Master thesis
Exploring the influence of core self-evaluations, change fairness and
change readiness on the relationship between participative leadership
and the support for organizational change.
Author: Judieke van Dijk (11143835)
Date of submission: 21 June 2016 (final version)
Qualification: MSc in Business Administration – Leadership & Management track Institution: Amsterdam Business School, University of Amsterdam
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Judieke van Dijk who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Abstract
Change attempts occur frequently in organizations and are often accompanied with resistance among their employees. As resistance is detrimental for the success of the change, organizations should avoid this resistance and should instead invest in obtaining support for the change among their employees. The current study investigated the potential of a participative leadership style for achieving support for change. It was expected that the more participative the leadership style, the more support for change. This study aimed to add value to the existing knowledge to investigate for whom and under which circumstances a participative leadership style can lead to more support for change. Specifically, the moderating effects of the core self-evaluations of the employees and the perceived fairness of the process, and the mediating effect of change readiness on the relationship between participative leadership style and support for change were examined. It was expected that the more positive the core self-beliefs of the employees and the more positive the change fairness was evaluated, the stronger the influence of a participative leadership style on the support for change. It was further expected that these effects were mediated by the individual change readiness. Data were obtained among leader-follower dyads by means of an online survey. 106 dyads participated in the study. Although none of the hypotheses received (full) support, this study emphasizes the importance of a participative leadership style, change readiness, change fairness and the core self-evaluations in change processes.
Key words: organizational change, participative leadership style, change readiness,
Introduction
Due to societal changes, such as digitization and globalization, organizations need to change and adapt themselves continuously. Mergers, downsizing activities and reorganizations are just some common examples of change related challenges organizations are facing nowadays. Although organizational change attempts are very common, the chance of success tends to be small. According to Quin (2004), approximately 50% of all change efforts fail. Scholars have addressed the matter of (successful) organizational change and examined several antecedents and consequences of the phenomenon. Still, little is known about the factors that might play a role in increasing the likelihood of success in organizational change. The current study aims to contribute to the knowledge by investigating several factors that might boost the support for organizational change, which is thought to be important for the success of a change effort.
Organizational change can be defined as ‘an empirical observation of differences in form, quality, or state over time in an organizational entity’ (Van de Ven, & Poole, 1995; p. 512). Further, this entity can be an ‘individuals’ job, a work group, an organizational strategy, a program, a product, or the overall organization’ (Van de Ven, & Poole, 1995; p. 512). One of the major challenges organizations face when undergoing organizational change has to do with the reactions of the employees. Employees often show resistance for organizational change. This resistance occurs, for example, because of anxiety about letting go of the known and letting in the unknown, or because of uncertainty whether particular skills will be still suitable and valued in the new situation (Cummings & Worley, 2014). Resistance to change is thought to have harming effects. It not only makes it difficult, if not impossible, to implement organizational change (Cumming & Worley, 2014), it also causes problems at the individual level, such as
turnover (Miller, Johnson, & Grau, 1994). An organization undergoing change should avoid resistance to the change among the employees and should instead invest in gaining support for the change. In the end, employees are the ones affected by the changes and the ones that have to work with those changes. If they are not willing to support the change, the effort will most likely fail. For this reason, it is highly relevant for organizations to know which factors might increase the support for organizational change among their employees. The aim of the current study is therefore to identify factors that may boost this support. In the first place, this study looks at the role of a participative leadership style on the support for the change. There is a lot of evidence that leaders have an influence on the performance of an organization in general, they therefore probably affect (reactions to) organizational change in particular as well (Burke, 2002; in Herold, Fedor, & Caldwell, 2008). Several studies have indeed confirmed a relationship between leadership and the reactions to change (e.g. Herold, Fedor, Caldwell, & Liu, 2008). Next to that, participation in the change process has been associated with lots of positive effects, such as higher readiness and acceptance of change, the experience of positive emotions, and a greater understanding of the meaning of the change (Oreg, Vakola, & Armenakis, 2011). Based on these findings, it could be argued that a participative leadership style is beneficial for creating support for the change at hand. This study specifically adds value to the current literature by investigating for which persons and under which circumstances a participative leadership style is advantageous for creating support for change. This study particularly looks at the moderating role of the core self-beliefs of the individual and the moderating role of the perceived fairness of the change process. It is expected that the more positive the individual's core self-beliefs and the more positively the fairness of the change is being assessed, the bigger the influence of a participative leadership style on the support for the change. Also, it is expected that the
relationship between participative leadership and the eventual support for the change can be explained, thus is mediated by, the individual change readiness.
The current study adds to the literature by exploring the potential of participative leadership style when undergoing change, specifically by extending the knowledge of possible antecedents of support for change. Furthermore, the results of the current study will provide practical suggestions of ways in which managers can increase the success of their change attempts.
Literature review
Support for organizational change
As stated above, a change attempt will most likely fail without the support for it among the employees. In line with Hornung and Rousseau (2007), support for change is in this study understood as the positive beliefs employees have concerning the potential outcomes of the change, their behavioral intentions to actively participate in it, and their commitment towards the change.
If employees have the opportunity and a reason to actively support change, they will be likely to do so (Kim, Hornung, & Rousseau, 2011). However, if employees do not see the benefits of the change and do not feel obligated to contribute to the change, support for the change is less likely to occur. In fact, resistance for change actually makes more sense in that case (Kim, Hornung, & Rousseau, 2011). Leadership can play a role in creating opportunities for employees to support the change and to emphasize the need and the reason for the change. In this way leaders can be key in creating support for the change among the employees. Indeed, research suggests that effective change management processes, such as the enhancement of participation, are associated with positive change attitudes (Rafferty, Jimmieson, & Armenakis, 2013). For these reasons,
the current study investigates the role of leadership in relation to support for organizational change. As participation has often been articulated as a successful instrument in creating support for organizational change, this study specifically looks at the role of participative leadership.
Participative leadership style
A leader that enacts a participative leadership style involves his or her subordinates in the decision-making process and actively integrates their suggestions into the eventual decisions that are made for the organization (Northouse, 2013). Increased decision quality, decision acceptance, satisfaction with the decision process, and development of employee skills are some benefits that are associated with enacting a participative leadership style (Yukl, 2010). These benefits could be very convenient for a changing organization. A lot of research indeed indicates that enacting a participative leadership style can be beneficial in times of organizational change. A review from Oreg, Vakola and Armenakis (2011) found that employees who experienced high levels of participation reported more readiness for and acceptance of the change, assessed the change as less stressful and displayed overall support for the change. Furthermore, the review found that participation was associated with the experience of positive emotions, a better understanding of the meaning of the change, and the decrement of change-related stress and withdrawal behaviors.
Moreover, path-goal theory also assumes that a participative leadership style could be beneficial in times of organizational change. Path-goal theory states that different leadership styles have different effects on the motivation of subordinates. The theory distinguishes four types of leadership style: directive leadership style, supportive leadership style, achievement-oriented leadership style and participative leadership style.
Whether a particular leadership style is motivating to subordinates depends upon the characteristics of the subordinates and the characteristics of the task (Northouse, 2013). When the task is ambiguous, participative leadership is considered to be the most suitable leadership style (Northouse, 2013). As organizational change in general is associated with a lot of ambiguity and unclarity, participative leadership behavior can indeed be very effective.
In addition, a study of Jimmieson, Peach and White (2008) found out that employees reported higher intentions to support the organizational change when they were offered opportunities to participate in the decision-making process. In a similar vein, Kim, Hornung and Rouseau (2011) investigated the antecedents of change-supportive behavior and whether these antecedents varied during the course of an organizational change process. They found that formal involvement of employees in the change had positive effects on change-supportive behavior, and that these positive effects were stable across the course of the change process. These results suggest that involving employees in the organizational change process can benefit the eventual support for the organizational change.
These abovementioned findings indicate that participative leadership can be beneficial for the support for organizational change. Therefore we propose the following:
Hypothesis 1: participative leadership style is positively related to support for organizational change.
Although in this study it is assumed that participative leadership style is positively related to support for organizational change, we do not expect that participative leadership leads to support for organizational change directly. In this study we assume that individual
readiness for the organizational change is the mechanism that comes into play when
explaining the relationship between participative leadership style and the support for organizational change. The rationale is that participation leads to readiness for the change among employees, which will lead to the eventual support for the change.
Individual change readiness
The current study draws upon the statement of Rafferty, Jimmieson, and Armenakis that individual change readiness consists of and is influenced by ‘the individual’s beliefs 1) that change is needed, 2) that he or she has the capacity to successfully undertake change, and 3) that change will have positive outcomes for his or her job/role and by (2013, p. 116). Readiness for organizational change can be distinguished from support for, or resistance to organizational change among employees (Armenakis, Harissa, & Mossholder, 1993). According to Armenakis, Harissa and Mossholder (1993), change readiness can be seen as the cognitive precursor of either resistance or support for the change. Lewin, one of the pioneers in the field of planned change, also saw creating change readiness as a distinct step in the change process. Lewin believed in the existence of a force field in which driving and restraining forces are operating. According to him, a particular stable situation within an organization (the status quo) is the result of the interplay between these driving and restraining forces. He provided a general framework for organizational change, in which he distinguished three steps: unfreezing, moving and
refreezing (Cummings & Worley, 2013). The unfreezing step concerns reducing the
forces that are willing to maintain the status quo, so that old behavior can be unlearnt and new behavior can be adopted (Burnes, 2004). Unfreezing is about creating motivation for the eventual change. In the moving step the actual change related activities take place. The organization moves towards a new level. Finally, in the refreezing step stabilization
of the organization in its new form takes place, so that the organization finds itself in a new quasi-stationary equilibrium. Lewin used the term quasi-stationary equilibrium to indicate that change is always lurking and real stability in behavior is an illusion (Burnes, 2004). A change project has been successful when all three steps have been completed (Burnes, 2004). The step of unfreezing stated by Lewin is similar to what is understood by individual readiness for organizational change (Choi & Ruona, 2010). When an employee is ready for change, this means that the unfreezing step has been completed successfully (Choi & Ruona, 2010). An organization and its employees first have to
unfreeze in order to be able to move in a new direction. It is therefore argued that change
readiness (unfreezing) leads to support for organizational change (moving).
Furthermore, it is argued that participative leadership behavior can foster readiness for organizational change. As stated above, individual change readiness consists of ‘the individual’s beliefs 1) that change is needed, 2) that he or she has the capacity to successfully undertake change, and 3) that change will have positive outcomes for his or her job/role and by (Rafferty, Jimmieson, and Armenakis, 2013, p. 116). Participative leadership behavior responds to these components of individual change readiness, through which it increases readiness for organizational change. First, participation may give employees the opportunity to obtain insights themselves concerning the need for organizational change. Next to these insights in itselves, the fact that individuals discover these themselves makes this information more valuable, as it is known that individuals tend to place more trust in information they discovered themselves than information they obtained elsewhere (Armenakis, Harissa, & Mossholder, 1993). Second, participation can increase the feeling that an individual is in control of the change. By being involved in the change process, individuals get the opportunity to prepare themselves for the coming change and to adapt themselves along
the way. Third, participation ensures that individuals have a voice in the process of the change so that individuals have the opportunity to assure that their interests are taken into account. In this way participation can increase the likelihood that individuals belief that the change has positive outcomes for them. Taken together, by responding to the elements of change readiness, a participative leadership style can foster the individual readiness for change.
Considering the abovementioned, it is argued that readiness for change is the mechanism that explains the relationship between participative leadership style and support for organizational change. A participative leadership style contributes to the readiness for change, which on its turn, leads to more support for the organizational change.
Hypothesis 2: the positive relationship between participative leadership style and support for organizational change is mediated by readiness for organizational change.
As described above, a participative leadership style is associated with benefits that could be very helpful in organizational change. However, research on participative leadership style is inconsistent in its findings (Yukl, 2010). According to Yukl it can be concluded that in some cases participative leadership style has positive effects, such as higher satisfaction, effort, and performance, whereas in other cases it does not have these positive effects. It might be the case that the characteristics of the employee have an influence on whether participative leadership style is effective in times of organizational change. Rafferty, Jimmieson, and Armenakis (2013) conducted a review about change readiness. One of their conclusions is that individuals who show positive psychological
traits report more positive beliefs and affective responses to change, and that this contributes to the individual change readiness. This indicates that psychological characteristics play a role in the reactions on organizational change. Further, it can be argued that individuals have different preferences considering leadership style, and that these preferences also have an influence on the effectiveness of a particular leadership style. Therefore in this study it is expected that although in general a participative leadership style will foster the support for the change, in some cases this is even more so than in others. This study specifically looks at the moderating role of the core-self evaluation of the employee.
Core-self evaluation
Oreg, Vakola, and Armenakis (2011) conducted a 60-year review of quantitative studies in change recipients’ reactions to organizational change. One of the studies that was included in the review was a study by Judge, Thorensen, Pucik, and Wellbourne (1999). This study found that a positive self-concept was positively related to coping with change. Positive self-concept consisted of the individual personality traits locus of
control, self-esteem, self-efficacy and positive affectivity. In general, Oreg, Vakola, and
Armenakis (2011) found in their review that many of the studies that investigated dispositional sources of change recipient’s reactions to change focused on self-efficacy, locus of control and/or neuroticism. These three factors are also three of the four factors that constitute the construct of core self-evaluations, which are the core beliefs an individual has about the self. According to Oreg, Vakola, and Armenakis these core beliefs might play an important role in shaping change recipient’s reactions to organizational changes. In line of this reasoning, the current study investigates the role of core-self evaluation in employee’s reactions on change.
Core-self evaluations (CSE) can be defined as the ‘fundamental appraisals people make about their own self-worth, competence, and capabilities’ (Ferris, Johnson, Rosen & Tan, 2012). CSE is thought to consist of four traits: esteem, generalized
self-efficacy, emotional stability and locus of control (Ferris, Johnson, Rosen & Tan, 2012).
Firstly, self-esteem is understood as the overall assessment of one’s self-worth. Secondly, generalized self-efficacy is the assessment of how well one is able to perform and cope successfully in a variety of situations. Thirdly, emotional stability can be defined as the ability to feel calm and secure. Lastly, locus of control has to do with one’s beliefs about the cause of events in one’s life. Individuals who have an internal locus of control believe that outcomes in their life result from their own behavior, whereas individuals with an external locus of control believe that outcomes are the result of fate, chance, or other outside forces (Ferris, Johnson, Rosen & Tan, 2012). An individual who has a high CSE, is characterized by high self-esteem, high-generalized self-efficacy, high emotional stability and an internal locus of control. A high CSE is related to various positive outcomes, such as job satisfaction, life satisfaction, affective organizational commitment, approach motivation and organizational citizenship behavior (Ferris, Johnson, Rosen & Tan, 2012). Kammeyer-Mueller and Judge (2009) found out that individuals with higher levels of CSE are likely to perceive their work environments more positively. In a similar vein, research pointed out that CSE is negatively related to occupational stress and strains (Ferris, Johnson, Rosen & Tan, 2012), such that the higher the degree of CSE, the less occupational stress and strains are experienced. This can be explained by the fact that individuals with higher levels of CSE are better able to cope with stressors in their lives. It therefore may be the case that CSE plays a role in coping with the stressors that accompany organizational change.
More specifically, CSE might influence the degree in which a participative leadership style leads to more change readiness. This argument is in line with the path-goal theory on leadership. As mentioned above, participative leadership style is most appropriate when a task is ambiguous (Northouse, 2013). It may be argued that employees who have a low CSE are more likely to perceive the situation as ambiguous. This because their (relative) lack of self-esteem, lack of self-efficacy, emotional instability and external locus of control make them insecure and cause unclarity in the things that happen to them. This would suggest that a participative leadership style would be beneficial for employees with a low CSE. However, according to path-goal theory, a directive leadership style might be effective in ambiguous situations as well. This type of leadership style can be considered to be the counterpart of participative leadership style and is characterized by giving clear instructions to subordinates about what is expected of them, setting standards of performance, and ensuring that rules and regulations are clear to subordinates (Northouse, 2013). This might be a more effective leadership style in ambiguous situations for employees with a low CSE, as this style of leading may compensate for the lack of clarity and confidence subordinates with a low CSE have themselves. Indeed, it is known that if employees are less confident about their own abilities and competence (i.e. low CSE), the need for directive leadership increases (Yukl, 2010). In fact, participative leadership style seems more suitable for employees who score high on CSE. According to path-goal theory, next to the characteristics of the task, subordinate characteristics play a role in the effectiveness of a particular leadership style (Northouse, 2013). It is known that participative leadership style has a positive impact and is satisfying for subordinates with an internal locus of control (Northouse, 2013). This is because people with an internal focus of control like to feel in charge of their work and participative leadership behavior fosters this. These subordinate characteristics
resemble employees who score high on CSE. These findings indicate that participative leadership style is positively related to an internal locus of control and a high degree of self-efficacy. As CSE includes the notions of self-efficacy and locus of control, it is argued that CSE may have a positive influence on the effectiveness of participative leadership style in times of organizational change.
Taking this all together, the current study proposes that the higher the CSE of a subordinate, the even more positive the relationship between participative leadership style and change readiness will be, which in turn will result in more support for the change.
Hypothesis 3a: the positive relationship between participative leadership style and change readiness is moderated by the CSE of the employee, such that the higher the degree of CSE, the stronger the positive relationship between participative leadership style and change readiness.
Hypothesis 3b: the mediating effect of change readiness on the relationship between participative leadership style and support for change is moderated by the degree of CSE, such that the higher the CSE the more positive the relationship between participative leadership style and change readiness, which in turn will have a positive impact on the support for the change.
Next to the CSE of the employee, it is assumed that the perceived procedural justice of the change process plays a role in the reactions of employees on organizational change. Perceived procedural justice is about whether the process of a decision is perceived to be fair.
In this study it is assumed that procedural justice moderates the relationship between a participative leadership style and the individual readiness for change.
Procedural justice
Procedural justice refers to the fairness of how decisions are made in organizations. It can be distinguished from distributive justice, which refers to the fairness of the outcome of a decision (Konovsky, 2000). So to say, procedural justice concerns the degree of fairness in the process of the decision-making, whereas distributive justice concerns the degree of fairness in the content of the decision-making process. Procedural justice is being linked to organizational change. Taking procedural justice into consideration when undergoing organizational change can reduce negative reactions to organizational change (Konovsky, 2000). This because fairness can be seen as a heuristic that individuals use to evaluate whether a request is legitimate (Konovsky, 2000). If the procedure of the suggested organizational change is perceived as fair, subordinate’s will probably see leader’s request as more legitimate, which will foster the eventual support for organizational change. In a similar vein, Korsgaard, Sapienza and Schweiger (2002) found that procedural justice was associated with a higher acceptance, readiness, and commitment to organizational change. Also, Kernan & Hangnes (2002) found that procedural justice is related to increased organizational commitment, increased job satisfaction, decreased turnover intentions and increased trust in management. These variables can be highly relevant in times of organizational change. Especially increased trust in management might lead to increased support for the organizational change.
Brockner, Konovsky, Cooper-Schneider, Folger, Martin and Bies (1994) found an interaction effect between procedural justice and outcome negativity on the reactions of employees who knew they would be laid off soon. When procedural justice was low,
outcome negativity and individual’s reactions were related. So that when the outcomes were negative, the individuals also reacted negatively. However, when the perceived procedural justice was relatively high, employees’ reactions and outcome negativity were not related. So, when the outcomes were negative, individuals did not react negatively as well. If procedural justice is perceived to be low and the outcomes are negative, it is most likely that employees think that different outcomes should have resulted, which cause employees to experience and express resentment.
All in all, the literature points to the important role that procedural justice can play in the reactions to organizational changes. Taylor (2015) conducted a literature review on the (limited) research on the role of workplace justice and organizational change published between 1987 and 2012. Taylor identified 8 studies in which procedural justice was investigated as a moderator and, based upon the findings in those studies, concluded that there exists strong support for the effect of justice on valued change outcomes. In line of this reasoning, the current study investigates the moderating role of procedural justice on change outcomes. This study investigates whether procedural justice influences the degree in which a participative leadership style is effective in times of organizational change. It can be argued that when procedural justice is high, the positive effect of participative leadership style on change readiness is even bigger. A fair change process is in accordance with characteristics of a participative leadership behavior, such as involvement in decision-making processes and the integration of employee’s opinions and concerns in the decisions that are made. In this way, the participative leader will be probably seen as more consistent (and thus more trustworthy) if the change process is fair, which will result in higher change readiness, which will lead to more support for the change. The other way around it can be argued that when procedural justice is low, the effect of a participative leadership on change
readiness is also less positive. If the change process does not take place in a fair manner, being involved in the decision-making is more likely to result in negative feelings and frustration, which will have a negative effect on change readiness.
All in all, this study proposes that the expected positive relationship between participative leadership style and change readiness will be influenced by the degree of procedural justice of the change (change fairness):
Hypothesis 4a: the positive relationship between participative leadership and change readiness is moderated by change fairness, such that the higher the degree of change fairness, the stronger the positive relationship between participative leadership and change readiness.
Hypothesis 4b: the mediating effect of change readiness on the relationship between participative leadership style and support for change is moderated by the degree of change fairness, such that the higher the perceived change fairness the more positive the relationship between participative leadership style and change readiness, which in turn will have a positive impact on the support for the change.
In sum, the current study examines the relationship between participative leadership style and support for organizational change, in which the mediating role of readiness for change is investigated and further, the moderating effects of CSE and change fairness are explored (Figure 1).
Hypothesis 5: the positive relationship between participative leadership style and the support for change is mediated by change readiness and moderated by change
the degree of change fairness, the more positive the relationship between participative leadership and the readiness for change, which leads to support for the change.
Figure 1. Research model
Methods
Sample and procedure
The data for the current study were obtained with an online survey among leader-follower dyads. Dyads were used in order to decrease common source bias (Podzakoff et al., 2010). Both leader and follower had to fill in a (different) survey. The support for the change among the follower was questioned in the supervisor survey because it was assumed that the leader could evaluate this more objectively than the follower. The inclusion criterion to participate in the study was that the organization in which the dyads were working was facing organizational change, or would face organizational change in the nearby future. The change had to be such that it eventually would have impact on the follower’s way of working. The research group consisted of four Master students from the Amsterdam Business School. Potential participants were encountered via social media, via e-mail or spoken word by one of the researchers. Further, the snowball-method has been applied, by asking people to share the appeal for participants with their own
network. The survey was provided in four languages: English, Dutch, German and Hungarian. This was done in order to address a broader audience, with the ultimate aim to increase the number of participants. The specific languages were chosen because they corresponded to the nationalities of the researchers. The surveys were translated from English into the other languages by using backward and forward translations by different, native speakers of the particular languages.
The potential participants were asked whether they were willing to cooperate in a study that researches the role of leadership in managing organizational change. A cover letter was provided which explained more about the survey, the inclusion criterion, and the procedure. The links to the supervisor survey and the subordinate survey were also included in this cover letter. If potential participants were willing to cooperate and met the inclusion criterion, they could fill in the survey. The supervisor survey (Appendix A) took about 5 minutes to fill in. The subordinate survey (Appendix B) took about 15 minutes to fill in. In order to investigate the stated hypotheses, the data of supervisor and subordinate had to be linked together. To be able to match both surveys of the dyad, while ensuring anonymity, a code system was introduced. The dyad was asked to agree upon a code. This code could be anything they wanted, but had to consist of at least six digits and had to include both letters and numbers. The goal of this requirement was to increase the distinctiveness of the codes and to prevent that a code was used more than once across different dyads. The first question in both surveys asked for the code. It was possible that a supervisor filled in multiple surveys and, in this way, was part of multiple dyads. Participants could fill in the survey at any moment they wanted. The survey opened with an introductory text. This introductory text contained a short explanation about the survey and the code system that was used to match the data from the supervisor to the subordinate’s. Furthermore, in this introductory text it was emphasized that the
data would be treated confidentially and anonymously and that none of the data could be tracked back to a participant personally or to the organization he/she was working for. The period of data collection ran from 12 April till 27 May 2016.
Because of the way of data collection, there was no control over the number of encountered potential participants. Therefore it is not possible to draw conclusions on the
response rate. In total, there were 226 responses on all surveys together. In some cases
only the supervisor filled in the survey and the subordinate not, or vice versa. This resulted in some incomplete dyads, which were excluded from the study. In total 106 complete dyads participated in the study, of which 33 of the dyads resided in the Netherlands, 34 in Hungary and 39 in Germany. 30 of the dyads filled out the Dutch survey, 34 the Hungarian, 41 the German, and 1 dyad filled out the English survey. 52 of the subordinates were male and 54 of the subordinates were female. The participants originated from different industries, such as health care, the banking sector and the (semi) government. The types of changes that the participants were facing were diverse, but most organizational changes concerned reorganizations and mergers. On average, the subordinates worked approximately 38 hours a week (M = 37.64, SD = 11.12). Further, the majority of the subordinates (40.6%) had five contact moments a week with their supervisor. Check table 1 for the means and the standard deviations of all the study variables. Because the focus of the study lay on the subordinate, and all the questions measured the subordinate’s reactions on the change, no demographical information about the supervisor was collected.
Measures subordinate survey
The subordinate survey contained multiple measures, of which some were used for the studies of the other researches only. Described below are the measures that were used for
the current study. All following measures were measured by using a 5 point Likert scale, ranging from 1 ‘strongly disagree’ to 5 ‘strongly agree’, except for the measurement of the control variables.
Participative leadership style (independent variable). Participative leadership
style was measured by using 3 items from the participative decision-making scale developed by Arnold, Arad, Rhoades and Drasgow (2000). An example item is: ‘My direct supervisor encourages work group members to express ideas/suggestions’ (Cronbach’s alpha = .84).
CSE (moderator). The CSE of the subordinates was measured by using the 12
items of the core self-evaluation scale (CSES), developed by Judge, Erez, Bono and Thoreson (2003). An example item is: ‘When I try, I generally succeed’ (Cronbach’s alpha = .77).
Change readiness (mediator). Following the definition of change readiness from
Rafferty, Jimmieson and Armenakis (2013), change readiness was assessed by measuring the perceived need for change, change-related self-efficacy and the perceived benefits of the change. The perceived need for change was be measured by two items from Armenakis, Bernerth, Pitts and Walker (2007). An example item is: ‘There are legitimate reasons to make this change’. Change-related self-efficacy was measured by two items from Herold, Fedor and Caldwell (2007). An example items is: ‘I am certain that I can deal with this change’. Lastly, the perceived benefits of the change were measured by two items from Rodell and Colquitt (2009). An example item is: ‘Overall, I will personally benefit from the change(s)’ (Cronbach’s alpha = .81).
Change fairness (moderator). Change fairness was measured by 4 items of a
‘Those affected by the change had ample opportunities for input’ (Cronbach’s alpha = .81).
Covariates. The last part of the subordinate’s survey asked for the number of
years a subordinate gets guidance from his or her current direct supervisor and the number of times a week a subordinate has direct contact with his or her supervisor. These variables functioned as covariates (control variables) in this study.
Measure supervisor survey
Support for organizational change (dependent variable). The support for the
change was measured by using 14 items. 4 of the items measured behavioral support for the change, developed by Herscovitch and Meyer (2002). 7 of the items measured the (general) support for the change and were developed by Venus (2013). The last 3 items measured the commitment for the change and were developed by Fedor, Caldwell and Herold (2006). All of the original items were adapted to the supervisor’s perspective (Cronbach’s alpha = .95).
Statistical procedure
Because responding to all the questions was mandatory and participants could not progress if they skipped questions, there were no missing values. Prior to conducting the analyses, the variables were checked for counter-indicative items. 6 items of the core-self evaluation scale were recoded. Next, reliability analyses were conducted, scale means were computed and a correlation analysis was carried out. In all analyses the number of contact moments a week between leader and follower, and the number of years a follower gets guidance from the leader, were taken into account as control variables. This study controls for the influence of these variables because they do not have the focus of this
study but they might bias the results. For example, it might be argued that the more often a follower has contact with his or her supervisor, the bigger the influence of a participative leadership style on the readiness for change. The statistical analyses were carried out with IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows version 22.0.0.0 (IBM, 2013). The hypotheses were tested with hierarchical linear regression analyses and the PROCESS method (Preacher & Hayes).
Results
Descriptive analyses
The descriptive statistics of the variables are displayed in table 1. What stands out is that the means of the study variables (participative leadership style, CSE, change readiness, change fairness and support for the change) are all above average. This indicates that, on the whole, the participants quite positively evaluated the degree participative leadership of the supervisor, the core self-evaluation of the follower, the readiness for change, the fairness of the change process and the support for the change. This might be due to a self-selection bias: people who, for example, perceive the change process as negatively are probably unwilling to participate in the first place. The researches indeed noticed that organizations that were heavily engaged in reorganization processes were reluctant to participate in the study. Another explanation for the high averages can be the influence of social desirability in the given answers. For example, followers might have evaluated the change fairness more positively because of their tendency to answer social desirable.
Further, the reliability coefficients of the study variables are exhibited in table 1. All of them are > .70, which indicates high levels of internal consistency.
Also, the correlations between the study variables are presented in table 1. Each control variable indeed correlates with one of the study variables. As the control variables
do not have the focus of this study, these correlations will not be described in depth. Further, participative leadership and change readiness are positively related (r = .267). This means that the more participative the leadership style of the supervisor, the greater the readiness for the change. Participative leadership is also positively related to change fairness: the more participative the leader, the more fair the change is being perceived (r = .298). Further, change readiness is positively related to CSE (r = .267). This means that employees who have a more positive core self belief, are more ready for the change. CSE is also positively related to change fairness (r = .329), what means that employees with a positive core self belief perceive the change as more fair. Moreover, change readiness and support for change are positively related (r = .250): the more ready an employee feels for the change, the more likely he/she is to support the change. Change readiness is also positively related to change fairness (r = .389): the more fair the change proceeds, the more the followers feel ready for the change. Lastly, change fairness is positively related to the support for the change (r = .276). This means that followers tend to support the change more, if the process is perceived to be fair.
Table 1
Means. standard deviations. reliabilities and correlations of the study variables (n = 106)
Variables M(SD) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
1. Contact moments a week with leader 3.74(1.57) - 2. Number of years guidance from leader 4.46(4.93) .054 -
3. Participative leadership style (scale 1-5) 4.09(.76) .165 .033 (.84)
4. Core self-evaluation (scale 1-5) 3.98(.46) .029 .223* .051 (.77)
5. Readiness for change (scale 1-5) 3.76(.68) .228* -.004 .267** .267** (.81)
6. Change fairness (scale 1-5) 3.24(.85) .080 .161 .298** .329** .389** (.81)
7. Support for organizational change (scale 1-5) 3.76(.74) .085 .124 -.023 .044 .250** .276** (.95)
Hypotheses testing
To test hypothesis 1 a hierarchical regression analysis was carried out. In step 1 the covariates were included as predictors for support for the change and in step 2 the independent variable (participative leadership) was added as a predictor. The results are presented in table 2. Participative leadership was no significant predictor for support for the change (β = -.04, p = .682). For this reason, hypothesis 1 was rejected.
Table 2. Hierarchical regression model of support for organizational change
R R2 ΔR2 B SE β t
Step 1 .15 .02 .02
Years of guidance .02 .02 .12 1.23
Contact moments a week .04 .05 .08 .80
Step 2 .15 .02 .00
Years of guidance .02 .02 .12 1.23
Contact moments a week .04 .05 .09 .85
Participative leadership -.04 .10 -.04 -.41
Note. Statistical significance: * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001
For a (full) mediation effect to occur, four assumptions must be met (Baron & Kenny, 1986). The first of these assumptions is the assumption that the predictor variable (X) must be related to the dependent variable (Y). As participative leadership style and support for change are not related (Table 1; Table 2), the direct effect of X (participative leadership) on Y (support for organizational change) did not exist. Although the direct effect of X on Y was not found, the PROCESS method revealed that there did exist a significant indirect effect of participative leadership style on support for change, via readiness for change (table 3). The effect size of this indirect effect was .063 (confidence interval .0145 to .1415). Therefore, partial support was found for hypothesis 2.
Table 3. Mediation analysis
Consequent
M (Change readiness) Y (Support for change)
Antecedent Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE p
X (Part. leadership style) .214 .086 <.05 -.103 .097 .294
M (Change readiness) - - - .293 .109 <.01
Constant 2.593 .368 <.001 2.937 .493 <.001
R2 = .107 R2 = .089
F(3, 102) = 4.051, p = <.01 F(4, 101) = 2.454, p = .051
To test hypothesis 3a a hierarchical regression analysis was performed with the covariates, core self-evaluation and participative leadership as the predictors for change readiness in step 1. In step 2 the interaction term of core self-evaluation and participative leadership was included. The results of this analysis are displayed in table 4.
Table 4. Hierarchical regression model of change readiness
R R2 ΔR2 B SE β t
Step 1 .42 .18**
Years of guidance -.01 .01 -.08 -.88
Contact moments a week .08 .04 .19* 2.04
Participative leadership .20 .08 .23* 2.45
CSE .40 .14 .27** 2.89
Step 2 .42 .18 .00
Years of guidance .-.01 .01 -.08 -.90
Contact moments a week .08 .04 .19* 2.07
Participative leadership .57 .68 .63 .85
CSE .76 .68 .52 1.12
Participative leadership X CSE -.09 .16 -.49 -.55
Note. Statistical significance: * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001
The interaction between leadership and CSE was not a significant predictor for change readiness (β = -.49, p = .583). Therefore, no moderation effect between participative leadership and CSE on change readiness was found and hypothesis 3a was rejected. Hypothesis 3b has not been tested, as this hypothesis tests a moderated-mediation effect and the moderation effect has been ruled out. Consequently, hypothesis 3b has been rejected.
To test hypothesis 4a a hierarchical regression analysis was conducted with the covariates, participative leadership and change fairness included as the predictors for change readiness in step 1. In step 2 the interaction term of participative leadership and change fairness was added. The results of this analysis are presented in table 5. The interaction between leadership and CSE was not a significant predictor for change readiness (β = -.12, p = .869). As a consequence, no moderation effect has been found and hypothesis 4a was rejected. Hypothesis 4b has not been tested, as this hypothesis tests a moderated-mediation effect and the moderation effect has been ruled out. Therefore, hypothesis 4b was rejected as well.
Table 5. Hierarchical regression model of change readiness
R R2 ΔR2 B SE β t
Step 1 .46 .21***
Years of guidance -.01 .01 -.07 -.83
Contact moments a week .08 .04 .18* 2.03
Participative leadership .12 .09 .14 1.46
Change fairness .28 .08 .35*** 3.69
Step 2 .46 .21 .00
Years of guidance -.01 .01 -.07 -.82
Contact moments a week .08 .04 .18* 2.02
Participative leadership .17 .31 .19 .56
Change fairness .35 .43 .43 .82
Participative leadership X Change fairness -.02 .10 -.12 -.17 Note. Statistical significance: * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001
Because all above tested hypotheses were not (fully) supported hypothesis 5 has not been tested, as this hypothesis tests the significance of the complete research model. Consequently, hypothesis 5 has been rejected.
Exploratory analyses
The correlation analysis (table 1) showed a significant correlation between change fairness and the support for change. It is interesting to investigate whether change
hierarchical regression analysis was carried out. In step 1 the covariates were included as predictor for the support for change, in step 2 change fairness was added. The results are presented in table 6. As can been interpreted from table 6, change fairness is indeed as significant predictor for the support for organizational change (β = .26, p = .008). Further, as change fairness was also a predictor for change readiness (table 5), and change
readiness was a predictor for the support for change (table 3), an additional mediation analysis was carried out with the PROCESS method in order to investigate whether the relationship between change fairness and support for change was mediated by change readiness. However, this indirect effect of change fairness on support for change via change readiness was not supported (E = .057, confidence interval from -.0057 to .1397).
Table 6. Hierarchical regression model of support for organizational change
R R2 ΔR2 B SE β t
Step 1 .15 .02
Years of guidance .02 .02 .12 1.23
Contact moments a week .04 .05 .08 .80
Step 2 .29 .09* .07*
Years of guidance .01 .01 .08 .83
Contact moments a week .03 .05 .06 .63
Change fairness .22 .08 .26** 2.69
Note. Statistical significance: * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001
Further, the correlation analysis (table 1) pointed to a significant correlation between core self-evaluation and change fairness. Initially, these variables were expected to moderate the relationship between participative leadership style and change readiness. It is interesting to investigate whether the CSE of the employee is a significant predictor for the perceived change fairness. In order to tests this, a hierarchical regression analysis was carried out. In step 1 the covariates were included as predictors for change fairness. In step 2 CSE was added. CSE indeed turned out to be a significant predictor for the perceived change fairness (β = .31, p = .002). Based upon this finding, it was further
investigated whether change fairness and CSE interact with each other in order to explain change readiness. In order to investigate this, a multiple linear regression analysis was carried out with the covariates, change fairness and CSE included as the predictors for change readiness in step 1. In step 2 the interaction term of change fairness and CSE was added. However, no moderation effect was found (β = -1.107, p = .198).
Discussion
Summary
The aim of the current study was to extend the knowledge of possible antecedents of support for organizational change. Participation has often been associated with positive attitudes towards change processes. This study investigated for whom and under which circumstances a participative leadership style influences the support for change. It was expected that participative leadership style was positively related to the support for the change and that this relationship was mediated by change readiness. Further, it was expected that the higher the CSE of the employee and the higher the perceived fairness of the change process, the more positive the relationship between participative leadership style and change readiness would be, which would consequently result in more support for the change. Contrary to the expectations, no (full) support was found for these hypotheses. Participative leadership style was not predictive for the support for change. However, we did find an indirect of participative leadership on the support for change via change readiness. Further, no moderation effects were found. The relationship between participative leadership style and change readiness was not strengthened by a higher degree of CSE or a higher degree of perceived change fairness. The moderated-mediation hypotheses were therefore rejected as well.
the higher the change fairness, the more support for the change. Further, the more positive the core self-beliefs of the employee, the more fair he or she assessed the change process.
Theoretical implications
Research has frequently shown the importance of participation and involvement of employees in change processes (e.g. Oreg, Vakola, & Armenakis, 2011). That no support was found for the stated hypotheses is remarkable. The most obvious explanation for the lack of support are the methodological limitations of the current study, which are discussed below. However, next to the methodological limitations, some alternative explanations for the null-findings can be considered.
First of all, the current study measured a participative leadership style in general, and not specific participative leadership behaviors (such as voice) for the change at hand, as was the case in the studies included in the review from Oreg, Vakola and Armenakis (2012). It might be that enacting a participative leadership style in general is important, but not sufficient for creating the desired readiness for change. Instead, specific participative leadership behaviors might be necessary to acquire the desired result. In line with this reasoning, Kotter (1995) described eight steps that are essential to be completed when transforming the organization. Among the eight steps are creating a vision (step 4) and communicating the vision (step 5), all indicating specific leadership behaviors. Maybe these specific leadership behaviors are more predictive than a participative leadership style in general. Contrary to this line of reasoning, a study from Herold, Fedor, Caldwell and Liu (2008) emphasized the importance and potential of a general leadership style over change specific behaviors. They found that a transformational leadership was more strongly related to the change commitment of followers than change-specific
behaviors, particularly when the change had significant personal impact. Taking this seemingly contradictory arguments together, it might be interesting for future research to investigate the influence of a general leadership style and the influence of specific leadership behavior on the change. It might be the case that leadership style and leadership interact with each other, and both have to be taken into account when investigating the influence on the support of change. If this is the case, it not only explains the lack of support for the expected relationship between participative leadership style and the support for change, but it explains not finding the expected interactions with participative leadership as well.
Another explanation for not finding support for the stated hypotheses is the fact that the variables are measured at one moment in time. This can be problematic as is known that time can play a moderating role in explaining change-supportive behaviors of employees (Kim, Hornung & Rousseau, 2011). Kim, Hornung and Rousseau (2011) found, for example, that the anticipated benefits of the change are a stronger antecedent for change-supportive behavior in earlier phases of the change process. The current study measured the variables at one moment in time and did not control for the phase the change process was in. This might have biased the results, as it can be argued that some of the investigated variables are more important for predicting support for organizational change during earlier phases of the change, whereas others are more important during later phases.
What we did find was an indirect effect of participative leadership style on support for change, via change readiness. Participative leadership style was a predictor for change readiness, and change readiness was a predictor for the support of change. The latter finding is in accordance with Lewin’s model of change, which distinguishes the
able to move into a new direction (Choi & Ruona, 2010). The finding that change readiness (unfreezing) is a predictor for the support of change (moving) is thus in line with this reasoning of Lewin’s model of change. That participative leadership style was a predictor for change readiness is consistent with the idea that a participative leadership style responds to all the components of change readiness (the perceived need for change, change-related self-efficacy, and the perceived benefits of the change; Rafferty, Jimmieson, and Armenakis, 2013) and, in that way, can foster change readiness and can make it possible for employees to feel ready for the change.
Further, by conducting additional analyses, direct effects were found between the study variables. First, CSE was a significant predictor for change fairness. This means that employees who possess positive core self-beliefs, perceive the change process as more fair than employees who have more negative core self-beliefs. It can be argued that people who have more positive core self-beliefs, have a bigger emotional buffer to cope with organizational change and are therefore also more tolerant towards the change. People with lower CSE, feel probably less in control of the change and, in an attempt to make sense of the situation, assess the change process less fair than employees with higher CSE. Lastly, a direct effect was found of change fairness on the support for change. The fairer the process was perceived, the more likely employees were to support the change. This finding is in line with previous research that points to the important role of procedural justice in change attempts (e.g. Kernan & Hangnes, 2002).
Limitations and future directions
First, as stated above, a limitation of the current study is the fact that the variables are measured at one moment in time. This cross-sectional design might not only have biased the results because of the known moderating role of time in explaining change-supportive
behaviors of employees (Kim, Hornung & Rousseau, 2011), it also makes it impossible to make statements about cause and effect.
Second, the fact that the study made for a big part use of self-reported data (with the exception of the measurement of the dependent variable) might be a limitation of the study. The risk with using self-reported data is a biasing influence of social desirability in the results. Although in the surveys it was emphasized that the data would be collected and analyzed anonymously, descriptive results (table 1) indeed point to the possible influence of social desirability in the results. What became clear in the descriptive analysis are the high averages on all of the study variables. So, in general, the study variables (participative leadership, CSE, change readiness, change fairness, and the support for the change) were relatively positive evaluated. Those high averages can be caused by a tendency to answer positively (thus, social desirable). Another explanation for the high averages can be a self-selection bias. People who have, for example, negative attitudes towards their leader, might have been unwilling to participate in the first place. This could have resulted in a sample of people that tend to have relatively positive attitudes towards the change, which may not be representative.
Further, it was beyond the scope of the current study to take into account the content of the change. However, it can be argued that a huge reorganization that is accompanied with layoffs has more impact on the attitudes of employees than an adaption in their work processes. Research indeed has indicated that the content of the change influences employees’ change attitudes (Rafferty, Jimmieson and Armenakis, 2013). Previous research for example found that as the scale of the change increases, the responses of the recipients of the change become more negative (Rafferty, Jimmieson and Armenakis, 2013). Therefore, if the current study had controlled for the content of the change, this might have led to other (and probably more realistic) findings.
Lastly, a remark should be placed at the current study because surveys were conducted in different countries and different languages. On the one hand, this can be seen as a limitation. There has not been controlled for languages and country of residence, while these (due to cultural differences) might have biased the results. On the other hand, the fact that the surveys are conducted in different countries and different languages can be seen as strength as well, as this increases the generalizability of the results.
Although none of the initial hypotheses was (fully) supported, the base of the current research model is interesting and theoretically relevant. In future research it is interesting to expand and to fine-tune the research model. First, future research should investigate the influence of a participative leadership style versus specific leadership behavior (e.g. voice), and the interaction between these two. In addition to this, it would be interesting to investigate transformational leadership style as well, as previous research points to its beneficial role in change processes. A transformational leader is a leader that motivates and inspires subordinates to perform beyond expectations (Den Hartog, & Koopman, 2011). They are characterized by their charisma, ability to inspire followers, the individual consideration they have for their followers, and their ability to intellectually stimulate their followers (Den Hartog, & Koopman, 2001).
Transformational leadership style has been associated with support for organizational change. Herold, Fedor, Caldwell and Liu (2008) for example found that transformational leadership is a predictor for follower’s commitment to the change. Also, a transformational leadership style resembles many of the eight steps (e.g. creating a sense of urgency) stated by Kotter (1995), which are thought to be essential for successful transformation of an organization.
Further, it is important that future research takes both the content of the change and the phase in which the change finds itself in into account, as previous research indicated that these variables might have a huge impact on the change recipient’s attitudes towards the change (Rafferty, Jimmieson and Armenakis, 2013; Kim, Hornung & Rousseau, 2011). Moreover, the direct effects that emerged from the additional analyses should be replicated and further investigated. For example, it might be interesting to examine whether change fairness can explain the relationship between participative leadership and change readiness. Change fairness has previously been investigated as a mediating variable in the context of organizational change (Taylor, 2015). Daly and Geyer (1994), for example, found that procedural justice mediated the relationship between a specific change intervention and the reduction of the employee’s resistance to the change.
Practical implications
The current study emphasizes the role of change readiness in creating support for change. The results also point out that a participative leadership style leads to more change readiness. Managers should invest in creating this readiness by, for example, involving their employees in the change process. Further, managers should pay attention to the fairness of the process, as it is shown that this has positive consequences for the attitudes towards the change. Lastly, it is important that managers are aware that dispositional factors could influence the degree of perceived change fairness. They should anticipate on this by paying extra attention to employees with less positive core self-beliefs, in order to make sure that those employees can come along with the change process as well.
Conclusion
Organizational change occurs very frequently and can have huge implications on the individual and organizational level. Transformation of the organization has an impact on employees, one way or the other. Their reactions and attitudes towards the change determine the success of the process for a large part. The current study investigated several factors that were expected to boost the support for the change among employees. It was expected that there exists a positive relationship between participative leadership style and the support for change. Further, moderating effects of core self-evaluations of the employees and perceived change fairness and a mediating role of change readiness on this relationship were expected. The results point to the importance of a fair change process and dispositional factors. Also the role of change readiness for creating support for change, and the role of participative leadership style for creating change readiness were emphasized. Although none of the hypotheses was supported, the research model is promising and directions for future research are suggested.
As support for the change among employees is key, it is necessary that future research keeps addressing the question which antecedents enhance the support for change among employees. In this way, organizational change attempts can be successful and beneficial, for both the organizational as a whole as for its individual employees.
