Six
Leadership styles
Lean
Attitude and behaviour
Idealized
Continuous improvement
Quality
Effective organization
Extra- role
COPSOQ
Leadership
Augementation
Inspirational
Stimulation
Service industry
Organization Commitment
TQM
RBPS
ASR
Change
Transactional
Attitude towards specific Change
History of Change
Transformational
Individual
Insurance
Positive
MLQ
Organization Spontaneity
Job Satisfaction
Management
Reward
Leadership in a Lean Organization
The Influence of Leadership, Organizational Commitment and Job
Satisfaction on Attitude towards Change and Organization Spontaneity
(A case study of a Dutch Insurance Company )
Student:
Dorrit de Vries
6173594
Primary and secondary
reviewer
Dr. E. van der Schoot
Dr. W. van Eerde
University of Amsterdam
Faculty of Economy and
Business
Msc Business Studies ip
May 2012
Preface
Here before you find my master thesis, the final piece/conclusion of my master study.
I would like to show appreciation for those who helped me finishing my thesis. A special
word of gratitude has to go out to my employer, ASR, who has given me the opportunity to
start and finish my academic education. Furthermore, I would like to thank my colleagues at
ASR for helping me by filling in the questionnaire for this thesis. Their enthusiastic reactions
on my thesis’s topic and cooperative behaviour motivated and encouraged me greatly. I would
like to thank Tijmen Landman for his help with the final wording and lay-out of my thesis.
Moreover, I would like to thank my fellow students for their support and encouragement
especially during the start-up phase of this thesis. Last but not least, I would like to thank my
supervisor Esther van der Schoot, for her time, her critical feedback, guidance, and support
throughout the whole process.
I have experienced this Masters Study as an exciting journey, through which I learned new
things every week. However, a full time job in combination with an intensive study
programme was quite challenging and asked for a lot of discipline. This not only tested my
patience and limits, but also that of my close friends and family. Therefore I would like to
thank them for their never ending support and understanding in the past three years.
I owe the most gratitude to my boyfriend, Mark. Without his understanding, support and
ability to put things in perspective I could not have done this.
Dorrit de Vries,
Amsterdam, May 2012
2
Table of Contents
Table of Contents...........................................................................................................3
Abstract ..........................................................................................................................4
1. Introduction ...............................................................................................................5
2. Theoretical background............................................................................................9
2.1 Lean Management ............................................................................................................ 9
2.2 Leadership ...................................................................................................................... 12
2.3 Organizational Spontaneity............................................................................................ 14
2.4 Attitude towards Change................................................................................................ 16
2.5 Organizational Commitment .......................................................................................... 17
2.6 Job Satisfaction .............................................................................................................. 21
2.7 History of Change .......................................................................................................... 23
2.8 Conceptual Model .......................................................................................................... 24
3. Methodology.............................................................................................................25
3.1 Research Approach ........................................................................................................ 25
3.2 Research Strategy........................................................................................................... 25
3.3 Data Collection............................................................................................................... 25
3.4 Instruments ..................................................................................................................... 28
3.5 Scales.............................................................................................................................. 28
3.6 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................. 30
4. Results.......................................................................................................................34
4.1 Correlation...................................................................................................................... 34
4.2 Regression ...................................................................................................................... 36
4.2.1 Hypothesis............................................................................................................... 36
4.2.2 Mediation ................................................................................................................ 38
4.2.3 Multifactor mediation analysis Leadership ............................................................. 42
4.3 Post- hoc analyses .......................................................................................................... 42
5 Conclusion and Discussion ......................................................................................45
5.1 Interpretation of the results ............................................................................................ 45
5.2 Theoretical and practical relevance................................................................................ 50
5.3 Limitations and recommendations for further research ................................................. 52
References ....................................................................................................................56
Appendix 1: Background information ASR .............................................................67
1.1 ASR ................................................................................................................................ 67
1.2 Non life Product-Line..................................................................................................... 67
1.3 ASR and Lean ................................................................................................................ 67
Appendix 2: Questionnaire.........................................................................................68
Appendix 3: Reliability analysis.................................................................................74
Appendix 4: Statistical tests........................................................................................80
3
Abstract
Lean Management is a section of management philosophy, aimed at organizational
effectiveness and customer satisfaction. The success of Lean Management in the
manufacturing industry is widespread and is currently growing in popularity among diverse
service sectors, including the financial service industry. In the literature several key properties
of Lean Management are identified, such as a positive attitude of employees towards Lean
and high levels of Organization Commitment and Job Satisfaction. Furthermore, Leadership is
acknowledged as an important prerequisite for the implementation and success of Lean
Management. Moreover, the involvement of all employees in a cooperative partnership in
order to realize continuous quality improvements epitomizes the Lean Organization.
Organizational Spontaneity is the common definition for a Lean cooperation, because it
captures the voluntary conduct of employees contributing to the effectiveness of the
organization.
This present study therefore extrapolates the influence of Leadership, Organizational
Commitment and Job Satisfaction on the Attitude towards Change and Organization
Spontaneity. The History of Change is included in order to be able to qualify and quantify the
differences. The specific change discussed in this study is Lean Management, because this is a
relatively new research topic within the Dutch Insurance Industry. A single holistic embedded
case study was conducted for thirteen teams of the Non-Life department of ASR Nederland.
The findings of this study indicate that Leadership has a positive relationship with
both Attitude towards Change and Organization Spontaneity. In addition Organizational
Commitment has a positive relationship with Attitude towards Change and Organization
Spontaneity. What is more Job Satisfaction has a positive relationship with Attitude towards
Change. History of Change has a strong relationship with Attitude towards Change.
Nonetheless, Job Satisfaction has no relationship with Organizational Spontaneity.
The main goal for a Lean organization is to pursue Organizational Spontaneity in
order to continuously improve the organization and thereby contributing to its effectiveness.
The implications of this study are that with the appropriate Leadership style of the manager in
charge, Organizational Spontaneity could be stimulated. Additionally, higher Organizational
Commitment and Job Satisfaction levels of employees potentially contribute successfully in
managing change, and increasing the Organizational Spontaneity behaviour of employees.
Furthermore, a positive attitude could well be a predicting-variable for the behavioural
outcome variable of Organization Spontaneity. This means that a positive attitude towards
Lean
could
result
in
positive
Lean
4
behaviour
of
employees.
1. Introduction
Organizations continuously face new challenges and have to adapt to changing environments.
In changing and competitive market circumstances, combined with growing customer
demands increasingly more companies are looking for ways to continuously improve and to
deliver the highest customer value at the lowest possible costs. Based on managerial practices,
quality programs like Total Quality Management (TQM) could help companies to achieve
these aims. Among several quality management concepts, Lean is one of the more widespread
and successful attempts (Andersson, Eriksson & Tostensson, 2006). Lean Management is a
management philosophy, focused on organizational effectiveness and customer satisfaction.
The success of Lean Management in the manufacturing industry is widespread and is
currently growing in popularity among diverse service sectors, including the financial service
industry. In the academic and managerial literature, several key prerequisites for the success
of Lean Management are identified, such as: a culture of continuous improvement, leadership
focusing on Lean values and vision, a positive attitude of employees towards Lean and the
commitment and involvement of all employees in a cooperative partnership to realize quality
improvements (Brady & Allen, 2006; Womack & Jones, 1990; Waldman, 1998).
Emiliani (1998) states that a Lean mindset and according behavior of all employees is
essential for the success of Lean in an organization. Since Lean Management is a holistic
concept, it requires the involvement of all members of an organization to seek customer
satisfaction and realize quality improvements. Organizational Spontaneity is a common
definition and content for this cooperation, because it describes the voluntary conduct of
employees contributing to the effectiveness of the organization.
Organizational Commitment is a key success factor in organizational change in
general and in Lean Management in specific (Boyer, 1996; Iverson, 1996). According to
multiple researchers Organizational Commitment is a vital factor in the employee’s support of
and attitude towards change initiatives (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Klein & Sorra, 1996). In
addition, Organizational Commitment has a positive influence on Extra-Role Performance
Behavior, like Organization Spontaneity (Steers, 1977).
Furthermore Job Satisfaction is one of the major aspects whilst studying
organizational behaviour (Williams & Anderson, 1991). In addition, Job Satisfaction is
studied extensively in the literature as antecedent to Extra-Role Performance Behaviour, like
Organization Spontaneity and Attitude towards Change (Moorman, Niehof & Organ, 1993).
Moreover, in academic literature Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction are highly
5
correlated. It is suggested that Organizational Commitment is positively related to Job
Satisfaction and vice versa (Bishop & Scott, 2000; Locke and Latham, 1990). Because Job
Satisfaction and Organization Commitment are highly correlated, it is possible that the
conclusions of studies about any of these lone variables are spurious, because of the fact that
the other was not included in a study (Williams & Anderson, 1991). In order to provide better,
more relevant insights, Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment are both variables in
this study.
Another central aspect of organizational change is the attitude of employees towards a
specific transformation. There is a growing consensus in the academic world that a key factor
in determining the success of any organizational change involves employee acceptance and
involvement in the change (e.g. Bartunek, Rousseau & Rudolf et al. 2006). Recent studies of
organizational change demonstrate the key role of positive attitude towards change. (E.g.
Caldwell, Herold, & Fedor, 2004; Fugate, Kinicki & Prussia, 2008; Oreg & Berson, 2006;
Rafferty & Griffinn, 2006). The success of Lean Management is dependent on employee’s
support of and positive attitudes towards Lean, which is the specific change examined in this
study. These attitudes will partially form and stimulate the specific behaviour, Organization
Spontaneity, required in making the specific change a success (Piderit, 2000).
The variable Leadership is closely related to Organizational Commitment, Job
Satisfaction, Attitude towards Change and Organization Spontaneity (Podsakoff, MacKenzie
& Paine et al. 1990). Transformational and Transactional Leadership is identified as an
important prerequisite for the implementation and success of quality programs like Lean or in
enacting change in general. There is clear and growing evidence for the role of leaders in
process of change, for they significantly affect the success of change by generating employees
support for change (e.g. Conner, 1992, Higgs, 2003, Higss & Rowland, 2001, Kotter, 1996).
More importantly, the leader is critical during any organizational change, because a leader can
influence the attitude of employees regarding organizational changes (Prajogo, 2005).
According to Fedor, Herold & Caldwell (2008) Transformational Leadership has been
theoretically and empirically associated with Organizational Commitment, Job Satisfaction
and Extra-Role Performance, like Organization Spontaneity (Loke, 2001; McNeese, 1995).
They argue that leaders have a strong impact on organizational phenomenon’s, since leader
behaviours cause basic value, beliefs an attitude of followers to align with organization
collective interests (Podsakoff, MacKenzie & Paine et al. 1990). Furthermore, Shamir, House
& Arthur (1993) have argued that by linking employees’ work to a greater purpose
(organizational goals) and to employees’ own values, leaders have a direct influence on
6
follower’s satisfaction with and commitment to their jobs, tasks and organization. Bass
(1990), for example, states that Transformational Leadership should result in more engaged,
more devoted, and less self concerned employees, as well as employees that perform beyond
the level of expectations.
This study tries to provide a contribution to the existing (academic and managerial) literature
concerning the influence of Leadership, Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment on
Attitude towards Change and Organizational Spontaneity within the Dutch Insurance industry.
The specific change in this thesis is the implementation of Lean Management. Research has
been conducted on TQM and Lean in the insurance industry, but never in the Dutch insurance
industry (Eling & Luhnen, 2010). In addition, the Lean mindset and according behavior is
conceptualized as Organization Spontaneity. This will be a first effort to appraise the “desired
Lean Behavior” in an academic fashion (Emiliani, 1998). Additionally, the literature does not
provide empirical results on the relationship between Transformational and Transactional
Leadership, Organizational commitment, Job Satisfaction on Organization Spontaneity (Yukl,
1999; Waldman, 1998). Furthermore it has been asserted that the role and behaviour of
leaders in a change context has been an area that is lacking in empirical research (Eisenbach,
Watson & Pillai, 1999; Higgs & Rowland, 2000). Little academic effort has been put in
Organizational Commitment and its influence on attitudinal and behavioural processes
underlying change, such as an attitude towards a specific change. Most research is focused at
commitment to organizational change in general and not to specific changes (e.g. Armenakis,
Harris & Mossholder, 1993; Coetsee, 1999; Conner, 1992).
This thesis provides added value to practitioners by providing insight in how to
effectively use the relationships between leadership and organizational processes. When
implementing Lean, it is essential for leaders to understand how they can positively influence
the success of Lean Management, because the failures of organizations trying to implement a
successful Lean program have been well documented (Brown, Hitchcock & Willard, 1994;
Yang, 2006; Rathje, Boyle & Deflorin, 2008). Understanding how the dependent variables,
Attitude towards Change and Organizational Spontaneity are affected by the independent
variables Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment and Leadership is crucial in order to
establish a relevant synthesis.
7
The research question within this study is:
“To what extend does Transformational and Transactional Leadership, Organizational
Commitment and Job Satisfaction influences Attitude towards Change and Organization
Spontaneity?”
This study is structured in four chapters. The theoretical background is presented in chapter
two. Fist of all TQM and Lean Management are extrapolated, secondly the variables in this
study: Leadership, Organizational Spontaneity, Attitude towards Change, Organizational
Commitment, Job Satisfaction and History of Change are described. This chapter ends with
the conceptual model where the relationships and hypothesis are presented. In the third
chapter the research methodology will be explained. In the fourth chapter the results of the
research question and hypotheses are presented. Finally, in chapter five the interpretation of
the results, implications and the limitation of this study are discussed.
Before any results could be presented, a thorough overview of the academic
background of the Lean philosophy will be given.
8
2. Theoretical background
This chapter presents the relevant literature and the hypothesis for this study. This chapter
starts with an overview of the Quality Management philosophy wherein Lean Management is
described in more detail. Secondly, the variables of the study are discussed, Leadership is
reviewed, followed by Organizational Spontaneity and the description of Attitude towards
Change and Organizational Commitment. In addition, the control variable History of Change
is described, and finally the conceptual model is presented.
2.1 Lean Management
The following paragraph provides some background information on the specific form of
change covered by this study, namely the implementation of Lean Management. In the
management literature and in practice several quality programs are cited. These quality
programs are distinctively different; however the aim of these concepts seems to be similar:
improving customer satisfaction and financial result by minimizing waste and resources. All
quality programs are originated from Total Quality Management (TQM), thus a brief
description of this concept is incorporated as well.
Total Quality Management
TQM can bee seen as the source of various quality programs that are adapted in companies all
around the world. It is an approach to management that spread rapidly in the US since the
1970s. It originated in the fusion of the ideas of three American management gurus, Deming,
Juran and Crosby, with traditional Japanese culture (Webley, 2010). TQM is a philosophy of
striving for continual improvements. Powell (1995) defines TQM as an integrated
management philosophy and a set of practices that emphasizes among other things,
continuous improvement, meeting customer’s requirements, reducing rework, longer range
thinking, increased employees commitment and teamwork, process redesign, competitive
benchmarking, constant measurement of results and closer relationship with suppliers.
Lean Management
Among the several quality management concepts that have been developed the Lean concept
is one of the more widespread and successful attempts (Andersson, Eriksson & Tostensson,
2006). Lean is about controlling the resources in accordance with customers needs whilst
reducing unnecessary waste. The Lean approach consists of various practices that aim to
improve efficiency, quality and responsiveness to customers. The concept is originated from
the Toyota Production Systems (TPS), a manufacturing philosophy developed by Taiichi
9
Ohno in the 1950s. TPS underpins many innovations, including the principle Just-in-Time,
continuous improvement “Kaizen”, elimination of waste “Muda” and quality at the source
“Jidoka”.
Over time, Lean has evolved as a concept from the initial purpose as a manufacturing
technique to today’s aim to enhance organizational learning and customer value. Lean
thinking is more a philosophy than a tool, making its potential usage widespread. According
to Chappel & Womack (2002) the Lean philosophy and Toyota’s management principles are
applicable to all aspects of a business and to any technical or service process. In addition,
Prajogo (2005) research about TQM and Lean Management in service industries supports the
applicability of Lean Management in the service industry (Swank, 2003). According to Shah
and Ward (2003), the implementation of Lean Management is associated with high level
performance that is discussed in several studies. The comprehensive Toyota study of Womack
& Jones (1990) is a great example of this. Important benefits of Lean are: Being more flexible
and responsive to customers’ needs, reduction in lead time and costs, and superior quality
(Womack & Jones 1990). More importantly, the focus of a Lean organization on continuous
improvement led to the notion of a learning organization: A culture of continuous learning.
This is the greatest beneficial outcome for a Lean company.
Drew, McCallum & Roggenhofer (2004) state that Lean Management can be divided in three
dimensions: Operational Systems, Management Infrastructure and Mindset and Behavior.
This study elaborates on the latest of these three. Drew, McCallum & Roggenhofer (2004)
point out that Lean is a holistic concept that requires a contribution of all three dimensions in
order to be successful.
In order to give a comprehensive overview, all dimensions are
discussed shortly.
Operational Systems
This concept is described as the way in which means and resources are used to deliver
customer value while eliminating waste. There are many formal definitions of the Lean
concept, however it’s generally understood to represent a systematic approach to indentify
and eliminate elements not adding value to the process. Important aspects are striving for
perfection and customer driven pull (Andersson, Eriksson & Tostensson, 2006). Lean
Management consists of five basic principles defined by Womack & Jones (2008). It is crucial
that all principles are performing together and at every organizational level, making the
influences synergetic.
1) Defining customer value – Value is defined by the ultimate
10
customer. 2) Identify value stream – The value stream contains all the actions and steps
needed to bring a product/service to the customer 3) Flow- Making all the steps in the value
chain flow 4) Pull – Let the customer pull the product/service form the organization when
desired 5) Pursue perfection – It is a continuous cycle.
Management Infrastructure
This is the second dimension and is defined as the management organization, processes and
systems required to support and sustain the operating system (Drew, McCallum &
Roggenhofer, 2004). Management infrastructure should be aligned with the operating systems
allowing for Lean ways of working becoming standard practice, instead of something that
requires heroic efforts. The entire management infrastructure must be designed to
complement and sustain the operating system in order to achieve a high level of performance
and foster an ethic of continuous improvement.
Mindset and Behaviour
This dimension is defined as the modus of thinking and acting at all levels of the organization
that are required to be successful in Lean and creating customer value (Drew, McCallum &
Roggenhofer, 2004). Emiliani (1998) stated that a Lean mindset and according behaviour is
essential for the success of Lean in an organization. Since Lean Management is a holistic
concept, it requires the commitment and participation of all members of an organization to
seek customer satisfaction and quality improvements. From earlier research of Womack &
Jones (1990) it can be concluded that the level of commitment and involvement of the
employees is essential in Lean. Employees are a key factor in making Lean a success. Lean
Management is an approach that encourages the involvement and autonomy of employees and
grants a lot of responsibilities to the employees. In addition, employees have a crucial role in
contributing to and spotting improvements, customer service and solving problems. In rolejob performance is a requirement, but the focus is on Extra-Role Performance Behaviour.
Emiliani (1998) identifies behaviour that adds or creates value, Lean behaviour, and
behaviour that does not add any value and leads to waste. Lean behaviour is the behaviour of
people in an organisation in which continuous improvement in work activities and personal
skills is the focal point in order to realize a more efficient and effective organization. This will
be discussed further in paragraph 2.3 as the academic variable Organization Spontaneity.
Organizational Spontaneity is a common definition for this cooperation, because it describes
the voluntary conduct of employees contributing to the effectiveness of the organization.
11
2.2 Leadership
In this study Rauch & Behling’s (1984) definition of leadership is used. Leadership is "the
process of influencing the activities of an organized group toward goal achievement." (Rauch
& Behling, 1984). This definition is chosen because of the context of this study, i.c.
organizational change. This thesis assumes that the leader uses his/her influence on followers
in order to achieve certain outcomes. The outcome variables of this study are a positive
attitude towards Lean and a high level of Organisational Spontaneity that ultimately
contributes to an effective organization. In this study the Transactional and Transformational
leadership theory, developed by Burns and Bass, is used as input variable. The decision for
this theory is based on the statement by Eisenbach et al. (1999) that one of the most
comprehensive leadership theories of organizational transformation and change is the theory
of Transformational and Transactional Leadership. In addition, Waldman et al. (1998) studied
the effects of leadership style on the outcome variables of Lean and continuous improvement
behavior. They conclude that the leadership style of managers does influence the success of
the Lean implementation. Moreover, they state that Transformational leadership is the most
successful modus.
According Burns (1978) Transactional Leadership entails an exchange between leaders and
subordinates. Subordinates receive certain valued outcomes (e.g. wages, prestige) when they
act according to a leader’s wishes. This leadership style is based on a cost-benefit exchange
concept. Based on the framework of Bass (1985) Transactional Leadership consists of three
dimensions:
Contingent
Reward,
Active
Management-by-Exception,
and
Passive
Management-by Exception.
Contingent Reward is defined as the process where leaders provide reward for employee’s
performance (Den Hartog, van Muijen
& Koopman, 1994;
Lowe, Kroeck
&
Sivasubramaniam, 1996; Bycio, Allen & Hackett, 1995).
Management-by-Exception (MBE is divided in two dimensions, ic. active and passive MBE).
Active MBE is defined as the extent that followers are informed by their leaders regarding
problems and mistakes (Bycio, Allen & Hackett, 1995). Passive MBE is described by Lowe,
Kroeck & Sivasubramaniam (1996) as the situation in which the leader avoids giving
direction when current procedures are effective and previous defined goals have been reached.
Transformational Leadership behaviour goes beyond Transactional Leadership. While the
Transactional leader motivates subordinates to perform as expected, the Transformational
12
leader inspires followers to do more than originally expected (Den Hartog, van Muijen &
Koopman, 1994). Transformational leaders broaden and elevate the interest of the followers,
generate awareness and acceptance among the followers on the purpose and mission of the
group and motivate followers to go beyond their self interest for the good of the group
(Yammarino, Sprangler & Bass 1993; Burns 1987). Burns (1978) described leadership as
transforming in which the leaders and followers are often transformed or changed in
performance and outlook, Transformational Leadership is intimately tied to change. Bass’s
(1985) conceptualization of Transformational Leadership includes: Idealized Influence,
Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation and Individualized Consideration.
Idealized Influence is defined as the degree to which leaders provide a role model for high
ethical behaviour, instils pride, gains respect and trust (Bass, 1985). Followers trust in and
emotionally indentify with their leader.
Inspirational Motivation is defined as the degree to which the leader articulates a vision that is
appealing and inspiring to followers. Leaders with inspirational motivation challenge
followers with high standards, communicate optimism about future goals, and provide
meaning for the task at hand.
Intellectual Stimulation is defined by Dionne, Yammarino & Atwater et al. (2004) as the
degree to which the leader challenges assumptions, takes risks and solicits followers' ideas.
Leaders with this style stimulate and encourage creativity, and followers are encouraged to
question their own ways of doing things. The followers ask questions, think deeply about
things, and figure out better ways to execute their tasks. The followers are willing to invest
more in their tasks; they are encouraged and optimistic about the future, and believe in their
abilities (Dionne, Yammarino & Atwater et al. 2004; Bass, 1985).
Individual Consideration is defined by Dionne, Yammarino & Atwater et al. (2004) as the
degree to which the leader attends to each follower's needs, acts as a mentor or coach to the
follower, and listens to the follower's concerns and needs (Bass, 1985). Assignments are
delegated to followers, which provide them with learning opportunities.
The framework of Bass (1985) established that the Transactional and Transformational
Leadership styles are complementary. This means that both are connected to the achievement
of goals. Lowe, Kroeck & Sivasubrnabiam (1996) even consider the Transformational
Leadership style as a complementary leadership style, ineffective when the Transactional
Leadership style is missing. In this study, Transformational Leadership is tied together with
Transactional Leadership in order to reach higher goals and performance. This integration of
13
styles is indicated as the augmentation effect (Lowe, Kroeck & Sivasubrnabiam, 1996; Avolio
& Bass 2007).
2.3 Organizational Spontaneity
In the introduction and paragraph 2.1 the core values of Lean and TQM were described.
Powell (1994) states that the development of a culture of improvement and quality and the
commitment and according behavior of all employees is essential for the success of Lean
Management. In the academic field, the desired Lean behavior of employees described by
Emiliani (1998) and other authors is known as Extra-Role Performance Behaviour. ExtraRole Performance Behavior is defined by George & Brief (1992) and Pillai, Schriesheim &
Williams (1999) as the behavior that is not part of formal requirements, but stimulates the
effective functioning of an organization. Extra-Role Performance Behaviors are not predefined, because, for example, there are no reward or punishment systems. Nevertheless, it is
important for an organization to be competitive and viable that employees show Extra-Role
Performance Behavior. A form of this kind of behavior is Organizational Spontaneity (George
& Brief, 1992; George & Jones, 1997). It is a form of behavior that, according to the
definition of Emiliani (1998), can be seen as the desired Lean behavior. George & Jones
(1997) identify five forms of Organizational Spontaneity: Helping Co-Workers, Protecting the
Organization, Making Constructive Suggestions, Developing Oneself, and Spreading
Goodwill. These five forms of Organization Spontaneity thoroughly contribute to the
continuous improvements necessary in Lean to become a more effective and efficient
organization. The combination of these five forms of Organization Spontaneity provides a
clear systematic picture of what type of Extra-Role Performance Behaviour is desired from
the employees in a Lean organization. The five forms of Organization Spontaneity are:
Helping Co-Workers includes all voluntary forms of assistance that organizational members
provide to each other to facilitate the accomplishment of tasks and the attainment of goals
(George & Jones,1997). Helping Co-Workers includes behaviours ranging from calling
attention to errors and omissions, to providing instructions in the use of new techniques and
methods (George & Jones, 1997).
Protecting the Organization includes those voluntary acts organizational members engage in
to protect and safeguard the resources of the organization (George & Jones, 1997). Forms of
behaviour are reporting fire hazards or reporting dangerous or suspicious activities.
Making Constructive Suggestions includes all voluntary acts of creativity and innovation in
organizations (George & Jones, 1997). This form of Organizational Spontaneity goes beyond
14
just doing your job and includes employees bring engaged in actively trying to find ways to
improve individual, group or organizational functioning.
Developing Oneself includes all the steps workers take to voluntary improve their knowledge,
skills and abilities in order to be more able to contribute to their organizations. Developing
oneself includes behaviours ranging from seeking out and taking advanced training to keeping
abreast of the latest developments in one’s field (George & Jones, 1997).
Spreading Goodwill as described by George & Jones (1997) is the means by which
organizational members voluntary contribute to organizational effectiveness through efforts to
represent their organization to wider communities in beneficial light.
Organizational Spontaneity and Leadership
Scholars have stipulated that there is a positive relation between Transformational and
Transactional Leadership and In-Role Performance Behaviour (e.g. Avolio & Howell, 1993;
Barling, Weber & Kelloway 1996; Howell & Frost 1989; Rai & Sinha 2000; Avolio, Kahai &
Jung et al. 1998) and have show that Transformational and Transactional Leadership
positively affects Extra-Role Performance Behaviour as well (e.g. Dvir , Eden, & Avolio et
al., 2002; Lowe, Kroeck & Sivasubramaniam, 1996; Pillai, Schriesheim & Williams, 1999;
Podsakoff, MacKenzie & Bommer, 1996b). For instance Bass (1990) states that
Transformational Leadership should result in more engaged, devoted and less self concerned
employees, as well as employees that perform beyond the level of expectations. Podsakoff,
MacKenzie & Bommer (1996B) even proclaim that the impact of Transformational
Leadership on Extra-Role Performance Behaviour is more influential than on In-Role
Performance Behaviour. However, the concept Extra-Role Performance Behavior is defined
in a broad context and is not specifically focused on the five dimensions of Organizational
Spontaneity. In academic literature and in line with Bass’ claim that Transformational
Leadership leads to achieving performance beyond expectations and engagement in extra
effort, it is assumed that there is a connection between Transformational Leadership and
Organizational Spontaneity (1985), however, empirical results to strengthen this assumption
are missing. On the basis of the preceding theory and the assumption of the relationship
between Leadership and Organization Spontaneity the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1: Transformational and Transactional Leadership is positively related to Organizational
Spontaneity.
15
2.4 Attitude towards Change
The number one reason why organizational change fails is a general resistance to change,
which is closely linked with the development of negative attitudes towards change (Vakola &
Nikolaou, 2005). On the other hand, positive attitudes towards change are found to be vital in
achieving organizational goals and in succeeding in change programmes (Eby, Adams &
Joyce et al. 2000; Gilmore & Barnett, 1992; Martin 1998; Kotter, 1996) Employee’s attitude
towards change can impact their morale, productivity, behaviour and turnover intentions
(Eby, Adams & Joyce et al. 2000; Iacovini, 1993). It is assumed by scholars that the attitude
of employees towards change is an important variable in the success of the implementation of
that specific change.
When an organisation is undergoing change, its members have some interpretations of
and expectations of the changes (Lau & Woodman, 1995). According to Elizur & Guttman
(1976) Attitudes towards Change in general consists of a person’s cognitions about change,
affective reactions to change, and behavioural tendency to change. Change can be received
with excitement and happiness or with anger and fear. According to Fisher (1980) it is
important to separate general attitudes from specific attitudes. A person may have a general
attitude or orientation to change, but at the same time hold a different attitude about a specific
change (Lau & Woodman, 1995). Therefore, in this study Attitude about the Specific Change
Lean Management is studied.
Attitude towards Change and Leadership
Tichy & Devanna (1990) highlights the transforming effects Transformational leaders can
have on organizations as well as on individuals. By defining the need for change, creating
new vision, mobilizing commitment towards the vision, leaders can ultimately transform the
organization. Transformational and Transactional Leadership behaviour has a role in
facilitating employee’s acceptance of change since leaders are able to change and form
attitudes of employees (Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Oreg & Berson, 2011). Transformational
Leadership can influence employee’s reaction and Attitude towards Change in a number of
ways. First Transformational leaders stimulate and inspire followers by offering a compelling
vision of future changes in the organization (Bass, 1985). Second, they use intellectual
stimulation and challenge employees to accept innovative solutions to problems and challenge
the status quo (Bass 1985; Berson & Avolio, 2004). Transformational leaders are therefore
expected tot positively impact their followers attitude to organization change (Oreg & Berson,
2011). In addition past researchers contended that twenty years of Leadership studies have
concluded that leaders who posses some values of Transformational Leadership style would
16
generate higher level of employees Commitment and Attitude towards Change. (Walumbwas,
Lawler & Avolio et al. 2005). Based on preceding theory regarding the relationship between
Transformational and Transactional Leadership and follower attitudes the following
hypothesis is proposed.
H2: Transformational and Transactional Leaderships is positively related to Attitude towards
Change
Attitude towards Change and Organization Spontaneity
The concept of attitude has played a key role in the history of social psychology. Although
definitions of attitude vary considerably, there is a general agreement based on the
groundwork on attitude and behaviour by Fishbein & Ajzen. Therefore, in line with this
seminal work, attitude is defined as: “a predisposition on his part to respond to the object in a
consistently favourable or unfavourable manner” (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1974). This definition is
adequate for this study, because the link between Attitude Towards a Specific Change and the
behavioural outcome variable Organizational Spontaneity is being studied. The specific
change is Lean Management, for which Organizational Spontaneity functions as the desired
behavioural outcome and indicator of success of Lean. Although in the academic world it is
acknowledged that attitudes only weakly predict specific behaviour (E.g. Fishbein & Ajzen,
1975; Webb 2006; Wicker, 1969; Cohen, 1992) in this study it is assumed that attitude has a
direct effect on behaviour. Therefore, the direct relationship between Attitude towards Change
and Organization Spontaneity is tested by the following hypothesis:
H3: Attitudes towards Change is positively related to Organization Spontaneity
2.5 Organizational Commitment
Variable research project have established that commitment is an essential variable to
improve organizational outcomes, such as: performance, attitudes and behaviours in general
(Mowday, Porter & Dublin 1974; Morris & Sherman, 1981; Steers, 1977). The focus when
studying Organization Commitment is on commitment related behaviors and attitudinal
commitment. Employees, for example, associate themselves to an organization that can have a
positive affect on job performance (in-role and extra-role) (Hall, Sneider & Nygren, 1970;
Mowday, Steers & Porter, 1979). Attitudinal commitment refers to the identification of an
employee with an organization and it goals and the drive to participate in achieving specific
goals, like an organizational (Mowday, Steers & Porter, 1979; Staw, 1977).
17
Commitment can be directed towards various targets and foci like, organization, occupation
or workgroup. The majority of research and conceptual frameworks have chosen
Organizational Commitment as the main form of commitment. It has the strongest
determinant of outcomes as well (Cohen, 2003). Therefore, organization is chosen as focus of
commitment. Organizational Commitment generally indicates the employee's psychological
attachment to the organization (Morris & Sherman, 1981). It is commonly conceptualized as
an affective attachment to an organization characterized by shared values, a desire to remain
in the organization and a willingness to exert extra effort on its behalf (Mowday, Steers &
Porter, 1979). The three component model of Organizational Commitment developed by
Allen & Meyer (1990B) received the greatest support in the literature. This model is consists
of: Affective Commitment, Continuance Commitment and Normative Commitment. It
incorporates both an attitudinal and a behavioural component an juxtaposes them in three
different themes.- Allen & Meyer (1997) define the three forms of Organizational
Commitment accordingly: Affective Commitment is the employee’s emotional attachment to,
identification with and involvement in the organization, Continuance Commitment refers to
an awareness of the costs associated with leaving the organization. Finally Normative
Commitment reflect and feeling of obligation to continue employment.
Organizational Commitment and Leadership
An important factor in increasing Organizational Commitment is the leader. A good
relationship between employees and leaders will increase the level of commitment to the
organization (Allen & Meyer, 1997). According to the literature, leadership is an empowering
characteristic to improve Organizational Commitment. Fedor, Herold & Caldwell (2008)
state that Commitment is theoretically and empirically linked to Leadership. In addition, there
is considerable research available suggesting that the Transformational Leadership style in
specific is positively related to Organizational Commitment (e.g. Avolio & Bass 2007; Bono,
Judge & Timothy, 2003; Lowe, Kroeck & Sivasubramaniam,
1996; Van der Heijden,
Kummerling & Van Dam et al. 2010). According to Bass (1985), inspiriting leaders energize
followers, making them aware of the importance of their work and stimulates enthusiasm
among subordinates for their work and the organization. Shamir, House & Arthur (1993) have
argued that by linking employees work to a greater purpose (organizational goals) and to
employees own values, leaders have a direct influence on a follower’s perception of their
jobs, tasks and organization. Podsakoff, MacKenize & Moorman (1996) adds to this that
when a leader articulates a vision, Organisational Commitment is effected significantly. This
18
study expects to demonstrate a positive link between Transformational and Transactional
Leadership and Organizational Commitment, therefore the following hypothesis is proposed.
H4: Transformational and Transactional Leadership are positively related to Organizational
Commitment
Organizational Commitment and Organisation Spontaneity
According to Angle & Perry (1981) there is a relationship between Organizational
Commitment and Organizational Behaviour. Commitment can be qualified as a predictor of
behaviour and intentions of employee within the organization and his/her work outcomes
(Angle & Perry, 1981; Shore & Martin, 1989). Nowadays, Organizational Commitment is
considered an important input for overall organizational performance (Benkhoff, 1997,
Meyer, Allen & Smith, 1993). It is believed that increased Organizational Commitment leads
to increased organizational effectiveness, improved employee performance (in-role and extrarole) and reduced turnover (Scholl, 1981). A committed employee has to participate in the
organization, and this,
combined with the belief in organizational goals, has important
positive implications on the performance of the employee. Based on the literature, it can be
concluded that there is a strong connection between Organizational Commitment and In-Role
Performance Behavior and Extra-Role Performance Behavior (Grumberg, Conolly &
Greenberg, 2010; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Cohen, 1991; Steers, 1977). Moreover Allen &
Meyer (2002) specifically state that Organizational Commitment influences the employee’s
contribution to organizational effectiveness by Extra-Role Performance Behaviors. The
concept Extra-Role Performance Behavior however, is defined in a broad context and is not
focused specifically on the five dimensions of Organizational Spontaneity. On the other hand,
based on the popular assumption that a committed employee is willing to give more to the
organization in order to contribute to the improvement and maintenance of its goals and
values, it is assumed that Organizational Spontaneity is linked to Organizational Commitment
(Mowday, Steers & Porter, 1979). Nonetheless, it should be considered that empirical results
to enforce this claim are missing. The preceding theory and the assumption about the
relationship between Organizational Commitment and Organization Spontaneity form the
basis for the following hypothesis is proposed
H5: Organizational Commitment is positively related to Organizational Spontaneity.
19
Organizational Commitment and Attitude towards Change
There is also a link between Organizational Commitment and Attitude towards Change.
Vakola & Nikolau (2005) provide support for the vital role Organizational Commitment plays
in a context of change. Many authors have indicated that Organizational Commitment plays
an important and positive role in employee’s acceptance of change and attitude of change
(Cordery, Sevastos & Muller et al. 1993; Darwish, 2000; Vakola & Nikolaou, 2005). Iverson
(1996) even states that Organizational Commitment is the second most important determinant
of Attitude towards Change. According to him, employees who are highly committed are
more willing to exert more effort on the behalf of the organization and the specific change and
therefore are more likely to develop a positive attitude towards organizational change. When
more employees indentify with their organizations the higher their commitment to their
organization and the greater the their willingness to accept organizational change (Cordery,
Sevastos & Muller et al. 1993). This is tested by the following hypothesis.
H6: Organizational Commitment is positively related to Attitude towards Change.
The mediating role of Organizational Commitment
A number of academic studies have pointed out that there is a positive relationship between
Transformational Leadership and Organizational Commitment and between Organizational
Commitment and Extra-Role Performance Behaviour, and Attitude towards Change.
Consequently one could argue that changes in Leadership style leads to changes in there level
of Organizational Commitment and in turn in to alteration in levels of Extra-Role
Performance Behaviour and Attitude towards Change. Thus, Organizational Commitment
could function as a potential mediator
Organizational Commitment is selected as potential mediator because of its significant
influence on other variables and attitudes, Extra-Role Performance Behaviour (Darwish,
1998) and its position in change and Lean Management (Womack & Jones, 1990). Evidence
for the mediating role of Organizational Commitment can be found in the literature. Meyer,
Stanly & Herscovitch et al. (2002) and Mathieu & Zajac (1990) state that several studies
validate the mediating role of Organizational Commitment on Job performance (in-role and
extra-role). In addition, Guest (1987) suggests that Organizational Commitment mediates the
total casual effects of positive affectivity on organizational change (Vakola & Nikolaou
2005). Given these findings the following hypothesis is presented.
20
H7: Organizational Commitment mediates the relationship between Transformational and
Transactional Leadership and Attitude towards Change
H8: Organizational Commitment mediates the relationship between Transformational and
Transactional Leadership and Organizational Spontaneity.
2.6 Job Satisfaction
Job Satisfaction is an attitudinal construct that is defined in this study as tsomeone’s feeling
about his or her job and the extent to which somebody is satisfied or dissatisfied with his job
(Spector, 1997). Some people have a high job ethos and see their work as a central part of
their life, whereas others only go to work because they must. The study of the causes and
consequences of an employee attitude is one of the major domains in organizational
psychology and organizational behaviour (e.g. Bateman & Organ 1983; Puffer, 1987). Job
Satisfaction generally refers to a variety of aspects on the job that influence an employee’s
feeling of satisfaction. This includes aspects like wage, working conditions, promotions and
supervision. Job Satisfaction is associated with many important behaviours and outcomes. It
is for example related to absenteeism, turnover intentions, psychological well being and
Extra-Role Performance Behaviour (Fassina, Jones & Uggerslev, 2008).
Job Satisfaction and Leadership
Extensive empirical research has shown that the Transformational and Transactional
Leadership style of the supervisor is positively related to the Job Satisfaction of subordinates
(i.e. Bass, 1985; Bass et al. 2003; Medley & Larochelle, 1995). According to Emery, College
& Barker et al., (2007) Transformational leaders might intrinsically foster more Job
Satisfaction, given their ability to impart a sense of mission and intellectual stimulation.
Transformational leaders encourage their followers to take on more responsibility and
autonomy as well. As such, the work tasks give workers an increased level of accomplishment
and satisfaction, moreover Transformational leaders are focussed on the individual
development of their followers, giving employees a sense that someone is caring for their
needs.
Based on empirical findings discussed above this study expects to demonstrate a positive
relationship between Transformational and Transactional Leadership and Job Satisfaction.
The following hypothesis us proposed:
H9: Transformational and Transactional Leadership is positively related to Job Satisfaction.
21
Job Satisfaction and Organization Spontaneity
There is a utilitarian perspective that Job Satisfaction can lead to employee behaviour that
benefits organizational functioning. Research shows that a employee’s feelings can lead to
both positive and negative behaviour. Many authors (e.g. Bateman & Organ 1983; Moorman,
Niehof & Organ, 1993; Organ 1988 a/b; Wagner & Rush 2000) have demonstrated that
employee’s Job Satisfaction is an important determent of Extra-Role Performance Behaviour.
The most frequently investigated correlatation of Extra-Role Performance Behaviour has been
Job Satisfaction (e.g. Bateman & Organ 1983, Moorman Niehof & Organ, 1993, Williams &
Anderson, 1991). In this study, the concept of Extra-Role Performance Behavior is defined in
a broader context. It is not focused on the five dimensions of Organizational Spontaneity.
Based on the accepted assumption that a satisfied employee is expected to operate in the best
interest of the organisation, it is assumed that Job Satisfaction is linked to Organizational
Spontaneity. Empirical results to enforce this assumption are missing. On the basis of the
preceding theory and the assumption about the relationship between Job Satisfaction and
Organization Spontaneity the following hypothesis is proposed
H10: Job Satisfaction is positively related to Organizational Spontaneity.
Job Satisfaction and Attitude towards Change
During organizational change, good and effective work relationships are very important.
Previous theory has established a relationship between Job Satisfaction and Attitudes towards
Change. Those who are satisfied with various facets of their job are likely to be more willing
to accept change. Previous empirical studies support the influence of Job Satisfaction on
Attitude towards Change (Cordery, Sevastos & Muller et al. 1993; Gardner, Dunham &
Cummungs et al. 1987; Guest, 1987). Cordery , Sevastos & Muller et al. (1993) have reported
that low levels of Job Satisfaction were associated with unfavourable attitudes towards
change. Iverson & Roy (1994) and Mathieu & Zajac (1990) reported that Job Satisfaction has
an indirect effect on Attitude towards Change via Organizational Commitment. In this study,
only the direct effect of Job Satisfaction on Attitude towards Change is tested. Therefore the
following hypothesis is proposed
H11: Job Satisfaction is positively related to Attitude towards Change
22
The mediating role of Job Satisfaction
Virtually all models of Leadership postulate that Transformational and Transactional leaders
enhance followers work attitude and satisfaction (Podsakoff, Mackenzie & Moorman et al.
1990; Judge & Piccolo, 2001, Bass 1985; Bass et al. 2003; Medley & Larochelle, 1995). This
fact, combined with research results that show that Job Satisfaction has an positive effect on
Extra-Role Performance Behaviour and Attitude towards Change, leads to assumption that
Job Satisfaction could emerges as potential mediator between Transformational and
Transactional Leadership and Organization Spontaneity and Attitude towards Change. It is
suggested that leadership influences a employee’s job perceptions and satisfaction. This
increases the likelihood that they will engage in Extra-Role Performance Behaviour.
Therefore the following hypothesis is proposed.
H12: Job Satisfaction mediates the relationship between Transformational and Transactional
Leadership and Attitude towards Change.
H13: Job Satisfaction mediates the relationship between Transformational and Transactional
Leadership and Organizational Spontaneity.
2.7 History of Change
Organizations continuously face new challenges and have to adapt to changing environments.
Employees have gone through the struggles, success, failures and frustrations that come with
the changing ways of how business is done. Since change is a continuous process, it cannot be
perceived as detached episodes (Pettigrew, Woodman & Cameron, 2001).
Employees can be very sceptical of a specific organizational change. Cynics about
change will experience a loss of faith in the their leaders in the organizational goals and
mission. This could be a response to a history of change attempts that were not entirely or
clearly successful (Reichers, Wanous & Austin, 1997). There is support in the academic
literature for the assumption that past failures may limit efforts of new organizational
changes. Employees remember failed change efforts and store these experiences in their frame
of reference. As a result, the readiness and response to change initiatives is affected by the
successful or unsuccessful changes conducted in the past (Reichers, Wanous & Austin, 1997).
Consequently, the influence of History of Change on new change initiatives is of great
importance while studying Attitude towards Change and change behavioural outcomes.
History of Change is therefore used as a control variable in this study
23
2.8 Conceptual Model
Now the important literature has been discussed the according research questions have been
proposed a conceptual model is presented. The hypotheses which are derived from the
literature are presented in this model as arrows. The direction of the arrow indicates the
specific relationship between the variables, where one variable influences the other.
Hypothesis that are partially based on assumptions are made grey. Within this model,
Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction function as mediators between Leadership
and Attitude towards Change, and Organizational Spontaneity. History of Change functions as
control variable in this study.
Control Variable: History of Change
H2
H7 H8
Transformational &
Transactional
Leadership
H12 H13
H9
H6
Organizational
Commitment
H4
Attitude towards
Change
H11
H5
Job Satisfaction
H10
H3
Organizational
Spontaneity
H1
Figure 1: Conceptual model
H1:
Transformational and Transactional Leadership is positively related to Organizational Spontaneity.
H2:
Transformational and Transactional Leaderships is positively related to Attitude towards Change.
H3:
Attitude towards Change is positively related to Organization Spontaneity.
H4:
Transformational and Transactional Leadership is positively related to Organizational Commitment.
H5:
Organizational Commitment is positively related to Organizational Spontaneity.
H6:
Organizational Commitment is positively related to Attitude towards Change.
H7:
Organizational Commitment mediates the relationship between Transformational and Transactional
Leadership and Attitude towards Change.
H8:
Organizational Commitment mediates the relationship between Transformational and Transactional
Leadership and Organizational Spontaneity.
H9:
Transformational and Transactional Leadership is positively related to Job Satisfaction.
H10: Job Satisfaction is positively related to Organizational Spontaneity.
H11: Job Satisfaction is positively related to Attitude towards Change
H12: Job Satisfaction mediates the relationship between Transformational and Transactional Leadership and
Attitude towards Change.
H13: Job Satisfaction mediates the relationship between Transformational and Transactional Leadership and
Organizational Spontaneity.
24
3. Methodology
In the following chapter the research approach, research strategy, data collection technique
with according instruments and scales, and the data analysis method will be explained in more
detail.
3.1 Research Approach
This study will make use of a deductive research approach. There is an extensive amount of
academic literature regarding Lean and the variables in this study and as stated by Saunders,
Lewis & Tornhill (2009) the more literature than can be found the more appropriate the
deductive approach will be. Deductive approach means testing of a theoretical proposition by
the employment of a research strategy specifically designed for the purpose of its testing
(Saunders, Lewis & Tornhill, 2009) Since the goal of this study is to investigate, based on
previous theory, potential relationships and the strength of these relationships of multiple
variables within a Lean implementation a deductive approach is appropriate. This research
tries to confirm existing relationships in a Dutch insurance company which where established
by other scientists in different contexts.
3.2 Research Strategy
This study will make use of a survey study design as it is suitable for explanatory research,
because it has the ability to get answers to the questions “Why?” as well as How?” and
“What?” (Saunders, Lewis & Tornhill 2009). The survey study is applied to an organization
within the insurance industry, undergoing a Lean implementation: ASR Nederland. The
survey study will be conducted at a single business unit where Lean has been introduced:
Non-Life Business Unit. The research population consists of the following Units. Unit
Underwriting consumer market, Underwriting corporate markets, Claim treatment, and
Service Center Non-Life within ASR Netherlands. The individual employees, who are going
through a Lean implementation, comprised the sample of the study. Respondents were asked
by means of a online survey to reflect in the Lean concept, the specific organizational change
within this study. See appendix 1 for background information regarding the organization and
appendix 2 for the questionnaire.
3.3 Data Collection
A quantitative method of data analyses, namely a online survey was selected to determine the
association between the variables. According to Saunders, Lewis & Tornhill (2009) a
questionnaire can be of good use for asking “Who?”, “What?”, “How many?” and “How
much?” questions and testing possible relationships, as is the goal of the study. With a
questionnaire you are able to collect a large amount of data in an economical way. In addition
quantitative data can be collected which can be analysed quantitatively; therefore
relationships between variables can be easily found (Saunders, Lewis & Tornhill, 2009).
The questionnaires were distributed on the 16 of March 2012 to 227 employees during
working hours. As a result of the fact that the questionnaires were distributed to all respondent
in one day, the external factors where the same for all respondents. The questionnaire was set
up as a self- administrated questionnaire distributed online which ensured the anonymity and
confidentiality of the respondents. I used the internet tool “Qualtrics” as a platform to collect
data, for the benefits that it has a self registration function and it allows respondents to remain
anonymous. Web based questionnaires have the following benefits: able to reach large
audience in a time-efficient and cost effective way, it is relatively unlikely for social desirable
answers to occur and it reduces interviewer bias (Saunders, Lewis & Tornhill, 2009). In
addition the amount of missing values will be limited since respondents will receive an error
report when they e.g. forget to answer a certain question. However the response rate of web
based questionnaires within organizations tends to be low (Saunders, Lewis & Tornhill,
2009). Therefore extra attention to a user friendly survey and clear motivation is given. The
questionnaire contained a clear introduction where the research objective, the duration, the
different concepts of the questionnaire where outlined and the voluntary nature of
participation was stressed and discretion and anonymity was guaranteed. In addition the
number of questions is limited to eleven, which would take approximately ten minutes to fill
in the questionnaire. As suggested by Saunders, Lewis & Tornhill (2009) the survey is
previously tested by four ASR employees, to check if the questions are clear and the
estimated time is correct. After the first check-up few adjustments were made in the lay-out
and wording of the introduction.
The questionnaires were distributed to all the employees in the following teams.
Acceptatie Zakelijk Automotive, Acceptatie Zakelijk Case & cap, Acceptatie Zakelijk Brand,
Acceptatie Zakelijk AVB, Aansprakelijkheid, Brand, Car, Verkeer & Transport, Speciale
zaken, Personenschade Licht Letsel, Personenschade Middel Zwaar Letstel Utrecht,
Personenschade
Middel
Zwaar
Letstel
Rotterdam,
Personenschade
Zwaar
Letsel,
Acceptatieservice 1, Acceptatieservice 2. 227 employees were approached for this study and
186 questionnaires were returned, corresponding with an initial response rate of 82%. After
cleaning the initial dataset for response patterns and missing values a total of 152 questioners
where returned with usable data, this results in a usable response rate of 67%. 47 were female
26
(31%) and 104 were male (69%). 35% were younger than forty years of age, 37% were 50
year or older, and 28% were 40-49 years old. This corresponds with the demographics of the
Non-Life Business Unit. See table 1 for an overview of the respondent’s characteristics.
Table 1: Respondents characteristics age and gender
Age
Gender
16-29
13.2%
13.2%
30-39
21.9%
35.1%
40-49
27.8%
62.9%
50+
37.1%
100%
Men
69%
Women
31%
Almost half of the respondents have worked for at least 15 years in this organization, and
almost a quarter 10-15 years. 31% have worked for less than 10 years in this organization
See Table 2 for the results
Table 2: Characteristics respondents’ duration of employment
Duration of employment
0 <1
6.6%
6.6%
1 -5
16.6%
23.2%
5-10
7.3%
30.5%
10-15
22.5%
53%
15>
47%
100%
Over 60% of the respondents had an education on Senior Vocational Education and Training
or higher, 27% on Intermediate Vocational Educational and 11% an education on Secondary
School or lower. See Table 3 for the results.
Table 3: Characteristics respondents’ level of education
Education
No education
0.7%
0.7%
Secondary School
10.6%
11.3%
Intermediate Vocational Education
26.5%
37.7%
Senior Vocational Education and Training
21.9%
59.6%
Higher Vocational Education and University
40.4%
100%
27
3.4 Instruments
In the questionnaire only validated scales are used, since validated scales give an indication of
proven quality of the instruments and thereby progress the rigidness of the data collected and
improve construct validity (Saunders, Lewis & Tornhill, 2009). The questionnaire covered
Transformational and Transactional Leadership style variables, Organization Spontaneity
variables, Attitude towards Change variables, Organizational Commitment variables, Job
Satisfaction variables and History of Change variables. In addition demographic and
personnel data relating to age, gender, organizational tenure and educational background is
collected. Since all respondents are Dutch, the survey is conducted in their own language.
Therefore the “Attitude towards Specific Change-scale”, the “Organizational Spontaneityscale” and the “History of Change-scale” were translated into Dutch. The translation from
English to Dutch is done by myself and checked by a native English person, to control for
grammar and meaning of sentences and words. For a clear overview, the complete
questionnaire can be found in Appendix 2 and the Cronbach’s Alpha’s analysis per variable
can be found in Appendix 3.
3.5 Scales
Individual characteristics
Gender is coded 1 if the respondents are female and 0 if they are male. Age is ranged “16-29
= 1, 30-39 = 2, 40-49 = 3 and 50+ = 4” (Van der Heijden et al. 2010). Level of education is
ranged “no education, Secondary School, Intermediate Vocational Education, Higher
Vocational Education and University”. Years of experience within the organization is ranged”
0<1=1, 0<5=2, 5<10=3, 10<15=4, and 15>=5”.
Leadership
Quality of Leadership is measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)
originally developed by Bass & Avolio (1989). This MLQ is a well established instrument
that measures the Transformational, Transactional and Laissez-faire Leadership’s concepts. In
a meta-analysis of the MLQ literature Lowe, Kroeck & Sivasubramaniam (1996) found that
the scales of the MLQ were reliable. Further research of Avolio, Bass & Jung (1999)
concludes that the five dimension model is the best composition of the MLQ with original
Cronbach’s Alpha of above 0.85. This five factor model of the MLQ (5X short) contains
Idealized
Influence,
Inspirational
Motivation,
Intellectual
Stimulation,
Individual
Consideration, Contingent Reward, Active and Passive Management-by-Exception. In this
research hypothesis are developed around the overall construct of Transformational
28
Leadership and Transactional Leadership. Since Avolio, Bass & Jung (1999) second order
factor analysis demonstrates that the five dimensions can be combined to form a reliable
Transformational Leadership factor and a Transactional Leadership factor, this is not a
problem. Hence in this study an overall measure of Transformational Leadership and
Transactional Leadership is obtained by asking employees to respond to items corresponding
to the three dimensions of Transformational Leadership: Idealized Influence, Inspirational
Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation and Individual Consideration and to the items
corresponding to the three dimensions of Transactional Leadership: Contingent Reward and
Active and Passive Management by Exception.
Transformational Leadership is measured by 12 items which measure the extent to
which a more person oriented and enthusiastic Leadership style is present. An example is:
“He/she articulates a compelling vision of the future”. “He/she introduces new projects and
challenges”. Transactional Leadership is measured by 12 items which measure the extent to
which a leadership style focuses on maintaining a reward based relationship with their
subordinates. An example is: He/she tells me what to do in order to be reward for my efforts.
Participants rated there managers on a 5-point likert scale ranging from “to a small extent”
towards “to a high extend. The current Cronbach’s alpha is 0.89.
Organizational Spontaneity
Organization Spontaneity is measured by the RBPS (Role-Based Performance Scale)
questionnaire developed by Welbourne, Johnson & Erez (1997) with original Cronbach’s
alpha ranging from 0.86 till 0.96. Organization Spontaneity consists of five dimensions
(Helping Co-Workers, Protecting the Organization, Making Constructive Suggestions,
Developing Oneself and Spreading Goodwill). The five dimensions of Organization
Spontaneity form an integrated part of the role Organization in the Role Based Performance
Scale. These five dimensions are effectively used in previous research by Eisenberger et al.
(2005) to measure Organization Spontaneity. In addition in the study of Lynch, Eisenberger &
Armeli (1999) these five dimensions have the highest factor score in relation to Extra-Role
Performance.
Hence in this study the five dimensions are used to measures the perception of Organizational
Spontaneity. Organizational Spontaneity is measured by 8 items. Participants rated
themselves on a 5-point likert scale ranging from “never” towards “always”. Sample items
include, “I encourage colleagues to use new more effective methods in doing their jobs”. The
current Cronbach’s alpha is 0.90.
29
Organizational Commitment
Organizational Commitment is measured by the scale developed by Allen & Meyer (1990).
The Cronbach’s alpha for this original scale is 0.87. Organizational Commitment is measured
by eight items. All items reflected the dimension of Organizational Commitment. Responses
were also made on a 5-point likert scale raging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”.
Sample items include, “I really feel that I belong to this institution”. The current Cronbach’s
alpha is 0.83.
Attitude towards specific Change
Attitude towards a Specific Change is measured by the scale developed by Lau (1990). The
Cronbach’s alpha for this original scale is 0.88. Attitude towards a Specific Change is
measured by eight items. This scale is used to measure the attitude people have concerning
the specific change within this research, namely Lean Management. Responses were made on
a 5-point likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. Sample items
include, “I do not want to see this specific change happen”. The current Cronbach’s alpha is
0.86.
Job Satisfaction
The Copenhagen Psychological Questionnaire (COPSOQ) was used to measure overall Job
Satisfaction. The scale of Job Satisfaction is developed by Kristensen, Hannerz & Hogh et al.
(2005) with an original Cronbach’s alpha of 0.84. Job Satisfaction is measured by four items.
Responses were made on a 5-point likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly
agree”. Sample items include, “How satisfied are you with your job in total?” The Cronbach’s
alpha was 0.72.
History of Change
The change relevant control variable in this study is operationalised by using the four items
measure of History of Change developed by Metselaar (1997). The original Cronbach’s alpha
for this scale is 0.73. The Cronbach’s alpha of the present study is 0.80. Responses were made
on a 5-point likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. Sample items
include, “Our organization has always been capable to deal with new situations”.
3.6 Data Analysis
Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS 19.0) was used to analyze the data. The
dataset has been checked for abnormal data. When a value was missing this was marked with
(999). Since the questionnaire was distributed online and respondents received an error report
30
when they did not answer a question the number of missing values is low. In this study there
was only one respondent that skipped for the majority certain questions; he/she was excluded
from the database. Secondly items that needed to be recoded were recoded and afterwards
checked for inconsistent answers. No inconsistency was the case in this dataset.
Secondly the reliability of the scales was tested. The reliability of the scales was
assessed by calculating the Cronbach’s alphas for each scale. Due to negative or low itemtotal correlations, five items had to be removed from the Leadership scales: four from the
Transactional Leadership scale and one from the Transformational Leadership scale. A
detailed overview of the reliability statistics is included in the appendix 3 table 3A and 3B,
showing the initial and final alphas and number of items for each scale. All final scales have
alphas that are higher than the lower threshold of 0.60, indicating that all scales are
sufficiently reliable (Field, 2005). The variable Leadership consists of two sub scales:
Transformational and Transactional leadership. Because the Cronbach’s Alpha of the two
items together equals 0.89 it is possible to add these two scales into one scale: Leadership.
Furthermore the normality of the distribution of scores is assessed. Normal is used to
describe a symmetrical, bell shaped curve, which has the greatest frequency of scores in the
middle with smaller frequencies towards the extremes (Gravert & Wallnau, 2004). The
Kolmogorov –Smirnov test was used to see if the scales significantly deviated from the
normal distribution. The results of the tests are presented in appendix 4 table 4A. The test
demonstrates that most scales and especially the Organizational Commitment scale deviates
slightly from the normal distribution since they have a significant value lower than 0.05.
Deviations from normality may indicate distributions characterized by skewness and/or
kurtosis, which may affect the robustness of the regression analysis results. Therefore
skewness and kurtosis values of the scales are calculated. The results of the test are shown in
appendix 4 table 4B. The mean scores for all variables lie mostly around the ‘neutral’ centre
of the scales. The skewness- and kurtosis statistics are the highest for Organizational
Commitment. The Organizational Commitment, Leadership, Transformational Leadership,
Job Satisfaction and Attitude towards Change scales are all negatively skewed. This means
that that data in this study is more positive than normal. On the other hand the scales for
Transactional Leadership, Organization Spontaneity, and History of Change are positively
skewed; this indicates that the data in this study is more negative than normal. In addition all
variables have got a (small) positive kurtosis value. This indicates according to Decarlo
(1997) that the distribution is rather peaked, clustered in the centre, with long thin tails. Since
a kurtosis value of +/- 1 is considered very good for most psychometric uses all scales except
31
the Organization Commitment scale can be treated as not affected by Kurtosis. However since
the analyses assumes a normal distribution for all scales, this can influence the results (Field,
2009).
Finally the hypotheses were tested using correlation and regression analysis. The
correlation analysis will explore the strength of the relationships between the scales. The
regression analysis will tell the direction of these relationships and will examine how the
independent variables predict the dependent variables. Hierarchical multiple regression
analysis is used to test the components of the model, taking into account the control variable.
To test the complete research model, including mediating effect the four steps of the
Baron and Kenny method is performed (Baron & Kenny 1986). The first step in mediation
analysis recommended by Baron and Kenny is to demonstrate that there is a relationship
between the antecedent and the consequence. As a second step in the sequential mediation
analysis, both the relationship between the antecedent and the mediator and the relationship
between the mediator and the consequence should be significant. As a third step, the
exceptional impact of the mediator should be demonstrated. To establish full mediation in
step four, the effect of the dependent variable on the independent variable controlling for the
mediator should be zero. When this effect not equals zero but is still significant, Baron &
Kenny (1986) argue that this indicates partial mediation. In addition a Sobel test and
Bootstrapping were used to determine mediation results (Preacher & Hayes, 2004- 2008).
As last a post-hoc analysis is performed to investigate if there are differences in
outcome between the variables for different groups of respondents.
Table 4: Overview Hypotheses
Hypotheses
H1
Transformational and Transactional Leadership is positively related to Organizational
Spontaneity
H2
Transformational and Transactional Leadership
is positively related to Attitude towards
Change
H3
Attitude towards Change is positively related to Organization Spontaneity.
H4
Transformational and Transactional Leadership is positively related to Organizational
Commitment.
H5
Organizational Commitment is positively related to Organizational Spontaneity.
H6
Organizational Commitment is positively related to Attitude towards Change.
H7
Organizational Commitment mediates the positive relationship between Transformational and
Transactional Leadership and Attitude towards Change.
32
H8
Organizational Commitment mediates the positive relationship between Transformational and
Transactional Leadership and Organizational Spontaneity.
H9
Transformational and Transactional Leadership is positively related to Job Satisfaction
H10
Job Satisfaction is positively related to Organizational Spontaneity.
H11
Job Satisfaction is positively related to Attitude towards Change
H12
Job Satisfaction mediates the positive relationship between Transformational and
Transactional Leadership and Attitude towards Change
H13
Job Satisfaction mediates the positive relationship between Transformational and
Transactional Leadership and Organizational Spontaneity.
33
4. Results
This chapter describes the results of the conducted analyses testing the hypotheses in this
study. First of all; the correlation results and the regression results are described, secondly the
mediation analysis results are presented and finally the post hoc analysis is discussed.
4.1 Correlation
The means, standard deviations and Cronbachs’s alphas of all scales are displayed in table 5.
The internal consistency of the scales, measured by the Cronbach’s alpha is good, the values
are all above the 0.6. Table 5 also shows the Pearson Correlations of the scales and by
inspecting the Pearson Correlations preliminary conclusion could be drawn regarding some of
the hypotheses.
Table 5: Means, Standard deviations, Pearson Correlations and Cronbach’s alpha
Mean
SD
1
1. Leadership
2. Transformational
Leadership
3. Transactional
Leadership
4. Organizational
Commitment
5. Job Satisfaction
3.73
3.84
0.42
0.49
3.85
0.40
3.73
0.58
3.60
0.60
6. Attitude towards
Change
7. Organization
Spontaneity
8. History of Change
3.45
0.50
3.48
0.56
2.95
0.62
0.89
0.957
***
0.872
***
0.409
***
0.434
***
0.329
***
0.295
***
0.218
**
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0.89
0.691
***
0.441
***
0.491
***
0.329
***
0.327
***
0.258
***
0.64
0.274
***
0.251
**
0.263
***
0.183
*
0.107
ns
0.83
0.559
***
0.274
***
0.360
***
0.341
***
0.72
0.283
***
0.177
*
0.346
***
0.86
0.346
***
0.305
***
0.90
0.143
ns
0.80
* Correlations significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
** Correlations significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
*** Correlations significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed)
The first hypothesis predicted that Leadership is positively related to Organizational
Spontaneity. The correlation coefficient is 0.295 which indicates a small positive relationship
between both constructs which is significant at the 0.001 level. Thus this study found support
for hypothesis one.
The second hypothesis predicted that Leadership is positively related to Attitude
towards Change. The correlation coefficient of 0.329 indicates a medium positive relationship
between both constructs, which is significant at the 0.001 level and thereby supporting the
second hypothesis as well.
The third hypothesis predicted that Attitude towards Change is positively related to
Organization Spontaneity. The correlation coefficient of 0.346 shows that a medium positive
relationship exists between both constructs. This relationship also is significant at the 0.001
level and supports the third hypothesis.
The fourth hypothesis predicted that Leadership is positively related to Organizational
Commitment. The correlation coefficient of 0.409 shows that a medium positive relationship
exists between both constructs. This relationship also is significant at the 0.001 level and
supports the fourth hypothesis.
The fifth hypothesis predicted that Organizational Commitment is positively related to
Organizational Spontaneity. The correlation coefficient of 0.360 shows that a medium
positive relationship exists between both constructs. This relationship also is significant at the
0.001 level and supports the fifth hypothesis
The sixth hypothesis predicted that Organizational Commitment is positively related to
Attitude towards Change. The correlation coefficient of 0.274 shows that a small positive
relationship exists between both constructs. This relationship is significant at the 0.001 level
and supports the sixth hypothesis
The ninth hypothesis predicted that Leadership is positively related to Job Satisfaction.
The correlation coefficient of 0.434 shows that a medium positive relationship exists between
both constructs. This relationship also is significant at the 0.001 level and supports the ninth
hypothesis.
The tenth hypothesis predicted that Job Satisfaction is positively related to
Organizational Spontaneity. The correlation coefficient of 0.177 shows that a small positive
relationship exists between both constructs. This relationship is significant at the 0.05 level
and supports the tenth hypothesis.
The eleventh hypothesis predicted that Job Satisfaction is positively related to Attitude
towards Change. The correlation coefficient of 0.283 shows that a small positive relationship
exists between both constructs. This relationship is also significant at the 0.001 level and
supports the eleventh hypothesis.
In addition the correlation coefficient of 0.559 for Job Satisfaction and Organizational
Commitment is quite large. This relationship is significant at the 0.001 level and is in line
with theory discussed in the introduction and chapter two. In addition the control variable
History of Change has a medium relationship with the outcome variable Attitude towards
Change (0.305, significant at the 0.001 level); this is in line with theory. However History of
Change has an even higher correlation with the two potential mediators Job Satisfaction
35
(0.346, significant at 0.001 level) and Organization Commitment (0.341, significant at the
0.001 level). Interesting is as well the fact that History of Change has no significant effect on
the second outcome variable Organization Spontaneity. Moreover the Transformational
Leadership scale shows higher correlation coefficients for all dependent variables, all
significant at the 0.001 level, than the Transactional Leadership scale or the combined
Leadership scale.
4.2 Regression
From the correlation analysis it can be concluded that all independent variable have
significant correlations with the two dependent variables. The correlation coefficients all lie
between the 0.170 and the 0.434, this indicates a small to medium correlation (Bryman &
Cramer, 2009). However these figures do not take into account the control variable History of
Change nor the mediating effects of Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction.
Therefore in the following paragraphs the complete model is tested.
4.2.1 Hypothesis
The following hypotheses were tested by using hierarchical multiple regression: one, two,
three, four, five, six, nine, ten and eleven. The P-plots show small departures from the line
through the original concerning the nine hypotheses. This indicates that the residuals are
approximately normally dispersed. However for the Organizational Commitment scale, a fanshaped pattern is present in the P-plot, indicating no constant variance. This is attributed to the
skewed distribution mentioned earlier. However the residual plots for all variables, including
Organizational Commitment show that the points are randomly dispersed around the
horizontal axis, therefore a linear regression model is appropriate for the data. There is no
multicollinearity. In all cases, the tolerance level is higher than 0.10 and the VIF value is
below 10.
First of all the impact of the control variable on the model is tested. Hierarchal; regressions
demonstrate that the control variable History of Change has a significant effect on Attitude
towards Change, F (1,149) =15.3, p<0.001, β = 0.305. History of Change explains 8.7% of the
variance. In addition hierarchical regression shows that the History of Change does not have a
significant effect on Organizational Spontaneity, (F (1,149)=3.1, ns. However History of
Change does have a significant effect on Organizational Commitment, (F (1,149) =19.6,
p<0.001, β = 0.341. History of Change explains 11.0% of the variance. Moreover History of
36
Change also has a significant effect on Job satisfaction, F (1,149) =20.2, p<0.001, β = 0.346.
History of Change explains 11.4% of the variance.
Hypothesis one, two, four and nine all investigate the positive influence of Leadership
on different outcome variables. Hypothesis one and two predict a positive effect of
Leadership on Attitude towards Change and Organization Spontaneity. Linear regression
shows that hypothesis one, which explain the positive effect of Leadership on Organization
Spontaneity (F (1,148) =11.96, p<0.001, β = 0.277), is significant and explains 7.3% of the
variance. Hypothesis one is confirmed. Linear regression for hypothesis two, which explains
the positive effect of Leadership on Attitude towards Change (F (1,148) =12.853, p<0.001, β
= 0.276), is significant and explains 7.2 % of the variance. Hypothesis two is therefore
confirmed.
Hypothesis four and nine test the positive effect of Leadership on the expected
mediators Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction. Linear regression shows that
both hypothesise four (F (1,148) =22.770, p<0.001, β = 0.352) and hypothesis nine (F (1,148)
=26.797, p<0.001, β = 0.376) are significant. Hypothesis four explains 11.8% of the variance
and hypothesis nine explains 13.5% of the variance. Both Hypothesis four and nine are
therefore confirmed.
Hypothesis three investigates the positive relationship between the two outcome
variables Attitude towards Change and Organization Spontaneity. Hypothesis three predicts a
positive effect of Attitude towards Change on Organization Spontaneity. The linear regression
shows that (F (1,148) = 10.205, p< 0.001, β = 0.33) is significant. Hypothesis three explains
10.1 % of the variance. Hypothesis three is confirmed.
Hypothesis five and six test the positive relationship between the expected mediator
Organizational Commitment and the two outcome variables Attitude towards Change and
Organization Spontaneity. Hypothesis five predicts a positive effect between Organizational
Commitment on Organization Spontaneity. Hypothesis six predicts a positive effect between
Organizational Commitment and Attitude towards Change. Linear regression shows that both
hypothesise five (F (1,148) =11.057, p<0.001, β = 0.352) and hypothesis six (F (1,148)
=10.630, p<0.004, β = 0.192) are significant. Hypothesis five explains 11.0% of the variance
and hypothesis six explains 3.3% of the variance. Both Hypothesis five and six are confirmed.
Hypothesis ten and eleven test the positive relationship between the expected mediator
Job Satisfaction and the two outcome variables Attitude towards Change and Organization
Spontaneity. Hypothesis ten predicts a positive effect of Job Satisfaction on Organization
Spontaneity. Hypothesis eleven predicts a positive effect of Job Satisfaction on Attitude
37
towards Change. Linear regression shows that hypothesis ten (F (1,148) =2.995, p<0.053, β =
0.145) is not significant. Therefore hypothesis ten is not confirmed. However Linear
regression shows that Hypothesis eleven (F (1,148) =10.917, p<0.001, β = 0.201) is
significant. Hypothesis eleven explains 3.6% of the variance.
Based on the outcomes of the regression analysis the conclusion can be made that Leadership
has got a significant positive effect on Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment, Attitude
towards Change and Organization Spontaneity. Furthermore it can be concluded that the
outcome variable Attitude towards Change is positively influenced by all the variables,
however this is not the case for Organizational Spontaneity which is not positively influenced
by the mediator Job Satisfaction. Although the direct relationship between Leadership and
Organization Spontaneity and Attitude towards Change can be called significant, it is also
interesting to look if there are mediation effects on this relationship.
4.2.2 Mediation
In this paragraph the complete research model is tested including mediation and the control
variable History of Change. Within this study Job Satisfaction and Organizational
Commitment are expected to mediate the relationship between Leadership and Attitude
towards Change and Organization Spontaneity. Mediation is determined by using the four
steps of mediation (Baron & Kenny) and a Sobel test and Bootstrapping. The mediation
model is tested twice: once with the dependent variable Attitude towards Change, once with
the dependent variable Organization Spontaneity.
Dependent variable: Attitude towards Change
Step 1: In the previous paragraph the significant effect of Leadership on Attitude towards
Change controlled for History of Change was proven by hypothesis two (F(1,148)=12.853,
p<0.001, β = 0.276).
Step 2: A second step in the sequential mediation analysis, was to test both the relationship
between the antecedent ( Leadership) and the mediators (Organizational Commitment, Job
Satisfaction) and the relationship between the mediators (Organizational Commitment, Job
Satisfaction) and the dependent variable (Attitude towards Change).
In the previous paragraph the significant effect of Leadership on Organization Commitment
controlled for History of Change was proven by hypothesis four (F(1,148)=22.770, p<0.001,
β = 0.352). Also in the previous paragraph the significant effect of Leadership on Job
38
Satisfaction controlled for History of Change is proven by Hypothesis nine (F
(1,148)=26.797, p<0.001, β = 0.376). In addition in the previous paragraph the significant
effect of Organizational Commitment on Attitude towards Change controlled for History of
Change was proven by hypothesis 6 (F (1,148)=10.630, p<0.004, β = 0.192. Also in the
previous paragraph the significant effect of Job Satisfaction on Attitude towards Change
controlled for History of Change is proven by Hypothesis eleven (F(1,148)=10.917, p<0.001,
β = 0.201). To conclude, support is found for the first two steps as proposed by Baron and
Kenny (1986).
Step 3: Step 3 and 4 are performed by using multiple regression. In the third step, the
exceptional impact of the mediator, Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction should
be demonstrated. The regression results are presented in table 6. First, it is tested whether
Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction mediates the relationship between
Leadership and Attitude towards Change. Thus, after adding the controls in step one,
Leadership in step two of the regression, the mediators Organizational Commitment and Job
Satisfaction are entered into the equation in step three with Attitude towards Change as the
dependent variable. Table 6 underneath demonstrates that, after the control variable History of
Change, the predictors Leadership and the mediators Organizational Commitment and Job
Satisfaction explain a significant amount of extra variance, F (4,955)=5.0, p<0.01. The
mediators Organizational Commitment (β =0.07, ns) and Job Satisfaction (β =0.075, ns) do
not significantly affect the dependent variable Attitude towards Change, but the β of
Leadership has weakened somewhat from 0.276, in the first step, to 0.223, in the final
analysis however remained significant. The weakened β may indicate a very small mediating
effect, but it’s not very convincing because the mediators do not significantly affect the
dependent variable.
Step 4: To establish full mediation in step four, the effect of the dependent variable on the
independent variable controlling for the mediator should be zero. Since, as showed in table 6,
the effect of Leadership on Attitude towards Change is not zero, but β= 0.223 in addition its is
still significant. Baron and Kenny (1986) argue that this could indicate partial mediation.
39
Table 6: Multiple Regression Analysis for mediation effects
Attitude
towards
Change
Β
Attitude
towards
Change
β
Organization Organization
Spontaneity Spontaneity
β
Β
0.305***
0.206**
0.143 (ns)
0.022 (ns)
-Leadership
0.276***
0.223*
0.277***
0.20*
-Organizational Commitment
0.192*
0.070 (ns)
0.352***
0.326***
-Job Satisfaction
0.201*
0.075 (ns)
0.145 (ns)
-0.10 (ns)
-R2
0.165
0.177
0.165
0.162
Variables
Control variable
-History of Change
Independent variables
* Significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
** Significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
*** Significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed)
The Sobel test and Bootstraps are inspected for the final conclusion. The Sobel test indicates
no significant mediation effects of Job Satisfaction or Organizational Commitment on
Attitude towards Change. The results of the bootstrap calculation shows that the 95%
confidence interval includes 0, this indicates, too, that no significant mediation takes place.
Both the Sobel test as well as the Bootstrap analysis confirms that no mediation effect takes
place. Hypothesis seven and twelve, predicting the mediating effects of Organizational
Commitment and Job Satisfaction for the relationship between Leadership and Attitude
towards Change are therefore not confirmed. The results of the test are presented in table 7
underneath.
Table 7: Sobel test and Bootstrapping Attitude towards Change
Expected mediators
Organizational Commitment
Job Satisfaction
Sobel test
Bootstrap lower
Bootstrap upper
0.74. p=0.23, ns
0.75, p=0.23, ns
-0.0533
-0.0629
0.1389
0.1397
Dependent variable: Organization Spontaneity
Step 1: In the previous paragraph the significant effect of Leadership on Organization
Spontaneity controlled for History of Change was proven by hypothesis one (F
(1,148)=11.96, p<0.001, β = 0.277).
Step 2:
The relationship between the antecedent (Leadership) and the mediators
(Organizational Commitment, Job Satisfaction) is already described in the section above. In
40
the previous paragraph the significant effect of Organizational Commitment on Organization
Spontaneity controlled for History of Change was proven by hypothesis five
(F(1,148)=11.057, p<0.001, β = 0.352) . Job Satisfaction does not significantly affect
Organization Spontaneity (Hypothesis 10), but there is a tendency towards a positive
relationship (F (1,148) =2.995, p<0.053, β = 0.145). This already indicates that there is no
mediating effect of Job Satisfaction on Organizational Spontaneity since Job Satisfaction is
not significantly related.
Step 3: The multiple regression results are presented in table 6 above. Table 6 demonstrates
that, after the control variable History of Change, the predictors Leadership and the mediators
Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction explain a significant amount of variance,
F(3,146)=8.2, p<0.001. The mediator Organizational Commitment has a significant positive
effect on Organizational Spontaneity (B=.0.326, p<0.001), Job Satisfaction does not (β =0.10, not significant). The β of Leadership has weakened from 0.277, p<0.001 in the first step,
to 0.20, p<0.05 in the final analysis. This indicates that the mediators, in particular
Organizational Commitment, may partially mediate the effect of Leadership on
Organizational Spontaneity.
Step 4: To establish full mediation in step four, the effect of the dependent variable on the
independent variable controlling for the mediator should be zero. Since the effect of
Leadership on Organization Spontaneity is not zero, but β= 0.20 in addition its is still
significant as displayed in table 6, Baron and Kenny (1986) argue that this indicates partial
mediation.
The Sobel test value is 3.56. p<0.001, for Organizational Commitment and -0.98, p=0.32, ns
for Job satisfaction. This means that only Organizational Commitment mediates the influence
from Leadership on Spontaneity. The results of the bootstrap calculation shows that the 95%
confidence interval for Organizational Commitment is 0.05 - 0.32, which does not include 0.
This confirms the significant mediating effect of Organizational Commitment, therefore
hypothesis eight is confirmed. The 95% confidence interval for Job satisfaction includes 0.
This confirms that there is no mediating effect of Job satisfaction as therefore hypothesis
thirteen is therefore not confirmed. The results of both tests are presented in table 10.
Table 8: Sobel test and Bootstrapping Organization Spontaneity
Expected mediators
Organizational Commitment
Job Satisfaction
Sobel test
Bootstrap lower
Bootstrap upper
3.56. p<0.001
-0.98, p=0.32, ns
0.0503
-0.1880
0.3170
0.0640
41
4.2.3 Multifactor mediation analysis Leadership
Finally, it is investigated whether the mediation analyses yield similar results for the subscales
Transformational and Transactional Leadership. Table 9 below demonstrates that for the
Attitude toward Change model, there are only minor differences between the results of the
three leadership scales. But for the Organization Spontaneity model, Organizational
Commitment completely mediates the relationship between Transactional Leadership and
Organization Spontaneity: the β for Transactional Leadership becomes insignificant; when
Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction are added to the model (Job Satisfaction
does not have a significant effect).
Table 9: Multiple Regression Analysis for mediation effects Leadership styles
Attitude
towards
Change
Β
Attitude
towards
Change
β
Organization Organization
Spontaneity Spontaneity
β
β
0.276***
0.223*
0.277***
0.20*
-Transformational Leadership 0.268**
0.211*
0.311***
0.244**
-Transactional Leadership
0.233**
0.188*
0.170*
0.097 (ns)
-R2
0.165
0.177
0.165
0.162
Variables
Independent variables
-Leadership
* Significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
** Significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
*** Significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed)
4.3 Post- hoc analyses
Post hoc analysis were executed to find out if the scale scores differ significantly between
groups defined by gender, age, education and duration of employment. One way ANOVA
analyses were performed and the output is shown in the tables 10-13.
42
Table 10: One Way ANOVA to Gender
Table 11: One Way ANOVA to Age
F
DF
Leadership
0,391
150
150
Transactional Leadership
0,358
150
2,520
150
Transformational Leadership
0,906
150
Organization Spontaneity
1,246
150
Organization Spontaneity
0,388
150
Organizational Commitment
5,810*
150
Organizational Commitment
1,311
150
Job Satisfaction
2,607
150
Job Satisfaction
0,291
150
Attitude towards Change
0,096
150
Attitude towards Change
0,111
150
History of change
0,833
150
History of Change
2,084
150
F
DF
Leadership
2,160
150
Transactional Leadership
0,951
Transformational Leadership
*. Significant at the 0.05 level
*. Significant at the 0.05 level
Table 12: One Way ANOVA to Education
Table 13: One Way ANOVA Employment duration
F
DF
F
DF
Leadership
0,565
150
Leadership
0,546
150
Transactional Leadership
0,502
150
Transactional Leadership
0,609
150
Transformational Leadership
1,648
150
Transformational Leadership
1,098
150
Organization Spontaneity
2,932*
150
Organization Spontaneity
0,828
150
Organizational Commitment
0,172
150
Organizational Commitment
2,826*
150
Job Satisfaction
0,291
150
Job Satisfaction
0,418
150
Attitude towards Change
0,699
150
Attitude towards Change
0,298
150
History of Change
0,435
150
History of Change
0,461
150
*. Significant at the 0.05 level
*. Significant at the 0.05 level
While table 11 doesn’t represent any significant differences, (no significant age differences
for the variables in this study were found) it becomes clear that there are significant
differences in table 10, 12 and 13. It can be concluded that the variables Organizational
Commitment and Organization Spontaneity show some variations between the gender,
education and employment duration groups. Organizational Spontaneity show significant
difference for education and, Organizational Commitment show significant differences for
gender and employment duration. All other variables in this model do not show any
significant difference between the above mentioned groups.
Bryman & Cramer (2009) argue that a Scheffé test can be used to assess which means
differ significantly from one another. For the two variables for which significant differences
were found, a Scheffé test was carried out. However due to the fact that gender only contains
43
two groups and that in this dataset one group of education contains fewer than two cases, the
Scheffe test for these specific groups could not be performed. As a result no conclusive
conclusions regarding possible significant differences for gender and education could be
drawn. Although not proven by statistical tests, in this study men score slightly higher than
women on Organizational Commitment. In addition in this study higher vocational education
or university education, is associated with slightly higher Organization Spontaneity scores.
For the variable Organizational Commitment and employment duration a scheffe test
could be performed. When looking at the results of the Scheffe test it becomes clear than no
significant differences between the employment duration categories are found. Although not
significant, employees who have been working for the organization for a longer period (over
15 years) have a higher average score on Organizational Commitment. See appendix 4 table
4C for the results.
44
5 Conclusion and Discussion
In this chapter an interpretation of the results and the deducted academic and managerial
implications will be discussed. This chapter ends with an overview of the limitations of this
study and provides recommendations for further research.
5.1 Interpretation of the results
The purpose of this study was to provide a valuable insight into the research question: “To
what extend Transformational and Transactional Leadership, Organizational Commitment
and Job Satisfaction influences Attitude towards specific Change and Organization
Spontaneity? The specific research topic for this study was the implication of the
implementation of Lean. The relationships between the variables were studied with the help
of thirteen hypotheses that were derived from the existing literature. The results of the
statistical test and according interpretation will be described in the following paragraphs.
The test results showed that not all expected relationships could be derived from the data. It
can be concluded that the independent variables are all positively related to the dependent
variable: Attitude towards Change. The conclusion can therefore be made that the variables in
this study are indeed predictors of Attitude towards Change. This is however not the case for
the second dependent variable, Organization Spontaneity, because the independent variable
Job Satisfaction has no influence on Organization Spontaneity.
The first two hypotheses were hinted at a direct relationship between the independent
variable Leadership and the two dependent variables Attitude towards specific Change and
Organization Spontaneity. The results show that Leadership is positively related to Attitude
towards Specific Change and Organization Spontaneity. These results are in line with existing
literature. Leaders, according to Podsakoff & MacKenzie (1996), are able to influence
employee’s reaction and Attitude towards Change. Other authors also found evidence
concerning this relationship. Leadership behaviour has a role in facilitating employee’s
acceptance of change since leaders are able to change and form attitudes of employees (Judge
& Piccolo, 2004; Oreg & Berson, 2011). This indicates that leaders are crucial in any
organizational change and understating and using these leader’s behaviours when undergoing
change is essential.
In addition the second hypothesis, which puts forth the positive relationship between
Leadership and Organizational Spontaneity, is mainly based on an assumption in line with a
claim made by Bass (1985). Bass namely claims that Transformational Leadership leads to
achieving performance beyond expectations and engagement in extra effort. Scholars have
established positive relationship between leader and Extra-Role Performance Behaviour. (E.g.
Dvir et al., 2002; Lowe, Kroeck & Sivasubramaniam, 1996; Pillai, Schriesheim & Williams,
1999; Podsakoff, MacKenzie & Bommer, 1996b). However, the concept Extra-Role
Performance Behavior is defined in a broad context and is not focused specifically on the five
dimensions of Organizational Spontaneity. The outcome of this study shows that the
assumption in this study is correct and that leaders are able to positively influence
Organization Spontaneity. This implies that when an organization seeks to improve or
encourage Organization Spontaneity, it should emphasize on their leaders.
This research also found support for hypothesis three, predicting a direct positive
relationship between attitude and behaviour. The results show that Attitude towards Specific
Change is positively related to Organization Spontaneity. This hypothesis was generally based
on the assumption that a positive attitude towards change – in this case the implementation of
Lean- will result in positive behaviour, in casu the desired Lean behaviour, which is in this
case Organization Spontaneity. It can be concluded that certain attitudes can form or give
direction to certain behaviour.
Hypothesis five and six looked into the direct relationship between Organizational
Commitment on the two dependent variables Attitude towards specific Change and
Organization Spontaneity. The outcome of the study indicates that Organizational
Commitment is indeed positively related to Attitude towards specific Change and
Organization Spontaneity. This also corresponds with the theoretical background. Many
authors have indicated that Organizational Commitment plays an important and positive role
in employee’s acceptance of change and attitude of change (Cordery, Sevastos & Muller et al.
1993; Darwish, 2000; Vakola & Nikolaou, 2005). Iverson (1996) for example, even states that
Organizational Commitment is the one of the most important determinant of Attitude towards
Change.
In this study, the relationship between Organization Commitment and Organization
Spontaneity is confirmed as well. The hypothesis was based on the popular assumption that a
committed employee is willing to give more to the organization in order to contribute to the
improvement and maintenance of its goals and values (Mowday, Steers & Porter, 1979). In
the literature there is a strong link between Organizational Commitment and Extra-Role
Performance Behavior (Grumberg, Conolly & Greenberg, 2010; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990;
Cohen, 1991; Steers, 1977). None withstanding, the concept Extra-Role Performance
Behaviour is defined in a broad context and is not focused specifically on the five dimensions
46
of Organizational Spontaneity. The results of the study show that the initial assumption was
correct: there is indeed a relationship between Organizational Commitment and
Organizational Behaviour (Angle & Perry, 1981), in this case Organization Spontaneity. To
conclude Organizational Commitment can play an important role with regards to Attitude
towards Change and Organization behaviour, Organization Spontaneity.
Hypothesis ten and eleven, looked into the direct relationship between Job Satisfaction
on the two dependent variables Attitude towards specific Change and Organization
Spontaneity. The results of this study show that Job Satisfaction is positively related to
Attitude towards Specific Change. This result is in line with theory, because previous
empirical studies support the positive influence of Job Satisfaction on Attitude towards
Change (Cordery, Sevastos & Muller et al. 1993; Gardner et al. 1987; Guest, 1987; Iverson &
Roy 1994; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). According to Mathieu & Zajac (1990) those who are
satisfied with various facets of their job are likely to be more willing to accept change. This
implies that having satisfied employees is important when undergoing organizational change.
The results of this study show that Job Satisfaction has no direct influence on
Organization Spontaneity. A reason for the absence of this relationship could be the fact that
this hypothesis is based on an assumption for which empirical results are missing. Many
authors have confirmed that Job Satisfaction is an important determent of Extra-Role
Performance Behaviour-role performance behaviour (e.g. Bateman & Organ 1983, Moorman,
Niehof & Organ, 1993; Williams & Anderson, 1991). However, as already indicated, ExtraRole Performance Behaviour is defined in a broad context and is not focused specifically on
the five dimensions of Organizational Spontaneity. Moreover, other studies have indicated
that a relationship between Job Satisfaction and Extra-Role Performance Behaviour could
differentiate between the specific components of Job Satisfaction (Williams & Anderson,
1991). Organ (1989) for example, concluded that Extra-Role Performance Behaviour is
related more closely to the cognitive appraisal of work. A reason for the absence of a
relationship could therefore be that Job Satisfaction is studied on a general level, therefore not
taking into account the specific components of Job Satisfaction. Additionally, other research
has also indicated that Organizational Commitment is a better predictor of behavioral
(intentions) than Job Satisfaction within the context of change (Iverson 1996; Iverson & Roy,
1994). This could explain the absence of the influence of Job Satisfaction on the desired Lean
behavior “Organization Spontaneity” and the existing influence of Organizational
Commitment.
47
Although Job Satisfaction does not have a direct relation with Organization
Spontaneity in this study, it is still indirectly able to influence Organization Spontaneity
through the direct positive relationship between Attitudes towards Change on Organization
Spontaneity in this study. Thus, when a leader seeks to influence Organization Spontaneity
and Attitude towards Change, it is important to establish Job Satisfaction and Organizational
Commitment.
To investigate the role of Leadership on Organizational Commitment and Job
Satisfaction hypothesis four and nine were tested. The outcome of the study indicates that
Leadership is indeed positively related to Organizational Commitment. The results of this
study match with existing research regarding this topic (e.g. Avolio & Bass, 2004; Bono,
Judge & Timothy, 2003; Lowe, Kroeck & Sivasubramaniam, 1996; Van der Heijden,
Kummerling & Van Dam et al., 2010). According to Bass (1985), inspiriting leaders energize
followers and successfully bring about the notion of the importance of their work, stimulating
enthusiasm among subordinates for their work and organization. The findings of this study
implicate that an important factor in increasing Organizational Commitment is determined by
the leader and his/her leadership style.
The direct positive relationship between Leadership and Job Satisfaction is confirmed
in this study. These findings are in line with the existing general theory. Extensive empirical
research has shown that the Transactional and Transformational Leadership style of the
supervisor is positively related to the Job Satisfaction of subordinates (i.e. Bass, 1985; Bass et
al. 2003; Medley & Larochelle, 1995). Thus for organizations that seek to improve
employee’s Job Satisfaction, it is crucial to recruit a leader that is able to implement the
Transactional and Transformational Leadership style.
This study shows that Leadership is crucial, for it is positively related to all the other
variables used in this research. It is of great importance that organizations acknowledge the
importance of good quality leadership.
Although Leadership and Attitude towards Change and Organization Spontaneity are
directly related, indirect relationships are also taken into account. The mediation effects of
Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction were tested by hypothesis seven, eight,
twelve, and thirteen. In this study, only one partial mediation effect was distilled. The direct
relationship between Leadership and Organizational Spontaneity is partial mediated by
Organizational Commitment. This study therefore found support for hypothesis eight. Thus,
Leadership is not only direct related to Organization Spontaneity but this relationship is also
significant via the variable Organizational Commitment. This research did not find support for
48
the mediation effects of Job Satisfaction on Attitude towards Change and Organization
Spontaneity, nor the mediation effect of Organizational Commitment on Attitude towards
Change. The relationships are no longer significant, when Job Satisfaction and Organizational
Commitment are added to the model. Hypothesis seven, twelve, and thirteen are therefore not
supported by the data of this study.
It has been investigated whether the mediation analyses yield similar results for the
subscales Transformational and Transactional Leadership. It can be concluded that for the
Attitude towards Change model, there are only minor differences between the results of the
three leadership scales, but for the Organization Spontaneity model, Organizational
Commitment completely mediates the relationship between Transactional Leadership and
Organization Spontaneity. Moreover, it can be concluded that Bass’ (1985) claim, stating that
the Transactional and Transformational Leadership styles are complementary is also
confirmed in this study. Nonetheless, all relationships with the outcome variables are stronger
for the Transformational Leadership style than for the Transactional Leadership style or the
combination of both styles (augmentation hypothesis). This data inclines that leaders that are
able to exercise the Transformational Leadership and to a lesser extent the Transactional
Leadership style are important for organizations implementing Lean Management.
The control variable History of Change is an important predictor for Attitude towards
Change, Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction. The effect of History of Change
on Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment has not been predicted by a hypothesis in
this study, but it is a very meaningful outcome. Allen & Meyer (1997) already stated that the
management of change has an effect on Organizational Commitment. Additionally, Nelson &
Cooper (1995) have provided evidence for the relationship between History of (unsuccessful)
Change and Job Satisfaction. This is confirmed by the study of Reichers, Wanous & Austin
(1997) showing that employee cynism and the history of unsuccessful changes resulted in a
decreasing levels of Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction. The relationship
between History of Change and Attitude towards Change is confirmed by former research
(Reichers,
Wanous & Austin, 1997; Pettigrew, Woodman
& Cameron, 2001).
Communication, fairness and participation and involvement in decision making have an effect
on employee’s attitudes towards change initiatives. The effects of History of Change are very
extensive in this model. Therefore, it is of great importance to take into account the influence
of History of Change when facing new organizational change and to manage the perceptions
of employees towards successful or unsuccessful changes in the past.
49
Post hoc analyses regarding gender, age, education level, and duration of employment
found that there are no significant differences between the above mentioned groups on the
variables in this study. However Scheffe-tests were not decisive for the variables
Organizational Commitment and gender and Organization Spontaneity and education.
Although not proven by statistical tests, in this study men score slightly higher than women
on Organizational Commitment. In addition in this study higher vocational education or
university education, is associated with slightly higher Organization Spontaneity scores.
The results of this study are in line with most of the results of and assumptions made by
different authors in this field. The main conclusion is that Leadership is positively related to
Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment, Attitude towards Change and Organization
Spontaneity, while the variables Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment are also
positively related to Attitude towards Change. Moreover Organizational Commitment is also
positively related to Organization Spontaneity and Leadership is also indirect related to
Organization Spontaneity via Organizational Commitment.
5.2 Theoretical and practical relevance
The theoretical and practical implications are discussed in the next paragraph.
5.2.1. Practical implications
The theoretical data of this study allow indentifying some practical implications.
First of all, in order to select the “right manager” for managing Lean, this study shows that
Transformational Leadership and to a lesser extent Transactional Leadership make an
important difference.
The main goal of a Lean organization is pursuing Organizational Spontaneity of
employees in order to continuously improve and thereby contributing to the effectiveness of
the organization. Organizational Spontaneity of employees can be enhanced by the leader by
promoting and encouraging creativity, rationality and problem-solving ability of employees
through coaching, challenging and acting as a “Lean” role model.
Additionally, managing change and motivating and stimulating employees to actively
participate in the change are important, since organizational change is vital in order to thrive
in a competitive environment. For practitioners, it is a compelling fact that in this study
Commitment and Job Satisfaction have a positive effect on the attitudes employees develop
towards organizational change, in casu Lean Management. Moreover, in this study
Organizational Commitment seems to be a predicting variable for the continuous
50
improvement behaviour of employees, Organization Spontaneity. Thus increasing
Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction of employees assists in successfully
managing change, and ultimately increasing Organizational Spontaneity.
In addition for practitioners it is interesting that in this study a certain positive attitude
seems to be a predicting variable concerning the behavioural outcome variable, Organization
Spontaneity. This means that a positive attitude towards Lean can result in positive Lean
behaviour. For practitioners providing attention to creating a positive attitude towards Lean is
therefore essential.
Moreover in this study History of Change has a high impact on the specific change
studied, namely the implementation of Lean Management, and especially on the variables
Attitude towards Change, Organization Commitment and Job Satisfaction. It is therefore
important for practitioners to understand the effects of past successful or unsuccessful
organizational changes on employee’s perceptions, commitment and attitudes, allowing them
being able to deal with these in an effective way.
Academic implications
This research is also academically relevant, since especially in the Netherlands implanting
Lean in a service industry is a relative new concept, neither has much research about Lean
Management in the Dutch Insurance industry been conducted. This study therefore
contributes to the limited amount of existing literature in this sector.
Another academic implication of the outcome of this study is that it seems there is a
connection between Leadership style and the voluntary conduct of Lean behaviour of
employees, leading to a more effective organization. Thus, there is a link between leadership
processes and organization processes, which is demonstrated by the continuous improvement
behaviour of employees, in this study qualified as Organization Spontaneity. Furthermore,
this study contributes to the findings of Waldman et al. (1998) stating that there is not only a
relationship between Leadership style and a successful Lean implementation, but also that
this link continues to exist in the later phase of ongoing structural improvement processes as
well. Consequently the followers of leaders showing Transformational and Transactional
Leadership styles are more inclined to contribute to the effective organization by performing
the continuous improvement behaviour, in casu Organizational Spontaneity.
This study shows that there also seem to be a connection between Organizational
Commitment and Organizational Spontaneity. There is a positive relationship between
Organizational Commitment and the voluntary continuous improvement behaviour of
51
employees named Organizational Spontaneity. This connection, especially in connotation
with Lean implementation, is not yet described in the academic literature.
One of the important outcomes of this study is the high impact of History of Change
on Job Satisfaction, Organization Commitment and Attitude towards Change. This study
demonstrates that when researching organizational change processes it is important to
consider the History of Change of the organization.
This study demonstrates that contradicting outcomes when studying the predicted
effects of Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction on Extra-Role Performance
Behaviour are present in this study as well. In this study only Organizational Commitment
emerges as a significant predictor of Extra-Role Performance Behaviour, in casu Organization
Spontaneity.
5.3 Limitations and recommendations for further research
This study tried to encompass a sound academic framework and clear guidelines. However,
next to its strengths, the limitations of it should also be recognized and will be discussed
underneath as input for further research.
This research model tries to find variables that influence the output variables, yet there
are most likely other variables that influence the output variable as well. In this study only
three predictors of Attitude towards Change and Organization Spontaneity are discussed
namely: Organization Commitment, Job Satisfaction and Leadership. As has been indicated in
the theoretical chapter, there are more predictors for the two outcome variables. Lau &
Woodman (1995) state that the Attitude towards Change is also shaped by employees
understanding and expecting the forthcoming change. In addition, George & Jones (1997)
conclude that Organization Spontaneity is influenced by the context in which these behaviors
occur. This context is divided in three levels: individual, group and organizational. On the
individual level personal characteristics and inter-personal relationships can influence
Organization Spontaneity. Contextual forces on the team level like group behavior, norms and
goals are also able to influence Organization Spontaneity. The contextual forces on
organization level, like culture, organizational structure and rewards system are known to
influence Organization Spontaneity as well. This study focused on the individual level only
(in casu Leadership, Job Satisfaction and Organization Commitment). It is therefore
recommended to study Organization Spontaneity in his full context, including the individual,
group, and organization contextual forces, and to make further use of multilevel analysis
techniques.
52
In this study the direct effect of attitude on behaviour is tested, not encompassing other
variables. This is a clear limitation. According to several authors, the attitude towards an
object is just one of the many variables that influence behaviour (e.g. Warner & DeFleur,
1969; Wicker, 1969). Personality characteristics, social norms, habits and situational factors
have to be taken into consideration in order to be able to predict behaviour (Fishbein & Ajzen,
1974). In conclusion it can be stated that the conceptual model does only partly explain the
variance concerning Attitude towards Change and Organizational Spontaneity and only 17.7
% of the variance in the outcome Attitude towards Change is explained and only 13.9% of the
variance in the outcome Organization Spontaneity are explained. Further research has to be
conducted to investigate other predictors of these two outcome variables, and look more
thoroughly whether the explained variance will be higher.
The findings of this study concerning external validity are not generalizable, since its
conclusions are merely based on a single case study at ASR Nederland. This means that the
results only indicate how the relationships between the researched variables could be within
this particular Dutch Insurance company. Contextual factors, like cultural influences, history
of the team, and for example the level of Lean implementation, diverge between the different
entities. It is therefore possible that these factors influence for example Organizational
Spontaneity. This however is not taken into account, thereby limiting generalizability.
Nevertheless, it is interesting to discover that the results of this study match existing research
data. Further research should focus on testing whether these relationships truly exist and if
they are generalizable.
The relatively small sample size in this research can also be qualified as a limitation,
since Bryman and Cramer (2009) argue that the larger the sample, the greater the accuracy of
the results. In this research only 150 respondents are used to extract its data. For further
research, it is recommended to increase the sample size. This would help establishing sound
academic date for the Dutch insurance industry.
It should be noted that the variables in this study, especially Organization
Commitment, deviate slightly from the normal distribution. All variables are slightly skewed
and have a (small) positive kurtosis value. However, since the analysis assumes a normal
distribution for all scales, this could be able to influence the results (Field 2009). Although
significant relationships were found in this study, it is important to further study the exact
influence of the skeweness and kurtosis on the results.
The low initial Cronbach’s alpha for the Leadership scale can be qualified as a
limitation. The fact that five items were removed from the original MLQ scale, in order to
53
increase the internal consistency reliability of the scale, could potentially have effected the
rigidness and construct validity of this particular scale and the overall study. Further research
is necessary to find out what the actual effects of removing certain items from the MLQ scale
are. It is interesting to further investigate why, the Transactional Leadership scale, show such
low reliability scores for ASR Nederland, in particular since the MLQ is a prominent and well
established instrument in the academic world, showing Cronbach’s alpha all above the 0.85
(Bass & Avolio, 1989). Nevertheless, it is clear, that based on the decision, comparing the
results of this study with other studies using the same MLQ scales is limited.
No cause–effect relationships could be distilled, since this is not possible because of
the design on the study. A longitudinal study could have provided more insight, since a crosssectional study is not concerned with causality and cannot measure change over time. In
addition, a clear limitation concerning Leadership style is the fact that a respondents output
may have been coloured by a recent event with his/here leader. It is therefore suggested to
carry out longitudinal research to overcome these limitations.
The current economic climate might have influenced the outcome of this study as well.
The current abominable labour market situation might have coloured the results of Attitude
towards Change, because employees are more occupied with securing their jobs than
participating in an organizational change.
In this study, the direct relationship between Job Satisfaction and Organization
Spontaneity, was not validated by the results. It is too premature to state that this relationship
exists or not. It is possible that the different component of Job Satisfaction, since in this study
only Job Satisfaction on a general level is tested, act as predictor for Organization
Spontaneity. Further research should study the effect of the relationship between the specific
components of Job Satisfaction and Organization Spontaneity and should try to extrapolate
how these different components influence each other.
The results show that Job Satisfaction is no mediator of the relationship between
Leadership and Organization Spontaneity, yet Organizational Commitment is. When Job
Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment are studied in combination contradicting
outcomes were generated. For example Williams & Anderson (1991) proved in their study
that only Job Satisfaction is a significant predictor or mediator of Extra-Role Performance
Behaviour. In contradiction to there work, Schappe (1998) stated that only Organizational
Commitment emerges as a significant predictor and mediator of Extra-Role Performance
Behaviour. It is therefore interesting to study what the origins are of these contradicting
outcomes.
54
The mediation effect of Organizational Commitment on Attitude towards Change
was not found in the data. It is possible that different foci of commitment, in this study only
the focus organization is tested, act as mediating variable. Further research is required to
study the effect of the different foci of commitment on Attitude towards Change and how
these different foci influence each other.
The impact of the variable History of Change in this present study was extensive. This
indicates that past and future changes will have an impact on the attitudes towards change of
employees, and also on the Commitment and Job Satisfaction level of employees. It is
recommended to more intensively investigate the effect of the History of Change whilst
studying organizational changes.
Lean Management in the service industry is a topic that has not been studied
extensively. Studying the predictors and outcomes of Lean Management within the service
industry is therefore of great importance. The results of this study and the discovered
relationships are an interesting start, but more research should be conducted to confirm the
results of this study. Particularly, the positive connection between Leadership style combined
with Organizational Commitment, and the desired Lean behaviour of employees is interesting
to study in more detail. This is to be studied, preferably on longitudinal level, because
academic theory, confirmed by the present study, shows that the continuous improvement
behaviour of employees is not only positively influenced by Leadership and Organizational
Commitment during an implementation stage, but this connection is continued during the
future stages in structural improvement processes as well (Waldman 1998).
Overall, this study provides more insight in Leadership, Organization Commitment and Job
Satisfaction, Attitude towards Change and Organization Spontaneity in a Lean change and
how they correlate. Still many questions remain to be answered. These provide a fertile
ground for future studies in this field of research.
55
References
Allen, N.J., Meyer, J.P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance
and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol 63,
p.1-18.
Allen, N.J., Meyer, J.P. (1996). Affective and normative commitment to the organization:
An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, Vol 49, p. 252-276.
Andersson, R.H., Eriksson and H. Tostensson. (2006). Similarities and differences between
TQM, six sigma and Lean. The TQM Magazine. Vol. 18 (3), p. 282- 296.
Angle, H.L, Perry, J.L. (1981). An empirical assessment of organizational commitment
and organizational effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol 26 (1), p.1-14.
Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G., and Mossholder, K.W., (1993). Creating readiness for
organizational Change. Human relations, 1993, Vol 46, p. 681-703.
Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M., (2007). Multifactor leadership questionnaire, manual and sampler
set, Mind Garden, Inc.
Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M., Jung, D.I., (1999). Re-examining the components of
Transformational and Transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire,
Journal of Occupational and Organizational psychology, Vol. 72, p. 441-462
Barling J.,Weber T.,and E. Kelloway. (1996). Effects of Transformational leadership training
on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology.
Vol. 81 (6). p.827-832.
Baron, R.M., Kenny, D.A., (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
Psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 51 (6): p.1173-1182.
Bartunek M, D., Rousseau, M, Rudolph J.W.et al. (2006). On the receiving end: Sense
making, emotion and assessment of an organizational change initiated by others. The Journal
of Applied Behavioural Science. Vol. 42(2). P.182-206
Bateman, T.S., Organ D.W., (1983). Job Satisfaction and the good soldier. The relationship
between affect and employee citizenship. Academy of Management Journal. Vol 26. p587595.
Bass B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free Press New-York.
New York
Bennebroek K.M. (2002). Sterke staaltjes van samenwerking. Survey feedback voor het
aanpakken van belemmeringen bij organisatie veranderingen. Deventer: Kluwer.
Benkhoff B. (1997). Ignoring commitment is costly: New approaches establish the missing
link between commitment and performance. Human Relations. Vol. 50 (6). P. 701-726.
Bergman B., Klefsjo B., (1994). Quality from customer needs to customer satisfaction. MC
Graw-Hill, London, Lund.
Berson Y., Avolio. B, (2004). Transformational leadership and the dissemination of
organizational goals: A Case study of a telecommunication firm. The Leadership Quarterly.
Vol 15 (5). P 625-646.
Bono, Y., Judge, E., Timothy. A. (2003). Self-concordance at work: Toward understanding
the motivational effects of transformational leaders. Academy of Management Journal. Vol.
45 (5). P. 554-571.
Boyer K.K. (1996). An assessment of managerial commitment to Lean production.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management. Vol. 9. p. 48-59.
Brady J.T, Allen, E. (2006). Six Sigma literature: a review and agenda for further research.
Quality and reliability engineering international. Vol 22.p 335-367.
Brown M.G., Hitchcock D.E, and M.L. Willard. (1994). Why TQM fails and what to do about
it. Irwin professional publishing. New York.
Bryman, A., Cramer, D. (1997). Quantitative Data Analysis with SPSS: A Guide for Social
Scientists. London: Routledge, pp. 1-381.
Burns J.M. (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row. New-York.
Bycio, P., Allen, J.S., Hackkett, R.D., (1995). Further assessments of Bass’ (1985)
Conceptualization of Transactional and Transformational leadership, Journal of applied
Psychology, Vol. 80 (4), p. 468-478
Caldwell D.M., Herold, M., and D.B Fedor. (2004). The effects of organizational change on
employee commitment: a multilevel investigation. Personal Psychology. Vol 59 (1). P. 1-29
Chappell, L. Womack (2002). Lean thinking starts with CEO. Automotive News. (2002) Vol.
76 No.12. 35-47.
Cohen, A. (1991). Career stage as a moderator of the relationships between organizational
Commitment and its outcome: a meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol 64,
p. 256-268.
Cohen, A., (1993). Commitment and turnover. The Academy of Management Journal. Vol. 36
(5). P.1140-1157.
Conner D.R., (1992) Managing at the speed of change; how resilient managers succeed and
prosper where others fail. Villard Books. New-York
Cordery J., Sevastos P, and W. Muller et al. (1993). Correlates of employees attitudes toward
functional flexibility. Human Relations. Vol. 46 (6). P. 705-723.
57
Czabke J., Hansen E.N., and T.L. Doolen. (2008). A multisite field study of Lean thinking in
US and German secondary wood products manufactures. Forest products journal. Vol. 58 (9),
p. 77-85.
Dahlgaard J. K., Kristense, K., (1998) Fundamentals of Total Quality Management. Chapman
& Hall London.
Darwish Y., (2000). Organizational Commitment: a mediator of the relationships of
leadership behavior with job satisfaction and performance in a non western country. Journal
of Managerial psychology. P. 6-28
DeCarlo, L.T., (1997). On the Meaning and Use of Kurtosis. Psychological methods, 2, (3),
pp. 292- 307.
Den Hartog, D., van Muijen, J., and Koopman, P.L., (1994). Transactioneel versus
transformationeel leiderschap, een analyse van de MLQ in de Nederlandse situatie. Gedrag en
Organisatie, Vol 7, p. 155–166.
Dionne, S.D., Yammarino, F.J., Atwater, L.E., Spangler, W.D., (2004). Transformational
Leadership and team performance, Journal of Organizational change management, Vol. 17
(2), p. 177-193
Drew J., McCallum B., and Roggenhofer S. (2004). Journey to Lean, making operational
change stick. Palgrave Macmillan , New York.
Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B.J., and Shamir B. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership
on follower’s development and performance: A field experiment. The academy of
Management Journal, Vol 15 (4) p.735-744.
Eby L.T., Adams D.M., Joyce E.A, et al. (2000). Perceptions of organization readiness for
change: Factors related to employee’s reaction to the implementation of team based selling.
Human Relations. Vol. 53 (3). P. 419- 442.
Eisenbach. et al. (1999).Transformational leadership in the context of organizational change.
Journal of Organizational change. p. 80-88.
Eling, M., Lunhen M., (2010). Efficiency in the international Insurance Industry: A crosscountry comparison. Journal of Banking & Finance, Vol 34 (7), p.1497-1509
Elving W.J.L. Communication during organizational change. Under review
Elizur. D., Guttman L., (1976). The structure of attitudes towards work and technological
change within an organization. Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol. 21 (4). P. 611-622.
Emery, C.R., E College, K.J., Barker, Fredonia S. (2007). The effect of Transactional and
transformational leadership styles on the organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction of
customer contact personnel. Vol 11 (1), p. 77-90.
Emiliani M.L. (1998). Lean behaviors. Management Decisions. Vol. 36 (9), p. 615-631.
58
Fassina, N.E., Jones, D., Uggerslev K.L. (2008). Relationship Clean-Up time: Using Metaanalysis and Path Analysis to clarify relationships among Job Satisfaction perceived fairness
and Citizenship Behaviour. Journal of Management, Vol 34 (2). P.161-188.
Fedor D.B., Herold D., and S Caldwell. (2008). The effects of transformational and change
leadership on employee commitment to a change: A multilevel study. Journal of Applied
psychology. Vol. 92 (2), p. 346-357.
Field, A. P. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd edition). Londen: Sage.
Fisbein M., Azjen. (1974).Attitudes towards objects as predictors of single and multiple
behavior criteria. Psychological review. Vol 81. (1), p. 59-74.
Fisher C.D. (1980). On the dubious wisdom of expecting job satisfaction to correlate with
performance. Academy of Management Review. Vol. 5. p. 607-612.
Fugate M., Kinicki A., and G.E Prussia. (2008). Employee coping with organizational change:
An examination of alternative theoretical perspectives and models. Personnel Psychology.
Vol. 61 (1) p. 1-36
Gardner, D., Dunham G., Cummings, R.B., and L.L. Pierce, (1987). Focus of attention at
work and leader-follower relationships. Journal of Occupational Behaviour. Vol 8, p.277294.
George, J.M., Brief, A.P., (1992). Feeling good-doing good: a conceptual analysis of the
Mood at work-Organizational Spontaneity relationship, Psychological bulletin, Vol. 112 (2),
p. 310-329
George, J.M., Jones, G.R., (1997). Organizational Spontaneity in context, Human
performance, Vol. 10 (2), p. 153-170
Gillmore T.N., Barnett C. (1992). Designing the social architecture of participation in large
groups to effect organizational change. Applying Behavioural Science. Vol. 28. p. 534-548.
Grunberg, L., Conolly, R., and Greenberg, E.S. (2010). Surviving layoffs: The effects on
Organizational commitment and job performance. Work and occupations, Vol 27 (7): 7-31.
Guest D.E. (1987). Human Resource management and Industrial relations. Journal of
management studies. Vol.24. p. 503-521.
Hall, D.T., Schneider, B., and Nygren, H.T. (1970). Personal factors in organizational
Identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol 15, p.176-189.
Hellsten U., Klefsjo, B. (2000). TQM as a management system consisting of values and
techniques and tools. The TQM Magazine. Vol.12 (4), p. 238-244.
Herscovitch L., Meyer J.P., (2002). Commitment to organizational change: extension of a
three-component model. Journal of Applied Pyschology. Vol 87 (3) p. 474-487
59
Higgs M. J., (2003). Developments is leadership thinking. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal. Vol 24 (5) p. 273-284
Higgs M.J., and Rowland D., (2001). Developing change leaders; assessing the impact of a
development programmer. Change Management Journal. Vol. 2 (1)
Hui C., Lee.C., (2000). Moderating effects of organizational based self-esteem on
organizational uncertainty. Employee response relationships. Journal of Management. Vol. 26
p. 215-232.
Holweg M., (2007). The genealogy of Lean production. Journal of operations management.
Vol. 25 (2), p. 420-437.
Iacovini J., (1993). The human side of organizational change. Training device. Vol. 47 (1). P.
65-68.
Iverson R.D., (1996). Employee acceptance of organizational change: the role of
organizational commitment. The international journal of human resource management.
Vol.7, p. 122-150.
Judge T. A., Piccolo R.F., (2004). The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration and
initiating structure in Leadership research. Journal of Applied Psychologyy. Vol. 89 (1) p. 3651.
Klein K.J., Sorra J.S. (1996). The challenge of innovation implementation. Academy of
Management Review. Vol 21. p. 539-545
Koenigsaecker G. (2001). Senior management’s role in leading Lean change. Creating change
dynamics and organizational alignment. Lei/University of Michigan 7 the Annual Lean
Management conference. Dearbon: Lean Enterprise Institute
Kotter J.P. (1996) Leading change. Boston: Harvard business school press.
Kristensen, T.S., H. Hannerz, A. Hogh, and V. Borg (2005). The Copenhagen Psychosocial
Questionnaire – a tool for the assessment and improvement of the psychosocial work
environment. Scand J Work Environ Health, Vol 31, p. 438-449.
Liker J.K. (1998) Becoming Lean: Inside stories of US manufactures: Productivity press.
Magnusson K. D Kroslid and B Gergman. (2003) Six Sigma- the pragmatic approach, Lund
Studentliteratur.
Lau, C.M., Woodman, R.W. (1995). Understanding organizational change: A schematic
Perspective. Academy of Management Journal, Vol 2, p.537-554.
Loke. J.C.F. (2001). Leadership behaviours: effects on job satisfaction, productivity and
organizational commitment. Journal of Nursing Management. Vol. 9. p. 191-204.
Lowe, K.B., Kroeck, K.G., Sivasubramaniam, N., (1996). Effectiveness correlates of
Transformational and Transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature,
Leadership quarterly, Vol. 7 (3), p. 385-425
60
Lynch, P.D., Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., (1999). Perceived Organizational support: inferior
versus superior performance by wary employees, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 84 (4),
p.467-483.
Mathieu, J.E., Zajac, D. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates,
and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, Vol 108, p.171-194.
McNeese-Smith D. (1995). Job satisfaction, productivity and organizational commitment. The
results of leadership. Journal of Nursing Administration. Vol. 25 (9). P.17-26.
Medly F., Rochelle D.R., (1995). Transformational Leadership and Job Satisfaction. Nursing
Management, Vol 26 (9), p. 64JJ-64NN.
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N.J., & Smith, C.A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and
Occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol 78, p.538-551.
Meyer, P., Becker, T.E., and Vandenberghe, C. (2004). Employee commitment and
motivation: A conceptual analysis and integrative model. Journal of applied Psychology, Vol
6, p.991-1007.
Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D.J., Herscovitch, L., and Topolnytsky, L (2002). Affective,
Continuance, and Normative Commitment to the Organization: A Meta-Analysis of
Antecedents, Correlates, and Consequences. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, Vol 61, p.2052.
Metselaar, E.E. (1997). Assessing the willingness to change: Construction and validation of
the DINAMO. Amsterdam, NL: Free University of Amsterdam Press.
Morris, J.H., Sherman, D.T., (1981). Generalizability of an organizational commitment
model. The Academy of Management Journal, Vol 24 (3), p.512-526.
Mowday, R.T. (1998). Reflections on the study and relevance of organizational commitment.
Human Resource Management Review, Vol 4, p.387-401.
Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M., and Porter, L.W. (1979). The measurement of organizational
Commitment. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, Vol 14, p.224-247.
Mowday, R.T., Porter, L.W., & Dubin, R. (1974). Unit performance, situational factors, and
Employee attitudes in spatially work units. Organizational Behaviour and Human
Performance, Vol 12, p.231-248.
Moorman, R., Niehof, B., and W. Organ. (1993). Treating employees fairly and
organizational citizenship behaviour: Sorting the effects of Job Satisfaction, Organizational
commitment and Procedural Justice. Employee responsibilities and Rights Journal. Vol. 6 (3).
P. 209-225.
Muijen, J.J., (1994) Transactioneel versus transformationeel leiderschap: een analyse van de
MLQ in de Nederlandse situatie.'' Gedrag en Organisatie : Tijdschrift voor Sociale Arbeids- en
Organisatiepsychologie, Vol 7, p. 155-167
61
Nelson A., Cooper, C.L., (1995). Uncertainty admits change: The impact of privatization on
employee job satisfaction and well-being. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology. Vol. 68, p.57-71.
Oreg S., Berson, Y., (2011). Leadership and employees reaction to change: The role of
leader’s personal attributes and transformational leadership style. Personnel Psychology. Vol
64. p. 627-659.
Pettigrew, A.M., Woodman, R.W., and Cameron, K.S. (2001). Studying organizational
change and development: challenges for future research. Academy of Management Journal,
Vol 44 (4), p.697-713.
Piderit.S.K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional
view of attitude towards organizational change. The Academy of Management Review. Vol 25
(4), P 783-794.
Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C.A., Williams, E.S., (1999). Fairness perception and trust as
mediators for Transformational and Transactional leadership: a two-sample study, Journal of
Management, Vol. 25 (6), p. 897-933.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. (1996). Transformational leader behaviours and
Substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and
Organizational citizenship. Journal of Management, Vol 22 (2), p.259-298.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H., and Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational
leader behaviours and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and
Organizational citizenship behaviours. The Leadership Quarterly, Vol 1 (2), p.107-142.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B., and Bachrach, D.G. (2000). Organizational
Citizenship behaviours: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and
suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, Vol 26 (3), p.513-563.
Powell, T.C., (1995). Total Quality Management as competitive advantage: A review and
empirical study, Strategic Management Journal, Vol 16 (1), p.15-37.
Prajogo D.I. (2005). The comparative analysis of TQM practices and quality of performance
between manufacturing firms and service firms. International Journal of service industry
management. Vol. 16 (5), p.217-228.
Preacher, K. J., Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, Vol 40,
p.879-891.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect
effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,
Vol 36, p.717-731.
Puffer, S., (1987). Prosocial behavior, noncompliant behavior and work performance among
commission salespeople. Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol 72. p.615-621.
62
Purvanova R. K., Bono, J., Dzieweczynski, J., (2006). Transformational leadership job
characteristics and Organizational citizenship performance, Human Performance, Vol 19 (1),
p.1-22
Rafferty A., Griffinn E., (2006). Perceptions of Organizational change: A Stress and coping
perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol. 91 (5). P.1154-1162.
Rathje M., Boyle, T., and P Deflorin.(2009). Lean, take two! Reflections from the second
attempt at Lean implementation. Business Horizons. Vol 52, p.79-88.
Rauch C.F., Behling, O., (1984). Functionalism basis for an alternative approach to the study
of leadership. New York Pergamon.
Reichers, A. E., Wanous, J. P., and Austin, J. T. (1997). Understanding and managing
Cynicism about organizational change. Academy of Management Executive, Vol 11, p.4859.
Saunders M., Lewis P., and A. Tornhill. (2009). Research methods for business students.
Pearson Education Limited.
Schappe, P., (1998). The influence of Job Satisfaction, organizational commitment and
fairness perception on organizational citizenship behavior. The Journal of Psychology. Vol
123 (3), p.277-290.
Scholl R.W., (1981). Differentiating Organizational commitment from expectancy as a
motivation force. Academy of Management Review. Vol. 4. p.589-599.
Shah R., Ward, P.T., (2003). Lean manufacturing context, practices bundles and performance.
Journal of operations management. Vol. 21, p.129-149.
Shamir B., House R.J., and M.B. Arthur. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic
leadership: A self concept theory. Organizational Science. Vol. 4 (4). P 577-594.
Shiba S., Graham A., and D.Walden. (1980). A new American TQM: Four practical
revolutions in management. Center for quality management, Productivity press. Portland
Shore L.M., Martin, H., (1989). Job satisfaction and Organizational commitment in relation to
work performance and turnover intentions. Human Relations. Vol. 42 (7) p. 625-638.
Sosik J., Avolio J., Kahai B.J, and S.S. Jung. (1998). Computer-supported work group
potency and effectiveness: The role of transformational leadership, anonymity and task
interdependence. Computers in Human Behaviour. Vol. 14 (3). P.491-511.
Staw, B.M., (1977). Two sides of commitment. Paper presented at the meeting of the
Academy of Management, Orlando, Florida.
Steers, R.M., (1977). Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment.
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol 22 (1), p.46-56.
63
Swank C. K., (2003). The Lean service machine. Harvard Business review. Vol. 18 (10),
p.123-129.
Tichy N., Devanna, M.A., (1990). Creating the competitive organizations of the 21st century:
The Boudaryless Corporation. Human Resource Management. Vol. 29 (4). P. 455-471.
Van der Heijden, B.I.J.M., Kümmerling, A., Van Dam, K., Van der Schoot, E., Estryn-Béhar,
M., and Hasselhorn, H.M., (2010). The impact of social support upon intent to leave among
female nurses in Europe: Secondary analysis of data from NEXT survey. International
Journal of Nursing Studies, Vol 47 (10), p.434-445
Vakola M., Nikolau I., (2005). Attitude towards organizational change; what is the role of
employees stress and commitment? Employee Relations. Vol. 27 (2), p.60-174.
Wagner, S.L., Rush M.C., (2000). Altruistic organizational Citizenship Behavior: Context,
Disposition and age. Journal of Social Psychology. Vol 140 (3). P.379-391.
Waldman et al. A qualitative analysis of leadership and quality improvements. Leadership
Quarterly. 1998 Vol 9 (2). P. 177-201
Walumbwas F.O; Lawler, J.J., Avolio B et al. (2005). Transformational Leadership and work
related attitudes: The moderating effects of collective and Self Efficacy across cultures.
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies. Vol. 11 (3) p. 2-16.
Warner L.G, DeFleur M.L., (1969). Attitude as an interactional concept. Social constrains and
social distance as intervening variables between attitudes and action. American Sociological
Review. Vol. 34. p.153-169.
Webley P. (2010). The implicit psychology of total quality management. Total Quality
Management. Vol. 7 (5) p. 483-492.
Welbourne, T.M., Johnson, D.E., Erez, A., (1997). The role-based performance scale:
Validity analysis of a theory-based measure, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 (5), p.
540-555
Wicker A.W. (1969). Attitudes versus action. The relationship of verbal and overt behavioral
responses to attitude objects. Journal of Social Issues. Vol 25 p. 41-78.
Williams. L., Anderson S., (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational Commitment as
predictors of Organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management.
Vol.17 (3). P.601-617.
Womack J., Jones J.,. (1996) Lean thinking. Simon Schuster London.
Womack J. Jones, J. and D.T Roos (1990) The machine that changed the world: The story of
Lean production. Harper Perennial.
Yammarino, F.J., Spangler, W.D., Bass, B.M., (1993). Transformational leadership and
performance: a longitudinal investigation, Leadership quarterly, Vol. 4 (1), p. 81-102
64
Yang, C.C., (2006). The impact of human resource management practices on the
implementation of total quality management. An empirical study on high-tech firms. The
TQM Magazine. Vol. 18 (2), p.162- 172.
Yin R.K., (2003). Case Study research: design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage
publication, Inc.
Yukl, G., (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weakness in transformational and charismatic
leadership theories, Leadership Quarterly, Vol 10 (2), p.285-303.
65
Six
Leadership styles
Lean
Attitude and behaviour
Idealized
Continuous improvement
Quality
66
Effective organization
Extra- role
Service industry
Leadership
Augementation
Inspirational
Stimulation
RBPS
ASR
Organization Commitment
TQM
Attitude towards specific Change
History of Change
Change
Transactional
Management
Transformational
Individual
Insurance
Positive
MLQ
Organization Spontaneity
Job Satisfaction
COPSOQ
Appendix
Reward
Appendix 1: Background information ASR
1.1 ASR
ASR Nederland is an intermediary’s insurance company. ASR Nederland (or here
predecessors) was founded in 1720 as the Maatschappij van Assurantie der Stad Rotterdam.
ASR has a long history and is a leading market player in the Dutch Insurance industry. ASR
consists out of five brands: ASR Verzekeringen, De Amersfoortse, Ditzo, Europeesche
Verzekeringen and Ardanta. ASR Nederland employs approximately 5000 employees (4450
FTE), working on 8 locations across the Netherlands (ASR annual report, 2010). ASR
Nederland offers through their subsidiaries full range of insurances namely: non-life, life,
health, income, pensions, funeral, health & income, travel & leisure, mortgages, savings and
investments. ASR Nederland collaborates with intermediaries who distribute the insurance to
the consumers and corporate clients.
1.2 Non Life Product-Line
The non-life product line of ASR deals with all applications, mutations and claims concerning
non-life insurances for the corporate and consumer market. The products offered can be
categorized in the following way: Property, liability, traffic and legal aid insurance for the
consumer and corporate market. Fleet, garage, transportation and technical insurance for the
corporate market. Recreation, injury and wedding insurance for the consumer market. The
non life product line employs 500 employees, working on three locations across the
Netherlands. The business line consist of different units: Underwriting consumer markets,
with 5 teams. Underwriting corporate markets, with 4 teams, Claim treatment, with 6 teams,
Service Center non-life with 8 teams and the Development and control non-life with 4 teams.
1.3 ASR and Lean
ASR introduced Lean Management in 2007 by starting the Operational Excellence (OpEx)
programme. Principles of the Lean thinking form the basis of OpEx. The approach of OpEx is
to stimulate each business line to improve continuously to improve performance and
customer’s satisfaction. All business lines will go through an implementation phase guided by
the OpEx team. In addition Lean champions within each business line help the organization in
further achieving the goals and becoming a true Lean organization. In the OpEx
implementation process there are several phases. However the fulfillment of the phases will
be adjusted to the specific situation of a business line. OpEx has been introduced at all units
of the Non-Life product line.
67
Appendix 2: Questionnaire
Beste deelnemer,
Dit onderzoek komt voort uit mijn afstudeerscriptie voor de masteropleiding Business Studies
aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam. Met dit onderzoek wordt de invloed van leiderschap,
werktevredenheid en organisatiecommitment op verandering en prestatie onderzocht De
specifieke verandering benoemd binnen deze vragenlijst is OpEx/Lean.
Aangezien hier nog vrij weinig inzicht in bestaat lever je met je deelname een belangrijke
bijdrage aan zowel de academische als de bedrijfswereld. De vragenlijst bestaat uit de
volgende onderdelen
·
Algemene vragen
·
Stellingen
Hoewel je deelname vrijwillig is hoop ik natuurlijk dat je de tijd zult nemen om deze
vragenlijst in te vullen. Naar verwachting neemt het invullen maximaal 10 minuten in beslag.
Hoe meer deelnemers, hoe beter de kwaliteit van de uiteindelijke resultaten.
Het is het belangrijk om te weten dat dit onderzoek niet voortkomt uit het ASR OpEx
programma, maar een onafhankelijk onderzoek is voor mijn scriptie. Je deelname is absoluut
anoniem en individuele data zal niet terug te zien zijn in de uitkomsten van het onderzoek. Bij
het beantwoorden van stellingen is er geen goed of fout antwoord, het gaat om jouw
persoonlijke mening. Denk niet te lang na over een antwoord, een eerste reactie is vaak de
meest passende.
Alvast hartelijk bedankt voor je medewerking!
Indien je nog vragen heb, neem dan gerust contact met mij op.
Met vriendelijke groet
Dorrit de Vries06-5138 5102
Q2 Wat is u geslacht?
m Man
m Vrouw
Q3 Wat is u leeftijd?
m
m
m
m
16-29
30- 39
40-49
50+
68
Q4 Wat is u hoogste opleidingsniveau?
m
m
m
m
m
Geen certificaat/diploma behaald
Mavo/VMBO of gelijkwaardig
Havo/Vwo of gelijkwaardig
MBO of gelijkwaardig
HBO/Academisch
Q5 Bij welk team bent u werkzaam?
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
Acceptatie zakelijk Automotive
Acceptatie zakelijk Multibranche
Acceptatie zakelijk Brand
Acceptatie zakelijk AVB
Aansprakelijkheid, Brand & Car
Verkeer & Transport
Speciale zaken
Personenschade Licht letsel
Personeschade Middel Zwaar letsel Utrecht
Personeschade Middel Zwaar letsel Rotterdam
Personeschade Zwaar letsel
Schaderegeling Personenschade
Acceptatieservice 1
Acceptatieservice 2
Overig
Q6 Hoelang bent u al werkzaam binnen deze organisatie?
m
m
m
m
m
Minder dan 1 jaar
1 tot 5 jaar
5 tot 10 jaar
10 tot 15 jaar
Meer dan 15 jaar
Q7. Hieronder ziet u een aantal uitdrukkingen die een bepaalde relatie met uw organisatie
uitdrukken. Geeft u alstublieft aan in hoeverre u het eens bent met onderstaande
uitdrukkingen. De ranking verloopt van helemaal niet mee eens naar helemaal mee eens.
Helemaal
niet mee
eens
Niet mee
eens
Neutraal
Mee eens
Helemaal
mee
eens
A) Ik voel echt dat ik in deze
organisatie thuishoor
m
m
m
m
m
B) Deze organisatie betekent voor mij
persoonlijk heel veel
m
m
m
m
m
C) Ik ben trots om onderdeel van deze
organisatie uit te mogen maken
m
m
m
m
m
D) Ik voel me geen lid van de
“familie” die in deze organisatie werkt
m
m
m
m
m
E) Ik vind echt dat ik in dit beroep
thuis hoor
m
m
m
m
m
69
F) Mijn functie heeft een grote
persoonlijke betekenis voor mij
m
m
m
m
m
G) Ik ben trots op mijn huidige
beroepfunctie
m
m
m
m
m
H) Ik voel me geen onderdeel van mijn
beroepsgroep
m
m
m
m
m
Q8 Hieronder ziet u een aantal stellingen over uw leidinggevende. Geeft u alstublieft aan in
hoeverre u het eens bent met onderstaande uitdrukkingen. De ranking verloopt van helemaal
niet mee eens naar helemaal mee eens.
Helemaal
niet mee
eens
Niet mee
eens
Neutraal
Mee eens
Helemaal
mee eens
A) Vraagt naar mijn mening
m
m
m
m
m
B) Geeft feedback om medewerkers te
helpen
m
m
m
m
m
C) Treedt hard op als het moet
m
m
m
m
m
D) Geeft vooral leiding door zelf het
goede voorbeeld te geven
m
m
m
m
m
E) Is betrouwbaar in het nakomen van
zijn/haar verplichtingen
m
m
m
m
m
F) Komt pas in actie wanneer
problemen chronisch worden
m
m
m
m
m
G) Bekritiseerd medewerkers alleen
met een goede reden
m
m
m
m
m
H) Heeft een duidelijke visie en beeld
van de toekomst
m
m
m
m
m
I) Staat mij toe mijn eigen doelen te
stellen
m
m
m
m
m
J) Verliest zijn/haar belangen nooit uit
het oog
m
m
m
m
m
K) Vermijdt betrokken te raken bij
tijdrovende kwesties
m
m
m
m
m
L) Is sterk overtuigd van de juistheid
van zijn/haar handelen
m
m
m
m
m
M) Geeft mij inspraak in beslissingen
die mijn werk treffen
m
m
m
m
m
N) Geeft de mogelijkheid
verantwoordelijkheid te dragen
m
m
m
m
m
O) Ziet er op toe dat afspraken worden
nagekomen
m
m
m
m
m
P) Delegeert uitdagende
verantwoordelijkheden aan medewerkers
m
m
m
m
m
Q) Is de baas en geeft bevelen als het
er op aankomt
m
m
m
m
m
70
R) Toont zich aanhanger van het
gezegde ‘grijp alleen in als het echt
nodig is
m
m
m
m
m
S) Stimuleert medewerkers om op
nieuwe manieren te kijken naar
problemen
m
m
m
m
m
T) Moedigt medewerkers aan om
onafhankelijk te denken
m
m
m
m
m
U) Is in staat om anderen enthousiast te
maken voor zijn/haar plannen
m
m
m
m
m
V) Duldt geen afwijkende meningen
meer als hij/zij een beslissing heeft
genomen
m
m
m
m
m
W) Hecht veel waarde aan heldere
afspraken en een eerlijke beloning
m
m
m
m
m
X) Laat de controle over projecten of
taken zoveel mogelijk aan andere over
m
m
m
m
m
Q9 Hoe juist zijn de volgende uitspraken in omtrent u functioneren in uw huidige functie. De
ranking verloopt van nooit naar altijd
Nooit
Bijna nooit
Soms
Vaak
Altijd
A) Ik kom met constructieve bijdragen
om het functioneren van de afdeling te
verbeteren
m
m
m
m
m
B) Ik moedig collega’s aan om met
nieuwe, meer effectieve manieren te
gebruiken om hun werk te doen
m
m
m
m
m
C) Ik zoek actief naar mogelijkheden
waar mijn mening de organisatie kan
helpen
m
m
m
m
m
D) Ik zoek naar manieren om de
effectiviteit in mijn werk te vergroten
door me te ontwikkelen
m
m
m
m
m
E) Ik onderneem actie om de
organisatie te behoeden voor mogelijke
problemen
m
m
m
m
m
F) Ik kom met nieuwe ideeën
m
m
m
m
m
G) Ik zet me in om nieuwe ideeën te
implementeren
m
m
m
m
m
H) Ik zet me in om verbeteringen te
zoeken in de manier van werken
m
m
m
m
m
I) Ik zet me in om betere processen en
standaarden te maken
m
m
m
m
m
71
Q10 Hoe tevreden bent u met... De ranking verloopt van zeer ontevreden naar zeer tevreden.
Zeer
ontevreden
Ontevreden
Neutraal
Tevreden
Zeer
tevreden
A) Uw werkvooruitzichten?
m
m
m
m
m
B) De fysieke arbeidsomstandigheden?
m
m
m
m
m
C) De manier waarop uw
bekwaamheden worden benut?
m
m
m
m
m
D) Uw baan in zijn geheel, alles
inbegrepen?
m
m
m
m
m
Q11 Hoe juist zijn voor u de volgende uitspraken omtrent veranderingen binnen deze
organisatie? De ranking verloopt van helemaal niet mee eens naar helemaal mee eens.
Helemaal
niet mee
eens
Niet mee
eens
Neutraal
Mee
eens
Helemaal
mee eens
A) Onze organisatie is altijd in staat
geweest om te gaan met nieuwe
situaties
m
m
m
m
m
B) Veranderingen in het verleden
waren in het algemeen succesvol
m
m
m
m
m
C) In het verleden aangekondigde
veranderingen liepen meestal uit op
niets
m
m
m
m
m
D) Onze organisatie heeft aangetoond
goed om te kunnen gaan met grote
veranderingen
m
m
m
m
m
Q12 Hieronder ziet u een aantal uitdrukkingen die uw mening t.o.v. Lean/OpEx uitdrukken.
Geeft u alstublieft aan in hoeverre u het eens bent met onderstaande uitdrukkingen. De
ranking verloopt van helemaal niet mee eens naar helemaal mee eens
Helemaal
niet mee
eens
Niet mee
eens
Neutraal
Mee
eens
Helemaal
mee eens
A) In denk dat de verandering van
Lean uitstekend is
m
m
m
m
m
B) Als ik kan zal ik mijn best doen om
Lean te realiseren
m
m
m
m
m
C) Niks is erger dan Lean
m
m
m
m
m
D) Ik ervaar veranderingen zoals Lean
als plezierig
m
m
m
m
m
E) Ik geloof dat deze organisatie er
goed aan heeft gedaan om Lean te
introduceren
m
m
m
m
m
F) Ik wil niet betrokken zijn bij Lean
m
m
m
m
m
G) Iedereen zou Lean moeten steunen
m
m
m
m
m
H) Ik wil niet dat Lean gerealiseerd
wordt
m
m
m
m
m
72
Dit is het einde van de vragenlijst, bedankt voor je deelname!
Mocht je nog een opmerking naar aanleiding van dit onderzoek willen plaatsen dan kan dat in
het onderstaande tekst vak.
Met vriendelijke groet, Dorrit de Vries
Let op: Vergeet niet op de " > >"button te klikken om de enquête af te sluiten
73
Appendix 3: Reliability analysis
Table 3A – Instruments with Cronbach's Alpha study and original
Instrument
Leadership
Avolio, Bass en Jung (1999)
Organizational Commitment
Allen & Meyer (1990)
Organization Spontaneity
Welbourne et al. (1997
Attitude towards specific Change
Lau (1990)
History of Change
Mestelaar (1997)
Job Satisfaction
Kristensen, Hannerz & Hogh (2005)
Original
Cronbach’s
Alpha
Cronbach’s
Alpha study
0.850
0.89
0.870
0.83
0.876
0.90
0.870
0.86
0.730
0.80
0.840
0.72
Table 3B: Overview steps Cronbachs Alpha
Leadership (total)
-Transformational
-Transactional
Organizational Commitment
Organizational Spontaneity
Attitude towards Change
History of Change
Job Satisfaction
Initial no.
of items
24
12
12
Initial alpha
0.83
0.87
0.55
3.1. Detail analysis reliability Leadership per scale
3.1.1 Leadership
Case Processing Summary
N
%
Valid
151
100,0
a
Excluded
0
,0
Total
151
100,0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the
procedure.
Cases
74
Final no. of
items
19
11
8
8
8
8
4
4
Final alpa
0.89
0.89
0.64
0.83
0.90
0.86
0.80
0.72
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
,826
24
A) Vraagt naar mijn mening
B) Geeft feedback om medewerkers te
helpen
C) Treedt hard op als het moet
D) Geeft vooral leiding door zelf het goede
voorbeeld te geven
E) Is betrouwbaar in het nakomen van
zijn/haar verplichtingen
F) Komt pas in actie wanneer problemen
chronisch worden
G) Bekritiseerd medewerkers alleen met
een goede reden
H) Heeft een duidelijke visie en beeld van
de toekomst
I) Staat mij toe mijn eigen doelen te stellen
J) Verliest zijn/haar belangen nooit uit het
oog
K) Vermijdt betrokken te raken bij
tijdrovende kwesties
L) Is sterk overtuigd van de juistheid van
zijn/haar handelen
M) Geeft mij inspraak in beslissingen die
mijn werk treffen
N) Geeft de mogelijkheid
verantwoordelijkheid te dragen
O) Ziet er op toe dat afspraken worden
nagekomen
P) Delegeert uitdagende
verantwoordelijkheden aan mede- werkers
Q) Is de baas en geeft bevelen als het er
op aankomt
R) Toont zich aanhanger van het gezegde
‘grijp alleen in als het echt nodig is
S) Stimuleert medewerkers om op nieuwe
manieren te kijken naar problemen
T) Moedigt medewerkers aan om
onafhankelijk te denken
U) Is in staat om anderen enthousiast te
maken voor zijn/haar plannen
V) Duldt geen afwijkende meningen meer
als hij/zij een beslissing heeft genomen
W) Hecht veel waarde aan heldere
afspraken en een eerlijke beloning
X) Laat de controle over projecten of taken
zoveel mogelijk aan andere over
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Scale Variance Corrected Item- Cronbach's Alpha
Item Deleted if Item Deleted Total Correlation
if Item Deleted
81,97
57,813
,615
,810
81,99
58,933
,535
,813
82,32
82,49
60,394
59,238
,364
,472
,820
,816
81,95
58,711
,567
,812
83,43
65,460
-,060
,839
82,34
59,427
,481
,816
82,25
57,736
,579
,811
81,96
82,35
58,705
61,203
,547
,365
,813
,820
82,89
65,114
-,035
,838
82,26
63,249
,145
,829
81,91
59,626
,510
,815
81,74
59,633
,529
,814
82,02
60,206
,518
,816
82,03
60,619
,428
,818
82,71
60,728
,267
,826
82,66
62,025
,203
,828
82,12
58,066
,600
,810
82,09
58,378
,618
,810
82,17
58,037
,620
,810
83,34
65,441
-,065
,843
82,24
58,556
,491
,815
82,60
63,734
,074
,833
Remove items F, K, V because of negative item-total correlations
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
,871
21
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Scale Variance Corrected Item- Cronbach's Alpha
Item Deleted if Item Deleted Total Correlation
if Item Deleted
75
A) Vraagt naar mijn mening
B) Geeft feedback om medewerkers te
helpen
C) Treedt hard op als het moet
D) Geeft vooral leiding door zelf het goede
voorbeeld te geven
E) Is betrouwbaar in het nakomen van
zijn/haar verplichtingen
G) Bekritiseerd medewerkers alleen met
een goede reden
H) Heeft een duidelijke visie en beeld van
de toekomst
I) Staat mij toe mijn eigen doelen te
stellen
J) Verliest zijn/haar belangen nooit uit het
oog
L) Is sterk overtuigd van de juistheid van
zijn/haar handelen
M) Geeft mij inspraak in beslissingen die
mijn werk treffen
N) Geeft de mogelijkheid
verantwoordelijkheid te dragen
O) Ziet er op toe dat afspraken worden
nagekomen
P) Delegeert uitdagende
verantwoordelijkheden aan medewerkers
Q) Is de baas en geeft bevelen als het er
op aankomt
R) Toont zich aanhanger van het gezegde
‘grijp alleen in als het echt nodig is
S) Stimuleert medewerkers om op nieuwe
manieren te kijken naar problemen
T) Moedigt medewerkers aan om
onafhankelijk te denken
U) Is in staat om anderen enthousiast te
maken voor zijn/haar plannen
W) Hecht veel waarde aan heldere
afspraken en een eerlijke beloning
X) Laat de controle over projecten of
taken zoveel mogelijk aan andere over
73,91
73,93
57,999
59,188
,686
,602
,857
,860
74,26
74,43
61,689
60,127
,336
,478
,870
,865
73,89
59,095
,622
,860
74,28
60,338
,485
,864
74,19
58,636
,584
,861
73,90
59,397
,571
,861
74,29
62,501
,333
,869
74,21
64,978
,079
,877
73,85
60,019
,568
,862
73,68
59,978
,593
,861
73,96
60,785
,561
,863
73,97
61,239
,463
,865
74,65
62,523
,208
,876
74,60
63,294
,181
,876
74,06
58,523
,647
,859
74,03
58,912
,660
,859
74,11
58,594
,658
,859
74,18
59,161
,520
,863
74,54
64,863
,064
,880
Remove items L, X because of low item-total correlations
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
,886
19
A) Vraagt naar mijn mening
B) Geeft feedback om medewerkers te
helpen
C) Treedt hard op als het moet
D) Geeft vooral leiding door zelf het goede
voorbeeld te geven
E) Is betrouwbaar in het nakomen van
zijn/haar verplichtingen
G) Bekritiseerd medewerkers alleen met
een goede reden
H) Heeft een duidelijke visie en beeld van
de toekomst
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Scale Variance Corrected Item- Cronbach's Alpha
Item Deleted if Item Deleted Total Correlation
if Item Deleted
66,97
55,032
,707
,874
66,98
56,153
,628
,877
67,32
67,48
58,952
57,198
,327
,490
,887
,881
66,95
56,171
,637
,876
67,34
57,425
,496
,881
67,25
55,733
,596
,877
76
I) Staat mij toe mijn eigen doelen te
stellen
J) Verliest zijn/haar belangen nooit uit het
oog
M) Geeft mij inspraak in beslissingen die
mijn werk treffen
N) Geeft de mogelijkheid
verantwoordelijkheid te dragen
O) Ziet er op toe dat afspraken worden
nagekomen
P) Delegeert uitdagende
verantwoordelijkheden aan medewerkers
Q) Is de baas en geeft bevelen als het er
op aankomt
R) Toont zich aanhanger van het gezegde
‘grijp alleen in als het echt nodig is
S) Stimuleert medewerkers om op nieuwe
manieren te kijken naar problemen
T) Moedigt medewerkers aan om
onafhankelijk te denken
U) Is in staat om anderen enthousiast te
maken voor zijn/haar plannen
W) Hecht veel waarde aan heldere
afspraken en een eerlijke beloning
66,95
56,605
,573
,878
67,34
59,774
,320
,886
66,91
57,151
,575
,878
66,74
57,129
,599
,878
67,01
57,853
,575
,879
67,03
58,439
,461
,882
67,70
60,064
,179
,894
67,66
60,587
,167
,893
67,11
55,661
,656
,875
67,09
56,119
,662
,876
67,17
55,659
,675
,875
67,23
56,446
,515
,880
3.1.2. Transformational Leadership
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
,868
12
A) Vraagt naar mijn mening
B) Geeft feedback om medewerkers te
helpen
D) Geeft vooral leiding door zelf het goede
voorbeeld te geven
H) Heeft een duidelijke visie en beeld van
de toekomst
II) Staat mij toe mijn eigen doelen te
stellen
L) Is sterk overtuigd van de juistheid van
zijn/haar handelen
M) Geeft mij inspraak in beslissingen die
mijn werk treffen
N) Geeft de mogelijkheid
verantwoordelijkheid te dragen
P) Delegeert uitdagende
verantwoordelijkheden aan medewerkers
S) Stimuleert medewerkers om op nieuwe
manieren te kijken naar problemen
T) Moedigt medewerkers aan om
onafhankelijk te denken
U) Is in staat om anderen enthousiast te
maken voor zijn/haar plannen
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Scale Variance Corrected Item- Cronbach's Alpha
Item Deleted if Item Deleted Total Correlation
if Item Deleted
41,95
24,125
,704
,847
41,97
24,859
,624
,853
42,47
25,824
,444
,865
42,23
24,646
,580
,856
41,94
25,096
,576
,856
42,25
29,146
,027
,888
41,89
25,335
,602
,854
41,72
25,549
,591
,855
42,01
26,360
,461
,863
42,10
24,117
,716
,846
42,07
24,961
,641
,852
42,15
24,423
,689
,848
Remove item L, because of low item-total correlation
77
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
,888
11
A) Vraagt naar mijn mening
B) Geeft feedback om medewerkers te
helpen
D) Geeft vooral leiding door zelf het goede
voorbeeld te geven
) Heeft een duidelijke visie en beeld van
de toekomst
I) Staat mij toe mijn eigen doelen te
stellen
M) Geeft mij inspraak in beslissingen die
mijn werk treffen
N) Geeft de mogelijkheid
verantwoordelijkheid te dragen
P) Delegeert uitdagende
verantwoordelijkheden aan medewerkers
S) Stimuleert medewerkers om op nieuwe
manieren te kijken naar problemen
T) Moedigt medewerkers aan om
onafhankelijk te denken
U) Is in staat om anderen enthousiast te
maken voor zijn/haar plannen
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Scale Variance Corrected Item- Cronbach's Alpha
Item Deleted if Item Deleted Total Correlation
if Item Deleted
38,31
23,416
,717
,871
38,32
24,261
,619
,877
38,83
25,197
,442
,889
38,59
24,124
,565
,881
38,30
24,331
,596
,879
38,25
24,630
,614
,878
38,08
24,780
,612
,878
38,37
25,648
,471
,886
38,46
23,450
,723
,871
38,43
24,260
,652
,875
38,51
23,838
,683
,873
3.1.3.Transactional leadership
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
,548
12
C) Treedt hard op als het moet
E) Is betrouwbaar in het nakomen van
zijn/haar verplichtingen
F) Komt pas in actie wanneer
problemen chronisch worden
G) Bekritiseerd medewerkers alleen
met een goede reden
J) Verliest zijn/haar belangen nooit uit
het oog
K) Vermijdt betrokken te raken bij
tijdrovende kwesties
O) Ziet er op toe dat afspraken worden
nagekomen
Q) Is de baas en geeft bevelen als het
er op aankomt
R) Toont zich aanhanger van het
gezegde ‘grijp alleen in als het echt
nodig is
V) Duldt geen afwijkende meningen
meer als hij/zij een belissing heeft
genomen
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Cronbach's Alpha if
Item Deleted
Item Deleted
Total Correlation
Item Deleted
36,44
12,928
,276
,513
36,07
13,222
,258
,518
37,54
13,783
,096
,556
36,46
12,863
,318
,504
36,46
13,250
,291
,513
37,00
13,747
,097
,556
36,13
13,502
,272
,518
36,82
11,988
,354
,488
36,77
13,202
,194
,532
37,46
13,103
,152
,547
78
W) Hecht veel waarde aan heldere
afspraken en een eerlijke beloning
X) Laat de controle over projecten of
taken zoveel mogelijk aan andere over
36,35
12,683
,293
,508
36,72
13,685
,118
,550
Remove items F, K, V, X because of low item-total correlations
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
N of Items
Alpha
.637
8
C) Treedt hard op als het moet
E) Is betrouwbaar in het nakomen
van zijn/haar verplichtingen
G) Bekritiseerd medewerkers alleen
met een goede reden
J) Verliest zijn/haar belangen nooit
uit het oog
O) Ziet er op toe dat afspraken
worden nagekomen
Q) Is de baas en geeft bevelen als
het er op aankomt
R) Toont zich aanhanger van het
gezegde ‘grijp alleen in als het echt
nodig is
W) Hecht veel waarde aan heldere
afspraken en een eerlijke beloning
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Scale Variance
Item Deleted if Item Deleted
25.07
8.428
24.70
7.904
Corrected ItemTotal Correlation
.288
.480
Cronbach's Alpha
if Item Deleted
.617
.567
25.09
8.111
.403
.586
25.10
8.837
.272
.620
24.77
8.326
.474
.577
25.46
8.023
.283
.624
25.41
9.017
.123
.664
24.99
7.760
.415
.580
79
Appendix 4: Statistical tests
4.1.Normality tests
Table 4A: Kolmogorov Smirnov test
Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova
Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic
Df
Sig.
Statistic
df
,163
151
,000
,934
151
Organizational
commitment
Leadership
,068
Transformational
,091
leadership
Transactional leadership
,093
Organization Spontaneity
,089
Job Satisfaction
,131
History of change
,113
Attitude towards change
,099
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
Sig.
,000
151
151
,085
,004
,991
,979
151
151
,438
,020
151
151
151
151
151
,003
,005
,000
,000
,001
,987
,977
,966
,972
,973
151
151
151
151
151
,178
,012
,001
,004
,005
Table 4B: Skewness Kurtosis test
Descriptive Statistics
Std.
N
Min
Max
Mean
Dev.
Skewness
Kurtosis
Std.
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic
organizational
Error
Std.
Statistic
Error
151
1.50
5.00
3.73
.58
-.969
.197
2.627
.392
Lead
151
2.37
4.84
3.73
.42
-.148
.197
.614
.392
transformational
151
2.09
5.00
3.84
.49
-.390
.197
.974
.392
151
2.50
4.75
3.58
.40
.140
.197
.291
.392
Spontanity
151
2.11
5.00
3.48
.56
.270
.197
.391
.392
job satisfaction
151
1.50
5.00
3.60
.60
-.419
.197
.642
.392
history of change
151
1.50
5.00
2.95
.62
.339
.197
.198
.392
attitude towards
151
1.50
5.00
3.45
.50
-.212
.197
.928
.392
commitment
leadership
Transactional
leadership
change
Valid N (listwise)
151
80
4.2 Post hoc analysis
Table 4C: Results Scheffe test Organizational Commitment and employment duration
Multiple Comparisons
organizational_commitment
Scheffe
(I) 6. Hoelang bent u
(J) 6. Hoelang bent u
Mean
al werkzaam binnen
al werkzaam binnen
Difference (I-
Std.
deze organisatie?
deze organisatie?
J)
Error
Minder dan 1 jaar
1 tot 5 jaar
-,20250
,21155
,922
-,8625
,4575
5 tot 10 jaar
,21477
,24703
,944
-,5560
,9855
10 tot 15 jaar
-,31765
,20339
,656
-,9522
,3169
Meer dan 15 jaar
-,32588
,19097
,574
-,9217
,2699
Minder dan 1 jaar
,20250
,21155
,922
-,4575
,8625
5 tot 10 jaar
,41727
,20456
,389
-,2210
1,0555
10 tot 15 jaar
-,11515
,14896
,963
-,5799
,3496
Meer dan 15 jaar
-,12338
,13149
,927
-,5336
,2869
Minder dan 1 jaar
-,21477
,24703
,944
-,9855
,5560
1 tot 5 jaar
-,41727
,20456
,389
-1,0555
,2210
10 tot 15 jaar
-,53242
,19612
,124
-1,1443
,0795
Meer dan 15 jaar
-,54065
,18320
,074
-1,1122
,0309
Minder dan 1 jaar
,31765
,20339
,656
-,3169
,9522
1 tot 5 jaar
,11515
,14896
,963
-,3496
,5799
5 tot 10 jaar
,53242
,19612
,124
-,0795
1,1443
Meer dan 15 jaar
-,00823
,11792
1,000
-,3761
,3597
Minder dan 1 jaar
,32588
,19097
,574
-,2699
,9217
1 tot 5 jaar
,12338
,13149
,927
-,2869
,5336
5 tot 10 jaar
,54065
,18320
,074
-,0309
1,1122
10 tot 15 jaar
,00823
,11792
1,000
-,3597
,3761
1 tot 5 jaar
5 tot 10 jaar
10 tot 15 jaar
Meer dan 15 jaar
81
95% Confidence Interval
Sig.
Lower
Upper
Bound
Bound