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
© Copyright 2024 Paperzz