiness for change ................................
1.3.3 Facet analysis ...............................................................................
1.3.3.1 The technique........................................................................
1.3.3.2 Selection criteria for facet analysis ........................................
1.3.3.3 Related concepts: forging ahead into the conceptual
jungle.................................................................................................
1.3.3.4 Attitudes toward change: measurement and nature of
change...............................................................................................
1.3.3.5 Conclusion.............................................................................
vii
Table of contents
1.4 Overview and focus of dissertation ........................................................
1.4.1 A significant contribution! ..............................................................
1.4.2 Climate makes or breaks change: conceptual framework.............
1.5 Bibliography ...........................................................................................
1.6 Appendix 1: findings facet analysis ........................................................
Chapter 2: psychological climate of change as a crucial catalyst of
readiness for change .................................................................................
2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................
2.2 Readiness for change: a multidimensional construct .............................
2.3 The psychological climate of change .....................................................
2.4 Selection of climate dimensions: a set of process and context
factors of change..........................................................................................
2.5 Antecedents of readiness for change.....................................................
2.5.1 Context factors..............................................................................
2.5.1.1 Trust in top management.......................................................
2.5.1.2 History of change...................................................................
2.5.1.3 Participatory management.....................................................
2.5.2 Process factors: quality of change communication .......................
2.5.3 The mediating role of trust in top management.............................
2.6 Method ...................................................................................................
2.6.1 Data collection procedure .............................................................
2.6.2 Organizational context ..................................................................
2.6.3 Type of change in this inquiry .......................................................
2.6.4 Measures and scales ....................................................................
2.6.4.1 Dependent variables..............................................................
2.6.4.2 Independent variables ...........................................................
2.7 Results ...................................................................................................
2.7.1 Descriptive statistics .....................................................................
2.7.2 The degree of multicollinearity ......................................................
2.7.3 SEM analyses ...............................................................................
2.7.3.1 Measurement model ..............................................................
2.7.3.2 Hypotheses............................................................................
viii
Table of contents
2.7.4 Explained variance in RFC and the relative importance of
context and process...............................................................................
2.8 Discussion..............................................................................................
2.8.1 History of change and quality of change communication ..............
2.8.2 Trust in top management ..............................................................
2.8.3 Participatory management ............................................................
2.8.4 Relationships between dimensions of readiness for change ........
2.8.5 Limitations, suggestions for future research directions and
concluding remarks................................................................................
2.9 Bibliography ...........................................................................................
2.10 Appendix 1: antecedents of readiness for change ...............................
2.11 Appendix 2: overview organizational context characteristics of
participating organizations ..........................................................................
Chapter 3: Ready or not…? What’s the relevance of a meso-level
approach to the study of readiness for change ......................................
3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................
3.2 Shortcomings in readiness for change research ....................................
3.3 Individual readiness for change: a socially constructed phenomenon....
3.4 Context and process antecedents of readiness for change ...................
3.4.1 Organizational climate: An overarching context factor ..................
3.4.2 The three climate dimensions .......................................................
3.4.3 The process factor and underlying difference with
organizational climate ............................................................................
3.4.4 The higher level equivalents of the context and process
factors ....................................................................................................
3.5 Hypotheses ............................................................................................
3.5.1 Climate dimensions.......................................................................
3.5.1.1 Trust in top management.......................................................
3.5.1.2 History of change...................................................................
3.5.1.3 Participatory management.....................................................
3.5.2 Change specific process factor: quality of change
communication.......................................................................................
3.5.3 Second level hypothesis ...............................................................
ix
Table of contents
3.6 Method ...................................................................................................
3.6.1 Sample and questionnaire administration .....................................
3.6.2 Type of change .............................................................................
3.6.3 Measures ......................................................................................
3.6.4 Analysis ........................................................................................
3.6.4.1 Nature of higher level construct and interrater agreement.....
3.6.4.2 Type of multilevel model........................................................
3.6.4.3 Sample size requirements .....................................................
3.6.4.4 Analytical technique and centering procedures .....................
3.7 Results ...................................................................................................
3.7.1 Descriptive statistics .....................................................................
3.7.2 Shared constructs or not: empirical evidence for aggregation ......
3.7.3 Hypothesis testing.........................................................................
3.8 Discussion..............................................................................................
3.8.1 Study considerations.....................................................................
3.9 Bibliography ...........................................................................................
3.10 Appendix 1 ...........................................................................................
Chapter 4: contribution of content, context, and process to
understanding openness to organizational change: two
experimental simulation studies...............................................................
4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................
4.1.1 Defining openness to change .......................................................
4.2 Study 1 ...................................................................................................
4.2.1 Theoretical background and hypotheses ......................................
4.2.1.1 Content-based factors ...........................................................
4.2.1.2 Contextual factors..................................................................
4.2.1.3 Process factors......................................................................
4.2.1.4 Locus of control .....................................................................
4.2.2 Method..........................................................................................
4.2.2.1 Experimental simulation strategy...........................................
4.2.2.2 Participants............................................................................
4.2.2.3 Measures...............................................................................
4.2.2.4 Manipulation check................................................................
4.2.3 Results..........................................................................................
x
Table of contents
4.3 Study 2 ...................................................................................................
4.3.1 Theoretical background and hypotheses ......................................
4.3.2 Method..........................................................................................
4.3.2.1 Design ...................................................................................
4.3.2.2 Participants............................................................................
4.3.2.3 Measures...............................................................................
4.3.2.4 Manipulation check................................................................
4.3.3 Results and discussion .................................................................
4.4 General discussion.................................................................................
4.5 Bibliography ..........................................................................................
Chapter 5: the change climate questionnaire: development of a
new instrument...........................................................................................
5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................
5.2 The climate concept: definition and dimensions.....................................
5.2.1 The human relations perspective ..................................................
5.2.2 The ten dimensions of change climate..........................................
5.3 Validation studies ...................................................................................
5.3.1 Item development: Pilot study.......................................................
5.3.2 Content validity .............................................................................
5.3.2.1 Procedure ..............................................................................
5.3.2.2 Results ..................................................................................
5.3.3 Questionnaire administration and item analysis............................
5.3.3.1 Organizational context...........................................................
5.3.3.2 Procedure factor analyses .....................................................
5.3.3.3 Results of exploratory factor analyses...................................
5.3.3.4 Interitem analyses .................................................................
5.3.3.5 Internal consistency reliability ................................................
5.3.3.6 Conclusion.............................................................................
5.3.4 Confirmatory factor analyses ........................................................
5.3.4.1 Organizational context...........................................................
5.3.4.2 Results ..................................................................................
5.3.4.3 Model misspecification ..........................................................
5.3.4.4 Model comparison .................................................................
5.3.4.5 Conclusion.............................................................................
5.3.5 Scale evaluation and replication ...................................................
5.3.5.1 Convergent and discriminant validity .....................................
5.3.5.2 Known-groups validity ...........................................................
5.3.5.3 Concurrent validity.................................................................
xi
Table of contents
5.3.5.4 Shared variance validity ........................................................
5.3.6 English version of CCQ.................................................................
5.4 Discussion..............................................................................................
5.4.1 The strengths of the CCQ .............................................................
5.4.2 Some limitations and future research directions ...........................
5.5 Bibliography ...........................................................................................
5.6 Appendix 1: description of the content of each of the ten climate
dimensions ...................................................................................................
Chapter 6: putting the pieces together ....................................................
6.1 Introduction and overview ......................................................................
6.2 What is crucial in developing a positive attitude towards change?
Major findings and contributions to the field of ODC ....................................
6.2.1 Planned change perspective as the dominant theme of this
dissertation ............................................................................................
6.2.2 Conceptual framework ..................................................................
6.2.3 Major findings ...............................................................................
6.2.3.1 Openness to change as outcome ..........................................
6.2.3.2 Readiness for change as outcome ........................................
6.2.4 Contributions.................................................................................
6.2.4.1 The meso-level or multilevel paradigm ..................................
6.2.4.2 Advantages of multilevel techniques in the case of
hierarchically nested data..................................................................
6.2.4.3 Why not measuring organizational, team, and individual
readiness for change? .......................................................................
6.2.4.4 A positive organizational change approach ...........................
6.2.4.5 Readiness for change a multifaceted concept: cognitive,
emotional and intentional components of readiness for change........
6.3 Evaluation of the change climate questionnaire .....................................
6.3.1 The value-added and psychometric quality of the CCQ................
6.3.1.1 Content validity ......................................................................
6.3.1.2 Construct validity ...................................................................
6.3.1.3 Concurrent validity.................................................................
6.3.2 Weighing the CCQ against related instruments ............................
6.3.2.1 Existing instruments ..............................................................
6.3.2.2 The Holt et al. (2007a) questionnaire as an alternative .........
6.4 Assessment of dissertation methodology ...............................................
xii
Table of contents
6.4.1 Two dominant streams of research...............................................
6.4.1.1 Knowledge claims..................................................................
6.4.1.2 Strategies of inquiry...............................................................
6.4.2 Reasons why we adopted a postpositivist paradigm to
research.................................................................................................
6.5 Limitations of the present design and challenges and suggestions
for future research........................................................................................
6.5.1 Limitations inherent to methodology and analyses of data ..........
6.5.1.1 The issue of internal validity ..................................................
6.5.1.2 The issue of predictive validity...............................................
6.5.1.3 Common method variance (CMV) a threat for the study’s
construct validity: urban legend or truth?...........................................
6.5.1.4 Have we been measuring the same constructs in different
settings: the issue of measurement invariance..................................
6.5.1.5 The temporal dimension ........................................................
6.5.1.6 What about the effects of multicollinearity in this study
6.5.2 Issues with respect to the theoretical and conceptual
frameworks used ...................................................................................
6.5.2.1 What about the relevance of content of change in the
studies performed in chapters 2, 3 and 5: Is there a problem of
misspecification? ...............................................................................
6.5.2.2 Resistance to change as a resource for positive change? ....
6.5.2.3 Is it not just replication of existing conceptual frameworks
and theories?.....................................................................................
6.6 Lessons and practical implications drawn from this dissertation ............
6.6.1 Actionable knowledge and appreciative inquiry ............................
6.6.1.1 What is actionable knowledge ...............................................
6.6.1.2 OD and action research.........................................................
6.6.1.3 How and for what purposes should practitioners use the
CCQ ..................................................................................................
6.6.2 Lessons for practitioners...............................................................
6.6.2.1 The centrality of change communication: Some practical
guidelines ..........................................................................................
6.6.2.2 Do we need to honour the past?............................................
6.6.3 Conclusion ....................................................................................
6.7 Bibliography ...........................................................................................
Glossary key terms .....................................................................................
xiii
List of tables
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1.1: Facets and elements to describe similarities and
differences in attitudes toward change....................................
TABLE 1.2: Summary results facet analysis ..............................................
TABLE 2.1: Study variables and correlations .............................................
TABLE 2.2: Factor loadings of items on their respective constructs...........
TABLE 2.3: Goodness of fit indices of models ...........................................
TABLE 2.4: Dominance analysis with variable sets....................................
TABLE 3.1: Tests of measurement invariance for readiness for
change constructs and independent variables ........................
TABLE 3.2: Means, standard deviations, interrater agreement
indices, and correlation table of individual-level and
group-level variables ...............................................................
TABLE 3.3: Results of HLM for hypothesis testing.....................................
TABLE 4.1: Means and standard deviations of openness to change
for threatening character, trust in executive
management, trust in supervisor and participation
(adjusted for the effects of the covariates), Study 1 ...............
TABLE 4.2: Means and standard deviations of openness to change
for trust in executive management and history of
change (adjusted for the effects of the covariates),
Study 2....................................................................................
TABLE 5.1: Results content adequacy test ................................................
TABLE 5.2: Exploratory factor analysis internal context factors .................
TABLE 5.3: Exploratory factor analyses change specific process
factors .....................................................................................
TABLE 5.4: Exploratory factor analysis readiness for change
dimensions (outcomes) ...........................................................
TABLE 5.5: Summary of confirmatory factor analyses ...............................
TABLE 5.6: Summary correlations between context, process and
outcome variables (Study 3, n = 1285) ...................................
TABLE 5.7: Summary tests convergent – discriminant validity ..................
TABLE 5.8: Summary known-groups differences.......................................
TABLE 5.9: Summary OLS regression analyses........................................
TABLE 5.10: Summary interrater agreement indices for change
climate scales .........................................................................
TABLE 6.1: Synthesis chapters: Short content type of paper, valueadded, research design and major findings ............................
xv
List of tables
TABLE 6.2: Convergent and discriminant validity of CCQ..........................
TABLE 6.3: Summary of the reliability and validity evidence for
existing readiness for change instruments ..............................
xvi
List of figures
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1.1: Conceptual framework ............................................................
FIGURE 2.1: Hypothesized model (M1, partially mediated model) ..............
FIGURE 2.2: Best fitting model (M5) ............................................................
FIGURE 4.1: Interaction effect of trust in executive management and
history of change on openness to change...............................
FIGURE 5.1: Classification of climate dimensions.......................................
FIGURE 61: Synthesis chapters: Short content, type of paper, valueadded, research design and major findings ............................
FIGURE 6.1: Overview general framework of dissertation ...........................
FIGURE 6.2: Synthesis of major findings in dissertation ..............................
FIGURE 6.3: Working model ........................................................................
FIGURE 6.4: Under which conditions is participation most effective? ..........
xvii
List of publications
LIST OF PUBLICATIONS AND CONFERENCE
PRESENTATIONS
Articles
Bouckenooghe D., & Devos G. (2006). Individual and organizational facets of
change in the public and private sectors: A comparative study. The Asia
Pacific Journal of Public Administration, Vol 28(2), 1-29.
Devos G., Buelens M., & Bouckenooghe D. (2007). The contribution of content,
context, and process in understanding openness to organizational change:
Two experimental simulation studies. The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol
147(6), 607-630.
Bouckenooghe D., & Devos G. Ready or not…? What’s the relevance of a meso
level approach to the study of readiness for change. Under review: Journal of
Applied Social Psychology.
Bouckenooghe D., & Devos G. Psychological change climate as a crucial catalyst
of readiness for change. Under review: The Journal of Social Psychology
[Best paper conference proceedings Academy of Management Conference
2008]
Bouckenooghe D., & Devos G. The change climate questionnaire: Development
of a new instrument. Under review: The Journal of Psychology:
Interdisciplinary and Applied.
Working papers
Bouckenooghe, D., & Devos, G. (2006). Individual and organizational facets of
change in the public and private sector: A comparative study. Vlerick
Leuven Gent Management School 2006/36.
Bouckenooghe, D., & Devos, G. (2007). The role of process, context and
individual characteristics in explaining readiness for change: A multilevel
analyses. Working Paper Series Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School
2007/12.
xix
List of publications
Bouckenooghe, D., & Devos, G. (2007). Psychological change climate as a
catalyst of readiness for change: A dominance analysis. Working Paper
Series Ghent University 2007/483.
Bouckenooghe, D., & Devos, G. (2008). The change climate questionnaire: Scale
development. Working Paper Series Ghent University 2008/511.
Bouckenooghe, D., Devos, G., & Van den Broeck, H. (2008). Ready or not..?
What’s the relevance of a meso level approach to the study of readiness for
change. Working Paper Series Ghent University 2008/512.
Conference presentations, summer schools and doctoral workshops
May 9-12, 2007
EAWOP, 13th European Congress on Work and Organizational Psychology,
Stockholm, Sweden. [1 paper accepted]
June 18-23, 2007
HHL Summer School ‘Writing for Scholarly Publication’, Leipzig.
August 3-5, 2007
AOM, 67th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Philadelphia,
USA. Participation OMT/ODC/MOC doctoral student consortium.
August 3-8, 2007
AOM, 67th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Philadelphia,
USA. [1 paper accepted and presented]
August 8-13, 2008
AOM, 68th Annual Meeting of Academy of Management, Anaheim, USA. [3
papers accepted and presented]
List of international peer reviewed publications not related to
doctoral research
Bouckenooghe D., & Devos G. (forthcoming – special issue). An exploratory study
on principals’ conceptions about their role as school leaders. Leadership and
Policy in Schools.
xx
List of publications
Cools E., Van den Broeck H., & Bouckenooghe, D. (forthcoming). Cognitive styles
and person-environment fit: Investigating the consequences of cognitive
(mis)fit. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology.
Buelens M., Van de Woestyne M., Mestdagh S., & Bouckenooghe D. (2008).
Methodological issues in negotiation research: A state-of-the-art-review.
Group Decision and Negotiation, Vol 17(4), 321-345.
Engels N., Hotton G., Devos G., Bouckenooghe D., & Aelterman A. (2008).
Principals in schools with a positive school culture. Educational Studies, Vol
34(3), 159-174.
Bouckenooghe D., Vanderheyden K., Van Laethem S., Mestdagh S. (2007).
Cognitive motivation correlates of coping style in decisional conflict. The
Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, Vol 141(6), 605-626.
Bouckenooghe D., De Clercq D., Willem A., & Buelens M. (2007). An assessment
of validity in entrepreneurship research. The Journal of Entrepreneurship, Vol
16(2), 147-171.
Devos G., Bouckenooghe D., Engels N., Hotton G., & Aelterman A. (2007). An
assessment of well-being of principals in Flemish primary schools. Journal of
Educational Administration, Vol 45(1), 33-61.
Bouckenooghe D., Cools E., Vanderheyden K., & Van den Broeck H. (2005). In
search for the Heffalump: An exploration of the cognitive style profiles among
Flemish
entrepreneurs.
Journal
of
Applied
Management
and
Entrepreneurship, Vol 10(4), 58-75.
Bouckenooghe D., Buelens M., Fontaine J., & Vanderheyden K. (2005). The
prediction of stress by values and value conflict. The Journal of Psychology:
Interdisciplinary and Applied, Vol 139(4), 369-382.
xxi
Samenvatting
Samenvatting promotieonderzoek
Ongeacht of het nu kleinschalige of grootschalige verandering
betreft, de nadruk binnen dit promotieonderzoek ligt op hoe cognities,
gevoelens en intenties van werknemers tegenover verandering beïnvloed
worden. De aanhoudende globalisering, het inkorten van de levenscyclus
van producten, de toenemende snelheid waarmee technologische
vernieuwingen op de markt worden geïntroduceerd, en de stijgende eisen
van consumenten, maken dat veranderingen prominent aanwezig zijn
binnen
organisaties.
Bijgevolg
is
het
succesvol
managen
van
veranderingsprocessen een belangrijk gegeven binnen iedere organisatie
om met te concurrentie te kunnen wedijveren (Ten Have, 2003; Ten Have
& Ten Have, 2004; Wissema, Messer, Wijers, 1991). Hoewel heel wat
literatuur beschikbaar is over de topic dienen we op te merken dat het
merendeel van dit onderzoek zich nagenoeg heeft toegelegd op de
bestudering
van
systemen
of
de
technische
kant
van
het
veranderingsproces (Clegg & Walsh, 2004; Iverson, 1996). Ondanks deze
wijdverspreide literatuur waren we verrast om te vernemen dat nagenoeg
70 procent van de veranderingsprojecten mislukken of niet in slagen om
de vooropgestelde doeleinden te verwezenlijken (Beer & Nohria, 2000;
Clegg
&
Walsh,
2004).
Daarnaast
is
ons
opgevallen
dat
veranderingsagenten vooral de menselijke component aanduiden als de
belangrijke factor die bijdraagt tot een succesvol of tegenvallend
veranderingsproject. Kortom, wat deze studies ons leren is dat ondanks
de opgebouwde kennis er een sterke behoefte aanwezig is om tot een
beter inzicht te komen wat mensen aanzet tot weerstand tegenover
verandering of veranderingsbereidheid (Backer, 1995; Bovey & Hede,
2001; Iverson, 1996; Diamond, 1995; Ford, Ford, & D’Amelio, 2008;
Vakola & Nikolaou, 2005). Eigenlijk komt dit neer op de vraag wat
beïnvloedt of vormt mensen hun attitude tegenover verandering? Dus
samengevat is de eerste onderzoeksvraag die uitvoerig wordt behandeld
xxiii
Samenvatting
in
deze
thesis
‘Welke
zijn
de
cruciale
antecedenten
van
veranderingsbereidheid?’.
Sterk samenhangend met de menselijke component binnen
verandering
is
veranderingsklimaat.
Onder
de
praktijkmensen
en
academici bestaat er immers een algemene consensus dat een
veranderingsproject staat of valt met het veranderingsklimaat binnen de
organisatie
(Schneider,
Brief,
&
Guzzo,
1996;
Tierney,
1999).
Organisatieklimaat is de organisatielijm die moet verhinderen dat de
organisatie uiteen valt in tijden van onzekerheid waaronder grootschalige
organisatieverandering
(Duck,
1993).
Veranderingsklimaat
in
dit
promotieonderzoek wordt gedefinieerd als de algemene context en de
specifieke procesfactoren die gepaard gaan met verandering. Hoewel er
voldoende instrumenten zijn die dit fenomeen meten (Belasco, 1990;
Stewart, 1994), is het aantal instrumenten dat voldoet aan de vereiste
psychometrische criteria van betrouwbaarheid en validiteit vrij beperkt. Dit
tekort aan goede meetinstrumenten heeft ons aangespoord om een
psychometrisch betrouwbaar instrument te ontwikkelen dat zowel de
context (i.e., organisatiecontext waaronder verandering voorkomt) als de
procesfactoren van verandering (i.e., hoe met specifieke verandering
wordt
omgegaan
en
hoe
deze
wordt
geïmplementeerd),
en
veranderingsbereidheid in kaart brengt (Pettigrew, Woodman, & Cameron,
2001). Dus de tweede doelstelling van deze studie is de ontwikkeling van
een tool dat veranderingsklimaat meet. Beide doelstellingen worden
behandeld in zes hoofdstukken: twee hoofdstukken hebben een
conceptueel karakter (hoofdstukken 1 en 6) en vier artikels hebben een
empirische inhoud (hoofdstukken 2, 3, 4, 5). Wat volgt is de samenvatting
van elk hoofdstuk waarbij kort de inhoud en de belangrijkste conclusies
worden geschetst.
Hoewel de focus binnen dit onderzoek naar veranderingsbereidheid
gaat, handelt hoofdstuk 4 over openheid tot verandering, een construct dat
conceptueel verwant is met veranderingsbereidheid. Binnen deze thesis
was hoofdstuk 4 de eerste in een reeks van studies, en heeft gefungeerd
xxiv
Samenvatting
als de basis voor de ontwikkeling en verfijning van het centrale construct
veranderingsbereidheid. Dus in de grond kan openheid tot verandering
opgevat worden als een eerste ruwe meting van veranderingsbereidheid
met een sterke nadruk op de cognitieve component.
In hoofdstuk 1 nemen we de literatuur van attitudes tegenover
verandering door en komen we tot de vaststelling dat het veld gekenmerkt
wordt door een gebrek aan theoretische integratie. Dit tekort aan sterk
onderbouwde theorieën en conceptuele kaders heeft geleid tot een
conceptueel doolhof waarbij academici continu de betekenis, de labels en
de
definities
van
gerelateerde
maar
fundamenteel
verschillende
constructen door elkaar halen (i.e. veranderingsbereidheid, weerstand
tegenover
verandering,
cynisme
tegenover
organisatieverandering,
betrokkenheid bij verandering, openheid tot verandering, etc.). Om onze
bijdrage tot deze conceptuele onduidelijkheid tegen te gaan en de verdere
fragmentatie van het veld te vermijden, zijn we de mening toegedaan dat
de grenzen van onderzoek naar attitudes tegenover verandering duidelijk
afgebakend moeten worden. Daarom gaat dit hoofdstuk uitgebreid in op
de positionering van het kernconcept ‘attitudes tegenover verandering’
binnen de brede literatuur over organisatieverandering. In het bijzonder
kijken we hoe dit concept zich verhoudt tot vier theoretische benaderingen
betreffende verandering: (1) de aard van verandering, (2) het niveau van
verandering,
(3)
het
onderliggend
mensbeeld,
en
(4)
het
onderzoeksperspectief. Daarnaast om onze kennis van de concepten die
verwijzen naar attitudes tegenover verandering uit te diepen werd een
facet analyse uitgevoerd om een vergelijking te maken tussen
gelijkenissen en verschillen tussen de concepten en dit op verschillende
facetten (vb., onderliggend psychologisch mechanisme, meetfocus,
conceptueel niveau). Op basis van dit literatuuroverzicht, de bevindingen
van onze facet analyse, en de recente aanbevelingen binnen onderzoek
naar verandering, beschrijven we waarom we onderzoek doen naar
xxv
Samenvatting
attitudes tegenover verandering, en formuleren we het conceptuele
raamwerk dat gebruikt werd doorheen onze studies.
De doelstelling binnen hoofdstuk 2 is onderzoek naar de relatie
tussen psychologisch veranderingsklimaat (i.e., vertrouwen in top
management, historiek van verandering, participatief management, en
kwaliteit van veranderingscommunicatie) en veranderingsbereidheid. Door
middel van een grootschalige bevraging afgenomen binnen 53 Vlaamse
instellingen en organisaties uit de publieke en private sector, hebben de
auteurs in totaal 1559 ingevulde vragenlijsten ingezameld. Structurele
vergelijkingsmodellen werden gebruikt om de hypothesen te toetsen. Een
positief gepercipieerde veranderingshistoriek, participatief management en
kwaliteitsvolle communicatie van de verandering, hebben positieve
correlaties met vertrouwen in top management. Geen ondersteuning is
gevonden voor de mediërende rol van vertrouwen in top management met
deze drie antecedenten en onze afhankelijke variabelen (i.e. emotionele,
cognitieve en intentionele veranderingsbereidheid). Daarnaast is er
vastgesteld dat voornamelijk de historiek van verandering en de kwaliteit
van de veranderingscommunicatie zowel een effect hebben op de
emotionele en de cognitieve component van veranderingsbereidheid. Het
complexe samenspel tussen de cognities, de gevoelens, en de intenties
betreffende
de
organisatieverandering
bevestigen
dat
veranderingsbereidheid bij voorkeur geoperationaliseerd wordt als een
concept samengesteld uit multipele facetten.
De studie uitgevoerd in hoofdstuk 3 introduceert en test een
multilevel model van veranderingsbereidheid. In het bijzonder gaat dit
artikel in op de invloed van drie context factoren en één proces factor op
veranderingsbereidheid na gecontroleerd te hebben voor diezelfde
variabelen op het niveau van het individu. Door middel van een
grootschalige bevraging doorgevoerd in 84 Belgische organisaties werden
in totaal 2543 antwoorden verzameld. HLM analyses geven een
xxvi
Samenvatting
‘groepsniveau effect’ (i.e., aggregatie op niveau van organisatie) aan voor
de kwaliteit van veranderingscommunicatie op de drie componenten van
veranderingsbereidheid
(emotionele,
cognitieve,
en
intentionele
veranderingsbereidheid). Verder wijzen de resultaten uit dat de individuele
perceptie
van
veranderingshistoriek,
participatief
management,
en
kwaliteit van veranderingscommunicatie positieve correlaties vertonen met
veranderingsbereidheid. Deze vaststellingen worden besproken in relatie
tot de literatuur.
In het vierde hoofdstuk van deze thesis (hoofdstuk 4), gaan de
auteurs de bijdrage na van de inhoud, de context, en het proces van
organisatieverandering
op
openheid
tot
verandering.
De
auteurs
voorspellen dat (a) het bedreigend karakter van de verandering (inhoud),
(b) het vertrouwen in top management (context), (c) het vertrouwen in de
directe baas (context), (d) de veranderingshistoriek (context), en (e) de
participatie in de specifieke verandering (proces) een positief effect
hebben op openheid tot verandering. De auteurs hebben hun hypothesen
afgetoetst in 2 afzonderlijke studies (N = 828 en N = 835) waarbij gebruik
wordt gemaakt van een experimenteel opzet onder de vorm van
scenariostudies. In de eerste studie wordt er teruggevallen op een
compleet gerandomiseerd 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 factorieel opzet. De bevindingen in
deze studie geven significante hoofdeffecten aan voor inhoud, context, en
proces. In een tweede studie worden twee contextvariabelen opgenomen
in een compleet gerandomiseerd 2 x 2 factorieel opzet. De resultaten van
deze studie wijzen op een significant hoofd- en interactie-effect: Openheid
tot verandering neemt heel sterk af indien de veranderingshistoriek en
vertrouwen in top management laag zijn.
Terwijl
hoofdstukken
2,
3
en
4
ingaan
op
de
eerste
onderzoeksdoelstelling binnen het doctoraat, wordt binnen hoofdstuk 5
de
tweede
doelstelling
psychometrisch
behandeld:
betrouwbaar
de
instrument
ontwikkeling
dat
van
toelaat
een
het
xxvii
Samenvatting
veranderingsklimaat binnen een organisatie in kaart te brengen. Aan de
hand van een stapsgewijze procedure (Hinkin, 1998) bespreekt dit artikel
het ontwerp en de evaluatie van een vragenlijst (Change Climate
Questionnaire, CCQ) die aangewend kan worden om beter een beeld te
schetsen van de interne context, de veranderingsprocesfactoren, en
veranderingsbereidheid binnen een organisatie. De auteurs beschrijven
vier studies die aan de basis liggen van de ontwikkeling van dit instrument
samengesteld uit 42 items. In totaal zijn meer dan 3000 organisatieleden
uit zowel de publieke en private sector betrokken in het valideringsproces
van de CCQ. Op basis hiervan onderscheiden we vijf factoren die
verwijzen naar de interne context, drie factoren die wijzen op
veranderingsprocessen, en drie dimensies die veranderingsbereidheid
meten.
In het afsluitende hoofdstuk (hoofdstuk 6) integreren we de
belangrijkste bevindingen en conclusies op basis van het totale
onderzoek. Volgende thema’s passeren de revue binnen dit hoofdstuk: (1)
een poging tot het beantwoorden van de centrale onderzoeksvraag ‘Welke
zijn de cruciale antecedenten die de attitude tegenover verandering
beïnvloeden?’ (hoofdstukken 2, 3, 4); (2) een beoordeling van de kwaliteit
van de nieuw ontwikkelde vragenlijst die peilt naar veranderingsklimaat
(hoofdstuk 5); (3) een evaluatie van de gehanteerde methodologie; (4) een
bespreking van de beperkingen, uitdagingen, en aanbevelingen voor
toekomstig onderzoek; en tot slot (5) een overzicht van de belangrijkste
implicaties en leerpunten die voortvloeien uit het doctoraat.
BIBLIOGRAFIE
Backer, T.E. (1995). Assessing and enhancing readiness to change: Implications
for technology transfer. In T.E. Backer, S.L. David, & G. Soucy (Eds.),
Reviewing the behavioral science knowledge base on technology transfer
(pp. 21–41). Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Beer, M., & Nohria, N. 2000. Cracking the code of change. Harvard Business
Review, 78, 133–141.
xxviii
Samenvatting
Belasco, J.A. (1990). Teaching an elephant to dance: Empowering change in
your organization. New York: Crown Publishers.
Bovey, W.H., & Hede, A. (2001). Resistance to organizational change: The role
of cognitive and affective processes. Leadership and Organization
Development Journal, 22, 372–382.
Clegg, C., & Walsh, S. (2004). Change management: Time for a change.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13, 217–239.
Diamond, M.A. (1986). Resistance to change: A psychoanalytic critique of
Argyris and Schon’s contribution to organizational theory and intervention.
Journal of Management Studies, 23, 543–562.
Duck, J.D. (1993). Managing change: The art of balancing. Harvard Business
Review, 71, 109–118.
Ford, J.D., Ford, L.W., & D’Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change. The rest of
the story. Academy of Management Review, 33, 326 –377.
Hinkin, T.R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in
survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 104–121.
Iverson, R.D. (1996). Employee acceptance of organizational change: The role of
organizational commitment. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 7, 122–149.
Pettigrew, A.M., Woodman, R.W., & Cameron, K.S. (2001). Studying
organizational change and development: Challenges for future research.
Academy of Management Journal, 44, 697–713.
Schneider, B., Brief, A. P., & Guzzo, R. A. 1996. Creating a climate and culture
for sustainable organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24, 7–
19.
Stewart, T.A. (1994). Rate your readiness for change. Fortune, 129, 106–110.
Ten Have, S. (2003). Voorbeeldig veranderen: Een kwestie van organiseren.
Amsterdam, NL: Uitgeverij Nieuwezijds.
Ten Have, S., & Ten Have, W. (2004). Het boek verandering: Over doordacht
werken aan de organisatie. Amsterdam, NL: Uitgeverij Nieuwezijds.
Tierney, P. (1999). Work relations as a precursor to a psychological climate for
change: The role of work group supervisors and peers. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 12, 120–133.
Vakola, M., & Nikolaou, I. (2005). Attitudes toward organizational change: What
is the role of employees’ stress and commitment? Employee Relations,
27, 160– 174.
Wissema, J.G., Messer, H.M., & Wijers, G.J. (1991). Angst voor veranderen?
Een mythe! Assen: Van Gorcum.
xxix
Summary
SUMMARY OF DISSERTATION
Whether it involves small- or large-scale changes, the focus of this
dissertation is on what shapes individuals’ thoughts, feelings, and
intentions toward change. Due to ongoing globalization, the shortening of
product life cycles, the pace at which technological innovations are
introduced, and increasing consumer demands, it is clear that changes are
constantly present in organizations. Therefore, successful management of
change processes has become a crucial asset for a company in its
struggle to stay ahead of the competition (Ten Have, 2003; Ten Have &
Ten Have, 2004; Wissema, Messer, & Wijers, 1991). Although a large
body of research and literature is available on the topic of change, the
majority of that research has focused nearly exclusively on the technical or
systems side of the change process (Clegg & Walsh, 2004; Iverson,
1996). In addition, despite the widespread research on change, we were
surprised to learn that approximately 70% of change projects do not reach
their goals (Beer & Nohria, 2000; Clegg & Walsh, 2004). In particular,
when change agents are asked for the reasons for the success or failure
of change, the majority indicate that the human factor is the major
contributor. In short, what we learn from these studies is that despite the
extensive knowledge available on change, there is still a very strong need
for furthering our understanding of why people resist or support change
(Backer, 1995; Bovey & Hede, 2001; Iverson, 1996; Diamond, 1995; Ford,
Ford, & D’Amelio, 2008; Vakola & Nikolaou, 2005). In other words, what
shapes people’s attitudes towards change? Therefore, the first major
research question addressed in this dissertation is ‘what are the crucial
enablers of readiness for change?’
An organization’s climate of change, often called the soft side of
change, reflects the human role in the change process. Among
practitioners and scholars, the general consensus is that climate makes or
breaks a change project (Schneider, Brief, & Guzzo, 1996; Tierney, 1999).
xxxi
Summary
An organization’s climate is the glue that prevents an organization from
falling to pieces during times of great uncertainty such as major
organizational changes (Duck, 1993). A climate of change has been
defined as employees’ perceptions and interpretations of the general
context and the specific process factors that accompany the change.
Although there is no shortage of tools to measure this phenomenon
(Belasco, 1990; Stewart, 1994), very few instruments show good validity
and reliability. This absence of sound measurement tools prompted us to
develop
a
well-validated
instrument
that
captures
the
context
characteristics of change (i.e., the organizational context under which
change occurs), the process characteristics of change (i.e., the way a
specific change is dealt with and implemented), and readiness for change
(Pettigrew, Woodman, & Cameron, 2001). Thus, the second objective of
this dissertation was to develop a tool that measures change climate. Six
chapters cover these two objectives: two of them involve conceptual
papers (chapters 1 and 6), and four papers are empirical in nature
(chapters 2-5). What follows is a summary for each chapter that describes
the content and the major conclusions.
Although the key attitude of interest throughout this dissertation is
readiness for change, chapter 4 deals with openness to change, an
attitude that overlaps conceptually with readiness for change. In this
dissertation, chapter 4 was the first in a sequence of several studies, and it
served as a basis for the further refinement and measurement of the
construct of readiness for change. Basically, openness to change can be
interpreted as a preliminary assessment of readiness for change, with a
strong emphasis on the cognitive component.
In chapter 1, we review the literature on attitudes toward change
and we note a lack of theoretical integration. The dearth of strong
undergirding theories and frameworks has led to the current conceptual
maze in which scholars are continuously mixing the meanings, the labels,
and the definitions of related but fundamentally different constructs (i.e.,
xxxii
Summary
readiness for change, resistance to change, cynicism about organizational
change, commitment to change, openness to change, etc). To avoid
contributing further to this conceptual fuzziness and fragmentation in the
field, we believe that the boundaries of research on people’s attitudes
toward change need to be clearly delineated. Therefore, this chapter
highlights how the central concept of this dissertation, ‘attitudes toward
change,’ is positioned in the organizational change (OC) literature. We do
this by looking at four major theoretical perspectives on change: (1) the
nature of change, (2) the level of change, (3) the underlying view on
human functioning, and (4) the research perspective. Furthermore, to
improve our understanding of the concepts that refer to people’s attitudes
toward change, a facet analysis was performed to compare similarities
and differences between those concepts among several facets (e.g., core
psychological mechanism, measurement focus, conceptual level). Based
on this literature review, the findings from the facet analysis, and recent
recommendations in OC research, we describe the reasons for research
into people’s attitudes toward change, and we formulate the conceptual
framework that was used throughout our studies.
The objective of chapter 2 was to explore the relationship between
the psychological climate of change (i.e., trust in top management, history
of
change,
participatory
management,
and
quality
of
change
communication) and readiness for change. Using a large-scale survey
administered in 53 Flemish organizations in the public and private sectors,
a total of 1,559 responses were collected. Structural equation modeling
was used to test the hypotheses. A positively perceived change history,
participatory management, and high quality change communication
correlated positively with trust in top management. However, trust in top
management did not mediate the relationships hypothesized to exist
between those three antecedent variables and the outcome variables (i.e.,
emotional, cognitive, and intentional readiness for change). In addition, an
organization’s history of change and quality of change communication
xxxiii
Summary
were found to shape organizational members’ emotional and cognitive
readiness for change. The complex interplay between people’s cognitions,
feelings, and their intentions about organizational change confirm that
readiness for change should be conceived as a multifaceted construct.
Finally, this chapter elaborates on how these findings match the existing
literature on organizational development and change.
The study reported in chapter 3 proposes and tests a multilevel
model of readiness for change. More specifically, this chapter examines
the influence of three contextual factors and one process factor on
readiness for change beyond the effects of their eponymous lower-level
equivalents. Using a large-scale survey administered in 84 Belgian
companies, a total of 2,543 responses were collected. Hierarchical Linear
Model analyses revealed a group-level effect for organizational quality of
change communication on the three components of readiness for change:
emotional, cognitive, and intentional. Furthermore, the results indicate that
individuals’ perceptions of history of change, participatory management,
and quality of change communication positively correlate with readiness
for change. These findings are discussed in relation to the literature.
The fourth chapter of this dissertation (chapter 4) examines how
the content, context, and process of organizational transformation
contribute to employees’ openness to change. Prior to this research, the
following factors were predicted to increase openness to change: (a) the
threatening character of organizational change (content), (b) trust in
executive management (context), (c) trust in the supervisor (context), (d)
the history of change (context), and (e) participation in the change effort
(process). These hypotheses were tested in two separate studies (N = 828
and N = 835) using an experimental simulation strategy. The first study
crossed four variables in a completely randomized 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 factorial
design. Results showed significant main effects for content, context, and
process, but no significant interaction effects. A second study, with a
xxxiv
Summary
completely randomized 2 × 2 factorial design, crossed two context
variables. Results showed a significant main effect and an interaction
effect. Thus, openness to change decreases dramatically when history of
change and trust in executive management are low.
While chapters 2-4 deal with the first research question, chapter 5
addresses the second main goal of this dissertation: the development of a
valid and reliable tool that assesses the climate for change. Using a stepby-step procedure (see Hinkin, 1998), this chapter discusses the design
and
evaluation
of
a
self-report
questionnaire
(Change
Climate
Questionnaire; CCQ) that can be used to gauge the internal context of
change, change process factors, and readiness for change. Four studies
were used to develop a psychometrically sound, 42-item assessment tool
that can be administered in organizational settings. More than 3,000
members of organizations, including companies from both the public and
private sectors, participated in the validation procedure of the CCQ. The
information obtained from these analyses yielded five internal context
dimensions, three change process dimensions, and three dimensions of
readiness for change. In sum, these dimensions help scholars and
practitioners in making a comprehensive diagnosis of an organization’s
climate for change.
The final chapter (chapter 6) integrates the most important findings
and conclusions to be drawn from this dissertation. The following topics
are reviewed: (a) an attempt to answer the central research question,
‘What is crucial in shaping people’s attitudes toward change?’ (chapters 24); (b) an assessment of the quality of the newly developed questionnaire
that measures climate of change (chapter 5); (c) an evaluation of the
methodology used; (d) a discussion of the limitations, challenges, and
suggestions for future research; and to conclude, (e) an overview of the
major implications and lessons to be learned from this dissertation.
xxxv
Chapter 1
CHAPTER 1: POSITIONING AND DEFINING CHANGE
RECIPIENTS’ ATTITUDES TOWARD CHANGE IN THE
ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE LITERATURE
ABSTRACT. In this first chapter, we review the literature on
attitudes toward change, having been struck by its lack of theoretical
integration. This situation has resulted in the current conceptual maze,
where scholars are continuously mixing up meanings, labels and
definitions of related but basically different constructs (i.e., readiness for
change, resistance to change, cynicism about organizational change,
commitment to change, openness to change, etc.). To prevent ourselves
from further contributing to this conceptual fuzziness and disintegration
within the field, we believe that it is necessary that the boundaries of our
research into people’s attitudes toward change be clearly delineated.
Therefore, this chapter highlights how the central concept of this
dissertation, ‘attitudes toward change’, is positioned with respect to the OC
literature. More specifically, we do this by looking at four major theoretical
perspectives on change: (1) the nature of change, (2) the level of change,
(3) the underlying view on human functioning, and (4) the research
perspective. Furthermore, to improve our understanding of the concepts
that refer to people’s attitudes toward change, we conducted a facet
analysis that allowed us to compare several facets of similarities and
differences between concepts (e.g., core psychological mechanism,
measurement focus, conceptual level, etc.). Based upon this literature
review, the findings from the facet analysis, and recent recommendations
in OC research, we highlight reasons to conduct research into people’s
attitudes toward change and formulated the conceptual framework that
was used throughout our studies.
1
Chapter 1
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Change rules! Globalization, intensified competition, and the
increased pace of innovation have made it extremely essential but also
enormously challenging for organizations to manage the growing number
of change processes taking place (Burke & Trahant, 2000; Gordon,
Stewart, Sweo, & Luker, 2000). With major organizational changes, new
systems and complex structures have attracted management’s attention,
whereas the soft or people component has often been overlooked (Clegg
& Walsh, 2004).
The purpose of this research project is twofold. First, we pass on to
change strategists and change agents an empirically and theoretically
embedded model of the climate drivers, which may enhance employees’
attitudes about pending organizational change. Secondly, we want to
make an empirical and conceptual contribution to the ‘planned change
perspective’ by looking at change through a positive psychology lens
(Abrahamson, 2004a, 2004b; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). In
doing so, we pay significant attention to the role of an organizational
diagnosis and design a tool for assessing organizational dynamics prior to
instituting changes. To accomplish these goals, we generate a self-report
survey questionnaire that allows for an internal analysis of the
organizational sources available when planning a change.
While examining comprehensive literature on change, we came to
five observations that concern our own research:
- Change literature is characterized by a growing theoretical
pluralism. This pluralism is accompanied by a fragmented
way of thinking, which, in turn, results in the lack of an
integrated change perspective (Beer, Eisenstat, & Spector,
1990).
2
Chapter 1
- The current thinking and practice regarding change tends to
overemphasize the technical side of change, while the
human aspect of change has been systematically ignored
(Clegg & Walsh, 2004).
- The majority of theories about organizational change include
assumptions about what an organization is and its
relationship to its environment (Branch, 2002). To put it
differently, many concepts from organization theory have
been employed to explain change.
- Theories of change at the individual level (the micro
perspective) have received limited attention. Despite this lack
of interest in the micro-level perspective, psychological
factors or human factors have been commonly identified as
causes
and
contributors
to
failure
and
difficulty
in
implementation efforts (Beer & Nohria, 2000; Clegg & Walsh,
2004).
- Several scholars have identified the lack of alignment between
organizational culture and organizational change as a critical
reason for failed change (Heracleous, 2001; Sashkin &
Burke, 1987; Schneider, Brief, & Guzzo, 1996).
These observations were taken into account when accomplishing
the twofold aim of this dissertation. The biggest challenge that we have
confronted is clarification of an integrated perspective to be used
throughout this manuscript. By making a choice between different
paradigms, we describe from which perspective the papers should be read
and interpreted. We believe that such an explanation of the theoretical
view is essential if we are to avoid conceptual ambiguity. By clearly
describing the boundaries of this framework, we have assigned the core
concept ‘attitudes toward change’ a place within the comprehensive body
of change literature.
3
Chapter 1
After describing the theoretical position of our research in this
chapter, we offer an overview of the conceptual maze that features
research of ‘attitudes toward change’. By means of a facet analysis, we
have identified the core essence of the constructs that refer to ‘attitudes
toward change’ (McGrath, 1968).
1.2 UNDERLYING PARADIGMS AND FRAMEWORKS
Several dualities dominate OC literature. These dualities have been
generated by the use of different lenses through which we look at change
(Kondakçi, 2005). These lenses help OC scholars to discuss change in a
more comprehensive way. They have also been very instrumental to the
development of a better understanding of organizational change. In this
paper, we identified four major lenses that represent four dualities and
help position research on ‘attitudes toward change’. In this section, we
describe the following four perspectives: (1) the nature of change (i.e.,
planned or episodic change versus unplanned or continuous change)
(Porras & Silvers, 1991; Weick & Quinn, 1999), (2) the level of change
(i.e., person-centered or organization-centered) (Aktouf, 1992; Bray, 1994;
Pettigrew, Woodman, & Cameron, 2001), (3) the underlying view of
human function (i.e., positive psychology or negative psychology)
(Abrahamson, 2004a, 2004b; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000), and (4)
the research method (i.e., variance or process methods) (Mohr, 1982; Van
de Ven & Poole, 2005). Each of these theoretical perspectives on change
is discussed in relation to the key concept of this dissertation.
1.2.1 Nature of Change
One of the most important contrasts that arise from change
research involves the nature of change or how change emerges and
evolves over time (Porras & Silvers, 1991). Weick and Quinn (1999)
distinguish between change that is episodic, planned, discontinuous and
intermittent, and change that is continuous, unplanned, evolving and
4
Chapter 1
incremental. Planned change or episodic change is an intentional
intervention method for bringing change to an organization and is best
characterized as deliberate, purposeful and systemic (Lippitt, Watson, &
Westley, 1958; Tenkasi & Chesmore, 2003). Continuous or unplanned
change, however, is used to group together organizational changes that
tend to be ongoing, evolving and cumulative. To put it differently,
continuous change is emergent—in contrast with episodic change, which
is the product of deliberate action (Orlikowski, 1996).
Continuous or unplanned and episodic or planned changes differ
also on the basis of the involved members. In general, planned change is
crafted and executed by top management, whereas unplanned change
arises from within and is part of the daily practices of all members in the
organization. Another point of difference between planned change and
unplanned change is that the former incorporates a process of considering
and identifying what change is and how to bring about this change. In
unplanned change, questions that refer to implementation issues (what
change is and how to bring about change) are not as apparent, because
continuous change is situated and grounded in continuing updates for
work processes (Brown & Duguid, 1991) and social practices (Tsoukas,
1996).
In terms of motors of change, we believe that planned change
reflects the teleological approach, whereas unplanned change invokes an
evolutionary approach (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995). According to the
teleological approach, organizations are driven by a purpose or goal, and
their main motivation is to accomplish this goal. Organizations are viewed
as purposeful and adaptive, and change agents have a key role in
planning and implementing the change process (Kezar, 2001). The
teleological
approach
incorporates
all
theories
of
organizational
development and planned change (Golembiewski, 1989). Most of these
models follow a typical programmatic step-by-step sequence. First,
change is initiated as a reaction to a problem that threatens the normal
function of an organization. In the second phase, management diagnoses
5
Chapter 1
the problem. In a third step, the results from the second phase are used to
set new goals. Finally, management plans and implements the change
process in order to accomplish pre-specified targets.
Within this planned change tradition, Lewin’s (1951) three-stage
model of change—entailing the stages ‘unfreeze’, ‘change’, and
‘refreeze’—continues
to
be
a
generic
recipe
for
organizational
development. The first phase of ‘unfreezing’ draws special attention, as it
refers to the key construct of this paper and dissertation (i.e., attitudes
toward change). According to Schein (1996), unfreezing refers to the
attitude of members regarding change and is the stage at which motivation
and readiness for change is created. More recently, Armenakis, Harris and
Feild (1999) introduced a similar model in which the first stage aims at
ensuring
readiness,
followed
by
phases
of
adaptation
and
institutionalization.
Analogous to unplanned or continuous change, change in
evolutionary theories is described as a bundle of incremental adjustments
or improvements occurring in one part of the system. The complexity
theory is one of the best-known mainstream evolutionary theories. As it
relates to OC, complexity theory indicates that organizations, as dynamic
self-organizing systems, are contexts for continuous change (Brown &
Eisenhardt, 1998).
On the basis of the discussion above, we positioned our research
on employees’ attitudes toward change from a planned change
perspective. Many popular change models (e.g., Kotter, 1995) suggest
that employees’ feelings, intentions and thoughts about change (i.e.,
attitude) should be determined before an organization can move ahead
with the planning and implementation of change. It is believed that
employees’ positive attitudes toward change are essential to successful
OC implementation (Yousef, 2000a, 2000b).
6
Chapter 1
ASSUMPTION 1: In this dissertation, attitudes toward change are
embedded in the planned change perspective.
1.2.2 Level of Change
In their review, Quinn, Kahn and Mandl (1994) posited that
organizational change has evolved from four theoretical perspectives:
organizational development, strategic choice, resource dependenceinstitutional
theory,
and
population
ecology.
Both
organizational
development and strategic choice are theories that refer to the teleological
paradigm, and resource dependence-institutional theory and population
ecology are examples of the evolutionary change paradigm. Although
these theories have significantly contributed to the field, they all consider
change at the organizational level. As a result, research dealing with
organizational change has been largely dominated by a macro- or
systems-oriented focus (Judge, Thoresen, Pucik, & Welbourne, 1999).
Characteristics that are examined when considering change at the system
or macro-level include: (1) the order of change, (2) the planning of the
phases of change, (3) the focus of change, (4) the nature of change, and
(5)
the
overall
intervention
strategy,
including
implementation
mechanisms, communication systems, reward systems, etc. (Burke,
2002). This macro-oriented focus often incorporates only one context level
of change (i.e., the organization), whereas the change context resides at
multiple levels (individual, team, organization, industry level, etc.). As
change cascades down through the organization, it is believed to hold
different implications at different levels. Furthermore, at each level, change
is perceived differently (Caldwell et al., 2004). In response to the tendency
to analyze changes at the organizational level alone, several researchers
have called for a more person-centered focus in the analysis of change
(Bray, 1994; Judge et al., 1999).
7
Chapter 1
1.2.2.1 The Cognitive Perspective: A Person-Centered Perspective
Within the person-centered emphasis on change, there is a growing
awareness among OC scholars about the importance of the cognitive
perspective in furthering our understanding of the change process. The
cognitive
approach
focuses
on
processes
such
as
perception,
interpretation and examines the mental models of the organization
members. Lau and Woodman (1995) developed a model in which the
cognitive aspect is highlighted at the individual level. In addition, several
other OC scholars have showed similar interest in this cognitive or sensemaking perspective on change (e.g., Bartunek, Rousseau, Rudolph, &
DePalma, 2006; Ford, Ford, & D’Amelio, 2008; George & Jones, 2001).
These scholars have reported that attitudes toward change are the
outcome of a cognitive understanding of change guided by the person’s
change schema. Such schemas help to organize and integrate changespecific information so that people can generate specific attitudes toward
change. In summary, the cognitive perspective describes a difference
between new and old settings. This difference requires interpretation by
the individual, which, in turn, shapes his/her attitude toward change
(Weber & Manning, 2001). Thus, a core aspect of change at the individual
level involves organizational members’ sense-making and attitudes as
they ensue from this cognitive process. In the literature, we discerned
several concepts that refer to people’s attitudes toward change: readiness
for change, resistance to change, cynicism about organizational change,
openness to change, coping with change, adjustment to change,
acceptance of change, and commitment to change. Later in this chapter,
we elaborate on these concepts.
1.2.2.2 Need for Research into People’s Attitudes toward Change
Based upon the discussion above, we may conclude that a more
person-centered perspective, and in particular ‘a cognitive approach’, is
valuable to OC analysis. Whereas many of the previous approaches
(strategic choice, population ecology, organizational development and
8
Chapter 1
resource-dependency), are based on higher level analyses (organization
or industry), the person-centered perspective brings the individual to the
focus of the change. Therefore, this approach assumes that organizational
change is only possible on the condition that employees are ready to
change their mindsets with regard to a particular event or situation. To
borrow the words of Schneider et al. (1996, p. 7): ‘If people do not change,
there is no organizational change.’ Therefore, a key element of the
success of organizational changes is individual readiness for or openness
to change.
Several
sources
have
indicated
that
many
macro-level
organizational changes have failed in the past simply because they
neglected employees’ attitudes toward change (Beer & Nohria, 2000;
Clegg & Walsh, 2004). For example, Clegg and Walsh (2004) observed a
substantial increase in macro- or system-oriented change practices (e.g.,
total quality management, integrated computer-based technologies,
concurrent engineering, etc.) over the past decade, while noting that the
overall success rate of these practices and techniques has remained
moderate, with some successes but a substantial overall failure rate.
These findings are in line with Bray’s suggestion (1994) that OC scholars
should direct more focus toward analysis of change at the individual level.
To that end, ensuring employees’ positive attitudes toward change is
essential for successful and persistent OC.
1.2.2.3 The Culture Approach: A Meso-Level Perspective
Despite the many new interesting insights that the cognitive
perspective brings to the study of organizational change, it has been guilty
of neglecting higher order contextual mechanisms (Kondakçi, 2005). The
strategy of overemphasizing the sense-making process of individuals, and
taking it as the entire basis for management practices, has increasingly
received criticism. The culture approach, for instance, has criticized the
fact that the cognitive perspective ignores collectivity. Since the focus of
the cognitive perspective is on constructions in the minds of people, it has
9
Chapter 1
lost sight of shared reality. However, without shared symbols, values, and
feelings, it is difficult to accomplish a successful change process (Kezar,
2001). In the culture approach, this collective construction and shared
sense of reality are central.
We believe that the culture approach, with its focus on
organizational culture and climate, helps to fill a gap in OC literature
because it highlights the informal, invisible and soft side of management.
As indicated by both practitioners and scholars, it is culture that makes or
breaks the change initiative (Beer & Nohria, 2000; Heracleous, 2001;
Sashkin & Burke, 1987; Schneider, Brief, & Guzzo, 1996). Another
advantage of the culture approach over single level macro-focused and
person-centered perspectives is that it resides at multiple levels (i.e.,
individual and organizational levels) (Moran & Volkwein, 1992). To put it
differently, the culture approach fits the meso-level or multi-level paradigm
of organizational sciences, and provides an alternative to both
organizational and person-centered level perspectives (House, Rousseau,
& Thomas-Hunt, 1995). To neglect these levels (i.e., individual and
organizational) in the conceptualization and development of research
would lead to incomplete and misdirected modeling (Hitt, Beamish,
Jackson, & Mathieu, 2007; Klein & Kozlowski, 2000; Kozlowski & Klein,
2000). Because reactions toward change reside at different levels within
the organization, we propose that research on ‘attitudes toward change’
can significantly benefit from the adoption of a meso-level approach.
ASSUMPTION 2: In this dissertation, attitudes toward change are
examined from a person-centered perspective and a meso-level
perspective.
10
Chapter 1
1.2.3 Underlying View of Human Function
When we hear of or talk about organizational change, we
immediately think of downsizing, major layoffs, takeovers and social
tragedies. Uncertainty, stress, tension, conflict, anxiety and resistance are
just a couple of words that come to mind when the term change is
mentioned. One of the major reasons why organizational change is rooted
in an atmosphere of pessimism and negativity is probably the ‘change or
die’ metaphor. Far too often, companies believe that there is only one
constant in organizational life: the need to change and innovate on a
continuous basis in order to remain competitive. We suggest that the
change or die metaphor feeds this negative mindset. As a result of this
evolution, the negative view of human and organizational function has
become the prevailing approach for research in the field of OC (Cameron,
2008). For example, consider how introductions in papers on change often
rely on the following negative terminology to describe the scenery of
change:
Globalization, the emergence of e-business, the accelerated
pace at which technological innovations are introduced, and
many other internal and external pressures force an
increasing
number
of
organizations
to
develop
and
implement change initiatives in order to retain their
competitive edge. Despite the increasing pace at which these
changes are introduced, the implementation does not always
deliver the expected successes, even might lead to weaker
performances than before. According to author X the reason
why so many change efforts fall into resistance or failure is
often directly traceable to… (Burke & Trahant, 2000; Clegg &
Walsh, 2004)
11
Chapter 1
Here, we see that it is a huge challenge not to fall into the negative
terminology trap when we write, talk or think about change. Attentive
readers of this manuscript may have noticed that the introduction to this
paper could have been written with a more positive tone.
The fact that this negative perspective has dominated the OC field
is consonant with contemporary literature in psychology (Seligman &
Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Luthans’ (2002a) computer search on literature in
psychology yielded approximately 375,000 articles on negative concepts
(i.e., mental health, illness, depression, anxiety, fear and anger), but only
about 1,000 articles on various positive concepts and capabilities of
people. This negative/positive publication ratio has also been noted by
Walsh, Weber and Margolis (2003). They found that words such as win,
beat, and competition have dominated the business press over the past
two decades whereas words such as virtue, caring, and compassion have
seldom appeared. Scholarly research, therefore, has tended to emphasize
survival, reciprocity and justice, managing uncertainty, overcoming
resistance, achieving profitability, exercising power and influence,
exchange and bargaining with others, or competing successfully against
others, which, at their root, are all non-positive phenomena (Bernstein,
2003).
Given the general emphasis on fixing what is wrong with managers
and employees and concentrating on their weaknesses (i.e., the negative
psychology approach), the positive psychology approach to organizational
behavior is not apparent. At the beginning of the academic field of
organizational behavior, a clear relationship was recognized between the
positive feelings of employees and their performance at the Hawthorne
Western Electric Company (Coch & French, 1948). Since this time, several
popular motivational bestsellers have been positively oriented. Steven
Covey’s “Seven Habits of Highly Effective People”, Spencer Johnson’s
“Who Moved My Cheese”, through Chan Kim’s and Renée Mauborgne’s
“Blue Ocean Strategy”, all proclaim the positive-thinking message.
Although these feel-good books cannot and should not be ignored, they
12
Chapter 1
often lack a sound theoretical framework. Therefore, the time has come to
build bridges between the academic field and these popular businessfocused bestsellers (Luthans, 2002b).
An important step in the direction of positive organizational behavior
is found in the works of Fred Luthans (2002a, 2002b) and the Michigan
Group (Cameron, Dutton, & Quinn, 2003) on positive organizational
scholarship. Just as positive psychology emphasizes exploring optimal
individual psychological states rather than pathological states and
weaknesses (i.e., disease model), positive organizational behavior
(hereafter POB) is driven by theory and research that focuses on people’s
strengths and capabilities as having the potential to be measured,
developed, and effectively managed to improve performance in today’s
workplace (Cameron et al., 2003; Luthans, 2002a). This POB approach
examines the factors that enable, motivate, and change along with positive
phenomena—including how they are facilitated, why they work, how they
can be identified, and how researchers and managers can capitalize on
them (Cameron et al., 2003).
According to Arnold, Cooper and Robertson (1995, p. 167) attitudes
toward change – the key concept of this paper – refer to a person’s
tendency to feel, think or behave in a positive or negative manner toward
that change. In consequence, research on attitudes toward change is
conducted from both the negative and positive scholarship perspectives.
Indeed, while examining this literature, we identified various employees’
responses toward organizational change, ranging from positive attitudes
(i.e., readiness for change, openness to change, etc.) to strong negative
attitudes (i.e., cynicism about organizational change, resistance to change,
etc.). For example, a concept that is clearly embedded in the POB
tradition, readiness for organizational change, refers to individuals’ beliefs,
attitudes, and intentions regarding the extent to which changes are
needed as well as the organization’s capacity to undertake these changes
successfully (Armenakis et al., 1999). Cynicism about organizational
change (hereafter CAOC), however, is a concept that resides at the
13
Chapter 1
negative pole of attitudes toward change. CAOC is described as a
pessimistic outlook regarding the potential success of change efforts,
where those responsible for making change are blamed for being
unmotivated, incompetent, or both (Wanous, Reichers, & Austin, 2000).
Both concepts, together with several other positive and negative attitudes
toward change, are discussed later in this paper.
ASSUMPTION 3: Although the negative psychology perspective has
dominated the field of organizational behavior, attitudes toward
change in this dissertation are embedded in the positive psychology
framework (i.e., readiness for change and openness to change).
1.2.4 Research Method
In general, all definitions of change in organization studies can be
classified as follows: (1) change is conceived as an observed difference
over time in an organizational entity on selected dimensions, or (2) change
is viewed as a narrative that describes a sequence of events wherein
developments unfold (Poole, Van de Ven, Dooley, & Holmes, 2000). Mohr
(1982) distinguishes two research strategies that are closely linked to
these definitions of change: the variance strategy and the process
strategy.
1.2.4.1 The Variance Strategy
The ‘variance strategy’ concentrates on variables that represent the
important aspects or attributes of the subject under study. Variance
research supports predictive models capable of explaining the variation in
such outcome measures as resistance to change, project success, and
user satisfaction. Using the variance approach, the researcher identifies
the independent variables with the implicit purpose of establishing the
conditions necessary to bring about change. A major assumption
14
Chapter 1
underlying the variance method approach is that outcomes will occur
invariably when necessary and sufficient conditions are present. For
example, in a variance-based approach, we hypothesize that project
success is a cause of readiness for change, and that readiness for change
is expected to occur whenever a project is successful. In other words,
readiness for change (the predictor, cause or precursor) is posited as a
necessary condition for the project’s success (the outcome). In short,
variance approaches tend to focus on the antecedents and consequences
of organizational change. In doing so, they consider time as a neutral,
abstract medium independent of the entities and people who experience it.
This static conception of time implies that the object of study or entity is
fixed with varying attributes that have a single meaning over time.
Variance research relies mainly on survey-based and experimental
research designs that are grounded in the statistical general linear model
(Van de Ven & Poole, 2005). Multi-level analysis, which has become an
increasingly popular method over the past decade, studies the effects of
change in a variable at one level of analysis on variables at other levels
(Klein & Kozlowski, 2000).
1.2.4.2 The Process Strategy
Whereas the “variance strategy” is clearly the most effective
research approach for studies that conceptualize change as an observed
difference over time with regard to a selected set of variables, the “process
strategy” is more appropriate for research that conceives of change as a
narrative description of a sequence of events that unfold over time. Rather
than ‘explaining variation’ in outcome variables by identifying significant
predictor variables, process research seeks to explain outcome states as
the result of a preceding sequence of actions (Mohr, 1982; Saberwhal &
Robey, 1995; Van de Ven & Poole, 2005). While variance strategies focus
on cause-effect relationships, process strategies examine the sequence of
events over time as change unfolds within an organizational entity. Since
process methodology conceptualizes change as a progression of events,
15
Chapter 1
stages, cycles, or states in the development or growth of an organization,
the time-ordering of events is critical. Another difference with the variance
strategy is that outcomes are not conceived of as variables that can take
on a range of values, but rather as discrete or discontinuous phenomena
(Markus & Robey, 1988). This implies that entities, attributes, and events
may change in meaning over time. Since ‘outcomes’ in process
approaches have a discontinuous character, outcomes may not occur,
even when the necessary conditions are present. For example, if a
process theory specifies that certain conditions are sufficient to cause user
resistance, it does not follow that the presence of more of these conditions
will produce more resistance. To put it differently, chance and random
events apart from the necessary conditions will play an important role in
explaining causality. In sum, process methods are more complex than
variance explanations, as they account for temporal connections among
events, different time scales in the same process, and the dynamic nature
of processes (Van de Ven & Poole, 2005). As a result, process research
designs have a very eclectic character. They employ a mixture of
approaches that span a continuum ranging from highly qualitative,
interpretative designs to quantitative designs.
In alignment with the dominant literature and research on ‘attitudes
toward change’, we have adopted the variance method to determine how
a set of independent variables increases the level of readiness and
openness to change (e.g., Holt, Armenakis, Feild, & Harris, 2007a).
Therefore, the studies presented in this dissertation have employed
experiments and survey research designs.
ASSUMPTION 4: Because the major objective of this dissertation is
the study of the antecedents of employees’ readiness for change, the
variance
method
perspective.
16
approach
is
the
most
effective
research
Chapter 1
Having positioned our study of attitudes toward change with respect
to four major lenses within the OC literature, the second part of this paper
addresses the different concepts encountered in the literature that refer to
attitudes toward change. First, we briefly discuss the historical background
of research into attitudes toward change. Subsequently, we highlight two
constructs that have dominated the field over the past decade: resistance
to change and readiness for change. Finally, by means of facet analysis,
we compare all concepts that refer to people’s attitudes toward change. In
doing so, we hope to add some structure to the conceptual jungle that
characterizes our field of research.
1.3 CONCEPTUAL OVERVIEW OF ATTITUDES TOWARD
CHANGE
1.3.1 A Brief Word about the History
The idea that attitudes toward change are crucial to the successful
implementation of change has a long tradition. In the 1920s, Mary Parker
Follet pointed out that managers should guard against dismissing
employees’ potentially valid concerns about proposed changes:
…we shouldn’t put to… workers finished plans in order
merely to get their consent. …one of two things is likely to
happen, both bad: either we shall get a rubber-stamped
consent and thus lose what they might contribute to the
problem in question, or else we shall find ourselves with a
fight on our hands – an open fight or discontent seething
underneath (Piderit, 2000, p. 784).
Despite early interest in this topic, it was not until the late 1940s that
‘resistance to change’ drew the attention of OC scholars. Cited as one of
the most influential studies of organizational change, the classic study by
17
Chapter 1
Coch and French (1948) at the Harwood Manufacturing Plant laid the
foundation for modern change studies (Bernerth, 2004). This study
examined how to overcome resistance to change.
Readiness for change, the opposite pole of resistance, was first
mentioned by Jacobson (1957) in a paper presented at a symposium on
preventive and social psychiatry. In that paper, readiness is posited as the
opposite of resistance to change. This polarization between readiness for
change and resistance to change typifies the positive-negative attitude
distinction and reflects the positive-negative mindset in scholarly research
(Cameron, 2008).
In reviewing this literature on ‘attitudes toward change’, we were
struck by two observations. Although readiness for change was introduced
in 1957, a comprehensive and theoretically sound conceptualization of the
idea was only provided at the beginning of the 1990s by Armenakis, Harris
and Mossholder (1993). The number of studies produced in the period
between the introduction of the term and the Armenakis et al. paper is
scant in comparison with the work published on resistance to change. A
second observation is that, in addition to both concepts, several other
constructs have entered the stage: cynicism about organizational change
(e.g., Wanous, Reichers, & Austin, 2000), openness to change (e.g.,
Wanberg & Banas, 2000), coping with change (e.g., Judge et al., 1999),
acceptance of change (e.g., Iverson, 1996), commitment to change (e.g.,
Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002), and adjustment to change (e.g., Callan,
Gallois, Mayhew, Grice, Tluchowska, & Boyce, 2007). On the basis of
these observations, the main objective of this paper is to create clarity
amidst this maze of concepts by looking at similarities and differences
across these ‘attitudes toward change’.
18
Chapter 1
1.3.2 Readiness for Change and Resistance to Change
The Coch and French study (1948) on ‘Overcoming resistance to
change’ is a milestone inquiry that opened doors for psychologists in the
fields of organizational change and organizational development by
indicating that successful organizational change is not only a matter of
macro-level interventions but also incorporates human processes. Despite
the indisputable value of that study for both ODC scholars and
practitioners, we believe that the concept of resistance to change is in part
responsible for the limited progress made toward understanding
employees’ reactions and attitudes toward change.
1.3.2.1 Problems with Research on Resistance to Change
Resistance to Change: We Lack Good Textbook Definitions. The
concept of ‘resistance to change’ has become a standard subject in
management textbooks (Dent & Goldberg, 1999). In browsing several of
these textbooks (e.g. Aldag & Stearns, 1991; Dubrin & Ireland, 1993;
Griffin, 1993; Kreitner, 1992; Schemerhorn, 1989), we found that the
authors consider resistance to change as a given (of almost axiomatic
proportions), but do not define it. Although those texts are similar in their
description of causes of resistance to change and ways of overcoming it,
the lack of definition and theory has hindered further progress of the
research area.
Resistance to Change: A Fact of Life? Although half a century has
passed since the groundbreaking work by Coch and French, the
knowledge—or should we say, ‘conventional wisdom’—about resistance to
change has not been significantly altered (Dent & Goldberg, 1999). It can
also be said that some of the underlying assumptions regarding resistance
to change are responsible for leaving important questions unanswered
and, in consequence, have hindered the development of our knowledge
about the role of the human factor in organizational change.
19
Chapter 1
According to Krantz (1999), resistance to change has been
assumed to be a fact of life. In our experience, this assumption does not
correctly represent reality. Employees do not resist change; rather, they
experience aversion to the uncertainty and stress that emerges from
change as they consider possible losses in status, autonomy and
economic security (Dent & Goldberg). Difonzo and Bordia (1998), for
instance, observed that one of the most difficult experiences for
employees when confronted with change is the uncertainty associated
with the process and outcome. Lack of knowledge concerning how the
change is going to affect their professional growth opportunities, their
training requirements, and their job position can create a significant
amount of stress for employees. In sum, uncertainty is the major source of
psychological strain that blocks the acceptance of change (Bordia, Hunt,
Paulsen, Tourish, & Difonzo, 2004).
Resistance to Change: Too Negative of a View on Human Function.
The idea that resistance is a fact of life and that it is management’s task to
overcome resistance is strongly connected to the negative psychology
view of human function. We have noticed that studies of the human side of
change have strongly concentrated on negative reactions toward change
and how these reactions might be overcome (e.g., Bommer, Rich, &
Rubin, 2005; Coch & French, 1948; Diamond, 1986; Msweli-Mbanga &
Potwana, 2006; Lawrence, 1954; Oreg, 2006; Regar, Mullane, Gustafson,
& Demarie, 1994; Sherman et al., 2007; Wanous et al., 2000).
This negative psychological view is limited in its scope, since it
covers only one part of human function (i.e., weaknesses and malfunction
versus strengths and optimal function). Due to this one-sided emphasis,
other interesting research areas may have been left unexplored. For
instance, a promising path for research is the proactive prevention of
resistance to change, as opposed to the prevailing, reactive approach to
overcoming resistance to change. In sum, we suggest abandonment of the
negative psychological perspective and put forth that more focus be
directed toward research that provides us with valuable knowledge about
20
Chapter 1
how to generate employee support and enthusiasm for proposed changes
(e.g., Armenakis et al., 1993; Cameron, 2008; Dent & Goldberg, 1999;
Jacobson, 1957; Piderit, 2000). This need for and interest in the positive
side of responses toward change is characterized by research into
people’s readiness for change (Armenakis et al., 1993).
Resistance to Change: A Social Construction by Management. A
final remark should be made regarding the overstated emphasis of much
research on adopting a management-driven or top-down approach to
resistance (Bartunek, 1993; Dent & Goldberg, 1999; Ford et al., 2008).
Any employee behavior not in alignment with management’s attempts has
been advanced as a major explanation for the failure of change. In many
change projects, management laments that ‘resistance to change’ is the
reason why change does not deliver expected successes. In some
situations, this may indeed be true. In many other cases, however,
resistance to change by employees can be a purposeful tool. Firstly, it
allows management to cover their personally weak performances.
Secondly, it helps put pressure on employees to accept the change
program.
Although this behavior may seem unethical (and it probably is), we
should be careful about judging management too quickly. We believe that
the psychological mechanism ‘self-serving bias’ can partly explain this
egocentric demeanor (Sedikides, Campbell, Reeder, & Elliot, 1998). The
concept of self-serving bias suggests that management has the tendency
to attribute its own successes to internal factors while placing the blame
for the failure of change on external factors, in this case, employee
resistance. Whether or not this mechanism explains management’s
attitude, employees are not insensitive to this kind of behavior. Change
recipients do not obediently accept and execute everything that
management tells them to do. On the contrary, they often interpret the
pressure to change and promotion of certain change management
programs as a hidden agenda advanced by the management in order to
cover up personal mistakes or advance their professional careers (Ford et
21
Chapter 1
al., 2008). Therefore, it should not come as a surprise that employees
being pushed into those changes, feeling that they have limited control
and autonomy over the change process, tend to resist (Goldstein, 1988).
One could even argue that this resistance reaction is one of the few ways
in which employees can gain back some control over the process (Clegg &
Walsh, 2004).
In summary, many managers tend to attribute the failure of change
to employees’ resistance to change. Although this attribution process can
be explained in part by the self-serving bias mechanism, it remains a
useful tool at the management’s disposal, which they can employ to
safeguard their own careers or put pressure on employees to change. In
general, employees that experience such pressure, especially when
combined with a lack of control over the change process, will try to escape
this feeling simply by resisting the change.
1.3.2.2 Reflections About Readiness for Change
Unity in Conceptualization? The most cited definition referring to
people’s readiness for change is that from Armenakis et al. (1993).
“Readiness is reflected in organizational members’ beliefs, attitudes and
intentions regarding the extent to which changes are needed and the
organization’s capacity to successfully make those changes (p. 681)”. It is
the cognitive precursor to behaviors that either resist or support change.
Based upon a discussion by Backer (1995), we draw the following
conclusions from this description.
a) A psychological state of mind. Our first conclusion is that
readiness is a state-of-mind or a psychological process that
may vary due to changing internal or external circumstances.
To put this differently, it is not a fixed element of individuals or
systems. In essence, readiness is manageable (Holt et al.,
2007a), a state or momentum built by change leaders,
22
Chapter 1
managers and HR professionals. It is a dynamic force whose
presence or absence determines the ultimate success or failure
of a transformational effort (Jansen, 2000).
b) An individual-level construct? Although readiness reflects an
individual’s unique interpretation of changes (Chonko, Jones,
Roberts, & Dubinsky, 2002), the creation of organizational or
system
readiness
for
change
goes
beyond
individual
perspectives. Individuals arrive at judgments about readiness
by considering their own attitudes as well as those to which
they are exposed, in a social context (Armenakis et al., 1993).
According to Bernerth (2004), at its core, readiness suggests
the alteration of individual mindsets as well as that of collective
consciousness across an organization.
c) Readiness for change and resistance to change: The same
thing? Although the importance of readiness for change has
been acknowledged, very few authors have recognized it as
distinct from efforts to reduce resistance to change. Armenakis
et al. (1993), however, view readiness as the cognitive
precursor to or support for change efforts. By making this
distinction between resistance and readiness, they argue for a
more proactive and dynamic view of change, where change
agents are seen as coaches and champions for change rather
than monitors that react to signs of resistance.
d) Readiness can be assessed. Many changes in organizations
are top-down or planned. Literature describes several stagebased models of implementing change (Armenakis et al., 1999;
Galpin, 1996; Kotter, 1995; Lewin, 1951). All of these models
share the assumption that successful change starts with
creating a need, sense of urgency or sense of readiness for
change. Therefore, it should not be surprising that assessments
of readiness prior to the introduction of a change have been
23
Chapter 1
encouraged (Holt et al., 2007a). By assessing readiness,
change agents and management can identify gaps that may
exist between their own expectations about the change effort
and those of other members of the organization. In short, the
assessment of an organization’s readiness for change can
guide management in design of their strategies for and
implementation of organizational changes. A well-developed
method for assessing dynamics and resources prior to
instituting change involves: (1) recognizing and interpreting the
problem and assessment of the need for change, (2)
determining the organization’s readiness for and capability to
change, (3) identifying managers’ and employees’ resources
and motivations for change, and (4) determining the change
strategy and goals (Levinson, 1972).
e) Readiness for change: A cognitive characteristic? Although
we recognize the value and popularity of readiness for change
as defined by Armenakis et al. (1993), with over 160 citations in
Google Scholar, a possible limitation of this definition is its
strong focus on the cognitive dimension. To put it differently,
this conceptualization does not cover the whole range of
possible change reactions. In fact, employees’ responses and
attitudes toward change should be captured along at least three
dimensions: affect, cognition and intention (Piderit, 2000). This
tridimensional view is essential because the ways in which
affective, cognitive and intentional responses become manifest
do not always coincide. People may exhibit feelings in support
of change (affect), but their risk-benefit analysis of the change
outcome (cognition) might inhibit their behavioral intentions.
Readiness for Change: Why a Tridimensional View? There are
several
24
arguments
for
considering
readiness
for
change
as
a
Chapter 1
multidimensional
construct
comprised
of
affective,
cognitive
and
intentional components. Firstly, it provides a more accurate picture of
reality in admitting that people’s change reactions involve emotions,
cognitions and intentions rather than just perceiving readiness for change
as a purely monolithic, one-dimensional phenomenon. In accepting this
three-dimensional perspective, we believe that the key processes of
human function are covered: namely the processes by which people feel,
think, move or act (Ellis & Harper, 1975; Schlesinger, 1982).
A second argument for adopting the multifaceted view is that
researchers and practitioners can easily ground this conceptualization in
the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991; Ajzen & Fishbein,
1980; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). This theory provides an indication of the
dynamics and relationships between the core dimensions of readiness for
change (emotions, cognitions and intentions), and describes how these
key pillars are affected by individual-level (i.e., self-efficacy) and contextlevel characteristics (i.e., social pressure).
As a general rule, the TPB asserts that the stronger a person’s
intention to support change, the more likely it is that she/he will exhibit
supportive behavior (Ajzen, 1991). This implies that the intention
dimension of readiness for change exerts a direct influence on actual
change behavior. Furthermore, this theory advances the supposition that
people’s intentions are determined by (1) their feelings and thoughts, (2)
social pressure, and (3) experienced self-efficacy.
The first component refers to people’s feelings and thoughts
regarding the change outcome. People develop feelings and thoughts
about the benefits and losses associated with change. Favorable or
positive evaluations of change outcomes are more likely to increase
people’s intentions to change than negative, unfavorable evaluations. The
second variable that shapes people’s intention to change is self-efficacy.
Studies have shown that people’s intentions are strongly affected by their
confidence in their ability to perform in the way that is asked of them
25
Chapter 1
(White, Terry, & Hogg, 1994). Finally, the third determinant of intention in
the TPB is the influence of social context (i.e., social pressure). We prefer
to use the broader concept of change climate as an antecedent for
people’s feelings, thoughts and intentions around change. After all,
readiness for organizational change extends beyond the level of the
individual, and as such, it requires consideration of the social aspects of
change (Armenakis et al., 1993; Ford et al., 2008). Change climate is the
manifestation of the rules, norms, values and beliefs that are fostered by
an organization. This set of rules and values makes up the guidelines for
desirable conduct and the methods of interaction prescribed by the
organizational culture. Generally speaking, any individual’s readiness for
change is likely to be affected by the change climate.
To conclude, consideration of this tridimensional view of readiness
for change in light of the TPB provides a comprehensive framework for
describing a broad range of possible reactions that people may exhibit
when confronted with change. The strong theoretical and empirical
underpinnings of this model create a sound base on which rigorous future
research may be conducted.
1.3.3 Facet Analysis
1.3.3.1 The Technique
Facet analysis is one of the more appropriate methods for
integrating and comparing research information on a specific theme. By
using facet analysis, one can systematically classify and describe the
concepts that have been used to represent ‘attitudes toward change’ and
identify trends and highlight areas where potential improvements can be
made. For example, Holt et al. (2007b) used facet analysis to review and
compare instruments that measure readiness. McGrath (1968) described a
facet as a relevant conceptual dimension or property that underlies a
group of objects, and the elements of a facet as the different values or
26
Chapter 1
points that describe the variation on a particular dimension or with regard
to a particular property.
For this review, we distinguished ten facets according to which the
concepts around attitudes toward change were compared and contrasted.
These facets and their underlying dimensions or elements are displayed in
Table 1.1. First we coded the type of paper. Some papers are purely
conceptual, whereas others are empirical contributions. In the case of
empirical papers, we analyzed measurement focus, measurement type,
measurement perspective, level of analysis and type of change. For both
types of papers (theoretical and empirical), we determined the underlying
view of human function, the core psychological mechanism, the
conceptual level and the dimensionality of the construct. The latter four
facets were inferred from the provided definitions and labels. The
dimensionality of the construct was determined on the basis of the
definition and available measurement information. Here, the distinction is
made between single-facet and multifaceted constructs. Together with the
conceptual level and the level of analysis, the dimensionality of the
construct provides insight into the level of change (i.e., a person-centered,
macro-level or meso-level paradigm). The level of analysis refers to the
level at which the data are analyzed, whereas the conceptual level
involves the level at which generalizations are made. The view on human
function refers to the discussion regarding whether attitudes toward
change should be examined from a negative or positive psychological
view. The core psychological mechanism describes whether ‘the attitude
toward change’ is conceived of as a dispositional trait or a less stable
psychological state-of-mind that evolves over time.
In the case of empirical papers, the type of change, or the character
of the change under which the attitude emerges, focuses on low- and
high-impact change by distinguishing between small-scale and large-scale
change
or
change
that
is
incremental
versus
that
which
is
transformational. This classification also refers to the duality in the nature
of change (i.e., episodic, planned, discontinuous or intermittent change
27
Chapter 1
versus continuous, unplanned, evolving and incremental change) (Weick
& Quinn, 1999). The cluster of facets that refer to measurement
(measurement focus, measurement type and measurement perspective) in
combination with the dimensionality of construct and the level of analysis
provide insight into the research method that has prevailed. First,
measurement focus refers to the place of the ‘attitude toward change’ in
the cause-effect chain. In other words, the key concept of interest is
examined as a dependent, independent or mediator/moderator variable.
Second, measurement type involves the measurement approach used to
examine ‘attitude toward change’. Were the data collected by survey
questionnaires and experimental designs (a quantitative approach), or by
means of interviews, case studies, or other qualitative research
strategies? Finally, the term measurement perspective describes the
action role in the change process taken on by the participants who provide
the data on ‘attitude toward change’. The three action roles that we have
isolated are those of change strategist, change agent, and change
recipient (Kanter, Stein, & Jick, 1992).
28
Chapter 1
TABLE 1.1: Facets and elements to describe similarities and
differences in attitudes toward change
Facets
A. Type of paper
Description of elements
1. Conceptual theoretical paper
2. Empirical paper
B. View on human function
1. Positive psychology: A view on human function that is characterized by
a positive attitude toward change with an emphasis on the human
strengths and opportunities as drivers of change.
2. Negative psychology: A view on human function that is characterized
by a negative attitude toward change with an emphasis on the
uncertainty, anxiety and threats that accompany the change.
C. Core psychological
mechanism
1. Trait: Individual differences in tendencies to show consistent and stable
patterns of thoughts, feelings and actions. Traits have a dispositional
basis.
2. State: A condition of mind that evolves over time. It is the result of a
continuous process of gradual changes that lead to a particular
momentum. States are less stable in time than traits.
D. Conceptual level
1. Individual level
2. Group level (i.e., team or organization)
3. Not mentioned
E. Dimensionality of
construct
1. One-faceted: Construct is comprised of and represented by one single
dimension or facet
2. Multifaceted: Construct is comprised of and represented by multiple
dimensions or facets
F. Type of change
1. Small-scale or incremental change: Change that is continuous,
evolutionary, and not threatening to the organization and its employees
2. Large-scale or transformational change: Change that is episodic,
revolutionary, and involves risks for both the company and its employees.
The change affects all levels and systems throughout the organization.
3. Not mentioned
4. Not applicable
G. Measurement focus
1. Attitude toward change as an independent variable (i.e., antecedent)
2. Attitude toward change as a dependent variable (i.e., outcome)
3. Attitude toward change as a mediator/moderator variable
4. Not applicable
H. Measurement type
1. Quantitative approach
2. Qualitative approach
3. Not mentioned
4. Not applicable
I. Measurement perspective
1. Data acquired from change strategists
2. Data acquired from change agents
3. Data acquired from change recipients
4. Not mentioned
5. Not applicable
J. Level of analysis
1. Individual
2. Group level (i.e., team or organization)
3. Not mentioned
4. Not applicable
29
Chapter 1
1.3.3.2 Selection Criteria for Facet Analysis
Because of the abundance of popular and academic publications
since the Coch and French (1948) inquiry into employees’ reactions
toward change, we formulated the following criteria for the selection of
manuscripts to be included in the facet analysis.
First, only studies published after 1993 were incorporated because
our interest is in the field’s evolution since the contribution of Armenakis et
al. (1993). Literally hundreds of models and definitions of resistance and
readiness have appeared in the literature over the past century. Many
overlap and include similar features, but very few are as comprehensive
and founded in theory as the seminal work by Armenakis et al. (Bernerth,
2004). This work, with its strong positive view of human function,
encouraged many other OC and OB scholars to further unravel the
mysteries of change recipients’ reactions toward organizational change.
The strong theoretical undergirding of the proposed framework was
crucial, as the field’s knowledge or conventional wisdom about employees’
attitudes toward change has not been significantly altered since the
groundbreaking work by Coch and French (Dent & Goldberg, 1999).
The second criterion was that the manuscripts be academic and
peer-reviewed
journal
contributions.
Papers
were
to
be
theoretical/conceptual or empirical in nature. Periodicals, book chapters,
book reviews, editorial notes, short notes, and brief research updates were
omitted from the analysis. These publication outlets were excluded from
our selection because these manuscripts often undergo a less rigorous
review process compared to academic journal publications. To put it
differently, in peer-reviewed journals, a review board of experts assesses
whether submissions can be considered for publication on the basis of
their scientific quality and value added to the practice. For example,
according to this criterion, we omitted an article by Philip Atkinson in
Management Services (periodical) on ‘Managing resistance to change’
and a short research update by Karen Jansen entitled ‘The emerging
30
Chapter 1
dynamics of change: resistance, readiness and momentum’ in Human
Resource Planning, as well as a book chapter by Danny Holt et al. (2007b)
that appeared in ‘Research in Organizational Change and Development’.
These are just a few of the sources that were not included in the facet
analysis. Although this criterion could be seen as creating a selection bias,
it should be noted that publications in scholarly journals are probably the
best documented source available for determining how our knowledge of
change recipients’ attitudes toward change has evolved.
The third criterion omitted all papers that did not involve reactions to
organizational change. For instance, all papers on readiness for change
and resistance to change embedded in the trans-theoretical model of
change (DiClemente & Prochaska, 1998) were disqualified, as they
reflected changes in health behavior instead of attitudes toward
organizational change.
Finally, a paper was only included when at least one of the following
phrases was present in the title of the manuscript: readiness for change,
resistance to change, cynicism about organizational change, openness to
change, coping with change, acceptance of change, commitment to
change, adjustment to change, and attitude toward change. We limited our
search query to title hits in order to ensure that attitude toward change
was the central theme of the contribution.
In sum, these nine concepts are rooted in different psychology
traditions (positive and/or negative) and have been used to refer to
people’s attitudes to organizational change. Although some of these
concepts overlap, there is a need to provide clarity with regard to how they
are different or similar. By means of facet analysis, we hope to create such
clarity, so that the proliferation of different labeling for the same concept or
similar labeling for different concepts may cease.
In total, 64 articles published between 1993 and 2007 were included
for facet analysis. About half of them dealt with readiness for change (n =
21) and resistance to change (n = 15). Cynicism about organizational
31
Chapter 1
change (n = 9) and commitment to change (n = 7) also received increased
interest from the OC research community. Finally, a limited number of
papers were devoted to concepts like openness to change (n = 4), attitude
toward change (n = 4), coping with change (n = 2), adjustment to change
(n = 3), and acceptance of change (n = 2). We were struck by the limited
number of theoretical and conceptual papers (n = 13). The majority of
empirical papers in this sample were classical hypothesis testing studies.
Throughout the following paragraphs, we discuss in detail the major
findings of the facet analysis (Table 1.2, and Appendix 1.1).
TABLE 1.2: Summary results facet analysis
I. Type of paper
Conceptual paper
Empirical paper
II. View on human
functiona
Positive psychology
view
Negative psychology
view
III. Core psychological
mechanism
Trait
State
Not mentioned/not
applicable
IV. Conceptual level
Individual level
Group level
Individual and group
level
V. Dimensionality of
construct
Unifaceted
Multifaceted
Not mentioned/not
applicable
VI. Type of changeb
Small-scale or
incremental change
Large-scale or
transformational change
Not mentioned/not
applicable
VII. Measurement
focusc
Attitude toward change
32
RFC
RSC
COM
CYN
OPEN
ACC
COP
ADJ
ATC
5
16
7
8
1
6
0
9
0
4
0
2
0
2
0
3
0
4
21
0
7
0
4
2
0
3
4
0
15
0
9
0
0
2
0
4
0
21
0
1
14
0
0
7
0
0
9
0
0
4
0
0
2
0
1
1
0
0
3
0
0
4
0
7
11
3
10
5
0
7
0
0
8
1
0
4
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
4
0
0
10
9
2
5
9
1
2
5
0
8
1
0
3
1
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
3
0
1
3
0
4
1
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
10
7
6
4
4
2
2
3
1
9
8
1
5
0
0
0
0
3
3
0
3
3
1
0
0
0
0
Chapter 1
as independent variable
Attitude toward change
7
8
3
7
2
2
0
3
4
as dependent variable
Attitude toward change
4
1
0
2
1
0
2
0
0
as mediator-moderator
Not mentioned/not
7
7
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
applicable
VIII. Measurement
typed
Quantitative approach
14
8
6
9
4
2
2
3
4
Qualitative approach
3
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
Not mentioned/not
5
7
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
applicable
IX. Measurement
perspectivee
Data acquired from
3
3
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
change agents
Data acquired from
10
6
7
6
3
1
2
3
0
change recipients
Data acquired from
2
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
change strategists
Not mentioned/not
7
8
1
3
0
1
0
0
4
applicable
X. Level of analysisf
Individual level
12
6
6
8
4
2
2
3
4
Group level
5
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
Not mentioned/not
5
7
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
applicable
Notes: a/b/c/d/e/f: The sum of observations for these dimensions is not necessary
equal to N = 67 (number of times concepts were studied in 64 papers), for example
some studies can use several approaches to measure the same construct
(quantitative and qualitative), or analyze the data at multiple levels, acquire data
from several stakeholders …; RFC = readiness for change, RSC = resistance to
change, COM = commitment to change, CYN = cynicism about organizational
change, OPEN = openness to change, ACC = acceptance of change, COP = coping
with change, ADJ = adjustment to change, ATC = Attitude toward change.
1.3.3.3 Related Concepts: Forging ahead into the Conceptual Jungle
The increased interest in employees’ readiness for change and
resistance to change over the past decade, in combination with the lack of
strong underlying theorizing, created a situation where scholars introduced
their own concepts referring to attitudes toward change. This situation
entailed a proliferation of strongly related constructs that can be classified
under the denominator ‘positive or negative attitudes toward change’. We
briefly reflect on each of these concepts.
Concepts Embedded in the Positive Psychology Tradition. Based
upon a content analysis of definitions and construct labeling, we identified
33
Chapter 1
readiness for change (i.e., Armenakis et al. 1993; Holt et al., 2007a,
2007b), openness to change (i.e., Datta, Rajagopalan, & Zhang, 2003;
Devos, Buelens, & Bouckenooghe, 2007; Miller, Johnson, & Grau, 1994;
Wanberg & Banas, 2000), commitment to change (i.e., Chen & Wang,
2007; Coetsee, 1999; Cunningham, 2006; Fedor, Caldwell, & Herold,
2006; Hersovitch & Meyer, 2002; Herold, Fedor, & Caldwell, 2007; Meyer,
Srinivas, Lal, & Topolnytsky, 2007), adjustment to change (Callan et al.,
2007; Martin, Jones, & Callan, 2005; Jimmieson, Terry, & Callan, 2004),
and acceptance of change (i.e., Iverson, 1996; Kavanagh, & Ashkanasy,
2006) as positive attitudes toward change.
A first observation regarding the papers referring to the above
constructs is the paucity of conceptual and theoretical work conducted,
except with regard to the construct of readiness for change. In fact, two
streams of research are distinguished. The first stream builds on the
Armenakis et al. conceptualization (1993) and views readiness as a
change-specific state. The second stream of research conceives of
readiness as a cross-situational generic or systemic capability of
organizations. From the facet analysis, we learn that health care
management science has shown special interest in readiness as a
systemic ability (Fuller et al., 2007; Ingersoll, Kirsch, Merk, & Lightfoot,
2000; Lehman, Greener, Simpson, & Flynn, 2006). For instance, in the
Journal of Nursing Administration, Ingersoll et al. (2000) described
organizational readiness as general preparedness for change and as
being influenced by the organization’s previous history of change, its plans
for continuous organizational refinement and its ability to initiate and
sustain change through social and technical systems.
In scrutinizing papers related to the other concepts, we found that
only one paper by Coetsee (1999), on commitment to change, was found
to be conceptual. Not only do these papers lack strong theoretical
frameworks, but also several concepts are poorly defined. For example,
several papers on adjustment to change and acceptance of change do not
provide definitions (e.g., Callan et al., 2007; Martin et al., 2005; Iverson,
34
Chapter 1
1996; Jimmieson et al., 2004). Due to the sloppiness of the conceptual
work, it is not possible to determine the essence that characterizes both
concepts. We also found that commitment to change, openness to
change, adjustment to change, and acceptance of change are
psychological states or processes shaped through experiences (i.e.,
feelings, thoughts and intentions), which subsequently determine how
people are likely to behave in times of change.
Contrary to adjustment to change and acceptance of change,
research on commitment to change has delineated its conceptual
boundaries. Many of the recent studies on commitment to change
(Cunningham, 2006; Chen & Wang, 2007; Meyer et al., 2007) are inspired
by Herscovitch and Meyer’s work (2002). They described commitment in
cognitive terms and called it a force (mindset) that binds an individual to a
course of action deemed necessary for the successful implementation of a
change initiative. This mindset can reflect: (a) a desire to provide support
for change based on a belief in its inherent benefits (affective commitment
to change), (b) a recognition that there are costs associated with the
failure to provide support for change (continuance commitment to change),
and (c) a sense of obligation to provide support for change (normative
commitment to change). According to Herold et al. (2007), commitment to
change reflects not only positive attitudes toward the change but also
alignment with the change and a willingness to work on behalf of its
successful implementation. This conception of change commitment as a
positive, proactive behavioral intent distinguishes it from negative, reactive
attitudes, such as resistance to change and cynicism about organizational
change.
To conclude, openness to change, a concept that is closely linked to
readiness for change, refers to the willingness to support change and
positive evaluations about the potential consequences of that change
(Miller et al., 1994). Essentially, openness to change assumes that
employees’ motivation to engage in change is determined by their positive
evaluation of the potential outcome of change.
35
Chapter 1
OBSERVATION 1: Few of the positively formulated attitudes toward
change
concepts
are
embedded
in
theoretical
frameworks.
Exceptions are readiness for change and commitment to change.
OBSERVATION 2: Several positively formulated attitudes toward
change concepts are poorly defined (i.e., adjustment to change and
acceptance of change).
Concepts Embedded in the Negative Psychology Tradition. The
best-known negative attitude toward change is resistance to change. On
the basis of our facet analysis, we noticed that most papers dealing with
resistance to change provided their own definitions of resistance to
change. Some view resistance as a phenomenon that slows down or
hinders the implementation of change (del Val & Fuentes, 2003). Others
focus on the processes that underlie the emergence of resistance. For
instance, Nord and Jermier (1999) describe resistance in terms of
psychoanalytic theory. They view resistance as a process that keeps
neurotic individuals distant from reality and from the suggestions of their
therapists. In other words, this use of resistance takes an unhealthy
individual or an undesirable state of affairs as its point of departure. Then
again, Msweli-Mbanga and Potwana (2006) view resistance as part of a
process that fosters learning among organizational participants. This
process is achieved by means of interventionist efforts that promote
learning, while dealing with psychological defenses against change that
serve to obstruct learning. We believe that the most comprehensive
conceptualization of resistance is provided in Piderit’s Academy of
Management Review article (2000) on rethinking resistance. In that paper
(2000), it is asserted that resistance is best captured using a
tridimensional attitude, which includes affective, cognitive and intentional
components. These three dimensions reflect three different manifestations
of people’s evaluations of an object or situation. We believe that this
36
Chapter 1
multifaceted view is laudable because it helps one to better understand
the complexity that underlies people’s reactions to change. To conclude, it
is important to note that, as stated in a recent conceptual paper,
resistance to change is described not only as the result of individual
sense-making but also as a socially constructed phenomenon that
manifests itself at multiple levels of analysis (i.e., individual, team,
department, organization) (Ford et al., 2008).
A second concept embedded in the negative psychology tradition is
cynicism about organizational change. Cynicism about organizational
change has been advanced as a factor that contributes to employee
resistance to organizational change (Stanley, Meyer, & Topolnytsky,
2005). In our sample (1993-2007), we found nine papers that referred to
cynicism about organizational change, four of which were published in
micro- or psychology-oriented journals (Bommer et al., 2005; Stanley et
al., 2005; Wanous, Reichers, & Austin, 2004; Wu, Neubert, & Yi, 2007),
three were published in macro-oriented journals (Connell & Waring, 2002;
Ferres & Connell, 2004; Wanous et al., 2000) and two were published in
journals with a general management orientation (Albrecht, 2002; Reichers,
Wanous, & Austin, 1997). Although these articles were published in
journals that varied in their definition of the key unit of theory in research
(micro- versus macro-level focus), facet analysis taught us that cynicism
about organizational change is an individual-level construct.
Despite the many differences that have been observed among
definitions of cynicism, there is consensus around the idea that cynicism
involves a negative attitude that can be both broad and specific in focus,
as well as the idea that it has cognitive, affective and behavioral
components (Dean, Brander, & Dharwadkar, 1998). The work done by
Wanous et al. (i.e., Reichers, Wanous, & Austin, 1997; Wanous et al.,
2000; 2004), which described cynicism about organizational change as a
pessimistic viewpoint regarding the potential success of change efforts,
was important to the field. It involves a loss of faith in the change leaders,
which results from the failure of previous efforts at change (Reichers et al.,
37
Chapter 1
1997). In sum, two elements characterize change cynicism: (a) a
pessimistic outlook regarding successful change and (b) blame placed on
those responsible, who are seen as lacking the motivation and/or ability to
effect successful change. From this definition and the facet analysis, one
may conclude that cynicism about organizational change is a state distinct
from trait-based dispositions such as negative affectivity and trait cynicism
(Bommer et al., 2005). To put it differently, many scholars believe that
cynicism about organizational change is a malleable attitude that
manifests itself through reproachful and critical behavior toward change,
lowered job satisfaction, reduced commitment and deterred citizenship
behaviors (Ferres & Connell, 2004), and that, in some cases, such
cynicism is a fundamental source of resistance to change (Stanley et al.,
2005).
Another construct rooted in the negative psychology tradition, but
conceptually
less
well-developed
than
that
of
cynicism
about
organizational change and resistance to change, is the concept of coping
with change (Judge et al., 1999; Cunningham, 2006). Here, change is
viewed as a major stressor that can be dealt with through problem-focused
strategies. Coping refers to a person’s cognitive and behavioral efforts to
manage (reduce, minimize or tolerate) the internal and external demands
of the person-environment transaction when it is appraised as taxing or
exceeding a person’s resources (Folkman, Lazarus, Gruen & Delongis,
1986). As with cynicism about organizational change, coping with change
resides at the individual level.
OBSERVATION 3: Despite the popularity of research on resistance to
change, there is no consensus about its conceptual content.
OBSERVATION 4: In general, the negative attitudes toward change
concepts have been considered as individual level constructs.
38
Chapter 1
Concepts Embedded in the Negative and Positive Psychology
Research Stream. Although all addressed concepts (i.e., resistance to
change, readiness for change, commitment to change, cynicism about
organizational change, openness to change, adjustment to change,
acceptance of change, and coping with change) are attitudes, none of
them cover both the positive and negative poles. Only a few studies
published between 1993 and 2007 used the term ‘attitude toward change’
in their titles (Vakola & Nikolaou, 2005; Vakola, Tsaousis, & Nikolaou,
2004; Yousef, 2000a, 2000b). According to Elizur and Guttman (1976) the
domain or universe of attitude toward change covers a cognitive, affective
or instrumental modality, and ranges from very positive to very negative.
Affective responses refer to greater or lesser feelings of being linked to,
satisfied with, or anxious about change. Cognitive responses are the
opinions that one has about the advantages and disadvantages,
usefulness, and necessity of change, as well as about the knowledge
required to handle the change. Instrumental responses are the actions that
have already taken or those that will be taken in the future for or against
change (Arnold et al., 1995). So we see that, in alignment with the general
observation arising from our facet analysis, the four papers that dealt with
‘attitude toward change’ have an empirical character and describe
attitudes as individual state-of-mind constructs.
Conclusion. In summary, the concepts of readiness for change,
commitment to change, openness to change, acceptance of change, and
adjustment to change are embedded in positive psychological thinking,
whereas those of resistance to change, cynicism about organizational
change and coping with change are rooted in the negative psychology
tradition. In general, these attitudes toward change are defined as states,
not as traits, which implies that these attitudes do not occur in a vacuum.
Instead, at any particular time or in any particular setting, a person’s
attitude toward change may become stronger or weaker. In conclusion,
the conceptual level of these concepts is individual, with the exception of
39
Chapter 1
readiness for change, which has been frequently conceived of at both the
individual and organizational levels.
OBSERVATION 5: In general, ‘attitudes toward change’ have been
conceived as individual level states.
1.3.3.4 Attitudes Toward Change: Measurement and Nature of Change
Having discussed the substance or core essence of readiness for
change, resistance to change and related concepts (commitment to
change, acceptance of change, openness to change, adjustment to
change, cynicism about organizational change, and coping witch change)
in terms of our views on human function (positive versus negative
psychological
view),
underlying
core
psychological
mechanisms
(dispositional trait versus psychological state) and conceptual levels
(individual or group), we take the second step of identifying how these
attitudes have been measured. Special attention is given to measurement
focus, measurement type, measurement perspective, dimensionality of
construct, level of analysis, and type or nature of change.
General Findings
a) Measurement type and measurement perspective. From the
facet analysis, we learn that most studies that refer to ‘attitudes
toward change’ have adopted a variance research strategy
(Mohr, 1982; Van de Ven & Poole, 2005). Essentiallys, many
papers adopted linear cause-effect thinking and tended to
emphasize the antecedents and consequences of attitudes
toward change. Typical of this type of research is its reliance on
questionnaire surveys and experimental research designs.
Therefore, the quantitative approach to measurement has
40
Chapter 1
dominated the field, with approximately 90 percent of the
empirical papers using quantitative data (52/58). Furthermore,
the majority of those studies used cross-sectional designs,
which implies that very few provide evidence for causality
testing. Some exceptions are inquiries that adopted longitudinal
research designs (Bommer et al., 2005; Cunningham et al.,
2002; Jimmieson et al., 2004; Jones, Jimmieson, & Griffiths,
2005; Kavanagh & Ashkanasy, 2006; Meyer et al., 2007;
Reichers et al., 1997). Experiments are an alternative to these
time-consuming longitudinal studies. Only one paper on
commitment to change (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002) and one
paper on openness to change (Devos et al., 2007) used
experiments as their research design.
Research into ‘attitudes toward change’ is not only
embedded in the quantitative research tradition, the majority of
data have been gathered from those experiencing change
(change recipients, 70 per cent, 38/54). Only a limited number
of studies collected data from the change agents (17 per cent,
9/54) or change strategists (13 per cent, 7/54). Also important
to note is that some inquiries gathered data from different
stakeholders (e.g., Armenakis & Harris, 2002; Connell &
Waring, 2002; del Val & Fuentes, 2003; Meyer et al., 2007;
Oreg, 2006; Todnem, 2007), which of course contributes to the
external validity of the findings. Finally, the facet analysis
showed
that
data
on
‘readiness
for
change’
(10/15),
‘commitment to change’ (7/9), ‘cynicism about organizational
change’ (6/8), ‘openness to change’ (3/4), ‘coping with change’
(2/2), and ‘adjustment to change’ (3/3) have been acquired from
change recipients.
41
Chapter 1
OBSERVATION 6: The majority of research on ‘attitudes toward
change’ has been dominated by the variance research strategy.
OBSERVATION 7: The majority of research on ‘attitudes toward
change’ has acquired data from change recipients.
b) Measurement focus and nature of change. Attitude toward
change as a dependent variable has been the key focus of the
majority of studies included in this analysis (64 per cent or
36/56). Thus, many OC scholars have become invested in
unraveling
the
underlying
determinants
and
drivers
of
‘resistance to change’ (8/9), ‘cynicism about organizational
change’ (7/10), ‘acceptance of change’ (2/2), ‘adjustment to
change’ (3/3), and ‘attitude toward change’ (4/4). In order to
explain change and the attitudes that accompany change, it has
been recommended that one should look at multiple facets of
change: (1) under which conditions change occurs; (2) what the
change is about (or what is the substance of the change); and
(3) how change is implemented (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999;
Barnett & Carroll, 1995; Burke, 2002; Kezar, 2001; Pettigrew,
1987). These facets refer to (1) the change context, (2) the
change content, and (3) the change process (Holt, et al. 2007,
2007b).
The nature of change or the content of change describes
whether
the
change
initiative
involves
small-scale
and
incremental changes or large-scale and transformational
changes. Based upon the analyzed studies, we found that 83
percent of the cases involved large-scale or transformational
change (39/47). A separate analysis of the nine constructs
yielded a similar pattern, with large-scale or transformational
change as the prevailing type of change in studies on readiness
42
Chapter 1
for change (10/14), resistance to change (7/8), commitment to
change (6/6), openness to change (4/5), acceptance of change
(2/2), coping with change (2/2), and adjustment to change (3/3).
OBSERVATION 8: The majority of research treated ‘attitudes toward
change’ as dependent variables.
OBSERVATION 9: The majority of research on ‘attitudes toward
change’ involved large-scale and transformational changes.
c) Dimensionality of construct and level of analysis. To
recapitulate, the concept of the dimensionality of the construct
considers whether the construct should be represented by one
component or multiple facets. The level of analysis involves the
level at which the data should be analyzed. There were about
as many papers that treated ‘attitude toward change’ (48
percent, 31/64) as multifaceted as studies that conceived of this
construct as unifaceted (52 percent, 33/64). A separate analysis
of each concept revealed that cynicism about organizational
change (8/9), openness to organizational change (3/4),
acceptance of change (2/2) and coping with change (2/2) are
unifaceted constructs, whereas commitment to change (5/7),
attitude toward change (3/4) and adjustment to change (3/3) are
multifaceted constructs. The preference for dimensionality was
less clear for readiness for change and resistance to change.
Since research into people’s attitudes toward change is
rooted in psychology, it is unsurprising that the majority of
studies adopted an individual level of analysis (85 per cent or
47/55). A separate analysis of each of the nine concepts
showed that the individual level of analysis was the prevailing
43
Chapter 1
method. Another interesting observation is that the level of
analysis was not always in accordance with the conceptual
level. This was the case for ‘organizational readiness for
change’. Although the conceptual level was organizational, data
in several studies were analyzed at the individual level (e.g.,
Fuller et al., 2007; Ingersoll et al., 2000; Pellettiere, 2006;
Rampazzo et al., 2006; Weeks, Roberts, Chonko, Lawrence, &
Jones, 2004).
OBSERVATION 10: Studies treated ‘attitudes toward change’ as
unifaceted or multifaceted concepts equally often.
OBSERVATION 11: The majority of studies on ‘attitudes toward
change’ adopted an individual level of analysis.
1.3.3.5 Conclusion
Over the past decades, the concept of ‘attitudes toward change’ has
emerged as a major construct in the literature on organizational
development and change. Despite increased interest in people’s attitudes
toward change, theoretical developments have remained scant. In this
paper, an attempt has been made to position research on attitudes toward
change by looking at it through four lenses: (1) the nature of the change;
(2) the level of change, (3) the underlying view of human function, and (4)
the research method. In the second part of the paper, we have identified
nine concepts, all referring to attitudes toward change, and analyzed these
constructs in light of several dimensions (i.e., type of paper, view on
human function, core psychological mechanism, conceptual level,
dimensionality of construct, type of change, measurement focus,
measurement type, measurement perspective, and level of analysis). In
doing so, we identified the core essence of these concepts.
44
Chapter 1
Although ‘resistance to change’ and ‘readiness for change’ have
shaped the field, many other concepts have entered the stage. Some have
their roots in negative psychology (i.e., cynicism about organizational
change and coping with change), whereas others adopted the principles of
positive psychology scholarship (i.e., commitment to change, adjustment
to change, openness to change, and acceptance of change) (Cameron,
2008). Furthermore, we conclude from the facet analysis that the concepts
referring to ‘attitudes toward change’ are treated, in the majority of cases,
as psychological states of mind. Since they involve attitudes, all concepts
should be conceived of as multifaceted constructs that incorporate
affective, cognitive and behavioral components. With regard to readiness
for change and resistance to change, we note that both multifaceted and
unifaceted approaches have been popular measures of both constructs. In
the case of readiness for change, an instrument that distinguishes
between affective, cognitive and behavioral dimensions is not available.
Therefore, future research should concentrate on the design of a
psychometrically sound instrument that captures those components
(Smollan, 2006). In short, although the field is characterized by a
quantitative measurement approach, there is a serious need for reliable
and validated questionnaires (Holt et al., 2007b).
Another observation that we culled from the facet analysis is that
the majority of studies are rooted in single-level thinking. This finding is in
alignment with management research in general, which has tended to
investigate organizational phenomena by examining them at single levels
of analysis (e.g., individual, group/team, organization, industry, country,
geographical region) (Hitt et al., 2007). In research on people’s attitudes
toward change, many have adopted a micro-level stance with a focus on
variations in individuals, with the assumption that the emphasis on
aggregates will mask important individual differences that are meaningful
in their own right. In doing so, they have been guilty of neglecting
contextual factors that may significantly constrain the effects of individual
differences that lead to collective responses (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). In
45
Chapter 1
this context, adopting a climate approach can be highly relevant to
obtaining a better understanding of employees’ attitudes toward change.
A third avenue for future research is to explore the underlying
dynamics and relationships between these related constructs. To our
knowledge, there are very few studies that have made similar attempts.
We found two such studies. In the first study, the authors (Stanley et al.,
2005) examined how change-specific cynicism accounted for variance in
employees’ intention to resist change. In the second study, the relationship
between commitment to change and coping with change was examined
(Cunningham, 2006).
Finally, we should note that people’s reactions toward change have
been examined under large-scale change conditions. Attitudes can
significantly differ under conditions where change has a more threatening
and episodic character than when it involves small-scale or incremental
change (Rafferty & Simmons, 2006). Therefore, we believe that future
research on attitudes toward change can benefit from focusing on people’s
reactions under conditions where change is continuous and embedded in
the organization’s culture. Also, the experience has taught us that most
change management initiatives are top-down or pushed through by
management until they are handed over to their users during
implementation of the change (Clegg & Walsh, 2004). However, we
believe that those undertaking change programs (i.e., change strategists
and change recipients) may learn much from those undergoing change
(i.e., change recipients). Clegg and Walsh (2004) have asserted that
future research into change management and organizational development
should adopt a pull perspective. According to this logic, the change
recipients or users of changed working paradigm carry the responsibility
for pulling through the changes.
In conclusion, research that furthers our knowledge of the human
side or soft side of change (i.e., attitudes toward change) is crucial
because organizational change requires changes in individuals’ feelings,
46
Chapter 1
thoughts and intentions. Therefore, we believe that our research focus on
employees’ attitudes may provide crucial insights into how change
management can be made more effective.
1.4 OVERVIEW AND FOCUS OF DISSERTATION
The literature review and the findings based upon the facet analysis
led to some interesting insights for new research into the topic of attitudes
toward change. This dissertation attempts to cover some of the issues
encountered in previous studies and goes along with some recent calls for
further work formulated in the field of change management and
organizational development. Despite the extensive body of organizational
change literature, we were struck by the gap that exists between the
general consensus among practitioners about the pivotal role of the
human factor in change processes and the limited number of rigorous
studies that have examined the human role in change. Thus, we believe
that this dissertation makes an important contribution by studying the
antecedents of people’s attitudes toward change.
1.4.1 A significant contribution!
Not only does this inquiry test and build on existing theories and
frameworks (see Hambrick (2008) for elaborate discussion about why our
management field needs more replication), it also addresses three calls for
action that were recently formulated by prominent management scholars.
First, the entire dissertation is consonant with the recent call for a positive
scholarship perspective (Cameron, 2008). In adopting this perspective,
some chapters in this manuscript deal with the positive change attitude
‘readiness for change’. In chapter four, we focus on a preliminary measure
of readiness for change: openness to change. Openness to change is
strongly linked to readiness for change. The studies conducted in chapter
4 were the first set of studies of our dissertation and were used as a
framework for our studies on the broader concept of readiness for change.
47
Chapter 1
Basically, this dissertation conceives openness to change as a first and
therefore less refined measure of readiness for change with a strong focus
on the cognitive component.
A second recommendation regards the need for more meso- or
multi-level approaches to the study of organizational phenomena (Hitt et
al., 2007). Like many organizational constructs, readiness for change is
complex and resides at multiple levels of analysis. In alignment with Ford
et al. (2008), we conceive of readiness for change as a socially
constructed phenomenon. Change recipients make sense of their
readiness for change not only through individual reflections but also
through collective sense-making that comes from a series of interactions
with colleagues and change agents. In chapter 3, readiness for change is
embedded in the meso-level or multi-level paradigm. The study presented
in that chapter examines the effect of the shared perception of context and
process characteristics on individual readiness for change.
A third recommendation was posited by Piderit (2000) and Oreg
(2006), suggesting that research would benefit from measuring readiness
for change and resistance to change as a multifaceted concept—
distinguishing between emotional, intentional and cognitive readiness for
change. This multifaceted view is preferable to a unifaceted approach
because it better captures the relationships between readiness for change
and its antecedents. Since feelings and thoughts about change and
intentions to change do not always coincide, it is important to make this
distinction (McGuire, 1985).
In addressing these recommendations, we believe that our studies
make a significant contribution to the scholarly field on change. In addition
to this contribution to management science, our second goal was to
develop a reliable and valid tool to assist organizations in improving the
management and planning element of change. Although there are several
instruments that measure people’s readiness for change (Holt et al.,
2007b), we noted that there are very few well-validated measures that
48
Chapter 1
assess the crucial drivers of employees’ readiness for change. Because
diagnosis of these factors is crucial before an organization decides to
continue with the implementation of change, it is essential that
practitioners have a tool at their disposal that allows them to make a
reliable assessment of these characteristics. This diagnostic phase should
enhance the effectiveness with which change is implemented.
1.4.2 Climate Makes or Breaks Change: Conceptual Framework
There
is
a
general
consensus
among
scholars
that
the
organizational climate makes or breaks change and plays a key role in
shaping employees’ readiness for change (Beer & Nohria, 2000; Burnes &
James, 1995; Schneider et al., 1996; Tierney, 1999). Despite this general
belief, there are few rigorous studies that have examined the effects of
change climate on readiness for change (Jones et al., 2005). We believe
that the change climate—defined as the perception of the conditions under
which change occurs (i.e., context), the way change is implemented (i.e.,
process), and employees’ attitudes toward change—determines whether
the conditions and sources are present that warrant a successful
implementation of change. In this dissertation, climate is addressed in
three chapters (chapter 2, 3 and 5). Our definition of change climate is
consonant with Pettigrew’s suggestion (Pettigrew et al., 2001), stating that,
for research on change to be practical and sound, it must entail an
appreciation of the conditions or the context that accompanies change and
the end results (i.e., readiness for change) together with an analysis of the
process variables. In addition, this focus on the context and process
elements of change also covers two of the four perspectives that measure
readiness for change (Holt et al., 2007a; 2007b). These four perspectives
are provided in Figure 1.1 and are viewed as crucial antecedents of
people’s readiness for change. The change process perspective refers to
the process used to deal with the change. The change context element
refers to the general conditions under which change occurs. In this inquiry,
the description of context strongly overlaps with the definition of
49
Chapter 1
organizational climate. Because of this, our focus is the internal
component of context. Change content refers to the substance or type of
change, and the final element, individual attributes, assumes that
employees perceive and act differently toward change because of
differences in personality, individual characteristics, and professional
background.
FIGURE 1.1: Conceptual framework
Emotional readiness for
change
Context
Process
Cognitive readiness for
change
Intentional readiness for
change
Content
Individual
attributes
Openness to change – a
preliminary measure of
readiness for change
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
In this dissertation, the emphasis is on the context and process
portion, because most studies that have examined the influence of these
characteristics on employees’ readiness for change include data collected
from single organizations or specific sectors, thereby limiting the
generalizability of these studies. In this inquiry, data were collected from a
50
Chapter 1
large sample of organizations undergoing large-scale changes that were
recently announced (chapters 2, 3 and 5). In other words, we controlled for
the content of change by selecting companies that were undergoing
similar types of change (i.e., large-scale change without any jobthreatening consequences). Supplementary to these three chapters is
chapter 4, which examines the effects of a strategic large-scale change
with job-threatening implications.
Another reason for this strong focus on context and process is that
these factors are, to our knowledge, the most manageable characteristics
of change. The content of change and individual attributes are far more
difficult to control. These sections are followed by four empirical papers
and one conceptual paper, ‘Putting the pieces together’ (chapter 6), in
which an attempt is made to synthesize the studies carried out throughout
this project.
1.5 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abrahamson, E. (2004a). Change without pain: How managers can overcome
initiative overload, organizational chaos, and employee burnout. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
Abrahamson, E. (2004b). Managing in a world of excessive change:
Counterbalancing creative destruction and creative recombination. Ivey
Business Journal, January-February, 1–9.
Aktouf, O. (1992). Management and theories of organizations in the 1990s:
Toward a critical radical humanism? Academy of Management Review,
17, 407–431.
Albrecht, S.L. (2002). Perceptions of integrity, competence and trust in senior
management as determinants of cynicism toward change. Public
Administration & Management: An Interactive Journal, 7, 320–343.
Aldag, R.J., & Stearns, T.M. (1991). Management. Cincinnati, OH: SouthWestern Publishing.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Milton Keynes: Open University
Press.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social
behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Armenakis, A. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (1999). Organizational change: A review of
theory and research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25, 293–315.
51
Chapter 1
Armenakis, A.A., & Harris, S.G. (2002). Crafting a change message to create
transformational readiness. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 15, 169–183.
Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G., Feild, H.S. (1999). Making change permanent: A
model for institutionalizing change interventions. In W.A. Pasmore, & R.W.
Woodman (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development
(pp. 97–128). Oxford, UK: JAI press.
Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G., & Mossholder, K. (1993). Creating readiness for
organizational change. Human Relations, 46, 681–703.
Arnold, J., Cooper, C., & Robertson, I.T. (1995). Work psychology:
Understanding human behaviour in the workplace. London, UK: Pitman
Publishing.
Backer, T.E. (1995). Assessing and enhancing readiness to change: Implications
for technology transfer. In T.E. Backer, S.L. David, & G. Soucy (Eds.),
Reviewing the behavioral science knowledge base on technology transfer
(pp. 21–41). Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Barnett, W. P., & Carroll, G. R. (1995). Modeling internal organizational change.
Annual Review of Sociology, 21, 217–236.
Bartunek, J.M. (1993). Rummaging behind the scenes of organizational change
– and finding role transitions, illness, and physical space. In R.W.
Woodman, & W. Pasmore (eds.), Research in Organizational Change and
Development (pp. 41–76). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Bartunek, J.M., Rousseau, D.M., Rudolph, J.W., & DePalma, J.A. (2006). On the
receiving end: Sensemaking, emotion and assessments of an
organizational change initiated by others. Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 42, 182–206.
Beer, M., Eisenstat, R.A., & Spector, B. (1990). The critical path to corporate
renewal. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Beer, M., & Nohria, N. 2000. Cracking the code of change. Harvard Business
Review, 78, 133–141.
Bernerth, J. 2004. Expanding our understanding of the change message. Human
Resource Development Review, 3, 36–52.
Bernstein, S.D. (2003). Positive organizational scholarship: Meet the movement:
An interview with Kim Cameron, Jane Dutton, and Robert Quinn. Journal
of Management Inquiry, 12, 266–271.
Bommer, W.H., Rich, G.A., & Rubin, R.S. (2005). Changing attitudes about
change: Longitudinal effects of transformational leader behavior on
employee cynicism about organizational change. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26, 733–753.
Bordia, P., Hunt, L., Paulsen, N., Tourish, D., & DiFonzo, N. (2004).
Communication and uncertainty during organizational change. It is all
about control? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
13, 345–365.
Bovey, W.H., & Hede, A. (2001). Resistance to organizational change: The role
of cognitive and affective processes. Leadership and Organization
Development Journal, 22, 372–382.
52
Chapter 1
Branch, K. (2002). Change management. Retrieved from www.wrennetwork.net/resources/benchmark/04-ChangeManagement.pdf
Bray, D. W. (1994). Personnel-centered organizational diagnosis. In A. Howard
(Ed.), Diagnosis for organizational change (pp. 152–171). New York:
Guilford Press.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-ofpractice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation.
Organization Science, 2, 40–57.
Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The art of continuous change: Linking
complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting
organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 1–34.
Burke, W. W. (2002). Organization change. London, UK: Sage.
Burke, W.W., & Trahant W. (2000). Business climate shifts: Profiles of change
makers. Boston, MA: Butterworth Heinemann.
Caldwell, S. D., Herold, D. M., & Fedor, D. B. (2004). Toward an understanding
of the relationships among organizational change, individual differences,
and changes in person-environment fit: A cross-level study. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 89, 868–882.
Callan, Gallois, Mayhew, Grice, Tluchowska, & Boyce (2007). Restructuring the
multi-professional organization: Professional identity and adjustment to
change in a public hospital. Journal of Health and Human Services
Administration, 29, 448–477.
Cameron, K. (2008). Paradox in positive organizational change, Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 44, 7–24.
Cameron, K.S., Dutton, J.E., & Quinn, R.E. (2003). Positive organizational
scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline. San Francisco: BerrettKoehler Publishers.
Chen, J., & Wang L. (2007). Locus of control and the three components of
commitment to change. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 503–
512.
Chonko, L.B., Jones, E., Roberts, J.A., & Dubinsky, A.J. (2002). The role of
environmental turbulence, readiness for change, and salesperson learning
in the success of sales force change. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, 22, 227–245.
Clegg, C., & Walsh, S. (2004). Change management: Time for a change.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13, 217–239.
Coch, L., & French, J.R.P (1948). Overcoming resistance to change. Human
Relations, 1, 512–532.
Coetsee, L. (1999). From resistance to commitment. Public Administration
Quarterly, 23, 204–222.
Connell, J., & Waring, P. (2002). The BOHICA syndrome: A symptom of cynicism
towards change initiatives. Strategic Change, 11, 347–356.
Cunningham, C. E., Woodward, C.A., Shannon, H.S., MacIntosh, J., Lendrum B.,
Rosenbloom, D., & Brown, J. (2002). Readiness for organizational
change: A longitudinal study of workplace, psychological and behavioral
53
Chapter 1
correlates. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75,
377–392.
Cunningham, G. B. (2006). The relationships among commitment to change,
coping with change, and turnover intentions. European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology, 15, 29–45.
Datta, D.K., Rajagopalan, N., & Zhang, Y. (2003). New CEO openness to change
and strategic persistence: The moderating role of industry characteristics.
British Journal of Management, 14, 101–114.
Dean, J.W. Jr., Brandes, P., Dharwadkar, R. (1998). Organizational cynicism.
Academy of Management Review, 23, 342–352.
Del Val, M.P., & Fuentes, C.M. (2003). Resistance to change: A literature review
and empirical study. Management Decision, 41, 148–155.
Devos, G., Buelens, M., & Bouckenooghe, D. (2007). Contribution of content,
context, and process to understanding openness to organizational
change: Two experimental simulation studies. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 147, 607–629.
Dent, E.B., & Goldberg, S.G. (1999). Challenging resistance to change. The
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35, 25–41.
Diamond, M.A. (1986). Resistance to change: A psychoanalytic critique of
Argyris and Schon’s contribution to organizational theory and intervention.
Journal of Management Studies, 23, 543–562.
DiClemente,
C.C.,
&
Prochaska,
J.O
(1998).
Toward
a
comprehensivetranstheoretical model of change: Stages of change and
addictive behaviors. In W.R. Miller, & N. Heather (Eds.), Treating addictive
behaviors (pp. 3–24). New York: Plenum.
DiFonzo, N., & Bordia, P. (1998). A tale of two corporations: Managing
uncertainty during organizational change. Human Resource Management,
37, 295–303.
Dubrin, A.J., & Ireland, R.D. (1993). Management and organization. Cincinnati,
OH: South-Western Publishing.
Elizur, D., & Guttman, L. (1976). The structure of attitudes toward work and
technological change within an organization. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 21, 611–622.
Ellis, A., & Harper, R.A. (1975). A new guide to rational living. North Hollywood,
CA: Wilshire Book Company.
Fedor, D.B., Caldwell, S., & Herold, D.M. (2006). The effects of organizational
changes on employee commitment: A multilevel investigation. Personnel
Psychology, 59, 1–29.
Ferres, N., & Connell, J. (2004). Emotional intelligence in leaders: An antidote for
cynicism towards change? Strategic Change, 13, 61–71.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An
introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Folkman, S., Lazarus, Gruen, R.J., & DeLongis, A. (1986). Appraisal, coping,
health status, and psychological symptoms. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 50, 571–579.
54
Chapter 1
Ford, J.D., Ford, L.W., & D’Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change: The rest of
the story (2008). Academy of Management Review, 33, 362–377.
Fuller, B.E., Rieckmann, T., Nunes, E.V., Miller, M., Arfken, C., Edmundson, E.,
& McCarty, D. (2007). Organizational readiness for change and opinions
toward treatment innovations. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 33,
183–192.
Galpin, T. (1996). The human side of change: A practical guide to organization
redesign. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
George, J.M., & Jones, G.R. (2001). Towards a process model of individual
change in organizations. Human Relations, 54, 3–22.
Goldstein, J. (1988). A far from equilibrium systems approach to resistance to
change. Organizational Dynamics, 17, 16–26.
Golembiewski, R. T. (1989). Ironies in organizational development. London, UK:
Transaction.
Gordon, S. S., Stewart, W. H., Jr., Sweo, R., & Luker, W. A. (2000).
Convergence versus strategic reorientation: The antecedents of fastpaced organizational change. Journal of Management, 26, 911–945.
Griffin, R.W. (1993). Management. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Hitt, M.A., Beamish, P.W., Jackson, S.E., & Mathieu, J.E. (2007). Building
theoretical and empirical bridges across levels: Multilevel research in
management. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1385–1400.
Heracleous, L. (2001). An ethnographic study of culture in the context of
organizational change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 37,
426–446.
Herold, D.M., Fedor, D.B, & Caldwell, S.D. (2007). Beyond change management:
A multilevel investigation of contextual and personal influences on
employees’ commitment to change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,
942–951.
Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J.P. (2002). Commitment to organizational change:
Extension of a three component model. Journal of Applied Psychology,
87, 474–487.
House, R., Rousseau, D.M., & Thomas-Hunt, M. (1995). The meso paradigm: A
framework for integration micro and macro organizational behavior.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 17, 71–114.
Holt, D.T., Armenakis, A., Feild, H.S., & Harris, S.G. (2007a). Readiness for
organizational change: The systematic development of a scale. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 43, 232–255.
Holt, D.T., Armenakis, A., Harris, S.G., & Feild H.S. (2007b). Toward a
comprehensive definition of readiness for change: A review of research
and instrumentation. In W.A. Pasmore & R.M. Woodman (Eds.), Research
in organizational change and development (pp. 295–346). Oxford, UK:
Elsevier.
Ingersoll, G.L., Kirsch, J.C., Merk, S.E., & Lightfoot, J. (2000). Relationship of
organizational culture and readiness for change to employee commitment
to the organization. Journal of Nursing Administration, 30, 11–20.
55
Chapter 1
Iverson, R.D. (1996). Employee acceptance of organizational change: The role of
organizational commitment. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 7, 122–149.
Jacobson, E.H. (1957). The effect of changing industrial methods and
automation on personnel. Paper presented at the Symposium on
Preventive and Social Psychiatry, Washington, DC.
Jaffe, D., Scott, C., & Tobe, G. (1994). Rekindling commitment. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Jansen, K. J. (2000). The emerging dynamics: Resistance, readiness, and
momentum. Human Resource Planning, 23, 53–54.
Jimmieson, N.L., Terry, D.J., & Callan, V.J. (2004). A longitudinal study of
employee adaptation to organizational change: The role of change-related
information and change related self-efficacy. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 9, 11–27.
Jones, R.A., Jimmieson, N.L., & Griffiths, A. (2005). The impact of organizational
culture and reshaping capabilities on change implementation success:
The mediating role of readiness for change. Journal of Management
Studies, 42, 362–386.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. M. (1999). Managerial
coping with organizational change: A dispositional perspective. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 84, 107–122.
Kanter, R.M., Stein, B.A., & Jick, T.D. (1992). The challenge of organizational
change. New York: The Free Press.
Kavanagh, M.H., & Ashkanasy, N.M. (2006). The impact of leadership and
change management strategy on organizational culture and individual
acceptance of change during merger. British Journal of Management, 17,
81– 103.
Kezar, A. (2001). Understanding and Facilitating Change in Higher Education in
the 21st Century (EDO-HE-2001-07). Washington, DC: ASHE-ERIC
Higher education report series. Office of Educational Research and
Improvement (ED). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No:
ED457763).
Klein, K.J., & Kozlowski, S.W.J. (2000). From micro to meso: Critical steps in
conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research. Organizational
Research Methods, 3, 211–236.
Kondakçi, Y. (2005). Practice-based continuous change process: A longitudinal
investigation of an organizational change process in a higher education
organization. Unpublished dissertation – Ghent University.
Kotter, J. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard
Business Review, 73, 59–67.
Kozlowski, S.W.J., & Klein, K.J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and
research in organizations: Contextual, temporal and emergent processes.
In K.J. Klein & S.W.J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and
methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions and new directions
(pp. 3-90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
56
Chapter 1
Krantz, J. (1999). Comment on ‘Challenging resistance to change’. The Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science, 35, 42–44.
Kreitner, R. (1992). Management. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Lau, C., & Woodman, R. W. (1995). Understanding organizational change: A
schematic perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 537–554.
Lawrence, P.R. (1954). How to deal with resistance to change. Harvard Business
Review, 32, 49–57.
Lippitt, R., Watson, J. & Westley, B. (1958). Planned change: A comparative
study of principles and techniques. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace, and
World.
Lehman, W.E.K., Greener, J.M., Simpson, D. (2002). Assessing organizational
readiness for change. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 22, 197–
209.
Levinson, H. (1972). Organizational diagnosis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Lewin, K. 1951. Field theory in social science. New York: Harper & Row.
Luthans, F. (2002a). The need for and meaning of positive organizational
behaviour. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 695–706.
Luthans, F. (2002b). Positive organizational behaviour: Developing and
maintaining psychological strengths. Academy of Management Executive,
16, 57–72.
Markus, M.L., & Robey, D. (1988). Information technology and organizational
change: Causal structure in theory and research. Management Science,
34, 583–598.
Martin, A.J., Jones, E.S., & Callan, V.J. (2005). The role of psychological climate
in facilitating employee adjustment during organizational change.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14, 263–289.
Meyer, J.P., Srinivas, E.S., Lal, J.B., & Topolnytsky (2007). Employee
commitment and support for an organizational change: Test of the threecomponent model in two cultures. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 80, 185–211.
McGuire, W.J. (1985). Attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey, & E. Aronson
(Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 233–346). New York: Random
House.
McGrath, J.E. (1968). A multifacet approach to classification of individual, group,
and organization concepts. In B.P. Indik, & F.K. Berrien (Eds.), People,
groups and organizations (pp. 191–215). New York: Teachers College
Press.
Miller, V. D., Johnson, J. R., & Grau, J. (1994). Antecedents to willingness to
participate in a planned organizational change. Journal of Applied
Communication Research, 11, 365–386.
Mohr, L. (1982). Explaining organizational behaviour. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Moran, E.T., & Volkwein, J.F. (1992). The cultural approach to the formation of
organizational climate. Human Relations, 45, 19–47.
57
Chapter 1
Msweli-Mbanga, P., & Potwana, N. (2006). Modeling participation, resistance to
change, and organizational citizenship behaviour: A South African case.
South African Journal of Business Management, 37, 21–29.
Nord, W.R., & Jermier, J.M. (1994). Overcoming resistance to resistance:
Insights from a study of the shadows. Public Administration Quarterly, 17,
396–406.
Oreg, S. (2006). Personality, context, and resistance to organizational change.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15, 73–101.
Orlikowski, W. J. (1996). Improvising organizational transformation over time: A
situated change perspective. Information Systems Research, 7, 63–92.
Pellettiere, V. (2006). Organization self-assessment to determine the readiness
and risk for a planned change. Organization Development Journal, 24,
38–43.
Pettigrew, A. M. (1987). Context and action in the transformation of the firm.
Journal of Management Studies, 24, 649–670.
Pettigrew, A. M., Woodman, R. W., & Cameron, K. S. (2001). Studying
organizational change and development: Challenges for future research.
Academy of Management Journal, 44, 697–713.
Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A
multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change.
Academy of Management Review, 25, 783–794.
Poole, M.S., Van de Ven, A., Dooley, K., & Holmes, M.E. (2000). Organizational
change and innovation processes: Theory and methods for research. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Porras, J. I., & Silvers, R. S. (1991). Organization development and
transformation. Annual Review of Psychology, 42, 51–78.
Quinn, R.E., Kahn, J.A., & Mandl, M.J. (1994). Perspectives on organizational
change: Exploring movement at the interface. In J. Greenberg (Ed.),
Organizational behavior: The state of the science (pp. 109–133). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rafferty, A., Simons, R. (2005). An examination of the antecedents of readiness
for fine-tuning and corporate transformation changes. Journal of Business
& Psychology, 20, 325–350.
Rampazzo, L., De Angeli, M., Serpelloni, G., Simpson, D., Flynn, P.M. (2006).
Italian survey of organizational functioning and readiness for change: A
cross-cultural transfer of treatment assessment strategies. European
Addiction Research, 12, 176–181.
Regar, R.K., Mullane, J.V., Gustafson, L.T., & Demarie, S.M. (1994). Creating
earthquakes to change organizational mindsets. Academy of
Management Executive, 8, 31–46.
Reichers, A.E., Wanous, J.P., & Austin, J.T. (1997). Understanding and
managing cynicism about organizational change. Academy of
Management Executive, 11, 48–59.
Saberwahl, R., & Robey, D. (1995). Reconciling variance and process strategies
for studying information system development. Information Systems
Research, 6, 303–327.
58
Chapter 1
Sashkin, M., & Burke, W. W. 1987. Organization development in the 1980s.
Journal of Management, 13, 393–417.
Schein, E. H. (1996). Kurt Lewin's change theory in the field and in the
classroom: Notes toward a model of managed learning. Reflections, 1,
59–74.
Scherman, W.S., & Garland, G.E. (2007). Where to bury survivors? Exploring
possible ex post effects of resistance to change. SAM Advanced
Management Journal, 72, 52–62.
Schermerhorn, J.R., Jr. (1989). Management for productivity. New York: John
Wiley.
Schlesinger, H.J. (1982). Resistance as process. In P.L. Wachtel (Ed.),
Resistance: Psychodynamic and Behavioral Approaches (pp. 25–44).
New York: Plenum Press.
Schneider, B., Brief, A. P., & Guzzo, R. A. 1996. Creating a climate and culture
for sustainable organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24, 7–
19.
Sedikides, C., Campbell, W.K., Reeder, G., & Elliot, A.J. (1998). The self-serving
bias in relational context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
74, 378–386.
Seligman, M. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive Psychology, American
Psychologist, 55, 5–14.
Smollan, R.K. (2006). Minds, hearts and deeds: Cognitive, affective and
behavioural responses to change. Journal of Change Management, 6,
143–158.
Stanley, D.J., Meyer, J.P., & Topolnytsky, L. (2005). Employee cynicism and
resistance to organizational change. Journal of Business and Psychology,
19, 429–459.
Tenkasi, R. V., & Chesmore, M. C. (2003). Social networks and planned
organizational change: The impact of strong network ties on effective
change implementation and use. The Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 39, 281–300.
Tierney, P. (1999). Work relations as a precursor to a psychological climate for
change: The role of work group supervisors and peers. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 12, 120–133.
Todnem, R.B. (2007). Ready or not… Journal of Change Management, 7, 3–11.
Tsoukas, H. (1996). The firm as a distributed knowledge system: A
constructionist approach. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 11–26.
Van de Ven, A.H., & Poole, M.S. (1995). Explaining development and change in
organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20, 510–540.
Van de Ven, A.H., & Poole, M.S. (2005). Alternative approaches for studying
organizational change. Organization Studies, 26, 1377–1404.
Vakola, M., & Nikolaou, I. (2005). Attitudes towards organizational change: What
is the role of employees’ stress and commitment. Employee Relations, 27,
160–174.
59
Chapter 1
Vakola, M., Tsaousis, I., & Nikolaou, I. (2004). The role of emotional intelligence
and personality variables on attitudes toward organizational change.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19, 88–110.
Wanberg, C. R., & Banas, J. T. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of openness to
changes in a reorganizing workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,
132–142.
Wanous, J.P., Reichers, A.E., & Austin, J.T. (2004). Cynicism about
organizational change: An attribution process perspective. Psychological
Reports, 94, 1421–1434.
Wanous J.P., Reichers A.E., & Austin, J.T. (2000). Cynicism about organizational
change. Measurement, antecedents, and correlates. Group and
Organization Management, 25, 132–153.
Walsh, J.P., Weber, K., & Margolis, J.D. (2003). Social issues and management:
Our lost case is found. Journal of Management, 29, 859-881.
Weber, P. S., & Manning, M. R. (2001). Cause maps, sensemaking, and planned
organizational change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 37,
227–251.
Weeks, W.A., Roberts, J., Chonko, R.J., Lawrence, B. & Jones, E. (2004).
Journal of Personnel Selling & Sales Management, 24, 7–17.
Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organizational change and development.
Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 361–386.
White, K.M., Terry, D.J., & Hogg, M.A. (1994). Safer sex behaviour: The role of
attitudes, norms, and control factors. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 24, 2164–2192.
Wu, C., Neubert, M.J., & Yi, X. (2007). Transformational leadership, cohesion
perceptions, and employee cynicism about organizational change: The
mediating role of justice perceptions. The Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 43, 327–351.
Yousef, D.A. (2000a). Organizational commitment and job satisfaction as
predictors of attitudes toward organizational change in a non-western
setting. Personnel Review, 29, 567–592.
Yousef, D.A. (2000b). Organizational commitment as a mediator of the
relationship between Islamic work ethic and attitudes toward
organizational change. Human Relations, 53, 513–537.
60
Chapter 1
APPENDIX 1: Findings facet analysis
A) Reference (title, authors, journal)
B) Construct
C) Definition
READINESS FOR CHANGE
1)
A) Title: Crafting a change message to create transformational
readiness. Authors: Armenakis & Harris. Journal: Journal of Organizational
Change Management (2002).
a) Type of paper
b) View on human functioning
c) Core psychological mechanism
d) Conceptual level
e) Dimensionality of construct
f) Type of change
g) Measurement focus
h) Measurement type
i) Measurement perspective
j) Level of analysis
a) Empirical paper
f) Large scale or transformational change (major reorganization imposed
by external factors)
b) Positive psychology view
c) State
g) Attitude toward change as dependent variable (effect of change
message on transformational readiness)
d) Group level (system readiness)
h) Qualitative approach (case study)
e) Multifaceted (5 facets): (1) appropriateness, (2) discrepancy, (3)
change efficacy, (4) principal support, (5) personal valence.
i) Data acquired from change strategists, and data acquired from change
agents
B) Transformational readiness
C) The process of organizational change is thought of as unfolding in three
phases. During the first phase, readiness, organizational members become
prepared for the change and ideally become its supporter (p. 169).
j) Group level (organizational)
2)
A) Title: Creating readiness for organizational change. Authors:
Armenakis, Harris, & Mossholder. Journal: Human Relations (1993).
a) Conceptual theoretical paper
f) Not applicable
b) Positive psychology view
g) Not applicable
B) Individual readiness for change
c) State (…assessments of the perceived discrepancy and efficacy
of the target would be performed in gauging the state of readiness,
p. 686).
h) Not applicable
d) Individual level (i.e., individual readiness) and group level (i.e.,
system readiness)
j) Not applicable
C) Readiness, which is similar to Lewin’s (1951) concept of unfreezing, is
reflected in organizational members’ beliefs, attitudes and intentions
regarding the extent to which changes are needed and the organization’s
capacity to successfully make those changes. Readiness is the cognitive
precursor to the behaviours of either resistance to, or support for, a change
effort (p. 681).
i) Not applicable
e) Multifaceted (3 facets): (1) discrepancy, (2) efficacy, and (3) need
for change
61
Chapter 1
3)
A) Title: Expanding our understanding of the change message. Author:
Bernerth. Journal: Human Resource Development Review (2004).
a) Conceptual theoretical paper
f) Not applicable
b) Positive psychology view
g) Not applicable
B) Readiness for change
c) State
h) Not applicable
C) Definition adapted from Armenakis et al. (1993): Readiness is a state of
mind reflecting a willingness or receptiveness to engaging the way one
thinks. Readiness is a cognitive state comprising the beliefs, attitudes, and
intentions toward a change effort. Readiness is analogous to Lewin’s (1951)
classical state of unfreezing and is reflected in attitudes of organizational
members. At its core, readiness suggests the altering of cognitions of
individual mindsets as well as collective cognitions across all employees.
d) Individual level and group level (reaction, attitude or response
toward change resides at the individual, the collective level, or both)
i) Not applicable
j) Not applicable
e) Multifaceted (5 facets): (1) appropriateness, (2) discrepancy, (3)
change efficacy, (4) principal support, (5) personal valence
f) Small scale or incremental change, and large scale or transformational
change
4)
A) Title: Ready or not… Authors: By. Journal: Journal of Change
Management (2007).
a) Empirical paper
B) Change readiness
c) State
g) Attitude toward change as independent variable (change readiness as
an antecedent of successful change)
C) Definition adopted from Armenakis et al. (1993): Readiness… is
reflected in organizational members’ beliefs, attitudes and intentions
regarding the extent to which changes are needed and the organization’s
capacity to successfully make those changes.
d) Group level (change readiness should be part of the
organizational culture rather than being implemented…, p. 6-7)
h) Qualitative approach (semi-structured interviews, grounded theory
approach, p.10)
e) Multifaceted (5 facets): (1) appropriateness, (2) discrepancy, (3)
change efficacy, (4) principal support, (5) personal valence
i) Data acquired from change strategists, and data acquired from change
agents
b) Positive psychology view
j) Group level (organizational)
5)
A) Title: The role of environmental turbulence, readiness for change,
and salesperson learning in the success of sales force change.
Authors: Chonko, Jones, Roberts, & Dubinsky. Journal: Journal of Personal
Selling and Sales Management (2002).
a) Conceptual theoretical paper
a) Not applicable
b) Positive psychology view
b) Attitude toward change as mediator-moderator
c) State
c) Not applicable
B) Readiness for change
d) Individual level (organizational readiness for change come from
individuals within the organization, readiness for
change reflects an individual’s unique interpretation)
d) Not applicable
C) Definition adapted from Armenakis et al. (1993) and Lewin (1951):
Readiness for change has been defined as the cognitive precursor to the
behaviors of either resistance to or support for change efforts. An
individual’s perception of an organization’s readiness for change is viewed
as a similar concept to unfreezing, described as a process in which an
individual’s beliefs and attitudes about pending change are affected such
that the imminent change is seen as useful.
62
e) Not mentioned
e) Not applicable
Chapter 1
6)
A) Title: Readiness for organizational change: A longitudinal study of
workplace, psychological and behavioural correlates. Authors:
Cunningham, Woodward, Shannon, MacIntosh, Lendrum, Rosenbloom &
Brown. Journal: Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology
(2002).
B) Individual readiness for organizational change
C) Definition adopted from Prochaska et al. (1994): Readiness for individual
change proceeds through stages beginning at the precontemplative stage,
where the need for change is not acknowledged. At the contemplative
stage, individuals consider but do not initiate change. As a preparatory
stage is reached, planning for change occurs. Individuals engaged in the
process of behavioural change are at the action stage, whereas those
attempting to sustain changes are at the maintenance change.
a) Empirical paper
f) Large scale or transformational change (organizational re-engineering in
healthcare settings, cost reductions, downsizing, risk for job loss, p. 378)
b) Positive psychology view
c) State
g) Attitude toward change as dependent variable (outcome of self-efficacy
and active job), and attitude toward change as independent variable
(antecedent of participation in organizational re-engineering)
d) Individual level (this study applied an individual readiness for
change model to a longitudinal study of organizational reengineering in healthcare settings)
h) Quantitative approach (longitudinal design)
e) Unifaceted (one scale, items adopted from Prochaska et al.,
1994)
i) Data acquired from change recipients (staff involved in the reengineering)
j) Individual level
7)
Title: A multilevel approach to individual readiness for change. Author:
Desplaces. Journal: Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management (2005).
a) Conceptual theoretical paper
f) Not applicable
b) Positive psychology view
g) Not applicable
B) Individual readiness for change
c) State
h) Not applicable
C) Individual readiness for change reflects the thoughts, feelings and
intentions of an individual, which may or may not lead to a particular
behavior associated with his/her attitudes. Individual readiness, as an
attitudinal construct, has just begun to be explored conceptually.
d) Individual level
i) Not applicable
e) Multifaceted (3 facets): (1) cognitive, (2) affective and (3)
behavioral.
j) Not applicable
8)
A) Title: Perceptions of organizational readiness for change: Factors
related to employees’ reactions to the implementation of team-based
selling. Author: Eby, Adams, Russell & Gaby. Journal: Human Relations
(2000).
a) Empirical paper
f) Large scale or transformational change
b) Positive psychology view
g) Attitude toward change as dependent variable
c) State
h) Quantitative approach (questionnaire survey)
B) Readiness for change
d) Individual level
i) Data acquired from change recipients
C) Readiness for change suggests that individuals have preconceived
notions about the extent to which the organization is ready for change.
These perceptions are likely to evolve over time as individuals develop a
history within the organization (p. 422).
Readiness is similar to Lewin’s (1951) concept of unfreezing – the process
by which organization members’ beliefs and attitudes about pending change
are altered so that members perceive the change as both necessary and
likely to be successful.
e) Unifaceted (one scale, items from Daley (1991), Jones & Bearley
(1986), Tagliaferri (1991)).
j) Individual level
63
Chapter 1
9)
A) Title: Organizational readiness for change and opinions toward
treatment innovations. Authors: Fuller, Rieckmann, Nunes, Miller, Arfkin,
Edmundson, & McCarty. Journal: Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment
(2007).
a) Empirical paper
f) Large scale or transformational change
b) Positive psychology view
g) Not applicable
c) State
h) Quantitative approach (questionnaire survey)
B) Organizational readiness for change
d) Group level (organizational readiness for change, organizational
level)
i) Data acquired from change recipients
C) No definition
j) Individual (measured as a level-1 predictor in random coefficient model)
e) Multifaceted (4 facets, adopted from Lehman et al. (2002)): (1)
motivation for change, (2) institutional resources for supporting
change, (3) staff attributes that influence organizational change, (4)
organizational climate
10)
A) Title: Organizational learning capacity, evaluative inquiry and
readiness for change in schools: Views and perceptions of educators.
Authors: Goh, Cousins, & Elliott. Journal: Journal of Educational Change
(2006).
a) Empirical paper
f) Not applicable
b) Positive psychology view
g) Attitude toward change as dependent variable
c) State
h) Quantitative approach (questionnaire survey)
B) Organizational readiness for change
d) Group level (schools)
i) Data acquired from change recipients (teaching staff)
C) Organizational readiness for change draws from the literature on change
management, which suggests that an organization with a culture that
supports openness and flexibility can influence the degree to which its
members are adaptable and generally open to new ideas and change, and
thereby able to benefit from evaluative inquiry. Authors such as Preskill and
Torres (1999) and Seiden (1999) have argued that organizational readiness
for change is a critical factor for understanding more about the ability of an
institution to respond to and learn from evaluative information. This
construct measures the degree of openness of education to change or the
introduction of new ideas into schools or that are generally receptive to
innovations.
e) Unifaceted (one scale, 17 items adopted from Seiden (1999);
Preskill & Torres (1999))
j) Group level (schools)
11)
A) Title: Assessing readiness for change: Use of diagnostic analysis
prior to the implementation of a multidisciplinary assessment for
acute stroke care. Authors: Hamilton, McLaren & Mulhall.. Journal:
Implementation Science (2007).
a) Empirical paper
b) Positive psychology view
f) Large scale or transformational change (i.e., organization is going
through a major merger process and this caused much uncertainty and
organizational instability)
c) State
g) Not applicable
B) Organizational readiness for change
d) Group level (organizational level)
h) Quantitative and qualitative approach (interviews, focus groups and
questionnaires)
C) No definition
e) Unifaceted
i) Data acquired from change recipients
j) Group level (organizational level)
64
Chapter 1
12)
A) Title: Readiness for organizational change: The systematic
development of a scale. Authors: Holt, Armenakis, Feild, & Harris. Journal:
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science (2007).
B) Readiness for organizational change
C) Readiness for change is the comprehensive attitude that is influenced
simultaneously by the content (i.e.,what is being changed), the process (i.e.,
how the change is being implemented), the context (i.e., circumstances
under which the change is occurring), and the individuals (i.e.,
characteristics of those being asked to change) involved. Furthermore,
readiness collectively reflects, the extent to which an individual or
individuals are cognitively and emotionally inclined to accept, embrace, and
adopt a particular plan to purposefully alter status quo.
13)
A) Title: Relationship of organizational culture and readiness for
change to employee commitment to the organization. Authors: Ingersoll,
Kirsch, Merk, & Lightfoot. Journal: Journal of Nursing Administration (2000).
a) Empirical paper
b) Positive psychology view
g) Attitude toward change as mediator/moderator
c) State
h) Quantitative approach (questionnaire survey)
d) Individual level
i) Data acquired from change recipients
e) Multifaceted (4 facets): (1) appropriateness, (2) management
support, (3) change efficacy, (4) personally beneficial.
a) Empirical paper
b) Positive psychology view
c) State
B) Organizational readiness for change
C) Organizational readiness is defined as a state of preparedness for
change that is influenced by the organization’s previous history of change,
its plans for continuous organizational refinement and its ability through its
social and technical systems to initiate and sustain that change.
f) Large scale or transformational change (structural changes in the whole
company)
d) Group level (organizational level)
e) Unifaceted (originally two facets: innovativeness and
cooperation, however, in this inquiry measured by one scale that
consists of 17 items)
j) Individual level
f) Large scale or transformational change (organizational redesign
process, bringing services closer to the patient, reducing the number of
persons interacting with patients and families, reaggregation of patients,
decentralization of services to unit level)
g) Attitude toward change as independent variable
h) Quantitative approach (questionnaire survey)
i) Data acquired from change recipients (hospital staff undergoing change)
j) Individual level
f) Small scale or incremental change (implementation of Human Resource
Information System)
14)
Title: The impact of organizational culture and reshaping capabilities
on change implementation success: The mediating role of readiness
for change. Authors: Jones, Jimmieson, & Griffiths. Journal: Journal of
Management Studies (2005).
a) Empirical paper
c) State
g) Attitude toward as mediator-moderator (mediates relationship of culture,
and reshaping capabilities on implementation success)
B) Individual readiness for change
d) Individual level
h) Quantitative approach (questionnaire survey, longitudinal design)
C) Definition adopted from Armenakis et al. (1993), and Miller et al. (1994):
The notion of readiness for change can be defined as the extent to which
employees hold positive views about the need for organizational change, as
well as the extent to which employees believe that such changes are likely
to have positive implications for themselves and the wider organization (p.
362).
e) Unifaceted (one scale, 7 items based upon Miller et al. (1994))
i) Data acquired from change recipients
b) Positive psychology view
j) Individual level
65
Chapter 1
15)
A) Title: Assessing organizational readiness for change. Authors:
Lehman, Greener & Simpson. Journal: Journal of Substance Abuse
Treatment (2002).
b) Positive psychology view
f) Large scale or transformational change (exposure to new technology,
adoption of technology, implementation or exploratory use, and practice or
routine use)
c) State
g) Not applicable (development of measurement instrument)
d) Group level (organizational or program level)
h) Quantitative approach (questionnaire survey)
e) Multifaceted (4 facets): (1) motivation for change, (2) institutional
resources for supporting change, (3) staff attributes that influence
organizational change, (4) organizational climate
i) Not mentioned
a) Empirical paper
b) Positive psychology view
f) Small scale or incremental change (no organization was participating in
an aggressive organizational change effort that may have caused
widespread instability and employment concerns for its workers)
c) State
g) Attitude toward change as dependent variable
d) Individual level
h) Quantitative approach (questionnaire survey)
e) Unifaceted (one scale, 14 items from Hanpachern’s readiness for
change scale)
i) Data acquired from change recipients
a) Empirical paper
B) Organizational readiness for change
C) Organizational readiness for change is a set of general factors that may
be necessary but not always sufficient for change to occur. ORC covers
four major areas: 1) motivation for changes, 2) institutional readiness for
change, 3) staff attributes, 4) organizational climate.
16)
A) Title: Readiness for organizational commitment and social
relationships in the workplace make a difference. Authors: Madsen,
Miller, & Johns. Journal: Human Resource Development Quarterly (2005).
B) Readiness for organizational change
C) Definition adopted from Backer (1995, pp. 22-24): Individual readiness
for change is involved with people’s beliefs, attitudes, and intentions
regarding the extent to which changes are needed and their perception of
individual and organizational capacity to make those changes. Readiness is
a state of mind about the need. It is the cognitive precursor to behavior of
either resistance or support. Readiness for change is not a fixed element of
individuals or systems. It may vary due to changing external or internal
circumstance, the type of change being introduced, or the characteristics of
potential adopters and change agents.
17)
A) Title: Organization self-assessment to determine the readiness and
risk for a planned change. Author: Pellettiere. Journal: Organization
Development Journal (2006).
j) Individual level
a) Empirical paper
f) Not mentioned
b) Positive psychology view (appreciative inquiry)
g) Attitude toward change as dependent variable
c) State
h) Quantitative approach (questionnaire survey)
d) Group level (organizational level)
i) Not mentioned
e) Unifaceted
j) Individual level
a) Empirical paper
f) Small scale or incremental change (fine-tuning changes), and large
scale or transformational changes
B) Organization’s readiness for change
C) Definition adopted from Armenakis et al. (1993, p. 681): Readiness… is
reflected in organizational members’ beliefs, attitudes and intentions
regarding the extent to which changes are needed and the organization’s
capacity to successfully make those changes.
18)
A) Title: An examination of the antecedents of readiness for fine-tuning
and corporate transformation changes. Authors: Rafferty & Simons.
Journal: Journal of Business and Psychology (2006).
b) Positive psychology view
g) Attitude toward change as dependent variable
c) State
66
j) Individual level and group level
Chapter 1
B) Change readiness
C) Definition adopted from Armenakis et al. (1993, p. 681): Readiness for
organizational change refers to individuals’ beliefs, attitudes, and intentions
regarding the extent to which changes are needed and the organization’s
capacity to successfully undertake these changes.
d) Individual and group level
h) Quantitative approach (questionnaire survey)
i) Data acquired from change recipients
e) Unifaceted (one scale, items from Daley, 1991).
j) Individual level
19)
A) Title: Italian survey of organizational functioning and readiness for
change: A cross-cultural transfer of treatment assessment strategies.
Authors: Rampazzo, De Angeli, Serpelloni, Simpson, & Flynn. Journal:
European Addiction Research (2006).
a) Empirical paper
f) Not mentioned
b) Positive psychology view
g) Not applicable (validation scales)
c) State
h) Quantitative approach (questionnaire survey)
B) Organizational readiness for change
d) Group level (organizational level)
i) Not mentioned
C) No definition
e) Multifaceted (4 facets, adopted from Lehman et al. (2002)): (1)
motivation for change, (2) institutional resources for supporting
change, (3) staff attributes that influence organizational change, (4)
organizational climate)
j) Individual level
20)
A) Title: Organizational variables, sales force perceptions of readiness
for change, learning, and performance among boundary-spanning
teams: A conceptual framework and proposition for research. Authors:
Rangarajan, Chonko, Jones, & Roberts. Journal: Industrial Marketing
Management (2004).
a) Conceptual theoretical paper
f) Not applicable
b) Positive psychology view
g) Attitude toward change as mediator/moderator
c) State
h) Not applicable
d) Group level (sales team)
i) Not applicable
e) Not mentioned
j) Not applicable
21)
A) Title: Organizational readiness for change, individual fear for
change, and sales manager performance: An empirical investigation.
Authors: Weeks, Roberts, Chonko, & Jones. Journal: Journal of Personal
Selling & Sales Management (2004).
a) Empirical paper
f) Not mentioned
b) Positive psychology view
g) Attitude toward change as independent variable
c) State
h) Quantitative approach (questionnaire survey)
B) Organizational readiness for change
d) Group level
i) Data acquired from change agents
C) Definition adapted from Armenakis et al. (1993): In the sales context,
perceptions of readiness for change embody the sales manager’s (1)
beliefs, attitudes, and intentions regarding the extent to which change is
e) Unifaceted (one scale, adapted from Daley (1991), Hardin
(1967), Trumbo (1961))
j) Individual level
B) Organizational readiness for change
C) Perceptions of sales organization’s readiness for change represent the
extent to which sales teams perceive that the sales organization embraces
the need to adapt to the selling environment, behaves in a manner that
supports change, and is conducive to selling success under conditions of
change (p. 292-293).
67
Chapter 1
needed, (2) perception of the organization’s ability to deal with change
under dynamic business conditions.
RESISTANCE TO CHANGE
22)
A) Title: Institutionalized resistance to organizational change: Denial,
inaction and repression. Author: Agocs. Journal: Journal of Business
Ethics (1997).
B) Institutionalized resistance to change
C) Institutionalized resistance is the pattern of organizational behavior that
decision makers in organizations employ to actively deny, reject, refuse to
implement, repress or even dismantle change proposals and initiatives.
Resistance is understood to be a process of refusal by decision makers to
be influenced or affected by the views, concerns or evidence presented to
them by those who advocate change in established practices, routines,
goals or norms within the organization. Resistance entails a range of
behaviours: refusal to engage in joint problem solving, refusal to seek
common ground, silencing advocates for change, sabotage, the use of
sanctions, and other repressive acts (p. 918).
23)
A) Title: Organizational learning and resistance to change in Estonian
companies. Authors: Alas & Sharifi. Journal: Human Resource
Development International (2002).
a) Conceptual theoretical paper
f) Not applicable
b) Negative psychology view
g) Not applicable
c) State ( … relative stable situation because it is embedded in and
expressed through organizational structures, processes of
legitimation, decision-making, and resource allocation)
h) Not applicable
d) Group level (the power holders in a company)
j) Not applicable
i) Not applicable
e) Multifaceted: (4 facets): (1) denial of the legitimacy of the case
for change, (2) refusal to recognize responsibility to address the
change issue, (3) refusal to implement a change that has been
adapted by the organization, and (4) the reversal or dismantling of a
change initiative once evaluation has begun.
a) Empirical paper
f) Large scale or transformational change (transition from planned
economy to free market economy)
b) Negative psychology view
g) Attitude toward change as dependent variable (outcome of transition)
c) State
h) Qualitative approach (interviews)
B) Resistance to change
d) Group level (organizational level)
C) Resistance to change is like a condition reflex. According to Senge,
however, resistance refers to simply questioning what the change will mean
for them.
e) Unifaceted
j) Group level (i.e., organizational level)
24)
A) Title: Resistance to organizational change: The role of cognitive and
affective processes. Authors: Bovey & Hede. Journal: Leadership and
Organizational Development Journal (2001).
a) Empirical paper
B) Resistance to organizational change
c) State
C) Individual’s intentions to engage in either supportive or resistant
behaviour toward organizational change (p. 375).
d) Individual level (Organizational change is driven by personal
change (Band, 1995; Steinburg, 1992), … Individual change is
needed in order for organizational change to succeed
68
i) Data acquired from change strategists (in each organization one
member of the executive board of directors was interviewed)
b) Negative psychology view (Failure of many corporate change
programs is often directly attributable to employee resistance)
f) Large scale or transformational change (major reorganization of systems
and procedures, introduction of process technologies, high impact change,
p. 375)
g) Attitude toward change as dependent variable
h) Quantitative approach (questionnaire survey)
i) Data acquired from change recipients
j) Individual level
Chapter 1
e) Multifaceted (3 facets): (1) overt support for change, (2) covert
resistance to change, (3) passive neutrality toward change (p. 378)
25)
A) Title: From resistance to commitment. Author: Coetsee. Journal:
Public Administration Quarterly (1999).
a) Conceptual theoretical paper
f) Not applicable
b1) Negative psychology view (resistance to change)
g) Not applicable
B1) Resistance to change
b2) Positive psychology view (commitment to change)
h) Not applicable
B2) Commitment to change (acceptance of change)
c) State (Resistance and commitment are not only important
management issues but also represent a typical polarity, i.e. poles
of a continuum, p. 205)
i) Not applicable
C1) Resistance to change can range from apathy (indifference) to
aggressive resistance. Between apathy (indifference) and aggressive
resistance (destructive opposition), there are two intermediate forms of
resistance. Passive resistance exists when mild or weak forms of opposition
are encountered demonstrated by the existence of negative perceptions
and attitudes expressed by voicing opposing views, regressive behaviour
such as threats to quit or voicing other indications of the rejection of
change. Active resistance is typified by strong but not destructive opposing
behaviour such as blocking or impeding change by imposing views and
attitudes, working to rule, slowing activities down, protests, and personal
withdrawal.
j) Not applicable
d) Individual level
e) Multifaceted: (Resistance to change, 4 facets: (1) apathy
(indifference), (2) passive resistance, (3) active resistance, (4)
aggressive resistance; Commitment to change, 3 facets: (1) support
for change, (2) involvement, and (3) commitment.
C2) The acceptance or commitment of change or commitment phase
incorporates several stages ranging from weak to very strong. The first form
of acceptance is support for the proposed change and is characterized by a
positive attitude toward the change. Involvement, the next phase, is a
stronger form of acceptance and means ‘taking part in’ or ‘doing’ and is
manifested by willing cooperation and participation behaviour. Third and
finally, there is commitment as the powerful phase of acceptance.
26)
A) Title: Resistance to change: A literature review and empirical study.
Authors: del Val, & Fuentes. Journal: Management Decision (2003).
a) Empirical paper
B) Resistance to change
c) State
C) Definition adopted from Ansoff (1990) Maurer (1996), Rumelt (1995): On
the one hand, resistance is a phenomenon that affects the change process,
delaying or slowing down its beginning, obstructing or hindering its
implementation, and increasing costs. On the other hand, resistance is any
conduct that tries to keep the status quo; that is to say, resistance is
equivalent to inertia, as persistence to avoid change.
d) Group level (organizational level)
f) Small scale or incremental change, and large scale or transformational
change
b) Negative psychology view
g) Attitude toward change as dependent variable
h) Quantitative approach (questionnaire survey)
e) Unifaceted
i) Data acquired from change strategists, and data acquired from change
agents
j) Group level (responses collected from individuals responsible for the
change project)
69
Chapter 1
27)
A) Title: Challenging resistance to change. Authors: Dent & Goldberg.
Journal: The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science (1999).
a) Conceptual theoretical paper
f) Not applicable
b) Negative psychology view (resistance is viewed as people’s fear
of poor outcomes, people’s fear of the unknown (p. 37-38))
g) Not applicable
h) Not applicable
B) Resistance to change
c) State
i) Not applicable
C) Discusses and criticizes the concept of resistance to change
d) Individual level
j) Not applicable
e) Not mentioned
28)
A) Title: Unfairness and resistance to change: Hardship as
mistreatment. Authors: Folger & Skarlicki. Journal: Journal of
Organizational Change Management (1999).
B) Resistance to change
C) Resentment-based workplace resistance refers to reactions by
disgruntled employees regarding the perceived unfairness of the change.
Resentment-based resistance behaviors can range from subtle acts of
noncooperation to industrial sabotage, are often seen by the perpetrators as
subjectively justifiable – a way to ‘get even’ for the perceived mistreatment
and a way for employees to exercise their power to restore perceived
injustice. In restricting this focus, resistance is viewed as a symptom of the
fairness of the change process and the conditions preceding the change
effort (p. 36).
29)
A) Title: Influence of participation in strategic change: Resistance,
organizational commitment and change goal commitment. Author:
Lines. Journal: Journal of Change Management (2004).
a) Conceptual theoretical paper
f) Not applicable
b) Negative psychology view
g) Attitude toward change as dependent variable (outcome of fairness
perceptions)
c) State
h) Not applicable
d) Individual level
i) Not applicable
e) Unifaceted
j) Not applicable
a) Empirical paper
f) Large scale or transformational change (strategic re-orientation of
telecommunication firm, launch of a major change programme)
b) Negative psychology view
g) Attitude toward change as dependent variable (outcome of participation)
c) State
h) Quantitative approach (questionnaire survey)
B) Resistance to change
d) Group level (organizational level)
C) Resistance toward change encompasses behaviours that are acted out
by change recipients in order to slow down or terminate on intended
organizational change (p. 198).
30)
A) Title: Modeling participation, resistance to change, and
organizational citizenship behaviour: A South African case. Authors:
Msweli-Mbanga & Potwana. Journal: South African Journal of Business
Management (2006).
i) Data acquired from change agents and change recipients
e) Unifaceted (one scale, 3 items)
j) Individual level (measurement at key informant level)
a) Empirical paper
b) Negative psychology view (resistance to change is known as inbuilt conservatism and preservation syndrome)
c) State
B) Resistance to change
70
f) Large scale or transformational change (change on a large scale in three
state-owned companies, replacing autocratic, inflexible, static and coercive
bureaucracies with agile, evolving and democratic and participative
management systems)
g) Attitude toward change as dependent variable (outcome variable of
willingness to participate and organizational citizenship behavior)
Chapter 1
C) Definition adopted from Diamond (1985): Resistance to change is a
process that fosters learning among organization participants. This process
is achieved by means of interventionist efforts of promoting learning, while
dealing with psychological defenses against change that serve to obstruct
learning. It is believed that the unconscious defensive techniques, such as
compulsive, repetitive, and security oriented actions, are modes for
adaptation. These adaptive tendencies protect the status quo and therefore
block learning.
d) Individual level
h) Quantitative approach (questionnaire survey)
e) Unifaceted (one scale, 5 items)
i) Data acquired from change recipients
j) Individual level
31)
A) Title: Overcoming resistance to resistance: Insights from a study of
the shadows. Authors: Nord & Jermier (1999). Journal: Public
Administration Quarterly (1999).
a) Conceptual theoretical paper
f) Not applicable
b) Negative psychology view (overcoming resistance appears to be
linked to a pejorative view of resistance)
g) Not applicable
B) Resistance to change
c) State
C) Definition inferred from psychoanalytic theory. Resistance is seen as a
process that keeps neurotic individuals distant from reality and from the
suggestions of their therapists. Further, this use of resistance takes an
unhealthy individual or an undesirable state of affairs as points of departure
(p. 398).
d) Individual level (embedded in psychoanalytic theory)
32)
A) Title: Resistance to change: Developing an individual difference
measure. Author: Oreg. Journal: Journal of Applied Psychology (2003).
a) Empirical paper
f) Not mentioned
b) Negative psychology view
g) Not applicable (development of instrument)
B) Resistance to change
c) Trait
h) Quantitative approach (questionnaire survey, development of scales)
C) Resistance to change is the individual’s tendency to resist or avoid
making changes or devalue change generally, and to find change aversive
across diverse contexts and types of change (p. 680).
d) Individual level
i) Not mentioned
e) Multifaceted change (4 facets): (1) routine seeking, (2) emotional
reaction to imposed change, (3) cognitive rigidity, (4) short term
focus
j) Individual level
a) Empirical paper
f) Large scale or transformational change (merger in the defense industry)
b) Negative psychology view
g) Attitude toward change as mediatior/moderator
c) State
h) Quantitative approach (questionnaire survey)
d) Individual level
i) Data acquired from change agents, and data acquired from change
recipients
33)
A) Title: Personality, context, and resistance to organizational change.
Author: Oreg. Journal: European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology (2006).
h) Not applicable
i) Not applicable
j) Not applicable
e) Not mentioned
B) Resistance to change
C) Adopted definition from Piderit (2000): Resistance is a tridimensional
(negative) attitude toward change, which includes affective, behavioural and
cognitive components. These components reflect three different
manifestations of people’s evaluation of an object or situation. The affective
e) Multifaceted (3 facets): (1) cognitive resistance, (2) affective
resistance, (3) behavioral resistance
j) Individual level
71
Chapter 1
component regards how one feels about the change; the cognitive
component involves what one thinks about change; and the behavioural
component involves action or intention to act in response to change (p. 76).
34)
A) Title: Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A
multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change.
Author: Piderit. Journal: Academy of Management Review (2000).
B) Resistance to change
C) Resistance is a tridimensional attitude. The cognitive attitude refers to an
individual’s beliefs about the attitude object. The emotional dimension refers
to an individual’s feelings in response to the attitude object. And the
conative dimension reflects an individual’s evaluations of an attitude object
that are based in past behaviors and future intentions to act. (p. 786).
a) Conceptual theoretical paper
f) Not applicable
b) Negative psychology view (although embedded in the negative
psychology tradition, resistance can also have positive implications.
For instance, what some may perceive as disrespectful or
unfounded opposition might also be motivated by individual’s ethical
principles or by their desire to protect the organization’s best
interests).
g) Not applicable
h) Not applicable
i) Not applicable
j) Not applicable
c) State
d) Individual level
e) Multifaceted (3 facets): (1) cognitive dimension of resistance; (2)
affective dimension of resistance; and (3) conative dimension of
resistance
35)
A) Title: Where to bury the survivors? Exploring possible ex post
effects of resistance change. Authors: Sherman & Garland Journal: SAM
Advanced Management Journal (2007).
a) Conceptual theoretical paper
f) Not applicable
b) Negative psychology view
g) Not applicable
c) State (cognitive, emotional and behavioral states)
h) Not applicable
d) Group level (organizational level)
i) Not applicable
e) Multifaceted: (3 facets): (1) cognitive, (2) emotional and (3)
behavioral resistance.
j) Not applicable
a) Empirical paper (2 studies)
f) Study 1: Large scale or transformational change (participants were
asked to think of a single recent change, typical responses the authors
received were: mergers, acquisitions, downsizing, budget reductions, job
restructuring, organizational restructuring, public to private sector
transitions, and the acquisition of new product lines).
Study 2: Large scale or transformational change (organization undergoing
restructuring and cultural transformation, from a bureaucracy to a profitoriented and innovative company)
B) Resistance to change
C) No definition is provided, but resistance is viewed as having cognitive,
emotional, and behavioral states that co-exist and affect each other.
36) Title: Employee cynicism and resistance to organizational change.
Authors: Stanley, Meyer & Topolnytsky (2005). Journal: Journal of Business
and Psychology.
B1) Employee cynicism
B2) Resistance to organizational change
C1) Cynicism was defined in cognitive terms and refers to disbelief of
another’s stated or implied motives for a decision or action. It is perceived
as a multifaceted construct which consists of (1) change-specific cynicism,
(2) management cynicism, and (3) dispositional cynicism. Change-specific
cynicism is a disbelief of management’s stated or implied motives for a
specific organizational change. Management cynicism is a disbelief in
management’s stated or implied motives for actions in general.
72
b1) Negative psychology view (employee cynicism)
b2) Negative psychology view (resistance to organizational change)
c1) State and trait (employee cynicism)
c2) State (resistance to organizational change)
d1) Individual level (employee cynicism)
d2) Individual level (resistance to organizational change change)
e1) Multifaceted (3 facets): (1) change specific cynicism, (2)
management cynicism, (3) dispositional cynicism
e2) Unifaceted (one scale, one continuum)
g) Study 1: Attitude toward change as independent variable (change
specific cynicism as antecedent of intention to resist change), attitude
toward change as dependent variable (resistance to change as outcome
variable)
Study 2: Change specific cynicism both an independent and dependent
Chapter 1
variable. Resistance to change as dependent variable.
Dispositional cynicism is a disbelief in the stated or implied motives of
people in general for their decisions and actions in general (p. 436).
h) Quantitative approach (study 1: survey questionnaire; study 2: survey
questionnaire, measurement at two points in time)
C2) No definition provided
i) Data acquired from change recipients (study 1 and study 2)
j) Individual level (change specific cynicism and resistance to change)
COMMITMENT TO CHANGE
37)
A) Title: Locus of control and the three components of commitment to
change. Authors: Chen, & Wang. Journal: Personality and Individual
Differences (2007).
a) Empirical paper
f) Large scale or transformational change (introduction of new appraisal
system)
b) Positive psychology view (affective commitment) and negative
psychology view (continuance commitment)
g) Attitude toward change as dependent variable (outcome of LOC)
B) Commitment to change
c) State
h) Quantitative approach (questionnaire survey)
C) Definition adopted from Herscovitch & Meyer (2002, p. 475):
Commitment to change is a force (mindset) that binds an individual to a
course of action deemed necessary for successful implementation of
change initiative. They distinguished three mindsets that bind this course of
action: (a) a desire to provide support for the change based on beliefs in its
inherent benefits (affective commitment), (b) a recognition of the costs
associated with the failure to support the change (continuance commitment
to change), and (c) a sense of obligation to provide support for the change
(normative commitment to change).
d) Individual level
i) Data acquired from change recipients
e) Multifaceted (3 facets, adopted from Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002):
(1) affective commitment, (2) continuance commitment, and (3)
affective commitment
j) Individual level
38)
A) Title: The relationship among commitment to change, coping with
change and turnover intentions. Author: Cunningham. Journal: European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology (2006).
a) Empirical paper
f) Large scale or transformational change (strategic decision to realign the
structure and the processes of the department)
B1) Commitment to change
B2) Coping with change
c1) State (commitment to change)
c2) State (coping with change)
C1) Definition ‘commitment to change’ adopted from Meyer and Herscovitch
(2002, p. 475): Commitment to change is a force that binds an individual to
a course of action deemed necessary for the successful implementation of
a change initiative
C2) Coping with change is defined as conscious psychological and physical
efforts to improve one’s resourcefulness in dealing with the stressfulness of
change (p. 31)
d1) Individual level (commitment to change: micro, person-centered
focus, p. 29-30)
d2) Individual level (coping with change)
b1) Positive psychology view (commitment to change)
b2) Negative psychology view (coping with change)
g1) Commitment to change: Attitude toward change as independent
variable
g2) Coping with change: Attitude toward change as mediator/moderator
h) Quantitative approach (questionnaires survey)
i) Data acquired from change recipients
j) Individual level
e1) Multifaceted (3 facets, commitment to change): (1) affective
commitment, (2) continuous commitment, and (3) normative
commitment.
e2) Unifaceted (coping with change one scale adapted from Judge
et al. (1999))
73
Chapter 1
39)
A) Title: The effects of organizational changes on employee
commitment: A multilevel investigation. Authors: Fedor, Caldwell &
Herold. Journal: Personnel Psychology (2006).
a) Empirical paper
b) Positive psychology view
f) Large scale or transformational change (The 32 change events included
9 reorganizations or restructuring initiatives, 8 implementations of new
technology or reengineering projects, as several mergers/consolidations of
units and changes in leadership and strategy)
c) State
g) Attitude toward change as dependent variable
B) Individual commitment to specific change
d) Individual level
C) Commitment to change represents a behavioral intention to work toward
success of the change rather than just reflecting a favorable disposition
toward it. Commitment to change captures a notion of a positive, proactive
intent that is not just the lack of resistance to change or the absence of
negative attitudes (p. 3).
h) Quantitative approach (questionnaire survey)
e) Unifaceted (one scale, intentions were selected as a
representation of commitment due to their established association
with actual behavior)
i) Data acquired from change recipients
j) Individual level
b) Positive psychology view
f) Large scale or transformational change (30% work process changes,
30% technology implementation, 11% reorganizations, 29% strategy
changes, relocations, outsourcing, leadership changes, downsizing)
c) State
g) Attitude toward change as dependent variable
B) Employee’s commitment to change
d) Individual level
h) Quantitative approach (questionnaire survey)
C) Change commitment reflects not only positive attitudes toward change
but also alignment with the change, intentions to support it, and a
willingness to work on behalf of its successful implementation. This notion
of a positive, proactive behavioral intent toward change makes commitment
different from other attitudinal constructs that capture either absence of a
negative attitude such as resistance to change, or positive dispositions
toward a change such as readiness for change, or openness to change (p.
943).
e) Unifaceted (one scale, 4 items adopted from Caldwell et al.
(2004), Fedor et al. (2006))
i) Data acquired from change recipients
41)
A) Title: Commitment to organizational change: Extension of a threecomponent model. Authors: Herscovitch & Meyer. Journal: Journal of
Applied Psychology (2002).
a) Empirical paper
40)
A) Title: Beyond change management: A multilevel investigation of
contextual and personal influences on employees’ commitment to
change. Authors: Herold, Fedor, & Caldwell . Journal: Journal of Applied
Psychology (2007).
a) Empirical paper
B) Commitment to organizational change
C) Commitment to change is a force that binds an individual to a course of
action deemed necessary for the successful implementation of a change
initiative. The mindset that binds an individual to this course of action can
reflect: (a) a desire to provide support for change based on a belief in its
inherent benefits (affective commitment to change), (b) a recognition that
there are costs associated with failure to provide support for the change
(continuance commitment to change), and (c) a sense of obligation to
provide support for the change (normative commitment to change) (p. 475).
74
j) Individual level
b) Positive psychology view
c) State
f) Large scale or transformational change (participants mentioned mergers
and acquisitions, introduction of new technology, hiring of health care aids,
changes in shift-work)
g) Attitude toward change as independent variable (commitment to change
as a predictor of behavioral support for change)
d) Individual level
e) Multifaceted (3 facets): (1) affective commitment, (2) continuance
commitment, and (3) normative commitment
h) Quantitative approach (Study 1: experimental design; Study 2:
questionnaire survey)
i) Data acquired from change recipients (data collected from nurses
undergoing a change project)
j) Individual level
Chapter 1
42)
A) Title: Employee commitment and support for organizational change:
Test of the three-component model in two cultures. Authors: Meyer,
Srinivas, Lal, & Topolnytsky. Journal: Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology (2007).
a) Empirical paper
B) Commitment for organizational change
d) Individual level
C) Definition adopted from Herscovitch & Meyer (2002, p. 475):
Commitment to change is a mindset that binds an individual to a course of
action deemed necessary for the successful implementation of a change
initiative, and argued that this mindset can reflect (a) a desire to provide
support for the change (affective commitment to the change), (b) a
recognition that there are costs associated with failure to provide support for
the change (continuance commitment to the change), and (c) a sense of
obligation to support for the change (normative commitment to the change).
e) Multifaceted (3 facets) (1) affective commitment to change, (2)
continuance commitment, (3) normative commitment
b) Positive psychology view
c) State
f) Large scale or transformational change (Study 1: The research site was
a moderate-sized Canadian energy company undergoing a planned
structural and cultural transformation to remain competitive in newly
deregulated environment. The changes involved adjustments to the nature
of jobs. Study 2: This study was conducted in one of the largest and oldest
private sector organizations in India and was part of a larger study on
organizational restructuring. A major downsizing at managerial level took
place).
g) Attitude toward change as independent variable (antecedent of
behavioural support to change)
h) Quantitative approach (Study 1: questionnaire survey, longitudinal
design; Study 2: questionnaire survey, cross-sectional design)
i) Study 1: Data acquired from change strategists, change agents, and
change recipients (i.e., entire workforce). Study 2: Data acquired from
change recipients (i.e., managers undergoing change)
j) Individual level
CYNICISM ABOUT ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
43)
A) Title: Perceptions of integrity, competence and trust in senior
management as determinants of cynicism toward change. Author:
Albrecht. Journal: Public Administration and Management (2002).
B) Cynicism toward change
C) Definition adopted from Wanous et al. (2000, p. 133): Cynicism about
organizational change is a pessimistic viewpoint about change efforts being
successful. Cynicism about organizational change consists of two
dimensions: (a) a pessimistic outlook on the likely success of change, and
dispositional attributes about those responsible for effecting successful
change.
44)
A) Title: Changing attitudes about change: Longitudinal effects of
transformational leader behavior on employee cynicism about
organizational change. Authors: Bommer, Rich, & Rubin. Journal: Journal
of Organizational Behavior (2005).
B) Employee cynicism about organizational change
C) Definition adopted from Wanous et al. (2000, p. 133): Cynicism about
organizational change is an attitude consisting of the futility of change along
a) Empirical paper
f) Not mentioned
b) Negative psychology view
g) Attitude toward change as dependent variable (outcome variable of trust
in management, integrity and competency)
c) State
h) Quantitative approach (questionnaire survey)
d) Individual level
i) Data acquired from change recipients
e) Unifaceted (one scale, 8 items adopted from Wanous et al.
(2000))
a) Empirical paper
j) Individual level
f) Small scale or incremental change (continuous change, companies were
used that were not experiencing any dramatic negative changes)
b) Negative psychology view
c) State (Organizational cynicism is generally conceptualized as a
state variable, distinct from a trait-based disposition such as
negative activity and trait cynicism. As such many scholars believe
that cynicism is a malleable attitude, p. 736)
d) Individual level (This paper involves an empirical assessment of
g) Attitude toward change as dependent variable (variable affected by
transformational leadership)
h) Quantitative approach (questionnaire survey, two wave longitudinal
design)
i) Data acquired from change agents
75
Chapter 1
with a loss of faith in those who are responsible for the changes.
individual-level change within an organizational setting)
j) Individual level
e) Unifaceted (one scale, 8 items adopted from Wanous et al.
(2000))
45)
A) Title : The BOHICA syndrome : A symptom of cynicism toward
change initiatives. Authors: Connell & Waring. Journal: Strategic Change
(2002).
a) Empirical paper
b) Negative psychology view
c) State
g) Attitude toward change as dependent variable (outcome of a breach in
psychological contracts)
d) Group level (organizational level)
h) Qualitative approach (three case studies)
e) Unifaceted
i) Data acquired from change strategists, data acquired from change
agents and data acquired from change recipients
B) Cynicism toward change
C) Cynicism is defined as a sense of uncertainty, doubt, skepticism and
distrust toward any proposed change, also known as the BOHICA
syndrome: bend over here it comes again (p. 349).
f) Small scale or incremental and large scale or transformational change
(depends on case)
j) Group level (i.e. organizational level)
46)
A) Title: Emotional intelligence in leaders: An antidote for cynicism
toward change. Authors: Ferres & Connell. Journal: Strategic Change
(2004).
B) Cynicism toward change
C) Definition adopted from Abrahamson (2000), Dean et al. (1998), Meyer
et al. (1998) and Wanous et al. (2000): Organizational cynicism is defined
as a negative attitude toward one’s employing organization, composed of
the belief that the organization is untrustworthy and lacking integrity. It is
said to manifest in reproachful and critical behaviour toward the
organization, lowering job satisfaction, reducing commitment and deterring
citizenship behaviours. For some organizations, cynicism can also be a
fundamental source of resistance during times of change. Reichers and
colleagues outlined change cynicism as a loss of faith in the change leaders
that results from previous change attempts being unsuccessful. Wanous et
al. (2000) maintain that change cynicism has two elements, a pessimistic
outlook for successful change and blame placed on those responsible for
lacking the motivation and/or ability to effect successful change (p. 135).
47)
A) Title: Understanding and managing cynicism about organizational
change. Authors: Reichers, Wanous, & Austin. Journal: Academy of
Management Executive (1997).
B) Cynicism about organizational change
76
a) Empirical paper
f) Not mentioned
b) Negative psychology view
g) Attitude toward change as dependent variable (outcome of emotional
intelligence)
c) State
h) Quantitative approach (questionnaire survey)
d) Individual level
i) Not mentioned
e) Unifaceted (one scale, 8 items adopted from Wanous et al. 2000)
j) Individual level
a) Empirical paper
f) Not mentioned
b) Negative psychology view
g) Not mentioned
c) State (Cynicism about change may result from both the
organization’s history of change attempts and a predisposition to
see things from a cynical perspective.
h) Quantitative approach (questionnaire survey, longitudinal design)
i) Not mentioned
Chapter 1
C) Cynicism about change involves a real loss of faith in the leaders of
change and is a response to a history of change attempts that are not
entirely or clearly successful. It arises in spite of the best intentions of those
responsible for change, even rational decision makers who care about the
well-being of employees and value their own reputations (p. 48).
48)
A) Title: Cynicism about organizational change: Measurement,
antecedents and correlates. Authors: Wanous, Reichers, & Austin.
Journal: Group & Organization Management (2000).
d) Individual level
j) Individual level
e) Unifaceted (one scale, 8 items, p. 57)
a) Empirical paper
f) Not mentioned
b) Negative psychology view
g) Attitude toward change as dependent variable, and attitude toward
change as independent variable
c) State
h) Quantitative approach (questionnaire survey)
B) Cynicism about organizational change
d) Individual level
C) Cynicism is the pessimistic viewpoint about change efforts being
successful because those responsible for making change are blamed for
being unmotivated, incompetent or both.
i) Data acquired from change recipients
e) Unifaceted (one scale)
j) Individual level
a) Empirical paper
f) Not mentioned
b) Negative psychology view
g) Not applicable (no analysis in terms of cause-consequences)
c) State
h) Quantitative approach (questionnaire survey)
d) Individual level
i) Not mentioned
e) Multifaceted (3 facets): (1) pessimism, (2) dispositional
attribution, and (3) situational attribution
j) Individual level
50)
A) Title: Transformational leadership, cohesion perceptions, and
employee cynicism about organizational change. The mediating role of
justice perceptions. Authors: Wu, Neubert, & Yi. Journal: Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science (2007).
a) Empirical paper
c) State
f) Large scale or transformational change (The setting for this research
was a large scale Chinese petroleum company undergoing major
organizational change. The changes included abolishing life-time
employment, implementing a new performance evaluation system, and
introducing continuous improvement programs…)
B) Employee cynicism about organizational change
d) Individual level
g) Attitude toward change as dependent variable
C) Definition adopted from Wanous et al. (2000, p. 133): Employee
cynicism about organizational change is defined as a pessimistic viewpoint
about change efforts being successful because those responsible for
e) Unifaceted (one scale, 8 items adopted from Wanous et al.,
2000)
h) Quantitative approach (questionnaire survey)
49)
a) Title: Cynicism about organizational change: An attribution process
perspective. Authors: Wanous, Reichers, & Austin. Journal: Psychological
Reports (2004).
B) Cynicism about organizational change
C) Cynicism about organizational change has been previously defined as
the combination of two components: (a) pessimism about future
organizational change being successful and (b) a dispositional attribution
that those responsible for past failures at change are viewed as being
responsible for failure of change. This definition specifically excludes a
situational attribution because organizational leaders must be perceived as
being responsible for failure of change. If leaders cannot be blamed, then it
is difficult for cynicism to develop or the critical element of distrust is unlikely
to develop if the failure of past change efforts is attributed to situation
factors.
b) Negative psychology view
i) Data acquired from change recipients
77
Chapter 1
making change are blamed for being unmotivated, incompetent or both.
OPENNESS TO CHANGE
51)
A) Title: New CEO openness to change and strategic persistence: The
moderating role of industry characteristics. Authors: Datta,
Rajagopalan, & Zhang. Journal: British Journal of Management (2003).
B) CEO openness to change
C) The term openness to change is used to synthesize the three CEO
demographic characteristics that have been most extensively related to firm
level changes in prior research, namely CEO firm tenure, age and
educational background (p. 103).
j) Individual level
a) Empirical paper
f) Large scale or transformational change (CEO succession)
b) Positive psychology view
g) CEO openness to change as independent variable (antecedent of
strategic persistence)
c) Trait (composite measure of demographic characteristics)
h) Quantitative approach
d) Individual level
i) Data acquired from change strategists (CEO’s)
e) Unifaceted (one composite measure based on a combination of
following information: (1) age, (2) tenure, (3) educational level)
j) Individual level
f) Small scale or incremental change and large scale or transformational
change
52)
A) Title: Contribution of content, context, and process to
understanding openness to organizational change: Two experimental
simulation studies. Authors: Devos, Buelens, & Bouckenooghe (2007).
Journal: Journal of Social Psychology
a) Empirical paper
B) Openness to change
d) Individual level
C) Definition adopted from Miller et al. (1994) and Wanberg and Banas
(2000): Openness to organizational change is the (a) willingness to support
the change, and (b) positive affect about the potential consequences of
change. Openness to change is a necessary initial condition for successful
planned change (p. 60).
e) Unifaceted (one scale, 7 items, adopted from Miller et al. (1994),
Wanberg & Banas (2000), and Eby et al., (2000))
j) Individual level
53)
A) Title: Antecedents to willingness to participate in planned
organizational change. Author: Miller, Johnson, & Grau. Journal: Journal
of Applied Communication Research
a) Empirical paper
f) Large scale or transformational change (major restructuring)
b) Positive psychology view
g) Attitude toward change as dependent variable
c) State
h) Quantitative approach (questionnaire survey)
d) Individual level
i) Data acquired from change recipients (the employees that were affected
by restructuring)
b) Positive psychology view
g) Attitude toward change as dependent variable
c) State
h) Quantitative approach (two experiments as research designs)
i) Not applicable (participation on voluntary basis)
B) Openness to organizational change
C) Openness is conceptualized as support for change, positive affect about
the potential consequences of the change, and it is considered a necessary,
initial condition for successful planned change.
54)
A) Title: Predictors and outcomes of openness to change in a
reorganizing workplace. Authors: Wanberg & Banas. Journal: Journal of
Applied Psychology (2000).
78
e) Unifaceted (one scale, items loading on one factor)
j) Individual level
a) Empirical paper
a) Large scale or transformational change (second-order or gamma
changes, p. 134)
b) Positive psychology view
b) Attitude toward change as mediator/moderator
Chapter 1
B) Openness to change
c) State
c) Quantitative approach (questionnaire survey)
d) Individual level
C) Definition adopted from Miller et al. (1994): Openness to organizational
change as involving (a) willingness to support the change and (b) positive
affect about the potential consequences of the change (e.g. feeling that the
changes will be beneficial in some way). A high level of openness to change
is arguably critical in creating employee readiness for organizational
change.
COPING WITH ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
55)
A) Title: Managerial coping with organizational change. Authors: Judge,
Thoresen, Pucik, & Welbourne. Journal: Journal of Applied Psychology
(1999).
d) Data acquired from change recipients
e) Multifaceted (2 facets): (1) change acceptance, (2) positive view
of the changes
a) Empirical paper
b) Negative psychology view (change is viewed as a stressor and
problem-focused coping strategies, p. 108)
f) Large scale or transformational change (major reorganization efforts and
downsizing, changes in top management, mergers and acquisitions, and
business divestments)
g) Attitude toward change as mediator/moderator
B) Coping with organizational change
c) Trait (dispositional basis, p. 108)
C) Definition of coping is adopted from Folkman et al. (1986). Coping refers
to the person’s cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage (reduce,
minimize or tolerate) the internal and external demands of the personenvironment transaction that is appraised as taxing or exceeding the
person’s resources.
d) Individual level
ADJUSTMENT TO CHANGE
56)
A) Title: Restructuring the multi-professional organization:
Professional identity and adjustment to change in a public hospital.
Authors: Callan, Gallois, Mayhew, Grice, Tluchowska & Boyce. Journal:
Journal of Health and Human Services Administration (2007).
e) Individual level
h) Quantitative approach (questionnaire survey)
e) Unifaceted (one scale, constructed own scale)
i) Data acquired from change recipients (emphasis on managers from
various levels of the organization who are most likely to be affected by the
change efforts)
j) Individual level
b) Positive psychology view
f) Large scale or transformational change (major structural or cultural
change whereby a new hospital was being built on the existing site
resulting in significant staff changes)
c) State
g) Attitude toward change as dependent variable
B) Employee adjustment to change
d) Individual level
h) Quantitative approach (questionnaire survey)
C) No definition
e) Multifaceted (2 facets): (1) openness to change, and (2) change
related uncertainty (p. 455)
i) Data acquired from change recipients (all hospital employees that were
involved in the change process)
a) Empirical paper
j) Individual level
57)
A) Title: A longitudinal study of employee adjustment to organizational
change : The role of change-related information and change related
self-efficacy. Authors: Jimmieson, Terry, & Callan. Journal: Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology (2004).
a) Empirical paper
b) Positive psychology view
c) State
f) Large scale or transformational change (The context for this research
was a state government department in the Queensland Public Service
undergoing a significant change in its strategic direction)
g) Attitude toward change as dependent variable (is considered as an end
state or goal of change)
79
Chapter 1
B) Adjustment to organizational change
d) Individual level
C) No definition
e) Multifaceted (3 facets): (1) psychological well-being, (2) job
satisfaction, and (3) client engagement
h) Quantitative approach (questionnaire survey, longitudinal design)
i) Data acquired from change recipients
j) Individual level
58)
A) Title: The role of psychological climate in facilitating employee
adjustment during organizational change.. Authors: Martin, Jones &
Callan. Journal: European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology
(2005).
a) Empirical paper
f) Large scale or transformational change (downsizing)
b) Positive psychology view
g) Attitude toward change as dependent variable
c) State
h) Quantitative approach (questionnaire survey)
B) Adjustment during organizational change
d) Individual level
i) Data acquired from change recipients (employee adjustment during
organizational change)
C) No definition
e) Multifaceted (5 facets): job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, turnover, absenteeism, psychological well-being
ACCEPTANCE TO CHANGE
59)
A) Title: Employee acceptance of organizational change: The role of
organizational commitment. Author: Iverson. Journal: The International
Journal of Human Resource Management (1996).
a) Empirical paper
j) Individual level
f) Large scale or transformational change (reduction of staff levels in
hospital departments)
b) Positive psychology view
g) Attitude toward change as dependent variable
c) State
h) Quantitative approach (questionnaire survey)
B) Employee acceptance to change
d) Individual level
i) Data acquired from change recipients
C) No definition
e) Uni-faceted (one scale)
j) Individual level
60)
A) Title: The impact of leadership and change management strategy on
organizational culture and individual acceptance of change during a
merger. Authors: Kavanagh & Ashkanasy. Journal: British Journal of
Management (2006).
a) Empirical paper
B) Individual acceptance of change
d) Individual level
C) No definition is provided but individual acceptance of change is viewed
as part of a stage-based model. Employees go through four phases: (1)
disbelief and denial, (2) anger, then rage and resentment, (3) emotional
bargaining beginning in anger and ending in depression, and finally (4)
acceptance. Unless these different stages are recognized and dealt with
astutely, employees will resent change, will have difficulty reaching the
acceptance stage.
e) Unifaceted
80
b) Positive psychology view
c) State
f) Large scale or transformational change (mergers and acquisitions
represent sudden and major change and generate a great deal of
uncertainty)
g) Attitude toward change as dependent variable (outcome of leadership
change management strategy and organizational culture)
h) Quantitative and qualitative approach (longitudinal design)
i) Not applicable
j) Individual level
Chapter 1
ATTITUDE TOWARD CHANGE
61)
A) Title: Attitudes toward organizational change. What is the role of
employees’ stress and commitment. Author: Vakola & Nikolaou. Journal:
Employee Relations (2005).
B) Attitude toward organizational change
C) Definition adopted from Arnold et al. (1995) and Elizur & Guttman
(1976): Attitudes toward change in general consist of a person’s cognitions
about change, affective reactions to change, and behavioral tendency
toward change. Researchers have therefore identified various employees’
responses to an organizational change ranging from strong positive
attitudes to strong negative attitudes.
62)
A) Title: The role of emotional intelligence and personality variables on
attitudes toward organizational change. Authors: Vakola, Tsaousis &
Nikolaou. Journal: Journal of Managerial Psychology (2004).
a) Empirical paper
f) Not mentioned
b) Positive psychology view and negative psychology view
g) Attitude toward change as dependent variable (outcome of stress that
accompanies change)
c) State
h) Quantitative approach (questionnaire survey)
d) Individual level
i) Not mentioned
e) Unifaceted (one scale, 29 items adopted from ACQ)
j) Individual level
b) Positive psychology view and negative psychology view
f) Large scale or transformational change (organizations in this inquiry had
undergone major organizational changes such as restructuring, culture
change interventions and mergers)
c) State
g) Attitude toward change as dependent variable
d) Individual level
h) Quantitative approach (questionnaire survey)
e) Multifaceted (a construct comprised of two poles negative and
positive attitude toward change)
i) Not mentioned
a) Empirical paper
B) Attitude toward organizational change
C) Definition adopted from Elizur & Guttman (1976): Attitude toward
change, in general consists of a person’s cognitions about change, affective
reactions to change, and behavioral tendency toward change
63)
A) Title: Organizational commitment as a mediator of the relationship
between Islamic work ethic and attitudes toward organizational
change. Author: Yousef. Journal: Human Relations (2000).
j) Individual level (this paper explored how emotional intelligence and the
big five dimensions of personality can facilitate organizational change at
individual level)
a) Empirical paper
f) Not mentioned
b) Positive psychology view and negative psychology view
g) Attitude toward change as dependent variable (outcome of
organizational commitment and Islamic Work Ethic)
c) State
B) Attitude toward organizational change
d) Individual level
C) No definition
64)
A) Title: Organizational commitment and job satisfaction as predictors
of attitudes toward organizational change in a non-western setting.
Author: Yousef. Journal: Personnel Review (2000).
h) Quantitative approach (questionnaire survey)
i) Not mentioned
e) Multifaceted (3 facets, 18 items adopted from Dunham et al.
(1989)): (1) cognitive tendency, (2) affective tendency, (3)
behavioral tendency)
j) Individual
a) Empirical paper
f) Not mentioned
b) Positive psychology view and negative psychology view
g) Attitude toward change as dependent variable (outcome of
organizational commitment and job satisfaction)
81
Chapter 1
c) State
B) Attitude toward organizational change
C) Definition adopted from Elizur & Guttman (1976). Attitude toward change
in general consists of a person’s cognitions about change, affective
reactions to change, and behavioral tendency toward change. Similarly,
Elizur and Guttman (1976) classified individuals’ or groups’ response to the
introduction of organizational change into three types. Affective responses
are greater or lesser feeling of being linked to, satisfied with, or anxious
about change. Cognitive responses are the opinions one has about the
advantages and disadvantages, usefulness, and necessity, and about the
knowledge required to handle the change. Finally, instrumental responses
are the actions already taken or which will be taken in the future for or
against change.
82
h) Quantitative approach (questionnaire survey)
d) Individual level
i) Not mentioned
e) Multifaceted (3 facets): (1) cognitive tendency dimension of
attitudes toward organizational change, (2) behavioral tendency
dimension of attitudes toward organizational change, (3) affective
tendency dimension of attitudes toward organizational change
j) Individual level
Chapter 2
CHAPTER 2: PSYCHOLOGICAL CLIMATE OF CHANGE AS
A CRUCIAL CATALYST OF READINESS FOR CHANGE
ABSTRACT. The aim of this inquiry was to explore the relationship
between psychological climate of change (i.e. trust in top management,
history of change, participatory management, and quality of change
communication) and readiness for change. By means of a large scale
survey administered in 53 Flemish public and private sector organizations,
we collected a total of 1,559 responses. Structural equation modeling was
used to test the hypotheses. A positively perceived change history,
participatory management and high quality change communication had
positive correlations with trust in top management. Trust in top
management did not mediate the relationships between those three
change climate dimensions and the outcome variables (i.e. emotional,
cognitive and intentional readiness for change). In addition, it was found
that history of change and quality of change communication shaped
organizational members’ emotional and cognitive readiness for change.
The complex interplay between people’s cognitions, feelings and their
intentions about organizational change confirms the need to consider
readiness for change as a multi-faceted construct. To conclude, this paper
elaborates on how these findings match the extant literature on
organizational development and change.
83
Chapter 2
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Several studies observed that management usually focuses on the
technical elements of change with a tendency to neglect the equally
important human element (Backer, 1995; Beer & Nohria, 2000; Bovey &
Hede, 2001; George & Jones, 2001). Despite the popularity of the
technological change approach, several studies demonstrated that
adopting this perspective does not always lead to successful change (Beer
& Nohria, 2000; Clegg & Walsh, 2004). An important reason why many
organizational changes result in outright failure, is because of an
underestimation of the powerful role of the human factor in organizational
change. Therefore, in order to successfully lead an organization through
major change, it is important for management to consider both the human
and technical aspects of change. Some authors even go one step further
in stating that if people in an organization are not motivated or ready for
change, the organizational change is simply doomed to fail (Antoni, 2004;
George & Jones, 2001; Porras & Robertson, 1992). From this observation,
researchers in the area of organizational change have begun to direct their
observation to a range of variables that may foster change readiness (e.g.,
Armenakis, Harris & Mossholder, 1993; Chonko, Jones, Roberts, &
Dubinsky, 2002; Eby, Adams, Russell, & Gaby, 2000; Ford, Ford, &
D’Amelio, 2008; Jones, Jimmieson, & Griffiths, 2005; Oreg, 2006).
According to Holt and colleagues (2007a) readiness for change is
manageable. Several organizational development models (Kotter, 1995;
Lewin, 1951; Mento, Jones, & Dirndorfer, 2002) suggest that the potential
sources of readiness for change lie both within the individual and the
individual’s environment. In addition, instruments appear to measure
readiness for change from several perspectives, namely the process, the
context, the content and individual attributes (Holt, Armenakis, Field, &
Harris, 2007b). The importance of these four drivers of change has been
widely acknowledged (Armenakis & Harris, 2002; Bommer, Rich, & Rubin,
2005; Judge, Thoresen, Pucik, & Welbourne, 1999; Self, Armenakis, &
84
Chapter 2
Schraeder, 2007). Studies that considered the combined effect of these
four enablers, however, are somewhat limited in their scope (Eby et al.,
2000; Oreg, 2006; Wanberg & Banas, 2000). The results are often based
on data obtained in a single organization or sector, this often leading to
very specific conclusions about the impact of change context and change
process factors.
Based upon these shortcomings, this contribution explored the
effect that change climate exerts on readiness for change in a
heterogeneous sample of 53 public and private sector organizations.
Special attention is drawn to the combined influence of the context and
process factors of the change climate. A better understanding of how
employees perceive the context and the process of change, will advance
our knowledge of the central role change climate plays in the management
of programs of planned organizational change.
2.2 Readiness for change: A multidimensional construct
Armenakis et al. (1993) defined readiness for change as involving
people’s beliefs and intentions regarding the extent to which changes are
needed and their perception of individual and organizational capacity to
successfully make those changes. This is the cognitive precursor to
behaviors of either resistance or support. This definition, however, does
not cover the whole range of possible change reactions employees’
exhibit. Therefore we concur with the suggestion that future research
would benefit from assessing readiness for change as a function of
attitudes, whereby researchers distinguish among cognitions, emotions
and intentions (Piderit, 2000).
A multidimensional view enables us to capture the complexity of
‘readiness for change’ and provides a better understanding of the
relationships between readiness for change and its antecedents. Whereas
some variables may have their primary influence on how people feel about
change, others may have more impact on what they do, and yet others on
85
Chapter 2
what they think about it. Emotional involvement to change, cognitive
commitment to change and intention to change reflect three different
manifestations of people’s evaluation of the change situation (McGuire,
1985). The emotional or affective component refers to how one feels about
change; the cognitive component involves what one thinks about change;
and the intentional component is the inclination to act in response to a
change.
2.3 The psychological CLIMATE OF CHANGE
In a recent discussion the need to incorporate context into the study
of organizational phenomena has been strongly suggested (Johns, 2006).
The context in this paper is conceived as the conditions and environment
within which employees operate. Noting the powerful influence workplace
perceptions have on individuals’ attitudes and beliefs (Eby et al., 2000;
Burke & Litwin, 1992; Cunningham et al., 2002; Tierney, 1999), we
assume that the unique individual interpretation of the change climate is a
crucial catalyst for successful change.
According
psychological
to
Michela,
climate
refers
Lukaswski
to
the
and
perceptual
Allegrante
and
(1995)
experiential
components of a reciprocal interaction between the organizational
environment and the employee. It is conceptualized as “an individual’s
psychologically meaningful representations of proximal organizational
structures, processes and events” and “as a means of explaining an
individual’s motivational and affective reactions to change” (Parker et al.,
2003). To put it differently, we call psychological climate a set of or
summary or perceptions held by individuals about their organization’s
internal environment – a feeling about actual events based upon the
interaction between actual events and the perception of those events
(James & Jones, 1974). As such, we conclude that the psychological
climate of change refers to the interpretation of the change context and
process.
86
Chapter 2
A number of recommendations about how climate should be
measured have been made (Parker et al., 2003). Psychological climate is
measured along dimensions such as trust, disengagement, hindrance,
esprit, intimacy, aloofness, production emphasis, consideration, support,
reward orientation, etc. Not all elements of climate, however, are potent in
the degree to which they determine change attitudes. Glick (1985) even
argued that climate dimensions should be selected depending on the
researcher’s criterion variables.
2.4 Selection of CHANGE climate dimensions: A set of
process and context factors of change
In the process of identifying the change climate dimensions as
potential sources of readiness for change, we reviewed studies that
examined the determinants of employees’ positive attitude towards
organizational change. The selection of papers was confined to
publications after 1993, since that was the year in which Armenakis et al.
(1993) published their seminal work on readiness for change. We
screened the abstracts of these papers and included those studies that
considered readiness for change as a criterion variable, addressing at
least one of the following categories as salient antecedents of readiness
for change: climate, process and context factors of change. Finally, we
checked the bibliographies for additional references. For our final analysis
we added several inquiries that did not refer to the term ‘readiness for
change’ in their title but examined related constructs (Iverson, 1996; Miller,
Johnson, & Grau, 1994; Vakola & Nikolaou, 2005; Wanberg & Banas,
2000). This procedure resulted in the analysis of 17 articles (see Appendix
1 for entire list).
This list is not exhaustive of research into readiness for change (for
a complete review see Holt et al., 2007b), and therefore we recognize the
arbitrariness or the idiosyncratic nature of some of our inclusion criteria.
However, we also believe that our selection of papers, which in general
87
Chapter 2
are frequently cited studies, provides a good representation of high quality
scholarly research. As such these inquiries gave us a first and reliable
indication of the crucial enablers of readiness for change.
In analyzing these sources, we noted that trust or trustworthy work
relationships,
quality
of
change
communication,
and
participatory
management are salient drivers of readiness for change. Quality of
change communication is strongly linked to the implementation process of
change. Trust in top management and participatory management refer to
the internal conditions or context under which changes occur. These three
antecedents of change climate (i.e., trust in top management, participatory
management, and quality of change communication) only cover how
current change is perceived. However, change climate is also shaped
through previous experiences and beliefs about past events. Thus, the
history of change is another aspect that should be incorporated when
observing an organization’s change climate. Moreover, research on
employees’ cynicism about change has revealed how the history of
organizational change affects the way change is perceived (Reichers,
Wanous, & Austin, 1997; Wanous, Reichers, & Austin, 2000). In summary,
past change experiences are alive in the present and may shape how
people act and react in the future (Pettigrew, Woodman, & Cameron,
2001). Therefore it is crucial to take into account that both current and past
events condition current and future attitudes toward change (Lau &
Woodman, 1995).
2.5 Antecedents of readiness for change
2.5.1 Context Factors
2.5.1.1 Trust in Top Management
In mainstream management literature trust is described as a
concept that represents the degree of confidence employees have in the
goodwill of their leader, specifically the extent to which they believe that
88
Chapter 2
the leader is honest, sincere, and unbiased when taking their positions into
account (Folger & Konovsky, 1998; Korsgaard, Schweiger, & Sapienza,
1995). Trust in top management is found to be critical in implementing
strategic decisions (Korsgaard et al., 1995) and an essential determinant
of employee openness towards change (Eby et al., 2000; Rousseau &
Tijoriwala, 1999).
One of the most difficult things employees experience when
confronted with change is the uncertainty, the ambiguity, the complexity
and the stressfulness associated with the process and outcomes (Difonzo
& Bordia, 1998). Trust can reduce these negative feelings, because it is a
resource for managing risk, dispersing complexity, and explaining the
unfamiliar through the help of others (McLain & Hackman, 1999).
Therefore, readiness for change will be strongly undermined if the
behavior of important role models (i.e. leaders) is inconsistent with their
words (Kotter, 1995; Simons, 2002). So, management provides an
important behavioral example for facilitating employee adjustment during
organizational change (Bandura, 1986). If management does not ‘walk the
talk’, there is a strong likelihood that employees will perceive their leaders
as unreliable. Subsequently, they will attach less credence to the message
that change is necessary, lose confidence in the realization of change
benefits, and in conclusion their motivation to support change will
decrease (Kotter, 1995).
The whole idea behind the central role of trust in management as a
determinant of people’s readiness for change can be explained by the
theory of social accounts (Sitkin & Bies, 1993). Management tries to justify
the actions undertaken by citing different reasons to motivate change (i.e.
social accounts). The perceived legitimacy of these social accounts and
the influence they have on employee reactions is a function of the
credibility and sincerity of the account giver (Bies, 1987; Rousseau &
Tijoriwala, 1999). It is frequently believed that followers are willing to
engage in desired behaviour (i.e. readiness for change) if they feel that the
leader demonstrates care, consideration and fairness as a form of social
89
Chapter 2
exchange (Konovsky & Pugh, 1994). Thus, high trust in management
(against low trust) should be accompanied by higher readiness for change.
From this argument, we believe that:
Hypothesis 1 (H1): Trust in top management is positively related to
readiness for change.
2.5.1.2 History of Change
Organizational change research has tended to ignore time and
history as critical context factors that affect organizational change
processes (Pettigrew et al., 2001, Bordia, Restubog, Jimmieson, & Irmer,
2007). Few studies actually considered an organization’s change history
as an antecedent of readiness for change. Despite the limited interest for
this contextual force, we found indications that employees’ perceptions of
past change failures may limit or even doom efforts at new organizational
changes. For example, Reichers et al. (1997) noted that people tend to
develop cynicism about new organizational change, due to negative
change experiences (Reichers et al., 1997; Wanous et al., 2000). In short,
some studies showed that an unsuccessful change history is negatively
correlated with the motivation or effort put into making those changes. As
a consequence, one of the aims of this study is to explore the effects of
organizational change history on employee change attitudes.
The effects of organizational change history can be explained by
joining the expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964) and the schema theory
(Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Lau & Woodman, 1995). Both perspectives help us
in our understanding of how beliefs or expectancies about the likelihood of
successful organizational change become crucial drivers of employee’s
motivation to change. A schema is a prototypical abstraction of a complex
concept, one that gradually develops from past experience, subsequently
guiding the way new information is organized (Rousseau, 2001). Bordia et
al. (2007) suggested that schemata about past change experiences shape
the expectations about future organizational changes. Although a change
90
Chapter 2
schema may not be the only cognitive variable that affects attitudinal and
behavioral responses toward change, it is nevertheless an important guide
for future actions (George & Jones, 2001; Lau & Woodman, 1995).
According to Vroom (1964) and George and Jones (2001) schemata
are accompanied by sentiments that generate positive or negative
expectancies, which in turn are prompts for the efforts people invest in
change. Thus, when a change recipient embarks on organizational
change, a schema of previous change experiences is triggered and the
sentiment (i.e. positive or negative) that ensues from this processing will
thereupon determine the effort put into change. If the experience is
positive, people will increase their effort, but when the experience is
negative, they limit their investments. In short, we believe that readiness
for change is affected by the track record of successful implementation of
organizational changes (Schneider, Brief, & Guzzo, 1996). In other words,
a positive experience with previous change projects will activate
employees’ readiness; a negative experience will inhibit their readiness
(Bernerth, 2004). Based on these arguments, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 2 (H2): A positive perceived history of change is positively
related to readiness for change.
2.5.1.3 Participatory Management
One of the earlier works that noted the significance of participation
of employees in the change process is the landmark study by Coch and
French (1948) on ‘Overcoming resistance to change’. Through a variety of
experiments at the Harwood Manufacturing Plant, they observed that
groups that were allowed to participate in the design and development of
change had a much lower resistance than those who did not.
Leana (1986) expresses a view that participation is a special type of
delegation by which management shares authority with employees. Early
and Lind (1987) consider this process as a means by which employees
are given a voice to express themselves. This style of management
91
Chapter 2
affords employees the opportunity to gain some control over important
decisions and in fact is a way designed to promote ownership of plans for
change (Manville & Ober, 2003). The basic notion is that people will
behave in ways that will produce effective change if they can be made to
feel part of the decision, rather than depending on decisions made by
others (Dirks, Cummings, & Pierce, 1996).
When employees’ commitment towards change needs to be
established, it all comes down to creating a sense of perceived control
over the change process (Cunningham et al., 2002). For example,
McNabb and Sepic (1995) found that lack of participation was a major
cause of disappointing results with organizational renewal. Employees
must believe that their opinions have been heard, respected and carefully
considered (Reichers et al., 1997). Therefore we suggest that selfdiscovery through active participation in important decisions, combined
with the symbolic meaning of organizational leaders demonstrating their
confidence in the wisdom of employees, can produce a genuine sense of
control over organizational change and lead to an increased readiness for
change. Consistent with this discussion, we formulated the following
hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3 (H3): Participatory management is positively related to
readiness for change.
2.5.2 Process Factors: Quality of Change Communication
The challenge that constantly returns in all change projects is
management’s struggle to overcome employees’ persistent attitude to
avoid change. The answer not only lies in a participative leadership style
of management, but also in communication with organizational members.
Indeed, several authors claim that communication of change is the primary
mechanism for creating readiness for change (Armenakis & Harris, 2002;
Bernerth, 2004; Miller et al., 1994).
92
Chapter 2
Communication
is
vital
to
the
effective
implementation
of
organizational change (Bordia, Hunt, Paulsen, & Tourish, 2004; Schweiger
& Denisi, 1991). Poorly managed change communication often results in
widespread rumors, which often exaggerate the negative aspects of the
change and build resistance towards change. Thus the quality of
communication will often determine how employees fill in the blanks of
missing change information. If the quality is poor, people tend to develop
more cynicism (Reichers et al., 1997). For instance, the absence of timely
communication by management or organizational silence creates
situations in which employees may learn about the change from external
organizational sources such as news media (Richardson & Denton, 1996).
Receiving such initial information from outsiders may surprise employees
and bias their perception of change formulation and implementation by
management. Accordingly, management should try to keep such surprises
to a minimum, as people who feel excluded from such essential
information are more likely to develop cynical attitudes towards
organizational change (Reichers et al., 1997). Therefore routine notice
about what is happening is an absolute must.
The fact that change projects should be announced in a timely
fashion, preferably by management, is at least as important as why the
change occurs. In other words, management should answer the question
why change is crucial. The lack of a perceived need for change among
change recipients is found to be a key source of resistance, and also an
important barrier to the successful implementation of change (Pardo del
Val & Martinez Fuentes, 2003). In the light of these findings, Bommer,
Rich and Rubin (2005) noted that articulating a clear and timely change
vision is essential in order to develop a felt need to change. Employees
need to experience a ‘felt need’ that is strong enough to create a state of
dissonance between the current situation and what is required
(Armenakis, Bernerth, Pitts, & Walker, 2007). Without transparent, clear
and accurate communication, a transformation effort can easily dissolve
93
Chapter 2
into a list of confusing and incompatible projects that can take the
organization in the wrong direction or nowhere at all (Kotter, 1995).
In summary, the role of management and change agents during
change is one of managing language and dialogue (Ludema & Di Virgilio,
2007). Therefore, one of the most powerful change interventions occurs at
the level of everyday conversation and communication (Dixon, 1997).
According to Weick (1995) communication helps people make sense of
changes already under way, makes changes more salient, and helps
reframe changes. So, what is said matters, and the rigor and
consciousness in the communication of change are what differentiates a
successful change from one derailed by resistance and uncertainty (Ford
& Ford, 1995). In conclusion, we believe that the quality of communication
contributes to the justification of the reasons why change is necessary,
reduces the change related uncertainty and is essential in shaping
employees’ readiness for change. Thus:
Hypothesis 4 (H4): Good quality change communication is positively
related to readiness for change.
2.5.3 The Mediating Role of Trust in Top Management
The hypotheses formulated above all denote direct effects of the
four psychological change climate variables on readiness for change.
However, complex changes suggest that these relationships incorporate
more intricate dynamics than main effects only. We concur with this
picture of a more sophisticated change reality and believe that the total
effects of history of change, participatory management, and quality of
change communication on readiness for change can be better understood
when the mediating effect of trust in management is taken into
consideration. A mediating role, however, can only be assumed if there is
a relationship between the antecedent variables (i.e. history of change,
participation in decision-making, and quality of change communication)
94
Chapter 2
and the mediator variable (i.e. trust in top management). Because we
have already addressed that trust in management is related to readiness
for change (Hypothesis 1), we will elaborate on the antecedent-mediator
relationship.
Lines, Selart, Espedal and Johansen (2005) observed that the
magnitude and production of trust during organizational change is
dependent on a set of change dimensions that reflect trust relevant
experiences. Several studies indicated that successful change history,
openness and sharing of information and involvement in the change
process are among the core determinants that shape trust in leadership
(Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Kramer, 1999).
In his profound review of the literature on trust, Kramer (1999)
identified that trust can be based on history-dependent experiences.
Positive experiences in previous interactions with the same party help to
build trust. Transferred to the context of organizational change, one can
assume that if employees feel that the organization was incapable of
managing change effectively in the past or failed to safeguard their
interests, trust in the organization will be undermined. Therefore poorly
managed change in the past can stymie employees’ trust in the
organizational leadership (Bordia et al., 2007).
According to the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), individuals
exchange intrinsic social rewards, including trust. Through various words,
actions, or events, employees may come to perceive that they are trusted
by management, and in turn feel obligated or motivated to reciprocate by
showing trust in management (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Ferrin, Dirks, & Shah,
2003). By granting decision influence to employees, managers signal that
they (the employees) can be trusted not to exclusively pursue narrow self
interests when participating in a decision process, but to also keep
employees’ interests in mind (Lines et al., 2005). Due to the strong norm
of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960) employees are likely to reciprocate by
95
Chapter 2
perceiving managers who delegate decision influence as more trustworthy
than those who do not.
Finally, an employee’s trust in management may also be impacted
by the openness of communication. Open communication, in which
managers exchange thoughts and ideas freely with employees, can lead
to increased perceptions of fairness and trust (Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard,
& Werner, 1998). Thus, we believe that when management is less willing
to take on ‘open book management’, people may perceive this as an act of
concealing their true motives and by consequence consider them less
trustworthy (Lines et al., 2005, Sekhar & Anjaiah, 1996). In summary,
based upon these arguments, we hypothesize that perceived history of
change, quality of change communication, and participatory management
have an indirect influence on readiness for change through their effect on
trust in management.
Hypothesis 5 (H5): The effects of history of change, quality of change
communication and participatory management on readiness for change
are mediated through the role of trust in top management.
2.6 Method
2.6.1 Data Collection Procedure
In this study a self-administered survey was carried out in 53
Belgian organizations undergoing a change process. Upper management
also acknowledged that each firm was undergoing an important change
process. Questionnaires were first pretested on a sample of ten people.
The ten respondents were asked to determine whether the items used for
each variable were relevant? This exercise was done to increase the
content validity of the research instrument.
In the main study, managerial and non-managerial personnel were
asked to respond to statements related to four psychological climate for
96
Chapter 2
change dimensions (i.e. trust in top management, history of change,
participatory management and quality of change communication) and
readiness for change (emotional dimension, cognitive dimension and
intention dimension). Respondents were given the option of returning the
surveys in a sealed envelope via mail, or directly to the research team. A
member of the research team visited the organization one week following
survey distribution. This encouraged staff to return surveys to the
researcher at this time.
2.6.2 Organizational Context
A two-stage sampling procedure was used to select our
participants. First a sample of profit and non-profit organizations was
drawn from the major business regions in the Dutch speaking part of
Belgium (i.e. Brussels, Antwerp and Ghent). In total 53 organizations were
included for analysis. Approximately 60 per cent of the sample involved
profit sector organizations (n = 32). The core activities and services of the
profit sector organizations were very distinct incorporating IT firms,
manufacturing firms (e.g. metal, cement, automotive etc), organizations
specialized in telecommunications but also several consultancy firms and
financial institutions. The operations carried out by non-profit sector
organizations involved health care services, law enforcement, defence,
education, and etc. In terms of the number of people employed in each
company, the Department of Defence was the largest employer with over
40,000 jobs. Our sample also incorporated much smaller organizations
with less than 10 people on their pay roll. To get a more general view of
the heterogeneity of the sample we refer to appendix 2.
In the second step of the sampling procedure we asked contact
persons of each organization to select only employees affected by the
change. Respondents completed the questionnaire voluntarily. A total of
1,559 individuals participated in this inquiry, including responses of 930
people holding a managerial position and 629 people holding a non-
97
Chapter 2
managerial job position. A total of 827 responses were collected from the
profit sector and 732 responses from the non-profit sector. After cleaning
the initial dataset for response patterns and missing values, a total of
1,488 respondents were retained in our analyses.
2.6.3 Type of Change in this Inquiry
In a recent study that examined the effects of the content of change
it was highlighted that the degree of readiness for change varied across
different types of changes (Rafferty & Simons, 2005). Instead of adding
the type of change as an extra variable to our equation, we controlled for
these effects by only focusing on organizations that were undergoing
similar types of changes. By holding the type of change constant in our
samples we are confident about the generalizability of the observed
effects of the context and process characteristics of change. With respect
to the phase of change only changes were included that were recently
announced or just under way. Furthermore we only incorporated
respondents that were experiencing salient and immediate consequences
of the change. Finally, with regards to the scale of change we note that it
involved large-scale changes but changes that had no job threatening
character. For example these large-scale changes were the introduction of
an internationalization strategy, changes to organizational culture,
reorganizations with no lay offs, introduction of new technologies,
introduction of a customer oriented focus, etc.
2.6.4 Measures and Scales
Multi-item measures were used to ensure adequate measurement
of each variable. Some scales were borrowed from pre-existing measures,
while others were adjusted for this study. Reliability of the measures was
assessed using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, and these are presented in
Table 1. As can be seen from this table, all measures used had adequate
internal consistency. For each item from the survey measure, as listed in
98
Chapter 2
Table 2, the respondents were asked to indicate to what extent the
statements were applicable to their situation on a five-point Likert type
scale (i.e. 1 = totally disagree and 5 = totally agree).
TABLE 2.1: Study variables and correlations
M
SD
1
2
3
4
5
COGRFC
3.55
.68
(.70)
INTRFC
4.17
.62
.38
(.88)
EMORFC
3.64
.75
.52
.60
(.85)
TRUST
3.14
.73
.48
.21
.35
(.72)
.28
.49
(.73)
6
HISTORY
3.37
.64
.50
.18a
PART
3.48
.69
.42
.21
.26
.43
.29
(.78)
3.09
.76
.48
.31
.47
.54
.34
.47
QUALCOM
7
(.83)
a
Note: For this sample size, p < .001 for r = .18
COGRFC: cognitive dimension of readiness for change; INTRFC: intention dimension of readiness for change;
EMORFC: emotion dimension of readiness for change; TRUST: trust in top management; HISTORY: history of
change; PART: participatory management; QUALCOM: quality of change communication.
2.6.4.1 Dependent Variables (DV’s)
The readiness for change variables were gauged by scales adapted
from Metselaar (1997) and Oreg (2006). The emotional dimension
(EMORFC), the cognitive dimension (COGRFC), and the intentional
dimension (INTRFC) each consist of three items (see Table 2) and
demonstrated good internal consistency (see Table 1).
2.6.4.2 Independent Variables (IV’s)
Trust in top management (TRUST) was assessed with a three-item
scale (see Table 2) based on instruments developed by Albrecht and
Travaglioni (2003), and Kim and Mauborgne (1993). The internal
consistency of this scale was good (see Table 1). The measurement of the
second context variable ‘history of change’ (HISTORY) was adapted from
Metselaar (1997) and is comprised of four items (α = .73). The third
context variable ‘participatory management’ (PART) was measured with a
six-item scale (see Table 2). Items were borrowed from Lines (2004) and
99
Chapter 2
Wanous et al. (2000). The reliability of this scale was found to be more
than adequate (α = .78). Finally, to measure ‘quality of change
communication’ (QUALCOM) we used six items from Miller et al. (1994).
This scale also yielded good internal reliability (α = .83).
TABLE 2.2: Factor loadings of items on their respective constructs
Items
Factor loadings
Emotional component of readiness for change
I find the change refreshing
EMORFC1
.78
I have a good feeling about the change
EMORFC2
.81
I experience the change as a positive process
EMORFC3
.83
I am willing to make a significant contribution to the change
INTRFC1
.79
I want to devote myself to the process of change
INTRFC2
.88
I am willing to put energy into the process of change
INTRFC3
.86
COGRFC1
.67
Overall the proposed changes are for the better
COGRFC2
.70
I think that most changes will have an negative effect on the clients we serve*
COGRFC2
.62
Our organization has always been able to cope with new situations
HISTORY1
.56
Past changes generally were successful
HISTORY2
.76
Announced changes usually came to nothing in the past*
HISTORY3
.68
Our company has proven to be capable of major changes
HISTORY4
.54
The executive management fulfills its promises
TRUST1
.70
The executive management consistently implements its policy in all departments
TRUST2
.69
The two way communication between the executive management and the
TRUST3
.67
PART1
.82
Changes are always discussed with the people concerned
PART2
.84
Front line staff and office workers can raise topics for discussion
PART3
.57
Intention component of readiness for change
Cognitive component of readiness for change
Most change projects that are supposed to solve problems around here will not do
much good*
History of change
Trust in top management
departments is very good
Participatory management
Decisions concerning work are taken in consultation with the staff members who are
affected
Our department provides sufficient time for consultation
PART4
.47
Problems are openly discussed
PART5
.47
It is possible to talk about outmoded regulations and ways of working
PART6
.44
I am regularly informed about how the change is going
QUALCOM1
.76
Information provided on change is clear
QUALCOM2
.77
Information concerning the changes reaches us mostly as rumors*
QUALCOM3
.58
Quality of change communication
100
Chapter 2
There is a good communication between project leaders and staff members
QUALCOM4
.72
We are sufficiently informed of the progress of change
QUALCOM5
.59
It is clear how the objectives of change can be put into practice
QUALCOM6
.56
concerning the organization’s policy towards changes
* reversed scoring
2.7 Results
2.7.1 Descriptive Statistics
In Table 1 the means, SD’s and correlations are displayed. A first
observation was that for all scales the respondents on average scored
significantly higher than the theoretical midpoint (lowest 3.09 through
highest 4.17). Medium to strong correlations (ranging between .38 and
.60) were observed between the readiness for change dimensions,
indicating a strong interplay between the ways people think (COGRFC),
feel (EMORFC), and intend to act towards change (INTRFC). Despite
these correlations confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that it was
better to treat the affective, the cognitive and the intentional dimensions of
readiness for change as separate constructs.
2.7.2 The Degree of Multicollinearity
Due to the highly significant nature of correlations between all
scales, multicollinearity tests were performed. A first indicator for checking
possible collinearity is the correlation matrix. The maximum correlation
found between our independents was .54. In addition, the Variance
Inflation Factor values and the condition indices were computed, and the
regression coefficient variance-decomposition matrix was used to check
the impact of collinearity. The Variance Inflation Factor values and
condition index indicated inconsequential collinearity. No Variance Inflation
Factor values exceeded the recommended cut-off value of 10, and no
condition index was greater than 30.0, making it unnecessary to examine
101
Chapter 2
the regression coefficient variance-decomposition matrix (Hair, Anderson,
Tatham, & Black, 1998). Based upon these tests it was concluded that
multicollinearity had a limited effect.
2.7.3 SEM Analyses
AMOS 7.0 was used to test whether the assumed relationships
were significant, and to establish the fit of the empirical data with the
hypothesized model. Maximum likelihood estimation methods were used
and the input for each analysis was the covariance matrix of the variables.
The goodness-of-fit of the models to the data was evaluated using relative
and absolute indices. The absolute goodness-of-fit statistics calculated
were the Chi-square goodness-of-fit statistic, the Goodness of Fit Index
(GFI) and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). Values
of GFI greater than .90 indicate a reasonable fit, and values of RMSEA
smaller than .08 are indicative of an acceptable fit (Browne & Cudeck,
1993).
Following the recommendations by Byrne (2001) we also computed
three relative goodness-of-fit indices: (1) Normed Fit Index (NFI), (2)
Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), and (3) the Comparative Fit Index (CFI). Before
testing the structural models, the adequacy of the measurement model
was assessed.
2.7.3.1 Measurement Model
To assess the dimensional structure of readiness for change and
the psychological climate for change constructs all items were subjected to
a confirmatory factor analysis. The aim of this procedure was to establish
the factorial validity of the items. The measurement model, consisting of
seven correlated latent factors (three dimensions of readiness for change
and four psychological change climate dimensions), fit the data very well
with exception for the chi-square statistic. This chi-square statistic was
significant (χ2 = 1300.36, p < .001), indicating a difference between the
102
Chapter 2
hypothesized model and actual structure. However, because structural
equation modelling is extremely sensitive to sample size, in judging
goodness of fit, we calculated the chi-square statistic divided by the
degrees of freedom (referred to as the normed chi-square, NC, Kline,
2004). Although there is no clear-cut value to use for NC in conducting a
goodness of fit, Kline (2004) reported that researchers have used values
ranging from 2.0 to 5.0. Our NC falls within that range (χ2 = 1300.36/ df =
329, 3.93). Besides the NC fit index our measurement model yielded
acceptable fit on all other fit indices (GFI = .94, RMSEA = .05, NFI = .92,
TLI = .93, CFI = .94).
The standardized factor loadings ranged from .44 to .88 (see Table
2) and the equivalent unconstrained regression weight estimates were
statistically significant. According to Kline (2004) a standardized value
higher than .50 on its respective factor demonstrates a reasonably high
factor loading. Since all standardized values were higher than .50 with
exception for the items PART4, PART5 and PART6 (see Table 2), we
believe that our measures did an excellent job at representing their
underlying latent structure.
2.7.3.2 Hypotheses
Figure 1 displays our hypothesized model (M1). Although the
goodness-of-fit indices indicate that the model fits the data well (see Table
3), Mulaik et al. (1989) suggested that good fitting models may suffer
misspecification, suggesting that alternative models should be considered.
Therefore we compared our hypothesized model against five alternative
models (M0, M2, M3, M4 and M5).
103
Chapter 2
FIGURE 2.1: Hypothesized model (M1, partially mediated model)
ξ2
History
Intrfc
ξ1
Qualcom
Trust
ξ3
Cogrfc
ξ4
Part
Emorfc
The first model (M0) was a null model in which no variables were
related. The second model (M2) was a fully mediated model with only
indirect relationships from HISTORY, PART and QUALCOM on EMORFC,
COGRFC and INTRFC. The third model (M3) was a partially mediated
model with only one factor measuring readiness for change. M4 was the
fully mediated equivalent of M3. Our fifth and final model (M5) was a
model that emerged from misspecification in the hypothesized model (M1).
The reparameterization of this initial model (M1) was justified because the
modification index specifications (MI’s) were theoretically meaningful
(Joreskog, 1993). The MI’s indicated that a better fitting model could be
achieved when effects between the outcome variables EMORFC,
COGRFC and INTRFC were incorporated. Several sources in the
literature argue that emotion (i.e. EMORFC), cognition (COGRFC) and
intention (INTRFC) are not experienced in isolation (Ajzen, 1991, Bovey &
Hede, 2001; George & Jones, 2002). Rather, humans function holistically
and experience thinking, emoting and acting simultaneously with the
various processes overlapping. Thus, we believe that adding the direct
104
Chapter 2
effects (EMORFC – COGRFC and EMORFC – INTRFC) to our model was
acceptable from both a data driven and theoretical point of view.
TABLE 2.3: Goodness of fit indices of models
Models
χ2
χ2/df
GFI
RMSEA
NFI
TLI
CFI
Model 0 (M0)
16986.93
44.94
.31
.17
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Model 1 (M1)
1474.68
4.44
.93
.05
.91
.92
.93
Model 2 (M2)
2008.04
5.89
.91
.06
.88
.89
.90
Model 3 (M3)
3090.88
9.09
.85
.07
.81
.82
.83
Model 4 (M4)
3198.60
9.33
.84
.08
.81
.81
.83
Model 5 (M5)
1341.67
3.97
.94
.05
.92
.93
.94
Note: n.a.: not applicable
An assessment of all six models (M0 through M5) demonstrated
that M5 had the best fit compared to the other models. Subsequently this
model was used to test our hypotheses. Figure 2 only displays the
significant relationships found in M5. The results partially supported
hypothesis 2 and hypothesis 4. Statistically significant (p<.001) and
positive relationships were found between HISTORY and EMORFC (γ =
.23), HISTORY and COGRFC (γ = .63), QUALCOM and EMORFC (γ =
.42), and QUALCOM and COGRFC (γ = .12). No significant direct effects
were noted for the three context variables on INTRFC. Hypothesis 3 could
not be supported because PART had no significant relationship with any of
the three readiness for change dimensions. Finally, the hypothesized
relationship between TRUST and readiness for change was not confirmed
by the results in this inquiry (Hypothesis 1). Although significant positive
relationships were noted for our three antecedent variables with TRUST,
the lack of support for hypothesis 1 made it impossible to determine the
mediating effect. In consequence, no empirical evidence was found that
confirmed
our
fifth
hypothesis.
In
addition
to
the
hypothesized
relationships, the respecified model (M5, see Figure 2) indicated mediating
effects of EMORFC for HISTORY and QUALCOM in the prediction of
105
Chapter 2
COGRFC and INTRFC. For COGRFC it involved a partial mediation,
whereas it concerned a full mediation in the case of INTRFC.
FIGURE 2.2: Best fitting model (M5)
.16
.12
History
Intrfc
.16
.34
Qualcom
.07
.63
.64
.15
Trust
.16
.42
.06
.53
Cogrfc
.30
.31
.22
Part
.23
Emorfc
Note: The numbers displayed are unstandardized regression weights and covariances for
the significant effects only (all displayed effects are significant at p<.001). Double headed
arrows are covariances.
2.7.4 Explained Variance in RFC and the Relative Importance of
Context and Process
After testing our hypotheses, we computed the percentage of
explained variance in our three dependent variables (EMORFC, COGRFC
and INTRFC) attributable to context and process controlling for JOB
POSITION (management versus non-management) and SECTOR (profit
versus non-profit). Context and process explained 40% of the variance in
COGRFC, 24% of the variance in EMORFC, and 11% of the variance in
INTRFC. To determine the relative importance of those three sets of
variables (control variables, context and process) we performed
dominance analysis (Budescu, 1993, Eby et al., 2000).
106
Chapter 2
Dominance analysis involves a two step procedure. The first step is
a ‘qualitative way’ of looking at dominance. Dominance is the pairwise
relationship that can be tested for all p(p-1)/2 pairs of variables included in
the model. For each dependent variable (i.e. COGRFC, EMORFC and
INTRFC) we computed seven separate regression equations based on all
possible orderings of three sets of variables (i.e. set A, set B, and set C,
see Table 4). Pairwise dominance of each set was determined by
comparing each pair of sets, across all rows (submodels) for which both
variable sets were non-empty (see Table 4). Consistency of responses
across all possible pairings indicated dominance. Inconsistency of
responses across all possible pairings indicated equally important
predictors (Budescu, 1993). For example, in row 1 of Table 4 with
COGRFC as outcome, set B (CONTEXT = HISTORY, TRUST, and PART)
was greater than set C (PROCESS = QUALCOM) and set A (CONTROL =
JOB POSITION and SECTOR), and set C was greater than set A. In row
2, set B was greater than set C. In row 3, set C was greater than set A.
Finally in row 4, set B was found greater than set A. In sum, all pairwise
comparisons were consistent, indicating that the context factors (set B)
were dominant to the process factors (set C) and the control variables (set
A). This implies that the context factors of change (i.e. HISTORY and
TRUST) were the most useful set in predicting COGRFC, followed by the
set of process variables and control variables.
TABLE 2.4: Dominance analysis with variable sets
Additional contribution of
DV: COGRFC, Variable set
R2
Set A
Set B
Set C
-
0
.053
.367
.229
Set A
.053
-
.341
.192
Set B
.367
.027
-
.030
Set C
.229
.016
.168
-
Set A, set B
.394
-
-
.022
Set A, set C
.245
-
.171
-
Set B, set C
.397
.019
-
-
Total R2 (set A, set B, set C)
.416
-
-
-
107
Chapter 2
DV: INTRFC, Variable set
R2
Set A
Set B
Set C
-
0
.029
.066
.098
Set A
.029
-
.072
.089
Set B
.066
.035
-
.039
Set C
.098
.020
.007
-
Set A, set B
.101
-
-
.031
Set A, set C
.118
-
.014
-
Set B, set C
.105
.027
-
-
Total R2 (set A, set B, set C)
.132
-
-
-
DV: EMORFC, Variables set
R2
Set A
Set B
Set C
-
0
.053
.144
.221
Set A
.053
-
.138
.196
Set B
.144
.047
-
.094
Set C
.221
.028
.017
-
Set A, set B
.191
-
-
.078
Set A, set C
.249
-
.02
-
Set B, set C
.238
.031
-
-
Total R2 (set A, set B, set C)
.269
-
-
-
a
Notes: Set A = control variables (SECTOR and JOB POSITION), Set B = context variables of psychological
climate for change (TRUST, HISTORY and PART), Set C = process variables of psychological climate for
change (QUALCOM)
Similar pairwise comparisons and analyses were conducted for the
dependent variables EMORFC and INTRFC. In the case of INTRFC and
EMORFC, we observed that the process variables were dominant over the
other sets of predictors. No consistent pairwise comparisons were found
between sets A and B, indicating that the context factors and control
variables were equally important (Budescu, 1993).
After the qualitative identification of dominance or equality across
pairs in step 1, step 2 involved a quantitative assessment of the relative
contribution of each set of predictors. This quantitative measure of
importance [M(Cxi)] yielded a useful decomposition of the models’
squared multiple correlation (R2) (Budescu, 1993). We computed the
average (R2) for the three sets of variables, across all possible ordering
108
Chapter 2
sets (see Table 5). In the case of COGRFC, we observed that 63.5 per
cent of the total explained variance was attributed to the context factors,
29 per cent to the process factor and 7.5 per cent to the control variables.
The process factor QUALCOM with INTRFC as outcome variable,
accounted for 49 per cent of the total explained variance, followed by the
context variables (30%) and control variables (21%). Finally, we computed
that 55 per cent of the total explained variance in EMORFC was for the
account of QUALCOM, 30 per cent for the account of the context variables
and 15 per cent for the account of the control variables.
Table 2.5: Quantitative measures of importance for sets of variables
aSet
A
Set B
Set C
DV: COGRFC
K=0
.053
.367
.229
K=1
.022
.255
.111
K=2
.019
.171
.022
M (Cxi)
.031
.264
.121
Relative percentage
7.5%
63.5%
29%
K=0
.029
.066
.098
K=1
.028
.040
.064
K=2
.027
.014
.031
M (Cxi)
.028
.040
.064
Relative percentage
21%
30%
49%
K=0
.053
.144
.221
K=1
.038
.078
.145
K=2
.031
.020
.078
M (Cxi)
.041
.081
.148
Relative percentage
15%
30%
55%
DV: INTRFC
DV: EMORFC
a
Notes: Set A = control variables (SECTOR and JOB POSITION), Set B = context variables of psychological
climate for change (TRUST, HISTORY and PART), Set C = process variables of psychological climate for
change (QUALCOM).
b
(K = 0, 1, 2; where K are the number of additional sets taken into account). M(Cxi)
indicates the average usefulness of each set of variables. Relative percentages indicates the relative
importance of each set of variables to overall prediction.
109
Chapter 2
2.8 Discussion
The aim of this paper was to explore the role and relationships of
the psychological climate for change in understanding the way
organizational members feel, think and act when confronted with
organizational change. More specifically, this inquiry examined the
potential effects of trust in top management, history of change,
participatory management and quality of change communication on
employees’ readiness for change. In partial support of our expectations,
the results indicated that both history of change and quality of change
communication were strongly correlated with the cognitive and emotional
dimension of readiness for change. No significant effects were observed
for the context factors trust in top management and participatory
management. Due to the absence of a relationship between trust in top
management and our readiness for change dimensions, we could not
confirm the mediating role of trust. In addition, to what was hypothesized
some interesting relationships appeared between our three outcome
variables. Emotional readiness for change had a positive relationship with
both cognitive readiness for change and intentional readiness for change.
In addition, emotional readiness for change mediated the relationships of
history of change and quality of change communication with cognitive and
intentional readiness for change.
By means of dominance analysis we were able to determine the
relative contribution of both context and process characteristics of change
as crucial predictors of readiness for change. In particular, the findings
suggested that the process factor quality of change communication was
the most appropriate predictor in explaining emotional and intentional
readiness for change, whereas the context factors (history of change, trust
in top management, and participatory management) were the most
relevant in the case of cognitive readiness for change. These findings,
combined with the results from the SEM analyses, teach us that ‘history of
change’ is a very important context variable in explaining cognitive
110
Chapter 2
readiness for change. On the other hand, the process factor ‘quality of
change communication’ is an essential predictor that contributes to a
better understanding of emotional readiness for change. The role of both
variables, however, is limited in shaping employees’ intentional readiness
for change. In summary, these observations suggest that in future studies,
readiness for change should be measured as a multifaceted construct
(Armenakis et al., 2007; Holt et al., 2007a; Piderit, 2000).
2.8.1 History of Change and Quality of Change Communication
This study confirmed that the degree of buy-in into change among
change recipients was a function of their perceptions about the company’s
history of change, and the quality of change communication. Both
psychological climate for change variables are closely tied to what
Armenakis et al. (2007) described as efficacy beliefs and discrepancy
beliefs.
The belief of efficacy in the context of change is defined as the
perceived capability to implement the change initiative (Bandura, 1986),
and has been found to exert a positive influence on the buy-in attitude of
change recipients (Devos, Buelens, & Bouckenooghe, 2007; Jimmieson,
Terry & Callan, 2004). An organization’s successful track record of
implementing change helps gradually build a sense of ownership and
control over the change project. To put it differently, a positive change
history
fosters
efficacy
beliefs.
The
process
factor,
quality
of
communication is an effective instrument to increase the awareness that
change is necessary (i.e. discrepancy belief). The literature is replete of
studies demonstrating that change recipients’ discrepancy beliefs can be
encouraged through the information provided regarding the reasons for
change (Armenakis & Harris, 2002; Bommer et al., 2005; Miller et al.,
1994).
111
Chapter 2
2.8.2 Trust in Top Management
Trust in top management refers to what Armenakis et al. (2007)
refer to as ‘the principal support belief’. It addresses questions such as ‘Do
the principals of organizations genuinely support the change?’ Another
common phrase related to this support is “walking the talk”. Simons (2002)
prefers the term ‘behavioral integrity’ and describes it as the alignment or
misalignment of words and deeds.
Involvement of employees in important decisions, and timely and
transparent communication, in combination with positive organizational
change experiences, are the cornerstones that help to create a general
atmosphere that management can be trusted to do what is best for the
organization and its members (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Kramer, 1999; Lines
et al., 2005; Sekhar & Anjaiah, 1996; Whitener et al.,1998). Because the
context factor history of change is less manageable compared to the
process factor quality of communication and the context characteristic
participatory management, we believe that a climate of open, honest
information sharing and participation should be encouraged if the
organization’s aim is to increase employees’ confidence in management.
In short, management should possess certain skills in order to facilitate
trust. Both the skills ‘participatory management’ and ‘high quality
communication and information sharing’ are features that characterize the
transformational leadership style (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, &
Fetter, 1990).
Contrary to the findings of similar field studies (Gomez & Rosen,
2001; Schneider et al., 1996) the results of this inquiry indicated no
significant relationship between trust in management and readiness for
change. A viable explanation for this missing relationship could be the
suppressing
effect
of
change
content.
For
example,
although
organizational members trust or distrust their leaders, the nature of a
particular change may eliminate the positive or negative impact (dis)trust
has on readiness for change. Thus, the valence change recipients
112
Chapter 2
attribute to a specific change project in terms of perceived personal
benefits or losses may trigger a self-preserving mechanism that minimizes
the effects of (dis)trust on readiness for change. An alternative
interpretation could be that trust in top management is a non-specific
measure of readiness for change and therefore has little predictive value.
This thinking implies that measures which are not tailored to specific
attitudinal criteria (i.e. readiness for change) usually are not valid for those
criteria. In short, trust can play a significant role in explaining employees’
adjustment to change, but only when it involves a measure of trust that is
criterion relevant. In this case it would have been more useful to measure
trust in supervision’s ability to deal with change, instead of reverting to an
omnibus measure like general trust in top management as a predictor of
readiness for change.
2.8.3 Participatory Management
Although the literature is replete of studies that support the idea of
participation as one of the most effective tools to stimulate employees’
positive reactions to change (e.g. Armenakis et al., 1993; Armenakis &
Harris, 2002; Armenakis, Harris, & Feild, 1999; McNabb & Sepic, 1995;
Reichers et al., 1997; Wanberg & Banas, 2000), our findings did not
suggest any significant relationship between our independent variable and
readiness for change. This result, however, is not completely inconsistent
with the literature. For instance, Armenakis et al. (1999) discussed the
importance of involving individuals regarding the specific change process,
rather than general participatory decision-making as a key driver of
readiness for change. In consequence the non-significant relationships
found between the facets of readiness for change and participation could
be due to the fact that the participation scale used in the current study was
worded at a general level and involved a non-specific measurement of
organizational change. Therefore future research should be more attentive
to the different types of participation that are distinguished in
113
Chapter 2
organizational development and change theory (Pasmore & Fagans,
1992).
Also a viable explication for the missing relationship could be that
participatory management has an indirect effect on readiness for change
through the mediating role of some unknown third variable in this inquiry.
For instance, a recent South-African study (Msweli-Mbanga & Potwana,
2006) on the relationship between participation and resistance to change
revealed that the effects of a perceived participative climate on resistance
to change were mediated by people’s willingness to participate. Access or
opportunity to participation, however, had no significant correlation with
resistance to change. So on the basis of that study we may conclude that
a participative organizational climate is not a sufficient condition to explain
people’s reactions toward change, but a necessary condition as it is an
important impetus for establishing employees’ willingness to participate in
decision making.
Even though we did not find a direct effect from participatory
management on readiness for change, we concur with the theories about
employee empowerment, which suggests that empowering people by
means of participation is a crucial strategy for achieving successful
change (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990; Spreitzer, 1996). For instance, it
could be that the effectiveness of different participation strategies (e.g.
enactive mastery, vicarious learning and participation in decision making)
is a function of the stage in the change process (e.g. readiness, adoption
and institutionalization). In their model for making change permanent,
Armenakis et al. (1999) suggested that participation is an important
institutionalizing strategy. In short, we believe that the contingent character
of types of participation on the stage of change may explain the nonsignificant relationship found between readiness for change and
participatory management. In conclusion, participatory management can
play a more significant role in institutionalizing change instead of creating
readiness for change.
114
Chapter 2
2.8.4 Relationships between Dimensions of Readiness for Change
The interplay between the different components of readiness for
change confirmed the necessity for treating readiness for change as a
multifaceted concept (Holt et al., 2007b; Piderit, 2000). Our findings
suggest that readiness is manifested through different channels (emotion,
thinking and intention), indicating that employees’ readiness for change is
the result of a complex interplay between three forces of psychological
functioning.
The relationships between emotional and cognitive dimensions and
emotional and intentional dimensions partially support Ajzen’s Theory of
Planned Behaviour (1991). This theory stipulates that people develop
feelings and cognitions about the benefits and losses associated with
engaging or not engaging in change. Depending on the favourableness of
this evaluation process, employees will have a stronger or weaker
intention to engage in change. In short, intention toward change is
determined by how people feel and think about the change. In addition,
our model proposes that affect (i.e. emotional readiness for change) plays
a critical role in initiating the change process and directing organizational
members’ sensemaking activities (i.e. cognitive readiness for change).
Contrary to Bovey and Hede (2001) but aligned with George and Jones’
process model of individual change, affect is considered an impetus for
activating cognitions about change (George & Jones, 2001). Thus,
emotions motivate the cognitive activity and behaviour to deal with an
emotion-triggering situation like change (Frijda, 1994).
2.8.5 Limitations, Suggestions for Future Research Directions and
Concluding Remarks
Although this inquiry yields some interesting findings, it suffers from
a number of flaws and therefore requires some additional research. Data
for both predictor and criterion variables were collected in one survey,
raising the concern for mono-method bias. If relationships in the study
115
Chapter 2
were found only because independent and dependent variables were
assessed in the same survey, we would expect practically all of the
relationships in the model to be significant. This was not the case. Also,
Harman’s one factor model test was performed to check for mono-method
bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). A model with separate factors for the scales
was preferred over a common factor model, indicating that common
method variance was not such a large validity threat in this inquiry.
A second limitation is the cross sectional character of the study.
Survey data were collected only once, making it very difficult to draw
causal inferences. However, it must be said that the literature supports the
causal reasoning of readiness for change being affected by psychological
climate for change variables. In a recent experimental simulation study, for
instance, it was demonstrated that similar context and process variables
engendered openness to change (Devos et al., 2007). Despite the fact
that our assumed causal direction is confirmed by extant research, we
concur with the argument that if our aim is to uncover the causal
sequences in organizational change processes, the collection of data
before, during and after the organizational changes will be required (Van
de Ven & Huber, 1990).
Despite the correlational nature of this inquiry, the results on the
interplay between the three readiness for change dimensions suggest that
future studies on readiness for change should be embedded into the
‘Theory of Planned Behavior’ (Ajzen, 1991). After all, this theory provides
an excellent framework to understand the interrelations observed between
the affective, cognitive and intentional dimensions of readiness for change.
Although this is a powerful theory to explain all kinds of attitudes and
behaviours, the only paper to our knowledge that actually tested the
Theory of Planned Behavior on people’s readiness for change is the one
by Jimmieson and colleagues (2007).
Another suggestion is that more theoretical and empirical work is
needed to further validate our measure of readiness for change. Although
116
Chapter 2
Holt and colleagues (2007a, b) already developed a reliable and valid
measurement instrument, they did not distinguish between the emotional,
cognitive and intentional manifestation of readiness for change.
Despite its limitations, the results reported in this inquiry should be
regarded as a preliminary step towards assessing the impact of
psychological climate for change on readiness for change. One of the
crucial contributions is that we adopted the positive psychology approach,
instead of the mainstream approach, which assumes that employees
automatically resist change (Dent & Goldberg, 1999). We believe that a
research perspective that emphasizes
the
strengths
rather
than
malfunctioning should provide some fascinating insights that expand our
knowledge of the pertinent role of human functioning in the organizational
change process (Abrahamson, 2004; Cameron, 2008; Seligman &
Csikszentmihaly, 2000).
Another value-add from this inquiry is the significant contribution to
the stream of literature that highlights the relevance of the human
dimension in change (Antoni, 2004; George & Jones, 2001; Porras &
Robertson, 1992).
A final contribution is that this study is one of the very few studies
that has acquired data on the context of change, the process of change,
and the readiness for change, as it was not limited to one company or
specific sector only, but included a large and heterogeneous sample of
organizations.
In
addition,
dominance
analysis
(Budescu,
1993)
demonstrated the relative contribution of our independent variables (i.e.
trust in top management, history of change, participatory management,
and quality of change communication) in predicting the outcome variables
(i.e. emotional, cognitive and intentional readiness for change). On the
basis of these analyses we conclude that both the process and the context
of change explain a substantial amount of variance in both emotional and
cognitive readiness for change.
117
Chapter 2
2.9 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abrahamson, E. (2004). Change without pain. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
Albrecht, S.L., & Travaglione, P.P. (2003). Trust in public senior management.
International Journal Human Resource Management, 14, 1-17.
Antoni, C. (2004). Research note: A motivational perspective on change
processes and outcomes. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 13, 197-216.
Armenakis, A.A., Bernerth, J.B., Pitts, J.P., & Walker, H.J. (2007). Organizational
change recipients’ beliefs scale: Development of an assessment
instrument. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43, 481-505.
Armenakis, A.A., & Harris, S.G. (2002). Crafting a change message to create
transformational readiness. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 15, 169-183.
Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G., Feild, H.S. (1999). Making change permanent: A
model for institutionalizing change interventions. In W.A. Pasmore & R.W.
Woodman (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development
(pp. 97-128). Oxford, UK: JAI press.
Armenakis, A.A, Harris, S., & Mossholder, K. (1993). Creating readiness for
organizational change. Human Relations, 46, 681-703.
Backer, T.E. (1995). Assessing and enhancing readiness to change: Implications
for technology transfer. In T.E. Backer, S.L. David, & G. Soucy (Eds.),
Reviewing the behavioral science knowledge base on technology transfer
(pp. 21-41). Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive
theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000). Cracking the code of change. Harvard Business
Review, 78, 133-141.
Bernerth, J. (2004). Expanding our understanding of the change message.
Human Resource Development Review, 3, 36-52.
Bies, R.J. (1987). The predicament of injustice: The management of moral
outrage. In L.L. Cummings & B.M. Staw (Eds.), Research in
Organizational Behavior (pp. 289-319). Greenwhich, CT: JAI Press.
Blau, P.M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Basic Books.
Bommer, W.H., Rich, G.A., & Rubin, R.S. (2005). Changing attitudes about
change: Longitudinal effects of transformational leader behavior on
employee cynicism about organizational change. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26, 733-753.
Bordia, P., Hunt, E., Paulsen, N., Tourish, D., & DiFonzo, N. (2004). Uncertainty
during organizational change: Is it all about control? European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 13, 345-365.
118
Chapter 2
Bordia, P., Restubog, S.L.D., Jimmieson, N.L., & Irmer, B.E. (2007). Haunted by
the past: Effects of poor management history on employee attitudes and
turnover. Academy of Management Proceedings.
Bovey, W.H., & Hede, A. (2001). Resistance to organizational change: The role
of cognitive and affective processes. Leadership and Organization
Development Journal, 22, 372-382.
Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In
K.A. Bollen & J.S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp.
445-455). Newbury park, CA: Sage.
Budescu, D.V. (1993). Dominance analysis: A new approach to the problem of
relative importance of predictors in multiple regression. Psychological
Bulletin, 114, 542-551.
Burke, W.W., & Litwin, G.H. (1992). A causal model of organizational
performance and change. Journal of Management, 17, 523-545.
Byrne, B.M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts,
applications, and programming. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cameron, K. (2008). Paradox in positive organizational change, Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 44, 7-24.
Clegg, C., & Walsh, S. (2004). Change management: Time for a change.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13, 217-239.
Chonko, L.B., Jones, E., Roberts, J.A., & Dubinsky, A.J. (2002). The role of
environmental turbulence, readiness for change, and salesperson learning
in the success of sales force change. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, 22, 227-245.
Coch, L., & French, J. (1948). Overcoming resistance to change. Human
Relations, 1, 512-532.
Cunningham, C. E., Woodward, C.A., Shannon, H.S., MacIntosh, J., Lendrum B.,
Rosenbloom, D., & Brown, J. (2002). Readiness for organizational
change: A longitudinal study of workplace, psychological and behavioral
correlates. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75,
377-392.
Cunningham, G. B. (2006). The relationships among commitment to change,
coping with change, and turnover intentions. European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology, 15, 29-45.
Dent, E.B., & Goldberg, S.G. (1999). Challenging resistance to change. Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science, 35, 25-41.
Devos, G., Buelens, M., & Bouckenooghe, D. (2007). The contribution of content,
context, and process in understanding openness to organizational
change: Two experimental simulation studies. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 147, 607-629.
Difonzo, N., & Bordia, P. (1998). A tale of two corporations: Managing
uncertainty during organizational change. Human Resource Management,
37, 295-303.
119
Chapter 2
Dirks, K.T., Cummings, L.L., & Pierce, J.L. (1996). Psychological ownership in
organizations: Conditions under which individuals promote and resist
change. Research in Organizational change and Development, 9, 1-23.
Dirks, K.T., & Ferrin, D.L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and
implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,
611-628.
Dixon, N.M. (1997). The hallways of learning. Organizational Dynamics, 25, 2334.
Early, P.C., & Lind, E.A. (1987). Procedural justice and participation in task
selection: The role of control in mediating justice judgements. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 1148-1160.
Eby, L. T., Adams, D. M., Russell, J. E. A., & Gaby, S. H. (2000). Perceptions of
organizational readiness for change: Factor related to employees’
reactions to the implementation of team-based selling. Human Relations,
53, 419-442.
Ferrin, D.L., Dirks, K.T., & Shah, P.P. (2003). Many routes towards trust: A social
network analysis of the determinants of interpersonal trust. Academy of
Management Proceedings.
Fiske, S.T., & Taylor, S.E. (1984). Social cognition. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley.
Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. K. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive
justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management
Journal, 32, 115-130.
Ford, J.D., & Ford, L.W. (1995). The role of conversations in producing
intentional change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20,
541-570.
Fottler, M.D. (1981). Is management really generic? Academy of Management
Review, 6, 1-12.
George, J.M., & Jones, G.R. (2001). Towards a process model of individual
change in organizations. Human Relations, 54, 3-22.
Glick, W.H. (1985). Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and
psychological climate: Pitfalls in multilevel research. Academy of
Management Review, 10, 601-616.
Gomez, C., & Rosen, B. (2001). The leader-member exchange as a link between
managerial trust and employee empowerment, Group and Organization
Management, 26, 53-69.
Gouldner, A.W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement.
American Sociological Review, 25, 161-178.
Hair, J.F., Jr., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C. (1998). Multivariate
data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Holt, D.T., Armenakis, A., Feild, H.S., & Harris, S.G. (2007a). Readiness for
organizational change: The systematic development of a scale. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 43, 232-255.
Holt, D.T., Armenakis, A., Harris, S.G., & Feild H.S. (2007b). Toward a
comprehensive definition of readiness for change: A review of research
120
Chapter 2
and instrumentation. In W.A. Pasmore & R.M. Woodman (Eds.), Research
in Organizational Change and Development (pp. 295-346). Oxford, UK:
Elsevier.
Iverson, R.D. (1996). Employee acceptance of organizational change: The role of
organizational commitment. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 7, 122-149.
James, L.R., & Jones, A.P. (1974). Organizational climate: A review of theory
and research. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 1096-1112.
Jimmieson, N.L., Terry, D.J., & Callan, V.J. (2004). A longitudinal study of
employee adaptation to organizational change: The role of change-related
information and change related self-efficacy. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 9, 11-27.
Jimmieson, N.L., White, K.M., & Zajdlewicz, L. (2007). Predicting employee
intentions to support and identify with a re-branded hotel. Paper presented
at Academy of Management Meeting, Philadelphia.
Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior.
Academy of Management Review, 31, 386-408.
Jones, R.A., Jimmieson, N.L., & Griffiths, A. (2005). The impact of organizational
culture and reshaping capabilities on change implementation success:
The mediating role of readiness for change. Journal of Management
Studies, 42, 361-386.
Joreskog, K.G. (1993). Testing structural equation models. In K.A. Bollen & J.S.
Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 294-316). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. M. (1999). Managerial
coping with organizational change: A dispositional perspective. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 84, 107-122.
Kim, W., & Mauborgne, R. (1993). Procedural justice, attitudes, and subsidiary
top management compliance with multinational’s corporate strategic
decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 502-526.
Kline, R. (2004). Principles of practice of structural equation modelling. New
York: NY: Guilford.
Kotter, J. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard
Business Review, 73, 59-67.
Korsgaard, M. A., Schweiger, D. M., & Sapienza, H. J. (1995). Building
commitment, attachment, and trust in strategic decisions. Academy of
Management Journal, 38, 60-85.
Kramer, R.M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives,
enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569-598.
Lau, C., & Woodman, R.W. (1995). Understanding organizational change: A
schematic perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 537-554.
Leana, C.R. (1986). Predictors and consequences of delegation. Academy of
Management Journal, 29, 754-774.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper & Row.
121
Chapter 2
Lines, R. (2004). Influence of participation in strategic change: resistance,
organizational commitment and change goal achievement. Journal of
Change Management, 4, 193-215.
Lines, R., Selart, M., Espedal, B., & Johansen, S.T. (2005). The production of
trust during organizational change. Journal of Change Management, 5,
221-245.
Ludema, J.D., & Di Virgilio, M.E. (2007). The role of energy-in-conversation in
leading organizational change. In W.A. Pasmore & R.W. Woodman
(Eds.), Research in organizational change and development: (pp. 1-41).
Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Manville, B., & Ober, J. (2003). Company of Citizens: What the world’s first
democracy teaches leaders about creating great organizations. Boston,
MA: Harvard Business School Press.
McGuire, W.J. (1985). Attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson
(Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 233-346). New York: Random
House.
McLain, D.L., & Hackman, K. (1999). Trust, risk and decision making in
organizational change. Public Administration Quarterly, 23, 152-176.
McNabb, D. E., & Sepic, F. T. (1995). Culture, climate, and total quality
management: Measuring readiness for change. Public Productivity and
Management Review, 18, 369-386.
Mento, A.J., Jones, R.M. & Dirndorfer, W. (2002). A change management
process: grounded in both theory and practice. Journal of Change
Management, 3, 45- 59.
Metselaar, E.E. (1997). Assessing the willingness to change: Construction and
validation of the DINAMO. Amsterdam, NL: Free University of Amsterdam
Press.
Michela, J.L., Lukaszwski, M.P., & Allegrante, J.P. (1995). Organizational climate
and work related stress: A general framework applied to inner-city
schoolteachers. In S.L. Sauter & L.R. Murphy (Eds.), Organizational risk
factors for job stress (pp. 61-80). American Psychological Association,
Washington DC.
Miller, V. D., Johnson, J. R., & Grau, J. (1994). Antecedents to willingness to
participate in a planned organizational change. Journal of Applied
Communication Research, 11, 365-386.
Msweli-Mbanga, P., & Potwana, N. (2006). Modelling participation, resistance to
change, and organizational citizenship behavior: A South African case.
South African Journal of Business Management, 37, 21-29.
Mulaik, S.A., James, L.R., Van Altine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S., & Stilwell, C.D.
(1989). Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation
models. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 430-445.
Oreg, S. (2006). Personality, context, and resistance to organizational change.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15, 73-101.
Pardo del Val., M., & Martinez Fuentes, C. (2003). Resistance to change: A
literature review and empirical study. Management Decision, 41, 148-155.
122
Chapter 2
Parker, C.P., Baltes, B.B., Young, S.A., Huff, J.W., Altmann, R.A., Lacost, H.A.,
& Roberts, J.E. (2003). Relationships between psychological climate
perceptions and work outcomes: A meta-analytic review. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 24, 389-416.
Pasmore, W.A., & Fagans, M.R. (1992). Participation, individual development
and organizational change: A review and synthesis. Journal of
Management, 18, 375-397.
Pettigrew, A.M., Woodman, R.W., & Cameron, K.S. (2001). Studying
organizational change and development: Challenges for future research.
Academy of Management Journal, 44, 697-713.
Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A
multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change.
Academy of Management Review, 25, 783-794.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H., & Fetter, R. (1990).
Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in
leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The
Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142.
Podsakoff, P.M, MacKenzie, S.B., Jeong-Yeon, L., & Podsakoff, N.P. (2003).
Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the
literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88,
879-904.
Porras, J.I., & Robertson, P.J. (1992). Organizational development: Theory,
practice, and research. In Dunnette, M.D., & Hough, L.M. (Eds.),
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 719-822). Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.
Rafferty, A., & Simons, R. (2005). An examination of the antecedents of
readiness for fine-tuning and corporate transformation changes. Journal of
Business & Psychology, 20, 325-350.
Reichers, A. E., Wanous, J. P., & Austin, J. T. (1997). Understanding and
managing cynicism about organizational change. Academy of
Management Executive, 11, 48-59.
Richardson, R., & Denton, D.K. (1996). Communicating change. Human
Resource Management, 35, 203-216.
Roberts, J.E. (2003). Relationships between psychological climate perceptions
and work outcomes: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 24, 389-416.
Rousseau, D.M. (2001). Schema, promise and mutuality: The building blocks of
the psychological contract. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 74, 511-541.
Rousseau, D.M, & Tijoriwala, S.A. (1999). What’s a good reason to change?
Motivated reasoning and social accounts in promoting organizational
change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 514-528.
Schneider, B., Brief, A. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1996). Creating a climate and culture
for sustainable organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24, 7-19.
123
Chapter 2
Schweiger, D.M., & Denisi, A.S. (1991). Communication with employees
following a merger: A longitudinal field experiment. Academy of
Management Journal, 34, 110-135.
Sekhar, S.F.C., & Anjaiah, P. (1996). Organizational communication and
interpersonal trust: an evaluation of their relationships. Psychological
Studies, 40, 28-32.
Self, D.R., Armenakis, A.A., & Schraeder, M. (2007). Organizational change
content, process and context: A simultaneous analysis of employee
reactions. Journal of Change Management, 7, 211-229.
Seligman, M. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology. American
Psychologist, 55, 5-14.
Simons, T. (2002). Behavioral integrity: The perceived alignment between
managers’ words and deeds as a research focus. Organization Science,
13, 18-35.
Sitkin, S.B., & Bies, R.J. (1993). Social accounts in conflict situations: Using
explanations to manage conflict. Human Relations, 46, 349-370.
Spreitzer, G.M. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological
empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 483-504.
Thomas, K.W. & Velthouse, B.A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment:
An interpretative model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of
Management Review, 15, 666-681.
Tierney, P. (1999). Work relations as a precursor to a psychological climate for
change: The role of work group supervisors and peers. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 12, 120-133.
Vakola, M., & Nikolaou, I. (2005). Attitudes toward organizational change: what is
the role of employees’ stress and commitment? Employee Relations, 27,
160-174.
Vakola, M., Tsaousis, L., & Nikolaou, I. (2004). The role of emotional intelligence
and personality variables on attitudes toward organizational change.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19, 88-110.
Vroom, V. (1964). Work and motivation. New York, NY: John Wiley.
Wanberg, C. R., & Banas, J. T. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of openness to
changes in a reorganizing workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,
132- 142.
Wanous J.P., Reichers A.E., & Austin, J.T. (2000). Cynicism about organizational
change: Measurement, antecedents, and correlates. Group and
Organization Management, 25, 132-153.
Weick, K.E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Whitener, E.M., Brodt, S.E., Korsgaard, M.A., & Werner, J.M. (1998). Managers
as initiators of trust: An exchange relationship framework for
understanding managerial trustworthy behaviour. Academy of
Management Review, 23, 513- 530.
Yousef, D.A. (2000). Organizational commitment and job satisfaction as
predictors of attitudes toward organizational change in a non-western
setting. Personnel Review, 29, 567-592.
124
Chapter 2
2.10 APPENDIX 1: Antecedents of readiness for change
Armenakis, Harris & Mossholder
(1993)
Key construct: readiness for change
Context
1) social and interpersonal dynamics
(interaction management –
employees)
Miller, Johnson & Grau (1994)
Key construct: openness to change
Process
1) message communication
- persuasive communication
- management of information
2) active participation in change
1) communication of information
- information about change
- helpfulness of information
Iverson (1996)
Key construct: employee acceptance
of organizational change
1) IR climate (i.e. degree of
cooperation management – union,
fairness of interaction)
2) environmental opportunity (i.e. jobs
available external to organization)
3) role conflict (i.e. inconsistency in
job roles)
Hanpachern, Morgan & Griego
(1998)
Key construct: readiness for change
1) social dynamics and relationships
with management (i.e. load versus
power)
Eby, Adams, Russell & Gaby (2000)
Key construct: readiness for change
1) trust in peers
2) flexibility in policies and procedures
(i.e. climate)
3) participatory management
Wanberg & Banas (2000)
Key construct: openness to change
1) participation
Armenakis & Harris (2002)
Key construct: readiness for change
1) communication of information
(change specific information)
1) message communication
- persuasive communication
- management of information
Chonko, Jones, Roberts &
Dubinsky (2002)
Key construct : readiness for change
1) environmental turbulence
2) organizational climate & culture
3) organization policies
4) learning orientation
Cunningham C., Woodward,
Shannon, MacIntosh, Lendrum,
Rosenbloom & Brown (2002)
Key construct: readiness for change
1) active job (i.e. high decision
latitude job, high autonomy, high
learning opportunities)
2) shift work
Bernerth (2004)
Key construct: readiness for change
1) message communication
Jones, Jimmieson & Griffiths
(2005)
Key construct: readiness for change
1) human relations culture
Madsen, Miller & Johns (2005)
Key construct: readiness for change
1) work relationships
Rafferty & Simons (2005)
Key construct: readiness for change
1) perceived organizational support
2) trust in peers
3) trust in organizational leadership
4) participatory management
5) flexible policies and procedures
6) logistics and systems support
1) reshaping capabilities
- involvement
- information
125
Chapter 2
Vakola & Nikolaou (2005)
Key construct: positive attitude
towards change
1) work relationships
Desplaces (2007)
Key construct: readiness for change
1) objective and subjective work
setting
2) perceived organizational support
Narayan, Steele-Johnson, Delgado
& Cole (2007)
Key construct: readiness for change
1) choice
2) social support
Holt, Armenakis, Feild & Harris
(2007)
Key construct: readiness for change
1) discrepancy
126
1) leadership support
Chapter 2
2.11 APPENDIX 2: Overview organizational context characteristics of participating organizations
Organization
1. ABVV
2. Alcatel e-business solutions
Profit/non-profit
sector
Non-profit
Profit
3. Assubel
4. AZ Maria Middelares
5. AOS Belgium
6. AZ Maria Sint-Augustinus
7. AZ Sint-Blasius
8. AZ Sint-Jan
9. AZ VUB
10. Belgacom
11. Carestel Motorway Services
12. Carrefour
13. CAWartevelde
14. CBR
15. Coca-Cola Entreprises-Belgium
16. Coca-Cola Services-Belgium
17. DAF Trucks
Profit
Non-profit
Profit
Non-profit
Non-profit
Non-profit
Non-profit
Profit
Profit
Profit
Non-Profit
Profit
Profit
Profit
Profit
18. Defensie
19. Federale Politie
20. Fortis AG
21. Gedeco Invest
Non-profit
Non-profit
Profit
Profit
22. Groep Intro
23. Hostbasket
24. IKMO
25. Imeldaziekenhuis
26. Katoennatie
Non-profit
Profit
Profit
Non-profit
Profit
27. KBC
28. Landsbond der Christelijke
Mutualiteiten
Profit
Non-profit
Products/services
Labor Union
IT Consultancy – software and hardware, publishing of software and
software supply
Insurances
Healthcare – hospital
Consultancy – mediation in buying, selling and letting of real estate
Healthcare – hospital
Healthcare – hospital
Healthcare – hospital
Healthcare – teaching hospital
Telecommunications
Hotels-restaurants
Supermarkets - non specialized retail sale in general food products
Aid services
Manufacturing - manufacture of cement
Food industry - production of mineral waters and soft drinks
Food industry – coordination centers
Automotive industry – manufacture of biodies and semi-trailers,
maintenance and repair of motor vehicles
Government institution – Department of Defence
Government institution - Federal Police
Banking, holdings and insurances
Consultancy - management of real estate, management activities of
holding companies
Professional centre for socio-cultural training
IT Consultancy – software and hardware, publishing of software
Industrial medicine services
Healthcare – hospital
Storage and warehousing, freight transport, cargo handling in sea
ports
Banking, holdings and insurances
Insurances – health
Total no. of
employees
n.a.
n.a.
No. of
respondents
23
8
NMP
n.a.
> 1000
< 100
> 1500
> 1000
> 2500
> 2000
> 10000
< 500
> 10000
< 100
> 500
> 2000
< 500
> 2000
62
38
7
42
32
23
6
42
25
8
37
12
53
20
11
22
29
1
33
27
16
3
9
12
6
37
2
6
20
10
> 40000
> 30000
> 20000
n.a.
38
8
29
11
26
0
16
4
< 500
< 50
< 500
> 1000
< 50
43
18
138
41
35
43
18
138
41
35
< 5000
n.a.
31
121
31
26
23
7
127
Chapter 2
29. Logibel
30. Monti NV
31. On-Site Environment
32. OOBC
33. Quadrant EPP
Profit
Profit
Profit
Non-profit
Profit
34. Quint Wellington Redwood
Profit
35. Sabam
36. Sabic
37. SD Worx
38. Securex
39. Selligent SA
40. Sofadi
41. Spencer Stuart International
Profit
Profit
Profit
Profit
Profit
Profit
Profit
42. Sint-Franciscus ZH
43. Stedelijk Onderwijsnet (Oefenschool
Wispelberg)
44. Stepstone
Non-profit
Non-profit
Profit
45. Structuplas
Profit
46. Toerisme Vlaanderen
47. Techteam ANE
Profit
Profit
Consultancy- mediation in buying, selling and letting of real estate
Printing services
Consultancy- market research and other business and management
consultancy activities
Healthcare services
Manufacturing – manufacture of plastic plates, sheets, tubes and
profiles
Consultancy – hardware consultancy, technical consultancy and
engineering activities
Book keeping activities related to music and drama
Whole sale of chemical products – manufacture of industrial gases
Secretarial and translation activities – call centre activities
Consultancy – activities of business and employers organizations
IT consultancy – software, publishing of software and data processing
Printing services
Consultancy – market research, legal accounting and labour
recruitment
Healthcare – hospital
Education – school
25
8
15
22
8
7
n.a.
< 500
23
7
23
7
< 10
7
2
< 500
< 100
n.a.
> 1000
< 50
< 100
< 10
9
69
10
15
18
7
5
0
7
2
13
1
2
3
< 100
< 50
6
18
5
18
< 50
45
10
< 500
6
6
IT consultancy – software, publishing of software, software supply and
data base acitivities
Automotive industry – manufacture of parts and accessoires of motor
vehicles and their engines
Tourism services
Wholesale of industrial machinery, electronic parts, equipment,
computers, software and clothing
Healthcare – teaching hospital
Healthcare – hospital
Education – academic institution
n.a.
< 50
9
14
2
0
> 5000
> 4000
< 100
41
10
91
24
7
28
Healthcare services
n.a.
18
18
Healthcare services
Healthcare – hospital
n.a.
> 1000
22
28
22
22
48. UZ Leuven
Non-profit
49. Virga Jesse ZH
Non-profit
50. Vlerick Leuven Gent Management
Non-profit
School
51. Wit Gele Kruis Oost-Vlaanderen
Non-profit
Gent-Zuid
52. Zevenbergen
Non-Profit
53. ZH Salvator
Non-Profit
Notes n.a.: not available; NMP: number of respondents holding a managerial position in their organization
128
n.a.
< 500
n.a.
Chapter 3
CHAPTER 3: READY OR NOT…? WHAT’S THE
RELEVANCE OF A MESO LEVEL APPROACH TO THE
STUDY OF READINESS FOR CHANGE
ABSTRACT. Organizational change often yields limited success.
Failure in many cases is due to the lack of motivation or readiness for
change among organizational members. This study proposes and tests a
multilevel model of readiness for change. More specifically this article
examined the influence of three context factors and a process factor on
readiness for change over and above the effects of their eponymous lower
level equivalents. By means of a large scale survey administered in 84
Belgian companies, a total of 2543 responses were collected. HLM
analyses revealed a group level effect for organizational quality of change
communication on the three components of readiness for change
(emotional, cognitive and intentional). Furthermore, the results indicated
that the individual perceptions of history of change, participatory
management, and quality of change communication were positively
correlated with readiness for change. These findings are discussed in
relation to previous literature.
129
Chapter 3
3.1 Introduction
Globalization, the emergence of e-business, and the accelerated
pace at which technological innovations are introduced, confronted many
companies with the necessity to implement changes in strategy, structure,
process and culture. Many factors have been identified and suggested to
increase the successful implementation of change. An organization’s
absorptive capacity to deal with changes has been described as one of
those critical factors. Although the absorptive change potential resides at
the organization level, we concur with the assumption that organizational
change can only be established through individual changes (George &
Jones, 2001; Schein, 1980). To put it differently, readiness for change is
one of the crucial stages that organizational members need to go through
in order to enable the successful implementation of change (Armenakis,
Harris, & Mossholder, 1993).
A generally accepted definition of readiness for change conceives
readiness as a cognitive state comprising beliefs, attitudes and intentions
toward a change effort. When readiness for change exists, the
organization is primed to embrace change and resistance is reduced. If
organizational members are not ready, the change may be rejected, and
organizational members may initiate negative reactions, such as,
sabotage, absenteeism and output restriction. In fact readiness for change
is the cognitive precursor to resistance for change (Armenakis et al.,
1993). A recent review study on measurement of readiness for change by
Holt, Armenakis, Harris and Feild (2007) concluded that readiness for
change in some cases is conceived as an attitude towards a specific
change (Armenakis et al., 1993; Backer, 1995; Holt, Armenakis, Feild, &
Harris, 2007), whereas in other cases it is described as a generic crosssituational climate variable or systemic ability of organizations (Beckhard &
Harris, 1987; Belasco, 1990; Stewart, 1994). In this paper we distinguish
and measure readiness for change both as a change specific state (i.e.
emotional and intentional readiness for change) and a generic
130
Chapter 3
characteristic (i.e. cognitive readiness for change). Emotional or affective
readiness for change is defined as how one feels about a proposed
change. The intentional component is the inclination to act towards a
specific change. Finally cognitive readiness for change is how one thinks
about organizational change in general.
The extant literature on the antecedents of individual’s readiness for
change (e.g., Eby, Adams, Russell, & Gaby 2000; Judge, Thoresen,
Pucik, & Welbourne, 1999; Oreg, 2006; Wanberg & Banas, 2000) in
general adopted a micro level perspective (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000).
Rooted in psychological origins, the micro level perspective assumes that
there are variations in individual behavior, and that the emphasis on an
aggregate or higher level of this behavior will mask important individual
differences that are meaningful in their own right. As such the micro level
focus on readiness for change research has concentrated on variations
among individual level characteristics that affect individual reactions
towards change (e.g. Judge et al., 1999). According to Kozlowski and
Klein (2000), however, this single-level perspective cannot fully account
for change related behavior and attitudes, because it has been guilty of
neglecting higher level factors that can significantly affect the impact of
individual differences onto individual responses.
So, instead of assuming a single micro level perspective to the
study of individual readiness for change, we believe that creating
readiness for change is not merely about individual perceptions and
cognitions; but is also a socially constructed phenomenon. In other words,
an employee uses social information inferred from the organizational
context to develop his or her perception of the meaningfulness, the
importance, and other characteristics of the change event (Ford, Ford,
D’Amelio, 2008; Yuan & Woodman, 2007). Therefore in this inquiry we
examine the effects of three generic change context characteristics (i.e.,
trust in top management, participatory management and history of
change) and one change specific process factor (i.e., quality of change
communication) on readiness for change. Since this model incorporates
131
Chapter 3
two levels of analysis (individual and organization) a meso level
perspective is adopted (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000).
In this paper we will first elaborate on the current literature into
readiness for change and the gaps in this field of research. Next, we
briefly introduce the social information processing theory (Salancik &
Pfeffer, 1978) and how this theory helps to understand why readiness for
change is not only a function of individual cognitive processes but also the
result of how colleagues perceive the context and process factors that
accompany change. A concept closely linked to the three generic context
factors is organizational climate (James & Jones, 1974) and will be briefly
discussed.
In conclusion, the primary goal of this research is to determine
whether the three context or climate characteristics and the change
process factor add significant insight into the extant knowledge on how
individual readiness for change is shaped.
3.2 Shortcomings in Readiness for Change Research
In general strongly rooted in the psychology tradition, research on
readiness for change has been biased toward a single micro level focus.
This type of research neglected the effects of organizational contexts
within which individual behavior occurs. Macro research, however, has
continuously neglected the means by which individual behavior,
perceptions, affect, and interactions give rise to higher level phenomena
(Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). The study of organizational phenomena,
however, cannot always be sliced into single level relationships, which is
often the province of both micro and macro research. The construct
readiness for change, like many other organizational phenomena, is a
multilevel or meso level construct that comes from the hierarchical nature
of the organizations themselves. Therefore we believe that research that
models readiness for change across multiple levels of theory and analysis
is essential for improving our knowledge about this phenomenon.
132
Chapter 3
Lewin (1951) already noted that potential sources of readiness for
change lie both within the individual and the individual’s environment, and
despite the recent attention paid to individual, context and process
characteristics as constituent elements of readiness for change (Holt,
Armenakis, Harris, & Feild, 2007); only a limited number of studies actually
considered the combined effect of context and process attributes in
predicting individual readiness for change. However, it should be noted
that the studies (e.g., Eby et al., 2000; Oreg, 2006; Wanberg & Banas,
2000) that did examine the combined effect of both sets of factors could
be improved in some respects.
A first observation is that the results of those studies (i.e. Eby et al.,
2000; Oreg, 2006; Wanberg & Banas, 2000) are often based on data
collected in single organizations or a specific sector. Consequently, the
results produced by these studies need to be interpreted with some
caution. This does not imply that we are questioning the relevance of
single organization studies. Not at all, in some aspects an organization’s
environment should be considered homogenous while other aspects like
organizational changes and the attitudes towards changes may be
differently for departments within organizations or vary because of
differences in organizational environments or contexts (Sackmann, 1992).
In fact what we are suggesting is that besides studies that only focus on
the within-group variation of perceived organizational context, future
research should consider contextual differences in terms of betweengroup variation if the purpose really is to have a more complete picture of
the enablers of readiness for change.
Secondly, data gathered with respect to context variables (e.g. Eby
et al., 2000; Oreg, 2006; Wanberg & Banas, 2000) are often cases of
nested or so-called multilevel data. The use of OLS regression in the
majority of these studies has not been without problems. In other words, a
shortcoming in many studies is the use of not always the most appropriate
analytical technique, which implicates reduced reliability of the results
produced (Hofmann, Griffin, & Gavin, 2000; Hox, 1998). Multilevel
133
Chapter 3
modeling represents an alternative for dealing more effectively with nested
data structures, and gives an excellent guiding framework to analyze
group level effects on individual readiness for change.
3.3 Individual Readiness for Change: a Socially
Constructed Phenomenon
The idea that attitudes and organizational behaviour are a sole
function of individual dispositions and needs is outmoded. Already in the
1950’s, Kurt Lewin saw behaviour not as the mere result of personality,
but as a function of both personality and environment (Lewin, 1951).
Despite the popularity and rich historical tradition of this ‘interactionist
view’, the number of organizational studies that examined the incremental
influence of social context factors over and above their individual level
equivalents has clearly lagged behind the theoretical progress on this
topic.
Building further on Lewin’s premises (1951), the social information
processing theory (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978) suggests that individuals,
as adaptive organisms, adapt attitudes, behaviour, and beliefs to their
social context and to the reality of their own past and present behaviour
and situation. This assumption leads to the conclusion that one can learn
a lot from studying the social environment within which behavior occurs.
Furthermore this theory asserts that an employee uses social information
to develop his or her perception of the meaningfulness, importance, and
other characteristics of the job. Similarly it has been suggested that the
meaning of and the attitudes toward change events are, at least partially,
social constructions (Armenakis et al., 1993; Yuan & Woodman, 2007).
A recent theoretical paper suggested that change recipients make
sense of readiness for change through individual reflections and collective
sensemaking that come from a series of interactions with colleagues and
change agents (Ford et al., 2008). In short, we believe that employees or
change recipients take information, interpret it, and assign meanings to
134
Chapter 3
readiness for change through individual reflections about the context and
process of change but also through interactions with others. That
assumption is at the root of this research, and should lead to a better
understanding of how the generic or more enduring context factors (i.e.,
history
of
change,
trust
in
top
management,
and
participatory
management) and the specific or transient change process characteristic
(i.e., quality of change communication) yield a better understanding of
individual readiness for change.
3.4 Context and Process Antecedents of Readiness for
Change
3.4.1 Organizational Climate an Overarching Context Factor
In terms of the environment or context of change, several authors
place significant emphasis on the role of organizational climate (Beer &
Nohria, 2000; Burnes & James, 1995; Schneider, Brief, & Guzzo, 1996).
For example, Burnes and James (1995) see organizational climate as one
of the few mechanisms that drives successful change. Its role is to confirm
or deny the legitimacy of the new arrangements that emerge from the
change. Despite the general agreement that exists among both
practitioners and scholars about the relevance of climate as a key
antecedent that shapes employees’ reactions toward change, the number
of studies that actually examined the relationship between organizational
climate and readiness for change is scant (e.g., Jones, Jimmieson, &
Griffiths, 2005; Tierney, 1999).
Organizational climate as an overarching context factor was
selected not only because it is a crucial catalyst to motivate people to
adjust to changes, but also because literature itemizes the climate concept
into different hierarchical levels (i.e., organization, team, individual)
(James & Jones, 1974; Moran & Volkwein, 1992). So, the value-added of
the study into climate lies in the ability to provide a conceptual link
135
Chapter 3
between the organizational level and the individual level of the
phenomenon under examination.
3.4.2 The Three Climate Dimensions
Trust in top management, history of change, and participatory
management are considered as three important climate dimensions that
affect the way how people make sense of readiness for change. Trust in
top management is described as a concept that represents the degree of
confidence employees have in the goodwill of their leader, specifically the
extent to which they believe that the leader is honest, sincere, and
unbiased in taking their positions into account (Folger & Konovsky, 1998;
Korsgaard, Schweiger, & Sapienza, 1995). History of change refers to the
perception of how successful the organization has been in dealing
successfully with change (Devos, Buelens, & Bouckenooghe, 2007). So,
organizational members’ perceptions about the internal context of change
are shaped not only by current but also past change events. Finally,
several authors expressed the view that participation is a special type of
delegation by which management shares authority with employees
(Leana, 1986; Early & Lind, 1987). According to Manville and Ober (2003)
this style of management affords employees the opportunity to gain some
control over important decisions and is often a way designed to promote
ownership of plans for change.
Two of these climate dimensions (i.e., trust in top management and
participatory management) are corner stones of the human relations
climate model (Patterson et al., 2005). The human relations orientation
with its emphasis on belonging, trust, and cohesion, achieved through
participation, and support may relate to an employee’s confidence and
capability to undertake new workplace challenges and changes (Jones et
al., 2005). This assumption is consistent with a growing body of research
evidence (Burnes & James, 1995; Jones et al., 2005; Zammuto, Gifford, &
Goodman, 2000). For instance, Burnes and James (1995) observed that
136
Chapter 3
change resistance was low when a supportive and participative culture
was present, characteristics that are consistent with the human relations
philosophy. Based upon recent findings (Jones et al., 2005) only the
human relations climate with its strong inward focus and flexibility
orientation was associated with heightened levels of readiness for change.
No such evidence was found for other climates like the open systems
model. One explanation for this outcome is that the strong internal focus of
the human relations perspective in contrast to the external focus of the
open systems perspective is better at mobilizing those human resources,
which relate to an employee’s confidence and capability to undertake new
workplace challenges.
In addition to these two climate dimensions, we added a third
dimension ‘history of change’ as a potential enabler of readiness for
change. After all, it is contended that past change experiences are alive in
the present and shape how people will act and react in the future (Lau &
Woodman, 1995; Pettigrew et al., 2001; Schneider et al., 1996). The
importance of history of change as a crucial predictor of attitudes toward
change has been highlighted in more recent studies (e.g., Devos, Buelens
& Bouckenooghe,, 2007; Wanous, Reichers, & Austin, 2000).
3.4.3 The Process Factor and Underlying Difference with
Organizational Climate
A recent analysis of 17 papers about the potential context and
process antecedents of readiness for change identified quality of change
communication as the most cited process factor of readiness for change
(Bouckenooghe & Devos, 2007). Communication helps people make
sense of the changes under way, makes changes more salient, and helps
reframe them (Weick, 1995). Quality of change communication here refers
to how change is communicated and the clarity, the frequency and
openness determine whether or not communication is effective (Miller,
Johnson, & Grau, 1994).
137
Chapter 3
In summary, this inquiry identified three climate dimensions (i.e.,
trust
in
top
management)
management,
and
one
history
process
of
change,
factor
(i.e.
and
quality
participatory
of
change
communication) as crucial predictors of readiness for change. An
important underlying difference between both sets is that the climate
factors have a relatively enduring character, whereas the process factor is
more transient. Furthermore the three climate dimensions have a more
generic and cross-situational character, as opposed to the process factor
quality of change communication. In other words, quality of change
communication refers to the here-and-now, focusing on the specific
change at hand.
3.4.4 The Higher Level Equivalents of the Context and Process
Variables
According to James et al. (1974; 1990), individuals first develop
psychological interpretations of trust in top management, history of
change, participatory management, and quality of change communication.
These individual perceptions, however, cannot be aggregated until they
are shared and agreed upon (i.e., collective perceptions). Thus the
aggregated level of these four characteristics comes only into existence
through processes like the social information processing mechanism
(Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). In multilevel modeling this idea of how lower
level variables compose higher level phenomena can be empirically
checked. Because the composition model here involves a direct
consensus model (Chan, 1998) within-group agreement should be
computed for all four variables. It is only through this agreement that the
aggregate level can come into existence. Therefore the first aim of this
paper was to examine whether the individual perceptions of trust in top
management, history of change, participatory management, and quality of
change communication allowed aggregation at the organizational level.
138
Chapter 3
3.5 Hypotheses
3.5.1 Climate Dimensions
3.5.1.1 Trust in Top Management
In organizations where trust in top management exists, and where
change projects have been implemented successfully in the past,
organizational members are more likely to develop positive attitudes
towards new changes. A vast amount of literature denotes that trust of
organizational members in their leader is a salient antecedent of people’s
cooperation in implementing strategic decisions and an essential factor in
predicting people’s openness toward change (Eby et al., 2000; Korsgaard
et al., 1995; McManus, Russell, Freeman, & Rohricht, 1995; Rousseau &
Tijoriwala, 1999). Trust in top management is critical in shaping people’s
responses to change, because it helps to reduce the change related
feelings of stress and uncertainty, both major inhibitors of readiness for
change. Therefore we propose:
Hypothesis 1 (H1): Individual readiness for change is positively correlated
with the perceived trust in top management (individual level).
3.5.1.2 History of change
Readiness for change is also affected by the track record of an
organization in dealing effectively with change. If organizational changes
have failed in the past, employees will develop negative expectations
about new change initiatives and subsequently become more reluctant
towards new change. In their study on cynicism about organizational
change, Wanous, Reichers and Austin (2000) noted that history of change
is correlated with the motivation to support change. Based upon their
findings these authors suggested that the higher the pre-existing level of
cynicism about organizational change, the more executives need to
139
Chapter 3
confront and discuss previous failures before moving ahead. In alignment
with this literature, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2 (H2): Individual readiness for change is positively correlated
with the perceived history of change (individual level).
3.5.1.3 Participatory Management
According to Eby et al. (2000) perceived participation at work or what we
call participatory management may affect people’s reactions toward
change. Although several sources indicated that a limited access to
participation can lead to increased levels of cynicism about change and
resistance to change (McNabb & Sepic, 1995; Reichers, Wanous, Austin,
1997), there is no clear consensus about the effect of participation (Glew,
O’Leary-Kelly, Griffin, & Van Fleet, 1995).
Although the results are mixed, it has been shown that participatory
management has an impact on job attitudes and motivation (Leana et al.,
1990; Wagner & Gooding, 1987). Greater levels of participation and
involvement allow individuals to have wider repertoires of activity and
control over the dynamic and complex environment in which they work. In
other words, an outcome of increased participatory management is
employee empowerment, which gives employees the ability, the authority,
and responsibility to make decisions. In short, stronger levels of
participation contribute to a sense of control in one’s job (Cunningham et
al., 2002), which in turn contributes to a higher self-efficacy for dealing
with uncertain conditions or challenges like change (Latham, Winters, &
Locke, 1994). Thus, it is expected that if employees perceive the work
environment as participative they are likely to be more receptive to
organizational change, and in turn, are going to be more ready for change.
In consequence our third hypothesis is:
140
Chapter 3
Hypothesis 3 (H3): Individual readiness for change is positively correlated
with participatory management (individual level).
3.5.2 Change Specific Process Factor: Quality of Change
Communication
In their seminal work on creating readiness for change, Armenakis
et al. (1993) mentioned several influence strategies that can be used by
change agents to increase readiness for change. One of the foremost
strategies is persuasive communication, which is mainly a source of
providing explicit information about the reasons and urgency for change.
Several authors indicated that communication is a vital mechanism to the
effective implementation of organizational change (Armenakis & Harris,
2002; Bordia, Hunt, Paulsen, Tourish, & Difonzo, 2004; Ludema & Di
Virgilio, 2007; Schweiger & Denisi, 1991). Poorly managed change
communication often results in widespread rumors, which provides a fertile
ground for the development of negative feelings and beliefs about change.
Briefly, what is said matters, and the rigor and consciousness in the
communication of change are what differentiates a successful change
from one derailed by resistance and uncertainty (Ford & Ford, 1995; Miller,
Johnson, & Grau, 1994).
Hypothesis 4 (H4): Individual readiness for change is positively correlated
with the perceived quality of change communication (individual level).
3.5.3 Second Level Hypothesis
Not only do we expect to find support for the hypothesized
relationships between individual readiness for change and the four
antecedents measured at the individual level, from a multilevel or meso
level viewpoint it is asserted that group level or contextual effects need to
be accounted for in explaining individual readiness for change (Johns,
2006). Because people are in continuous interaction, the sensemaking of
141
Chapter 3
readiness for change is not only the result of individual reflections but also
shaped by how colleagues and change agents collectively perceive the
change context and process (Ford et al., 2008). Therefore we assume that
the shared perception of the four antecedent variables will have a
significant influence on individual readiness for change. In multilevel
theory this type of modeling is called a top-down cross level model,
addressing the influence of macro levels (for example, organization or
group characteristics) on micro levels (for example, individuals) (DiezRoux, 2003; Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). Thus, based on above discussion
we propose:
Hypothesis 5: The organizational climate dimensions and change process
factor are related to individual readiness for change after controlling for
their individual level equivalents.
3.6 METHOD
3.6.1 Sample and Questionnaire Administration
Although the sample is not representative of all sectors in Belgium,
the companies involved are all subject to major or large scale changes.
Data were collected from 2,543 employees of 84 companies in Belgium
representing a wide variety of industry sectors including hospitals (n = 12),
healthcare services (n = 4), pharmacy and biotechnology (n = 3), IT
consultancy (n = 5), banking and insurances (n = 7), manufacturing (i.e.
construction, automotive, etc.) (n = 10), consultancy (i.e., investment and
market research) (n = 8), restaurant, food and beverages (n = 3),
government and government related institutions (n = 9), education,
educational services and training (n = 11), wholesale, logistics and
transportation (n = 4), and miscellaneous (n = 8). The number of
respondents in each organization ranged from 4 to 145, with a mean of 31
(SD = 27.6). The questionnaires were administered shortly after the
announcement of change. So it involved all changes that were recently
142
Chapter 3
introduced. In that respect we reduced the variability in responses that is
attributable to data collection at the different stages of the change
processes.
In each organization a manager was our contact person to collect
the data. This person was asked to survey the members that were
affected by the change project. Each potential respondent was contacted
by
this
in-company
manager
either
face-to-face
or
written
communications. Potential participants were explained the purpose of the
study. Participation was on voluntary basis and anonymously. To
maximize the anonymity, respondents had the option not to fill out
demographic information like age or sex. In addition to further protect this
anonymity age was assessed using ranges of years. Of the respondents
that also completed the demographic information 841 were male and 495
were female. With respect to age the following distribution was noted: 59
respondents were 24 years or younger, 381 were between 25-34 years,
462 were between 35-44 years, and 379 were 45 years or older.
The survey is comprised of two parts. In the first part of the
questionnaire participants were asked to respond to questions that
referred to the generic climate dimensions trust in top management,
history of change and participatory management. Also the generic
component of readiness for change (i.e. cognitive readiness for change)
was included in the first part. So, respondents were asked to indicate how
strongly they agreed, disagreed with statements on change in general.
The second part of the questionnaire dealt with items that referred to a
change specific project and were introduced by the following instruction:
This part contains questions about [change project X within department or
organization Y]. In answering the following questions please have [the
specific change project] in mind. In this part the process factor quality of
change communication and the emotional and the intentional component
of readiness for change were measured.
143
Chapter 3
3.6.2 Type of Change
On the basis of recent findings it has been shown that the type of
change affects people’s readiness for change (Rafferty & Simons, 2005).
In this study we did not statistically control for the content of change but
instead only focused on organizations that were undergoing similar types
of changes. First of all this inquiry considered only organizational changes
that were recently announced or just under way. Furthermore we only
incorporated respondents that were experiencing salient and immediate
consequences of change. And finally with regards to the scale of change
we involved only large-scale changes like changes to organizational
culture, reorganization without layoffs, introduction of new technologies,
etc. Important to note is that none of these large-scale changes had job
threatening implications for the participants involved.
3.6.3 Measures
All scales reported were measured along five-point Likert type
scales that range between strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).1 The
dependent variable readiness for change was measured along three
dimensions: (1) emotional readiness for change, (2) intentional readiness
for change, and (3) cognitive readiness for change (Piderit, 2000). The
scales were adapted from Authors (2008), Metselaar (1997), and Oreg
(2006). Each scale consisted of three items. Sample items are “I have a
good feeling about the change” (emotional readiness for change, α = .85),
“I am willing to make a significant contribution to the change” (intentional
readiness for change, α = .88), and “I think that most changes will have a
negative effect on the clients we serve” (cognitive readiness for change, α
= .72),
We believe that a multifaceted view of readiness for change is
better able to capture the complexity of readiness for change and provide
a better understanding of the relationships between readiness for change
and its antecedents. Whereas some variables may have their primary
144
Chapter 3
influence on how people feel about a specific change, others may have
more impact on how they act towards a change, and yet others what they
think about change in general (McGuire, 1985).
The climate dimensions (i.e. trust in top management, history of
change, and participatory management) and process factors (i.e. quality of
change communication) were adapted from pre-existing multi-item scales
with adequate psychometric properties. The three-item scale trust in top
management (α = .74) was taken from Authors (2008), Albrecht and
Travaglioni (2003), and Kim and Mauborgne (1993). A sample item is “The
executive management fulfills its promises.” The measurement of history
of change consists of a four-item scale (α = .74) adapted from Metselaar
(1997). Items for this scale are “Past changes were generally successful”,
and “Our company has proven to be capable of major changes”. To
capture participatory management six items (α = .79) were used from
Authors (2008), Lines (2004) and Wanous et al. (2000). An example item
is “Decisions concerning work are taken in consultation with the staff
members who are affected”. Finally, quality of change communication is a
six-item scale (α = .86) adapted from Miller et al. (1994). Sample items
include “Information provided on change is clear”, and “We are sufficiently
informed of the progress of change.”
To warrant the validity of the study’s findings we performed several
tests. The first check involved a common method variance test. Following
the recommendations by Williams, Cote and Buckley (1989) and the
procedures outlined by Widaman (1985) four confirmatory factor analysis
models were fitted (null model (Model 1), trait model (Model 2), method
factor model (Model 3), trait and method factor model (Model 4)). In
general, the existence of method factors can be determined by examining
the improvement in the χ2 statistic and the normed fit index caused by
adding a method factor to the null model and to the trait model. Model 3
had a significantly better fit than the null model (Model1) (∆χ2=18,633.90,
∆df=28, ∆NFI=.59). In addition Model 4 had a significant better fit than
Model 2, indicating the presence of a method factor (∆χ2=542.05, ∆df=28,
145
Chapter 3
∆NFI=.02). Finally, a comparison between Model 2 and Model 3 indicated
a better fit of the trait model (Model 2) (∆χ2=11,001.62, ∆df=21, ∆NFI=.35)
and suggests that a substantial part of the variance is not explained by the
common method used to measure both independent and dependent
variables. Finally, we computed the percentage of method variance based
upon the squared factor loadings in model 4. We found that 19.98 per cent
of the variance is explained by the method factor indicating that common
method variance cannot be ignored in this inquiry. However, we should
also highlight that the level of method variance is in line with the studies
analyzed by Williams et al. (1989). An examination of the factor loadings in
model 4 (trait and method factor model) indicated a decrease in the factor
loadings when compared to model 2 (trait factor model). An average
decrease of 27 per cent was noted in the original loadings of model 2.
Despite the lower loadings, it should be stressed that 82 per cent of these
factor loadings had values higher than .40. Therefore it is relatively safe to
conclude that the effect of common method variance was rather limited for
this study.
A second validity check was an examination of ‘measurement
invariance’. This check enables to determine whether the items and the
underlying constructs mean the same thing to members of different
contexts. To test for this invariance the original sample of 84 companies
was randomly split into two halves with 44 companies and 1268
respondents in sample 1 and 40 companies and 1275 respondents in
sample 2. For the three readiness for change constructs and the four
independent variables several invariance tests were performed (Byrne,
1994; Cheung & Rensvold, 1999, Vandenberg & Lance, 2000). We used
multiple-group CFA to conduct a sequence of increasingly more restrictive
tests of invariance across the two samples: (a) factor form model (i.e., the
same number of factors and the factors have the same variables that load
on them), (b) model with equal factor loadings, and (c) model with equal
factor loadings and variances/covariances. Traditionally, the ∆χ2 has been
used as a difference in fit. However, the use of ∆χ2 has been criticized
146
Chapter 3
because of its sensitivity to sample size. Factorial invariance is seldom
found to hold when ∆χ2 test is used, especially when there is a large
number of observed measures and sufficiently large samples (Brannick,
1995; Cheung & Rensvold, 2002; Kelloway, 1995). On the basis of several
Monte Carlo simulations Cheung and Rensvold (1999; 2002) concluded
that reporting differences in CFI was superior to examine the difference in
χ2. They concluded that the CFI was not prone to the effect of sample
characteristics and reported critical values for change in CFI. Specifically,
they claimed that changes in CFI of less of -.01 indicate that the invariance
hypothesis should not be rejected, but when the differences lie between .01 and -.02, the researcher should be suspicious that differences exist.
Table 1 presents the results of the sequence of increasingly more
restrictive tests of measurement invariance. The first test also called factor
form invariance examined whether that – across the two samples – the
factor structure remained the same for both the readiness for change
constructs and independent variables. A good fit was obtained for both
models (χ2 readiness (48)=156.03, GFI=.99, CFI=.99 and RMSEA=.03;
χ2 independents (292)=1374,296, GFI=.94, CFI=.94 and RMSEA=.04). In the
second test of measurement invariance the factor loadings were
constrained to be invariant across the two samples. This additional set of
constraints did not produce a significant drop in fit based upon changes in
CFI, which means that the scales in this inquiry are invariant across
different contexts. Finally, we tested for the invariance of factor loadings
and factor variances/covariances across the samples. Again this test of
invariance was supported because the ∆CFI was less than .01.
147
Chapter 3
TABLE 3.1: Tests of measurement invariance for readiness for
change constructs and independent variables
Model
Factor form model (rfc)
Factor form model
χ2
df
∆χ2
∆df
156.03***
48
__
__
1374.30***
292
__
168.89***
54
1412.85***
GFI
CFI
∆CFI
RMSEA
.99
.99
__
.03
__
.94
.94
__
.04
12.86*
6
.99
.99
.00
.03
307
38.55***
15
.94
.94
.00
.04
199.65***
60
43.62***
12
.98
.99
.00
.03
1442.12***
317
67.82***
25
.94
.94
.00
.04
(independents)
Equal factor loadings (rfc)
Equal factor loadings
(independents)
Equal factor loadings,
variances/covariances (rfc)
Equal factor loadings,
variances/covariances
(independents)
*p < .05, ***p <.001
3.6.4 Analysis
Klein and Kozlowski (2000) identified four critical steps that should
be followed when performing multilevel research. First, what is the nature
of each higher level construct and how should each construct be
operationalized (i.e. global, shared, or configural construct)? The second
step is a model choice (i.e. single-level model, cross-level model, or
homologous multilevel model). The third step is a choice with regard to the
ratio higher level units/lower level units. And finally, step four is choosing
an appropriate data analytical technique.
3.6.4.1 Nature of Higher Level Construct and Interrater Agreement
The higher level constructs (i.e., organizational history of change,
organizational trust in top management, organizational quality of change
communication, and organizational participation in decision making) in this
study are shared constructs (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). Therefore we
examined these four constructs in terms of between-unit and within-unit
variability. Three measures of interrater agreement (Lebreton & Senter,
148
Chapter 3
2007) were computed: Rwg(J) (James, Demaree & Wolf, 1984), ICC(1)
(McGraw & Wong, 1996) and ICC(2) (Bliese, 2000). All three measures
will help us in answering the question whether our individual level
measures (i.e. trust in top management, history of change, participatory
management, and quality of change communication) can be aggregated at
the organizational level.
3.6.4.2 Type of Multilevel Model
In this study the model is a cross-level direct effects model (Klein &
Kozlowski, 2000). In essence, we are interested in whether the higher
level constructs (aggregation at organizational level) provide incremental
prediction in readiness for change over and above the individual level
measurement of these constructs (i.e., history of change, trust in top
management,
participatory
management,
and
quality
of
change
communication). So, what is examined is the influence of the group level
variables on individual level outcomes after controlling for individual level
predictors. In other words, this kind of model is a contextual model
(Firebaugh, 1980).
3.6.4.3 Sample Size Requirements
Although there are no specific guidelines regarding sample sizes
required for hierarchical linear models, several simulation studies have
made recommendations regarding sufficient sample sizes for accurate
estimation (Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992; Kreft, 1996; Maas & Hox, 2004).
To guarantee that a multilevel study has enough power (i.e., 90) to detect
cross-level effects, Kreft (1996) suggested the 30/30 rule. To be on the
safe side, researchers should strive for a sample of at least 30 groups with
30 individuals per group. Our sample design is sufficient with 84
organizations (group level) and on average 31 individuals per group to
provide unbiased parameter estimates and variance components.
149
Chapter 3
3.6.4.4 Analytical Technique and Centering Procedures
To test our hypotheses hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) is used.
HLM is conducted in a simultaneous two-stage process (Hofmann et al.,
2000). In the first stage, HLM analyzes the relationship among lower level
variables (i.e. individual) within each higher level unit (i.e., organization),
calculating the intercepts and slope(s) for the lower level model within
each unit. In the second step, HLM analyzes the relationship between the
higher level variables and the intercepts and slopes for each organization.
Raudenbush (1989) provided a HLM template for testing contextual
models, where the group level predictor is the aggregate of the individual
level predictor.2 In that model level 1-predictors are group mean centered.
Using group mean centering (i.e., (X ij -X j )) over non-centered measures
(i.e. X ij ) for the lower level variables is superior because it reduces
collinearity between these variables and their higher level aggregates.
According to Raudenbush (1989) a contextual effect or group level effect
of one of the organizational climate dimensions is significant only when the
between group regression of Y ij onto (X ij – X j ) pooled across groups, are
significantly different from each other. In HLM software this test can be
conducted specifying a multi-parameter contrast effect. In total, we
calculated twelve multi-parameter contrast effects. Thus four contrast
effects were computed per outcome variable (emotional readiness for
change, cognitive readiness for change and intentional readiness for
change).
3.7 Results
3.7.1 Descriptive Statistics
Table 2 reports the summary statistics, zero-order correlations and
the interrater agreement indices for the scales measured at the individual
and group level. As displayed in the upper half of Table 2, the correlations
between the lower level variables indicated moderate to strong
150
Chapter 3
correlations between all three readiness for change scales. In addition, we
noted that the respondents on average scored high on intentional
readiness for change (M = 4.15). The correlations between the four
individual level antecedents were moderate to high ranging between r =
.38 and r = .55. The lowest but still a modest correlation was noted
between trust in top management and intentional readiness for change (r =
.20). To assess the degree of multicollinearity, VIF values were computed.
None of these values exceeded the cut-off value of 10, indicating that
multicollinearity had a limited effect.
Within the group level variables (see bottom half of Table 2), strong
correlations
were
observed
between
trust
in
top
management,
participatory management and quality of change communication. The
correlations of history of change with participatory management and
quality of change communication were lower.
151
Chapter 3
TABLE 3.2: Means, standard deviations, interrater agreement indices, and correlation table of individual-level
and group-level variables
M
SD
ICC(1)
ICC(2)
Variable
Individual level (N = 2543)
3.57
.76
1. Emotional RFC
3.49
.71
2. Cognitive RFC
4.15
.61
3. Intentional RFC
3.33
.67
4. History of change
3.13
.76
5. Trust in top
management
3.02
.76
6. Participatory
management
3.41
.71
7. Quality communication
Group level (N = 84)
3.36
.34
.19
.86
8. Org. history of change
3.26
.37
.21
.87
9. Org. trust in top
management
3.15
.38
.24
.89
10. Org. participatory
management
3.52
.32
.18
.85
11. Org. quality
communication
Note. Cronbach’s alpha is on the diagonal
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001
152
r wg(j)
1
2
3
4
5
6
.85
.54***
.57***
.33***
.32***
.72
.38***
.57***
.48***
.88
.23***
.20***
.74
.53***
.74
.47***
.50***
.28***
.42***
.55***
.79
.29***
.45***
.23***
.38***
.46***
.51***
7
8
9
10
.86
.88
.83
.48***
.88
.29**
.60***
.89
.25*
.48***
.58***
Chapter 3
3.7.2 Shared Constructs or Not: Empirical Evidence for Aggregation
The values of the three interrater agreement indices suggest that
the individual perception of trust in top management, history of change,
participatory management and quality of change communication have a
shared equivalent at the organizational level (see Table 2). In a recent
paper by Lebreton and Senter (2007), standards for interpreting R wg(J)
values have been suggested. Values that range between .51 and .70 have
moderate agreement, whereas values between .71 and .90 indicate strong
agreement. Common practice is to conclude that the aggregation of those
variables to the organization level is appropriate if the R wg(J) mean equals
or exceeds .70. The mean R wg(J) scores for trust in top management,
history of change, participatory management, and quality of change
communication were all greater than .80, showing strong levels of
agreement (Lebreton & Senter, 2007).
The ICC(1) scores can be interpreted in terms of effect sizes. A
value of .01 might be considered a small effect, a value of .10 might be
considered a medium effect, and a value of .25 might be considered a
large effect (Murphy & Myors, 1998). All ICC(1) values were medium effect
sizes with values ranging between .18 and .24. A value of .18, for
example, suggests that 18 per cent of the variance in individual’s
responses to quality in change communication resides at the level of
organization membership. In short, these values indicate a substantial
amount of variance in the context and process characteristics can be
attributed to organizational membership.
Finally, the (ICC(2)) values all exceed the recommended .70 level
(Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994), providing evidence that the group means for
trust in top management, history of change, participatory management,
and quality of change communication are reliable. Thus, from an empirical
perspective we conclude that the aggregation of our individual level
variables at the organization level is adequate.
153
Chapter 3
3.7.3 Hypothesis Testing
A set of conditions must be met in order for our hypotheses (H1-H5)
to be supported. First, one should expect meaningful variance within and
between groups in emotional, intentional and cognitive readiness for
change (condition 1). Secondly, after assessing the degree of within and
between group variance in those three outcome variables, one should
examine whether there is significant variance across groups in the
intercept term (condition 2). Thirdly to support H1-H4, the level-1 slope
parameters (β 1, β 2, β 3, β 4 ) should be significant (condition 3). And for
hypothesis 5 to be supported, the level-2 slope parameters (γ 01, γ 02, γ 03,
γ 04 ), as well as the multi-parameter contrast effects should be significant
(condition 4).
To examine the first condition, analysis for each outcome variable
(i.e., emotional readiness for change, intentional readiness for change,
and cognitive readiness for change) started with a fitting of an
unconditional model. Although the unconditional model does not test
hypotheses per se, it describes how much of the total variance in the
dependent variables can be attributed to the individual and organizational
level. From these unconditional models, we inferred that there was
considerable variance residing between groups in emotional readiness for
change (ICC(1) = .122/.614 = .20), intentional readiness for change
(ICC(1) = .056/.391 = .14), and cognitive readiness for change (ICC(1) =
.081/.505 = .16). This implies that respectively 80, 86 and 84 per cent of
the variance in these outcome variables is attributable to differences in
individuals.
A χ2 test was performed on the between-group variance in each
outcome variable (σ2emorfc uo, σ2cogrfc uo, σ2intrfc uo ) to determine whether
significant variance in the intercept term existed across groups. In
alignment with the second condition the three estimated variance
components were found to be highly significant (σ2emorfc uo = .083, χ2(78)
154
Chapter 3
= 478.75, p < .001; σ2intrfc uo = .049, χ2(78) = 335.93, p < .001; σ2cogrfc uo
= .027, χ2(78) = 296.40, p < .001).
Table 3 presents the estimated level-1 and level-2 coefficients that
resulted from the hierarchical linear modeling analyses. In step 1 the
random intercept with the four antecedent variables at the individual level
was tested. In step 2 the full contextual model with the aggregated climate
and process dimensions was tested. From these analyses we inferred that
in a model without higher level variables strong support was found for H2,
H3 and H4. So, positive correlations were observed for the three outcome
variables with a successful history of change, participatory management,
and quality of change communication. Only in the case of cognitive
readiness for change, trust in top management had a positive and
significant correlation.
Because the individual level variables are group mean centered, a
slope coefficient refers to expected increase(s) or decrease(s) in the
outcome variables depending on people’s individual score deviations from
the level-1 predictor group means (e.g. (X ij – X j )). For example, in the case
of the fixed effect of quality of change communication on emotional
readiness for change the parameter coefficient (β 4 ) was .31. This implies
that when a respondent scores one point higher on perceived quality of
change communication than the average person in his or her organization,
that person will score .31 higher on emotional readiness for change on the
condition that all other predictor variables are set to zero.
The
level-1
residual
variance
in
the
unconditional
model
(σ2 rij/unconditional ) was used to compute the R2’s for the individual level
constructs as level-1 predictors ((σ2 rij/unconditional – σ2 rij/step1 ) / σ2 rij/unconditional ).
This set of four variables accounted respectively for 41 per cent of the
explained variance in cognitive readiness for change, 22 per cent in
emotional readiness for change, and 7 per cent in intentional readiness for
change.
155
Chapter 3
As displayed in Table 3 the fixed effects for the level-2 predictors in
step 2 (organizational trust in top management (γ 01 ), organizational history
of change (γ 02 ), organizational participatory management (γ 03 ), and
organizational quality of change communication (γ 04 )) were used to test
H5. After controlling for the level-1 variables, only organizational quality of
change communication had a positive and significant effect on emotional,
intentional, and cognitive readiness for change. This implies that
independent of a person’s score on trust in top management, history of
change, participatory management, and quality of change communication,
the fact of being a member of a group that perceives high quality of
change communication, has a substantial effect on individual readiness for
change. In addition, we noted that organizational history of change had a
positive and significant effect on cognitive readiness for change.
By means of the GLS hypothesis test option in HLM, we examined
four multi-parameter contrast effects ((contrast1 = γ 04emorfc – γ 40emorfc ),
(contrast 2 = γ 04cogrfc – γ 40cogrfc ), (contrast 3 = γ 04intrfc – γ 40intrfc ), (contrast 4 =
γ 02cogrfc – γ 20cogrfc )). The χ2 statistic tests for contrast 1, 2 and 3 were highly
significant (contrast 1: χ2(1) = 10.72, p < .001; contrast 2: χ2(1) = 23.67, p
< .001; contrast 3: χ2(1) = 14.80, p < .001), whereas the χ2 statistic test for
contrast 4 was only significant at the .10 level (χ2(1) = 3.63, p < .10). In
conclusion, these findings suggest that there is a group level effect of
organizational quality of change communication on readiness for change.
156
Chapter 3
TABLE 3.3: Results of HLM for hypothesis testing
Cognitive readiness for change
Step 1
Fixed effects
Level-1 main effects
Trust (β 1 )
History (β 2 )
Participatory management
(β 3 )
Communication (β 4 )
Emotional readiness for change
Step 2
Step 1
Intentional readiness for change
Step 2
Step 1
Step 2
Coeff
SE
Df
Coeff
SE
Df
Coeff
SE
Df
Coeff
SE
Df
Coeff
SE
Df
Coeff
SE
Df
.10***
.44***
.16***
.02
.04
.02
2273
2273
2273
.09***
.42***
.16***
.02
.03
.03
83
83
83
.05
.25***
.06*
.02
.03
.02
2273
2273
2273
.04
.25***
.06*
.03
.03
.03
83
83
83
.00
.10***
.13***
.02
.02
.02
2273
2273
2273
.01
.10***
.13***
.02
.03
.02
83
83
83
.13***
.02
2273
.13***
.02
83
.31***
.02
2273
.31***
.03
83
.10***
.02
2273
.11***
.03
83
-.05
.26***
.04
.08
.08
.08
79
79
79
-.12
.02
-.24
.12
.11
.12
79
79
79
-.14
.02
.03
.09
.08
.08
79
79
79
.50***
.08
79
.72***
.12
79
.45***
.08
79
Level-2 main effects
GroupTrust (γ 01 )
GroupHistory (γ 02 )
GroupParticipatory
management (γ 03 )
GroupCommunication (γ 04 )
Variance components
U 0j
U 1j
U 2j
U 3j
U 4j
r ij
.08
.25
.03
.01
.02
.05
.01
.23
.14
.39
.08
.01
.01
.02
.01
.37
.06
.31
.05
.00
.00
.02
.02
.30
Note. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
157
Chapter 3
3.8 Discussion
This study was designed to investigate the impact of organizational
trust in top management, organizational history of change, organizational
participatory
management,
and
organizational
quality
of
change
communication above and over the effects of their individual level
equivalents on people’s attitude towards organizational change measured
in terms of emotional, intentional and cognitive readiness for change. This
inquiry was intended to demonstrate the importance of a meso level
approach to the study of organizational phenomena (House, Rousseau, &
Thomas-Hunt, 1995), such as reactions of organizational members when
confronted with change. The findings provided evidence that readiness for
change is not purely the result of individual perceptions, but is also a
socially constructed phenomenon. To put it differently, our analyses
showed that a significant amount of variance in emotional, intentional and
cognitive readiness for change resided at the organizational level. The fact
of being part of a group seems to explain a substantial amount of variance
(ranging between 14 and 20 per cent) in individual’s attitudes toward
change. This observation supports the image that individuals in
organizations do not exist in a vacuum, but that their perceptions, attitudes
and behavior are a function of both individual and context effects (Lewin,
1951).
In support of our hypotheses (H2, H3, and H4) and the literature we
note that the individual perceptions of the climate dimensions history of
change, participatory management, and the change process factor quality
of change communication are essential predictors of people’s readiness
for change. Based on these findings, it seems that honoring past change
successes is a valuable change readiness mechanism, because positive
change stories may encourage change recipients to engage in change.
Although very few studies considered an organization’s history as a driver
of readiness for change (Bordia et al., 2007; Pettigrew et al., 2001), it has
been suggested that readiness for change is affected by the track record
158
Chapter 3
of successful implementation of organizational changes (Devos et al.,
2007). In other words, a positive experience with previous change projects
will activate employees’ readiness; a negative experience will inhibit their
readiness (Bernerth, 2004).
The process factor quality of change communication and the climate
dimension participatory management characterize management support,
and are key dimensions of transformational leadership behavior
(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990). During major change
the head of the organization or executive management are key persons to
warrant a successful change outcome. Leaders are needed to provide
vision, inspiration, and conviction, to demonstrate integrity, generate trust,
and communicate values in order to create a basis in which openness and
flexibility towards change can thrive (Bommer, Rich, & Rubin, 2005).
Organizational members should have the general feeling that the
organization cares for their well-being and is supportive of their concerns
about change (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchinson, & Sowa, 1986).
Thus, perceived management support during change may impact one’s
reaction to the impending change such that it is perceived as less
threatening, and may influence one’s overall schema for organizational
change such that the change is viewed more favorably (Eby et al., 2000).
It is obvious that in the light of getting people prepared for
adjustment to change, that participatory management and quality of
change communication are both tools that management can rely on
(Armenakis et al., 1993). In other words, if practitioners want to achieve
effective and continuous change in their organization, they should think
about implementing well-designed and well-developed interventions
geared toward facilitating and enhancing positive social relationships in
their organizations. Through participatory management, people get the
opportunity to have more control over important decisions like change, and
gradually build the skills, the knowledge and efficacy necessary to cope
effectively with the challenges that accompany change (Dirks, Cummings,
& Pierce, 1996). Also communication is crucial to increase acceptance of
159
Chapter 3
change, since it helps people to make sense of changes already under
way, makes changes more salient and helps reframe them (Weick, 1995).
In particular, the quality of communication is what differentiates a
successful change from one derailed by resistance and uncertainty (Ford
& Ford, 1995). So, an important role of management and change agents in
times of change is one of managing language and dialogue (Ludema & Di
Virgilio, 2007).
Despite the support for the hypotheses 2, 3 and 4, the first
hypothesis was not confirmed. Individual perceived trust in top
management only had a positive significant relationship with cognitive
readiness for change, but not with emotional or intentional readiness for
change. This finding suggests that some antecedents may have their
primary influence on how people feel about a specific change, whereas
others may impact their intentions towards a specific change, and yet
others on what they think about change in general. If that would be the
explanation for this result, this study has demonstrated the relevance of
using a multifaceted definition over a unified conceptualization of
readiness for change (Piderit, 2000). An alternative explanation for the fact
that only a positive effect was found for cognitive readiness for change
may be attributed to the generic nature of both scales.
Of the group level effects only organizational quality of change
communication had a main effect on all three readiness for change
outcomes. Furthermore, it explained a substantial part of the variance in
readiness for change that resided between groups. Thus irrespective of an
individual’s perceptions, the shared perception of the quality of
communication during change has a positive influence on people’s
individual readiness for change. Thus, quality of change communication
accounts for an individual and group level effect in shaping employees’
readiness for change. Based on these results one may conclude that the
perceived quality of change communication operates like a central nerve
system in times of change. Glitches to the nerve system in the human
body may cause paralysis, uncontrolled movements, blindness, and in the
160
Chapter 3
worst case scenario even lead to death. Analogous to this nerve system,
the need for high quality information and communication will determine the
survival of a change project. When crucial information about change does
not reach its recipients, is misinterpreted, or wrongfully processed, people
will start to question the urgency and relevance of change and ultimately
build resistance towards change.
Although the social information processing theory (Salancik &
Pfeffer, 1978) posits that the attitudes that individuals develop towards
change are directed by the social context information (e.g., quality of
change communication), the theory does not explain the reference points
people use for the formation of their attitudes (Erickson, 1998). People
compare themselves with other members in their social system (i.e.
organization). Dependent on the outcome of this comparison, people may
engage or resist change (Burkhardt, 2004). Thus, instead of treating the
absolute group means of the antecedent variables as the only type of
higher level effects, an alternative could be individual-within-the-group
effects. This kind of effect suggests that readiness for change depends on
where an individual stands relative to the group average for the
organizational climate dimensions. In literature these are frog-pond effects
(Firebaugh, 1980). The term frog pond captures the comparative or
relative effect that is central to theories of this type: depending on the size
of the pond, the very same frog may be small (if the pond is large) or large
(if the pond is small) (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). Although the absolute
group averages of trust in top management, history of change, and
participatory management did not affect readiness for change it may be
that their frog-pond effects actually do. In that respect a limitation of this
study and at the same time a challenge for future research is developing
designs that allow testing for frog-pond effects.
161
Chapter 3
3.8.1 Study Considerations
Like all studies, this study has both strengths and weaknesses. As
for its strengths, this inquiry is one of the very few studies that acquired
data on generic climate characteristics (i.e. trust in top management,
history of change, and participatory management), transient or change
specific process characteristics (i.e. quality of change communication),
and readiness for change in a broad and heterogeneous cross section of
Belgian companies. In short, the large number of companies, changes and
respondents helped increase confidence in the stability of the results.
Another advantage of the study was the emphasis on the climate
concept as one of the key mechanisms that facilitates or inhibits
adjustment to change. The benefit of this concept lies in its ability to easily
distinguish its effects at different levels of analysis (i.e., individual level and
organizational level). In addition, in change management literature history
of change, has tended to be ignored as a critical context factor (Bordia et
al., 2007; Pettigrew et al., 2001). In this study, however, we offered some
evidence to consider this history when examining employees’ change
attitudes.
To our knowledge, this study is one of the very few that recognized
the importance of using a multifaceted definition of readiness for change
(Piderit, 2000). As a matter of fact, treating readiness as a unified concept
unduly simplifies the term by assuming that how people behave under
conditions of change completely corresponds with how they think and feel
about change (Oreg, 2006). In addition, our focus on readiness for change
is embedded in a positive psychology approach, instead of following the
mainstream, which assumes that people resist change (Dent & Goldberg,
1999). We believe that this positive approach, which emphasizes on the
strengths rather than malfunctioning, will provide some new fascinating
insights into the pertinent role of human functioning in times of change
(Abrahamson, 2004).
162
Chapter 3
With respect to the used methodology, multilevel theory and
research provides a solid theoretical foundation and a set of powerful
analytical tools to examine organizational phenomena that cut across
multiple levels (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). Although single-level models are
important to identify and explore specific variables at some point, the
future of organizational science lies in approaches that are more
integrative and seek to understand phenomena from a combination of
perspectives (Hitt, Beamish, Jackson, & Mathieu, 2007). In this regard, the
findings of our study support the call for more meso level or multilevel
research perspectives in the area of organizational change (House et al.,
1995; Herold, Fedor, & Caldwell, 2007; Herold, Fedor, Caldwell, & Liu,
2008; Fedor, Caldwell, & Herold, 2006).
Despite the many advantages, our study has some limitations. For
instance, we only focused on perceived context variables. Future
research, however, would do well to examine other readiness for change
related context variables like the impact of an organization’s structure, its
strategy for dealing with change, market evolutions, etc. Furthermore, it is
clear that other levels beside organizational level are affected by change.
For example, what’s the importance of the work team culture in shaping
employees’ readiness for change? So, there is a clear need to further
identify the relevance of other units of analysis (e.g., team and
department) as key levels to cross-level research on readiness for change.
The drawback however of taking three levels of analysis into a design is
the need for a larger sample size. Generalizing the 30/30 rule (Kreft, 1996)
to a three level design would imply that the number of respondents at the
lowest level of analysis would be multiplied by a factor of 30. This would
mean that responses of approximately 27,000 individuals spread over 900
teams in 30 organizations should be collected to ensure the accuracy of
the estimated parameters and variance components.
With regard to methodology, a possible concern could be that the
researchers were not in control of the selection of participants in each
organization and therefore may have biased the results. We believe
163
Chapter 3
however that it is very unlikely that the contact persons chose to solicit
only those members in favor or not in favor of the change. If that would
have been the case, we would have found limited variance available to be
explained in the study, reducing the likelihood of finding significant results.
In addition, in the case the contact persons had chosen individuals
favorable or unfavorable to changes, the means for the three outcome
variables and four antecedent variables would approximate the maximum
or minimum theoretical values (i.e., 5 and 1). The means, however, do not
seem to support the presence of such selection bias.
Another flaw in the methodology of our study is the fact that survey
data were collected only once. Because of that, we cannot draw firm
conclusions about the causality in the relationships found between the
study’s variables. In previous inquiries, however, it has been demonstrated
that similar context variables shape people’s reactions towards change
(Devos et al., 2007; Jimmieson et al., 2005). Another issue associated
with the fact that data were collected only once and by the same
instrument is mono-method bias. Our tests recognized that common
method variance cannot be ignored in this inquiry. A comparison of
different models however showed that a model with separate factors for
scales yielded better fit over a common factor model. This suggests that
common method variance was not such a large validity threat for this
study. This issue of common method could be anticipated in the future by
administering one survey that measures readiness for change to one
sample of respondents, and a second survey that assesses the
organizational climate dimensions and process characteristics to a similar
sample of respondents in the company or work unit.
Finally, although theory supports the multifaceted structure of
readiness for change over a unified concept (Piderit, 2000), we believe
further empirical and theoretical work will be needed to develop a more
reliable and valid instrument that measures the three components of
readiness for change. Although this paper distinguished between generic
and change specific measures and acknowledged the need to take such
164
Chapter 3
distinction into consideration when doing research about people’s
reactions towards change (Herold et al. 2008), a possible flaw is that this
inquiry did not use a change specific measure of cognitive readiness for
change, nor did it incorporate generic measures for emotional and
intentional readiness for change. Therefore we believe that further
development of an instrument that assesses both the generic and change
specific character of cognitive, emotional and intentional readiness for
change could be a value-added for the field.
In conclusion, despite its strengths and weaknesses, research that
attempts to understand the meaning of different factors that influence
effective change is essential, because organizational change remains a
necessary condition to survive in an ever more competitive and turbulent
business environment.
Notes
1. For an elaborate discussion about the origin and the
psychometric qualities of these scales we refer to the
Change Climate Questionnaire (Authors, 2008).
2. Equations hypothesized model:
Level-1: Y ij = β 0j + β 1j (X ij – X j ) + β 2j (Z ij – Z j ) + β 3j (V ij – V j ) + β 4j (W ij – W j ) + r ij
(1a)
or
READINESS FOR CHANGE (EMORFC, COGRFC, INTRFC) = β 0j + β 1j
(TRUST ij – GroupTRUST j ) + β 2j (HISTORY ij – GroupHISTORY j ) + β 3j
(PARTICIPATION ij – GroupPARTICIPATION j ) + β 4j (COMMUNCATION ij –
groupCOMMUNCATION j ) + error ij (1b)
and
165
Chapter 3
Level-2: β 0j = γ 00 + γ 01 X j + γ 02 Z j + γ 03 V j + γ 04 W j + u 0j (2a)
or
β 0j = γ 00 + γ 01 GroupTRUST j + γ 02 GroupHISTORY j + γ 03 GroupPARTICIPATION j
+
γ 04 GroupCOMMUNICATION j + u 0j (2b)
and
β 1j = γ 10 + u 1j (3)
and
β 2j = γ 20 + u 2j (4)
and
β 3j = γ 30 + u 3j (5)
and
β 4j = γ 40 + u 4j (6)
3.9 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abrahamson, E. (2004). Change without pain. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
Albrecht, S.L., & Travaglione, P.P. (2003). Trust in public senior management.
International Journal Human Resource Management, 14, 1–17.
Armenakis A.A. & Bedeian A.G. (1999). Organizational change: A review of
theory and research in the 1990’s. Journal of Management, 25, 293–315.
Armenakis, A.A., & Harris, S.G. (2002). Crafting a change message to create
transformational readiness. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 15, 169–183.
Armenakis, A.A, Harris, S.G., & Mossholder, K. (1993). Creating readiness for
organizational change. Human Relations, 46, 681–703.
Authors (2008). The change climate questionnaire: Scale development. Paper
presented at the 2008 Academy of Management Conference, Anaheim.
Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000). Cracking the code of change. Harvard Business
Review, 78, 133–141.
Beckhard, R., & Harris, R.T. (1987). Assessing the present: Benchmarks for
change. In: Organizational transitions: Managing complex change (pp.
57–70). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
166
Chapter 3
Belasco, J.A. (1990). Teaching an elephant to dance: Empowering change in
your organization. New York: Crown Publishers.
Bernerth, J. (2004). Expanding our understanding of the change message.
Human Resource Development Review, 3, 36–52.
Bliese, P.D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability:
Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K.J. Klein, & S.W.J.
Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in
organizations (pp. 349–381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bommer, W.H., Rich, G.A., & Rubin, R.S. (2005). Changing attitudes about
change: longitudinal effects of transformational leader behavior on
employee cynicism about organizational change. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26, 733– 753.
Bouckenooghe, D., & Devos, G. (2007). Psychological change climate as a
crucial catalyst of readiness for change: A dominance analysis. Vlerick
Working Paper Series no.27.
Bordia, P., Hunt, E., Paulsen, N., Tourish, D., & DiFonzo, N. (2004). Uncertainty
during organizational change: Is it all about control? European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 13, 345–365.
Bordia, P., Restubog, S.L.D., Jimmieson, N.L., & Irmer, B.E. (2007). Haunted by
the past: Effects of poor management history on employee attitudes and
turnover. Proceedings of the Sixty-Seventh Academy of Management
(USA), ISSN 1543–8643.
Brannick, M.T. (1995). Critical comments on applying covariance structure
modeling. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 201–213.
Byrne, B.M. (1994). Structural equation modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows:
Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Bryk, A.S., & Raudenbush, S.W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications
and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Burkhardt, M.E. (1994). Social interaction effects following a technological
change: A longitudinal investigation. Academy of Management Journal,
37, 869–898.
Burnes, B., & James, H. (1995). Culture, cognitive dissonance, and the
management of change. International Journal of Operations and Product
Management, 15, 14–33.
Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content
domain at different levels of analysis: A typology composition models.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234–246.
Cheung, G.W., & Rensvold, R.B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indices for
testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–
255.
Cheung, G.W., & Rensvold, R.B. (1999). What constitutes significant differences
in evaluating measurement invariance? Paper presented at the 1999
conference of the Academy of Management, Chicago.
167
Chapter 3
Dent, E.B., & Goldberg, S.G. (1999). Challenging resistance to change. Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science, 35, 25–41.
Devos, G., Buelens, M., & Bouckenooghe (2007). The contribution of content,
context, and process in understanding openness to organizational
change: Two experimental simulation studies. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 147, 607– 630.
Diez-Roux, A.V. (2003). A glossary for multilevel analysis. Epidemiological
Bulletin, 24, 11–13.
Dirks, K.T., Cummings, L.L., & Pierce, J.L. (1996). Psychological ownership in
organizations: Conditions under which individuals promote and resist
change, Research in Organizational Change and Development, 9, 1–23.
Early, P.C., & Lind, E.A. (1987). Procedural justice and participation in task
selection: The role of control in mediating justice judgments. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 1148–1160.
Eby, L. T., Adams, D. M., Russell, J. E. A., & Gaby, S. H. (2000). Perceptions of
organizational readiness for change: Factors related to employees’
reactions to the implementation of team-based selling. Human Relations,
53, 419–442.
Eisenberger R., Huntington R., Hutchinson S., & Sowa D. (1986). Perceived
organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500–507.
Erickson, B. (1988). The relational basis of attitudes. In B. Wellman & S.
Berkowitz (Eds.), Intercorporate relations: The structural analysis of
business (pp. 99– 121). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Fedor, D.B., Caldwell, S., & Herold, D.M. (2006). The effects of organizational
changes on employee commitment: A multilevel investigation. Personnel
Psychology, 59, 1–29.
Firebaugh, G. (1980). Groups as contexts and frogponds. In K.H. Roberts & L.
Burnstein (Eds.). Issues in aggregation: (pp. 43–52). San Francisco:
Jossey- Bass.
Folger, R., & Konovsky, M.K. (1998). Effects of procedural and distributive justice
on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32,
115–130 .
Ford, J.D., & Ford, L.W. (1995). The role of conversations in producing
intentional change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20,
541–570.
Ford, J.D., Ford, L.W., & D’Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change. The rest of
the story. Academy of Management Review, 33, 326–377.
George, J.M., & Jones, G.R. (2001). Towards a process model of individual
change in organizations. Human Relations, 54, 3–22.
Glew, D.J., O’Leary-Kelly, A.M., Griffin, R.W., & Van Fleet, D.D. (1995).
Participation in organizations: A preview of the issues and proposed
framework for future analysis. Journal of Management, 21, 395–421.
Herold, D.M., Fedor, D.B, & Caldwell, S.D. (2007). Beyond change management:
A multilevel investigation of contextual and personal influences on
168
Chapter 3
employees’ commitment to change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,
942–951.
Herold, D.M., Fedor, D.B., Caldwell, S., & Liu, Y. (2008). The effects of
transformational leadership on employees commitment to change: A
multilevel study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 346–357.
Hitt, M.A., Beamish, P.W., Jackson, S.E., & Mathieu, J.E. (2007). Building
theoretical and empirical bridges across levels: Multilevel research in
management. The Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1385–1400.
Hofmann, D.A., Griffin, M.A., & Gavin, M. (2000). The application of hierarchical
linear modeling to organizational research. In K.J. Klein & S.W.J.
Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in
organizations, (pp. 467– 511). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Holt, D.T., Armenakis, A., Feild, H.S., & Harris, S.G. (2007). Readiness for
organizational change: The systematic development of a scale. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 43, 232–255.
House, R., Rousseau, D.M., & Thomas-Hunt, M. (1995). The meso paradigm: A
framework for integration micro and macro organizational behavior.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 17, 71–114.
Hox, J. (1998). Multilevel modeling: When and why? In I. Balderjahn, R., Mathar,
& M., Schader (Eds.), Classification, data analysis, and data highways
(pp. 147–154). New York, NY: Springer Verlag.
James, L.R., Demaree, R.G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group
interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 69, 85–98.
James, L.R., & Jones, A.P. (1974). Organizational climate: A review of theory
and research. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 1096–1112.
James, L.R., James, L.A., & Ashe, D.K. (1990). The meaning of organizations:
The role of cognition and values. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational
climate and culture (pp. 40–84). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior.
Academy of Management Review, 31, 386–408.
Jones, R.A., Jimmieson, N.L., & Griffiths, A. (2005). The impact of organizational
culture and reshaping capabilities on change implementation success:
The mediating role of readiness for change. Journal of Management
Studies, 42, 361–386.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. M. (1999). Managerial
coping with organizational change: A dispositional perspective. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 84, 107–122.
Kelloway, E.K. (1995). Structural equation modeling in perspective. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 16, 215–224.
Kim, W., & Mauborgne, R. (1993). Procedural justice, attitudes, and subsidiary
top management compliance with multinational’s corporate strategic
decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 502–526.
169
Chapter 3
Klein, K.J., & Kozlowski, S.W.J. (2000). From micro to meso: Critical steps in
conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research. Organizational
Research Methods, 3, 211–236.
Korsgaard A.M., Schweiger D.M., & Sapienza H.J. (1995). Building commitment,
attachment and trust in strategic decision-making teams: The role of
procedural justice. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 60–84.
Kozlowski, S.W.J., & Klein, K.J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and
research in organizations: Contextual, temporal and emergent processes.
In K.J. Klein & S.W.J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and
methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions and new directions
(pp. 3– 90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kreft, I.G.G. (1996). Are multilevel techniques necessary? An overview, including
simulation studies. Unpublished manuscript, California State University,
Los Angeles.
Latham, G.P., Winters, D.C., & Locke, E.A. (1994). Cognitive and motivational
effects of participation: A mediator study. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 15, 49–63.
Lau, C., & Woodman, R.W. (1995). Understanding organizational change: A
schematic perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 537–544.
Leana, C.R. (1986). Predictors and consequences of delegation. Academy of
Management Journal, 29, 754–774.
Lebreton, J.M., & Senter, J.L. (2007). Answers to 20 questions about interrater
reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods.
DOI: 10.01177/1094428106296642.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper & Row.
Lines, R. (2004). Influence of participation in strategic change: resistance,
organizational commitment and change goal achievement, Journal of
Change Management, 4, 193–215.
Ludema, J.D., & Di Virgilio, M.E. (2007). The role of energy-in-conversation in
leading organizational change. In W.A. Pasmore & R.W. Woodman
(Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (pp. 1–41).
Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Maas, C.J.M., & Hox, J.J. (2004). Robustness issues in multilevel regression
analysis. Statistica Neerlandica, 58, 127–137.
Manville, B., & Ober, J. (2003). Company of citizens: What the world’s first
democracy teaches leaders about creating great organisations. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
McGraw, K.O., & Wong, S.P. (1996). Forming inferences from intraclass
correlation coeffients. Psychological Methods, 1, 30–46.
McGuire, W.J. (1985). Attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson
(Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 233–346), New York: Random
House.
McManus, S.E., Russell J.E.A., Freeman D.M. & Rohricht M.T. (1995). Factors
related to employees’ perceptions of organizational readiness for change.
170
Chapter 3
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management,
Vancouver, Canada.
McNabb, D.E., & Sepic, F.T. (1995). Culture, climate and total quality
management: Measuring readiness for change. Public Productivity and
Management Review, 18, 369–386.
Metselaar E.E. (1997). Assessing the willingness to change: Construction and
validation of the DINAMO. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Free
University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Miller, V. D., Johnson, J. R., & Grau, J. (1994). Antecedents to willingness to
participate in a planned organizational change. Journal of Applied
Communication Research, 11, 365–386.
Moran, E.T., & Volkwein, J.F. (1992). The cultural approach to the formation of
organizational climate. Human Relations, 45, 19–47.
Murphy, K.R., & Myors, B. (1998). Statistical power analysis: A simple and
general model for traditional and modern hypothesis tests. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Nunnaly, J.C., & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York:
McGraw- Hill.
Oreg, S. (2006). Personality, context, and resistance to organizational change.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15, 73–101.
Patterson, M.G., West, M.A., Shackleton, V.J., Dawson, J.F., Lawthom, R.,
Maitlis, S., Robinson, D.L., and Wallace, A.M. (2005). Validating the
organizational climate measure: Links to managerial practices,
productivity and innovation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 379–
408.
Pettigrew, A.M., Woodman, R.W., & Cameron, K.S. (2001). Studying
organizational change and development: Challenges for future research.
Academy of Management Journal, 44, 697–713.
Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A
multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change.
Academy of Management Review, 25, 783–794.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H., & Fetter, R. (1990).
Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in
leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The
Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107–142.
Rafferty, A., & Simons, R. (2005). An examination of the antecedents of
readiness for fine-tuning and corporate transformation changes. Journal of
Business & Psychology, 20, 325–350.
Raudenbush, S.W. (1989). Centering predictors in multilevel analysis: choices
and consequences. Multilevel Modeling Newsletter, 1, 10–12.
Reichers, A. E., Wanous, J. P., & Austin, J. T. (1997). Understanding and
managing cynicism about organizational change. Academy of
Management Executive, 11, 48–59.
171
Chapter 3
Rousseau, D.M, & Tijoriwala, S.A. (1999). What’s a good reason to change?
Motivated reasoning and social accounts in promoting organizational
change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 514–528.
Sackmann, S.S. (1992). Cultures and subcultures: An analysis of organizational
knowledge. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 140–161.
Salancik, G., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job
attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224–253.
Schein E.H. (1980). Organizational Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Schneider, B., Brief, A. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1996). Creating a climate and culture
for sustainable organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24, 7–
19.
Schweiger, D.M., & Denisi, A.S. (1991). Communication with employees
following a merger: A longitudinal field experiment. Academy of
Management Journal, 34, 110–135.
Stewart, T.A. (1994). Rate your readiness for change. Fortune, 129, 106–110.
Tierney, P. (1999). Work relations as a precursor to a psychological climate for
change: The role of work group supervisors and peers. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 12, 120–133.
Vandenberg, R.J., & Lance, C.E.(2000). A review and synthesis of the
measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and
recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research
Methods, 3, 4–69.
Wagner, J.A., & Gooding, R.Z. (1987). Shared influence and organizational
behavior: A meta-analysis of situational variables expected to moderate
participation- outcome relationships. Academy of Management Journal,
30, 524–541.
Wanberg, C. R., & Banas, J. T. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of openness to
changes in a reorganizing workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,
132–142.
Wanous, J.P., Reichers, A.E., & Austin, J.T. (2000). Cynicism about
organizational change. Measurement, antecedents, and correlates. Group
and Organization Management, 25, 132–153.
Weick, K.E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Widaman, K.F. (1985). Hierarchically nested covariance structure models for
multitrait-multimethod data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 1–26.
Williams, L.J., Cote, J.A., & Buckley, M.R. (1989). Lack of method in selfreported affect and percept. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 462–468.
Yuan, F., & Woodman, R.W. (2007). Formation of expectations regarding change
outcomes: Integrating information and social effects. In W.A. Pasmore, &
Woodman R.W. (Eds.), Research in Organizational Change and
Development (pp. 81–104). Oxford, UK: JAI Press.
Zammuto, R.F., Gifford, B.D., & Goodman, E.A. (2000). Gaining advanced
manufacturing technologies’ benefits: the roles of organization design and
culture. Academy of Management Review, 17, 701–728.
172
Chapter 3
3.10 APPENDIX 1
Outcome variables:
1. Emotional component of readiness for change (3 items) – change
specific
a. I find the change refreshing
b. I have a good feeling about the change
c. I experience the change as a positive process
2. Intentional component of readiness for change (3 items) – change
specific
a. I am willing to make a significant contribution to the change
b. I want to devote myself to the process of change
c. I am willing to put energy into the process of change
3. Cognitive component of readiness for change (3 items) – generic
a. Most change projects that are supposed to solve problems
around here will not do much (R)
b. Overall the proposed changes are for the better
c. I think that most change projects will have a negative effect on
the clients we serve
Independent variables:
1. History of change (4 items) – generic
a. Our organization has always been able to cope with new
situations
b. Past changes generally were successful
c. Announced changes usually came to nothing in the past (R)
d. Our company has proven to be capable of major changes
173
Chapter 3
2. Trust in top management (3 items) – generic
a. The executive management fulfills its promises
b. The executive management consistently implements its policy in
all departments
c. The
two
way
communication
between
the
executive
management and the departments is very good
3. Participation management (6 items) – generic
a. Decisions concerning work are taken in consultation with the
staff members who are affected
b. Changes are always discussed with the people concerned
c. Front line staff and office workers can raise topics for discussion
d. Our department provides sufficient time for consultation
e. Problems are openly discussed
f. It is possible to talk about outmoded regulations and ways of
working
4. Quality of change communication (6 items) – change specific
a. I am regularly informed about how change is going
b. Information provided on change is clear
c. Information concerning the change reaches us mostly as rumors
(R)
d. There is a good communication between project leaders and
staff members concerning the organization’s policy towards
changes
e. We are sufficiently informed of the progress of change
f. It is clear how the objectives of change can be put into practice
174
Chapter 4
CHAPTER 4: CONTRIBUTION OF CONTENT, CONTEXT,
AND PROCESS TO UNDERSTANDING OPENNESS TO
ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE: TWO EXPERIMENTAL
SIMULATION STUDIES 1
ABSTRACT. The authors examined the contribution of the content,
context, and process of organizational transformation to employees’
openness to change. The authors predicted that (a) threatening character
of organizational change (content), (b) trust in executive management
(context), (c) trust in the supervisor (context), (d) history of change
(context), and (e) participation in the change effort (process) would have a
positive effect on openness to change. The authors tested their
hypotheses in 2 separate studies (N = 828 and N = 835) using an
experimental simulation strategy. The first study crossed four variables in
a completely randomized 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 factorial design. Results showed
significant main effects for content, context, and process but no significant
interaction effects. A second study, with a completely randomized 2 × 2
factorial design, crossed two context variables. Results showed a
significant main and an interaction effect: Openness to change decreased
dramatically only when history of change and trust in executive
management were low.
1
In contrast to chapters 2, 3 and 5, chapter 4 deals not with readiness for change but
openness to change, a construct that affiliates to readiness for change. The studies
performed in this chapter were the first conducted in the context of our dissertation. The
operationalization and measurement of openness to change can be conceived as a
tentative, preliminary measure of readiness for change. Despite its shortcoming to cover
the full content of readiness for change, openness to change as examined in this chapter,
served as a basis for the further refinement and assessment of readiness for change. In
essence, openness to change shows some overlap with the cognitive component of
readiness for change.
175
Chapter 4
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Understanding organizational change and development processes
from a macrolevel perspective has been the subject of much psychological
research in recent years (see G. B. Cunningham, 2006). Researchers in
this area have focused on organizational- and system-level variables, such
as reengineering (Hill & Collins, 1999), downsizing (Freeman, 1999), the
implementation of Total Quality Management (Claver, Gasco, Llopis, &
Gonzalez, 2001), or changes in corporate culture (Bedingham, 2004).
Several studies have indicated that many of these efforts at organizational
change fail. Beer and Nohria (2000), for instance, noted that despite the
effort that management put into change programs, only 30% led to
successful organizational change. Clegg and Walsh (2004) reported on
the ineffectiveness of 12 organizational development initiatives applied in
898 manufacturing companies across four countries. Although they have
observed an increase in management practices (e.g., Total Quality
Management,
integrated
computer-based
technologies,
concurrent
engineering, etc.) over the past decade, the overall rates of success of
these practices and techniques were moderate, with some successes but
also high failure rates. One reason why attempted changes may fail is
because changes often lead to increased feelings of anxiety, negative
emotions, uncertainty, and ambiguity among employees (Bordia et al.,
2004; Kiefer, 2005). Some studies on resistance to change have
suggested that these negative feelings are an indicator of an individual’s
unwillingness to support changes (Applebaum & Batt, 1993; Judson,
1991).
The high failure rate of change projects has led some scholars to
conclude that factors other than organizational- and system-level variables
are equally important in establishing successful change. As an alternative
perspective, some researchers have adopted a more microlevel
perspective on change by examining the individuals within the
organizations and the psychological factors influencing change efforts
176
Chapter 4
(Bray, 1994; Judge, Thoresen, Pucik, & Welbourne, 1999; Kavanagh &
Ashkanasy, 2006; Schein, 1980; Vakola, Tsaousis, & Nikolaou, 2004;
Wanberg & Banas, 2000). Schein asserted that change in structures,
hierarchy, reward systems, and technology is mediated through individual
change. From this perspective, many change efforts fail because they
underestimate the importance of this individual, cognitive–affective nature
of organizational change (Kavanagh & Ashkanasy). As Schneider, Brief,
and Guzzo (1996: p7) put it, “If people do not change, there is no
organizational change.” Accordingly, for an organization to cope with
change, alterations in technology, structures, or systems will not suffice.
The ability and drive of an organization to change depends heavily on the
openness, commitment, and motivation to change of its employees
(Armenakis, Harris, & Mossholder, 1993; Backer, 1995; Bernerth, 2004;
Eby, Adams, Russell, & Gaby, 2000).
Although
organizational
change
research
has
a
long
and
widespread tradition, it is difficult to find common ground among the many
theories and approaches to its study. Academics and consultants have
often given different and contradictory advice. Beer and Nohria (2000)
claimed that an integrated theory or framework for understanding change
does not exist. Armenakis and Bedeian (1999), in their review of the
organizational change literature, attempted to provide a theoretical
framework that would classify and integrate this literature. They indicated
that three factors—content, context, and process—can shape employees’
reactions
to
change
efforts.
Although
researchers
have
widely
acknowledged the importance of all three factors, they have rarely
assessed the three factors simultaneously as they relate to organizational
change. Most researchers have examined the impact of only one of these
factors on openness to change (e.g., Armenakis & Harris, 2002; Bommer,
Rich, & Rubin, 2005; Oreg, 2006; Wanberg & Banas, 2000), and none of
the researchers cited here have considered the potentially significant role
that the content of change may play in providing for an understanding of
commitment
to
change.
Nonetheless,
to
gain
a
comprehensive
177
Chapter 4
understanding of organizational change, it is essential to know the
conditions related to all three factors. Thus, our purpose in the present
research was to integrate and extend previous organizational change
studies by considering the impact of these three factors on employees’
openness towards change.
The present article involves two studies. In the first study, we tested
the contributions of content, context, and process on openness to change.
In the second study, we examined the impact of two context variables—
trust in executive management and history of change—on openness to
change.
4.1.1 Defining Openness to Change
Although, to date, empirical studies on openness to organizational
change are scarce, the concept is analogous to Lewin’s (1951) classical
state of unfreezing, or creating motivation and readiness for change, and
is reflected in attitudes of organizational members (Lewin). Miller,
Johnson,
and
Grau
(1994)
and
Wanberg
and
Banas
(2000)
conceptualized this openness to organizational change as the (a)
willingness to support the change and (b) positive affect about the
potential consequences of change. According to Miller et al. (1994),
openness to changes that are being proposed and implemented in an
organization is a “necessary, initial condition for successful planned
change” (p. 360).
4.2 STUDY 1
4.2.1 Theoretical Background and Hypotheses
4.2.1.1 Content-based Factors
The content of change refers to the “what”question of change. It
concerns the type or substance of change (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999).
178
Chapter 4
The change literature includes reviews of several content models that
have been applied to organizational change, including restructuring,
reengineering, changes in corporate culture, introduction of new
technology, and Total Quality Management (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999;
Beer & Nohria, 2000; Burke, 1994; Burke & Litwin, 1992; Vollman, 1996).
These organizational changes can have different impacts on employees’
attitudes.
One of the primary distinctions that researchers have made
regarding the type of change is between first-order and second-order
changes (Bartunek & Moch, 1987). Some researchers frame the
distinction between first- and second-order changes as the difference
between convergent, which takes place gradually, and radical change,
which incorporates short compact periods of major disruption (Greenwood
& Hinings, 1996; Tushman & Romanelli, 1985). Others frame it as the
difference between incremental and transformational change (SammutBonnici & Wensley, 2002). First-order changes refer to small scale and
less drastic changes that help the organization overcome stagnation and
enhance efficiency. They occur incrementally through adjustments aimed
at improving the organization without affecting its core. Second-order
changes, however, are more radical and revolutionary (Levy & Merry,
1986) and involve the complete transformation of the organization.
Because second-order changes touch the core of the organization,
employee resistance can be a larger issue than it is with first-order
changes. Second-order changes often have a more uncertain and
threatening nature than do first-order changes.
Beer and Nohria (2000) propose another important dichotomy to
classify types of change. In their model, they differentiate between (a)
economic-driven
transformations
and
(b)
changes
to
support
organizational capabilities. Economic-driven changes are directed at
creating economic value by focusing on structure and systems. The
objective of these changes is to reduce costs. Reorganization and
downsizing are typical economic-driven transformations that often result in
179
Chapter 4
lay-offs. Changes that threaten the job security of employees can have a
destructive effect on morale, attitudes, and well-being, even when the
employees’ own jobs are not being threatened (Armstrong-Stassen, 2002;
Paulsen et al., 2005). In contrast to economic-driven transformations,
changes directed at the development of the organizations’ capabilities
focus on culture, behavior, and attitudes. They do not bring about job
losses and are less threatening to employees.
Self, Armenakis, and Schaninger (2001) used a dichotomy similar to
that of Beer and Nohria (2000). They distinguished changes that severely
impact the lives of employees (e.g., job loss) from those that have a much
less serious impact on employees. For instance, employees’ regard
downsizing that brings about massive layoffs differently than they do
changes from which their jobs are not at stake. Kotter and Schlesinger
(1979) indicated that employees especially resent changes that threaten
their jobs, and Self et al. argued that as the impact of a change becomes
more severe (i.e., from no threat of job loss to a definite threat of job loss),
employees perceive the change as less acceptable. Therefore, we
propose that threatening changes will have a negative impact on
employee openness to change.
Hypothesis 1 (H1): Organizational changes that bring about severe job
losses in the organization will lead to lower levels of openness to change
in the workplace than will organizational changes that do not bring about
job losses.
4.2.1.2 Contextual Factors
Substantive contextual factors may explain why a change initiative
was not successful (Johns, 2001, 2006) independently of the content of
the change. People in organizations driven by politics, territoriality, or
inconsistent leadership will have a different attitude towards change than
will workers who can rely on open and strong leadership that clarifies
organizational goals (Bommer et al., 2005; Kavanagh & Ashkanasy,
180
Chapter 4
2006). Several researchers have indicated that the culture and climate of
organizations are decisive in sustaining organizational change (Jones,
Jimmieson, & Griffiths, 2005; Schneider et al., 1996). The fundamental
psychology or “feel” of the organization directs and motivates employee
efforts (Armenakis et al., 1993; Chonko, Jones, Roberts, & Dubinsky,
2002; Eby et al., 2000; Kavanagh & Ashkanasy, 2006).
One of the major variables likely to affect employees’ attitudes
toward change is trust in management (Albrecht, 2002; Oreg, 2006;
Stanley, Meyer, & Topolnytsky, 2005). For this study, we distinguished
between trust in executive management and trust in the supervisor.
Trust in Executive Management. A recurring recommendation made
by organizational change gurus is for managers to convey an atmosphere
of trust and a general feeling that employees can count on the
management team to do what is best for the organization and its members
(Kotter, 1995; Zander, 1950). Theorists have described trust as
representing the degree of confidence the members of a team have in the
goodwill of its leader, specifically the extent to which they believe that the
leader is honest, sincere, and unbiased in taking their positions into
account (Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Korsgaard, Schweiger, & Sapienza,
1995, Roberts & O’Reilly, 1974). Several researchers have noted the
importance of establishing a trusting relationship between managers and
employees as the basis for organizational change initiatives (Gomez &
Rosen, 2001; Schneider et al., 1996). Rousseau and Tijoriwala (1999)
argued from a social account perspective (see Sitkin & Bies, 1993), that
trust in management leads to the acceptance of organizational change.
According to this theory management tries to justify the change actions
undertaken by citing different reasons (i.e. social accounts). Depending on
the perceived legitimacy of these social accounts, employees trust or
distrust management. If they feel that management demonstrates
consideration and fairness, they are more likely to support the change,
181
Chapter 4
whereas lower trust is characterized by decreased levels of readiness for
change.
Oreg (2006) found that trust in management was the only variable
that significantly impacted the affective, cognitive, and intentional
components of resistance to change. Lack of faith in the organization’s
leadership was strongly related to increased employee anger, frustration,
and anxiety with respect to change. It also led to increased employee
actions against the change and to negative evaluations from employees
on the need for and value of it.
Trust in the Supervisor. Behavioral changes can also be affected by
interpersonal and group-level factors (Lee, 1997), because these changes
occur in face-to-face interaction. Mutual trust and confidence in subsidiary
work units must complement trust in executive management at the
organizational level (Eby et al., 2000). Research has indicated that the
relation between employees and their supervisors can play an important
role in enabling employees to support change (Edmonson & Woolley,
1999; Larkin & Larkin, 1996).
Edmondson and Woolley (1999) defined psychological safety as
“the perception that one’s work environment is safe for interpersonal risk
taking such that proximal others will not reject or embarrass those who
make mistakes or speak up about difficult issues” (p. 7). They stressed
that although peers’ attitudes directly affect psychological safety,
relationships between subordinates and supervisors are most important in
this construct. If subordinates believe that supervisors cannot be relied
upon to provide help, employees will find it very difficult to cope with
changes productively.
On the basis of the aforementioned theories, we hypothesized the
following:
182
Chapter 4
H2: Higher levels of employee trust in (a) executive management and (b)
supervisors will be related to higher levels of openness to organizational
change.
4.2.1.3 Process Factors
Apart from contextual factors, how change is implemented
influences the reaction of employees. Implementation of change goes
through different phases, and researchers have developed several models
to describe the different phases of the change process (Armenakis, Field,
& Harris, 1999; Galpin, 1996; Isabella, 1990; Jaffe, Scott, & Tobe, 1994;
Judson, 1991; Kotter, 1995).
According to Callan, Terry, and Schweitzer (1995) and Ito and
Brotheridge (2001), (a) employees often perceive changes in corporate
culture, (b) structure or design of organizations, (c) introduction of new
technology, (d) downsizing programs, and (e) mergers as having a jobthreatening character, which creates feelings of uncertainty and insecurity.
The participation of employees is an important tool to reduce any feelings
of uncertainty and fears about how changes will impact them (Bordia et al.,
2004; Sagie & Koslowsky, 1996). Participation gives employees the
opportunity to have an impact on the change. Through self-discovery, they
build the skills, knowledge, and efficacy necessary to cope with change.
Employee participation can thus create feelings of control over and
psychological ownership of the change (Dirks, Cummings, & Pierce,
1996). C. E. Cunningham et al. (2002) suggested that an employee’s
perceived control over his or her job, organization, or change process is a
necessary condition for creating readiness to change. Furthermore,
several studies have indicated that employee participation is central to
increasing acceptance of change (Kotter, 1995; Kotter & Schlesinger,
1979; Manville & Ober, 2003; Msweli-Mbanga & Potwana, 2006; Wanberg
& Banas, 2000). According to McNabb and Sepic (1995), lack of employee
participation is a major cause of disappointing results with organizational
renewal. For such renewal efforts to succeed, employees must believe
183
Chapter 4
that their opinions have been heard and given respect and careful
consideration (Reichers, Wanous, & Austin, 1997). More substantive
forms of participation in the change process tend to be associated with
higher
commitment
(Armenakis
&
Harris,
2002),
and
employee
involvement in decision making in particular tends to lead to employee
acceptance or openness toward change (Sagie, Elizur & Koslowsky, 1990,
1995; Sagie & Koslowsky, 1996; Wanberg & Banas, 2000). On this basis,
we hypothesized the following:
H3: Participation will be related to higher levels of openness to the
changes occurring in the organization.
An important goal of Study 1 was to simultaneously test the impact
of content, context, and process factors of change on employees’
openness to change. This type of research adds new insights to an area in
which empirical work is limited.
4.2.1.4 Locus of Control
Apart from the nature, context, or way in which organizational
change is implemented, openness to change can vary according to
individual differences. Numerous researchers have examined the
influence of personality characteristics on coping with organizational
change (Judge et al., 1999; Lau & Woodman, 1995; Vakola, Tsaousis, &
Nikolaou, 2004; Wanberg & Banas, 2000). Their research indicates that
the most important individual characteristic impacting openness to
changes in the workplace is locus of control (Rotter, 1966), or an
individual’s perceptions of his or her ability to exercise control over the
environment. People with an internal locus of control see themselves as
active agents and believe they have control over their environment and
personal successes. People with an external locus of control see
themselves as relatively passive agents and believe that the events in
their lives are controlled by external forces such as change and powerful
184
Chapter 4
others. In the light of this, we included locus of control as a covariate in our
study.
4.2.2 Method
4.2.2.1 Experimental Simulation Strategy
McGrath (1982) and Scandura and Williams (2000) argued that
triangulation —the combining of several methodologies in one study—is
necessary in research design to avoid flaws that are inherent when
making trade-offs in research. Researchers should consider designs
besides those predominantly used in their fields. Field research is the
dominant approach to studying organizational change and openness to
change (e.g., Eby et al., 2000; Judge et al., 1999; Oreg, 2006).
In their review of patterns of research methodology, Scandura and
Williams (2000) found that over the past decade, there has been a
decrease in the use of research strategies that secure the internal validity
of the outcomes. This trend raises questions about the cause-and-effect
relationships in findings on management research at large and on change
management in particular. On the basis of these observations, we decided
to use a method that allowed us to (a) manipulate the effects of content,
context, and process variables and (b) analyze their relations to openness
to change. We chose an experimental simulation strategy because it
retains more realism of context than does a laboratory experiment and it
also yields findings with excellent internal validity. Moreover, when
studying causal relationships between variables, the experimental
simulation design is a good alternative to the more resource-consuming
longitudinal research design.
In an experimental simulation study, participants are randomly
assigned to a scenario and then asked to imagine that they are
undergoing the change described in the case. For the present study, we
developed a total of 16 scenarios, each of which described the
introduction of a new and standardized software program in an
185
Chapter 4
organization with different locations. We said that this standardization was
meant to increase efficiency and communication between the different
divisions and suggested that use of this software program was a crucial
component of job of the person described in the scenario.
4.2.2.2 Participants
We collected data through the website of a general interest, workrelated magazine. On the website, we invited people who had been
confronted with organizational change in the past to participate in an
online survey on work attitudes. A total of 828 respondents participated in
Study 1. Their average age was 32.71 years (SD = 8.35 years) and 59 per
cent were men. They worked in the private, public, or so-called hybrid
sector (e.g., health care and education). Few participants were blue-collar
workers and even fewer were students or unemployed or retired people
(together only 2%). Most described themselves as professional (42%) or
managerial (36%), and they were highly qualified for their jobs (e.g.,
36.2% had a university degree). On the basis of this demographic
representation,
we
can
qualify
our
group
of
respondents
as
“professionals.” We randomly assigned each participant to one of the 16
scenarios, which varied by (a) trust in executive management (high vs.
low), (b) trust in supervisors (high vs. low), (c) participation in change (high
vs. low), and (d) threatening character of change (high vs. low).
4.2.2.3 Measures
We used a completely randomized 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 factorial design
with two levels (high vs. low) for each of four independent variables (Kirk,
1995). One independent variable related to the content of change, two
variables referred to the context, and one variable involved the processrelated aspects of change.
186
Chapter 4
Independent Variables:
Threatening character of the situation (content related). In the
low-threat condition, all employees, including participants, were
required to work with new software. This may have required some
flexibility on the employees’ part but did not present a large threat to
their job security. In the high-threat condition, the respondent had to
work with software with which all other branches were already
familiar. Consequently, the respondent may have become the
weakest performer and experience a high threat of losing his or her
job.
Trust in executive management (context related). In the
condition of low trust in executive management, management acted
without fully considering the consequences. Because management
implemented changes without thinking about potential drawbacks,
several recently introduced change projects had to be adjusted. In
the condition of high trust in executive management, executive
management was consistent, well informed, and thoughtful before
acting; consequently, all recent projects were adapted in due time.
Trust in supervisor (context related). In the condition of low
trust in the direct supervisor, the supervisor was described as weak
and failing to defend the department’s interests. In the condition of
high trust in the direct supervisor, the respondent could feel confident
in his or her direct supervisor, who was considered to be competent,
a good coach, and highly influential in the organization.
187
Chapter 4
Participation during the change (process related). In the lowparticipation condition, the project came as a complete surprise to
the
employees,
and
management
was
not
considering
the
meaningful arguments and information from the bottom of the
organization. In the high-participation condition, the respondent had
been a member of a working group preparing the change, and
management had taken notice of important arguments.
Dependent Variable. We measured openness to change with a
seven-item inventory, which we developed on the basis of Armenakis et
al.’s (1999) conceptual considerations and the measures developed by
Miller et al. (1994), Wanberg and Banas (2000), and Eby et al. (2000).
Items on the inventory included (a) “How enthusiastic would you be to
contribute to the project?; (b) “To what degree do you think this change is
really necessary?”; and (c)“To what degree do you think this project will be
advantageous to you?” . Participants rated each item on a 7-point Likerttype scale ranging from 1 (not much) to 7 (very much). Together, the items
constituted a scale with an internal consistency rating (Cronbach’s alpha)
of .82.
We conducted exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) to determine the one-dimensional structure of the
openness to change scale. EFA showed that all items loaded at least .51
on a single factor, with an eigenvalue of 2.95 explaining 42.1% of the
variance. The scree test also provided support for a one-factor solution.
Although the χ2/df for a one-factor solution with CFA was significant (χ2/df
= 20.19, p < .001), GFI was high (=.91). The criterion of .90 was not
achieved for NFI (= .86). Some sources, however, mention that a criterion
for NFI of .85 or above is acceptable (Hinkin, 1995). In addition, the
standardized factor loadings ranged from .52 to .80 and the equivalent
unconstrained regression weight estimates were statistically significant.
Given that standardized values greater than .50 demonstrate reasonably
188
Chapter 4
high factor loadings (Kline, 1998), these results support that the onefactorial structure of the openness to change scale is acceptable.
Covariates. We used locus of control as a covariate in our
experimental design. We measured locus of control using seven items
from Rotter’s (1966) Locus of Control scale (sample item: “Capable people
who fail to become leaders have not taken advantage of their
opportunities”), which participants rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Our locus of
control measure had good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = .74).
Besides locus of control, other covariates were (a) gender, (b) age,
(c) seniority, (d) educational level (coded on a five-point scale ranging
from 1 [primary school] to 5 [university degree]), and (e) hierarchical level
(coded on a five-point scale ranging from 1 [employee] to 5 [senior
management]).
4.2.2.4 Manipulation Check
In a separate manipulation check study, we randomly presented the
cases to a convenience sample (N = 235). One-third of participants in the
convenience sample were registered nurses, one-third were part-time
MBA students, and one-third were participants of a management
development program. The average age of respondents was 32.06 years
(SD = 8.61 years). We asked respondents to rate the four dimensions of
our experimental design on a 7-point scale. The number of nonblank
answers per dimension varied between 232 and 234. The four
manipulations appeared to have been successfully implemented: (a)
threatening character of change (M = 3.29 in the low-threat condition and
M = 3.91 in the high-threat condition), F(1, 230) = 9.26, p = .003; (b) trust
in executive management, (M = 2.60 in the low-trust condition and M =
4.31 in the high-trust condition), F(1, 231) = 99.02, p < .001; (c) trust in
direct supervisor (M = 1.77 in the low-trust condition and M = 5.29 in the
high-trust condition), F(1, 231) = 636.14, p < .001; and (d) participation (M
189
Chapter 4
= 1.66 in the low participation condition and M = 4.64 in the highparticipation condition), F(1, 231) = 333.46, p < .001.
4.2.3 Results
We performed an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to analyze the
data. The main purpose of an ANCOVA is to remove the effect of an
extraneous or concomitant variable. To perform an ANCOVA, one uses
prediction equations to predict the values of the dependent variable on the
basis of the values of the covariate variable, then subtracts these
predicted scores and means from the corresponding values of the
dependent variable. The results of our ANCOVA showed that the locus of
control covariate was significantly associated with openness to change,
F(1, 799) = 4.44, p < .05. Participants with a higher internal locus of
control scored higher on openness to change. Gender, age, seniority and
education were not significantly related to the dependent variable.
Hierarchical level, however, yielded a strong significant relationship with
openness to change, F(1, 799) = 15.11, p < .001. Respondents in higher
hierarchical positions were more open to change.
Table 1 displays the means and standard deviations for each
condition, adjusted for the effects of the covariates. After controlling for the
effects of the covariates, we found four significant main effects and no
significant interaction effects. The lack of a threatening character, F(1,
799) = 18.31, p < .001, trust in executive management, F(1, 799) = 21.91,
p < .001, trust in direct supervisor, F(1, 799) = 27.35, p < .001, and
opportunity to participate, F(1, 799) = 24.42, p < .001, all significantly
contributed to a higher openness to change, confirming H1, H2 , and H3.
Because none of the interaction effects was statistically significant, we
concluded
that
content-,
context-,
and
process-related
contributed independently to a positive attitude towards change.
190
variables
Chapter 4
TABLE 4.1: Means and standard deviations of openness to change
for threatening character, trust in executive management, trust in
supervisor and participation (adjusted for the effects of the
covariates), Study 1
Trust in supervisor low
Conditions
Trust in
executive
M
low
Trust in
executive
executive
high
Trust in
executive
mgt high
Participation
High
40.36
6.03
7.27
(N = 45)
(N = 58)
(N = 59)
(N = 47)
M
35.42
39.47
39.30
41.91
SD
7.55
8.43
7.27
7.12
(N = 57)
(N = 55)
(N = 47)
(N = 47)
M
32.44
34.74
34.04
36.00
SD
7.67
8.31
7.34
7.58
(N = 54)
(N = 57)
(N = 50)
(N = 49)
M
35.14
35.63
36.46
39.69
SD
7.25
6.85
7.07
8.80
(N = 59)
(N = 43)
(N = 56)
(N = 45)
mgt low
Threat
Participation
Low
36.08
7.78
mgt high
Trust in
Participation
High
36.05
6.82
SD
mgt low
Threat
Participation
Article I. Low
33.31
Trust in supervisor high
4.3 STUDY 2
4.3.1 Theoretical Background and Hypotheses
To complement our study on the impact of content-, context-, and
process-related factors on openness to change, we conducted a second
experimental simulation study in which we emphasized the role of the
context variable of trust in executive management and its relation to
openness to change. We therefore looked at a variable that can be closely
linked to trust in executive management: the organization’s history of
change.
191
Chapter 4
Openness to change is influenced by an organization’s track record
of accomplishment (i.e., successfully implementing major organizational
changes; Schneider et al., 1996). If organizational changes failed in the
past, employees will be reluctant to embrace new change initiatives. When
changes fail to take root, management often introduces new, seemingly
promising changes. When these, too, ultimately fail, an unending cycle of
high expectations followed by failure leads to frustration on the part of
management and cynicism on the part of workers. In their research on
cynicism and organizational change, Reichers et al. (1997) found that the
history of change is correlated with the motivation to continue trying to
make changes. This relationship suggests that cynicism may be
somewhat self-fulfilling. Reichers et al. also asserted that the higher are
the preexisting level of cynicism about organizational change, the greater
will be the executives’ need to confront and discuss previous failures
before moving ahead.
Social learning theory (Bandura, 1982) provides a theoretical
foundation for why history of change is an important factor in people’s
attitudes toward change. This theory posits that past experiences cause
people to develop expectations about their ability to perform a previously
untried task prior to actually making an attempt. However it also suggests
that there is little reason for individuals to be fearful of events in which they
or their role models (e.g., management, supervisor) have been successful
in the past. Contextually, employees learn from outcomes and past
experiences, and this learning provides a feedback loop in which
outcomes of past actions serve to revise beliefs and expectations about
the future. Given the successfulness of management in dealing with
change in the past, trust in the management team increases and
individuals can reasonably expect that the organization will succeed in
similar endeavors (Bernerth, 2004). Thus, we hypothesized the following:
192
Chapter 4
H4: Higher levels of trust in executive management and a highly
successful history of change will be related to employees’ higher levels of
openness to change.
H5: Trust in executive management and history of change will interact
such that the effects of trust in executive management on openness to
change will be stronger when the history of change is highly successful
and, conversely, the effects of history of change on openness to change
will be stronger when trust in executive management is high.
4.3.2 Method
4.3.2.1 Design
To test H4 and H5, we developed a second experimental
simulation. The scenario for this study described the situation of a
professional operating with considerable autonomy in his/her job. In the
scenario, the professional is informed that because of organizational
restructuring he/she will soon start working in a customer-oriented
multidisciplinary team.
4.3.2.2 Participants
As in Study 1, respondents collaborated through an online survey
(N = 835 professionals). Participants’ main characteristics were similar to
those of participants in Study 1. Average age of respondents was 33.42
years (SD = 8.94 years), and most of them were well qualified (37.3% had
a university degree).
4.3.2.3 Measures
In the second study, we presented participants with a change
situation that varied on two dimensions: (a) history of change and (b) trust
in executive management. We again used a randomized 2 × 2 factorial
design with two levels for the two independent variables.
193
Chapter 4
Independent Variables. The four cases crossed the two levels of
both independent variables:
Trust in executive management. In the low-trust condition,
executive management was described as being inconsistent, failing
to set a good example for employees, and remaining vague about
the consequences of the change. In the high-trust condition,
executive management acted consistently, set a positive example for
employees, and was clear about the consequences of the change.
History of change. We described this variable to participants in
the low-success condition as a situation in which change followed the
“fad of the day.” Furthermore, we told them that the company had
experienced several change failures. In the high-success condition,
we told participants that the company had successfully completed
diverse projects in the past.
Dependent Variable and Covariates. In Study 2, we used the same
dependent variable (openness to change) and the same covariates (locus
of control, gender, age, seniority, educational level, and hierarchical level)
as in Study 1.
4.2.3.4 Manipulation Check
As in Study 1, we used the assessment of 235 professionals to
conduct a manipulation check. Results indicated that both manipulations
had been successfully implemented: (a) trust in executive management (M
= 3.36 in the low-trust condition and M = 4.21 in the high-trust condition,
F(1, 232) = 24.95, p < .001); and (b) history of change, (M = 3.10 in the
low-history condition and M = 4.42 in the high-history condition), F(1,228)
= 52.59, p < .001.
194
Chapter 4
4.3.3 Results and Discussion
Analysis of covariance showed that the covariate of locus of control
was significantly associated with openness to change, F(1, 818) = 4.12, p
< .03. Education was also significantly related to the dependent variable,
F(1, 818) = 7.34, p < .01, as was hierarchical level, F(1, 818) = 7.26, p <
.01. Specifically, more educated and higher-placed respondents scored
significantly higher on openness to change. Gender, age, and seniority
were not significantly associated with openness to change. The effect of
education seemed to follow from the more open-ended type of change that
participants in Study 2 confronted. In Study 1, participants faced a specific
task: mastering a specific new software. In Study 2, however, respondents
were confronted with a more encompassing and complex change
consisting of working in multidisciplinary client-oriented teams. After
controlling for the effects of these covariates, we found significant main
effects for trust in executive management, F(1, 818) = 11.82, p < .001, and
history of change, F(1, 818) = 15.27, p < .001 (H4). Results indicated a
significant interaction between trust in executive management and history
of change, F(1, 818) = 4.92, p < .05, as we had predicted in H5. However,
whereas we had expected a mutual reinforcement of the positive
conditions, the findings were in the reverse direction. In the low-trust
condition, differences in history of change led to significant differences in
openness to change, t(408) = 4.34, p < .001. Under the high-trust
condition, however, this difference was nonsignificant, t(423) = 1.21, p =
.23. Conversely, under the condition of low-success in history of change,
differences in trust in executive management led to highly significant
differences in openness to change, t(422) = 3.80, p < .001, whereas these
differences were nonsignificant in the condition of high-success of history
of change, t(409) = .68, p = .50.
195
Chapter 4
TABLE 4.2: Means and standard deviations of openness to change
for trust in executive management and history of change (adjusted
for the effects of the covariates), Study 2
Conditions
Trust in executive
management low
Trust in executive
management high
History of change poor
History of change high
M
35.57
38.71
SD
7.53
7.09
(N = 206)
(N = 205)
M
38.33
39.19
SD
7.41
7.22
(N = 218)
(N = 206)
Figure 1 illustrates that only the condition of both low trust and poor
history of change was negative for openness to change.
FIGURE 4.1: Interaction effect of trust in executive management and
history of change on openness to change
trust low
trust high
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
history poor
196
history high
Chapter 4
4.4 GENERAL DISCUSSION
In the present study, we investigated the impact of three important
variables on employees’ openness to change: (a) the content of
organizational change, (b) the context in which the change occurred, and
(c) the process of organizational change. Because of our experimental
simulation strategy, we were able to manipulate the conditions of
organizational change and their impact on the participants' openness to
change. Supporting our expectations, we found that openness to change
was facilitated by a nonthreatening organizational change (a contentrelated variable), trust in upper and lower management (a context-related
variable), a positive track record of past changes in the organization
(another context-related variable), and opportunities to participate (a
process-related variable).
Although Armenakis and Bedeian (1999) stressed the relevance of
content-, context-, and process related factors in organizational change,
they noted that few researchers have empirically studied the simultaneous
effects of these variables. Thus, we aimed to further this line of research
by investigating the concurrent impact of these factors on openness to
change. Our results indicate that content-, context-, and process-related
factors have significant influences independent of each other. This
outcome supports the complexity and the multidimensional character of
organizational change and its impact on peoples’ attitudes toward change,
which indicates that one should not neglect any of these dimensions if one
is trying to maximize peoples’ openness to organizational transformation.
Although participation in the change process had an important effect on
participants’ attitude towards the change, the threatening character of the
change and the trustworthiness of management were also relevant.
Our finding that content-, context-, and process-related factors have
important impacts independent of each other is relevant to the discussion
of the use of different change strategies. Our results reveal that, even
when organizational change brings about severe job losses, people will
197
Chapter 4
not necessarily feel entirely opposed to the change. If they are given the
opportunity to participate in the implementation of the change and feel that
they can rely on a trustworthy management, they will take on a more
positive attitude toward the change. This discovery accords with
Pettigrew’s (2000) finding that high-performing organizations with a
longitudinal record of accomplishment of successful change have
implemented
different
types
of
change,
including
rationalization
(restructuring and downsizing) and continuous changes focused on
organizational development and employee involvement. According to
Pettigrew, both strategies, which initially seem unfavorable toward
employee morale, can be accomplished without harming morale if (a)
strategic change is linked with operational change, (b) people are
managed as assets and liabilities, and (c) the different organizational
changes are managed coherently. These conditions imply high trust in
executive management—that is, the employees’ belief that management
adopts consistent approaches and is competent, honest, and unbiased in
considering the positions of employees. When a trustworthy executive
manager provides rational explanations for his or her decisions,
employees believe the decisions are necessary and not merely in favor of
management’s interests or those of shareholders. This explains why
employees’ can show considerable openness to change even when the
change brings about severe job losses. According to Pettigrew, highperforming organizations are typified by the importance of they place on
employee participation and the trust that employees hold in their
supervisors. Linking strategic with operational change necessitates the
involvement of employees and the support of lower management. Goshal
and Bartlett (2000) stressed that two factors in rationalization processes
are effective in creating an environment of support: (a) management’s
commitment to legitimate empowerment and (b) a management style
based on coaching and guidance.
Some researchers have argued that the behavior of and employees’
trust in a supervisor is more important for employee attitudes than is the
198
Chapter 4
behavior of the executive management (e.g., Edmonson & Woolley, 1999).
Our results do not support this argument. Trust in executive management
and trust in the supervisor were both equally important for the participants’
attitudes to change, and we did not find any interaction effect between
these context variables.
Another interesting finding relates to the relation between trust in
executive management and the organization’s history of change. Reichers
et al. (1997) and Schneider et al. (1996) argued that the success of past
organizational changes influences employees’ attitudes toward new
changes. In Study 2, we confirmed that high trust in executive
management and a highly successful history of change are both relevant
to openness to change. In addition, we found a significant interaction
effect between the two variables. Our results suggest that when both
factors are low, there is a dramatic decrease in employees’ willingness to
change. It is as if executive management starts with a credit that it can
spend up to a certain limit. Consistent mismanagement is thus extremely
detrimental. Unsurprisingly, we found that two variables related to
control—locus of control and hierarchical level—act as covariates. More
generally, employees’ feeling that they have control over organizational
changes seems to be one of the central factors facilitating readiness to
change (C. E. Cunningham et al., 2002). Employees’ participation and
perception that the change lacks a threatening character can also be seen
as manifestations of this feeling of control. According to Janis and Mann
(1977), people seem to become mentally blocked (i.e., unable to act)
when confronted with situations they cannot control.
Greater triangulation in research strategies may promote the
development of a coherent theory of organizational change (Pettigrew,
Woodman, & Cameron, 2001). Currently, field research is the most
popular method that researchers use to study organizational change.
Although this method maximizes realism of context, because it is
conducted in a field setting, it scores low on precision of measurement and
control of behavioral variables (Scandura & Williams, 2000). Therefore,
199
Chapter 4
results of experimental simulations supplement the existing body of
knowledge by more precisely controlling the factors affecting openness to
change. The results of our experimental simulation are in line with earlier
field research, confirming that (a) the nature of organizational change, (b)
trust in executive and lower management, and (c) participation of
employees in the change process are all important to openness to change.
Naturally, the present study also has its limitations. Although
participants in the experiment were almost all employed (98%), and most
were active in managerial or professional occupations, the organizational
change presented to the participants was artificial, and they had only a
limited
amount
of
information
about
the
change
taking
place.
Nevertheless, because the hypotheses in this study were mainly derived
from earlier field research, this experimental study must be regarded as
complementary to previous field studies.
In addition, we studied a specific organizational change in Study 1
to test the significance of content-, context-, and process related variables
in employees’ openness to change. Although we manipulated the content
of the change by presenting the change as a major threat to job security in
one condition no threat in the other condition, the type of change in all
conditions was similar (i.e., the introduction of a new software program in
an organization with different locations). Therefore, additional studies of
different types of change that include the other variables of Study 1 (i.e.
threatening character, trust in supervisor and participation) are necessary
to confirm the significance of content-, context-, and process-related
variables.
Our study relied on a limited number of variables referring to the
content (threatening character of change), context (trust in executive
management, trust in supervisor, and history of change) and process
(participation) of change. Our manipulation checks indicated that these
variables were manipulated successfully, but future researchers should
explore a broader range of variables so that our findings can be refined.
200
Chapter 4
For instance, what is the importance of job satisfaction as an antecedent
of openness to change or as a mediating variable of content, context, and
process factors? By assessing a broader range of variables, future
researchers can help us to better understand the processes underlying
openness to change.
4.5 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Albrecht, S. (2002). Perceptions of integrity, competence and trust in senior
management as determinants of cynicism toward change. Public
Administration & Management, 7, 320–343.
Applebaum, E., & Batt, R. (1993). The new American workplace. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press.
Armenakis, A., & Bedeian, A. G. (1999). Organizational change: A review of
theory and research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25, 293–315.
Armenakis, A. A., Field, H., & Harris, S. G. (1999). Making change permanent: A
model for institutionalizing change interventions. In W. Passmore & R.
Woodman (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development
(Volume 12, pp. 97–128). Stanford, CT: JAI Press.
Armenakis, A. A., & Harris, S. G. (2002). Crafting a change message to create
transformational readiness. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 15, 169–183.
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. (1993). Creating readiness for
organizational change. Human Relations, 46, 681–703.
Armstrong-Stassen, M. (2002). Designated redundant but escaping lay-off: A
special group of lay-off survivors. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 75, 1–13.
Backer, T. E. (1995). Assessing and enhancing readiness for change:
Implications for technology transfer. In T. E. Backer, S. L. David, & G.
Soucy (Eds.), Reviewing the behavioral science knowledge base on
technology transfer (pp. 21–41). Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug
Abuse.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American
Psychologist, 37, 122–147.
Bartunek, J. M., & Moch, M. K. (1987). First-order, second-order, and third-order
change and organization development interventions: A cognitive
approach. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 23, 483–500.
Bedingham, K. (2004). Corporate culture change in the engineering environment.
Engineering Management, 14, 24–27.
Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000). Breaking the code of change. Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.
201
Chapter 4
Bernerth, J. (2004). Expanding our understanding of the change message.
Human Resource Development Review, 3, 36–52.
Bommer, W. H., Rich, G. A., & Rubin, R. S. (2005). Changing attitudes about
change: Longitudinal effects of transformational leader behavior on
employee cynicism about organizational change. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26, 733–753.
Bordia, P., Hobman, E., Jones, E., Gallois, C., & Callan, V. J. (2004). Uncertainty
during organizational change: Types, consequences and management
strategies. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18, 507–532.
Bray, D. W. (1994). Personnel-centered organizational diagnosis. In A. Howard
(Ed.), Diagnosis for organizational change (pp. 152–171). New York:
Guilford Press.
Burke, W. W. (1994). Diagnostic models for organizational development. In A.
Howard (Ed.), Diagnosis for organizational change: Methods and models
(pp. 53–84). New York: Guilford Press.
Burke, W. W., & Litwin, G. H. (1992). A causal model of organizational
performance and change. Journal of Management, 18, 523–545.
Callan, V. J., Terry, D. J., & Schweitzer, R. J. (1995). Coping resources, coping
strategies and adjustment to organizational change: Direct or buffering
effects? Work and Stress, 8, 372–383.
Chonko, L. B., Jones, E., Roberts, J. A., & Dubinsky, A. J. (2002). The role of
environmental turbulence, readiness for change, and salesperson learning
in the success of sales force change. Journal of Personal Selling and
Sales Management, 22, 227–245.
Claver, E., Gasco, J., Llopis, J., & Gonzalez, R. (2001). The strategic process of
a cultural change to implement total quality management: A case study.
Total Quality Management, 12, 469–482.
Clegg, C., & Walsh, S. (2004). Change management: Time for a change.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13, 217–239.
Cunningham, G. B. (2006). The relationships among commitment to change,
coping with change, and turnover intentions. European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology, 15, 29–45.
Cunningham, C. E., Woodward, C. A., Shannon, H. S., MacIntosh, J., Lendrum
B., Rosenbloom, D., et al. (2002). Readiness for organizational change: A
longitudinal study of workplace, psychological and behavioural correlates.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 377–392.
Dirks, K. T., Cummings, L. L., & Pierce, J. L. (1996). Psychological ownership in
organizations: Conditions under which individuals promote and resist
change. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 9, 1–23.
Eby, L. T., Adams, D. M., Russell, J. E. A., & Gaby, S. H. (2000). Perceptions of
organizational readiness for change: Factor related to employees’
reactions to the implementation of team-based selling. Human Relations,
53, 419–442.
Edmondson, A. C., & Woolley, A. W. (1999, August). It’s not the seed, it’s the
soil: Social psychological influences on outcomes of organizational
202
Chapter 4
change programs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy
of Management, Chicago, IL.
Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. K. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive
justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management
Journal, 32, 115–130.
Freeman, S. J. (1999). The gestalt of organizational downsizing: Downsizing
strategies as packages of change. Human Relations, 52, 1505–1542.
Galpin, T. J. (1996). The human side of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gomez, C., & Rosen, B. (2001). The leader–membership exchange as a link
between managerial trust and employee empowerment. Group and
Organization Management, 26, 53–69.
Goshal, S., & Bartlett, C. A. (2000). Rebuilding behavioral context: A blueprint for
corporate renewal. In M. Beer & N. Nohria (Eds.), Breaking the code of
change (pp. 195–222). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1996). Understanding radical organizational
change: Bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. Academy
of Management Review, 21, 1022–1054.
Hill, F. M., & Collins, L. K. (1999). Total quality management and business
process re-engineering: A study of incremental and radical approaches to
change management at BTNI. Total Quality Management, 10, 37–45.
Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of
organizations. Journal of Management, 21, 967–988.
Isabella, L. (1990). Evolving interpretations as a change unfolds: How managers
construe key organizational events. Academy of Management Journal, 33,
7– 41.
Ito, J. K., & Brotheridge, C. M. (2001). An examination of the roles of career
uncertainty, flexibility, and control in predicting emotional exhaustion.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 406–424.
Jaffe, D., Scott, C., & Tobe, G. (1994). Rekindling commitment: How to revitalize
yourself, your work, and your organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Janis, I. L. & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making. A psychological analysis of
conflict, choice, and commitment. New York: The Free Press.
Johns, G. (2001). In praise of context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22,
31– 42.
Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior.
Academy of Management Review, 31, 386–408.
Jones, R. A., Jimmieson, N. L., & Griffiths, A. (2005). The impact of
organizational culture and reshaping capabilities on change
implementation success: The mediating role of readiness for change.
Journal of Management Studies, 42, 361–386.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. M. (1999). Managerial
coping with organizational change: A dispositional perspective. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 84, 107–122.
Judson, A. (1991). Changing behavior in organizations: Minimizing resistance to
change. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
203
Chapter 4
Kavanagh, M. H., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2006). The impact of leadership and
change management strategy on organizational culture and individual
acceptance of change during a merger. British Journal of Management,
17, 81–103.
Kiefer, T. (2005). Feeling bad: Antecedents and consequences of negative
emotions in ongoing change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26,
875–897.
Kirk, R. E. (1995). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences.
Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New
York: The Guilford Press.
Korsgaard, M. A., Schweiger, D. M., & Sapienza, H. J. (1995). Building
commitment, attachment, and trust in strategic decisions. Academy of
Management Journal, 38, 60–85.
Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard
Business Review, 73, 59–67.
Kotter, J. P., & Schlesinger, L. A. (1979). Choosing strategies for change.
Harvard Business Review, 57, 106–112.
Larkin, T. J., & Larkin, S. (1996). Reaching and changing front-line employees.
Harvard Business Review, 74, 95–105.
Lau, C. M., & Woodman, R.W. (1995). Understanding organizational change: A
schematic perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 537–554.
Lee, F. (1997). When the going gets tough, do the tough ask for help? Help
seeking and power motivation in organizations. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 72, 336–363.
Levy, A., & Merry, U. (1986). Organizational transformation: Approaches,
strategies, theories. New York: Praeger.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper and Row.
Manville, B., & Ober, J. (2003). Company of citizens: What the world’s first
democracy teaches about creating great organizations. Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.
McGrath, J. (1982). Dilemmatics: The study of research choices and dilemmas.
In J. E. McGrath, J. Martin, & R. A. Kulka (Eds.), Judgment calls in
research (pp. 69–102). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
McNabb, D. E., & Sepic, F. T. (1995). Culture, climate, and total quality
management: Measuring readiness for change. Public Productivity and
Management Review, 18, 369–386.
Miller, V. D., Johnson, J. R., & Grau, J. (1994). Antecedents to willingness to
participate in a planned organizational change. Journal of Applied
Communication Research, 11, 365–386.
Msweli-Mbanga, P., & Potwana, N. (2006). Modelling participation, resistance to
change, and organizational citizenship behaviour: A South African case.
South African Journal of Business Management, 37, 21–29.
Oreg, S. (2006). Personality, context, and resistance to organizational change.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15, 73–101.
204
Chapter 4
Paulsen, N., Callan, V. J., Grice, T. A., Rooney, D., Gallois, C., Jones, E., et al.
(2005). Job uncertainty and personal control during downsizing: A
comparison of survivors and victims. Human Relations, 58, 463–496.
Pettigrew, A. M. (2000). Linking change processes to outcomes: A commentary
on Goshal, Bartlett, and Weick. In M. Beer & N. Nohria (Eds.), Breaking
the code of change (pp. 243–266). Boston: Harvard Business School
Press.
Pettigrew, A. M., Woodman, R. W., & Cameron, K. S. (2001). Studying
organizational change and development: Challenges for future research.
Academy of Management Journal, 44, 697–713.
Reichers, A. E., Wanous, J. P., & Austin, J. T. (1997). Understanding and
managing cynicism about organizational change. Academy of
Management Executive, 11, 48–59.
Roberts, K. H., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1974). Measuring organizational
communication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 321–326.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control
of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, Whole No. 609.
Rousseau, D. M., & Tijoriwala, S.A. (1999). What’s a good reason to change?
Motivated reasoning and social accounts in promoting organizational
change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 514–528.
Sagie, A., Elizur, D., & Koslowsky, M. (1990). Effect of participation in strategic
and tactical decisions on acceptance of planned change. The Journal of
Social Psychology, 130, 459–465.
Sagie, A., Elizur, D., & Koslowsky, M. (1995). Decision type, participative
decision making (PDM), and organizational behavior: An experimental
simulation. Human Performance, 8, 81–94.
Sagie, A., & Koslowsky, M. (1996). Decision type, organizational control, and
acceptance of change: An integrative approach to participative decision
making. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 45, 85–92.
Sammut-Bonnici, T., & Wensley, R. (2002). Darwinism, probability, and
complexity: Market-based organizational transformation and change
explained through the theories of evolution. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 4, 291– 315.
Scandura, T. A., & Williams, E. A. (2000). Research methodology in
management: Current practices, trends, and implications for future
research. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1248–1264.
Schein, E. H. (1980). Organizational psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Schneider, B., Brief, A. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1996). Creating a climate and culture
for sustainable organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24, 7–
19.
Self, D. R., Armenakis, A. A., & Schaninger, W. S., Jr. (2001). Employee
reactions to organizational change content, process, and context: A
simultaneous analysis. Unpublished manuscript.
205
Chapter 4
Sitkin, S. B., & Bies, R. J. (1993). Social accounts in conflict situations: Using
explanations to manage conflict. Human Relations, 46, 349–370.
Stanley, D. J., Meyer, J. P, & Topolnytsky, L. (2005). Employee cynicism and
resistance to organizational change. Journal of Business and Psychology,
19, 429–459.
Tushman, M. L., & Romanelli, E. (1985). Organizational evolution: A
metamorphosis model of convergence and reorientation. In L. L.
Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (pp.
171–222). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Vakola, M., Tsaousis, I., & Nikolaou, I. (2004). The role of emotional intelligence
and personality variables on attitudes toward organizational change.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19, 88–110.
Vollman, T. (1996). The transformation imperative. Boston: Harvard Business
School Press.
Wanberg, C. R., & Banas, J. T. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of openness to
changes in a reorganizing workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,
132–142.
Zander, A. (1950). Resistance to change: Its analysis and prevention. Advanced
Management Journal, 15, 9–11.
206
Chapter 5
CHAPTER 5: THE CHANGE CLIMATE QUESTIONNAIRE:
DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW INSTRUMENT
ABSTRACT. On the basis of a step-by-step procedure (see Hinkin,
1998), this article discusses the design and evaluation of a self-report
questionnaire (Change Climate Questionnaire; CCQ) that can be used to
gauge the internal context of change, change process factors, and
readiness for change. The authors describe four studies used to develop a
psychometrically sound 42-item assessment tool that can be administered
in organizational settings. More than 3,000 members of organizations
including public and private sector companies participated in the validation
procedure of the CCQ. The information obtained from the analyses yielded
five internal context dimensions, three change process dimensions, and
three dimensions of readiness for change.
207
Chapter 5
5.1 Introduction
In times when change is the rule rather than the exception, the
ability of organizations to be receptive and open to change becomes
paramount. Because the future is uncertain in the case of change, people
generally are not motivated to change unless there are compelling
reasons for doing so. Consequently, a key issue in managing and planning
change projects effectively is creating a basis that supports change.
Overall, there exists strong consensus about the salient role of
organizational climate and readiness for change in understanding the
processes that lead to successful change implementation (Armenakis,
Harris, & Feild, 1999; Kotter, 1995; Mento, Jones, & Dirndorfer, 2002;
Sashkin & Burke, 1987). Moreover, we have observed that there are few
well-validated measures available to assess the crucial drivers of
employees’ readiness for change (Holt, Armenakis, Harris, & Feild, 2007).
Because a diagnosis of the factors that facilitate an organization’s capacity
for change is a condicio sine qua non before moving further to the next
phases of a planned change project (Ten Have & Ten Have, 2004), we
believe it is essential for practitioners to have an instrument that allows
them to make a reliable and valid assessment of these enablers of
readiness. The main purpose of this paper is, therefore, to develop such a
tool.
Assuming that the practical soundness of useful research on
change requires an appreciation of the conditions or the context that
accompanies change and the end results (i.e., readiness for change)
together with the analysis of the process variables (Pettigrew, 1990), the
development of the Change Climate Questionnaire (CCQ) can add value
for both practitioners and scholars. More specifically this new tool aims to
provide a sound measure of the context characteristics of change, the
process characteristics of change, and readiness for change (Holt et al.,
2007). To our knowledge, the extant change climate instruments that
cover these three large categories (i.e., context, process, and readiness
208
Chapter 5
for change) can be improved in some respects. For example, Belasco’s
instrument (1990) and the tool developed by Stewart (1994) provide no
construct validity information. In addition, the scales are developed to
measure the perception of those leading change, instead of assessing the
attitudes of all stakeholders involved in the change process (change
recipients included).
Alternatives to these instruments are the Organizational Climate
Measure (Patterson et al., 2005) and the Readiness for Organizational
Change Measure (Holt, Armenakis, Feild & Harris, 2007). However, a
major issue when using the OCM is that it is an omnibus measure of
organizational climate and, therefore, not always as relevant for the
diagnosis of change-specific perceptions. So, to our knowledge, the best
alternative to the development of the CCQ would be the four scales of the
‘Readiness for Organizational Change Measure (ROCM)’. Although
several of the items in the ROCM have inspired the authors to develop
their own scales, one of the concerns about this instrument is that it was
tested on a very specific sample of organizations, which may jeopardize
the generalizability of that instrument. Furthermore, from a psychometric
perspective it is not recommended to administer separately the scales that
capture the process and context factors of change (Holt et al., 2007). From
a practical point of view, however, it may be that companies are only
interested in diagnosing the context, process, or outcome of change. In
other words, it can be time and cost saving for practitioners to have a tool
at their disposal that allows a valid and separate measurement of any one
of these three large categories of change climate. Given these
observations, this paper discusses the development of a new measure of
change climate that is grounded in theory, is empirically sound, and deals
with several of the aforementioned shortcomings. Before we describe this
new instrument, we first define and delineate the boundaries of the climate
concept (Glick, 1985; Koys & DeCottiis, 1991).
209
Chapter 5
5.2 The Climate Concept: Definition and Dimensions
Climate research has a long history in organizational sciences
(Forehand & Gilmer, 1964; Glick, 1985; James et al., 2008; James &
Jones, 1974; Patterson et al., 2005; Schneider, 1990; Schneider &
Reichers, 1983) and is characterized by strong conceptual fuzziness
(Guion,
1973;
Patterson
et
al.,
2005).
Despite
this
fuzziness,
organizational scholars have in general agreed that organizational climate
is an important component for shaping employee actions (Litwin &
Stringer, 1968) including employee change related reactions (Burke &
Litwin; 1992; Tierney, 1999). According to Porras and Robertson’s (1992)
framework, employee cognitions mediate in work context factors and
change behavior, suggesting that employee climate perceptions, also
known as the psychological climate (James & Jones, 1974), play a
substantial role in the change process.
Contrary to the plethora of general definitions of organizational
climate, the change literature lacks good conceptualizations of change
climate. In her research, Tierney (1999) defined climate of change as
employees’ perceptions to which organizational change initiatives within
an organization are expected, supported, and rewarded. In this inquiry,
climate of change is conceived in terms of the context and process
characteristics conducive to change. It refers to employees’ perceptions of
the conditions under which change occurs (i.e., context), perceptions of
how specific change projects are dealt with (i.e., change process factors),
and the belief that change is necessary (i.e., readiness for change). Both
the context and process of organizational change have been identified as
major contributors to employees’ readiness for change (Holt et al., 2007).
Thus, the context part consists of the environment within which employees
function. For example, trust in top management is a context characteristic
that shapes people’s readiness for change. The process refers to the
actual approach of a specific change project. One possible dimension of
the change process may be the extent of involvement or participation in
210
Chapter 5
the change project. Finally, readiness for change reflects people’s beliefs
and intentions regarding the extent to which changes are needed and their
perception of the capacities of individuals and organizations to
successfully make those changes (Armenakis, Harris, & Mossholder,
1993).
By delineating the boundaries of change climate as the context of
change, the process of change and readiness for change, a framework is
identified from which the scales of the Change Climate Questionnaire
were created. To prevent overlap with most constructs of organizational
behavior (Glick, 1985; Patterson et al., 2005), a set of decision rules was
defined for the final selection of the change climate scales.
In line with the suggestions proposed by Koys and DeCotiis (1991)
and Patterson, Warr and West (2004), each scale or dimension: (1) had to
be a measure of perception, (2) had to be a measure describing or
evaluating activities, and (3) could not be an aspect of organizational
structure or job design. Based upon the second criterion, our
measurement instrument incorporates not only descriptive items of the
conditions under which and how change is implemented (context and
process characteristics of change) but also items with a more attitudinal
content referring to people’s thoughts, feelings, and intentions toward
change (readiness for change).
Finally, apart from those three decision rules, a fourth condition that
should warrant the scientific parsimony of our selection is a criterion
related choice (Glick, 1985). This implies that the context and process
characteristics of change are enablers of employees’ readiness for
change. In summary, the four criteria are that each dimension should: (1)
be a measure of perception, (2) include both describing or evaluating
activities, (3) not be a measure of structure nor job design, and (4) be
criterion relevant to readiness for change.
With regard to the fourth criterion, we learned from the literature that
involvement or participation in decision making (e.g., Devos, Buelens, &
211
Chapter 5
Bouckenooghe, 2007; Eby, Adams, Russell, & Gaby, 2000; Jones,
Jimmieson, & Griffiths, 2005; Rafferty & Simons, 2005; Wanberg & Banas,
2000), clear communication or information sharing during the change
process (e.g., Armenakis & Harris, 2002; Jimmieson, Terry, & Callan,
2004; Miller, Johnson, & Grau, 1994; Oreg, 2006; Wanberg & Banas,
2000), trust in management’s and colleagues’ capabilities (e.g., Devos,
Buelens, & Bouckenooghe, 2007; Eby et al., 2000; Oreg, 2006; Rousseau
& Tijoriwala, 1999), and organizational or supervisory support (e.g.,
Desplaces, 2007; Eby et al., 2000; Holt, Armenakis, Feild, & Harris, 2007;
Martin, Jones & Callan, 2005; Self, Armenakis, & Schraeder, 2007) have
been highlighted as crucial drivers of employees’ motivation to support
change. All these antecedents have their roots in the human relations
movement (e.g., McGregor, 1960; Emery & Trist, 1965). In the next
paragraph, we highlight this human relations perspective and how a
climate based upon the premises of this perspective creates the right
conditions for establishing readiness for change.
5.2.1 The Human Relations Perspective
The human relations approach strongly values the internal
organizational focus with a flexible orientation in relation to the
environment and rests on a number of assumptions about people and
relationships
in
organizations.
First,
people
desire
growth
and
development and can be creative when they have these opportunities.
Second, people value interpersonal interaction, both with peers and with
superiors, making the formal and informal nature of such relationships a
salient feature of organizational life. Third, people need trust, support, and
cooperation to function effectively. These assumptions ensure that one of
the major tasks of management is to empower employees and facilitate
their participation, commitment, and loyalty (Schneider, Brief, & Guzzo,
1996).
In
short,
the
human
relations
movement
assumes
that
organizational effectiveness can be achieved by successfully managing
the interpersonal relationships within organizations. More specifically, the
212
Chapter 5
building of supportive, cooperative, and trusting relationships is crucial for
creating commitment.
In the context of successful management of organizational change,
it is suggested that the human relations orientation, with its emphasis on
belonging, trust, and cohesion achieved through participation, support,
and open communication, mobilizes those forces and energies necessary
to create an employee’s confidence and capability to undertake new
workplace challenges and changes (Jones et al., 2005). This assumption
is consistent with a growing body of research evidence. Zammuto and
O’Connor (1992) and more recently Jones and colleagues (2005) found
that climates with flexible and supportive structures were conducive to
establishing a positive attitude towards change. Burnes and James (1995)
observed that change resistance was low when a supportive and
participative climate was present, characteristics that are consistent with
the human relations philosophy. Finally, Tierney (1999) noted that climate
dimensions such as trust, participation, and support are preconditions for a
climate conducive to change.
5.2.2 The Ten Dimensions of Change Climate
Building further on our definition of change climate and applying the
four rules of selection, we inferred the following ten dimensions from the
human relations orientation as crucial dimensions of the CCQ: (1) quality
of
change
communication,
(2)
participation,
(3)
attitude
of
top
management towards organizational change, (4) support by supervisors,
(5) trust in leadership, (6) cohesion, (7) politicking, (8) emotional readiness
for change, (9) cognitive readiness for change, and (10) intentional
readiness for change. A description of each dimension is listed in
Appendix 1. These definitions were also used as a part of the content
adequacy test for the items constructed.
These ten change climate dimensions cover the context, process,
and outcome part of change (Pettigrew, 1990). Quality of change
213
Chapter 5
communication, participation, attitude of top management towards
organizational change, and support by supervisors all refer to how change
is dealt with (i.e., process). The context part, also the internal environment
under which change occurs, involves trust in leadership, cohesion, and
politicking. Finally, with regard to the criterion variables, we distinguished
three dimensions of readiness for change: emotional readiness for
change, cognitive readiness for change, and intentional readiness for
change (see Figure 1).
FIGURE 5.1: Classification of climate dimensions
Process
Context
Quality of change
communication
Support by supervisors
Attitude of top management
Participation
Trust in leadership
Politicking
Cohesion
Criterion – Outcome
Readiness for change
Emotional dimension
Cognitive dimension
Intentional dimension
In the CCQ, readiness for change is conceived as a multifaceted
concept that consists of an emotional, a cognitive, and an intentional
dimension of change. We believe that such a multifaceted view of
readiness for change instead of a unified conceptualization will be better
able to capture the complexity of the phenomenon and lead to a better
understanding of relationships between readiness and its antecedents.
Thus, it is assumed that behavioral, cognitive, and affective reactions
towards change come into play at different stages in the change process,
and do not necessarily coincide (George & Jones, 2001; Piderit, 2000).
By relying on a deductively driven selection process for the climate
dimensions, we believe that our instrument more or less covers the most
214
Chapter 5
important context and process factors of readiness for change described
in terms of interpersonal relationships. After having discussed the reasons
for developing the CCQ, defining climate of change, and delineating the
framework from which CCQ dimensions were tapped, the remainder of
this paper will describe in detail the studies that were conducted as part of
the validation process of the CCQ.
5.3 Validation Studies
Traditional ‘psychometric theory’ asserts that a quantitative survey
instrument should meet three standards of validity: (1) content validity, (2)
construct validity, and (3) criterion-related validity (Anastasi, 1982;
Nunnaly, 1978). Hinkin (1998) provided a procedure to construct a
measurement instrument that meets all three criteria by describing a stepby-step approach towards design: (1) item development, (2) content
validation and questionnaire administration, (3) item analysis (factor
analyses and interitem analyses), (4) scale evaluation, and (5) replication.
The validation procedure encompassed four studies. Study 1 was
designed to examine the content validity of the items developed. Study 2
involved a first test of the factor structure and the construct validity of the
items. Study 3 examined whether the scales that emerged from Study 2
could be replicated in a different sample. Simultaneously, the scales were
evaluated for convergent validity, discriminant validity, known-groups
validity, and shared group variance. Finally, Study 4 was a first step
towards the development of an English version of the original Dutch CCQ.
5.3.1 Item Development: Pilot Study
In accordance with previous validation studies, we followed Hinkin’s
(1998) guidelines, which suggest that survey items should be developed
by first specifying the domain, then developing items to assess that
domain, and finally determining the extent to which items measure the
specified domain. We consulted literature on climate dimensions (Burnes
215
Chapter 5
& James, 1995; James et al., 2008; Patterson et al., 2005; Tierney, 1999;
Zammuto & O’Connor, 1992) and readiness for change (Armenakis et al.,
1993; Holt et al., 2007) to generate inductively our items. Two of the
authors independently wrote items for each of the 10 dimensions. This
process yielded a large set of items. Then, these items were rewritten or
eliminated if they were poorly worded, duplicated other items, or seemed
inconsistent with the dimension descriptions (Appendix 1). Finally, the third
author reviewed the items for clarity and redundancy. This whole itemgeneration process yielded a final selection of 63 items.
5.3.2 Content Validity
5.3.2.1 Procedure
Following the procedure described by Chen, Gully and Eden (2001),
a panel of ten judges examined the content validity of the 63 items along
the dimensions described in Appendix 1. All of the ten panel judges were
academic staff of the organizational behavior department of a prominent
business school in Belgium. These judges were given the descriptions of
the ten dimensions and asked to base their designations on the definitions
provided. Apart from the 63 items, nine filler items were added referring to
goal orientation and risk-taking reward orientation. None of these filler
items was classified in any of the ten specified dimensions, which provides
a first indication of the content adequacy and discriminant validity of the 63
items.
5.3.2.2 Results
The percentage of interrater agreement was calculated as a
measure of content adequacy (Chen et al., 2001). Table 1 displays the ten
dimensions, the initial number of items that were developed before the
content adequacy test, item designation according to the expert panel, the
percentage of interrater agreement, and the scale to which our items were
initially assigned.
216
Chapter 5
TABLE 5.1: Results content adequacy test
Original # of
items
Process
Quality of change
communication (QCC)
6
Items retained after content adequacy test**
% of
agreement
among
raters
Original
scale
General (G)
or change
specific (S)
item
Q3: I am regularly informed on how the change is going
Q12: There is good communication between project leaders and staff members about the
organization’s policy towards changes
Q22: Information provided on change is clear
Q36: Information concerning the changes reaches us mostly as rumours
Q47: We are sufficiently informed of the progress of change
*Q65: Corporate management team keeps all departments informed about its decisions
*Q76: Two way communication between the corporate management team and the
departments is very good.
*Q20: Corporate management team clearly explains the necessity of the change
100%
100%
QCC
QCC
S
S
100%
100%
100%
100%
80%
QCC
QCC
QCC
TLE
TLE
S
S
S
G
G
80%
ATC
S
70%
100%
100%
80%
100%
100%
90%
70%
80%
80%
70%
PAR
PAR
PAR
PAR
PAR
PAR
PAR
PAR
PAR
PAR
PAR
G
S
G
G
S
S
G
G
G
S
S
Participation (PAR)
12
Q5: Changes are always discussed with all people concerned
Q11: Those who implement change, have no say in developing the proposals
Q25: Decisions concerning work are taken in consultation with the staff who are affected
Q34: My department’s management team takes account of the staff’s remarks
Q35: Departments are consulted about the change sufficiently
Q42: Staff members were consulted about the reasons for change
Q50: Front line staff and office workers can raise topics for discussion
Q51: Our department provide sufficient time for consultation
Q71: It is possible to talk about outmoded regulations and ways of working
Q74: The way change is implemented leaves little room for personal input
Q77: Staff members are sufficiently involved in the implementation of the changes by our
department’s senior managers
Attitude top management
towards change (ATC)
4
Q17: Corporate management team has a positive vision of the future
Q66: Corporate management team are actively involved with the changes
Q69: Corporate management team supports the change process unconditionally
70%
80%
80%
ATC
ATC
ATC
S
S
S
Support by supervisors (SBS)
6
Q1: Our department’s senior managers pay sufficient attention to the personal
consequences that the changes could have for their staff members
Q37: Our department’s senior managers coach us very well about implementing change
Q38: Our department’s senior managers have trouble in adapting their leadership styles to
the changes
*Q15: My manager does not seem very keen to help me find a solution if I have a problem
90%
SBS
S
90%
70%
SBS
SBS
S
S
70%
TLE
G
217
Chapter 5
*Q31: If I experience any problems, I can always turn on my manager for help
*Q40: My manager can place herself/himself in my position
*Q60: My manager encourages me to do things that I have never done before
70%
70%
80%
TLE
TLE
TLE
G
G
G
Context
Trust in leadership (TLE)
10
Q19: Corporate management team consistently implements its policies in all departments
Q44: Corporate management team fulfils its promises
Q58: If I make mistakes, my manager holds them against me
60%
100%
70%
TLE
TLE
TLE
G
G
G
Politicking (POL)
5
Q8: Within our organization, power games between the departments play an important role
Q9: Staff members are sometimes taken advantage of in our organization
Q30: In our organization favoritism is an important way to achieve something
100%
70%
100%
POL
POL
POL
G
G
G
Cohesion (COH)
5
Q2: It is difficult to ask help from my colleagues
Q14: There is a strong rivalry between colleagues in my department
Q24: I doubt whether all of my colleagues are sufficiently competent
Q48: I have confidence in my colleagues
Q61: My department is very open
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
COH
COH
COH
COH
COH
G
G
G
G
G
Outcomes
Emotional readiness for
change (EMRE)
5
Q4: I have a good feeling about the change project
Q33: I experience the change as a positive process
Q75: I find the change refreshing
*Q55: I am somewhat resistant to change
*Q73: I am quite reluctant to accommodate and incorporate changes into my work
90%
90%
100%
70%
60%
EMRE
EMRE
EMRE
COGRE
COGRE
S
S
S
G
G
6
Q41: I think that most changes will have a negative effect on the clients we serve
Q59: Plans for future improvement will not come too much
Q62: Most change projects that are supposed to solve problems around here will not do
much good
*Q39: The change will improve work
*Q56: The change will simplify work
100%
60%
70%
COGRE
COGRE
COGRE
G
G
G
90%
90%
EMRE
EMRE
S
S
Q18: I want to devote myself to the process of change
Q57: I am willing to make a significant contribution to the change
Q67: I am willing to put energy into the process of change
100%
100%
90%
INRE
INRE
INRE
S
S
S
Cognitive readiness for change
(COGRE)
Intentional readiness for
change (INRE)
4
Note: *Items that were initially developed to represent another climate dimension but received a new classification after the content adequacy test. ** Only items
of which the percentage of inter-rater agreement was .60 or higher are displayed.
218
Chapter 5
Although the content adequacy test is a viable way to determine
whether the items that were generated represent the underlying latent
constructs, an important point raised by two of the panel judges is that
they classified all 63 items from a general change perspective, whereas
several items in the questionnaire actually have a change-specific
character. In other words, our item pool comprises items with a more
general content and items that are specifically designed to measure the
perception of an ongoing company- or department-specific change. Indeed
a reevaluation of those items (see final column Table 1) reveals that some
can be grouped as more general and others as change specific. In
following this classification, we notice that our context factors (i.e., trust in
leadership, politicking, and cohesion) have a general content, whereas the
process factors (i.e., quality of change communication, participation, and
support by supervisors) and the outcome variables (emotional and
cognitive readiness for change) are a mixture of general and changespecific items. Not taking this arrangement of general and change-specific
items into consideration would be a serious flaw to the further validation of
our questionnaire. In particular, factor analyses may yield biased findings if
one is not aware of this distinction. On the basis of this classification
process and the distinction between general and change-specific items,
we anticipated the following dimensions would emerge from the item and
factor analyses in Study 2: (1) quality of change communication (process,
change-specific), (2) participation in change project (process, changespecific), (3) attitude of top management towards change project (process,
change-specific), (4) ability of management to lead a change project
(process,
change-specific),
(5)
participatory
management
(context,
general), (6) politicking (context, general), (7) cohesion (context, general),
(8) general support by supervision (context, general), (9) trust in
leadership (context, general), (10) cognitive readiness for change
(outcome, general), (11) emotional readiness for change (outcome,
change-specific), and (12) intentional readiness for change (outcome,
change-specific).
219
Chapter 5
5.3.3 Questionnaire Administration and Item Analysis
A questionnaire was designed that incorporated all items from the
pilot study (i.e., 63 items). The questionnaire was developed specifically to
take into account the considerations from the panel that some items had a
more general character than others. In the first part of the survey,
respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they agreed/disagreed
with statements on change in general. The second part of the
questionnaire dealt with the more change-specific items and was
introduced by the following instruction: “This part contains questions about
[specific change within department or organization X]. We are interested in
finding out about people’s attitudes to change. In answering the following
questions, please have [the specific change project] in mind. Especially try
to remember those things that particularly affected you and your
immediate colleagues.” The general part (internal context variables and
cognitive readiness for change) contained 28 items, whereas the changespecific part (process variables and emotional and intentional readiness
for change) comprised 35 items. Data gathered based on this
questionnaire were used for item analyses and exploratory factor analyses
in Study 2. All items in the questionnaire were phrased in such a way that
participants expressed their level of agreement with each item using a
five-point response format ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 =
strongly agree.
On the basis of the data gathered in Study 2, we computed the
variability in the items, explored the intercorrelations between items and
their scales, and conducted exploratory factor analyses as a means to
further refine and evaluate the construct validity of the measures (Conway
& Huffcutt, 2003). Finally, Cronbach alpha coefficients were computed to
examine the internal consistency of these measures.
220
Chapter 5
5.3.3.1 Organizational Context
In this second study, data were collected from both profit (n = 18)
and nonprofit sector companies (n = 24). All 42 Belgian organizations were
in the process of change (i.e., downsizing, reengineering, total quality
management, culture change, and/or technological innovation). The 42
companies represented several sectors including IT, petrochemicals,
telecommunications,
fast-moving
consumer
products,
finance
and
insurance, consultancy, healthcare and medical services, but also
government services (i.e., police departments and schools).
Data on 1,358 individuals were acquired and included in the
analyses. On average, 32 people from each organization answered the
questionnaire. As was the case for all studies reported throughout this
paper, people filled out the survey on a voluntary and anonymous basis.
Therefore, not all demographic information was collected from the
respondents. The number of participants from both profit and nonprofit
sector companies was almost equally distributed (profit: 54% (n = 738);
nonprofit: 46% (n = 620)). In addition, the sample consisted of more male
(64%, n = 244) than female participants (36%, n = 138) and more people
holding a nonmanagerial (54%, n = 479) than a managerial position (46%,
n = 406). Finally, the age of the people in this study was quite
heterogeneous (< 25 years: 3% (n = 11); 25–34 years: 33% (n = 121); 35–
44 years: 35% (n = 127); > 44 years: 29% (n = 103)). In short, this sample
involved a varied set of companies and respondents to examine the
validity of the CCQ.
In each organization, there was a contact person to collect the data.
This person, often part of the organization’s senior management, was
asked to distribute the questionnaire to members affected by the identified
change project. Therefore, the change projects had salient implications for
the respondents. Each potential participant was contacted by this person
either face-to-face or by written communication. Respondents had the
221
Chapter 5
purpose of the study explained to them and were asked to keep the
specific change project in mind when completing the survey.
5.3.3.2 Procedure Factor Analyses
Few validation studies in organizational sciences emphasize
constructs with dimensions that are manifested at both the antecedent and
outcome level. In our case, however, the different climate dimensions can
be grouped into internal context, process, and outcome variables of
change. Our tool is a change climate diagnosis tool that incorporates three
separate questionnaires aimed at measuring: (1) the internal context, (2)
the process of change, and (3) the readiness for change. Therefore,
context, process, and outcome items were factor analyzed separately. In
total 22 (internal context), 26 (process), and 15 (outcome) items were
factor analyzed using principal axis factoring and direct oblimin rotation
(Conway & Huffcutt, 2003). In Study 3, we replicated the factor structure
found in Study 2 by conducting confirmatory factor analyses on new data
(Hurley et al., 1997).
5.3.3.3 Results of Exploratory Factor Analyses
In exploratory factor analyses, several rules of thumb are combined
to decide on the number of factors that should be retained. The extraction
of factors resulted from the following two procedures: (a) the scree plot
examination (Cattell, 1966), and (b) the eigenvalues-greater-than-onecriterion check (Kaiser, 1960).
In general, the preliminary findings of our pilot and content validity
studies were confirmed. Four items of the 22 internal context items were
eliminated because their primary loadings were below .40 on their targeted
factor and/or had high secondary loadings on other factors. The remaining
18 items yielded five dimensions explaining 50.45 percent of the total
variance. With respect to our 26 change process items, we retained 15
items representing three factors that explained together 52.6 percent of
the variance. Finally, of the 15 items that were developed originally for
222
Chapter 5
measuring the outcome variables, nine were retained. These nine items
have a three-factorial structure that explained 58.1 percent of the total
variance. Tables 2–4 display the factors and items that were retained after
an overall evaluation of the findings collected from exploratory factor
analyses, interitem analyses, and content adequacy evaluation.
Context Factors. Factor 1, termed general support by supervision,
contained four items (Q15, Q31, Q40, and Q60) that were initially
classified by the panel judges as support by supervision. This factor,
however, is not the original process variable that represents the
experienced support and understanding during a change project but an
internal context factor referring to the overall support provided by
management independent of a specific change. Factor 2, termed trust in
leadership (Q19, Q44, Q65, and Q76), incorporates four items that were
developed by the authors as items representative of the context factor
trust in leadership. Since six items dropped out, we notice that the
participants had a more specific conceptualization of trust in leadership. In
fact, an examination of the content of these items suggests that factor 2
measures the trustworthiness of communication by senior management in
general. Factor 3, termed cohesion, included five items originally designed
to assess the perception of togetherness or sharing within the organization
and cooperation and trust in the competence of team members. Four
items were retained (Q14, Q24, Q48, and Q61), causing no significant
change in the content of this dimension. The fourth factor was a factor that
emerged from the process factor participation. Three items (Q5, Q25, and
Q50) referring to participatory management were kept instead of actual
involvement in the implementation of change. Finally, our fifth internal
context factor, labeled politicking, perfectly mirrored the results of the
content adequacy test. Items Q8, Q9, and Q 30 had high factor loadings
on the perceived level of political games.
223
Chapter 5
TABLE 5.2: Exploratory factor analysis internal context factors
Items
GENSUP
α = .82
Constructs
COH
PARMA
α=
α = .79
.74
-.036
-.038
.008
TLE α
= .79
POL
α=
.68
-.119
*Q15 My manager does not seem very keen to help
.729
me find a solution if I have a problem
Q31 If I experience any problems, I can always turn
.824
.007
-.040
.000
.014
on my manager for help
Q40 My manager can place herself/himself in my
.725
.044
-.007
.026
-.061
position
Q60 My manager encourages me to do things that I
.513
.074
-.006
.032
.074
have never done before
Q19 Corporate management team consistently
-.009
.748
-.092
-.046
.028
implements its policy in all departments
Q44 Corporate management team fulfills its promises
.046
.688
.001
.015
.036
Q65 Corporate management team keeps all
-.036
.574
.033
.091
-.098
departments informed about its decisions
Q76 Two way communication between corporate
.078
.597
.049
.045
-.103
management team and departments is very good
*Q14 There is strong rivalry between colleagues in
-.050
-.078
-.581
.060
-.124
my department
*Q24 I doubt whether all of my colleagues are
-.034
.101
-.519
-.020
-.084
sufficiently competent
Q48 I have confidence in my colleagues
.038
.005
-.778
.034
.083
Q61 My department is very open
.141
.025
-.623
-.003
.034
Q5 Changes are always discussed with all people
.009
.061
-.017
.806
.024
concerned
Q25 Decisions concerning work are taken in
-.059
-.010
-.039
.901
.019
consultation with the staff who are affected
Q50 Front line staff and office workers can raise
.171
.008
.013
.412
-.087
topics for discussion
Q8 Within our organization, power games between
.038
-.035
.028
.005
.624
the departments play an important role
Q9 Staff members are sometimes taken advantage
-.016
-.083
.077
-.059
.473
of in our organization
Q30 In our organization favoritism is an important
-.100
-.002
.005
-.011
.650
way to achieve something
Note: GENSUP: general support by supervision; TLE: trust in leadership; COH: cohesion;
PARMA: participatory management; POL: politicking / * reverse scored items.
Process Factors. The result of the first change-specific factor was
more complicated than expected. In all, six items loaded on this factor.
Four of the items were intended to measure quality of change
communication (Q3, Q12, Q22, and Q 47), and two items (Q35 and Q42)
were designed to gauge the extent to which members of the organization
participate in the change process. The tendency for these items to cluster
on one factor should not come as a complete surprise since the quality of
change communication in combination with participation in the change
224
Chapter 5
project can create a sense of ownership or control of the change process.
Therefore, factor 1 is labeled as involvement in the change process. The
second factor that emerged from the factor analysis included six items
(Q1, Q37, Q38, Q13, Q46, and Q49) and measures the process factor
support by supervision. Although the items Q1, Q37, and Q38 were
classified by the expert panel as items representing support by
supervision, the second set of items (Q13, Q46, and Q49) were assigned
across two dimensions (i.e., support by supervisors and trust in
leadership). The ambiguity that arises from the expert panel and the data
driven findings compelled us to revise the content of this dimension. All six
items actually refer to the perceived ability of management to deal with the
change project. Therefore, this dimension was
called
ability of
management to lead the change. Finally, the third factor that was retained
from the analysis counts three items (Q17, Q66, and Q69) and involves
the stance taken by top management with regard to a specific change
project. In other words, attitude of top management towards the change
project is about the active involvement and support of top management
during the change process.
TABLE 5.3: Exploratory factor analyses change specific process
factors
Items
Q3 I am regularly informed on how the change is going
Q12 There is good communication between project leaders and staff
members about the organization’s policy towards changes
Q22 Information provided on change is clear
Q47 We are sufficiently informed of the progress of change
Q35 Departments are consulted about the change sufficiently
Q42 Staff members were consulted about the reasons for change
Q1 Our department’s senior managers pay sufficient attention to the
personal consequences that the changes could have for their staff
members
Q13 Our department’s executives speak up for us during the change
process
Q37 Our department’s senior managers coach us very well about
implementing change
*Q38 Our department’s senior managers have trouble in adapting
their leadership styles to the changes
*Q46 Our department’s executives focus too much on current
INV
α = .88
.699
.698
Constructs
ABMC
α = .82
.019
.054
ATC
α = .73
.076
.040
.794
.760
.718
.595
.227
-.012
.000
.061
.006
.531
.022
-.012
-.009
.086
-.083
.095
.699
-.133
.197
.637
-.037
-.107
.687
-081
-.019
.486
.143
225
Chapter 5
problems and too little on their possible remedies
Q49 Our department’s executives are perfectly capable of fulfilling
-.024
.687
their new function
Q17 Corporate management team has a positive vision of the future
.270
.065
Q66 Corporate management team are actively involved with the
.154
.053
changes
Q69 Corporate management team supports the change process
-.002
.041
unconditionally
Note: INV: involvement in the change process; ABMC: ability of management to
change; ATC: attitude of top management towards change / * reverse scored items.
.100
.493
.572
.664
lead
Outcome Factors. The first factor, intentional readiness for change,
was a perfect reflection of the content adequacy test. Items Q18, Q57, and
Q67 loaded high on this first factor, indicating that intentional readiness for
change is about the effort and energy organizational members are willing
to invest in the change process. With respect to the second and the third
factor, items Q55, Q73, Q39, and Q56 did not yield the expected pattern of
loadings. Because of the high secondary loadings of these items and the
fact that the loading pattern contradicted the evaluation made by the
judgment panel, these items were omitted in the further development of
the CCQ. The second factor initially labeled cognitive readiness for
change comprises three items (Q41, Q59, and Q62) and measures the
beliefs and thoughts that members of the organization hold about the
outcomes of change. Because all three items are formulated in a negative
sense, they seem to overlap somewhat with what the literature calls
cynicism about organizational change (Wanous, Reichers, & Austin,
1997). The third factor, emotional readiness for change, consists of three
items and attempts to capture the feelings about a specific change project
being introduced (Q4, Q33, and Q75). To conclude, a final note with
respect to these three readiness for change components is that cognitive
readiness for change involves more of an attitude towards change in
general, whereas emotional and intentional readiness for change are both
reactions to a specific change.
226
Chapter 5
TABLE 5.4: Exploratory factor analysis readiness for change
dimensions (outcomes)
Items
INRE
α = .89
.866
.782
.895
.020
Constructs
COGRE
α = .69
.033
-.036
.012
.433
EMRE
α = .70
.005
-.091
.058
-.190
Q18 I want to devote myself to the process of change
Q57 I am willing to make a significant contribution to the change
Q67 I am willing to put energy into the process of change
*Q41 I think that most changes will have a negative effect on the
clients we serve
*Q59 Plans for future improvement will not come to much
.040
.572
.000
*Q62 Most change projects that are supposed to solve problems
-.027
.887
.064
around here will not do much good
Q4 I have a good feeling about the change project
-.011
.062
-.782
Q33 I experience the change as a positive process
.069
-.013
-.818
Q75 I find the change refreshing
-.002
-.011
-.500
Note: INRE: Intentional readiness for change; COGRE: Cognitive readiness for change;
EMRE: emotional readiness for change / * reverse scored items.
5.3.3.4 Interitem Analyses
Following the exploratory factor analyses, the next step was
evaluating whether the items and scales retained in Tables 2–4 had
adequate variability. Although there is no absolute cutoff score to
distinguish high from low item variability, standard deviations around the
means of at least .5 on traditional five-point Likert scales can be
considered as acceptable variability. All 42 items displayed in Tables 2–4
had standard deviations higher than .5, with values ranging between .71
(Q57) and 1.45 (Q75). The means of item variances for the 11 scales were
also acceptable, with values ranging between .53 (i.e., intentional
readiness for change) and 1.24 (i.e., emotional readiness for change).
Although none of the 42 items was excluded, we note that the scale
intentional readiness for change had a lower level of variability (SD = .53)
and higher mean (M = 4.09) relative to the other scales in the CCQ.
The following step in analyzing these 42 items was an examination
of the intercorrelation matrix between the items and their scales. All items
had item-total intercorrelations higher than .4 (Hinkin, 1998). Because all
items reached this recommended minimum level, none was eliminated.
227
Chapter 5
5.3.3.5 Internal Consistency Reliability
Based upon the promising results from the exploratory factor
analyses and interitem analyses, one could expect that the 11 scales that
emerged from prior analyses will show acceptable internal consistency.
This was the case, with Cronbach alphas ranging between .68 (i.e.,
politicking) and .89 (i.e., intentional readiness for change).
5.3.3.6 Conclusion
A comparison of the results from Study 2 with the findings from the
content adequacy test shows that the data driven dimensions are a good
representation of the expected structure that was assumed to emerge
from the items generated in the pilot study. Indeed, we found strong
evidence for the unidimensional structure of the context factors cohesion
and politicking. Trust in leadership was refined, leading to a revision of the
meaning
of
trustworthiness
this
of
scale.
Actually,
communication
this
new
scale
by
management
captures
in
the
general.
Furthermore, the process factors participation and support by supervision
had an internal context part that was independent of any specific
involvement in the change process. Subsequently, these new context
dimensions were called general support by supervision and participatory
management.
With respect to the change process factors, the factorial structure of
attitude of top management towards change was corroborated. However,
for the process factors quality of change communication and participation,
we noticed that a more general loading pattern covering both dimensions
appeared. This new factor produced from the combination of both factors
was labeled involvement in the change process. Finally, we noticed that
the process part of support by supervision was referring to supervision’s
ability to deal with a specific change project. Thus, we called this factor
ability of management to lead change.
228
Chapter 5
To conclude, the anticipated three-factorial structure of the outcome
variables was also confirmed: emotional readiness for change, cognitive
readiness for change, and intentional readiness for change. The results
from Studies 1 and 2 provided fairly strong evidence for the content and
construct validity of the scales. In Study 3, this factor structure is replicated
by confirmatory factor analyses.
5.3.4 Confirmatory Factor Analyses
5.3.4.1 Organizational Context
To replicate the items, scales, and factors that emerged from Study
2, data were collected from 47 different organizations covering several
activities and sectors. This sample included more profit than nonprofit
sector companies (profit: n = 35; nonprofit: n = 12). Similar to Study 2,
each organization was undergoing a change project.
The procedure for collecting data in each organization was similar to
the one described in Study 2. A total of 1285 individuals filled out the
survey, meaning that, on average, 27 employees for each organization
agreed to participate. This sample included more participants from the
profit sector (n = 797, 62%) than the nonprofit sector (n = 488, 38%). In
addition, we observed that there were slightly more people holding a
nonmanagerial (n = 491, 53%) than a managerial position (n = 433, 47%),
more male (n = 594, 62.5%) than female respondents (n = 357, 37.5%),
and that the age of the participants followed a heterogeneous distribution
(< 25 years: 5% (n = 48); 25–34 years: 28.5% (n = 261); 35–44 years:
36.5% (n = 334); > 44 years: 30% (n = 273)). In short, this replication
study included a fairly heterogeneous sample of participants.
5.3.4.2 Results
Confirmatory factor analyses were performed to analyze further the
factor structure of the CCQ and they provided additional evidence of the
construct validity of the 11 scales. The results of these analyses are
229
Chapter 5
summarized in Table 5. According to Hair et al. (1998), the adequacy of a
model should be determined by an examination of a set of fit indices.
The results indicate that the fit of the internal context (i.e., cohesion,
politicking, trust in leadership, participatory management, and general
support by supervision), the process (i.e., attitude of management towards
change, involvement in the change process, and ability of management to
lead change), and the outcome variables (i.e., emotional readiness for
change, cognitive readiness for change, and intentional readiness for
change) were acceptable. The values for the normed χ2 index of the three
first-order factor models (mod1, mod6, and mod11) were well within the
boundaries of 2.0 and 5.0 (Kline, 2004). The goodness-of-fit index (GFI)
exceeded the .9 cutoff value, indicating adequate fit of these models. In
addition, the RMR index was satisfying with values below .05.
Accompanying RMSEA values were also good, with values being below
the .08 criterion. In addition to the absolute measures of fit, the
incremental fit indices (NFI, NNFI, and CFI) reached the recommended
criterion levels (.9). Overall, based on these indices one may conclude that
the ‘first order five-factor model of internal context (mod1)’, the ‘first order
three-factor model of process (mod6)’, and the ‘first order three-factor
model of readiness for change (mod11)’ fitted the data very well.
230
Chapter 5
TABLE 5.5: Summary of confirmatory factor analyses
Absolute and incremental measures of fit
Models
Internal context (18
items)
Mod1: 5-factor model
Mod2: 5-factor model,
with error
specification between
Q65 and Q76 (first
order)
Mod3: Null model
Mod4: Single factor
model
Mod5: Second order
model
Process (15 items)
Mod6: 3-factor model
(first order)
Mod7: 3-factor model,
with error
specification between
Q38 and Q46 (first
order)
Mod8: Null model
Mod9: Single factor
model
Mod10: Second order
model (with equality
constraint)
χ2
Χ2/df
RMR
GFI
RMSEA
CFI
NFI
NNFI
363.29
264.32
2.91
2.13
.03
.03
.97
.98
.04
.03
.97
.98
.95
.97
.96
.98
7947.51
3160.97
51.94
23.42
.29
.10
.41
.74
.20
.13
n/a
.61
n/a
.60
n/a
.56
482.99
3.72
.05
.96
.05
.96
.94
.95
419.94
4.83
.03
.96
.06
.96
.95
.95
385.01
4.48
.03
.96
.05
.96
.95
.95
7791.99
1173.13
74.21
13.04
.32
.05
.32
.87
.24
.10
n/a
.86
n/a
.85
n/a
.84
420.12
4.72
.03
.96
.05
.96
.95
.95
.06
.98
.98
.97
.33
.20
n/a
.73
n/a
.72
n/a
.64
.10
.93
.92
.90
.06
.98
.98
.97
Outcome (9 items)
Mod11: 3-factor
116.95
4.87
.03
.98
model (first order)
Mod12: Null model
5006.17
139.06
.25
.42
Mod13: Single factor
1380.61
51.13
.07
.77
model
Mod14: 2-factor
382.91
14.73
.05
.93
model (emotional
RFC and cognitive
RFC as one factor)
Mod15: Second order 120.46
4.82
.03
.98
model (with equality
constraint)
Note: n/a : not applicable for incremental fit indices
231
Chapter 5
5.3.4.3 Model Misspecification
Although we feel justified in saying that our hypothesized models
(mod1, mod6, and mod11) fit the data well, Mulaik et al. (1989) suggested
that good fitting models may suffer from misspecification, which suggests
that alternative models should be considered. Before comparing
alternative models, we first examined model misspecification by evaluating
modification indices (MIs) for variances, covariances, and regression
weights.
The MI of the error covariance between the trust in leadership items
Q65 (i.e., ‘Corporate management team keeps all departments informed
about its decisions’) and Q76 (i.e., ‘Two way communication between
corporate management team and departments is very good’) suggested a
reparameterization of the ‘first order five-factor model of internal context
(mod1)’ by reestimating a new model that incorporates this error
covariance (mod2). The decision, however, to reparameterize a model
based on MI specification should have a sound substantive sense
(Joreskog, 1993). The specification of the error covariance between Q65
and Q76 has substantive meaning because the error correlation between
both items indicates possible redundancy in the item content. A chi-square
difference test (Δχ2) between the model without the error specification
(mod1) and with error specification (mod2) demonstrated that the latter
model had significantly better fit (Δχ2 mod1-mod2 = 98.97, df = 1, p < .001).
With respect to the ‘first order three-factor process model (mod6)’, we
observed that a reparameterization with free estimation of the error
covariance (mod7) between items Q38 (i.e., ‘Our department’s senior
managers have trouble in adapting their leadership styles to the changes’)
and Q46 (i.e., ‘Our department’s executives focus too much on current
problems and too little on their possible remedies’) yielded a better fit
(Δχ2 mod6-mod7 = 34.93, df = 1, p < .001). Again, specifying the error
covariance between both items of ability of management to lead change
was justified because it may indicate redundancy in item content. Finally,
232
Chapter 5
with respect to the ‘first order three-factor outcome model (mod11)’, no
reparameterization on the basis of MI specification was acceptable.
5.3.4.4 Model Comparison
Apart from respecification based on MIs, we compared the
hypothesized models (mod1, mod6, and mod11) against at least three
alternative models (null model, first order single-factor model, and second
order factor model). In direct comparisons between ‘model 1’ and the ‘null
model’ (i.e., model in which no variables are related, mod3) and the ‘single
factor model’ (i.e., model in which all 18 items represent a single factor
that could be labeled internal context, mod4), the chi-square differences
demonstrated the superiority of the first order five-factor model (Δχ2 mod3mod1
= 7584.22, df = 28, p < .001; Δχ2 mod4-mod1 = 2797.68, df = 10, p <
.001). Similarly, we found that the hypothesized ‘first order three-factor
models’ for both process (Δχ2 mod8-mod6 = 7372.05, df = 18, p < .001;
Δχ2 mod9-mod6 = 753.19, df = 3, p < .001) and outcome models (Δχ2 mod12-mod11
= 4889.12, df = 8, p < .001; Δχ2 mod13-mod11 = 1263.66, df = 3, p < .001)
yielded better fits than did the more restricted models (i.e., null model and
single factor model).
An alternative to the hypothesized first order models was to specify
a structure that accounts for the variances and covariances between the
first order latent factors. These models, also labeled second order factor
models (Rindskopf & Rose, 1988), put structure onto the first order factors
by introducing a general latent factor. An identification problem in second
order models occurs when these models incorporate three or fewer first
order factors. This implies that the overall test of goodness-of-fit cannot
test the second order structure of these models.
However, to make it possible to examine this second order structure
of the outcome and process models, we checked whether additional
degrees of freedom could be gained by making equality restrictions on
factor loadings or error variances. Application of the critical ratio difference
method (Byrne, 2001) indicated that the variances of the residuals of the
233
Chapter 5
three first-order process factors (i.e., involvement in the change process,
ability of management to lead change, and attitude of management
towards change) could be constrained to equality. Similarly, for the threefactor outcome model, error variances for both dimensions cognitive
readiness for change and intentional readiness for change were set to
equality. These imposed restrictions made it possible to test both second
order factor models that were overidentified (mod10 and mod15). Because
the number of data points exceeded the number of parameters to be
estimated, no such parameter restrictions were necessary for testing the
second order structure of the ‘five-factor internal context model (mod5)’.
A comparison of the goodness-of-fit indices for the hypothesized
first order internal context model (mod1) against the second order internal
context model (mod5), showed that the absolute fit measures (GFI, RMR,
and RMSEA) and incremental fit measures (NFI, NNFI, and CFI) were
lower in the second order model. Although the fit was still acceptable, with
values exceeding the required cutoff criteria, the chi-square difference test
between both models indicated a significantly lower fit for the second order
model (Δχ2 mod5-mod1 = 119.70, df = 5, p < .001). Although this second order
model is more parsimonious, the lower fit indicated that it is better to rely
on the first order model. The second order structure for the process and
outcome models (mod10 and mod15) yielded neither better nor worse fit,
as indicated by the chi-square difference tests (Δχ2 mod10-mod6 = 0.18, df = 2,
n.s.; Δχ2 mod15-mod11 = 3.49, df = 1, n.s.). The only difference between the
first order three-factor models and the second order models is that, in the
second order models, a structure was imposed onto the correlational
pattern among the first order factors (Rindskopf & Rose, 1988). Thus,
making a choice between first order and second order models rests purely
on theoretical reasoning.
In further comparisons of alternative models, we tested a ‘first order
two-factor outcome model (mod14)’ where both the cognitive and
emotional components of readiness for change were combined into a
single factor. This collapse into two instead of three factors is supported by
234
Chapter 5
Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991), which states that both
affect and cognition are attitudinal precursors of people’s intention to act.
Results from our analyses demonstrated that the two-factor model in
terms of fit was no improvement over the three-factor model (Δχ2 mod14-mod11
= 265.97, df = 1, p < .001).
5.3.4.5 Conclusion
Although other potential models could be tested, we felt that the
models summarized in Table 5 were the only ones that had substantive
meaning. Consequently, we did not compare the numerous combinations
of two-, three- and four-factor models. In sum, the analyses suggest that
the 42 items constitute an acceptable version of internal context variables,
change process factors, and readiness for change variables.
5.3.5 Scale Evaluation and Replication
Beyond the construct validity evidence provided by factor analysis,
we further checked for convergent validity, discriminant validity, knowngroups validity, concurrent validity, and shared variance validity. Data from
Study 3 was used to explore the convergent validity, discriminant validity,
known-groups validity, and shared variance of constructs at the unit level.
To examine both convergent and discriminant validity of the CCQ, we
explored the correlations between the context (5), process (3), and
outcome scales (3) (Table 6). With regard to known-groups validity, we
performed ANOVAs with sector (profit versus nonprofit) and job level
(managerial versus nonmanagerial) as fixed factors to detect subgroup
differences in the 11 dimensions. To assess concurrent validity, we
regressed the three readiness for change variables onto the context and
process factors. Finally, three measures of interrater reliability (Lebreton &
Senter, 2007) were computed to determine the reliability of these
individual level constructs at the work unit or organization level (i.e.,
shared variance validity).
235
Chapter 5
TABLE 5.6: Summary correlations between context, process and outcome variables (Study 3, n = 1285)
1. general support by supervision
α = .80
2. trust in leadership
α = .79
3. cohesion
α = .77
4. participatory management
α = .78
5. politicking
α = .67
6. involvement in the change process
α = .87
7. ability of management to lead change
α = .80
8. attitude of top management towards
change
α = .72
9. intentional readiness for change
α = .86
10. cognitive readiness for change
α = .69
11. emotional readiness for change
α = .84
Note: *** p < .001
236
M
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
3.72
.79
3.04
.76
.32***
3.53
.79
.39***
.23***
3.41
.90
.42***
.36***
.37***
3.10
.81
-.33***
-.52***
-.40***
-.41***
3.01
.78
.31***
.56***
.26***
.42***
-.42***
3.24
.64
.54***
.49***
.38***
.45***
-.45***
.62***
3.59
.72
.29***
.53***
.24***
.30***
-.36***
.55***
.51***
4.20
.59
.18***
.20***
.14***
.23***
-.17***
.27***
.30***
.34***
3.46
.76
.32***
.48***
.31***
.37***
-.50***
.48***
.53***
.42***
.31***
3.64
.76
.26***
.38***
.23***
.30***
-.29***
.53***
.47***
.42***
.53***
10
.51***
Chapter 5
5.3.5.1 Convergent and Discriminant Validity
Measures that assess related things should correlate more highly
(i.e., convergent validity) than measures that assess distinct phenomena
(i.e., discriminant validity). This implies that the correlations of context with
context scales, process with process scales, and outcome with outcome
scales should be stronger than the correlations between outcome and
process, outcome and context, and process and context. Because the
computed correlations are dependent correlations from one sample, we
used the formula suggested by Cohen and Cohen (1983) to check for
significant differences. In total, 22 tests were performed (Table 7).
TABLE 5.7: Summary tests convergent – discriminant validity
r (xy) – r (zy)
r (xy)
r (zy)
r (xz)
Δ r (xy)
and r (zy)
Df
t-test*
1. r (process-ATC) – r (outcome-ATC)
2. r (process-INV) – r (outcome-INV)
3. r (process-ABMC) – r (outcome-ABMC)
4. r (process-ATC) – r (context-ATC)
5. r (process-INV) – r (context-INV)
6. r (process-ABMC) – r (context-ABMC)
7. r (outcome-INRE) – r (process-INRE)
8. r (outcome-COGRE) – r (process-COGRE)
9. r (outcome-EMRE) – r (process-EMRE)
10. r (outcome-INRE) – r (context-INRE)
11. r (outcome-COGRE) – r (context-
.53
.59
.56
.53
.59
.56
.42
.41
.52
.42
.41
.39
.44
.43
.34
.39
.46
.31
.47
.47
.18
.40
.43
.41
.41
.43
.40
.37
.47
.39
.39
.34
.24
.14
.15
.13
.19
.20
.10
.11
-.06
.05
.24
.01
1282
1282
1282
1282
1282
1282
1282
1282
1282
1282
1282
5.44
5.96
5.24
7.48
7.85
3.96
4.22
-2.25
1.97
8.18
.33
p-value
(onetailed)
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.01
.02
.001
.37
.52
.36
.29
.25
.29
.30
.23
.11
1282
1282
8.03
3.58
.001
.001
.36
.35
.39
.41
.36
.35
.23
.30
.32
.38
.27
.31
.29
.28
.40
.01
.12
.09
.09
-.02
1282
1282
1282
1282
1282
.33
3.91
2.96
2.98
-.72
.37
.001
.001
.001
.24
COGRE)
12. r (outcome-EMRE) – r (context-EMRE)
13. r (context-GENSUP) – r (outcomeGENSUP)
14. r (context-TLE) – r (outcome-TLE)
15. r (context-COH) – r (outcome-COH)
16. r (context-PARMA) – r (outcome-PARMA)
17. r (context-POL) – r (outcome-POL)
18. r (context-GENSUP) – r (processGENSUP)
19. r (context-TLE) – r (process-TLE)
.36
.52
.37
-.16
1282
-5.99
.001
20. r (context-COH) – r (process-COH)
.35
.29
.43
.06
1282
2.16
.02
21. r (context-PARMA) – r (process-PARMA)
.39
.39
.40
.00
1282
.00
.5
22. r (context-POL) – r (process-POL)
.41
.41
.40
.00
1282
.00
.5
Note: * computed t-value for the difference between two dependent correlations from the
same sample. Following formula was used: t = (r xy – r zy ) * SQRT [{(n – 3)(1 + r xz )}/{2(1–
r xy 2 – r xz 2- r zy 2 + 2r xy * r xz * r zy )}] ; GENSUP: general support by supervision; TLE: trust in
leadership; COH: cohesion; PARMA: participatory management; POL: politicking; INV:
involvement in the change process; ABMC: ability of management to lead change; ATC:
attitude of top management towards change; INRE: intentional readiness for change;
COGRE: cognitive readiness for change; EMRE: emotional readiness for change.
237
Chapter 5
Tests 1–6 showed whether within process scale correlations (r (processr (process-INV) , and r (process-ABMC) )
ATC) ,
were significantly stronger than the
correlations of these process dimensions with the context (r (context-ATC) , r (contextINV) ,
and r (context-ABMC) ) and outcome variables (r (outcome-ATC) , r (outcome-INV) , and r (outcome-
ABMC)
). All six tests yielded positive and significant differences, indicating
that the correlations between the process scales (INV, ABMC, and ATC)
were stronger than the correlations of these same process variables with
scales measuring different constructs (context and outcome).
Subsequently, Tests 7–12 indicated the differences between the
within-outcome variable correlations (r (outcome-INRE) , r (outcome-COGRE) , and r (outcomeEMRE)
) and the process-outcome (r (process-INRE) , r (process-COGRE) , and r (process-EMRE) ) and
context-outcome correlations (r (context-INRE) , r (context-COGRE) , and r (context-EMRE) ). In four
of the six tests, we found that the within-outcome variable correlations
were significantly stronger and as such provided evidence for the
convergent and discriminant validity of these scales. Only for the scale
cognitive readiness for change did we find a somewhat different
correlation pattern.
Finally,
we
examined
whether
the
within-context
variable
correlations (r (context-GENSUP) , r (context-TLE) ,. r (context-COH) , r (context-PARMA) , and
r (context-POL) ) were stronger than the outcome-context (r (outcome-GENSUP) ,
r (outcome-TLE) ,. r (outcome-COH) , r (outcome-PARMA) , and r (outcome-POL) ) and processcontext correlations (r (process-GENSUP) , r (process-TLE) ,. r (process-COH) , r (processPARMA) ,
and r (process-POL) ). In alignment with the expectations, we observed
that, in four of the five cases (Tests 13, 15, 16, and 17), the within-context
correlations were stronger than the outcome-context correlations.
Furthermore, we noticed that only one within-context correlation (r (contextCOH) )
was significantly stronger than its correlation with the process factors.
In summary, based upon these tests (15 out of 22 tests were confirmed),
we conclude that the scales of the CCQ have demonstrated fairly
adequate convergent and discriminant validity.
238
Chapter 5
5.3.5.2 Known-groups Validity
Known-groups validity is based on hypotheses that certain groups
of respondents will score differently on a scale than will other groups
(Spector, 1994). The first important group difference to be investigated is
the perceived difference in change climate scores between profit and
nonprofit sector employees. The literature suggests that generic context
features of the profit- and nonprofit-sectors can elicit differences in how
people think about, experience, and perceive change (Boyne, 2002;
Pettigrew et al., 2001). For instance, it has been noted that the public and
private sector are distinct in terms of vision, ownership, markets, values,
performance expectations, and strategic constraints (Hull & Lio, 2006) and
that these differences in generic characteristics shape employees’
perceptions of change.
Apart from profit versus nonprofit group membership, a second
important group membership to be considered is the job level held by
respondents.
According
to
the
‘hierarchical
differentiation
theory’
managerial–nonmanagerial membership affects the attitudes, beliefs,
intentions, and behaviors of members (Van Maanen & Barley 1985).
Strebel (1998), for instance, noticed that management and employees
perceive change differently, with managers seeing change as an
opportunity for both the business and themselves, whereas employees
typically see change as disruptive, intrusive, and likely to involve loss.
Analysis of variance was performed to assess the main effects and
interaction effects of both job level and sector on the context, process, and
readiness for change dimensions. The means for each group combination
are displayed in Table 8. Because participation in this study was voluntary
and anonymity was maximized, not all respondents completed the
demographic information with regard to job level. Thus, for job level, only
924 completed questionnaires were included for analysis.
239
Chapter 5
TABLE 5.8: Summary known-groups differences
Sector (n = 1285)
Job position (n = 924)
Profit (n = 797)
Non-profit (n =
Managerial (n =
Non-managerial (n
488)
433)
= 491)
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
1. GENSUP (con)
3.70
.83
3.75
.73
3.85
.72
3.65
.79
2. TLE (con)
3.14
.77
2.88
.74
3.17
.79
2.88
.69
3. COH (con)
3.52
.80
3.55
.78
3.69
.72
3.47
.84
4. PARMA (con)
3.29
.91
3.61
.85
3.70
.78
3.25
.95
5. POL (con)
3.13
.82
3.07
.78
2.85
.80
3.23
.80
6. INV (proc)
3.08
.78
2.91
.75
3.26
.78
3.25
.95
7. ABMC (proc)
3.26
.66
3.19
.60
3.39
.62
3.11
.60
8. ATC (proc)
3.72
.72
3.39
.67
3.75
.75
3.47
.66
9. INRE (outc)
4.23
.61
4.14
.56
4.32
.54
4.14
.60
10. COGRE (outc)
3.47
.78
3.43
.72
3.72
.66
3.33
.75
11. EMRE (outcome)
3.71
.76
3.55
.75
3.86
.70
3.56
.74
Profit (n = 458)
Non-profit (n = 466)
Interaction-effects
Managerial (n =
Non-managerial (n
Managerial (n =
Non-managerial (n
only
196)
= 262)
237)
= 229)
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
1. GENSUP (con)
3.91
.70
3.61
.85
3.80
.73
3.71
.71
2. TLE (con)
3.31
.75
3.04
.73
3.06
.81
2.69
.61
3. COH (con)
3.80
.67
3.42
.88
3.60
.74
3.53
.80
4. PARMA (con)
3.54
.80
3.11
.98
3.83
.74
3.41
.90
5. POL (con)
2.84
.83
3.19
.86
2.86
.77
3.27
.71
6. INV (proc)
3.50
.72
3.00
.69
3.05
.76
2.74
.69
7. ABMC (proc)
3.52
.61
3.13
.64
3.29
.61
3.10
.56
8. ATC (proc)
4.04
.71
3.65
.64
3.51
.70
3.27
.61
9. INRE (outc)
4.48
.52
4.19
.59
4.19
.52
4.08
.60
10. COGRE (outc)
3.85
.61
3.41
.77
3.61
.68
3.23
.72
11. EMRE (outc)
4.09
.61
3.67
.69
3.67
.72
3.43
.77
Note: GENSUP: general support by supervision; TLE: trust in leadership; COH: cohesion;
PARMA: participatory management; POL: politicking; INV: involvement in the change
process; ABMC: ability of management to lead change; ATC: attitude of top management
towards change; INRE: intentional readiness for change; COGRE: cognitive readiness for
change; EMRE: emotional readiness for change.
Main-effects only
We observed significant main effects of sector for trust in leadership
(F(1, 1283) = 35.04, p < .001), participatory management (F(1, 1283) =
41.79, p < .001), involvement in the change process (F(1, 1283) = 14.57, p
< .001), attitude of top management towards change (F(1, 1283) = 66.71,
p < .001), intentional readiness for change (F(1, 1283) = 7.92, p < .01),
and emotional readiness for change (F(1, 1283) = 12.70, p < .001). On a
five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree),
respondents from the profit sector averaged higher scores on trust in
leadership,
involvement
in
the
change
process,
attitude
of
top
management towards change, intentional readiness for change, and
240
Chapter 5
emotional readiness for change. A lower score was noted for participatory
management. Regarding job level, we found significant main effects for all
context (GENSUP F(1, 922) = 15.27, p < .001; TLE F(1, 922) = 35.41, p <
.001; COH F(1, 922) = 18.27, p < .001; PARMA F(1, 922) = 60.15, p <
.001; POL F(1, 922) = 50.55, p < .001), process (INV F(1, 922) = 59.23, p
< .001; ABMC F(1, 922) = 47.48, p < .001; ATC F(1, 922) = 36.80, p <
.001), and readiness for change variables (INRE F(1, 922) = 23.81, p <
.001; COGRE F(1, 922) = 71.28, p < .001; EMRE F(1, 922) = 40.38, p <
.001). With the exception of politicking, respondents holding a managerial
position reported higher scores on all change climate scales. To conclude,
significant interaction effects were noted for general support by
supervision (F(1, 920) = 4.40, p < .05), cohesion (F(1, 920 = 8.65, p < .01),
ability of management to lead change (F(1, 920) = 6.62, p < .05), and
intentional readiness for change (F(1, 920) = 5.59, p < .05). In short, as
expected, our scales effectively discriminated between sector and job
position.
5.3.5.3 Concurrent Validity
As an alternative to prospective validation, researchers often obtain
test scores and criterion measures at the same point in time and see how
strongly the two correlate. In the CCQ, both context and process factors of
change are considered as enablers of readiness for change (Eby et al.,
2000; Holt et al., 2007). After controlling for the effects of sector and job
position, regression analysis indicated that these eight predictors
explained 13 percent of the variance in intentional readiness for change,
35 percent of the variance in cognitive readiness for change, and 25
percent of the variance in emotional readiness for change. Not all eight
context and process factors were related to the three readiness for change
variables (Table 9). The fact that these antecedents yielded different effect
patterns supports the assumption that we measure readiness for change
as a three-faceted concept. Positive significant relationships were noted
between intentional readiness for change and participatory management
241
Chapter 5
(β = .12, p < .001), intentional readiness for change and involvement in the
change process (β = .09, p < .05), and intentional readiness for change
and attitude of top management towards change (β = .25, p < .001). The
relationships that did emerge between cognitive readiness for change and
trust in leadership (β = .19, p < .001), cognitive readiness for change and
politicking (β = –.18, p < .001), and cognitive readiness for change and
ability of management to lead change (β = .28, p < .001) were in the
expected directions. To conclude, positive relationships were found
between emotional readiness for change and participatory management (β
= .08, p < .05), emotional readiness for change and involvement in the
change process (β = .29, p < .001), emotional readiness for change and
ability of management to lead change (β = .18, p < .001), and emotional
readiness for change and attitude of top management towards change (β
= .10, p < .01). In summary, these results indicate that both internal
context factors and process factors of change are related to readiness for
change in the expected direction.
TABLE 5.9: Summary OLS regression analyses
Variables
Sector
(profit)
Job position
(managerial)
GENSUP
TLE
COH
PARMA
POL
INV
ABMC
ATC
R2
INRE
β
t-test
-.09
-2.67**
EMRE
β
t-test
-.11
-3.74***
COGRE
β
t-test
-.05
-1.66
-.07
-2.15*
-.07
-2.30*
-.10
-3.69***
.01
-.03
-.00
.12
.07
.09
.08
.25
.31
-.69
-.02
3.21***
1.88
2.09*
1.71
6.11***
.00
.02
.01
.08
.03
.29
.18
.10
.05
.61
.30
2.26*
.89
7.43***
4.32***
2.72**
.03
.19
.04
.04
-.18
.06
.24
.05
.79
5.47***
1.43
1.29
-5.61***
1.70
6.12***
1.56
.18
.34
.44
Note: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. GENSUP: general support by supervision; TLE:
trust in leadership; COH: cohesion; PARMA: participatory management; POL: politicking;
INV: involvement in the change process; ABMC: ability of management to lead change;
ATC: attitude of top management towards change; INRE: intentional readiness for
change; COGRE: cognitive readiness for change; EMRE: emotional readiness for
change.
242
Chapter 5
5.3.5.4 Shared Variance Validity
In situations where individual perceptions and/or meanings are
sufficiently shared, one can use the aggregated individual perceptions to
describe organizational climate in psychologically meaningful terms
(James et al., 2008; James, James, & Ashe, 1990). This implies that the
individual perceived climate scales become dimensions of organizational
change climate when they are shared and agreed upon (James & Jones,
1974). Thus, within-group agreement and reliability should be computed
before our measures can be used at the organizational or work-unit level.
In that respect, we computed three measures of interrater agreement
(Lebreton & Senter, 2007). In Table 10, all three indices are displayed
separately for each change climate dimension.
Common practice is to conclude that aggregation of lower level
scales to a higher level is appropriate when the mean R wg(J) or median
R wg(J) equals or exceeds .70. All 11 scales of our instrument exceeded the
recommended level. The reliability of the group means was also adequate
(ICC(2)). Only the reliability score for general support by supervision was
below the .70 level. Eight of the eleven ICC(1) values were medium effect
sizes with scores ranging between .13 and .24. Three ICC(1) values were
small effect sizes (.10 or lower), indicating that only a small part of the
variation in the measure resided at the organizational level. In summary,
these three indices suggest that the scales of our questionnaire, except for
general support by supervision, can be aggregated at the organizational
level of analysis.
243
Chapter 5
TABLE 5.10: Summary interrater agreement indices for change
climate scales
1. General support by supervision
2. Trust in leadership
3. Cohesion
4. Participatory management
5. Politicking
6. Involvement in the change process
7. Ability of management to lead
change
8. Attitude of top management towards
change
9. Intentional readiness for change
10. Cognitive readiness for change
11. Emotional readiness for change
MeanR wg(J)
.81
.84
.81
.76
.75
.90
.91
MedianR wg(J)
.83
.86
.83
.79
.78
.90
.91
ICC(1)
.03
.18
.09
.21
.21
.16
.14
ICC(2)
.49
.86
.72
.88
.82
.88
.84
.86
.87
.24
.89
.92
.82
.86
.94
.85
.86
.10
.16
.13
.75
.83
.83
5.3.6 English Version of CCQ
Although the Dutch version of the change climate questionnaire has
demonstrated adequate validity, the purpose of Study 4 was to replicate
the factor structure of this questionnaire with a sample of native English
speaking respondents. A common procedure for guarding against
language bias in measurement scales is back translation. A Dutch–English
interpreter translated the Dutch CCQ into English and then the authors
translated this version back into Dutch. Because the meaning of the
translated version was still the same as the first version, we decided that
our scales had translation equivalence.
The English version of the CCQ was administered in a public sector
agency in Suffolk County (Great Britain). Changes were made to the
political structures of the Council and a range of initiatives had been taken
to promote a more corporate approach, to encourage partnership working,
and to develop locality arrangements. A total of 799 individuals
participated on a voluntary basis. Because absolute anonymity was
promised, respondents had the choice of not filling out demographic
information. On the basis of those who did complete this information, we
note that the majority of the respondents had a management position in
244
Chapter 5
their company (managerial: 72% (n = 539); nonmanagerial: 28% (n =
210)) and were 45 years or older (< 25 years: 5.5% (n = 42); 25–34 years:
16.5% (n = 128); 35–44 years: 25% (n = 195); > 44 years: 53% (n = 417)).
Approximately as many male as female participants completed the CCQ
(male respondents: 49% (n = 384); female respondents: 51% (n = 403)).
In this replication study, a confirmatory factor analysis of the
context, process, and outcome scales was conducted to further analyze
the factor structure and provide additional evidence of the construct
validity of our questionnaire. Results from these analyses indicated that
the 18 internal context items were adequately represented by the fivefactor model (with error specification between items Q65 and Q76). The
values reported for GFI (.94) and CFI (.91) all exceeded the recommended
cutoff score. The values for NFI (.88) and NNFI (.89) approximated the .9
criterion. The χ2/df value (3.79) was well within the recommended range of
values. This was also the case for the RMR (.05) and RMSEA (.06)
values. A factor structure test of the 15 process items demonstrated that a
three-factorial model (INV, ABMC, and ATC) yielded the best fit when
items Q35 (i.e., ‘Departments are consulted about the change sufficiently’)
and Q47 (i.e., ‘We are sufficiently informed of the progress of change’)
were excluded from the involvement in the change process scale (χ2/df =
4.85; RMR = .04; RMSEA = .07; GFI = .94; CFI = .91; NFI = .89; NNFI =
.89). Finally, to achieve adequate fit for the three-factor outcome model,
item Q75 (i.e., ‘I find change refreshing’) was omitted from the analysis. All
fit indices for the hypothesized three-factor model (eight items) were good,
indicating that this model was well represented by the data (χ2/df = 3.98;
RMR = .02; RMSEA = .06; GFI = .98; CFI = .96; NFI = .95; NNFI = .93).
In conclusion, the English version of the Dutch CCQ constituted an
acceptable version of the context, process, and outcome factors when
three items (Q35 (INV), Q47 (INV), and Q75 (EMRE)) were omitted.
Although the fit indices were not as high as in Study 3, they were generally
acceptable. These lower fit indices are not totally unexpected since our
original Dutch version was tested on a much broader sample of
245
Chapter 5
companies (more than 80 companies), whereas the translated version was
used on data acquired from a single organization. Despite the limitations
of the four studies, we believe that there is strong agreement in the factor
structure of the original and translated versions of the questionnaire. Thus,
these findings offer support to the construct validity of the CCQ.
5.4 DISCUSSION
This inquiry was designed to construct a new instrument that
measures the circumstances under which change embarks (context), the
way a specific change is implemented (process), and to assess the level
of readiness at the individual level. Independent of the content of change
(what change is about) and the individual attributes of those undergoing
change, this instrument allows a thorough diagnostic investigation of the
change climate or internal organizational sources that are available to deal
more effectively with change. Despite the general consensus about the
salient role of organizational climate in understanding the processes that
lead to successful change implementation (Beer & Nohria, 2000;
Heracleous, 2001; Schneider et al., 1996), the alignment between change
climate (sources of readiness, i.e., context and process) and readiness for
change has rarely been examined (Jones et al., 2005). In consequence,
an important first step towards a more successful implementation of a
change project starts with a reliable and valid assessment of the crucial
levers of readiness for change. Therefore, a psychometrically sound
instrument was designed that measures the context, the process, and
readiness for change, which then can serve as a guide for developing a
strategy for the effective implementation of change. To fulfill this objective,
we followed several steps described by Hinkin (1998): (a) specify the
content dimensions of change climate by integrating organizational climate
theory and the readiness for change literature, (b) develop items that
measure the domain, and (c) determine the extent to which items measure
246
Chapter 5
that domain. Finally, this tool was tested in multiple field settings to
increase its ecological validity.
A first challenge in developing the instrument was specifying a
theoretically meaningful universe that represented the context, change
process factors, and readiness for change, but also explained the
dynamics between those sets of variables. On the basis of a growing body
of literature, the human relations perspective (Emery & Trist, 1965;
McGregor, 1960) offered a framework from which the climate dimensions
(i.e., context and process factors) were tapped as relevant sources of
readiness for change (Burnes & James, 1995; Jones et al., 2005; Tierney,
1999; Zammuto & O’Connor, 1992). In short, the human relations
framework provided a conceptually sound model from which the CCQ was
developed. In total, ten dimensions were deduced from the literature: three
context variables (i.e., trust in leadership, politicking, and cohesion), four
process variables (i.e., participation, support by supervisors, quality of
change communication, and attitude of top management towards change),
and three readiness for change variables (i.e., cognitive, intentional, and
emotional readiness for change). The item generation process for those
ten dimensions resulted in 63 items.
After consulting ten experts on the subject matter (i.e., content
validity study), these 63 items were regrouped into 12 dimensions. Three
independent field studies were conducted to examine further the reliability
and validity of these scales. Although the intended factor structure (12
dimensions) did not completely emerge (participation in change project
and quality of change communication loaded on one factor), we feel that
the 11 factors that did emerge can be useful in an organizational setting.
To analyze the factor structure, the original 63 items were administered to
more than 3,000 employees at various levels of hierarchy in over 85
companies. The criteria used to examine the reliability, factor validity,
construct validity (i.e., convergent and discriminant validity), known-groups
validity, concurrent validity, and shared variance validity were satisfied. In
sum, these findings suggest that our 42-item Dutch Change Climate
247
Chapter 5
Questionnaire meets the standards of a psychometrically sound
measurement instrument (American Psychological Association, 1995;
Hinkin, 1998). These 42 items represent the following 11 scales: (1)
general support by supervision (context), (2) trust in leadership (context),
(3) cohesion (context), (4) participatory management (context), (5)
politicking (context), (6) involvement in the change process (process), (7)
ability of management to lead change (process), (8) attitude of top
management towards change (process), (9) cognitive readiness for
change (outcome), (10) emotional readiness for change (outcome), and
(11) intentional readiness for change (outcome).
Because the items and scales of the CCQ were designed and
tested in companies just before and during the implementation of change,
we recommend administering this tool under similar conditions of change
(stages before and during implementation). Furthermore, we would like to
highlight that the use of this instrument is especially meaningful when it
involves changes that demand cooperation from the employees. For
example, this will often be the case when it concerns changes in
professional organizations (e.g., hospitals and schools) where the power
distance between management and employees is small. Although the
value-added of this instrument is limited for typical top-level decisions on
strategic
change
(e.g.,
strategic
decisions
about
mergers
and
acquisitions), the use of the CCQ is valuable during the implementation of
these strategic changes.
5.4.1 The Strengths of the CCQ
There are several unique contributions made by the CCQ. First,
because the authors followed an accepted step-by-step procedure in
designing this instrument (Hinkin, 1998), one may conclude that initial
evidence of reliability and validity is provided. The CCQ is a welcome tool
for both practitioners and scholars, since it is a scientifically valid
248
Chapter 5
alternative to the available tools that assess simultaneously the context,
the process of change, and readiness for change.
A second value added by this instrument is that its emphasis is both
person-centered and organization-centered. Although measured at an
individual level, Study 3 demonstrated that the individual perceptions of
change climate can be aggregated at the work unit or organization level
(i.e., shared variance validity). In other words, the 11 scales except for
general support by supervision gauge both the psychological and the
organizational change climates (James et al., 2008). The focus on
individual measures is consistent with the literature that calls for a more
person-centered approach to organizational change (e.g., Aktouf, 1992;
Judge et al., 1999) and it allows an exploration of differences in readiness
between individuals (i.e., psychological change climate) and also
differences between groups of individuals (i.e., team, work unit, and
organizations).
A third value added is the relatively short length of the CCQ. With
only 42 items, this questionnaire covers 11 dimensions. Furthermore,
since the context, process, and outcome part of the questionnaire have
shown adequate reliability and validity, there is no need to administer fully
the questionnaire. For example, if one is only interested in the general
context under which change occurs, one can administer the 18 internal
context items (five scales) without jeopardizing the psychometric quality of
these scales. Because of its short length, this instrument can be combined
with other scales to assess change recipients’ beliefs about change
(Armenakis,
Bernerth,
Pitts,
&
Walker,
2007),
cynicism
about
organizational change (Stanley, Meyer, & Topolnytsky, 2005), change
recipients’ internal attributes (Holt et al., 2007), and many other change
related variables. In short, the CCQ not only satisfies scientific
requirements (i.e., reliability and validity) but it also scores very well in
terms of practicality (Thorndike & Hagen, 1969). Practicality is concerned
with a wide range of factors including economy and convenience.
Instrument length is one of those areas where economic and time
249
Chapter 5
pressures dominate. Although more items in our CCQ could have provided
even higher reliability scores, in the interest of limiting the pressure on
individual respondents and organizations, we kept the number of items to
a minimum. In addition, a measuring device passes the convenience test if
it is easy to administer. Since the contact persons and participants in our
samples reported no difficulties in completing the questionnaire, we can
assume that the questionnaire instructions were clear enough and easy to
administer.
A fourth value added by this instrument is that it assesses the
perceptions of those involved in the change process (i.e., stakeholders in
change). As such, it can be a helpful tool for identifying gaps that may
exist between change agents’, managers’, and human resource
management professionals’ expectations about the change effort, and
those of other organizational members. If significant gaps are identified,
one can plan actions and design a strategy to increase readiness for
change.
A fifth value added by this instrument involves its advantages over
related measurement tools such as the ‘Organizational Climate Measure’
(Patterson et al., 2005) and the ‘Readiness for Organizational Change
Measure (Holt et al., 2007). Although the ‘Organizational Climate Measure’
can offer an alternative for measuring the internal context under which
change embarks, it was not designed to diagnose specific events such as
organizational change. In consequence, a major issue when applying the
OCM to a change-specific context is its omnibus measurement nature. In
other words, this tool incorporates a large number of dimensions that are
not relevant for the diagnosis of employees’ readiness for change, and as
such would imply a serious breach of the scientific principle of parsimony
when used. An even more viable alternative could be the four scales
developed by Holt et al. (2007). Although this instrument (ROCM) has
satisfied the necessary scientific requirements, it has some areas of
concern that are dealt with by the CCQ. One of the concerns of the ROCM
is that it was only tested in two organizations, both undergoing structural
250
Chapter 5
changes. To put it differently, the generalizability of the results of the
ROCM may be limited. The CCQ, however, was based on data acquired
from
a
wide
range
of
participants,
with
different
organizational
backgrounds and types of change (i.e., incremental change and
transformational change). Another advantage over the ROCM is that
readiness in the CCQ incorporates cognitive, affective, and intentional
components, rather than it being measured purely in cognitive terms
(Piderit, 2000). To conclude, the CCQ has the advantage that the context,
process, and outcome variables can be measured separately.
5.4.2 Some Limitations and Future Research Directions
Despite these many positive notes, some further validation research
is required. The first point to notice is that the number of dimensions in the
CCQ (11) did not align with the hypothesized model (12). Respondents did
not make the distinction between participation in the change project and
quality of change communication. A second remark involves the tests
conducted with respect to convergent and discriminant validity. Tests that
are more appropriate should be performed by looking at correlations with
related instruments such as the ROCM. Therefore, the authors plan to
administer both the CCQ and the ROCM in a follow-up study. As regards
to concurrent validation, this type of validity provides weaker evidence for
criterion validity than does predictive validation. Concurrent validation
would be stronger if the context factors, the process factors, and the
outcome variables (readiness for change) were collected independently for
the same individuals. Therefore, future research should first assess the
context and the process factors of change and, approximately two weeks
later, administer the readiness for change scales. Finally, more research is
needed for the cross-validation of the CCQ. Currently, projects have been
set up to validate further the instrument in French and Arabic speaking
regions of the world.
251
Chapter 5
In conclusion, we believe that initial steps have been made towards
the development of an instrument that assesses change climate as
perceived through the eyes of the change recipients. Although the findings
reported are encouraging, the results need to be replicated. Therefore, we
hope we will motivate other researchers to further explore and refine the
CCQ.
5.5 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.
Aktouf, O. (1992). Management and theories of organizations in the 1990s:
Toward a critical radical humanism? Academy of Management Review,
17, 407–431.
American Psychological Association (1995). Standards for educational and
psychological testing. Washington, DC: Author.
Anastasi, A. (1982). Psychological testing. New York: MacMillan.
Armenakis A.A., & Bedeian A.G. (1999). Organizational change: A review of
theory and research in the 1990’s. Journal of Management, 25, 293–315.
Armenakis, A.A., Bernerth, J.B., Pitts, J.P., & Walker, H.J. (2007). Organizational
change recipients’ beliefs scale: Development of an assessment
instrument. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43, 481–505.
Armenakis, A.A., & Harris, S.G. (2002). Crafting a change message to create
transformational readiness. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 15, 169–183.
Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G., & Feild, H.S. (1999). Making change permanent: A
model for institutionalizing change interventions. In W.A. Pasmore, & R.W.
Woodman (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development
(pp. 97–128). Oxford, UK: JAI press.
Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G., & Mossholder, K. (1993). Creating readiness for
organizational change. Human Relations, 46, 681–703.
Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000). Cracking the code of change. Harvard Business
Review, 78, 133–141.
Belasco, J.A. (1990). Teaching an elephant to dance: Empowering change in
your organization. New York: Crown Publishers.
Boyne, G.A. (2002). Public and private management: What’s the difference?
Journal of Management Studies, 39, 97–122.
Burke, W.W. (1982). Organization development. Boston, MA: Little-Brown.
Burke, W.W., & Litwin, G.H. (1992). A causal model of organizational
performance and change. Journal of Management, 17, 523–545.
252
Chapter 5
Burnes, B., & James, H. (1995). Culture, cognitive dissonance, and the
management of change. International Journal of Operations and Product
Management, 15, 14–33.
Byrne, B.M. 2001. Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts,
applications, and programming. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cattell, R.B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 1, 245–276.
Chen, G., Gully, S.M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new general selfefficacy scale. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 62–82.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis
for behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Conway, J.M., & Huffcutt, A.I. (2003). A review and evaluation of exploratory
factor analysis practices in organizational research. Organizational
Research Methods, 6, 147–168.
Desplaces, D. (2007). A multilevel approach to individual readiness to change.
Journal of Behavioral & Applied Management, 7, 25–39.
Devos G., Buelens M., & Bouckenooghe D. (2007). The contribution of content,
context, and process in understanding openness to organizational change:
Two experimental simulation studies. The Journal of Social Psychology,
147, 607–630.
Eby, L.T., Adams, D.M., Russell, J.E.A., & Gaby, S.H. (2000). Perceptions of
organizational readiness for change: Factors related to employees’
reactions to the implementation of team-based selling. Human Relations,
53, 419–442.
Emery, F.E., & Trist, E.L. (1965). The causal texture of organizational
environments. Human Relations, 18, 21–32.
Forehand, G., & Gilmer, B.H.V. (1964). Environmental variation in studies of
organizational behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 62, 361–382.
George, J.M., & Jones, G.R. (2001). Towards a process model of individual
change in organizations. Human Relations, 54, 3–22.
Glick, W.H. (1985). Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and
psychological climate: Pitfalls in multilevel research. Academy of
Management Review, 10, 601–616.
Guion, R.M. (1973). A note on organizational climate. Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, 9, 120–125.
Hair, J.F., Jr., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C. (1998). Multivariate
data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Heracleous, L. (2001). An ethnographic study of culture in the context of
organizational change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 37,
426–446.
Hinkin, T.R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in
survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 104–121.
Holt, D.T., Armenakis, A., Feild, H.S., & Harris, S.G. (2007). Readiness for
organizational change: The systematic development of a scale. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 43, 232–255.
253
Chapter 5
Holt, D.T., Armenakis, A., Harris, S.G., & Feild H.S. (2007). Toward a
comprehensive definition of readiness for change: A review of research
and instrumentation. In W.A. Pasmore, & R.M. Woodman (Eds.),
Research in organizational change and development (pp. 295–346).
Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Hull, C.E., & Lio, B.H. (2006). Innovation in non-profit and for-profit organizations:
Visionary, strategic, and financial considerations. Journal of Change
Management, 6, 53–65.
Hurley, A.E., Scandura, T.A., Schriesheim, C.A., Brannick, M.T., Seers, A.,
Vandenberg, R.J., & Williams, L.J. (1997). Exploratory and confirmatory
factor analysis: Guidelines, issues, and alternatives. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 18, 667–683.
James, L.R., Choi, C.C., Ko, C.E., McNeil, P.K., Minton, K.M., Wright, M.A., &
Kim, K. (2008). Organizational and psychological climate: A review of
theory and research. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 17, 5–32.
James, L.R., James, L.A., & Ashe, D.K. (1990). The meaning of organizations:
The role of cognition and values. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational
climate and culture (pp. 40–129). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
James, L.R., & Jones, A.P. (1974). Organizational climate: A review of theory
and research. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 1096–1112.
Jimmieson, N.L., Terry, D.J., & Callan, V.J. (2004). A longitudinal study of
employee adaptation to organizational change: The role of change-related
information and change-related self-efficacy. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 9, 11–27.
Jones, R.A., Jimmieson, N.L., & Griffiths, A. (2005). The impact of organizational
culture and reshaping capabilities on change implementation success:
The mediating role of readiness for change. Journal of Management
Studies, 42, 361–386.
Joreskog, K.G. (1993). Testing structural equation models. In K.A. Bollen, & J.S.
Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 294–316). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. M. (1999). Managerial
coping with organizational change: A dispositional perspective. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 84, 107–122.
Kaiser, H.F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141–151.
Kline, R.B. (2004). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New
York: Guilford Press.
Kotter, J. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard
Business Review, 73, 59–67.
Koys, D.J., & DeCotiis, T.A. (1991). Inductive measures of psychological climate.
Human Relations, 44, 265–285.
Lebreton, J.M., & Senter, J.L. (2007). Answers to 20 questions about interrater
reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods.
DOI: 10.01177/1094428106296642.
254
Chapter 5
Litwin, G.H., & Stringer, R.A. (1968). Motivation and organizational climate,
Harvard University Division of Research, Graduate School of Business
Administration.
Martin, A.J., Jones, E.S., & Callan, V.J. (2005). The role of psychological climate
in facilitating employee adjustment during organizational change.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14, 263–289.
McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Mento, A.J., Jones, R.M., & Dirndorfer, W. (2002). A change management
process: grounded in both theory and practice. Journal of Change
Management, 3, 45– 59.
Miller, V.D., Johnson, J. R., & Grau, J. (1994). Antecedents to willingness to
participate in a planned organizational change. Journal of Applied
Communication Research, 11, 365–386.
Mulaik, S.A., James, L.R., Van Altine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S., & Stilwell, C.D.
(1989). Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation
models. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 430–445.
Nunnaly, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company.
Oreg, S. (2006). Personality, context, and resistance to organizational change.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15, 73–101.
Patterson, M.G., Warr, P.B., & West, M.A. (2004). Organizational climate and
company performance: The role of employee affect and employee level.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 7, 193–216.
Patterson, M.G., West, M.A., Shackleton, V.J., Dawson, J.F., Lawthom, R.,
Maitlis, S., Robinson, D.L., & Wallace, A.M. (2005). Validating the
organizational climate measure: Links to managerial practices,
productivity and innovation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 379–
408.
Pettigrew, A.W. (1990). Longitudinal research on change: Theory and practice.
Organization Science, 3, 267–292.
Pettigrew, A.M., Woodman, R.W., & Cameron, K.S. (2001). Studying
organizational change and development: Challenges for future research.
Academy of Management Journal, 44, 697–713.
Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A
multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change.
Academy of Management Review, 25, 783–794.
Porras, J.I., & Robertson, P.J. (1992). Organizational development: Theory,
practice, and research. In M. Dunnette, & L. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of
industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 720–822). Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Rafferty, A., & Simons, R. (2005). An examination of the antecedents of
readiness for fine-tuning and corporate transformation changes. Journal of
Business & Psychology, 20, 325–350.
255
Chapter 5
Rindskopf, D., & Rose, T. (1988). Some theory and applications of confirmatory
second-order factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 23, 51–
67.
Rousseau, D.M., & Tijoriwala, S.A. (1999). What’s a good reason to change?
Motivated reasoning and social accounts in promoting organizational
change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 514–528.
Sashkin, M., & Burke, W.W. (1987). Organization development in the 1980s.
Journal of Management, 13, 393–417.
Schneider, B. (1990). Organizational climate and culture. San Francisco: JosseyBass Publishers.
Schneider, B., Brief, A.P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1996). Creating a climate and culture
for sustainable organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24, 7–
19.
Schneider, B., & Reichers, A.E. (1983). On the etiology of climates. Personnel
Psychology, 36, 19–39.
Self, D.R., Armenakis, A.A., & Schraeder, M. (2007). Organizational change
content, process, and context: A simultaneous analysis of employee
reactions. Journal of Change Management, 7, 211–229.
Spector, P.E. (1994). Summated rating scale construction: An introduction. In
M.S Lewis- Beck (Ed.), Basic measurement: International handbooks of
quantitative applications in the social sciences (pp. 229–300). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stanley, D.J., Meyer, J.P., & Topolnytsky, L. (2005). Employee cynicism and
resistance to organizational change. Journal of Business and Psychology,
19, 429–459.
Stewart, T.A. (1994). Rate your readiness for change. Fortune, 129, 106–110.
Strebel P. (1998). Why do employees resist change? In Harvard Business
Review on Change (pp. 139–157). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
Press.
Ten Have, S., & Ten Have, W. (2004). Het boek verandering. Over het doordacht
werken aan de organisatie. Nederland: Academic Service.
Thorndike, R.M., & Hagen, E.P. (1969). Measurement and evaluation in
psychology and education. New York: MacMillan.
Tierney, P. (1999). Work relations as a precursor to a psychological climate for
change: The role of work group supervisors and peers. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 12, 120–133.
Van Maanen, J., & Barley, S. (1985). Cultural organization: Fragments of a
theory. In P.J. Frost, L.F. Moore, M.R. Louis, C.C. Lundberg, & J. Martin
(Eds.), Organizational culture (pp. 31–54). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Wanberg, C.R., & Banas, J.T. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of openness to
changes in a reorganizing work place. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,
132–142.
Wanous, J.P., Reichers, A.E., & Austin, J.T. (2000). Cynicism about
organizational change. Measurement, antecedents, and correlates. Group
and Organization Management, 25, 132–153.
256
Chapter 5
Zammuto, R.F., & O’Connor, E. (1992). Gaining advanced manufacturing
technologies’ benefits: The roles of organization design and culture. In
R.W. Woodman, & W.A Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational
change and development (pp. 83–144). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
257
Chapter 5
5.6 APPENDIX 1: Description of the content of each of the 10 climate
dimensions
Context variables
Description
Trust in leadership
Trust in leadership is the extent to which staff members perceive their
supervisors and top management as trustworthy. Does management practice
what they preach? Do they keep their promises? Are they honest and fair
towards all departments? To put it differently, employees feel they can
communicate openly about problems, without running the risk of being held
responsible for it.
Politicking (Allen, Madison,
Porter, Renwick & Mayer, 1979)
Politicking describes the perceived level of political games within the
organization. A high degree of politicking leads to unnecessary expense,
considerable delays, and unwillingness to share knowledge.
Cohesion (Koys & Decotiis,
Cohesion refers to the extent of cooperation and trust in the competence of
team members? It is the perception of togetherness or sharing within the
organization setting, including the willingness of members to support each
other. In general are colleagues accessible?
(Korsgaard, Schweiger &
Sapienza, 1995; Lines, Selart,
Espedal, Johansen, 2005;
Schoorman, Mayer & Davis,
2007)
1991)
Process variables
Participation (Lines, 2004;
Participation is the extent to which staff members are involved in and informed
about decisions that directly concern them, decisions about organizational
change inclusive. Can procedures and guidelines be discussed bottom up? In
other words, is the information supplied by front line staff considered, and is
the frontline involved in the change process?
Support by supervisors
Support by supervisors is conceived as the extent to which employees
experience support and understanding from their immediate supervisor. More
specifically it measures their openness to reactions of their staff and their
ability to lead them through the change process.
Quality of change
communication (Miller, Johnson
& Grau, 1994)
Quality of change communication refers to how change is communicated. The
clarity, the frequency and openness determine whether or not communication
is effective. Are the staff clear about how they must apply change in practice?
Should they learn about changes through rumours?
Attitude of top
management towards
change (Carter, Ulrich &
Attitude of top management involves the stance top management is taking with
regard to change? Does management support the change initiative? Are they
actively involved in the change?
Miller & Monge, 1986)
(Eisenberger, Huntington,
Hutchinson & Sowa, 1986;
Eisenberger, Stinglhamber,
Vandenberghe, Sucharski &
Rhoades, 2002)
Goldsmith, 2005; Covin &
Kilmann, 1990)
Criterion variables
Emotional readiness for
change (Piderit, 2000; Oreg,
2006)
258
Emotional readiness for change is the affective reactions toward change.
Chapter 5
Cognitive readiness for
change (Piderit, 2000; Oreg,
2006)
Cognitive readiness for change is the beliefs and thoughts people hold about
the change. For example, what are the benefits or disadvantages caused by
the change?
Intentional readiness for
change (Piderit, 2000; Oreg,
Intentional readiness for change is the extent to which employees are
prepared to put their energy into the change process.
2006)
259
Chapter 6
CHAPTER 6: PUTTING THE PIECES TOGETHER
ABSTRACT. In this final chapter integration is made of the most
important findings and conclusions to be drawn from this dissertation. In
Table 6.1 an overview is presented of the studies that were conducted.
This Table incorporates following information: a short description of the
major content of each paper, the type of paper (empirical or conceptual),
and the contribution of each study within the field of change management
(OC) and organizational development (OD). In addition, for each of the
four empirical studies an overview is presented of the data collection
method, the statistical methods used to analyze the data, and the most
important findings. The content of this Table functions as a general
structure along which following topics are fleshed out: (1) an attempt to
answer the central research question ‘What’s crucial in shaping people’s
attitudes toward change?’ (chapters 2, 3, 4 and 5); (2) an assessment of
the quality of the newly developed questionnaire that measures climate of
change (chapter 5); (3) an evaluation of the used methodology; (4) a
discussion of the limitations, challenges, and suggestions for future
research; and to conclude (5) an overview of the major implications and
learning points.
261
Chapter 6
6.1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
In the first part of this chapter (see section 6.2) we attempt to
answer the question ‘What is crucial in shaping people’s attitudes toward
change?’ by summarizing the major findings of the empirical studies
performed in this dissertation. These inquiries highlight how different
factors that relate to the context of change, the process of change, the
content of change, and in limited respect individual attributes influence
readiness for change and openness to change. In particular attention is
given to the effects of context and process factors. These factors are also
key elements of the climate of change (psychological and organizational
change climate) (Burnes & James, 1995; Jones, Jimmieson, & Griffiths,
2005; Tierney, 1999). We focused on the process and context
characteristics of change because these are the factors where
management has most latitude to exercise influence on. The content of
change and the personality characteristics of the change recipients are far
more difficult to control and adjust. Apart from the synthesis of what
actually matters in shaping employees’ attitudes toward change, we also
address the value-added by this inquiry. In that respect we point to the
importance of multilevel research in change management (Hitt, Beamish,
Jackson, & Mathieu, 2007; Pettigrew, Woodman, & Cameron, 2001), the
adherence of a positive psychology view (Cameron, 2008), and a
multifaceted conceptualization of readiness for change (Piderit, 2000).
In part two (see section 6.3) we discuss the second objective of this
dissertation that is the development of a questionnaire that measures an
organization’s change climate. First we elaborate on the contributions of
this instrument to the field of OC and OD. In addition, this instrument is
evaluated in terms of psychometric qualities (content validity, construct
validity, and criterion related validity). Subsequent to the psychometric
evaluation we positioned our instrument against existing ones. In particular
we highlight how the CCQ differs from the questionnaire developed by
Holt, Armenakis, Harris and Feild (2007).
262
Chapter 6
Part three (see section 6.4) deals with the used methodology. First
we describe the main streams of research in social sciences. Two
philosophical views (i.e. postpositivsm and social constructivism) on what
knowledge is and how knowledge is created are discussed (Creswell,
2003; Gephart, 2004). Subsequently, both streams of research are
explained in relation to the choices made about research methodology.
From Table 6.1 it is clear that the dominant approach in this chapter is
postpositivism. We also indicate why this approach was the most
appropriate one in answering our central research questions.
Part four (see section 6.5) involves a critical view of the dissertation
in terms of the limitations inherent to used methodology and theory. Not
only do we elaborate on these constraints, we take on a more nuanced
position with respect to several of these limitations.
In the final part of this chapter (see section 6.6) we highlight the
practical implications that ensue from this research project. What can
management learn from this inquiry? In other words in this part we
address the so what question. In addition, based on our findings a model
is suggested on which management can fall back to run change projects
more smoothly.
263
Chapter 6
TABLE 6.1: Synthesis chapters: Short content, type of paper, value-added, research design and major findings
Title
Chapter 1: Defining and positioning
change recipients’ attitudes toward
change in the OC literature
CP/EPa
CP
Content of chapter:
- Positioning attitudes toward change in the
OC literature along following four
perspectives: (a) nature of change; (b) level
of change; (c) view on human functioning;
(d) research method
Value-added
a) Insight into how attitude
related concepts like readiness
for change, resistance toward
change, cynicism about
organizational change, openness
toward organizational change,
etc. overlap or differ in several
respects
a) research design
b) level of analysis
c) method of
analysis
___
In case of an empirical paper
d) DV
Findings in terms of antecedents
e) IV
of readiness for change or
openness to change
___
___
b) Bringing order and clarity in
the conceptual maze that
currently characterizes research
into people’s attitudes toward
change
- Review of concepts that refer to attitudes
toward change (e.g., readiness for change,
resistance to change, cynicism about
organizational change, …)
- Facet analysis along following 10
dimensions:
a) type of paper; b) view on human
functioning; (c) core psychological
mechanism; (d) conceptual level; (e)
dimensionality of construct; (f) type of
change; (g) measurement focus; (h)
measurement type; (i) measurement
perspective; (j) level of analysis
Chapter 2: Psychological change climate
as a crucial catalyst of readiness for
change
264
EP
a) Positive psychology view on
human functioning in times of
change (readiness for change
instead of resistance to change)
a) survey
b) individual
d) Readiness for
change as a multifacetted concept
(emotional, cognitive
1. Results SEM
a) Context – outcomes
- history of change – cognitive
readiness for change (γ = .63)
Chapter 6
Content of chapter:
Structural equation model in which the
authors examined the influence of
psychological change climate (measured in
terms of context and process factors of
change) on emotional, cognitive and
intentional readiness for change.
b) Data collected in multiple
organizational contexts (distinct
companies within different
sectors)
c) Combination of context and
process factors as enablers of
readiness for change
d) Multi-facetted
conceptualization of readiness
for change (emotional, intentional
and cognitive readiness for
change)
c) structural
equation modelling
and dominance
analysis
and intentional)
e) Context:
- history of change
- participatory
management
- trust in top
management
Process:
- quality of change
communication
Control variables
(dominance
analysis):
- sector
- job position
- history of change – emotional
readiness for change (γ = .23)
b) Process – outcomes
- quality of change
communication – cognitive
readiness for change (γ = .12)
- quality of change
communication – emotional
readiness for change (γ = .23)
c) Context – trust in top
management
- history of change – trust (γ =
.64)
- participatory management –
trust (γ = .42)
d) Process – trust in top
management
- quality of change
communication – trust (γ = .34)
e) Outcomes
- emotional readiness for change
– cognitive readiness for change
(γ = .30)
- emotional readiness for change
– intentional readiness for
change (γ = .53)
2. Results dominance analysis
a) Total R2 explained by control
variables (set A), context (set B)
and process (set C) in cognitive
readiness for change (42%), in
265
Chapter 6
emotional readiness for change
(27%) and intentional readiness
for change (13%).
Chapter 3: Ready or not…? What’s the
relevance of a meso level approach to the
study of readiness for change
Content of chapter:
The authors adopted a multilevel approach
by testing a contextual-effects-model of
readiness for change.
EP
a) Positive psychology view on
human functioning in times of
change (readiness for change
instead of resistance to change)
b) Data collected in multiple
organizational contexts (distinct
companies within different
sectors)
c) Multi-facetted
conceptualization of readiness
for change (emotional, intentional
and cognitive readiness for
change)
d) Multilevel approach or meso
level approach
a) survey
b) meso level
(individual and
organizational)
c) HLM analysis
d) Readiness for
change as a multifacetted concept
(emotional, cognitive
and intentional)
e) Level 1 (individual
level)
Context:
- history of change
- participatory
management
- trust in top
management
Process:
- quality of change
communication
Level 2
(organization level)
Context:
- history of change
266
b) Relative percentage of
variance explained in cognitive
readiness for change by set A
(7.5%), set B (63.5%) and set C
(29%); in intentional readiness
for change by set A (21%), set B
(30%), and set C (49%); and in
emotional readiness for change
by set A (15%), set B (30%) and
set C (55%).
1. Cognitive readiness for
change as outcome
a) level-1 findings
- trust in top management (β01 =
.09)
- history of change (β02 = .42)
- participatory management (β03
= .16)
- quality of change
communication (β04 = .13)
b) level-2 findings (group effects)
- history of change (γ02 = .26)
- quality of change
communication (γ04 = .50)
2. Emotional readiness for
change as outcome
a) level-1 findings
- history of change (β02 = .25)
- participatory management (β03
= .06)
Chapter 6
- participatory
management
- trust in top
management
Process:
- quality of change
communication
- quality of change
communication (β04 = .31)
b) level-2 findings (group effects)
- quality of change
communication (γ04 = .72)
3. Intentional readiness for
change as outcome
a) level-1 findings
- history of change (β02 = .10)
- participatory management (β03
= .13)
- quality of change
communication (β04 = .11)
Chapter 4: Contribution of content,
context, and process to understanding
openness to organizational change: Two
experimental simulation studies
Content of chapter:
The authors conducted two experimental
simulation studies in which the simultaneous
contribution of content, context, process and
individual factors of organizational
transformation to employees’ openness to
change was tested.
STUDY 1 involved a 2X2X2X2 factorial
design (1 content factor, 2 context factors,
and one process factor)
EP
a) Positive psychology view on
human functioning in times of
change (openness to change)
b) Stronger causality test
(experimental design)
c) Combination of content,
context and process factors of
change as enablers of openness
to change
a) experimental
design
b) individual
c) ANCOVA
d) Openness to
change (study 1 and
study 2)
e) STUDY 1:
Content:
- threatening
character of
organizational
change
Context:
- trust in executive
management
- trust in supervisor
Process:
- participation in
change process
b) level-2 findings (group effects)
- quality of change
communication (γ04 = .45)
STUDY 1
1. Main effects
a) content
- threatening character of
organizational change, F(1, 799)
= 18.31, p < .001
b) context
- trust in executive management
F(1, 799) = 21.91, p < .001
- trust in direct supervisor F(1,
799) = 24.42, p < .001
c) process
- participation in change process
F(1, 799) = 27.35, p < .001
267
Chapter 6
STUDY 2 involved a 2X2 factorial design (2
context factors)
Control variables:
- locus of control
- gender
- age
- seniority
- educational level
- hierarchical level
STUDY 2:
Context:
- history of
change/trust in
executive
management
Control variables:
(same as in study 1)
Chapter 5: The Change Climate
Questionnaire: Development of a new
instrument
Content of chapter:
Scale development of change climate.
Change climate here refers to employees’
perceptions of the conditions under which
change occurs (i.e., context), perceptions of
how specific change projects are dealt with
268
EP
a) The authors followed a stepby-step procedure suggested by
Hinkin (1998) for scale
development
b) There are very few wellvalidated measures that assess
simultaneously the context,
process characteristics of
change, and readiness for
a) survey (study 3 in
paper)
b) individual
c) OLS regression
STUDY 3:
d) Readiness for
change as a multifacetted concept
(emotional, cognitive
and intentional)
e) Context:
- trust in leadership
- participatory
d) covariates
- locus of control F(1, 799) =
4.44, p < .05
- hierarchical level F(1, 799) =
15.11, p < .001
STUDY2
1. Main effects
a) Context
- trust in executive management
F(1, 818) = 11.82, p <.001
- history of change F(1, 818) =
15.27, p < .001
b) Covariates
- locus of control F(1, 818) =
4.12, p < .01
- educational level F(1, 818) =
7.34, p < .01
- hierarchical level F(1, 818) =
7.26, p < .01
2. Interaction effects
- trust in executive management
x history of change F(1, 818) =
4.92, p < .05
1. Cognitive readiness for
change as outcome
a) context
- trust in leadership (β = .19)
- politicking (β = -.18)
b) process
- ability of management to lead
change (β = .24)
Chapter 6
(i.e. process factors of change), and the
belief that change is necessary (i.e.,
readiness for change).
This chapter incorporates four studies. Study
1 was designed to examine the content
validity of the items developed. Study 2
involved a first test of the factor structure
and the construct validity of the items
developed. Study 3 examined whether the
scales that emerged from study 2 could be
replicated in a different sample.
Simultaneously, the scales were evaluated
for convergent validity, discriminant validity,
known-groups validity, and shared group
variance. Finally, study 4 was a first step
toward the development of an English
version of the original Dutch CCQ.
change
c) Measurement at individual
level but scales can be treated at
a higher level (team, department
organization: shared variance
validity)
d) Modules referring to the
context, the process and
readiness for change can be
measured separately without
jeopardizing the validity of the
scales (both time and cost saving
for practitioners)
e) Relatively short length of CCQ
(42 items)
f) Scales can be administered to
those in charge of the change or
those undergoing it. Gap
analysis.
management
- history of change
- general support by
supervision
- cohesion
- politicking
Process:
- involvement in
change process
- attitude of top
management toward
change
- ability of
management to lead
change
Control variables:
- sector
- job position
c) control variables
- job position (β = -.10)
2. Emotional readiness for
change as outcome
a) context
- participatory management (β =
.08)
b) process
- involvement (β = .29)
- ability of management to lead
change (β = .18)
- attitude of top management
toward change (β = .10)
c) control variables
- sector (β = -.11)
- job position (β = -.07)
3. Intentional readiness for
change as outcome
a) context
- participatory management (β =
.12)
b) process
- involvement (β = .09)
- attitude of top management
toward change (β = .25)
Note: aCP = conceptual paper/ EP = Empirical paper
c) control variables
- sector (β = -.09)
- job position (β = -.07)
269
Chapter 6
6.2 What is crucial in developing a positive attitude toward
change? Major findings and contributions to the field of
ODC
Before we discuss how the results from chapters 2, 3, 4 and 5
cohere, the first sections deal with a recapitulation of our vision on change
and the conceptual framework that was used to answer our central
research question. By positioning our program of research in the broader
field of change literature we are better able to understand the major
findings and identify the contributions of this inquiry.
Planned Change Perspective as the Dominant Theme of This
Dissertation
The leitmotiv throughout our inquiry is planned change also
sometimes referred to as purposive change (Bower, 2000; Weick & Quinn,
1999; Ten Have, 2003). Planned or purposive change involves change
construed as both goal-directed and intentional. The term goaldirectedness implies that change occurs according to the traditional
rational Weberian perspective (Weber, 1947, Touraine, 1965). This
rational, goal-directed perspective suggests that change should be carried
out in a balanced and consistent way. The limited longitudinal research
conducted to date has revealed that organizations following such a
consistent and balanced approach are often the most successful at
enacting change (Ten Have, 2003; Ten Have & Ten Have, 2004; p.8). The
term intentional change refers to the fact that those involved in the change
process aspire to realize a goal often involving the acceptance and
institutionalization of change. Therefore both the attitudes and aspirations
of change recipients constitute crucial precursors for the subsequent
phases of change. In short, the planned or purposive change perspective
describes change as a balanced, consistent and phased process.
This sequential approach also emerges as central in the works of
management gurus (Ghoshall & Bartlett, 1997; Kotter, 1990; 1996). In
270
Chapter 6
many theories and change process models (Armenakis, Harris, & Feild,
1999; Galpin, 1996; Lewin, 1951; Mento, Jones,& Dirndorfer, 2002;
Schein, 1996) three phases appear: (1) unfreezing, (2) moving and (3)
refreezing. Lewin’s (1951) stage-based model of change first advanced
the notion that a successful change strategy follows an unfreezing, moving
and refreezing process. Although Lewin did not introduce the term
readiness for change, the phrase unfreezing strongly reflects the concept
of readiness for change (Armenakis et al., 1999). In an organizational
setting ‘unfreezing’ confronts employees with the twofold recognition of
where they are and where they need to be. Schein (1996) applied the term
unfreezing to the stage of creating motivation and readiness for change.
Many other OC models like Galpin’s nine-phase approach (1996), and
Kotter’s eight-step approach (1996) demonstrated the idea of readiness
for change labeled as either establishing the need for change or
establishing a sense of urgency. The second step in Lewin’s model,
moving, represents progressing toward a new or targeted behavior,
consistent with the cognitive aspects of this phase highlighted by Schein
(1996). Organizational or group members must develop a new way of
seeing and then apply it to their actions. Armenakis et al. (1999) called this
phase the adoption phase, described as behaving in a new way on a trial
basis. The final stage, refreezing, represents the process of stabilizing the
change and incorporating it into the daily functioning in the organization
(Lewin, 1951; Beer, 1976). Others named this phase ‘institutionalization’
as reflected in the degree of commitment to a post-change state of the
system (Armenakis et al., 1999).
Despite the accessibility of various models and theories describing
the distinct stages of the change process, Van Witteloostuijn noted that
many companies run after the latest fad instead of adopting a wellconsidered, consistent and goal-oriented way of thinking about change
(Ten Have & Ten Have, 2004, p. 11). The lack of a consistent and planned
approach in many change projects surfaces as one of the major reasons
why change initiatives fail. The reason for this failure often occurs at the
271
Chapter 6
beginning of the change process, when people tend to overlook the
importance of the unfreezing phase as evidence of readiness for change.
Therefore in this inquiry we devoted special attention to analyzing and
diagnosing the change context or climate of change in indication of the
organization’s state of readiness. One of our central objectives thus
became to study how employees can be made more receptive to change
and how their attitudes toward change can be adjusted. Before
summarizing the findings of chapters 2 through 5, we briefly revisit the
conceptual framework used to examine the enablers of attitudes toward
change (i.e., readiness for change and openness to change).
Conceptual Framework
This research seeks to clarify the role and impact of the
antecedents of readiness for change. In formulating our conceptual
framework we considered the need for both parsimony and completeness
(Whetten, 1989). Pettigrew argued that our subject matter change is a
complex cocktail of rational decisions, intermixed with competing individual
perceptions, stimulated by visionary leadership, spiced with power plays
and attempts to recruit support and build coalitions behind particular ideas.
In other words, many factors outside and inside the change recipient
influence the nature and outcomes of change (Pettigrew, 1987). In the OC
literature attempts have been made to classify these factors into more
general categories or research themes (Armenakis & Bedeain, 1999;
Burke, 2002; Kezar, 2001).
We identify four themes or categories in the framework of the
dissertation. These are the context of change, the process of change, the
content of change and the individual attributes of change recipients
(Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999; Holt et al., 2007). The context of change
refers to more stable conditions under which change in generally occurs. It
incorporates internal context factors such as organizational climate. The
content of change deals with what change is about (i.e., substance of
272
Chapter 6
change). The process of change describes how change is implemented
and therefore is transient in nature. Finally the individual attributes concern
the characteristics of those being asked to change. We especially
emphasized the effect of change climate on readiness for change. In
particular chapters 2, 3 and 5 focused on the context and process
characteristics of change climate as drivers of people’s readiness for
change. This focus on these characteristics over the content and individual
attributes characteristics originates in our planned change perspective and
in organizational development and change practices emphasizing the
context and processes under which employees operate. The essential
assumption is that change agents can better control the context and
process of change than the content of change or the individual attributes
of change recipients. In other words, a better understanding of how
alterations in these characteristics result in changed employee attitudes in
the form of readiness for change will increase our understanding of how
more effectively to manage organizational change. Figure 6.1 displays an
overview of the dissertation and shows the antecedents of change
broached in each chapter.
273
Chapter 6
FIGURE 6.1: Overview general framework of dissertation
CONTEXT
PROCESS
Chapter 2
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Readiness for change
Chapters 2, 3 and 5
Chapter 5
Openness to change *
Chapter 4
CONTENT
INDIVIDUAL ATTRIBUTES
Chapter 4
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
* Openness to change is a preliminary measure of readiness for change and was
used as a starting point to develop our measure of readiness for change
6.2.1 Major Findings
In this section we offer an overview of the major findings across the
four empirical studies reported in this dissertation. In doing so we tackle
the key question What factors are crucial in shaping people’s attitudes
toward change? Figure 6.2 displays all significant effects noted in the
studies in chapters 2, 3, 4 and 5. This dissertation highlights the attitude
readiness for change. Readiness for change reflects beliefs and intentions
regarding the extent to which changes are needed and perceptions of
individual and organizational capacity to successfully enact those changes
(Armenakis, Harris, & Mossholder, 1993). Openness to change, a concept
closely related to readiness for change is used in chapter 4 as a tentative
measure of readiness for change and includes only items that have a
274
Chapter 6
cognitive or emotional component. Basically openness to change is
conceived as a less refined measure of readiness for change.
275
Chapter 6
FIGURE 6.2: Synthesis of major findings in dissertation
Psychological change cl. (process)
Trust in top management (chapters 2, 3)
Trust in executive management (chapter 4)
Content
Job threatening character of organizational
change (chapter 4)
Trust in leadership (chapter 5)
Participatory management (chapters 2, 3, 5)
Involvement in change process (chapter 5)
Quality of change communication (ch. 2, 3)
Trust in supervisor (chapter 4)
History of change (chapters 2, 3, 4)
Participation in change process (chapter 4)
Ability of management to lead change (chapter 5)
Attitudes toward change
Attitude of management toward change (chapter 5)
Intentional readiness for change
(irfc) (chapters. 2, 3, 5)
Politicking (chapter 5)
Cognitive readiness for change
(crfc) (chapters 2, 3, 5)
Organizational change cl. (context and
process)
Emotional readiness for change
(emrfc) (chapters 2, 3, 5)
276
Locus of control (chapter 4)
Job position, hierarchical level (chapters 2, 4, 5)
Organizational history of change (chapter 3)
Organizational quality of change communication
(chapter 3)
Individual attributes
Openness to change – a preliminary
measure of rfc (chapter 4)
Chapter 6
6.2.3.1 Openness to Change as Outcome
Openness to change as investigated in the studies of chapter 4 is a
first measurement of readiness for change that was used for the
development of our readiness for change scales in chapters 2, 3 and 5.
The findings regarding the effect of the psychological change climate
context factor history of change on openness to change are in alignment
with the findings observed for readiness for change as outcome (see
6.2.3.2). In other words, a highly successful history of change was related
to higher levels of openness to change.
This inquiry also examined the separate effects of trust in executive
management and trust in supervisor and found positive effects. Here trust
in executive management refers to the perceived trust employees have in
the upper echelons of the organization or top management. In chapters 2
and 3 a scale was developed that measures trust in top management.
Trust in supervision differs from trust in executive management in that the
former construct refers to the lower level management of the company or
the immediate supervisors of employees on the work floor. Although not
included as an antecedent of openness to change but closely related to
trust in supervisor, trust in executive management or top management is
trust in leadership which covers both trust in higher level (executive or top
management) and lower level management (supervisors) (see chapter 5).
In the second study of chapter 4 a significant interaction effect was
noted between the context factors trust in executive management and
history of change. Under the condition of low trust, differences in history of
change led to significant differences in openness to change. Under high
trust, however, this difference remained nonsignificant. Conversely, under
the condition of low success in history of change, differences in executive
management led to highly significant differences in openness to change,
whereas these differences were nonsignificant in the condition of high
success of history of change. A strong negative effect on openness to
277
Chapter 6
change was noted under the condition of low trust and poor history of
change.
Besides these context factor effects the process factor participation
in the change process, a variable strongly related to involvement in the
change process (chapter 5), had a positive and significant effect on
openness to change. In addition to the studies discussed in chapters 2, 3
and 5, the studies involved in chapter 4 also examined the influence of
content. It was found that organizational changes that have a job
threatening character in the organization will lead to lower levels of
openness to change in the workplace than will organizational changes that
do not bring about such changes. This finding is a nice complement to the
studies performed in chapters 2, 3 and 5. In those studies the content of
change was controlled for in the sampling phase by only focusing on
change that was aimed at the professional development and growth of the
organization. It never involved major restructurings nor strategic changes
that resulted into redundancies. So the job threatening character in these
studies was kept under control.
Finally, also relevant to mention is that in both studies of chapter 4
locus of control was entered as a covariate. The findings indicated that
people with a higher internal locus of control were more open to change
than those with a lower internal locus of control.
6.2.3.2. Readiness for Change as Outcome
To explain which context and process characteristics contribute to
our understanding of how readiness for change develops, we combined
the findings of chapters 2, 3 and 5. From these chapters we learned that of
all psychological change climate variables, the context factor history of
change and the process factor quality of change communication exhibited
the most consistent effects across the studies performed. The multilevel
study in chapter 3 indicated that a history of change positively perceived
by the change recipients was positively related to the emotional, cognitive
and intentional readiness for change. The study conducted in chapter 2
278
Chapter 6
essentially corroborated these findings, although that study uncovered no
significant direct relationship between history of change and intentional
readiness for change. Rather, emotional readiness mediated the
relationship between history of change and intentional readiness for
change. Moreover in that same study we performed a dominance analysis
to assess the percentage of variance explained by context and process
characteristics in readiness for change. On the basis of this analysis we
concluded that history of change more strongly predicts cognitive
readiness for change than emotional or intentional readiness for change.
In chapter 3 we also found that the quality of change communication
positively affected the three facets of readiness for change. As was the
case for the context factor history of change, the quality of change
communication had positive relationships with cognitive and emotional
readiness for change. Emotional readiness for change mediated the
relationship between quality of change communication and intentional
readiness for change. Finally, the dominance analysis showed that the
quality of change communication most strongly influenced emotional
readiness for change. In addition, the process characteristic involvement
to change turned out to be positively related to emotional and intentional
readiness for change (chapter 5).
Also important to note is that the aggregate measure (i.e.,
organizational
level)
of
the
process
variable
quality
of
change
communication had positive relationships with emotional, cognitive and
intentional readiness for change, whereas the aggregate measure (i.e.
organizational level) of the context factor history of change was positively
related only to cognitive readiness for change (chapter 3).
The effects of the strongly linked psychological change climate
context characteristics trust in leadership (see chapter 5) and trust in top
management (see chapter 2 and 3) were partly confirmed. Although it was
hypothesized (chapter 2) that trust in top management would mediate the
relationship between readiness for change and the three antecedents
279
Chapter 6
history of change, participatory management, and quality of change
communication, no supporting evidence was found. In chapter 2, no
significant relationships were noted between trust in top management and
the three facets of readiness for change. In the multilevel study of
readiness for change trust in top management had a positive significant
relationship with cognitive readiness for change. Finally, the overlapping
construct trust in leadership (chapter 5) had also a positive significant
influence on cognitive readiness for change. Another interesting
observation from chapter 5 was the significant negative relationship found
between the context factor politicking and cognitive readiness for change.
In other words, when people believe that political games are important to
get things done in the organization they are more likely to demonstrate
decreased levels of cognitive readiness for change.
Another psychological change climate context factor that deserves
our attention is participatory management. Participatory management here
does not refer to participation in a specific change project (i.e. process
factor) but the involvement of employees in salient decision making.
Findings with respect to this context factor are not consistent throughout
chapters 2 and 3. Whereas in chapter 2 no direct effects were noted
between participatory management and the three facets of readiness for
change, three significant and positive relationships were observed in the
multilevel study of chapter 3. Then again in chapter 5 only positive
relationships were noted for emotional and intentional readiness for
change.
Finally, important to note is that two process factors in chapter 5
that is ability of management to lead change and attitude of top
management toward change have interesting relationships with the three
facets of readiness for change. The higher the perceived ability of
management to lead change the more likely employees are to report
higher cognitive and emotional readiness for change. With regard to
attitude
280
of
top
management
toward
change
positive
significant
Chapter 6
relationships were observed with emotional and intentional readiness for
change.
Apart from these context and process characteristics of change the
studies performed in chapters 2 and 5 controlled for effects associated
with job position and job sector. More specifically, it was found that people
holding a managerial job position had a more positive attitude toward
change in terms of cognitive, emotional and intentional readiness for
change than those in a non-managerial job position. In addition,
employees from the profit sector outscored their colleagues from the nonprofit sector in terms of emotional and intentional readiness for change.
6.2.4 Contributions
Our program of research involves three major contributions to
organizational change literature. The first two contributions are in
alignment with the recent streams in management and organizational
behavior literature. First, in management we are moving away from
studying organizational phenomena as single level entities in favour of
more complex conceptualizations that are manifested at multiple levels
(Hitt et al., 2007; Pettigrew, Woodman, & Cameron, 2001). For example in
chapter 3 we looked at how shared perceptions of context and process
characteristics of change add significant insight into the prediction of
individual readiness for change. Second, there is a recent stream in
psychology (i.e., positive psychology) that is quickly gaining ground in
management literature. The positive psychology perspective takes on a
proactive approach and is interested in stimulating the strengths of human
functioning rather than adopting a reactive attitude by focusing on reasons
for malfunctioning and overcoming weaknesses (Cameron, 2008; Luthans,
2002; Seligman & Cskiszentmihalyi, 2000). Therefore in alignment with
this stream of research this dissertation focused on the positive side of
attitudes toward change (i.e., readiness for change and openness for
change). Finally, the third contribution addresses the call by Piderit (2000)
281
Chapter 6
and Oreg (2006) to conceive readiness for change as a multifaceted
concept (chapters 2, 3 and 5). In the next sections we discuss each
contribution.
6.2.4.1 The Meso-Level or Multi-Level Paradigm
Situation of Multilevel Research in General Management and
Change Management. Although management research has for long
recognized and developed theories that recognize the complexity and
multilevel character of organizational phenomena (e.g., House, Rousseau,
& Thomas-Hunt, 1995), very few management studies actually accounted
for multilevel dynamics (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). On the contrary, the
field of management scholarship has become bifurcated into two fields:
micro or macro level research. For the field to continue to advance it has
been noted that there is a need to expand the number of empirical studies
that encompasses multiple levels of analysis (House et al., 1995).
Since the theoretical and analytical advances in multilevel research,
it is apparent that multilevel thinking has been increasing in importance
among management scholars in general. A review of articles published in
the Academy of Management Journal during a recent twelve month period
(August 2006 – July 2007) revealed that approximately 25 per cent of the
studies adopted some type of multilevel perspective. By comparison many
more papers published in Academy of Management Review, with
approximately 50 per cent of the articles described multilevel phenomena
(Hitt et al., 2007). This trend to consider multiple levels of analysis was
also recommended by Pettigrew et al. (2001). According to these authors
an important issue to be discussed in change research is the number of
levels of analysis to be included in the treatment of the change context.
Whatever the number of levels or the combination of levels of context
brought into an analysis may be one of the potential payoffs from this
analytical ambition lies in the kinds of new questions about change that
can be posed and answered.
282
Chapter 6
Recognizing the importance of this meso- or multilevel paradigm for
the further advancement in the field of change research has influenced our
thinking about the construct of readiness. Like many other organizational
phenomena we believe that readiness is a multilevel construct that comes
from the hierarchical nature of organizations themselves. That is,
individuals
are
embedded
in
work
groups,
work
groups
within
organizations, organizations within industry groups, and so on (Hitt et al.,
2007). In other words, this inquiry assumed that people’s individual
perception of change is not only a function of individual differences but is
also shaped through the groups and the context in which they operate. In
fact readiness for change is described as a socially constructed
phenomenon
(Ford,
Ford,
&
D’Amelio,
2008)
being
formed
by
psychological and organizational change climate characteristics (see
chapters 2 and 3).
6.2.4.2 Advantages of Multilevel Techniques in the Case of Hierarchically
Nested Data
In chapter 3 of this dissertation ‘hierarchical linear models (HLM)’
were used to test the contextual effects of change climate on individual
readiness for change. This type of multilevel modeling provides a
conceptual and statistical mechanism for investigating and drawing
conclusions regarding relationships that cross levels of analysis. These
hierarchical linear models have several advantages over regular OLS
regression to analyze multilevel or hierarchically nested data. Performing
OLS regression in the case of such data leads to a violation of several
statistical assumptions which is not the case when HLM is used. Three
violations of statistical assumptions that may result in biased findings are
violations against: (1) independence of random error terms; (2) constant
variance of random error terms; (3) normal distribution of random error
terms (Hoffman, Griffin, & Gavin, 2000).
283
Chapter 6
6.2.4.3 Why Not Measuring Organizational, Team and Individual
Readiness for Change?
Because a multilevel perspective was adopted one could ask why it
was not reasonable to measure organizational readiness as well instead of
individual readiness for change alone. Indeed literature distinguishes
between individual and organizational readiness for change (Armenakis et
al., 1993; Backer, 1995). Although these are crucial elements for
accomplishing successful change it is assumed that organizational change
starts with change in people their mindsets. Therefore we believe that all
organizational change in the first place will depend on the individual
readiness among change recipients (George & Jones, 2001). The crucial
point made is that if individual readiness among employees is low, there
can be no sustained organizational change (Schneider, Brief, & Guzzo,
1996). In other words, organizational readiness will depend on the
individual readiness of employees within organizations. Since our main
goal was to uncover the factors that direct and motivate employee’s
readiness (individual level) we limited our focus at this level. Now that we
have furthered the knowledge into how individual readiness for change is
shaped by psychological and organizational change climate, the next
logical step will be an examination of the mechanisms and dynamics that
underlie the transformation of individual readiness into team and
organizational readiness. That of course can be an interesting avenue for
future research.
6.2.4.4. A Positive Organizational Change Approach.
The Negative Change Agent-Centric View on Attitudes Toward
Change. The constant cycle of change after change is considered to be
one of the major causes why people resist or exhibit negative reactions
toward change. It seems like the mere mention of the word change alone
is enough for some to dig in their heels, erect walls and begin the process
of killing the change before it begins. In other words resistance to change
seems like an objective reality, a natural reflex when change is introduced
284
Chapter 6
(Ford et al., 2008). This idea that change recipients automatically resist
change has grown out of a change agent-centric view (Dent & Goldberg,
1999; Ford et al., 2008; King & Anderson, 1995). This view presumes that
resistance is an accurate report by unbiased observers (i.e., change
agents) of an objective reality (i.e., resistance by change recipients).
However, several authors suggested that resistance is not ‘an objective
detrimental reality residing in the change recipients’, but a self-serving or
self-fulfilling interpretation assigned by change agents to the behaviors
and communications of change recipients (Ford et al., 2008). In other
words, resistance to change is a social construction by change agents
driven by self-serving and self-fulfilling intentions.
From our conceptual paper (i.e., chapter 1) we learned that
research into people’s attitudes toward change has been dominated by
this negative change agent-centric view on change with a focus on
overcoming resistance. Several voices, however, have been raised that
people do not resist change per se but the outcomes of change, and in
particular the fear of the unknown and the uncertainty that accompanies
change (Dent & Goldberg, 1999; Jansen, 2000). While much attention has
been devoted to this study of resistance, the role that positive attitudes
may play in positive organizational change has been largely ignored
(Avey, Wernsing, & Luthans, 2008; Cameron, 2008). Although the
importance of positive constructs has been recognized from the beginning
of organizational behavior research (Cameron, Dutton, & Quinn, 2003;
Luthans, 2002) and the study of organization development and change
(Abrahamson, 2004; Avey et al., 2008 Cameron, 2008; Gittell, 2008), only
recently has the positive approach received focused attention as is found
in a special issue of the Journal of Applied Behavioral Science (2008).
The Origin of the Positive Change Focus. Our focus on positive
attitudes (i.e., readiness for change and openness to change), has grown
out of the emerging field of positive organizational scholarship (Cameron
et al., 2003). The term positive here refers to an emphasis on strengths,
285
Chapter 6
capabilities,
and
possibilities
rather
than
problems,
threats,
and
weaknesses. So, the emphasis here is on positive energy, positive
climate, positive relationships, positive communication, and positive
meaning in organizations (Cameron, 2008). This whole positive change
approach is rooted in the heliotropism philosophy. Heliotropism is the
tendency in all living systems towards positive energy and away from
negative energy – or towards that which is life giving and away from that
which is life depleting (D’Amato & Jagoda, 1962; Mrosovsky & Kingsmill,
1985). A positive environment according to this viewpoint, is the preferred
condition because it provides positive energy. Following this logic, human
systems, like biological systems in nature, possess inherent inclinations
toward the positive and thus toward positive change (Aristotle, n.d.). In
consequence reinforcing a positive attitude toward change and developing
a climate conducive toward change would be a normal prescription for
unleashing positive change. This also explains why we directed our focus
on readiness for change and openness to change.
6.2.4.5 Readiness for Change a Multifaceted Concept: Cognitive,
Emotional and Intentional Components of Readiness for Change
People’s Response Toward Change: Not Only a Matter of
Cognition. According to Duck (1993) and Smollan (2006) organizations
that introduce change need to gain the hearts and minds of their members
if change is to be successful. Research into organizational change,
however, has been criticized for omitting the affective domain and
emphasizing on the cognitive and behavioral aspects (Mossholder et al.,
2000). To put it differently the way people react toward change is not
purely the result of thinking and cognitions but also emerges from how
people feel. For instance, the comfort or discomfort people feel related to a
certain change can trigger different behavioral manifestations ranging from
active support to opposing behavior.
Building further on the model of the individual change process
suggested by George and Jones (2001) we distinguished three
286
Chapter 6
manifestations of change: a cognitive component, an affective component
and an intentional component. This model suggests that people’s
sensemaking of the change process and resulting intention or behavior
starts with a cognitive process. People use cognitive schemas to process
the change related information in terms of possible losses and benefits.
Furthermore this cognitive processing helps them to make sense of what
the change is about. Secondly, the model does not suppose that emotion
is merely a by-product of change. No just like cognition it is conceived as
an initial trigger for change. To put it differently, this model adds value to
the existing theory on organizational change by augmenting the focus on
affect and emotion. The affective or emotional reaction to change has both
a signaling and motivational function. Hence, emotional reactions play a
central role in the change process. The emotional reaction to change
signals that there is a need for immediate attention and puts people in a
state of preparedness to deal with the change and mobilizes the cognitive
processing and behavior. This model in which emotions motivate
cognitions and intentions to deal with emotional triggering events like
change (Frijda, 1994) is corroborated by our findings in chapter 2. In that
study we found that emotional readiness for change was an enabler of
both cognitive and intentional readiness for change. This model is also a
refinement of Lazarus’ model (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) in which is
suggested that the relationship between cognition and emotion is
bidirectional – emotion influences cognition, cognition elicits emotion.
Although our test is limited to draw conclusions about the directionality of
this relationship, we believe that the results allow us to conclude that
emotion alerts the change recipient to factors in the environment which are
potentially significant. For example, feelings of uncertainty may produce
thoughts that the change is unlikely to have a successful outcome.
Readiness for Change a Tridimensional Attitude: Theory of Planned
Behavior. This multifaceted view of readiness for change follows Piderit’s
(2000) suggestion to capture employees’ responses toward change along
287
Chapter 6
at least three dimensions: emotion, cognition and intention. People may
have positive feelings to support change (emotion) but a risk-benefit
analysis of the change outcome (cognition) may inhibit their intentions. So,
when studying people’s reactions toward change there is a need to
consider the affective, cognitive and intentional dimensions of readiness
for change, because the possibility of ambivalence in response (i.e., affect,
cognition, intention) to a particular change proposal might occur.
This tridimensional attitude is consonant with the ‘Theory of Planned
Behavior (TPB)’ (Ajzen, 1991), a broadly accepted theoretical framework
that allows to predict people’s behavior by means of their attitudes. The
TPB is designed to explain virtually any behavior, including supportive and
resistant behavior to change. A person’s intention to perform (or not to
perform) a behavior is viewed as the immediate determinant of the action
(Ajzen, 1991; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Intentions
are assumed to capture the motivational factors that influence a behavior;
they are indications of how hard people are willing to try, of how much of
an effort they are planning to exert, in order to perform the behavior. As a
general rule, the stronger the intention to engage in a behavior, the more
likely should be its performance. It should be clear that a behavioral
intention can find expression only if a behavior in question is under
volitional control, i.e. if the person can decide at will to perform or not
perform the behavior (Ajzen, 1991). The TPB postulates three
conceptually independent variables that can be used as determinants to
predict people’s intentions to support change. One of those components is
the attitude toward change. This component refers to feelings and
cognitions about the change outcome. People develop feelings and
cognitions about the benefits and losses associated with engaging or not
engaging in change. Favorable or positive evaluations of change
outcomes are more likely to increase people’s intentions to change than
negative unfavorable outcomes. A meta-analysis of 185 independent
studies published up to the end of 1997, has shown the efficacy of the
TPB in predicting people’s intentions and behavior (Armitage & Conner,
288
Chapter 6
2001). The TBP accounted for 27 per cent and 39 per cent of the variance
in behavior and intention. This model has demonstrated its validity to
predict behavior and people’s intentions, and therefore is a useful guiding
framework to conduct future research on people’s reactions toward
change.
To conclude, although our findings discussed earlier have shown
that emotional, cognitive and intentional readiness for change are
positively correlated, it is essential to treat these facets of readiness for
change separately because our observations indicated that they are
triggered differently (chapters 2, 3 and 5).
6.3 Evaluation of the Change Climate Questionnaire
The second part of this chapter mainly deals with the development
of the questionnaire described in chapter 5. The purpose of this section
was first to explain the value-added of the CCQ and an evaluation of the
instrument in terms of reliability and validity criteria suggested by the
American Psychological Association and the American Educational
Research Association. Furthermore, we discuss this new instrument in
relation to related instruments.
6.3.1 The Value-Added and Psychometric Quality of the CCQ
One of the major contributions of this dissertation is that we
addressed a shortage of valid, reliable and convenient instruments that
measure simultaneously the context, the process and outcome aspects of
readiness for change (Holt et al., 2007a). Although many consultants and
practitioners developed their own scales of readiness, this was often done
without
considering
the
necessary
scientific
guidelines
of
scale
development.
Contrary to the majority of instruments, the CCQ scores well in
terms of its psychometric properties (see below). Secondly, the tool can be
289
Chapter 6
administered not only among those in charge of the change (i.e., leaders
of change) but also those who are undergoing the change (i.e., change
recipients). In consequence the CCQ can be a very helpful tool to identify
gaps that may exist between management’s expectations about the
change effort, and those of other organizational members. Based upon
these gaps identified one can plan more efficiently the actions needed to
increase people’s readiness for change.
Also a value-added of this instrument is its relatively short length
compared to similar tools. In addition, practitioners can administer different
parts (context, process and readiness for change) of the instrument
separately. The context part consists of 18 items and five scales (general
support by supervision, participatory management, politicking, trust in
leadership and cohesion), the process part of 15 items and three scales
(involvement in the change process, ability of management to lead
change, attitude of top management toward change) and the readiness for
change part of nine items and three scales (emotional readiness for
change, cognitive readiness for change and intentional readiness for
change).
A final value-added by this instrument is that this tool is very
meaningful when it involves the administration of changes that demand
cooperation from the employees, where the power distance between
management and employees is small (i.e. professional organizations).
In sum, the development of a simple, reliable and valid measure is a
key issue to further advance the field of research into attitudes toward
organizational change. Following the scale development steps described
by Hinkin (1998) we evaluate the CCQ along the dimensions of (1) content
validity, (2) construct validity and (3) criterion-related validity. These three
types of validity are the most important types of validity according to the
American Psychological Association, The American Educational Research
Association, and the National Council on Measurements used in
Education.
290
Chapter 6
6.3.1.1 Content Validity
Content validation is guided by the question: Is the substance or the
content of this measure representative of the content or the universe of
content of the property being measured? Any property (i.e. a climate
conducive of change) has a theoretical universe of content consisting of all
the things that can possibly said or observed about the property. Content
validation is basically judgmental. The items of a scale must be weighed
for there presumed representativeness of the universe. This implies that
each CCQ item formulated was judged for its presumed relevance to the
property being measured. So, a panel of 10 judges was asked to classify
63 items into 10 dimensions of change climate. For each dimension a
definition was provided. On the basis of this procedure the percentage of
interrater agreement was calculated as an indication of content adequacy
(Chen, Gully, & Eden, 2001).
The content adequacy test allowed us to check whether the items
that were generated represent their underlying latent constructs. This
classification process in combination with the remarks of the expert panel,
suggested 12 dimensions instead of 10: (1) quality of change
communication (process, change specific), (2) participation in change
project (process, change specific), (3) attitude of top management toward
change project (process, change specific), (4) ability of change
management to lead a change project (process, change specific), (5)
participatory management (context, general), (6) politicking (context,
general), (7) cohesion (context, general), (8) general support by
supervision (context, general), (9) trust in leadership (context, general),
(10) cognitive readiness for change (outcome, general), (11) emotional
readiness for change (outcome, change specific), and (12) intentional
readiness for change (outcome, change specific).
6.3.1.2. Construct Validity
Construct validity is often considered as an overarching category of
validity. Here construct validity is described as the approximate truth of the
291
Chapter 6
conclusion that the operationalization accurately reflects its construct. It
concerns how well the measures employed fit the theories for which the
scale was designed. This implies that measures must be faithful
representations of constructs in order for valid inferences to be made
(Stone-Romero, 1994). In other words, the CCQ has to be related to
conceptually similar measures and unrelated to conceptually dissimilar
constructs. Techniques often referred to for testing construct validity
include confirmatory factor analysis (typically used to confirm the factors
underlying the latent construct), exploratory factor analysis, and reports of
discriminant and convergent validity based on correlational techniques.
Other areas related to construct validity are the amount of error in the
measurement of a construct (i.e. internal consistency), and shared
variance validity.
Item and Reliability Analysis. As suggested by Hinkin (1998) and
DeVellis (1991), we checked the 11 scales and the 42 items for variability
(standard deviation), and computed item-total correlations. Cronbach’s
alpha coefficient was used as a proxy for the internal consistency of the
scales. These analyses were performed in study 2 (chapter 5) for each set
of context, process and outcome factors. All items had standard deviations
of at least .5 on five-point Likert scales, suggesting adequate variability in
the items. Also the means of the item variances for the 11 scales was
acceptable with values ranging between .53 and 1.24. Following Hinkin’s
recommendations (1998) items with item-total correlations lower than .40
should be eliminated from a scale as they probably represent another
construct. All items included reached this required minimum level and
were therefore retained in further tests of construct validity (study 3 of
chapter 5). The Cronbach alpha coefficients for the 11 scales were good in
study 2 with values ranging between .68 and .89. Although .70 is the
recommended level of internal consistency (Nunally, 1978), it is suggested
that scales in construction are allowed to have a somewhat lower
Cronbach alpha coefficient. Also study 3 (of chapter 5) yielded adequate
292
Chapter 6
reliability estimates for our 11 scales with values ranging between .67 and
.87.
Factor Analysis. In chapter 5 we performed a two-stage factor
analysis to check the underlying factor structure of the three large
dimensions of change climate (context factors, process factors, and
outcome factors) (Gerbing & Hamilton, 1996). In study 2 we performed an
exploratory factor analysis, and replicated this factor structure in study 3
by using confirmatory factor analysis. For exploratory factor analysis we
used principal axis factoring and direct oblimin rotation.
1. Exploratory factor analysis (study 2, chapter 5) supported the
hypothesized factor structure of context factors (i.e., trust in
leadership, general support by supervision, participatory
management, cohesion, and politicking). Also the three-factor
structure of the outcome variables (i.e., emotional readiness for
change, cognitive readiness for change, and intentional
readiness for change) was confirmed. As with regards to the
change process factors the hypothesized four-factor structure
(i.e., quality of change communication, participation in change
project, attitude of top management toward change, ability of
management to lead change) was not corroborated by our data.
Both quality of change communication and participation in
change project loaded on one general factor, which we called
involvement in the change process. The combination of items
referring to timely and transparent communication about
change, the active participation of employees in analyzing the
need for change, and their participation in the implementation of
change made us decide that this cluster of items reflected
involvement in the change process. For the other two process
factors (i.e., attitude of top management toward change and
293
Chapter 6
ability of management to lead change) the underlying structure
was confirmed.
2. On the basis of the factor structure produced by the
exploratory factor analysis we performed a confirmatory factor
analysis to further analyze the factor structure of the CCQ and
provide additional evidence for the construct validity of the
eleven scales (study 3, chapter 5). An important consideration
in assessing the structure of context factors, process factors
and outcome factors is the choice of fit indices (Mulaik, James,
Van Alstine, Bennett, Lind & Stilwell, 1989). According to Hair et
al. (1998) the adequacy of a model should be determined
based on an examination of a set of fit indices. Therefore we
checked two types of measures of fit: (1) absolute measures of
fit (likelihood ratio χ2, normed χ2, GFI, RMR and RMSEA), and
incremental measures of fit (NFI, NNFI, and CFI) (Kline, 2004;
MacCallum & Austin, 2000).
Overall, based on these indices one may conclude that the
five-factor model of context (first order), the three-factor model
of process (first order), and the three-factor model of outcomes
(first order) fits the data well. Although these models
demonstrated adequate fit, we examined these models for
misspecification (i.e. analysis of modification indices). In the
next step alternative models were compared against the
hypothesized models. On the basis of the modification analysis
we decided to incorporate the error covariance between the
following items of the context factor trust in leadership:
corporate management team keeps all departments informed
about its decisions; two way communication between corporate
management team and departments is very good. Also with
respect to the process factor ability of management to lead
change we noted that a reparameterization with a free
estimation of the error covariance between two items (i.e., Our
294
Chapter 6
department’s senior managers have trouble in adapting their
leadership styles to the changes; Our department’s executives
focus too much on current problems and too little on their
possible remedies) yielded an improved fit. The specification of
these items is justified because the error correlation between
these items indicates a possible redundancy in item content.
Besides the respecification of the hypothesized models,
several alternative models were tested (null model, first order
single factor model, and second order factor models). A
comparison of the goodness-of-fit indices for these models
indicated that the hypothesized models have a significant better
fit over the alternative models. In the case of the process
factors we found that putting a structure into the first order
factors of the process and outcome models yielded neither
worse nor better fit. Because second order models are more
parsimonious in comparison to first order models, we decided to
work with this second order structure for both the process and
outcome factors.
Convergent and Discriminant Validity. In social sciences the two
main forms of construct validity are convergent and discriminant validity.
Measures that supposedly assess the same thing should correlate highly if
they are valid measures of the same construct or related constructs.
Conversely related to convergent validity is discriminant validity or the
degree to which multiple measures of different concepts are distinct.
Therefore in study 3 (chapter 5) we examined the correlations between the
context, process and outcome scales. In total 22 tests were conducted.
Fifteen of these tests were confirmed indicating fairly adequate convergent
and discriminant validity. The results showed that the correlations between
the process variable scales were stronger than the correlations of these
same process variable scales with the context variable scales and
295
Chapter 6
outcome variable scales. In addition the majority of the within-outcome
variable correlations were stronger than the process-outcome and contextoutcome variables. Finally, our analyses demonstrated that the withincontext variable correlations were
stronger
than
outcome-context
correlations. However important to note is that these same within-context
variable correlations were not significantly stronger than the contextprocess correlations. In summary, based upon these tests we may
conclude that our 11 eleven scales have fairly adequate convergent and
discriminant validity.
Supplementary to study 3 in chapter 5, additional data were
gathered in a high technology company that had recently announced a
new remuneration policy. Approximately 100 people were affected by this
change. Each one of them was asked to fill out the questionnaire
electronically. In total after checking for response biases 70 participants
were retained for our analysis. As an extra test for the convergent and
discriminant validity we computed the bivariate correlations with three
personality characteristics (i.e. change specific efficacy, cognitive styles
and risk aversion).
TABLE 6.2: Convergent and discriminant validity of CCQ
Change
specific
efficacy
(α = .81)
.34**
-.21
.02
.51***
.22
Risk aversion
(α = .72)
Knowing style
(α = .75)
Planning style
(α = .82)
Creating style
(α = .73)
TLE (α = .78 )
-.01
-.08
-.04
.15
POL (α = .67 )
.13
.14
.13
-.09
COH (α = .71)
-.09
-.11
.07
.09
-.17
.03
-.22
.35**
PARMA (α = .86)
GENSUP (α =
-.18
.04
-.02
.24*
.83)
ATC (α = .71 )
.33**
.10
.20
.16
.13
-.01
-.04
-.04
.22
INV (α = .87 )
.49***
-.15
-.04
-.05
.20
ABMC (α = .85)
.45***
-.13
.08
-.01
.40***
INRE (α = .89)
.74***
-.12
.01
.03
.17
COGRE (α = .75)
.40***
-.04
-.02
-.06
.26*
EMRO (α = .91 )
.70***
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. TLE: trust in leadership, POL: politicking, INV:
involvement in the change process, COH: cohesion, PARMA: participatory management;
GENSUP: general support by supervision, ATC: attitude of management toward change,
ABMC: ability of management to lead change, INRE: intentional readiness for change,
COGRE: cognitive readiness for change, EMRE: emotional readiness for change.
296
Chapter 6
The 6-item scale change specific efficacy from Holt et al. (2007a)
was the only scale that measured a proximal change specific personality
characteristic.
Change
specific
efficacy
is
the
extent
to
which
organizational members feel they are able to deal with the change.
Example items are: “I do not anticipate any problems adjusting to the work
I will have when this change is adopted”, “I have the skills that are needed
to make this change work”. Furthermore two general personality features
were assessed: cognitive styles (Cools & Van den Broeck, 2007) and risk
aversion (Cable & Judge, 1994). Cognitive styles can be defined as how
people process and organize information, and arrive at judgements or
conclusions based on their observations (Hunt, Krzystofiak, Meindl, &
Yousry, 1989). Cognitive styles were measured by three scales: the
knowing style (4 items, “I like to analyze problems”), the planning style (7
items, “Developing a clear plan is very important to me”), and the creating
style (7 items, “I prefer to look for creative solutions”). For an elaborate
discussion about the content of each style we refer to Cools (2007). Risk
aversion was defined as the propensity of individuals to seek out and
avoid risky scenarios (Judge et al., 1999). Several studies considering risk
aversion as an individual difference have found that individuals who are
averse to risk view novel and risk-oriented situations negatively and seek
to withdraw from such situations (Cable & Judge, 1994). An example item
of this 4-item scale “I view risk of a job as a situation to be avoided at all
costs”.
The internal reliability of the eleven scales of the CCQ
demonstrated adequate Cronbach alpha values (Table 6.2). The
Cronbach alpha for politicking was the lowest (α = .67) as was the case in
the other studies we performed. The Cronbach alpha’s for the personality
characteristic scales were also good with values above .70.
In terms of convergent and discriminant validity we examined the
correlations of the personality characteristic scales with the CCQ scales.
Because change specific efficacy was specifically designed by Holt et al.
(2007a) to measure the individual attribute component of people’s
297
Chapter 6
readiness for change we assumed that this scale would have positive and
significant correlations with our change climate scales (except for
politicking). Since cognitive styles and risk aversion here refer to more
general personality characteristics that are independent of organizational
change, it is hypothesized that these scales will have lower and non
significant correlations with the CCQ scales (i.e., discriminant validity).
Eight of the 11 correlations between change specific efficacy and the CCQ
scales were significant at p < .01. None of the correlations of risk aversion
were significant. Finally, only the creating style was significantly correlated
(p < .05) with four of the eleven CCQ scales. These findings provide
additional support for the convergent and discriminant validity of the CCQ.
Shared Variance Validity. The majority of climate research has used
aggregate units of analysis. So climates have been operationally
constructed by aggregating individual scores to the appropriate level
(organization, department and team) and using that mean to represent
climate at that level (Schneider, Bowen, Ehrhart & Holcombe, 2000). The
idea behind aggregation of individual or psychological climate data to unit
level is the assumption that organizational collectives have their own
climate and these can be identified through the demonstration of
significant differences in climate between units and significant agreement
in perceptions within units (Patterson et al., 2005). A basic contention is
that the interaction of individuals in responding to their situation brings
forth the shared agreement which is the source of organizational climate.
In other words, climate at the organizational level can be seen as an
abstract representation of shared psychological meanings created by the
interaction of group members. Since we adopted this assumption (in
chapter 3) this implies that the constructs of our questionnaire were
developed to measure individual perceptions of climate of change, with the
possibility that these scales can be aggregated at a higher unit level of
analyses depending on the level of sharedness within and between the
units. This level of sharedness or within-group agreement can be
298
Chapter 6
determined by computing three indices of interrater agreement (ICC(1),
ICC(2) and R wg(j) ). Based upon these indices we concluded that our scales
with exception for general support by supervision can be aggregated at
the organizational level of analysis.
6.3.1.3 Concurrent Validity
After having briefly discussed the content and construct validity of
the CCQ, a third type of validity is criterion-related validity. A general
definition of criterion-related validity involves the testing of hypotheses
about how a scale relates to other variables (Beck, 1994). There are
several types of criterion-related validity. One of these is concurrent
validity. Concurrent validity is tested by simultaneously collecting data
from a sample of respondents on the scale of interest and on criteria
hypothesized to relate to that scale of interest. In this inquiry concurrent
validity was checked by looking at how much of the variance in readiness
for change is explained by the context and process characteristics of
change. In summary, the context and process factors are related with
readiness for change in the expected way. The process factors
involvement in the change process and attitude of management toward
change are positively correlated with emotional and intentional readiness
for change. Ability of management to lead change has a positive
relationship with cognitive readiness for change and emotional readiness
for change. Of the context factors we note that participatory management
has positive and significant correlations with intentional and emotional
readiness for change. Finally, with respect to the context characteristics
trust in leadership and politicking, we note respectively a positive and
negative correlation with cognitive readiness for change.
299
Chapter 6
6.3.2 Weighing the CCQ Against Related Instruments
6.3.2.1 Existing Instruments
Assessment of readiness for change has been encouraged prior to
moving ahead with the next stages of the change process (Armenakis et
al., 1999; Lewin, 1951). Holt et al. (2007b) identified across several
disciplines (i.e., educational sciences, medicine and organizational
sciences)
32
instruments
that
measure
readiness
for
change
quantitatively. Of these 32 instruments only 21 had there roots in
organizational sciences. To assess the psychometric quality of those
instruments information was provided about the content validity, criterion
related validity, construct validity and there reliability. In Table 6.3 an
overview is provided how well all these instruments scored in terms of
validity and reliability. We also analyzed the CCQ along these dimensions,
so that the psychometric quality of our instrument can be compared
against the quality of related measures. Also additional information was
provided about the perspective that the instrument’s developers used to
assess readiness based on the instrument’s content (change specific
content perspective, change process perspective, internal context
perspective, individual attributes perspective, and intentions or reactions
perspective).
From this summary Table (6.3) we infer that the 21 instruments
identified by Holt et al. (2007b) performed rather weak in terms of provided
validity evidence. Only in one third of the cases a literature review by
experts was relied on as a starting point for item development (content
validity). In terms of criterion and construct validity these 21 tools
measuring readiness for change even performed worse. So, an important
observation was that there is a serious need for well-validated
instruments. Secondly in the field of organizational sciences readiness for
change has been measured from an internal context and individual
attributes perspective. To our knowledge no tools are available that
underlie a change process perspective. To conclude, a third finding is that
300
Chapter 6
none of the instruments mentioned in Table 6.3 combined several
perspectives (i.e., change specific content, internal context perspective,
change process perspective, individual attributes perspective) to assess
readiness for change. In consequence the development of the CCQ is an
important contribution for the field of research that emphasizes on
attitudes toward change. Not only does the instrument score well in terms
of validity and reliability, it also combines elements from the internal
context perspective, change context perspective and intentions or
reactions perspective.
6.3.2.2 The Holt et al. (2007a) Questionnaire as an Alternative?
The Holt et al. (2007a) instrument is to our knowledge one of the
few instruments that meets the psychometric standards described by the
APA. Although the preliminary findings of the ROCM are very
encouraging, we believe there are some areas were our CCQ can make a
contribution. A first point of concern with the ROCM is that it was tested in
only two organizations undergoing structural changes. This lack of
heterogeneity in organizations and types of changes may limit its
generalizability. Our CCQ, however, has been tested in over 80 Belgian
companies and data are being collected in other countries (Great Britain,
The Netherlands and Iran). So far, the data that were collected in one
British company were encouraging (study 4).
One of the strengths of the ROCM is its underlying conceptual
framework (content, process, context and individual attributes). This
framework was also the source of inspiration for developing our CCQ.
That being said one can ask what the value-added of this instrument might
be. An important difference between both tools is that the ROCM taps
specific beliefs that give insights into the messages that must be delivered
to effectively initiate and implement change. In other words, readiness for
change is described as a change specific attitude and measured in terms
of the belief that a change is necessary (i.e., discrepancy), the belief that
change can be implemented (i.e., efficacy), the belief that the change
301
Chapter 6
would be organizationally beneficial (i.e., organizational valence), the
belief that the organizational leaders are committed to the change (i.e.,
management support), and the belief that the change is personally
beneficial (i.e., personal valence). The core of this model is creating a
change message so that employees develop a positive attitude toward
change (Armenakis et al., 1999). This is done by answering five key
questions about change that overlap with the five dimensions measured in
the ROCM. These five questions being: “Is change really necessary (i.e.,
discrepancy)?”, “Is the specific change being introduced an appropriate
reaction
to
the
discrepancy?
(i.e.,
appropriateness)”,
“Can
I/we
successfully implement the change? (i.e., efficacy)”, “Does management
support the change? (i.e., management support)”, and “What is in it for me
(i.e., personal valence)”.
In the CCQ we do not only assess the factors that influence
readiness for change (context and process) but we also measure
readiness as an outcome. The rationale that underlies the development of
the CCQ was creating a tool that allows practitioners to diagnose whether
the psychological and organizational climate is conducive toward change
and what the organization can do to increase the level of readiness for
change. So, the main purpose of the CCQ was not so much providing
insight into the message that should be communicated – since that is
nicely covered by the ROCM – but helping change agents in their journey
of creating a sustainable climate for change. Another point of difference is
that our instrument does not only conceive readiness as a specific state
but also a generic characteristic or cross-situational climate variable that is
independent of change. For example, our context variables are formulated
in a general way independent of any particular change, whereas the
process factors have a change specific character. The context part we
believe can mean a value-added for the ROCM, because the latter
instrument had difficulties with distinguishing the context factor from the
content factor (Holt et al., 2007a).
302
Chapter 6
Although the CCQ and ROCM are recently developed instruments
that measure readiness for change, the first findings are very encouraging
for both tools. Despite these positive results, refinement of both
instruments is essential to further improve the quality of assessment of
readiness. To conclude we do not believe that the CCQ and ROCM should
be considered as concurrent alternatives because they complement each
other in providing a better understanding of readiness for change. For
example, the individual attribute component (i.e., change specific efficacy)
in the ROCM provides an important supplement for the CCQ, whereas the
context factors assessed by the CCQ can be an important complement for
the ROCM.
303
Chapter 6
TABLE 6.3: Summary of the reliability and validity evidence for existing readiness for change instruments*
Instrument
1. Decision Determinant
Questionnaire
(Bedell et al., 1985)
2. Lay of the Land Survey (Burke et
al., 1996)
3. Empowerment Readiness Survey
(Henkel et al., 1993)
4. Management Self-improvement
Survey (Keith, 1986)
5. Vision Progress Survey (Bollar,
1996)
6. Organizational Readiness Scale
(Jones & Bearley, 1996)
7. Rapid Response Readiness
Checklist (Deevy, 1995)
8. Siegel Scale for Support for
Innovation (Siegel & Kaemmerer,
1978)
9. Readiness for Change Scale
(Eby et al., 2000)
10. Receptivity to Change
Instrument (Zmud, 1984)
11. TQM Readiness Index (Hay &
McBer Company, 1993)
12. Readiness Scale: Manager
Rating Scale (Ireh, 1995)
13. Readiness for Change Index
(Stewart, 1994)
304
No. of
scales
8
No. of
Likert
type
items
41
12
-
6
50
6
30
1
14
5
75
6
30
3
63
1
9
1
4
3
25
2
10
17
-
Perspective
Content validity
Validity evidence
Construct validity
Reliability evidence
Criterion-related
validity
change specific
process perspective
Literature review
by experts
None
Concurrent validity
Cronbach alpha (one
scale lower than .50)
internal context
perspective
internal context
perspective
internal context
perspective
internal context
perspective
internal context
perspective
internal context
perspective
internal context
perspective
Literature review
by experts
Literature review
by experts
None
EFA
Cronbach alpha
None
Concurrent validity
Predictive validity
None
None
None
None
None
Cronbach alpha (one
scale lower than .65)
Cronbach alpha
None
None
Cronbach alpha
None
None
None
Literature review
by experts
EFA
None
Split-half estimates
internal context
perspective
internal context
perspective
internal context
perspective
internal context
perspective
internal context
perspective
None
None
None
Coefficient alpha
None
None
None
Coefficient alpha
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Test-retest estimates
Literature review
by experts
Literature review
by experts
None
None
Chapter 6
14. Readiness for Change
Questions (Belasco, 1990)
15. Change Attitude Scale (Trumbo,
1961)
16. Innovativeness Scale (Hunt et
al., 1977)
17. Change Attitudes (Al-Khalaf,
1994)
18. Acceptance of Change
(Johnson & Kerckhoff, 1964)
19. Change Value Scale (Neal,
1965)
20. Promoting-ParticipatingResisting Instrument (Hanpachern,
1997)
21. Commitment to Change
Inventory (Hersovitch & Meyer,
2002)
22. Change Climate
Questionnaire (Bouckenooghe,
Devos, Van den Broeck, 2008)
-
-
internal context
perspective
individual attributes
perspective
individual attributes
perspective
individual attributes
perspective
individual attributes
perspective
individual attributes
perspective
intentions or reactions
perspective
None
None
None
None
-
-
None
None
Concurrent validity
None
Concurrent validity
None
Convergent validity
EFA
None
None
Split-half estimates
Test-retest
Coefficient alpha (one
scale below .65)
Coefficient alpha
2
9
1
8
2
11
None
None
None
None
1
5
None
None
None
None
None
None
Coefficient alpha (one
scale equals .65)
Coefficient alpha
3
14
3
18
intentions or reactions
perspective
Literature review
by experts
EFA
CFA
Concurrent validity
Coefficient alpha (one
scale below .65)
11
42
internal context
perspective (18
items)
Literature review
by experts
EFA
CFA
Convergent
validity
Discriminant
validity
Shared variance
validity
Concurrent
validity
Known-groups
validity
Coefficient alpha
change specific
process perspective
(15 items)
intentions or
reactions
perspective (9
items)
Content adequacy
test (panel of
experts)
*Adapted from Holt et al. (2007a)
305
Chapter 6
6.4 Assessment of DISSERTATION methodology
In the third part of this chapter we first discuss the main streams of
research in social sciences in terms of the knowledge claims adopted and
the strategies of inquiry that accompany each research perspective.
Finally, we elaborate on the choice for a postpositivist approach in this
inquiry.
6.4.1 Two Dominant Streams of Research
A conceptual and practical discussion on issues and trends in
studying OC is going on in the literature (Pettigrew, Woodman, &
Cameron, 2001; Van de Ven & Poole, 2005). This discussion along with
our methodological choices makes it highly relevant to assess the quality
of the research design used. The effectiveness and quality of a
methodology can be addressed in answering following questions (Crotty,
1998):
(1) What knowledge claims are being made by the researcher
(including the theoretical perspective)?
(2) What strategies of inquiry will inform the procedures?
(3) What methods of data collection and analysis will be used?
Despite the pros and cons, weaknesses and strengths of each
design, the quality of a study depends on whether the strategies of inquiry
and methods of data collection and data analysis flow from the knowledge
claims made by the researcher. Before we evaluate the quality of this
study we would first like to summarize the different knowledge claims
made in social science research.
6.4.1.1 Knowledge Claims
The
first
question
(see
above)
reflects
the
philosophical
assumptions about what constitutes knowledge (epistemology). In social
306
Chapter 6
sciences there is a tendency to classify these knowledge claims in
following dualities: (1) objectivism and subjectivism, (2) determinism and
voluntarism, and (3) postpositivism and social constructivism (Boonstra &
de Caluwé, 2006). This tendency to think in terms of dualities represents
the two main camps in research: positivistic versus interpretive
(Poggenpoel, Myberg, & Van der Linde, 2001; Schurink, 1998),
functionalist versus constructivist (Darmer, 2000), or natural science
method versus interpretive procedure (Daft, 1983).
Objectivism or Determinism Versus Subjectivism or Voluntarism.
The first duality (objectivism versus subjectivism) addresses the possibility
of knowledge that is objective, generic, and based upon objective
observations of causal relationships, or knowledge that has a more
subjective nature and originates from experiences and insights learned
from specific situations (Burell & Morgan, 1979).
The second duality involves assumptions about reality. These
knowledge claims are also embedded in the assumptions about the basic
relationship between humans and their environment. The objective
perspective of human functioning asserts that people react in predictable
ways toward changes. Their actions and behavior is conditioned by
external situations. In other words, human behavior in times of change can
be explained by organizational characteristics (i.e., organizational climate)
or by the underlying needs of those undergoing the change (i.e.,
resistance or readiness for change). According to the subjective
perspective, people are the creators of their environment and have the
ability to change this environment. In other words, human behavior results
from a personal reflection process about one’s activities and ambitions.
Both perspectives are also known as determinism where human behavior
is determined by organizational characteristics, or voluntarism where
people shape the environment through their actions (Boonstra & de
Caluwé, 2006).
307
Chapter 6
Postpositivism versus Social Constructivism. Finally, the third duality
reflects postpositivist or social constructivist knowledge claims. The
postpositivist position is also called the scientific method and strongly
reflects the deterministic philosophy of cause-effect relationships. The
knowledge that develops through a postpositivist approach is based on
careful observation and measurement of the objective reality that exists
out there in the world (Creswell, 2003). In summary the key assumptions
of the postpositivist approach (Philips & Burbules, 2000) are:
1. That knowledge is conjectural – absolute truth can never be
found. Thus, evidence established in research is always
imperfect and fallible. This is also the reason why scholars
do not prove hypotheses but speak in terms of failure or
rejection.
2. Research is the process of making claims and then refining
or abandoning some of them for other claims more strongly
warranted. Most quantitative research starts with a test of
theory.
3. Data,
evidence,
and
rational
considerations
shape
knowledge. In practice, the researcher collects information
on instruments based on measures completed by the
participants or by observations recorded by the researcher.
4. Research seeks to develop relevant true statements, ones
that can serve to explain the situation that is of concern or
that describes the causal relationships of interest. In
quantitative studies, researchers advance the relationship
among variables and pose this in terms of questions or
hypotheses.
5. Being objective is an essential aspect of competent inquiry,
and for this reason researchers must examine methods and
308
Chapter 6
conclusions for bias. Therefore standards of validity and
reliability are crucial in the postpositivist approach.
The emphasis of the social constructivist or interpretive perspective
differs from the focus on measurement, variables and hypothesis
falsification used in postpositivism. The goal of this social constructivist
approach is to understand the actual production of meanings and
concepts used by social actors in real settings. In other words, interpretive
research describes how different meanings held by different persons or
groups produce and sustain a sense of truth. Rather than producing
qualitative facts to evaluate hypotheses, interpretive researchers seek to
describe and understand members’ meanings and the implications that
divergent meanings hold for social interaction (Gephart, 2004). Crotty
(1998) identified following underlying assumptions:
1. Meanings are constructed by human beings as they engage
with the world they are interpreting. Qualitative researchers
tend to use open-ended questions so that participants can
express their views.
2. Humans engage with their world and make sense of it based
on their historical and social perspective – we are all born
into a world of meaning bestowed upon us by our culture.
Thus, qualitative researchers seek to understand the context
or setting of the participants through visiting this context and
gathering information personally. They also make an
interpretation shaped by the researchers’ own experiences
and backgrounds.
3. The basic generation of meaning is always social, arising in
and out of interaction with a human community. The process
of qualitative research is largely inductive, with the inquirer
generating meaning from the data collected in the field.
309
Chapter 6
In brief, social sciences and therefore research about organizational
change has been dominated by two main theoretical perspectives: (1)
Postpositivism or normal science view and (2) social constructivism or
interpretative research. Postpositivism relies on methods for collecting and
analyzing factual depictions of the world that reveal singular truths or
realities and that can be used to falsify hypotheses. Interpretive research
uncovers, describes, and theoretically interprets actual meanings that
people use in real settings. It examines how particular meanings become
shared, dominant, and or contested in situations in which alternative
meanings are present and possible (Gephart, 2004).
6.4.1.2 Strategies of Inquiry
In addition to the knowledge claims made by researchers, on a
more applied level researchers make choices with respect to the
strategies of inquiry. These strategies of inquiry provide a specific direction
for procedures in a research design and contribute to the overall research
approach. The two dominant approaches in social science are the
quantitative approach and the qualitative approach (Creswell, 2003).
Instead of covering all strategies of inquiry, we just cite those that are most
commonly used. Strategies of inquiry associated with the quantitative
approach are experimental designs and non-experimental designs
(surveys). Strategies associated with the qualitative approach have
become more and more visible during the 1990’s. Also the number of
qualitative strategies has grown substantially over the past decade
(Wolcott, 2001). Creswell (2003) for example identified five qualitative
strategies:
ethnographies,
grounded
theory,
case
studies,
phenomenological research, and narrative research.
This distinction of quantitative and qualitative research strategies
also
reflects
the
duality
between
postpositivism
versus
social
constructivism. There has been a general tendency in social sciences to
associate the postpositivistic paradigm with a quantitative methodology
and the constructivist paradigm (or interpretive paradigm) with qualitative
310
Chapter 6
research. Schurink (1998, 241) indicated that “the quantitative paradigm is
based on positivism which takes scientific explanation to be nomothetic
(i.e., based on universal laws). Its main aims are to objectively measure
the social world, to test hypotheses and to predict and control human
behavior.
In
contrast,
the
qualitative
paradigm
stems
from
an
antipositivistic, interpretive approach, is idiographic, thus holistic in nature,
and the main aim is to understand social life and the meaning that people
attach to everyday life.” The positivistic paradigm relies on empirical
experimental research, and felt no particular need to immerse in
organizational realities whereas the interpretive paradigm relies more on
the knowledge in consulting experiences and in various kinds of field work,
driven more by sociological and anthropological research models
(Poggenpoel et al., 2001).
In summary, the distinction between quantitative and qualitative
research designs calls attention for two critical issues (Gephart, 2004).
First, quantitative or postpositivist research imposes scientific meaning in
terms of a singular, presumed to-be true reality, whereas qualitative
research employs the meanings in use by societal members to explain
how they directly experience everyday life realities. Secondly, qualitative
research has an inherently literary focus, whereas quantitative research is
grounded in mathematical and statistical knowledge.
6.4.2 Reasons Why We Adopted a Postpostivist Paradigm to
Research
The relationship between theory and methodology is undeniably
important. To warrant the quality of the research, scholars must use
methodologies consistent with the assumptions and aims of the theoretical
viewpoints expressed (Gephart, 2004). Table 6.1 exhibits that we adopted
a postpositivist approach—with its reliance on quantification, objective
measurement, mechanical instrumentation, and statistical testing—as the
311
Chapter 6
research perspective for this dissertation. In chapters 2 through 5 we
relied on survey and experimental designs.
We chose the postpositivist paradigm because our central research
question stems from the planned change tradition. In fact, our inquiry
focuses on how attitudes can be changed so that behavior will follow
(Lewin, 1951). We first inquired into the drivers of people’s attitudes
toward change. Through a thorough diagnosis and analysis of the factors
enabling change, we identify the strengths and weaknesses of the change
climate. Such knowledge then facilitates the successful implementation of
change. Because change arises from deliberate or willful action generally
on the part of top management, it is purposive in having been conceived to
achieve defined ends (Tenkasi & Chesmore, 2003). In sum, our research
concentrates
more
on
the
antecedents
and
consequences
of
organizational change (the variance method approach to change) than on
the sequence of events over time as change unfolds (the process method
approach to change) (Barnett & Carroll, 1995; Mohr, 1982; Van de Ven &
Poole, 2005).
The variance method approach (Mohr, 1982) is well suited for
research questions examining the causes or correlates of change in
organizations. Variance methods seek explanations of continuous change
driven by deterministic causation, with independent variables acting upon
and causing changes in dependent variables. Because variance research
implicitly strives to establish the conditions necessary to bring about an
outcome, this type of research on change employs experimental and
survey research designs grounded in the general linear model (Van den
Ven & Poole, 2005). Researchers in this tradition also increasingly study
change at multiple levels of analysis (Dansereau, Yammarino & Kohles,
1999). Typically these studies focus on the effects of change in a variable
at one level of analysis on variables at other levels. In chapter 3 of this
dissertation we conducted such a multilevel study.
312
Chapter 6
In contrast, the process methods approach seeks explanations
telling a narrative or story about how a sequence of events unfolds to
produce a given outcome. Whereas the great majority of variance
research follows quantitative procedures, process research often uses a
mixture of qualitative and quantitative procedures. In general process
researchers employ eclectic designs to identify or reconstruct underlying
processes by relying on strategies such as observation, multiple case
studies, or archival analysis (Van de Ven & Poole, 2005). Based upon the
discussion above, the variance method approach to change converges
more with the postpositivist paradigm, while the process method approach
to change aligns more with the knowledge traditions of social
constructivism.
Planned change reflects the managerial tradition identified with the
passion for control. Van den Broeck and Mestdagh (2004) indicated that
control, exact definition, clear cut strategies, plans, rules, procedures are
motivated by management’s desire of complete mastery over their
environment. This perspective believes that control, practice maps,
guidelines, firm structures and strategies are the precursors to high
performance. This view reflects the teleological approach in Van de Ven
and Poole’s (1995) typology. As a result, it relies heavily on objective
measurement, data analysis, observation of environment, and careful
crafting of change process (Kezar, 2001; Golembiewski & Billingsley,
1980). Thus, planned change research is strongly embedded in a
postpositivist or variance method research approach where quality of
measurement and cause-effect relationships are core topics. Because of
the strong emphasis of the planned change perspective on measurement,
a second aim of this dissertation was the development of a tool that
provides an objective and well-validated measurement of the climate of
change. The psychometric quality of this instrument is also one of the
major points of discussion in this chapter (see part II of this chapter).
Based upon the dissertation’s title – ‘What is crucial in developing a
positive attitude toward change?’ What is the role of content, context,
313
Chapter 6
process and individual variables in understanding readiness for change’ –
in combination with the major goals of this inquiry to uncover the effects of
several context, process and content factors on people’s attitudes toward
change (i.e. readiness for change and openness for change) and the
development of a valid measurement tool, we believe this contribution can
be considered as a so-called content study of change (Barnett & Carroll,
1995) or what others have called a variance study approach to change
(Mohr, 1982; Van de Ven & Poole, 2005). In short, because the focus of
this study (i.e. planned change) is grounded in postpositivist knowledge
claims, it is fair to conclude that our choice for a quantitative approach of
study (survey and experimental research designs) is the most appropriate
one. Of course each approach has its limitations which will be discussed
later on in this chapter (see section 6.5 of this chapter).
6.5 Limitations OF THE PRESENT DESIGN, challenges, and
suggestions for future research
The fourth part of this concluding chapter first describes different
potential weaknesses inherent to the methodology used and analyses
adopted throughout our inquiries. We highlight each possible threat and
then describe either the weakness’s limited effect or ways to overcome it
in future research. We then depart from methodology issues, and address
possible weaknesses in the concepts and theoretical frameworks adopted
throughout the dissertation.
6.5.1 Limitations Inherent to Methodology and Analyses of Data
6.5.1.1 The Issue of Internal Validity
Despite a general alignment between the theoretical assumptions
and the selected research methodology throughout this dissertation, we
notice some design limitations. As previously noted, the variance method
approach, rooted in postpositivism, has been dominated by studies that
have used survey and experimental designs. Although these variance
314
Chapter 6
methods play an important role in studying organizational change,
Scandura and Williams (2000) arrived at a somewhat worrying conclusion
in reviewing management research methodology. One of the most striking
observations is a decrease in research strategies that insure the internal
validity of outcomes. This trend is also manifested in the field of change
management. Consequently, our inquiry (see chapters 2 and 3) could be
blamed for furthering this evolution, since the obtained data is cross
sectional and collected by means of a survey questionnaire. Stated
differently, doubts could be raised about the assumed cause and effect
relationships between the predictor variables (i.e., context and process
factors of change) and the dependent variable readiness for change.
Due to this weakness, chapter 4 provided a post hoc causality test
between the antecedent variables (content, context, and process) and a
readiness for change measured by openness to change. Although a
longitudinal research design would have been the most appropriate
method, a scenario study was a viable alternative for increasing the
internal validity and corroborating the findings from chapters 2 and 3. A
scenario study is an experimental design in which participants are
presented with one of several scenarios developed by the researchers.
Each scenario comprises one of the possible combinations of variations in
the independent variables of the inquiry. All respondents in the study of
chapter 4 were asked to imagine that they were undergoing the change
described in the case. Subsequently, the dependent measure “openness
to change” was recorded by means of a scale.
6.5.1.2 The Issue of Predictive Validity
No measure of predictive validity for readiness for change was
conducted in any of the four empirical studies. Of course, such a test
cannot be pursued until the outcomes that would be expected from
readiness are more thoroughly explained. Throughout the different papers,
it is suggested that those that are more ready for change would be more
likely to adopt change (i.e., actual behavior). Consequently, a possible
315
Chapter 6
weakness is that predictive validity should have been included in at least
one of the studies.
Indeed, we acknowledge that the predictive validity of research
should be an important topic on the agenda of each scholar, and that an
alternative research design would have been more appropriate; however,
we also contend that, given the scope of this inquiry, this query should be
addressed elsewhere. Since the goal of this dissertation was to explore
and make the research community more aware of the crucial antecedents
of readiness, we believe that the issue of readiness for change as a
predictor of the actual behavior of change should be dealt with elsewhere.
Given the limited access to organizational data, the limited willingness of
companies to participate in similar research projects, and the efforts put
into the collection of data (more than 80 companies), we would suggest
that the issue of predictive validity is a future research challenge.
6.5.1.3 Common Method Variance (CMV) as a Threat to the Study’s
Construct Validity: Urban Legend or Truth?
Although organizational research is dominated by the use of single
source cross-sectional survey measures (Scandura & Williams, 2000,
Williams & Brown, 1994), most researchers agree that common method
variance or correlated measurement error variance is present in single
source survey measures, and therefore, are a potential problems in
behavioral research (Mitchell, 1985; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, &
Podsakoff, 2003; Podsakoff & Organ, 1986; Williams & Brown, 1994). The
exclusive use and analysis of self-reported data is likely to yield “selfgenerated validity” for theories proposing positive relations among similar
constructs measured via a single questionnaire (Feldman & Lynch, 1988).
Consequently, common method variance is a serious threat for the
construct validity of the study’s findings. Furthermore, there is a pertinent
fear that this artifactual covariance between two variables due to a
common measurement method may lead researchers to erroneously infer
a substantive relationship (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986).
316
Chapter 6
Interestingly, it is the concern for CMV that seems to be raised
almost exclusively when cross-sectional, self-report surveys are used.
Monomethod studies (those using the same method for assessing all
variables) using other approaches, such as reports about other people,
have been criticized less, despite the same shortcoming (Spector, 2006).
The belief that CMV inflates correlations originates from Campbell and
Fiske (1959), who noted that a certain amount of variance in measurement
can be attributable to the method used. In a recent discussion about CMV,
it has been argued that the popular position suggesting that CMV
automatically affects the variables measured with the same method is a
distortion and oversimplification of the true state of affairs (Spector, 2006).
In his recent paper, Spector (2006) casts doubt that the method itself
produces systematic variance in observations that inflates correlations to
any significant degree. It is even argued that CMV has reached the status
of urban legend. The term urban legend refers to the fact that CMV is
based on a truth that has been distorted and exaggerated over time. For
instance, it has been demonstrated that observed correlations with
monomethods are not necessarily higher than with multimethods.
Furthermore, it has been shown that the use of multimethods can lead to
an underestimation of the correlations between constructs.
Several statistical methods have been used to estimate and control
for CMV. In chapter 3, we followed the recommendations suggested by
Williams, Cote, and Buckley (1989) by comparing the fit of four models:
The null model (M1), trait model (M2, model with seven correlated latent
factors), method factor model (M3, one latent factor loading on all
measured variables), and trait and method factor model (M4, combination
of M2 and M3)). Although the tests provided evidence that common
method variance can not be ignored (variance partitioning showed that
19.98% of the variance was attributed to the method factor), it should be
noted that the level of common method variance was consistent with the
studies reviewed by Williams, Cote and Buckley (1989). In conclusion, we
317
Chapter 6
believe that the common method bias in this inquiry is not higher than the
bias of other earlier published studies.
In conclusion, Spector (2006) highlights that the first step in dealing
with CMV is to alter our thinking about it. Rather than blindly accepting the
idea that there is systematic variance produced by a particular method,
researchers should instead examine each measured variable, its likely
sources of variance, and how different features of the method might
control them.
6.5.1.4 Have We Been Measuring the Same Constructs in Different
Settings: The Issue of Measurement Invariance
Another important issue in construct validity is the assumption that a
measure works the same under different contexts (i.e., organizations).
This has led to the formulation of the following question in chapter 3: Do
the change climate variables follow the same factor structure across
different settings. To put it differently, are the results found in this study
(chapter 3) partly explained by measurement non-invariance? An
examination of measurement invariance has enabled us to determine
whether the items and the underlying constructs mean the same thing to
members of different organizations. Following the recommendations by
Cheung and Rensvold (1999), and Vandenberg and Lance (2000), we
performed several tests. Based on the results of these tests, we concluded
that the items and their underlying constructs had configural and metric
invariance. Consequently, the results produced by the HLM analyses were
not caused by measurement non-invariance.
6.5.1.5 The Temporal Dimension
An important point of discussion in OC literature has been the
temporal dimension of the data capturing change (Pettigrew, Woodman, &
Cameron, 2001). Indeed, the time dimension has been a highly relevant
issue when studying change. Whether the study involves change that has
yet to be announced, has just been introduced, has been under way for
318
Chapter 6
some time, or is almost finished, determines the way people think, feel,
and react toward change. Therefore, it is important that researchers
capture the timing of the data being collected or at least control for the
variability due to the timing of change. Moreover, it has long been argued
that organizational change should be conducted longitudinally (Van de
Ven & Huber, 1990; Pettigrew, 1990). Despite this call for more
longitudinal research, the number of studies which observe the change
process along a temporal dimension has remained scant (Armenakis &
Bedeian, 1999; Pettigrew et al., 2001). None of the studies reported here
have responded to this call; however, it is important to note that in
chapters 2 and 3, we indirectly controlled for this time dimension of
change. Basically, the variability in responses that could be attributed to
the data collection at different stages of the change processes was
reduced
by
administering
the
questionnaires
shortly
after
the
announcement of change. Therefore, the responses involved all change
projects
that
were
recently
introduced,
alleviating
the
effect
of
heterogeneity in the temporal dimension of change.
6.5.1.6 What About the Effects of Multicollinearity in This Study?
Given the statistical methods used throughout this dissertation,
(structural equation modeling (chapter 2), hierarchical linear modeling
(chapter 3), and ordinary least squares regression analysis (chapter 5)), a
general concern of analysis is multicollinearity. Multicollinearity refers to
the correlations that exist among the predictors in a statistical analysis
(e.g., regression analysis, hierarchical linear modeling, and structural
equation modeling) (Pedhazur, 1982).
In general, the greater the multicollinearity, the more problems that
exist with the statistical methods used, practical prediction, and theoretical
interpretation. A high level of multicollinearity leads to unstable regression
coefficients, higher standard errors, larger confidence intervals, and a
lower likelihood that these coefficients will have statistical significance. For
these technical reasons alone, smaller rather than larger correlations
319
Chapter 6
between predictors are preferred. High multicollinearity can also pose
problems for theoretical interpretation. The larger the intercorrelation
between predictors, the more likely they will share the same variance in
the outcome variable. In this case, the problem is deciding which predictor
variable should be removed because of its contribution to this shared or
redundant variance in the criterion variable (Licht, 2003). Multicollinearity
is frustrating because the predictors cannot be too highly correlated, yet
selecting only predictors, which have relatively small intercorrelations, is
not a solution. Excluding predictor variables that are highly correlated can
lead to the even more serious problem of misspecification. Thus,
specification error occurs when important variables are not included in the
analysis due to high intercorrelations.
In the literature, several procedures have been recommended to
examine the level of multicollinearity (Hair et al, 1998). A first indicator of
collinearity involves checking for high correlations in the correlation matrix.
Although there is no universally accepted rule of thumb, most researchers
agree that a correlation of 0.80 and higher should be considered very
problematic. The maximum correlations found between our independents
were 0.54 and 0.60 in chapters 2 and 3, respectively. Other possible tests
for multicollinearity involved an examination of (1) the VIF values, (2) the
condition
indices,
and
(3)
the
regression
coefficient
variance-
decomposition matrices. In both chapters 2 and 3, the VIF values
indicated inconsequential collinearity. None of the VIF values exceeded
the cut-off value of 10 and none of the condition indices were higher than
30.0. Given these values, it was redundant to examine the regression
coefficient variance-decomposition matrix. In conclusion, based upon
these different checks, it is fair to say that the issue of multicollinearity was
rather limited in our studies.
In chapter 3, the raw scores represented the variables at the lowest
level, while the group means represented the aggregated measures of the
lower level variables in the contextual effects model that was tested (Y ij =
β 0j + β w X ij + γX j + u j + e ij ). This kind of model is likely to be affected by
320
Chapter 6
multicollinearity. As Aitkin and Longford (1986) pointed out, a model of this
form will often suffer from high collinearity and therefore poor estimate
precision. In order to anticipate multicollinearity between the lower level
variables and their aggregated higher level equivalents, we adopted the
procedure suggested by Raudenbush (1989). By reformulating this model
with X ij
centered around its group mean (X j ), the problem of
multicollinearity was mitigated. Due to this group mean centering
procedure, the correlations between the lower level variables and their
aggregated equivalents became zero.
6.5.2 Issues with Respect to the Theoretical and Conceptual
Frameworks Used
6.5.2.1 What About the Relevance of Content of Change in the Studies
Performed in Chapters 2, 3, and 5: Is There a Problem of
Misspecification?
The studies conducted in chapters 2, 3, and 5 did not incorporate
any variables that referred to the content of organizational change, despite
the fact that our framework highlighted content as a key variable to predict
people’s attitudes toward change. This limitation is consistent with the
general trend in research on attitudes toward change (Rafferty & Simons,
2005). The majority of OC scholars have not adequately identified the type
of organizational change they have been examining. A recent study by
Rafferty and Simons (2005), which did consider the effect of type or
content of change, showed that the degree of readiness for change
differed for fine-tuning and transformational changes. Based on this
observation, our studies could be accused of model misspecification since
change content was considered. In other words, concerns may be raised
in terms of how these studies contributed to the field, especially as it
becomes difficult to interpret the findings without information on the types
or range of changes happening in the organizations. Although the large
sample of firms and respondents provided variance on many dimensions,
321
Chapter 6
questions could be raised about the variability in the most critical
dimension of readiness for change: The need for change and the
presence of change initiatives within each setting.
At first, this lack of a change content variable may seem the most
important limitation of our studies; however, it should be noted that we
anticipated the effects of the variability in the type of change by only
including organizations that were undergoing changes that were
homogeneous in terms of phase in the change process, valence of
change, and scale of change (Kondaçki, 2005). By holding these content
dimensions of change constant in our samples, we are confident about the
observed effects of context and process variables on readiness for
change. With respect to the phase of change, it should be noted that it
involved changes that were recently announced or just under way. None
of the changes studied in the organizations were nearing completion. The
valence of change herein was equated with the personal consequences of
change. In this inquiry, we only included respondents that were
undergoing and experiencing immediate and important consequences of
the change. Therefore, contact persons in our organizations were asked to
only select people that were personally affected by the change. Finally,
with regards to the scale of change, we note that it involved large-scale
changes but with no job threatening character as was the case in chapter
4.
These
large-scale
internationalization
changes
strategy,
referred
changes
to
to
introduction
organizational
of
an
culture,
reorganizations without lay-offs, introduction of new technologies, and an
introduction of a customer oriented focus. Since these studies did not
consider changes with a job threatening character, chapter 4 was a
welcome complementary study, as it incorporated the job threatening
character of change (content dimension).
6.5.2.2 Resistance to Change as a Resource for Positive Change?
Being advocates of a positive scholarship approach in change
research (Cameron, 2008; Luthans & Yousef, 2007), and given our focus
322
Chapter 6
on readiness for change and openness to change, one could charge us for
neglecting the relevance of research on resistance to change. Although
we do not underestimate the crucial role resistance to change fulfilled in
opening the doors for psychology in change research, the field has been
focusing too much on overcoming weaknesses. Indeed resistance to
change research has been strongly embedded in a narrowing negative
view on human functioning and therefore should be abandoned. This is at
least what we were thinking together with several other scholars in the
field (Dent & Goldberg, 1999; Piderit, 2000). Recent insights into positive
organizational scholarship and resistance to change, however, showed
that our emphasis on shaping readiness for change and openness to
change is only one way of conceiving positive organizational change. Here
positive organizational change was formulated in terms of strengths,
capabilities and opportunities rather than weaknesses, problems and
threats. However according to Cameron (2008) this so-called affirmative
bias in positive change research does not exclude consideration of
negative events but, rather, incorporates them in accounting for the
positive outcomes.
So it is contended that a paradox exists in producing positive
change, and is illustrated by the negative in human systems. To put it
differently positive change can also result from problems, difficulties or
resistance (Cameron, 2008). In fact, negativity can have an important
place in positive change since negatively perceived events can produce
the right amount of energy that is necessary to move away from what is
norm, whereas positivity may not have such impact. This conclusion was
nicely summarized by Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer and Vohs
(2001): “Bad is stronger than good.” This conclusion is also supported by
Darwin’s evolutionary theory (Darwin, 2003), which presumes that living
systems respond more quickly to stimuli that are negative and lifethreatening than stimuli that are positive and life-giving. Translated into our
research on people’s attitudes toward change this implies that resistance
to change can be seen as a resource rather than an impediment that
323
Chapter 6
should be overcome to produce positive change. For example, Knowles
and Linn (2004) and Ford et al. (2008) noted that resistance to change can
have value for the existence, engagement, and strength of a change
serving as an asset and a resource in its implementation and successful
accomplishment.
One of the challenges change agents are often confronted with is
getting new conversations (i.e. change) heard and alive so they can take
root. Although resistance may involve criticizing and complaining it keeps
conversations active (existence value of resistance). It gives change
agents the opportunity to clarify and further legitimize change, and
provides change recipients an opportunity to create translations and
understandings that contribute to their subsequent acceptance of the
change (Barrett, Thomas & Hocevar, 1995). Resistance can also be used
to engage people through paradoxical interventions in which agents
specify a target for the resistance, thereby constraining, controlling and
using the energies of resistance to help promote a given change (Tormala
& Petty, 2004). In addition resistance is also an indicator of change
recipient engagement and a valuable source of feedback for improving the
process and conduct of change and/or its implementation (Amason, 1996).
In other words, resistance can be used as a feedback mechanism by
listening to the comments, complaints, and criticisms of recipients.
Afterwards this information can be used to adjust the pace, the scope, or
the sequencing of change and/or its implementation (engagement value of
resistance). Finally, resistance is a form of conflict, and has been found to
strengthen and improve not only the quality of decisions but also
participants’ commitments to the implementation of those decisions
(Amason, 1996). In consequence, it stands to reason that resistance can
provide a similar strengthening value during change (strengthening value
of resistance).
Based upon the discussion about the possible value of resistance to
change in shaping positive organizational change and the strong
emphasis on readiness for change, we believe that for the advancement of
324
Chapter 6
the field it is important to keep in mind that both positive and negative
elements may be functional for the perpetuation of positive change
(Bagozzi, 2003). However, we warn for evolutions where one approach
tends to dominate the alternative approach, because then the field won’t
gain any longer from the debates that may emerge from the contrasting
perspectives held by both approaches. In sum, what we are suggesting is
that future scholarship into people’s attitudes toward change would benefit
significantly from studies that look at the relationships between concepts
that are embedded in the positive and negative psychology approach.
6.5.2.3 Is it not Just Replication of Existing Conceptual Frameworks and
Theories?
Throughout this chapter we evaluated our program of research in
terms of the value added to management theory. Although we identified
several interesting contributions like the conceptualization of readiness for
change as a multi-facetted concept, adopting a multilevel perspective
(chapter 3) and a positive scholarship approach on change, some critical
readers may question the real theoretical value of this manuscript. In this
paper we relied on a conceptual framework which has been partially
tested in previous inquiries. Some may say that this research project is of
limited value because it does not incorporate a ‘grand management
theory’ and is just a ‘replication study’ as it relies on a previous tested
framework.
In some respects these critics could have a point, because the top
journals in our field are defending a ‘sacred’ philosophy as to what
constitutes a genuine theoretical contribution (Hambrick, 2007). For
example, take the publication mission statement of the Academy of
Management: “The Academy of Management is committed to advancing
theory, research, education, and practice in the field of management. And
the mission statement of one of their flagship journals is: the Academy of
Management Journal is to publish empirical research that tests, extends,
or builds management theory and contributes to management theory and
325
Chapter 6
to management practice. Although there is nothing wrong with a strong
emphasis on theory, the question we should ask is whether this situation
has not resulted into significant tolls for the field.
As noted by Hambrick (2007) there are different ways to build
theory and advance knowledge. One of the most efficient ways in all
academic fields except for the field of management, is the report of
important and interesting facts, so that subsequent researchers can then
direct their efforts at understanding why and how those facts came to be
(Helfat, 2007). So the thing is that in our discipline many interesting facts
simply do not see the daylight because they are not theoretically
embedded. In other words the facts must always await theories and this
situation can jeopardize the further development of our field. For taking
this position we could be accused of that our agenda is to justify our
studies’ findings. Or another remark could be that the other academic
fields we are referring to are less mature than the field of management.
We could agree with the first point of critique, but with respect to the
second point we would like to note that the idea of ‘theories often follow
interesting facts’ has been merited by more mature disciplines like
economy, medical sciences, and etc.
A study conducted by Kacmar and Whitfield (2000) found that only 9
percent of the theoretical presentations in Academy of Management
Review have ever been tested. So, a paper often does not get a warm
reception in our field when it claims to be a replication of a prior test of a
theory. However in more mature disciplines significant value is attached to
straightforward tests of previously proposed theories, ideas, and operating
mechanisms.
In conclusion, do not suspect us from underestimating the
importance
of
theory
and
theoretical
breakthroughs.
Theoretical
development is crucial for our field, and we should remain committed to it.
But it takes much more for a field to advance. For instance replication of
existing frameworks should not be dismissed as a simple generation of
326
Chapter 6
facts and evidence, because in many other more developed fields it is a
highly merited approach. In consequence, we believe that our test of the
Armenakis and Bedeain (1999) and Holt et al. (2007a) frameworks can be
a very useful to further advance our knowledge of what shapes readiness
for change.
6.6 Lessons and practical implications drawn from this
dissertation
In the final part of this chapter we explore the so what question
concerning the managerial implications of our study. That is, we comment
on how the knowledge produced throughout this inquiry can be put into
practice. Toward that end, we first explain the concept of actionable
knowledge. In addition, we highlight how the CCQ developed in chapter 5
might be used by practitioners. Moreover, we elucidate the linkages
between our findings and extant models, and this elucidation leads into the
formulation of our own working model aimed at assisting managers in their
journey toward change.
Actionable Knowledge and Appreciative Inquiry
Two of the main goals of this dissertation—identifying the crucial
enablers of readiness for change and developing a change climate
questionnaire—are closely linked to the concerns of many practitioners.
For instance, change agents or change strategists might wonder “how do
we cultivate a culture that is open to change” and “how do we motivate
employees to support change”? The guidelines we offer in answer to these
questions reinforce how our inquiry stems from a real-world applied
research context of demonstrable value to frontline managers.
6.6.1.1 What is Actionable Knowledge?
Management scholars have been dealing with a persistent problem
since the emergence of the discipline—namely, the challenge of producing
327
Chapter 6
knowledge that contributes both to building theories and to refining
practice (Van de Ven & Johnson, 2006). For instance, practitioners and
even disinterested observers have long criticized academics for not
making their research adequately relevant to practice (Hodgkinson, Herriot
& Anderson, 2001). Academics have then again rebuked consultants and
professional knowledge workers for not being sufficiently aware of relevant
research and not doing enough to put their practice into reinforcing theory
(Weick, 2001).
Because this dissertation is applied research, it provides knowledge
in the nexus between practice and theory. The demand that applied
research should generate knowledge both scientific and practical creates
the dual hurdles of rigor and relevancy for any applied research project
(Pettigrew et al., 2001). The relevance of knowledge may entail: (1)
description, (2) explanation, (3) prediction and (4) control (Resher, 2000).
According to several scholars, practice-based knowledge should focus on
the control criterion (Beer, 2001; Starkey & Madan, 2001; Cummings &
Jones, 2004). In other words, it should contain actionable information
regarding how to resolve a problem. For our particular research setting,
that knowledge involves what should be done to develop readiness for
change.
6.6.1.2 OD and Action Research
Research into attitudes toward change falls decisively within the
purview of OD, endorsing the centrality of actionable knowledge as a goal
of this dissertation. After all, OD incorporates a planned process of change
in an organization’s culture through the use of behavioral science theories,
research and technology. Although the practice of OD has no allencompassing theory, most practitioners agree on the action research
model (Lewin, 1946) as a guiding frame of reference for all OD efforts
(Burke, 1994, Cummings & Huse, 1984). Action research, a term coined
by Lewin (1946), emphasizes that change requires action and that
successful action arises from correctly analyzing a situation, identifying
328
Chapter 6
alternative solutions, and choosing the most appropriate one at hand.
Applying this model to our context implies that in order to implement
change successfully one should first make an internal diagnosis of the
organization’s change climate and readiness for change. In other words,
successful implementation of change projects starts with a reliable and
valid assessment of the change climate and readiness for change within
the organization. Chapter 5 in this dissertation provides an excellent tool
(the CCQ) to diagnose the status of an organization in terms of readiness
for change and change climate. Furthermore the CCQ can be used to
follow up on how readiness for change alters during a change project.
6.6.1.3 How and for what Purposes Should Practitioners Use the CCQ?
In the first place change strategists and change agents can use the
CCQ to support the development of organizational capabilities, particularly
the capability of employees to identify facilitators and barriers to change,
and to become aware of the level of readiness for change. We believe that
using the CCQ in times of change does not yield a blueprint or prescribed
solution for dealing with change but provides cues on cultivating a climate
conducive to attachment and readiness for change. The CCQ will not
result in a uniform solution for change but rather will lead organizational
members through a process of analyzing the internal conditions facilitating
emergent change. In brief, the CCQ assists people in making sense of
change from an internal organizational perspective. This process of
analyzing and sensemaking stimulates the development of readiness for
change and the capability for dealing with change.
Secondly, we recommend using the CCQ in combination with
Appreciative Inquiry (Cooperrider & Whitney, 1999; Dewulf & Verheijen,
2006). Appreciative Inquiry (AI) is a strength-based, capacity building
approach to transforming human systems toward a shared image of their
most positive potential by first discovering the very best in their shared
experience (Fry & Kaplan 2006). Therefore we suggest using the CCQ on
a long-term basis to track the evolution of change climate both in times of
329
Chapter 6
failure and success. Understanding the internal conditions accompanying
success is especially important for the discovery phase of AI. The AI
approach overall proceeds through four phases (Dewulf & Verheijen,
2006): (1) discovery involves identifying and focusing on the key events
preceding successful change and the factors accompanying those
successes; (2) dream involves employees visualizing the expected future
on the basis of past of present change successes as identified in the CCQ;
(3) design emphasizes dialogue wherein employees share the discoveries
and opportunities surfaced in earlier phases and develop a collective
design for the future organization; and (4) destiny centers on constructing
this future by implementing the emergent ideas through formulating
concrete action plans.
What makes the combination of the CCQ and AI so powerful is that
analysis and change can occur almost simultaneously. Looking at change
from a positive, successful, appreciative orientation stimulates people to
view their current situations from a fresh perspective. This seeing of what
has already been accomplished alongside what now exists in the
organization lays the foundation for change. The dualistic viewpoint
moreover mobilizes the collective capabilities of the organization by
involving as many employees as possible during the design phase.
This entire approach rests on several fundamental principles
(Cooperrider, Whitney, & Stavros, 2003) of which we highlight four that
practitioners should keep in mind: (1) the principle of positivity, (2) the
principle of anticipation, (3) the principle of simultaneity, and (4) the
constructionist principle. The principle of positivity emerges from the
heliotropism philosophy previously discussed. Because all attention
focuses on positive and life-giving forces, constructive emotions and
thoughts surface which in turn create the necessary energy for dealing
with change successfully. The principle of anticipation contends that
collective visualization and dialogue about the future constitutes one of the
most powerful sources for organizational change. The third principle,
simultaneity, suggests that research about change and the actual change
330
Chapter 6
occur simultaneously. People thinking and talking about the current
change climate makes that change already on the verge of happening.
The processes of reflection and the collective sharing of ideas materialize
salient images of what should be the future. These processes and images
underlie the fourth, constructionist, principle.
In sum, we strongly recommend that using the CCQ as part and in
combination with AI forms a valuable approach for increasing the odds of
successful change without pain (Abrahamson, 2004).
6.6.2 Lessons for Practitioners
On the basis of our findings and a literature review, we concluded
that building a climate conducive for change creates a strong platform for
successful change. Our research has established that three forces (i.e.,
communication, history of change, and participation) continuously shape
and forge an environment that is simultaneously absorptive, open, and
flexible toward change. This environment of openness or readiness for
change enables the subsequent phases of change. In other words, the
successful implementation and institutionalization of change depends on
the existence of sufficient readiness for change (Armenakis et al., 1999;
Lewin, 1951; Mento et al., 2002) in stages, as previously ascertained (Ten
Have and Ten Have, 2004; Amenakis et al, 1999). Figure 6.3 displays the
three forces creating the atmosphere for a climate conducive to change. In
the next paragraph, we provide guidelines on how to combine or
recombine these forces to generate the momentum for change
(Abrahamson, 2004).
331
Chapter 6
FIGURE 6.3: Working model
Climate conducive for change
Change
communication
Readiness for change
Openness to change
Participation
History
Implementation
&
Institutionalization
332
Chapter 6
6.6.2.1 The Centrality of Change Communication: Some Practical
Guidelines
What may sound like common sense, but often remains overlooked
in times of change, is the quality of communication. Not only does our
inquiry indicate quality of change communication as one of the most
important factors in smoothing the change process, a multitude of studies
have also highlighted the centrality of this factor in determining readiness
for change. In the next paragraph, we translate these findings into
practical guidelines that will help change agents in planning and
implementing the desired changes.
The Three Pillars of Communication. When creating a positive
change momentum through communication, it is important for the
communication to cover at least three questions: What the change
message should include (i.e., content dimension), how the change
message should be communicated (i.e., tone and timing), and who should
communicate the change message (i.e., relationship change agents and
change recipients). Broadly defined, what refers to the content and
information quality of the change message; how involves the way to
communicate change in terms of timing, tone, and quantity of information;
and who concerns the specific communicators and the relationships
between change agents and change recipients. In our program of
research, the what and the how of change communication are covered by
one single construct: “Quality of change communication” (see chapters 2
and 3).
The Content Dimension: The Key Change Message Components.
Based on our findings and those of Miller et al. (1994), we have concluded
that employees who receive high quality information about impending
changes show higher levels of readiness for change. This quality of
change information depends on several content dimensions, while these
333
Chapter 6
dimensions in turn create certain sentiments that shape a positive or
negative attitude toward change. Armenakis et al. (1999; 2002) identified
five domains for ascertaining the crucial dimensions of a change message:
Discrepancy, efficacy, appropriateness, principal support, and personal
valence. Discrepancy addresses whether change is needed. It refers to
the gap between what is and what should be. Efficacy involves the
confidence in the individual and the group capabilities for making the
change succeed. The appropriateness of change concerns how
individuals may feel some form of change must occur while disagreeing on
the specifics. Principal support involves the part of the message, stressing
that key organizational leaders support the change and that they reflect
their support with an alignment between words and deeds. Finally,
personal valence clarifies the benefits of the change.
1. Discrepancy. For a change agent to articulate a clear change
vision aids the crucial development of a ‘felt need’ for change
(Bommer et al., 2005). According to Dalton (1970)
employees need to experience a ‘felt need’ strong enough to
create a state of dissonance between the current situation
and the target situation. The internal response to the
situational discrepancy and the attendant dissonance helps
answering the question of whether change is really
necessary. Without a clear vision, a change effort can easily
dissolve into a series of confusing and incompatible projects
taking the organization in the wrong direction or nowhere at
all (Kotter, 1995).
2. Efficacy. Organizations in need of transformation should
encourage employees to contribute their own ideas about
what could be done to solve the problems. With this type of
intellectual stimulation and invitation to empowerment,
employees tend to become more involved (Bommer et al.,
2005). In responding to requests for greater personal
334
Chapter 6
initiative, people develop a sense of ownership defined by
Parker et al. (1997) as feeling responsible for a particular
target. Psychological ownership in turn has been found to
strongly influence the propensity to promote change (Dirks,
Cummings
&
Pierce,
1996).
In
response
to
the
encouragement for bottom-up involvement, people develop a
stronger feeling that they have the capability to cope with
change and that they can make a difference.
3. Appropriateness and personal valence. The appropriateness
of change concerns whether the proposed option offers the
greatest benefits for both the individual and the organization
relative to the alternatives. Regarding personal valence,
people are going to be more committed and motivated to
change if the outcome yields personal benefits outweighing
the costs. Therefore the change message must emphasize
the personal valence as well as the individual and
organizational appropriateness of change. For organizational
members to adopt a favorable attitude and commit to the
change effort, they must perceive the individual-level benefits
(Bernerth, 2004). On the flip side, emphasizing personal
valence potentially
complicating
the
triggers a mechanism (see later)
task
of
change
agents
employing
persuasive arguments (Petty, 1995).
4. Principal support. Communication happens through both
words and deeds, with the latter often the more powerful.
Nothing undermines change more than role models behaving
in ways inconsistent with their words (Kotter, 1995). Leaders
provide essential behavioral examples for change (Bandura,
1986), and when leaders do not match their actual conduct to
their avowed standards, employees will attach less credence
to the communicated necessity for change.
335
Chapter 6
To conclude, without this information in the change message,
change recipients are very unlikely to extend themselves to take
responsibility or put effort or energy into changing their attitudes (Kouzes
& Posner, 1993).
Be
aware!
How
the
Change
Should
Be
Communicated?
Communication is the ultimate test for each manager, because in times of
change, one has to be aware of several barriers that jeopardize the quality
of
communication
(Van
den
Broeck,
Sanders,
Mestdagh,
and
Vandenbroucke, 2004). A first hurdle is postponing communication
because of the negatively laden content of change. A second barrier is the
lack of alignment between words and deeds. This barrier overlaps with the
principal support content dimension discussed above. Both hurdles are
also conceptually linked with trust in leadership and trust in top
management, two context factors that explain a substantial part of the
variance in our measurement of cognitive readiness for change (see
chapters 3 and 5).
Some managers conceive change as bad because it is assumed
that employees automatically resist change (Dent & Goldberg, 1998).
Therefore, they believe it is better to postpone change. Furthermore, many
managers feel that they cannot afford to be too open and too honest, for
fear of hurting people or embarrassing themselves; however, literature
tells us that, in the absence of information, people will invent worse
scenarios than the current situation (Clarke, 1994). The cost of not
communicating in a timely fashion entails loss of trust in management,
anger, and disaffection. As every change inevitably involves elements of
bad and good news, it is therefore very important to bite the bullet and not
disguise the reality of the situation (Young & Post, 1993). Basically, we
believe it is better to avoid surprising people at all. People informed in a
timely manner are less likely to develop cynical attitudes. Routine notice
about what is happening and why things are happening prevents anyone
from being caught off guard (Reichers et al., 1997). In essence, an
336
Chapter 6
important guideline to remember is that honesty and timely communication
are the best policies for communicating change. Furthermore, it is crucial
that there is a climate for debate, and that discussions about
shortcomings, errors, and difficulties are encouraged.
According to Young and Post (1993), a second critical factor for
effective communication is that what is being said closely matches what is
being done. In times of change, people often search for a role model, and
this is often found in the personification of management. The belief in the
need for change strongly depends on the consistency in words and
actions demonstrated by these role models. If there is no such alignment,
ambiguity arises, and people start to loose faith in the need for change.
Put differently, communication comes in both words and actions, and the
latter are often the more powerful. Nothing can undermine change more
than behavior by role models that are inconsistent with their own words.
Not only is there a need for consistency between words and deeds
by management, consistency is also required in terms of alignment
between communicated organizational values and goals of change (Duck,
1993; Bartlett & Goshal, 1994). According to Van den Broeck and
Mestdagh (2004), values are the glue that keeps people together in
turbulent times. Values create involvement for organizational goals and
contribute to the sensemaking of change. During change, employees
question whether the proposed changes match the organizational values.
If this is not the case, employees will not see any viable reason why they
should continue to support these changes.
Who Should Be Communicating Change? The recommendations
made in this paragraph are not directly deductible from our research. The
findings in chapter 4 that discuss the effects of trust in supervisors and
executive management indicate that the top of the organization (i.e., CEO)
and the company’s lower level management (i.e., supervisors) hold pivotal
337
Chapter 6
positions. Therefore, we have decided it is necessary to elaborate further
on the role of CEO’s and supervisors in the communication of change.
CEO as a communication champion. According to Young and Post
(1993), one of the crucial positions in change communication is the CEO
as a communications champion. This implies that the CEO must be a
skilled and visible communications role model. The guiding principle for a
CEO is very simple: They should use all existing communication channels
to broadcast the vision of change. In other words, the use of a variety of
channels, such as the organization’s newsletter, memos, formal meetings,
and casual conversations with knowledgeable people, guarantees that
everybody has a chance to receive information through his or her most
preferred medium (Kotter, 1995; Reichers et al., 1997).
Frontline supervisors: The opinion leaders. Although the CEO
should be a communication champion, Larkin and Larkin (1996) noted that
frontline supervisors are at least as crucial as the CEO in communicating
change. The fact that employees are more likely to listen to their
immediate supervisors instead of senior managers has rarely been
highlighted
by
communication
consultants.
Actually,
the
frontline
supervisors and not senior managers are the opinion leaders of the
organization. Senior managers must therefore realize that employees will
change the way they go about their jobs only if they learn about what is
expected of them from a familiar and credible source. The centrality of
these direct supervisors in the change process makes face-to-face
communication between supervisors and employees a more effective tool
than mass communication by the CEO. In summary, the Larkin and Larkin
study (1996) endorsed that employees prefer face-to-face communication
over communication in terms of memos, publications, videos, large scale
announcements, and meetings.
After having described “the what,” “the how,” and “the who” of the
change message, the next paragraph deals with how the contents of
change messages interact with the perceived credibility of the person(s) in
charge of the communication.
338
Chapter 6
Persuading the Change Recipients. The Elaboration Likelihood
Model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981, 1984) teaches us that the persuasiveness
of a message is determined by the content of the message and the
person(s) responsible for the communication. The Elaboration Likelihood
Model is a framework that explains the process of how the message might
impact people’s attitudes toward change. At its basic level, this theory
outlines two routes to persuasion: The central and peripheral routes. The
central route involves an active evaluation of the message. Under this
condition, the person screens the content of the message, relates it to his
or her own life, and generates favorable or unfavorable thoughts in
response to it. Under this route, attitude changes result from a person’s
careful attempt to evaluate the true merits of the advocated position.
People follow the central route when the message involves personally
relevant information. In contrast, the peripheral route emphasizes aspects
of the persuasion situation that are tangential to the issue under
consideration (e.g., the attractiveness of the message’s source). This
route places less credence on the arguments in a message or on issuerelevant thinking (i.e., discrepancy, appropriateness of change, and
personal benefits). Chaiken (1987), for example, showed that when the
message is of low personal relevance to the message receiver, he/she will
look at peripheral cues and pay more attention to whether the source is
trustworthy. Another study has indicated that, when the personal
relevance is low, the source shapes the persuasion, regardless of
argument quality (Petty & Cacioppo, 1984). This theory in part explains the
findings of why quality of change communication is better at predicting
readiness for change than trust in top management (see chapters 2 and
3). The studies in chapters 2 and 3 involved large scale changes with
salient consequences for the change recipients, making the central route
of persuasion the dominant route in determining the change recipients’
level of readiness for change. This implies that the effects of quality of
change communication outweigh the perceived trustworthiness of the
339
Chapter 6
change messenger (i.e., trust in top management) in affecting employees’
readiness for change.
Studies have shown that attitudes formed or changed as a result of
effortful thinking (i.e., central route) are more predictive of behavioral
intentions than attitudes formed or changed with limited thinking (i.e.,
peripheral route) (Verplanken, 1991). Research has also suggested that
attitudes formed by the central route are more persistent over time and
more resistant to counterpersuasive attempts. Thus, attitude changes
induced by the central route are preferable to attitude changes induced by
the peripheral route (Petty, 1995).
These
observations
have
important
implications
for
our
understanding of how the feelings and cognitions about change and finally
people’s intentions might be shaped by the communication of change.
Since organizational change creates uncertainty about the outcomes,
recipients often perceive the change as a highly personal relevant issue.
In light of this, many people undergoing the effects of change are likely to
follow the central route of persuasion. As a result, the established attitudes
toward change will be strong and persistent to counterarguments. When
the arguments are favorably assessed, people will develop a strong
positive attitude toward change; however when they feel that the
arguments are rather weak, resistance to change will increase. When
people get the impression that the arguments are meant to persuade, they
are likely to ignore the message and evoke negative attitudes toward
change. Therefore, it is essential that, when change agents underline the
personal benefits of change, they should keep in mind that the quality of
the information provided is crucial in shaping positive feelings and
cognitions about the change.
6.6.2.2 Do We Need to Honor the Past?
When going through the process of change, the organization’s
history is critical because previous events shape current perceptions and
future responses toward change (Lau & Woodman, 1995). Although some
340
Chapter 6
aspects of the past are often ignored, they condition the current and future
thinking about change. Essentially, if management wants to better
understand the complex and untidy change process, they need to consider
the organization’s change history. In other words, sometimes it is crucial to
honor the past in order to gain people’s support to change (Wilkins &
Bristow, 1987). In a study performed by Reichers et al. (1997), it was
noted that employees tended to develop cynicism in response to an
unsuccessful organizational history of change efforts.
Despite the use of communication strategies, some employees may
not be convinced of the necessity to support change. Therefore, in
alignment with the popularity of the bestseller In Search of Excellence, it is
important that organizations find examples of successful change.
Employees can become more optimistic about future attempts at change if
they are made aware of past successes. Of course, not all attempts at
change are always successful, and managers who were responsible for
any past failure may lack credibility. In our inquiry, it was demonstrated
that organizations with a positive history of change had increased trust in
top management (chapter 2). Furthermore, in the case of failed change,
Reichers et al. (1997) suggested that management can regain credibility
by accepting responsibility and admitting that they made mistakes in the
past. Those who fail to do this may be viewed as dishonest. In essence,
people can be very forgiving when mistakes are admitted, apologies
offered, and actions taken to correct or prevent further problems.
According to Kouzes and Posner (1993), this approach can even work in
the face of repeated failure; however, when there is a long record of failure
of change, people may become disenchanted and resist change. In our
inquiry (chapter 4), we found that people’s openness to change was the
lowest under conditions of an unsuccessful history of change and low trust
in management. In short, we believe the best way to establish a positive
attitude toward change is successful well-publicized change. Although not
examined in this inquiry, people may also develop cynicism toward change
341
Chapter 6
that does not result from an organization’s history of change, but from
change developed by their own history and predisposition.
6.6.2.3 Level of Involvement
Since the groundbreaking work at the Hawthorne manufacturing
plant (Coch & French, 1948), employee participation has been standard
advice for managers seeking to encourage change. According to
Wierdsma (2004), openness to change can only be created when
employees are actively involved in assigning meaning to change. Despite
the conviction to involve every last employee in change, empirical
research has not reached a consensus concerning the effects of
participation. Our findings have shown that employee attitudes toward
change depend on the type of participation. For example, in chapter 2, it
was observed that general participation or participatory management (i.e.,
a context factor independent of a specific change) did not contribute to our
understanding of readiness for change; however, when change-specific
participation (chapter 4) or a particular change project (chapter 5) was
involved, a significant part of variance could be explained in openness,
emotional, and intentional readiness for change. In short, we do not
question the relevance of participative methods in change processes;
however, it is clear that a more nuanced approach of these methods can
be useful.
In advocating this nuanced approach, we recommend the
framework suggested by Dunphy and Stace (1990). Their contingency
approach offers a significant challenge to the universal and sometimes
oversimplified prescription of participative change management. After all,
any form of consultation and involvement takes time, and time may not
always be available in rapidly changing environments (see Figure 6.4).
Both authors note that the effectiveness of the participation strategy is
determined by the fit with the scale of change (incremental-fine tuning
changes and transformative changes) and the change leadership style
(i.e., collaborative-consultative mode and directive-coercive mode). The
342
Chapter 6
four participation strategies identified in the contingency approach are: (1)
Participative evolution (Type 1), (2) charismatic transformation (Type 2),
(3) forced evolution (Type 3), and (4) dictatorial transformation (Type 4).
FIGURE 6.4: Under which conditions is participation most effective?
Incremental change (finetuning changes/incremental
adjustments)
Transformative change
(modular and corporate
transformation)
Collaborative – consultative
modes
Type 1
Participative evolution
Type 2
Charismatic transformation
Directive – coercive modes
Type 3
Forced evolution
Type 4
Dictatorial transformation
Incremental or fine tuning changes refer to refining methods,
policies, and procedures, typically at the division level, as well as distinct
(but not radical enough to be described as strategic) modifications to
strategies, structures, and management processes. Transformative
changes involve modular transformation or changes that are potentially
radical, but do not encompass the entire organization. Corporate
transformation incorporates strategic change throughout the entire
organization.
Four styles of change leadership were identified. The collaborative
leadership style involves widespread employee participation in key
decisions affecting their own and the organization’s future. The
consultative style is a somewhat weakened version of the collaborative
style, as it refers to limited involvement in setting goals relevant to
employees’ areas of responsibility. The directive style uses managerial
authority in reaching decisions about change and the future, and about
how change will proceed. Finally, the coercive style refers to senior
management who imposes change on the organization.
343
Chapter 6
It has been suggested to use participative evolution when the
organization needs minor adjustment to environmental conditions, where
time is available, and where key interest groups favor change. Charismatic
transformation should be used when the organization requires major
adjustments to meet environmental conditions, wherein there is little time
for participation, and where there is support for radical change. Forced
evolution is recommended when minor adjustments are required, that is,
where time is available, but where key interest groups oppose change. To
conclude, dictatorial transformation is most effective when major
adjustments are necessary, there is no time for participation, there is no
internal support for strategic change, and is necessary for survival.
In
summary,
the
three
climate
forces
(quality
of
change
communication, history of change, and participation) and the dynamics
between these elements are points of attention if management decides to
announce change. The strength of this framework is that these forces, in
combination with readiness for change, may not always be visible on the
surface, but are latent in each organization, waiting to be triggered. In
conclusion, management should rely on discovering these existing
organizational assets, redeploying them, and recombining them to
increase the probability of successful change (Abrahamson, 2004).
Conclusion
The findings of our study support the crucial role of context and
process factors in predicting the positive side of employee’s attitudes
toward change. The key variables readiness for change and openness to
change dovetail with the recent call for a positive psychological approach
in change. This inquiry demonstrated that readiness for change occurs not
only from individual reflection but also as a socially constructed
phenomenon
(chapter
3).
Furthermore our program of research
highlighted the importance of diagnosing the organizational climate when
planning change. A thorough diagnosis of the organizational resources
344
Chapter 6
supporting and sustaining change depends on the quality of the
assessment instrument. Although the literature abounds with tools
purporting to measure organizational climate and readiness for change,
very few demonstrated fundamentally good reliability and validity.
Therefore we developed an instrument scoring well on the psychometric
criteria (i.e., content validity, construct validity, and criterion validity)
recommended by the American Psychological Association (chapter 5). Our
42-item CCQ measures change climate and three facets of organizational
change: the context (5 scales), the process (3 scales) and readiness for
change (3 scales). Although our tool is still in the initial phases of
development
and
may
yet
undergo
further
refinement,
the
conceptualization of readiness for change as a multifaceted construct
consisting of emotional, cognitive and intentional components helps us
further to understand the complexity underlying change.
In addition to the scientific contributions from our research, we have
in this chapter addressed vital practical aspects of our findings. Building on
our inquiry, we assert that both the strengths and limitations of our design
should stimulate further scholarly investigation into the topic. In sum, we
uphold that research into attitudes toward change will remain highly
relevant because it highlights the significance of the human role in
managing transformation effectively.
6.7 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abrahamson, E. (2004). Change without pain: How managers can overcome
initiative overload, organizational chaos, and employee burnout. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
Aitken, M., & Longford, N. (1986). Statistical modelling issues in school
effectiveness studies. Journal of the Royal Statistics Society, 149, 1-43.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social
behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
345
Chapter 6
Al-Khalaf, A.M. (1994). Factors that affect the success and failure of TQM
implementation in small U.S. cities. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation,
University of Pittsburgh.
Amason, A.C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional
conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top
management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 123–148.
Armenakis, A.A., & Bedeian, A.G. (1999). Organizational change: A review of
theory and research in the 1990’s. Journal of Management, 25, 293–315.
Armitage, C.J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour:
A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471–499.
Armenakis, A.A., & Harris, S.G. (2002). Crafting a change message to create
transformational readiness. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 15, 169–183.
Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G., & Feild, H.S. (1999). Making change permanent: A
model for institutionalizing change interventions. In W.A. Pasmore, & R.W.
Woodman (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development
(pp. 97–128). Oxford, UK: JAI press.
Armenakis, A.A, Harris, S.G., & Mossholder, K. (1993). Creating readiness for
organizational change. Human Relations, 46, 681–703.
Avey, J.B., Wernsing, T.R., & Luthans, F. (2008). Can positive employees help
positive organizational change: Impact of psychological capital and
emotions on relevant attitudes and behaviors. The Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 44, 48–70.
Backer, T.E. (1995). Assessing and enhancing readiness to change: Implications
for technology transfer. In T.E. Backer, S.L. David, & G. Soucy (Eds.),
Reviewing the behavioral science knowledge base on technology transfer
(pp. 21–41). Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive
theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bagozzi, R.P. (2003). Positive and negative emotions in organizations. In K.S.
Cameron, J.E. Dutton, & R.E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational
scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 176–193). San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Barnett, W.P., & Carroll, G.R. (1995). Modeling internal organizational change.
Annual Review of Sociology, 21, 217–236.
Barrett, F., Thomas, G., & Hocevar, S. (1995). The central role of discourse in
large-scale change: A social construction perspective. Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 31, 352–372.
Bartlett, C., & Ghosal, S. (1994). Changing the role of top management. Beyond
strategy to purpose. Harvard Business Review, November-December,
79–88.
Baumeister, R.F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K.D. (2001). Bad is
stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323–370.
Beck,
346
M.S.L. (1994). Basic measurement: International handbooks
quantitative applications in the social sciences. London, UK: Sage.
of
Chapter 6
Bedell, J.R., Ward, J.C., Archer, R.P., & Stokes, M.K. (1985). An empirical
evaluation of a model of knowledge utilization. Evaluation Review, 9, 109–
126.
Beer, M. (2001). Why management research findings are unimplementable: An
action science perspective. Reflections, 2, 58-65.
Belasco, J.A. (1990). Teaching an elephant to dance: Empowering change in
your organization. New York: Crown Publishers.
Bernerth, J. (2004). Expanding our understanding of the change message.
Human Resource Development Review, 3, 36–52.
Bollar, S.L. (1996). The impact of organizational culture on employee work
attitudes, readiness for change and organizational performance.
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology.
Bommer, W.H., Rich, G.A., & Rubin, R.S. (2005). Changing attitudes about
change: Longitudinal effects of transformational leader behavior on
employee cynicism about organizational change. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26, 733–753.
Boonstra, J.J., & De Caluwé L.I.A. (2006). Interveniëren en veranderen: Zoeken
naar betekenis in interacties. Management en Organisatie, 60, 5–33.
Bouckenooghe, D., Devos, G., & Van den Broeck, H. (2008). The change climate
questionnaire: Scale development. Working paper series. Faculty of
Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University.
Bower, J.L. (2000). The purpose of change. A commentary on Jensen and
Senge. In Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (Eds.), Breaking the code of change (pp.
83–95). Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Publishing.
Burell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational
analyses. London, UK: Heinemann.
Burke, W.W. (1994). Organization development: A process of learning and
changing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Burke, W. W. (2002). Organization change. London, UK: Sage.
Burke, W.W., Corruzi, C.A., & Church, A.H. (1996). The organizational survey as
an intervention for change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Burnes, B., & James, H. (1995). Culture, cognitive dissonance, and the
management of change. International Journal of Operations and Product
Management, 15, 14–33.
Cable, D.M., & Judge, T.A. (1994). Pay performances and job search decisions:
A person-organization fit perspective. Personnel Psychology, 47, 317-348.
Cameron, K. (2008). Paradox in positive organizational change. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 44, 7-24.
Cameron, K.S., Dutton, J.E., & Quinn, R.E. (2003). Positive organizational
scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline. San Francisco, CA: BerrettKoehler Publishers.
Campbell, D.T., & Fiske, D.W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by
the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.
347
Chapter 6
Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M.P. Zanna, J.M.
Olson, & C.P. Herman (eds.). Social influence: The Ontario symposium
(Vol. 5, pp. 3–39). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chen, G., Gully, S.M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new general selfefficacy scale. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 62–83.
Cheung, G.W., & Rensvold, R.B. (1999). Testing factorial invariance across
groups: A reconceptualization and proposed new model. Journal of
Management, 25, 1–27.
Clarke, L. (1994). The essence of change. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Coch, L., & French, J.R.P (1948). Overcoming resistance to change. Human
Relations, 1, 512–532.
Cools, E. (2007). The influence of cognitive styles on managerial behaviour and
attitudes. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Ghent University.
Cools, E., & Van den Broeck, H. (2007). Development and validation of the
Cognitive Style Indicator. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and
Applied, 141, 359–387.
Cooperrider, D.L., & Whitney, D. (1999). Appreciative Inquiry: Collaborating for
Change. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Communications Inc.
Cooperrider, D.L., Withney, D., & Stavros, J.M. (2003). Appreciative Inquiry
handbook. The first in a series of AI workbooks for leaders of change.
Bedford Heights: Lakeshore Publishers.
Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed
methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, MA: Sage Publications.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective
in the research perspective. London, UK: Sage.
Cummings, T.G., & Huse, E. (1989). Organization development and change. St.
Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.
Cummings, T.G., & Jones, Y. (2004). Creating actionable knowledge.
Conference theme for the annual meeting of the Academy of
Management,
New
Orleans.
http://
meetings.aomonline.org/2004/theme.htm
Daft, R. L. (1983). Learning the craft of organizational research. Academy of
Management Review, 8, 539–546.
D’ Amato, M.R., & Jagoda, H. (1962). Effect of early exposure to photic
stimulation on brightness discrimination and exploratory behaviour.
Journal of Genetic Psychology, 101, 267–279.
Dansereau, F., Yammarino, F.J., & Kohles, J.C. (1999). Multiple levels of
analysis from a longitudinal perspective: Some implications for the theory
building. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 346–357.
Darmer, P. (2000). The subject(ivity) of management. Journal of Organizational
Change Management, 13, 334-351.
Darwin, C. (2003). The origin of species. New York: Signet Classics.
Deevy, E. (1995). Creating the resilient organization: A rapid response
management program. Englewoods Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hill.
348
Chapter 6
Dent, E.B., & Goldberg, S.G. (1999). Challenging resistance to change. The
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35, 25–41.
Dirks, K.T., Cummings, L.L., & Pierce, J.L. (1996). Psychological ownership in
organizations: Conditions under which individuals promote and resist
change. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 9, 1–23.
DeVellis, R.F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications. Newbury
Park, MA: Sage.
Dewulf, L., & Verheijen, L. (2006). Een organisatieveranderingsproject op basis
van een waarderende benadering. Management & Organisatie, 3/4, 142–
162.
Duck, J.D. (1993). Managing change: The art of balancing. Harvard Business
Review, 71, 109–118.
Dunphy, D., & Stace, D. (1990). Under new management. New York: McGrawHill.
Eby, L. T., Adams, D. M., Russell, J. E. A., & Gaby, S. H. (2000). Perceptions of
organizational readiness for change: Factors related to employees’
reactions to the implementation of team-based selling. Human Relations,
53, 419–442.
Feldman, J.M., & Lynch, J.G., Jr. (1988). Self-generated validity and other effects
of measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and behaviour. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 73, 421–435.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behaviour: An
introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Ford, J.D., Ford, L.W., & D’Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change. The rest of
the story. Academy of Management Review, 33, 326 –377.
Frijda, N.H. (1994). Emotions are functional most of the time. In P. Ekman, & R.J.
Davidson (Eds.), The nature of emotion: Fundamental questions (pp.
112– 122). New York: Oxford University Press.
Fry, R.E., & Kaplan, S. (2006). Bringing the whole system into the center of
strategy, Develop, 2, 5-8.
Galpin, T. (1996). The human side of change: A practical guide to organization
redesign. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
George, J.M., & Jones, G.R. (2001). Towards a process model of individual
change in organizations. Human Relations, 54, 3–22.
Gephart, R. (2004). Qualitative research and the Academy of Management
Journal. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 454–462.
Gerbing, D.W., & Hamilton, J.G. (1996). Viability of exploratory factor analysis as
a precursor to confirmatory factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling,
3, 62–72.
Gittell, J.H. (2008). Relationships and resilience. Care provider responses to
pressures from managed care. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44,
25–47.
Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C.A. (1997). The individualized coporation. A
fundamentally new approach to management. Great companies are
defined by purpose, process and people. Harper Business.
349
Chapter 6
Golembiewski, R. T., & Billingsley, K. R. (1980). Measuring change in OD panel
designs: A response to critics. Academy of Management Review, 5, 97–
103.
Hair, J.F., Jr., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C. (1998). Multivariate
data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hambrick, D.C. (2007). The field of management’s devotion to theory: Too much
of a good thing? Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1346–1352.
Hanpachern, C. (1997). The extension of the theory of margin: A framework for
assessing readiness for change. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation,
Colorado State University.
Hay and McBer Company (1993). Total quality management readiness index.
Boston: Author.
Helfat, C.E. (2007). Stylized facts, empirical research and theory development in
management. Strategic Organization, 5, 185–192.
Henkel, A.G., Repp-Begin, C., & Vogt, J.F. (1993). Empowerment-readiness
survey: Foundations for total quality. In J.W. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Developing
human resources (pp. 147–161). San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer and Company.
Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J.P. (2002). Commitment to organizational change:
Extension of a three-component model. Journal of Applied Psychology,
87, 474–487.
Hinkin, T.R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in
survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 104–121.
Hitt, M.A., Beamish, P.W., Jackson, S.E., & Mathieu, J.E. (2007). Building
theoretical and empirical bridges across levels: Multilevel research in
management. The Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1385–1400.
Hodgkinson, G.P., Herriot, & Anderson (2001). Realigning the stakeholders in
management research: Lessons from industrial, work and organizational
psychology. British Journal of Management, 12 (Special Issue), S41–S48.
Hofmann, D.A., Griffin, M.A., & Gavin, M. (2000). The application of hierarchical
linear modeling to organizational research. In K.J. Klein, & S.W.J.
Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in
organizations, (pp. 467–511). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Holt, D.T., Armenakis, A., Feild, H.S., & Harris, S.G. (2007a). Readiness for
organizational change: The systematic development of a scale. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 43, 232–255.
Holt, D.T., Armenakis, A., Harris, S.G., & Feild H.S. (2007b). Toward a
comprehensive definition of readiness for change: A review of research
and instrumentation. In W.A. Pasmore & R.M. Woodman (Eds.), Research
in organizational change and development (pp. 295–346). Oxford, UK:
Elsevier.
House, R., Rousseau, D.M., & Thomas-Hunt, M. (1995). The meso paradigm: A
framework for integration micro and macro organizational behavior.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 17, 71–114.
Hunt, H.T., Joseph, K., & Cook, C.D. (1977). Scales for the measurement of
innovativeness. Human Communications Research, 4, 58–65.
350
Chapter 6
Hunt, R.G., Krzystofiak, F.J., Meindl, J.R., & Yousry, A.M. (1989). Cognitive style
and decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 44, 436–453.
Ireh, M. (1995). The relationships of superintendents’ leadership styles,
perceived teachers’ readiness to implement planned change, and
selected characteristics of school districts. Unpublished Doctoral
dissertation, Bowling Green State University.
Jansen, K. J. (2000). The emerging dynamics: Resistance, readiness, and
momentum. Human Resource Planning, 23, 53–54.
Johnson, C.M., & Kerkhoff, A.C. (1964). Family norms, social position, and value
of change. Social Forces, 43, 115–151.
Jones, J.E., & Bearley, W.L. (1996). Organizational change-readiness scale:
Facilitator’s guide. Amherst, MA: HRD Press.
Jones, R.A., Jimmieson, N.L., & Griffiths, A. (2005). The impact of organizational
culture and reshaping capabilities on change implementation success:
The mediating role of readiness for change. Journal of Management
Studies, 42, 361–386.
Judge, T.A., Thoresen, C.J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T.M. (1999). Managerial
coping with organizational change: A dispositional perspective. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 84, 107–122.
Kacmar, K.M., & Whitfield, J.M. (2000). An additional rating method for journal
articles in the field of management. Organizational Research Methods, 3,
392–406.
Keith, K.L. (1986). The development and analysis of a perceived readiness for
change measure as a part of an organizational change process.
Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Utah.
Kezar, A. (2001). Understanding and Facilitating Change in Higher Education in
the 21st Century (EDO-HE-2001-07). Washington, DC: ASHE-ERIC
Higher education report series. Office of Educational Research and
Improvement (ED). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No:
ED457763).
King, N., & Anderson, N. (1995). Innovation and change in organizations.
London, UK: Routledge.
Kline, R.B. (2004). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New
York: Guilford Press.
Knowles, E.S., & Linn, J.A. (2004). The importance of resistance to persuasion.
In E.S. Knowles, & J.A. Linn (Eds.), Resistance and persuasion (pp. 3–9).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kondakçi, Y. (2005). Practice-based continuous change process: A longitudinal
investigation of an organizational change process in a higher education
organization. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. Ghent University.
Kotter, J. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard
Business Review, 73, 59–67.
Kouzes, J.M., & Posner, B.Z. (1993). Credibility. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
351
Chapter 6
Kozlowski, S.W.J., & Klein, K.J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and
research in organizations: Contextual, temporal and emergent processes.
In K.J. Klein, & S.W.J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and
methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions and new directions
(pp. 3–90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Larkin, T.J., & Larkin, S.M. (1995). Communication World, 12, 12–15.
Lazarus, R.S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York:
Springer.
Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social
Issues, 2, 34–46.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper & Row.
Licht, M.H. (2003). Multiple regression and correlation. In L.G. Grimm, & P.R.
Yarnold, Reading and understanding multivariate statistics (pp. 19–64).
Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Luthans, F. (2002). The need for and meaning of positive organizational
behaviour. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 695–706.
Luthans, F., & Yousef, C.A. (2007). Emerging positive organizational behaviour.
Journal of Management, 33, 321–349.
MacCallum, R.C., & Austin (2000). Applications of structural equation modeling
in psychological research. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 201–226.
Mento, A.J., Jones, R.M., & Dirndorfer, W. (2002). A change management
process: grounded in both theory and practice. Journal of Change
Management, 3, 45–59.
Miller, V.D., Johnson, J. R., & Grau, J. (1994). Antecedents to willingness to
participate in a planned organizational change. Journal of Applied
Communication Research, 11, 365–386.
Mitchell, T.R. (1985). An evaluation of the validity of correlational research
conducted in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 10, 192–
205.
Mohr, L. (1982). Explaining organizational behaviour. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Mulaik, S.A., James, L.R., Van Altine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S., & Stilwell, C.D.
(1989). Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation
models. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 430–445.
Mrosovsky, N., & Kingsmill, S.F. (1985). How turtles find the sea. Journal of
Comparative Ethology, 67, 237–256.
Neal, M.A. (1965). Values and interests in social change. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Nunnaly, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oreg, S. (2006). Personality, context, and resistance to organizational change.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15, 73–101.
Parker, S.K., Wall. T.D., & Jackson, P.R. (1997). That’s not my job: Developing
flexible employee work orientations, Academy of Management Journal,
40, 899–929.
352
Chapter 6
Patterson, M.G., West, M.A., Shackleton, V.J., Dawson, J.F., Lawthom, R.,
Maitlis, S., Robinson, D.L., & Wallace, A.M. (2005). Validating the
organizational climate measure: links to managerial practices, productivity
and innovation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 379–408.
Petty, R.E. (1995). Creating strong attitudes: Two routes of persuasion. NIDA
Research Monograph, 155, 209–224.
Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and
contem porary approaches. Dubuque, IA: Wn. C. Brown.
Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1984). Source factors and the elaboration
likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Consumer Research, 11,
668– 672.
Piderit, S.K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A
multidimensional view of attitudes towards an organizational change.
Academy of Management Review, 25, 783–794.
Pedhazur, E.J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioural research. New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Pettigrew, A. M. (1990). Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and
practice. Organization Science, 1, 267–292.
Pettigrew, A. M. (2001). Management research after modernism. British Journal
of Management, 12 (Special Issue), S61–S70.
Pettigrew, A. M., Woodman, R. W., & Cameron, K. S. (2001). Studying
organizational change and development: Challenges for future research.
Academy of Management Journal, 44, 697–713.
Philips, D.C., & Burbules, N.C. (2000). Postpositivism and educational research.
Lanhman, MD : Rowman & Littlefield.
Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A
multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change.
Academy of Management Review, 25, 783–794.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., & Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common
method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature
and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–
903.
Podsakoff, P.M., & Organ, D.W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research:
Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531–544.
Poggenpoel, M., Myburg, C. P. H., & Van der Linde, C. (2001). Qualitative
research strategies as prerequisite for quantitative strategy. Education,
122, 408–413.
Rafferty, A., & Simons, R. (2005). An examination of the antecedents of
readiness for fine-tuning and corporate transformation changes. Journal of
Business & Psychology, 20, 325–350.
Raudenbush, S.W. (1989). Centering predictors in multilevel analysis: Choices
and consequences. Multilevel Modeling Newsletter, 1, 10–12.
Reichers, A. E., Wanous, J. P., & Austin, J. T. (1997). Understanding and
managing cynicism about organizational change. Academy of
Management Executive, 11, 48–59.
353
Chapter 6
Resher, N. (2000). Realisitic pragmatism: An introduction to pragmatic
philosophy. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Scandura, T.A., & Williams, E. (2000). Research methodology in management:
Current practices, trends and implications for future research. Academy of
Management Journal, 43, 1248–1264.
Schein, E. H. (1996). Kurt Lewin's change theory in the field and in the
classroom: Notes toward a model of managed learning. Reflections, 1,
59–74.
Schneider, B., Bowen, D.E., Ehrhart, M.G., Holcombe, K.M. (2000). The climate
for service: evolution of a construct. In N.M. Ashkanasy, C.P.M. Wilderom,
& M.F. Peterson (Eds.). Handbook of organizational culture and climate
(pp. 21–36). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schneider, B., Brief, A. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1996). Creating a climate and culture
for sustainable organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24, 7–
19.
Schurink, E. M. (1998). Deciding to use a qualitative research approach. In A. S.
De Vos (Ed.), Research at grassroots: A primer for the caring professions
(pp. 239–260). Pretoria, SA: J. L. van Schaik.
Seligman, M. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive Psychology, American
Psychologist, 55, 5–14.
Siegel, S.M., & Kaemmerer, W.F. (1978). Measuring perceived support for
innovation in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 553–562.
Smollan, R.K. (2006). Minds, hearts and deeds: Cognitive, affective and
behavioural responses to change. Journal of Change Management, 6,
143– 158.
Spector, P.E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban
legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221–232.
Starkey, K., & Madan (2001). Bridging the relevance gap: Aligning stakeholders
in the future of management research. British Journal of Management, 12
(Special Issue), S3–S26.
Stewart, T.A. (1994). Rate your readiness for change. Fortune, 129, 106–110.
Stone-Romero, E.F. (1994). Construct validity issues in organizational behaviour
research. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behaviour: The state of
science (pp. 155–179). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ten Have, S. (2003). Voorbeeldig veranderen: Een kwestie van organiseren.
Amsterdam, NE: Uitgeverij Nieuwezijds.
Ten Have, S., & Ten Have, W. (2004). Het boek verandering: Over doordacht
werken aan de organisatie. Amsterdam, NE: Uitgeverij Nieuwezijds.
Tenkasi, R.V., & Chesmore, M.C. (2003). Social networks and planned
organizational change: The impact of strong network ties on effective
change implementation and use. The Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 39, 281–300.
Tierney, P. (1999). Work relations as a precursor to a psychological climate for
change: The role of work group supervisors and peers. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 12, 120–133.
354
Chapter 6
Touraine, A. (1965). Sociologie de l’action. Paris, FR: Editions du Seuil.
Tormala, Z.L., & Petty, R.E. (2004). Resisting persuasion and attitude certainty:
A meta-cognitive analysis. In E.S. Knowles, & J.A. Linn (Eds.), Resistance
and Persuasion (pp. 65–82). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Trumbo, D.A. (1961). Individual and group correlates of attitudes toward workrelated change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 45, 338–344.
Vandenberg, R.J., & Lance, C.E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the
measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and
recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research
Methods, 3, 4–70.
Van de Ven, A. H., & Huber, G. P. (1990). Longitudinal field research methods
for studying processes of organizational change. Organization Science, 1,
213– 219.
Van den Broeck, H., & Mestdagh, S. (2004). Change, learning, and performance:
Three of a kind? In K. Verweire & L. Van den Berghe (Eds.), Integrated
performance management: A guide to strategy implementation (pp. 238–
260). London, UK: Sage.
Van den Broeck, H., Sanders, J., Mestdagh, S., & Vandenbroucke, A.M. (2004).
Praktijkboek ondernemend veranderen. Tielt, BE: Lannoo.
Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (1995). Explaining development and change in
organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20, 510-540.
Van de Ven, A.H., & Poole, M.S. (2005). Alternative approaches for studying
organizational change. Organization Studies, 26, 1377–1404.
Van de Ven, A.H., & Johnson, P.E. (2006). Knowledge for theory and practice.
Academy of Management Review, 31, 802–821.
Verplanken, B. (1991). Persuasive communication of risk information. A test of
cue versus message processing effects in a field experiment. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 190–195.
Weber, M. (1947). Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Mohr: Tübingen.
Weick, K. (2001). Gapping the relevance bridge: Fashions meet fundamentals in
management research. British Journal of Management, 12, 71-75.
Weick, K., & Quinn, R.E. (1999). Organizational change and development.
Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 361–386.
Wierdsma, A.F.M. (2004). Balanceren tussen broosheid en maakbaarheid: cocreatie van verandering. Filosofie in Bedrijf: Tijdschrift voor Strategie en
Organisatie, 15, 1–12.
Wilkins, A.L., & Bristow, N.J. (1987). For successful organization culture, honor
your past. Academy of Management Executive, 1, 221–228.
Williams, L.J., & Brown, B.K. (1994). Method variance in organizational
behaviour and human resources research: Effects on correlations, path
coefficients, and hypothesis testing. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 57, 185–206.
Williams, L.J., Cote, J.A., & Buckley, M.R. (1989). Lack of method in selfreported affect and percept. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 462–468.
355
Chapter 6
Wolcott, H.T. (2001). Writing up qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Young, M., & Post, J.E. (1993). Managing to communicate, communicating to
manage: How leading companies communicate with employees.
Organizational Dynamics, 22, 31–43.
Zmud, R.W. (1984). An examination of the ‘push-pull’ theory of applied to
process innovation in knowledge work. Management Science, 30, 727–
738.
356
Glossary
GLOSSARY KEY TERMS
Ability of management to lead the change. Ability of management
to lead the change is a change specific process characteristic of change
climate. Management plays an important role in implementing the change
process, therefore it is crucial to assess their openness to reactions of
employees and their ability to lead them through the change process. Can
management help guide the changes in a constructive way or are they not
really prepared for their new task?
Appreciative inquiry (AI). Appreciative inquiry is a strength-based,
capacity building approach to transforming human systems toward a
shared image of their most positive potential by first discovering the very
best in their shared experience.
Attitude of top management toward change. Attitude of top
management toward change is a change specific process characteristic of
change climate. It involves the perception of employees about the stance
top management is taking with regard to change. Does management
support the change initiative? Are they actively involved in the change
project?
Change climate or climate of change. A climate of change is
described as the interpretation of the general context and the specific
process characteristics that accompany change. Hence this definition of
change climate does not exclusively refer to relatively enduring
characteristics of the organization (i.e. general context) but also
incorporates the perception of more transient process characteristics that
accompany a specific change. Basically in the present research, change
climate is described as the interpretation of the general work environment
characteristics but also the psychological representation of how specific
changes are dealt with. In that respect change climate differs from the
more widely examined organizational climate concept. Organizational
357
Glossary
climate only represents generic or relatively enduring characteristics of the
work environment (James et al., 2008).
Concurrent validity. Concurrent validity is a type of criterionrelated validity. Criterion-related validity involves the testing of the
hypothesis about how a scale relates to other variables. Basically,
concurrent validity is tested by simultaneously collecting data from a
sample of respondents on the scale of interest and on criteria
hypothesized to relate to that scale of interest.
Cohesion. Cohesion is a general context characteristic of change
climate and refers to the extent of cooperation and trust in the competence
of team members? It is the perception of togetherness or sharing within
the organization setting, including the willingness of members to provide
each other support.
Construct validity. Construct validity is an overarching category of
validity. Here construct validity is described as the approximate truth of the
conclusion that the operationalization accurately reflects its construct. It
concerns how well the measures fit the theories for which the scale was
designed.
Content factors of change. The content factors of change in this
research project are considered as a set of crucial predictors of people’s
attitudes toward change and refer to the substance or type of change. For
example, does it involve change with a job threatening character or not,
are the changes small scale, large scale, transformational or incremental.
Content validity. Content validation is concerned with answering
the question whether the substance of a measure is representative of the
content or the universe of content of the property being measured. Any
property has a theoretical universe of content consisting of all things that
can possibly said or observed about the property.
358
Glossary
Context factors of change. The context factors of change in this
research project are considered as a set of crucial predictors of people’s
attitudes toward change and refer to the general conditions under which
change occurs. For example trust in top management, history of change,
participatory management, cohesion, general support by supervision and
politicking are typical context factors of change. These context factors of
change are generic cross situational context characteristics. In short,
these context characteristics have a relatively enduring character
independent of specific change projects.
Contextual analysis and contextual effects models.
An
analytical approach originally used in sociology to investigate the effect of
collective or group characteristics on individual level outcomes. In
contextual analysis, group level predictors (often constructed by
aggregating the characteristics of individuals within groups) are included
together with individual level variables in regressions with individuals as
the units of analysis (i.e. contextual effects models).
Dominance analysis. Dominance analysis is an alternative analytic
strategy to traditional regression that assesses the relative importance of
more than one set of study variables to prediction. The advantage of
dominance analysis is that it overcomes the primary limitation of
hierarchical regression, namely the residualization approach to assessing
the usefulness or importance of a set of variables to prediction. In short,
dominance analysis examines the relative contribution of each variable set
by directly comparing the predictive power of all possible pairwise sets of
variables.
Facet analysis. Facet analysis is the process of analyzing content
to determine appropriate facets and vocabulary term relationships, using
one characteristic of division at a time, to produce homogeneous mutually
exclusive groups. A facet is a fundamental category by which an object or
concept may be described according to its characteristics. Facet analysis
359
Glossary
is one of the more appropriate techniques for integrating and comparing
research information regarding a specific theme.
General support by supervision. General support by supervision
is a general context characteristic of change climate and describes the
extent to which employees experience support and understanding from
their immediate supervisor. When a manager can empathise with the
concerns of his or her colleagues, is open to their problems and does not
blame them for their mistakes, he or she will lay the foundations of
goodwill in times of change.
History of change. History of change is a general context
characteristic of change climate and refers to the perception of how
successful the organization has been in dealing with change. So,
organizational members’ perceptions about change are shaped not only
by the current situation but also past change events.
Index R wg . Index R wg is a measure used to check whether one can
justify the aggregation of lower level variables. R wg assesses the extent of
consensus, agreement, or within-unit variability within a single unit for a
single measure – a construct by group approach.
Intraclass correlation coefficients (1 and 2). Intraclass correlation
coefficients (ICC’s) are both measures used to assess whether
aggregation of lower level variables is justified. ICC(1) provides an
estimate of the proportion of the total variance of a measure that is
explained by unit membership. ICC(2) answers the question of how
reliable the group means within a sample are.
Involvement in the change process. Involvement in the change
process is a change specific process characteristic of change climate and
describes the extent to which staff members are consulted, involved and
informed about change related decisions that directly concern them. In
sum, the purpose of this process characteristic is to create a firm basis for
change.
360
Glossary
Measurement
invariance.
The
psychometric
concept
measurement invariance means that a psychological test measures the
same underlying construct across groups. When test scores are
measurement invariant across groups, this means that the test is unbiased
with respect to groups, and that group differences in the test scores can
be interpreted in terms of group differences in the underlying constructs.
Multicollinearity. Multicollinearity refers to the intercorrelations
among the predictors in a regression analysis. Either it indicates that the
intercorrelations have surpassed some arbitrary cutoff level, and thus are
too high for regression analysis to be applicable, or it descriptively refers
to the degree of intercorrelation among predictors.
Multilevel analysis and multilevel modeling. Multilevel analysis or
multilevel modeling has emerged as a useful analytical tool in several
fields, including epidemiology, education, sociology, and management.
Multilevel models are developed for the analysis of hierarchically
structured data which is often the case when organizational phenomena
are
studied.
Examples
are
individuals
nested
within
teams
or
organizations, teams nested in organizations, organizations nested in
sectors, repeated measures nested within individuals. The lowest level
observations are said to be at level 1 or micro level. Higher levels are
defined as the macro-levels, level 2, level 3, and so on.
Model misspecification. Model misspecification is a condition that
occurs when a specified CFA model is different from models that the data
would support. Misspecified models yield improper solutions, in which
unique errors are negative, factor intercorrelations exceed 1, or parameter
estimates are massive.
Modification index. An important type of information related to
misspecification is the extent to which the hypothesized model is
appropriately described. Evidence of misfit in this regard is captured by the
modification index. For each fixed parameter specified in the model an MI
361
Glossary
is provided. This value represents the expected drop in the overall chisquare value if the parameter were to be freely estimated.
Openness to change. Like readiness for change, openness to
change, is a concept embedded in the positive psychology tradition. Here
openness to change refers to the willingness to support change and a
positive affect about potential consequences of that change (Miller,
Johnson, & Grau, 1994). Openness to change was used as a tentative
and less refined measure of readiness for change.
Organizational climate. One of the generally accepted definitions
of organizational climate was provided in the Lewicki et al. paper (1988).
Organizational climate reflects a relatively enduring characteristic of an
organization. According to these authors organizational climate (1)
embodies members’ collective perceptions about their organization with
respect to such dimensions as autonomy, trust, cohesiveness, support,
recognition, innovation and fairness, (2) is produced by member
interaction, (3) serves as a basis for interpreting the situation, (4) reflects
the prevalent norms, values, and attitudes of the organization’s culture,
and (5) acts as a source for shaping behavior.
Participatory management.
Participatory management is a
generic context characteristic of change climate. It is the extent to which
front line staff are involved in and informed of important decisions. Can
procedures and guidelines be discussed bottom up? Is the information
supplied by the front line staff considered?
Politicking. Politicking is a general context characteristic of change
climate and reflects the perceived level of political games within the
organization. A high degree of politicking leads to unnecessary expense,
considerable delays, and unwillingness to share knowledge.
Positive organizational change. Positive organizational change
considers a particular kind of change that has grown out of the newly
emerging field of positive organizational scholarship. It refers to the
362
Glossary
investigation of positive dynamics, positive attributes, and positive
outcomes in organizations.
Positivism. Positivism is a philosophy of science that concentrates
on the conventional approach of scientific research. Words like hypotheticdeductive method, strict variable definition, measurement and control,
along with structured sampling are central in positivism. It is assumed that
accurate observation and data analysis will lead toward the development
of theories and laws that account for the relationships between laws.
Process factors of change. The process factors of change in this
research project are considered as a set of crucial predictors of people’s
attitudes toward change and entail how change is dealt with, how change
is implemented. For example involvement in the change process, attitude
of management toward change, ability of management to lead the change,
and quality of change communication are typical process factors of
change. These process factors have in common there transient nature,
because these characteristics are linked to a specific change project.
Process research method in organizational change. The
process method examines the sequence of events over time as change
unfolds in an organizational entity. Process methods tend to be more
complex than variance explanations due to the complexity of events. They
account for temporal connections among events and the dynamic nature
of processes.
Psychological climate. Another construct that overlaps with
change climate and organizational climate is psychological climate.
Psychological climate is defined as the perceptual and experiential
component of a reciprocal interaction between the organizational
environment and the employee. In other words, based on the cumulation
of experience within the organization, people derive molar perceptions of
it. These perceptions serve as the individual’s cognitive map of how the
organization functions and therefore, help determine what appropriate
behavior in a given situation is. Hence psychological climate is an
363
Glossary
experienced-based, and enduring perceptual phenomenon that shapes
and adapts individual behavior and attitudes to the demands of life in the
organization (Koys & Decotiis, 1991). It is important to note the distinction
between psychological climate, a property of the individual, and
organizational climate, a group-level construct obtained via the statistical
measurement of the degree to which climate is shared by organizational
members (James et al., 2008). The same rationale is adopted to
distinguish between psychological and/or organizational change climate,
both covering change climate. Psychological and organizational change
climate include general enduring context characteristics and less stable or
transient change specific process characteristics.
Quality
of
change
communication.
Quality
of
change
communication is a change specific process characteristic of change
climate. Quality of change communication refers to how change is
communicated. The clarity, the frequency, and openness determine
whether or not communication is effective. Is it clear for employees about
how they must apply change in practice? Should they learn about changes
through rumours?
Readiness
for
change.
Although
several
definitions
and
descriptions of the concept readiness for change have been suggested,
the definition in this inquiry is inferred from the conceptualization
suggested by Armenakis, Harris and Mossholder in their 1993 Human
Relations article. Readiness is reflected in organizational members’
beliefs, attitudes and intentions regarding the extent to which changes are
needed and the organization’s capacity to successfully make those
changes. It is the precursor to behavior of either resistance to, or support
for, a change effort. In addition, readiness for change in this programme of
research is covered by three components: an emotional, a cognitive and
an intentional component. This multifaceted view of readiness for change
captures the complexity of the phenomenon and is consonant with the
attitudinal conception of readiness for change (Piderit, 2000; Oreg, 2006).
Readiness for change in this inquiry was measured at the individual level.
364
Glossary
However, how individual readiness for change is shaped is not believed to
be purely the result of individual reflection but also a socially constructed
phenomenon that ensues from the collective perception of context and
process factors that accompany change (Ford, Ford, d’Amelio, 2008).
Trust in leadership. Trust in leadership is a general context
characteristic of change climate and refers to is the extent to which staff
members perceive their supervisors and top management as trustworthy.
Does management practice what they preach. Do they keep their
promises? Are they honest and fair toward all departments? Basically,
employees feel they can communicate openly about problems, without
running the risk of being held responsible for it.
Variance research method in organizational change. Variance
methods refer to what actually changes in an organizational entity and
tend to focus on the antecedents and consequences of organizational
change.
365