1
Thesis
Leadership and Management
Visions of opportunity and continuity
Name: Rik Vermoolen
Student number: 5814308
MSc. In Business Administration- Leadership and Management Track
Thesis supervisor: M. Venus
2 Statement of Originality
This document is written by Student Rik Vermoolen 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.
3
Abstract
There is consensus between scholars that leader vision is a key component to motivate
employees to support organizational change. It is however unclear what the characteristics of
an effective vision are and how visions differ from each other. This study aimed to examine
the influence of different types of vision communication on follower support of employees in
changing environments. Data was collected from 118 employees and direct supervisors in
various small and medium sized enterprises, in the region of Amsterdam, which are
undergoing an organizational change. Visions were divided into two different dimension;
visions of continuity and visions of opportunity. Assumed was that general-uncertainty
moderates the effect of visions of continuity on follower support for change, such that visions
of continuity is more strongly related to support with higher follower general-uncertainty, and
that career orientation moderates the effect of visions of opportunity on follower support for
change, such that visions of opportunity is more strongly related to support with a follower
career type job relation. Results showed that both visions have a positive effect on follower
support. Uncertainty moderates the effect of visions of continuity on follower support as
predicted, whereas the outcome of career orientation as a moderator was not as predicted. The
results showed a moderation effect, but in a different direction, thus creating a possibility for
further research.
Key words: Vision of opportunity, Vision of continuity, follower support, organization
4
Table of content
1 introduction………....6
2 literature review………8
2.1 Organizational change & change acceptance 8
2.2 Leadership & change 11
2.3 Vision & change 14
2.4 Vision of opportunity & career orientation 17
2.5 The model 20 3 Method………21 3.1 Sample 21 3.2 Measurement of variables 22 3.3 Analytical procedure 25 3.4 Statistical procedure 25 4 Results………27 4.1 Correlation analyses 27 4.2 Direct effects 28 4.3 Moderation effects 29 5 Discussion………...32 5.1 Key finding 32
5
5.2 Theoretical and practical implications 33
5.3 Limitations 37 5.4 Future research 38 5.5 Conclusion 39 6 References………..40 Appendix………...45 1. Follower questionnaire 45 2. Leader questionnaire 50 3. Comparison Interactions 52
6
1. Introduction
Organizational change presents itself when “a company makes a transition from its current
state to a desired future state” (Bass, 1999; p 10). Scholars agree that the speed on which
organizational change occurs has never been greater than in the current business environment
(Burnes, 2004). Moreover, organizational change can be triggered by internal and external
factors, can manifest itself in many different forms and therefore, affects all organizations in
all industries (Todnem, 2005). Managing organizational change is an increasingly important
part of leaders’ day-to-day operations. This process is about planning and implementing
change in organizations, in a way that minimizes employee resistance and maximizes the
effectiveness of the change effort. However, the fact is that 70% organizational changes fail
to some extent, due to leaders that rush to change organizations and by doing this draw
heavily on human and economic capital (Beer and Nohria, 2000). The question arises how
leaders in changing organization can manage this change in a way that is successful.
Hackman and Wageman (2005) argued that leaders are most effective when they play an
enabling role by setting a compelling direction and building a supportive context for
employees. A leader vision is seen as an important tool for leaders in motivating followers
toward change (Yukl, 2010). Moreover, there is prove that change support is an important
factor in the success of organizational change (Bartunek, Rousseau, Rudolph, and DePalma, 2006). The study of Griffin, Parker and Mason (2010) found that there is a link between an
effective vision and the willingness of employees to change. However, it is unclear what the basic characteristics of an effective vision of change are (Fiol, Harris and House, 1999; Yukl,
7
In the communication of a vision of change towards employees, the literature has always
been focused on the discontinuity of the status quo and creating a discrepant view of the
future. Venus, Stam and van Knippenberg (2015) on the other hand found that, a vision that
assures followers that the defining features of the organizations identity stay preserved, will
motivate follower change acceptance to the extent that follower self-uncertainty is high.
While findings of Venus et al. (2015) were a contribution in the debate about the relation of
visions of change and support for change, they only focused on one type of vision
(continuity) and one moderation effect (uncertainty). This study will build on the model of
Venus et al. (2015). The difference is that this study will explore two types of vision; a vision
of continuity and a vision of opportunity. This vision of opportunity focusses on the
opportunities an organizational change brings for employees. This type of vision is expected
to capture the imagination of employees, who want to grow in the organization and have a
career orientation. Different types of vision communications in times of organizational
change are a virtually unexplored terrain of leadership vision. Vision of opportunity and
visions of continuity will be motivating for different types of people in times of
organizational change. Implementation the two different types of visions might have different
effects on the change support of employees, but due to the lack of research in this field of
vision, result of the effects are unknown. This study aims to fill this research gap by
examining how uncertainty and career orientation influences the relationship between visions
of change and follower support. For managers in organizations this will increase their
understanding of the role that vision communications play in times of organizational change
and how employees’ uncertainty and career orientation might influence their support of organizational change.
In order to reach a comprehensive conclusion, the remainder of this study is structured as
8
field. Chapter three outlines the data collection procedure and research method. Results based
on the collected data are discussed in chapter four. Finally the most important conclusions
and implications of the results of this study are discussed in chapter five, together with the
most important limitations and suggestions for further research.
2. Literature review
This chapter discusses the most relevant findings in the debate about organizational change,
the reactions to change and the major theories concerning the concepts of transformational
leadership. Subsequently, the chapter continues with a description of visions of change and
especially visions of continuity. Finally this chapter outlines how visions of opportunity are
related to follower support and how this type of vision is an extension to the existing research
field. The chapter ends with a research model which graphically illustrates the stated
hypotheses.
2.1 Organizational change & change acceptance
According to Burnes (2004) change is an ever-present feature of organizational life, both at
an operational and strategic level. Most of the existing practice and theory are supported by
unchallenged assumptions about the nature of contemporary organizational change
management (Guimaraes and Armstrong, 1998; Doyle, 2002; Appelbaum, Habashy, Malo
and Shafiq, 2012). There is however agreement and empirical evidence in the field of
organizational change that “the pace of change has never been greater than in the current
business environment (Goodman and Loh, 2011) and that change is triggered by internal or
external factors, comes in all shapes, forms and sizes and, therefore, affects all organizations
in all industries” (Todnem, 2005, p. 370). Organizational change can be proactive, if is
initiated from within the organization, but in most of the times it’s driven by factors outside
9
leaders that rush to change organizations and by doing this draw heavily on human and
economic capital (Beer & Nohria, 2000). There is also consensus between scholars that the
success of organizational change is influenced by the acceptance of these changes by
employees resulting in acceptance by employees as a necessity for organizational leaders
(Oreg and Berson, 2011; Shin, Taylor and Seo, 2012; Venus et al., 2015). The question arises
what the reactions of employees in times of organizational change are and how leaders can
influence the acceptance of employees and as a result can make organizational change a
success.
Empirical research has implied and often explicitly outlined the actions leaders should
take to organize and enable organizational change successfully (e.g. Kotter, 1996). In those
studies the employees’ perspective of change is underexposed. This is strange because the
key factor to determine success of organizational change is acceptance by employees
(Bartunek et al., 2006). The acceptance of employees can be investigated if researchers look
at the reaction to change, such as behavior and attitude towards change. Lewin (1952) defined
resistance as a “restraining force moving in the direction of the status quo”. The most
common manner of analyzing resistance is looking for a reactive process where agents
embedded in power relation actively oppose initiatives by other agents (Jermier, Knights and
Nord, 1994). Resistance can manifest itself in behavior or attitudes in the form of affective cognition and behavior intentions. (Piderit, 2000; Oreg and Berson, 2011). Studies of organizational change demonstrate a relationship “between employees’ attitudes toward change and job-related behavior such as turnover intentions, Organizational Citizenship behavior, job satisfaction and Psychological well-being” (Oreg and Berson, 2011, p. 628). Oreg, Vakola & Armenakis (2011), in their review of change recipients’ reactions to
organizational change, divided the reactions of employees into three types; affective reaction, cognitive reactions and behavioral reactions. Those reactions lead in turn to two types of
10
consequences/ outcomes for employees; work related (Job satisfaction, organizational commitment performance) and personal (well-being, health and withdrawal). Those outcomes in turn have an effect on the success of the organizational change.
Allen, Jimmieson, Bordia and Irmer (2007) found that employees who perceived they received quality change communication are reported of being more open toward the change.
Dent & Goldberg (1999), suggest that people do not resist change, but the possible negative outcomes this change could lead to. They also state that the influence of Kurt Lewin (1952) (widely recognized as the founder of social psychology) is the reason why the concept of
change resistance is received to be true, but that the use (by others) is too simplistic and based
on narrow interpretation of his work, thus agreeing with Burnes (2004). People do not resist
the change but are afraid of the unknown. According to Griffin et al. (2010) leaders can
“provoke” more proactive and adaptive behavior among those individuals with a tendency for these behaviors by presenting a clear vision, thus creating more openness toward changes.
Hackman and Wageman (2005) argued that leaders are most effective when they play an
enabling role by setting a compelling direction and building a supportive context. In an
environment of organizational change, leaders seek employees’ acceptance and engagement in new ways of working (Bass, 1990; House & Shamir, 1993). A strong leader vision presents
a different view of the future that requires behaviors other than behavior displayed before
(Shamir, House and Arthur (1993). This is in line with the findings of Griffin et al. (2010)
“that the discrepancy implicit in a compelling vision motivates employees who have the openness and confidence to do so to be more adaptive and proactive, respectively” (p.180).
These findings highlight the important role that leaders and vision can play in follower
support and the behavior change, accordingly. Lewin (1951) suggested that restraining forces
(resistance to change) maintain a dynamic equilibrium of the status quo and to achieve
11
view of the future (a strong vision that disturbs the equilibrium) motivate behaviors necessary
for achieving a different end state (Griffin et al., 2010). Concluding, most of the
organizational changes fail (Beer and Nohria, 2000) and the success of organizational change
relies on the acceptance of employees (Bartunek et al., 2006).Change acceptance in turn can
be positive affected by leaders communicating of a clear vision. Leadership in times of
organizational change thus is an important factor in achieving success.
2.2 Leadership and change
Early research viewed leadership as a way to accomplish organizational goals by initiating
and maintaining organizations (Rost, 1993). Process became an important part of leadership
and especially how to create a “reciprocal process of mobilizing persons with certain
resources, in a context of competition and conflict, in order to realize goals independently or
mutually held by both leaders and followers” (Burns, 1987 p. 425). Research on leadership took off in the early 80’s with the introduction of a new concept; transformational leadership. A core theme in research of leadership is that leaders need vision. Leaders are described as
“inspirational visionaries” and the focus is on the unique relationship between leaders and followers. Transformational leadership is a process where employees create a connection that
raises the level of motivation and morality in both the leader as the followers (Northouse,
2012). To realize this it is important for the leader to have a good relationship with his or her
followers (Levine, Muenchen and Brooks, 2010). The model of Bass (1985) focused more on
the effect of leader on followers and less on the effect the other way around. The model
consists of four factors; idealized influence (leaders as strong role-models and provide
followers with a vision and direction), inspirational motivation (leaders communicate high
expectations, inspire followers who in turn become committed to the vision), intellectual
stimulation (encourages followers to think out-side the box when faced with challenges) and individualized consideration (The leader acknowledges the different needs of individual
12
followers, by individual support, coaching or attention) (Bass, 1985). Podsakoff, MacKenzie,
Moorman and Fetter (1990) defined six core characteristics common in leaders who were
perceived as having a transformational style. Articulation of a vision, that identifies new
opportunities and communicates these effectively, was the characteristic most commonly
seen and most important in the perception if leaders had a transformational style. Studies on
Transformational leadership showed that “transformational leaders produce in their followers
a higher: (1) salience of the collective identity in their self-concept; (2) sense of consistency
between their self-concept and their actions on behalf of the leader and the collective; (3)
level of esteem and a greater sense of worth; (4) similarity between their
self-concept and their perception of the leader; (5) sense of collective efficacy; and (6) sense of
“meaningfulness” in their work and lives” (Bass, 1999 p.23). Moreover studies also have found that transformational leadership has an indirect (through all the above) positive effect
on followers performance (Dvir, Eden, Avolio & Shamir, 2002).
Regardless of, transformational leadership having a positive effect on followers, the focus of this study is on the leaders’ vision and the effects of vision on followers. However, it isimportant to include transformational leadership, because vision content and vision
communication have an important role in transformational leadership. Researchers
differentiate between vision content and vision communication (e.g. Den Hartog and
Verburg, 1998). In this study we focus on the content (information embedded in the vision
itself) and not on the communication (the expression of the vision). This means that
transformational leadership may be a good leadership style, but relations between
transformational leadership and follower support/the success organizational change, will
clarify little about the role the vision content played in this relation. However, it is reasonable
that the extra strain that undergoing organizational change presents leads to extra distress in
13
Griffin, Wearing and Cooper, 1996). Through their collective and visionary approach,
transformational leaders could buffer employee distress and job dissatisfaction, and motivate
followers to collaborate and achieve greater results than expected (Bass and Avolio, 1994;
Bass 1999).
Vision in leadership
Visionary leadership is an important part of transformational leadership. In this study
visionary leadership is understand as, exclusively concerning the communication of a vision,
an image of the future of the collective (Stam, Lord, van Knippenberg, and Wisse, 2014;
Venus et al., 2015). According to Westly and Mintzberg (1989) there is a consensus between
scholars that leadership vision is a process in three stages. The first stage is envisioning of
“an image of a desired future organizational state” (Bass, 1987: p51). Second this vision has to be effectively articulated and communicated to followers (e.g. Bennis and Nanus, 1985), to
finally serve to empower those followers so that they can enact the vision (e.g. Conger and
Kanungo, 1987). This view puts enormous control in the hands of the individual leader
(Bennis and Nanus, 1985). Kirkpatrick and Locke (1996) found that visionary leadership
results in greater trust in the leader by followers and Groves (2006) stats that there is in fact a
link between visionary leadership, emotional expressivity and leadership performance;
leaders high in emotional expressivity score higher on visionary leadership and subsequently
higher in leadership performance. This poses a problem, because there is a discrepancy
between the narrowly divined definition of e.g. Knippenberg & Stam (2014) and the more
brought defined concept of e.g. Westly & Mintzberg (1989). Westly & Mintzberg include
leadership traits other than the vision, or as Groves (2006) states “the powerful effects of
visionary leadership, including the strongly related transformational (Bass and Avolio, 1994)
and charismatic (Conger and Kanungo, 1998; Shamir et al., 1993) leadership models, appear
14
consistency of constructs for leadership vision and the effect behavior components, which
cloud the effect of leadership vision, it is entirely unclear if and to what extent leadership
vision is responsible for the influence on change acceptance (Stam et al.2014).
Concluding, transformational leaders articulate a vision that identifies new opportunities and
communicates these effectively. Extra strain that undergoing organizational change presents
leads to extra distress in employees and lower workplace morale collective and visionary
approach of transformational leaders could buffer employee distress. Leaders who show
visionary leadership are perceived as transformational, but transformational leadership also
include elements that are conceptually distinct from communication of a vision. Thus, it is
unclear if and to what extent the vision is responsible for the influence on change acceptance.
2.3 Vision and change
Vision and change are two concepts which are interwoven by definition, where visions are
defined as future images of the collective (Stam et al., 2014, p. 1173) and visionary
leadership as an important tool for leaders in motivating followers toward change (Yukl,
2010), change, or better yet organizational change, is seen as a development of an
organizational entity it can be seen as a realization of the future state of the collective (van de
Ven and Poole, 1995). Where the connection between vision, visionary leadership and
change by definition are interwoven it is unclear what the basic characteristics of an effective
vision of change are (Fiol et al., 1999; Yukl, 2010; Venus et al. 2015). Vision communication
in time of organizational change is an important tool for leaders to achieve follower support
for change. In the communication of a vision of change towards employees, the literature has
always been focused on the discontinuity of the status quo and creating a discrepant view of
the future (Kotter, 1995). This way of vision communication could be effective for
15
in an organization who are satisfied with the current situation. In the communication of a
vision of change towards employees the discontinuity of the organizational identity plays a
key role. The study of Griffin et al. (2010) found that there is a link between an effective
vision and the willingness of employees to change. This result was only visible with
employees who were already open to change. For employees who were not open to change, visionary leadership (visions with a future state of the organization that differs from the status quo) could not take away the resistance to change.Scholars in the field of social identity
theory found that employees tent to incorporate organizational identity into their own identity
(Venus et al., 2015). By the threat of discontinuity of the organizational identity in times of
organizational change, employees also lose a part of their own identity. Because people value
their own identity and are not willing to change this, resistance to organizational chance can
develop if this chance discontinues the organizational identity. A continuity in the vision that
assures followers that the defining features of the organizations identity stay preserved, could
take away the resistance to change, according to the research done by Venus et al. (2015).
Because this is the first study conducted in this research field mentioning continuity in vision
communication, we wander into uncharted territory. Especially, because this research did not
specifically focus on visions of continuity to facilitate change acceptance but only on the
relation to self-uncertainty. The concept of vision of continuity is however a clear
sub-category of visons. The question arises how uncertainty is related to the vision of continuity.
Uncertainty during organizational change processes is typically about the aim, process
and expected outcomes of the change and implications for the individual employees (Buono
and Bowditch, 1993). Knowledge is not only a pre-requisite to the ability of influencing the
outcomes (Terry and Jimmieson, 1999), but knowledge about the motives for change will
also help reducing uncertainty and creating readiness for change. In that sense effective
16
1998).Uncertainty of employees during change processes will have an effect on two levels.
First, it will have an effect on the individual employee; work related (Job satisfaction,
organizational commitment performance) and personal (well-being, health and withdrawal) (Oreg et al., 2011). Furthermore, it will have an effect on the environment that employee is doing his or her work in. In this sense feelings of uncertainty are about the process of the
change, and the personal and social consequences of the change (Elving, 2005).A vision of
continuity could take away a part of the uncertainty, because the leader first of all
communicates a vision describing the future state of the organization and second because this vision focuses on the continuity of the organization. Because social identity theory suggest that individuals tend to incorporate their organizations into their own identity (Hogg and
Terry, 2000), people that are general more uncertain about the future could benefit from a
vision of continuity. These predictions will translate in the following hypothesis.
Hypothesis 1 (H1): Follower general-uncertainty moderates the effect of visions of continuity
on follower support for change, such that visions of continuity is more strongly related to
support with higher follower general-uncertainty
Is this everting?
With a vision of continuity as a sub-category of vision (Venus et al, 2005) and uncertainty as
a personal consequence/outcome for employees (Oreg et al, 2011), there is only one sub
category of vision and of the change recipients reactions to organizational change, we only take into account personal consequences/ outcomes for employees and did not take in account work related outcomes. Those could include job satisfaction, organizational commitment, performance and turn-over intentions. Moreover, the vision of continuity as described by Venus et al. (2015) opposes the more common view that visions should focus on
17
discontinuity of the status quo and create a discrepant view of the future (Lewin, 1952; Kotter, 1995; Griffin et al., 2010).
2.4 Vision of opportunity
“Employees who display positive psychological traits (e.g., positive self-concept and risk tolerance) will report more positive beliefs and affective responses to change, which will
contribute to a positive overall evaluative judgment that an individual is ready for change”
(Rafferty, Jimmieson & Armenakis, 2013, p. 125). If an individual does not believe that
change has benefits, then it is not likely that the employee will have a positive overall
evaluation of his or her readiness for change and change support. If employees are
dissatisfied with the current situation, they are more willing to take risks and display positive
psychological traits. Dissatisfaction of employees can be divided in two subdivisions. The
first subdivision is dissatisfaction due to organizational factors; cognitive components (e.g.
pay discrepancies, organizational structure etc.), the second has more to do with the personal
characteristics of the employee and how they look at their current job; affective components
(Rafferty et al., 2013). Affective reactions to change may result from currently experiencing
an emotion (such as hope) due to the prospect of a desirable or undesirable future event
(Baumgartner, Pieters, & Bagozzi, 2008). Hope reflects pleasure about the prospect of a
desired event, and specific emotional facets include anticipatory excitement and feelings of
optimism, confidence, or relaxation (Rafferty et al, 2013). Positive emotions could result
from imagining the experience of certain emotions in the future once certain events have
occurred (Baumgartner et al., 2008). For example, an employee may imagine that he or she
will obtain a promotion after an organizational change and, with this, the happiness that he or
she will feel having achieved this outcome. Vision communication by leaders of the desired
future state could lead to those positive emotions, if the focus, of the vision, is on the
18
opportunities, that organizational change brings, are a sub-category of leader visions, called
visions of opportunity. These visions of opportunity are better equipped to inspire employees
that are dissatisfied with the current state of the organization and their personal job-role.
Employee relations to their jobs
Employees are the most important resource in most companies. Managing human resources
becomes a bigger part of the day-to-day operations of mangers. This is a result of the
devolution of HRM practices too (line)-managers. But are employees a homogeneous
resource? Studies state that because of the differences between people on how they value
their jobs this is not the case. An important difference among employees is people’s relations
to their job. Wrzesniewski, McCauley, Rozin and Schwartz (1997) presented evidence that
people see their jobs in three different ways; as a job, career or calling. The first group of
people sees a job as a necessity; they focus on financial rewards, rather than pleasure of
fulfillment. The second see their job as a career. This group has goals for the future and intent
to get a higher level job through promotion. Promotions mean recognition and a sign of
success. Wrzesniewski et al (1997) found that this group has also a more negative view on
their current situation, because they feel that their current job role won’t fit their potential.
This can be seen as dissatisfaction of the current situation, or the status quo. The third and
last group sees their job as a calling. The focus is here on enjoyment of fulfilling a socially
useful job. This type of people sees their job as a part of who they are, a part of their own
identity. Walsh and Gordon (2008) propose that employees with a job work-orientation are
more likely to use membership in social groups more relevant than membership in their
occupations or organizations to create their individual work identities, where employees
holding a callings work orientation are more likely to use membership in their occupations to
19
Employees holding a traditional career perspective (Job view) are more likely to use
membership in both their organizations and occupations to create their individual work
identities. Employees having a career view are more likely to use membership in their
occupations to create their individual work identities. This means that career focused
employees incorporate less organizational identity into their own identity and will probably
more open to possible changes in the organization, due to their current job dissatisfaction in
comparison to employees who see jobs as a necessity. According to social identity theory,
individuals tend to incorporate their organizations into their own identity (Hogg and Terry,
2000). Because employees holding a career perspective will probably do this less, those
employees will be less attracted to a vision of continuity. Moreover, visions of continuity are
focus on employees with higher levels of uncertainty. Career orientated employees have low
levels of uncertainty, are more open to change and therefor will be more attracted to a vision
of opportunity that breaks with the status quo. Besides, by focusing on a better career
perspective after the organizational change employees, with a career view, will be more open
to change and support the change, because their personal perspectives will be better.
Therefore, these predictions will translate in the following hypotheses.
Hypothesis 2 (H2): Follower job relation moderates the effect of visions of opportunity on
follower support for change, such that visions of opportunity is more strongly related to
20
2.5 The model
A clear communication of the vision by the leader in an organization can thus have an effect
on change support of followers. Visions of change can be divided into two different sub
categories; visions of continuity and visions of opportunity. Where visions of continuity
focus on assuring followers that the defining features of an organization remain preserved,
visions of opportunity focus on the opportunities changes in the organization will provide.
Both visions of change have an effect on change support of the followers in an organization.
The relation between visions of continuity and change support is moderated by follower
general uncertainty and the relation between visions of opportunity and change support is
21
3 Method
This chapter is the start of the empirical part of the study. The first part consists of sampling
and procedure characteristics. Second the variables including the questionnaires are discussed
together with the corresponding reliabilities and finally a description is given of the statistical
approach that was taken in order to test for the expected relations as described in the
hypotheses and in the previous chapters. The complete questionnaires, leader and follower,
can be found in the appendix 1 and 2.
3.1 Sampling and procedure
The population that is targeted by this research consist of leader (managers) and followers
(employees) working in changing organizations. The survey is conducted in organizations,
undergoing or just finished an organizational change. This change doesn’t necessarily have to
be a major change, but has to be a change that is visible for leaders and followers and
communicated by management. To make the data collection manageable, the organizations
approached were small and medium-sized enterprises in the region of Amsterdam. Initially,
the companies that were approached could fill in the questionnaires electronically or on a
paper-and pen version, but all chose for the second option, due to the fact that they had to
match the leader and follower questionnaires and they found this easier to do by just stapling
the two questionnaires together.
From the 140 dyads that the leaders and followers stared filling out, 118 were
returned fully complete, so both parts (response rate 84%). The other 22 dyads were either
missing one of the two parts, were not fully completed, or the two parts were not linked to
each other, and due to this useless and not used in the study. Data was collected by means of
a pen-and-paper survey. The survey started on April the 22th 2015 and completed five week
22
Corporation, New York, USA) was used. The survey consisted of two parts; a leader and
follower questionnaire. In the leader part of the survey there were no counter indicative items
present, the 14 items did not have to be recoded. In the follower questionnaire however were
a few items that had to be recoded. The items who had to be recoded (four in total), were
recoded into new variables, because in this way the original data set was not changed and
possible errors made in recoding wouldn’t affect the original data set. From the 118 follower respondents, 69 were male (58%) and 49 female (42%). The sample covered a broad range of
age (Mage = 31.0, SDage = 8.8, age-range: 19-55 years), different working hours a week
(Mhours = 33.5, SDhours = 11.3, hours-range: 10-58 hours) and years with the current direct
supervisor in the company (Myears = 3.3, SDyears = 4.3, year-range: 1-30 years).
3.2 Measurement of variables
Translation, and back translation procedure
All items use in both the questionnaires derived from English studies. However the
questionnaires were handed-out in English (40) and Dutch (78), due to the fact that some
people preferred a Dutch survey and others an English survey. To come-up with the Dutch
version, the original items from the English version were translated. In order to assure that
the content of the items remained the same, the translated Dutch items were translated back
into English and checked against the original items. Minor discrepancies were corrected and a
final Dutch version of the questionnaires was created.
Vision of opportunity
The measure consists of three items and assesses the employees perception to what extend a
vision of the leader is focused on the opportunities of the new situation. An example item is
23
from Rafferty and Griffin (2004). (Cronbach’s α = .81), one of the items was reversed coded
meaning that a high score means a low level of opportunity. A 5 point Likert-scale ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) was used (Cronbach’s α = .81).
Visions of continuity
The measure consists of three items and assesses the employees perception to what extend a
vision of the leader is focused on the continuation of the current situation. An example item is
“My direct supervisor communicates often in her/his vision that our team will be continuation of the current team.” The items used derive from Venus et al. (2015) (Cronbach’s α = .84), none of the items were reversed coded meaning that a high score means a high level of
continuity. A 5 point Likert-scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) was
used (Cronbach’s α = .88).
General uncertainty
The construct of general uncertainty consists of a combination between two sets of items. The
first three items are developed by Venus et al. (2015) (Cronbach’s α = .90). The last two
items are developed by Colquitt, LePine, Piccolo, Zapata and Rich (2012) (Cronbach’s α =
.91). An example of one of the items is “When I think about my work I feel uncertainty”. All
items are used in the study of Venus et al. and therefor measure the same thing; general
uncertainty. A 5 point Likert-scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)
was used for all items (Cronbach’s α = .79).
Job orientation
The construct of job orientation consists of three items of which one is reversed coded. The
items used derive from Liden & Green (1980) (Cronbach’s α = .65) and were used in the
24
better job in the near future” and a 5 point Likert-scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) was used (Cronbach’s α = .67).
Follower support for change & perceived follower support
The survey consists of two different questionnaires (leader and follower) which measured
follower support and perceived follower support by the leader. Because prior research
suggest that there could be differences in follower support and perceived follower support
both are incorporate in the questionnaires, to see if this is the case in this research. 7 items
were used for follower support (Venus et al., 2012) (Cronbach’s α = .93). Those items were
rephrased into different ways to fit the leader questionnaire. This resulted in the first 7 items
of perceived follower support. An example of an item of follower support is “I am prepared
to fully cooperate with the implementation of the future plans”. This item was rephrased into
“The employee is prepared to fully cooperate with the implementation of the future plans” The other items of the perceived follower support derived from Fedor, Caldwell and Herold
(2006), 3 items and Meyer and Herscovitch (2001), 4 items. All of the items used a 5 point
Likert-scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) (Cronbach’s α follower
support = .94) (Cronbach’s α perceived follower support = .97).
Control variables
Results of this study are controlled for control variables; gender, age, years in the company,
hours a week and years under supervision of current direct supervisor.
25
3.3 Analytical procedure
To compute the construct validity of the measures, the Cronbach’s Alphas of the different constructs were calculated (Table 1). Because all of the Cronbach’s Alphas were above .65,
none of the items had to be deleted out of the different constructs and the justification for
deleting any items out of any of the constructs is therefore not necessary. There was however
one constructs with a Cronbach’s alpha between .65 and .70. By deleting items in this
construct the value of the construct would be significantly less, so keeping it in the original
state proved to be the best solution. After calculating the Cronbach’s Alphas, a correlation matrix, including the means, standard deviations, and reliabilities on the diagonal was made.
The Cronbach’s Alphas were included the result can be seen in Table 1.
3.4 Statistical procedure
Regression analyses were undertaken to test the hypothesized moderation effects between the
variables. As described in the first part of the study there are two hypotheses that have to be
tested. They are both moderations of a relation between an independent variable (visions of
opportunity and visions of continuity) and the depended variable, Follower support. To do
this a template model was used created by A.F. Hayes (2012). This template is compatible
with SPSS and the only difference with manually creating the regression analyses needed is
the exclusion of errors made in the processes of the analyses. The first template model of
Hayes (2012) is the model that corresponds with my model, a simple moderation. The first
part of the model (second hypothesis), the relation between visions of opportunity (X) and
change support (Y) moderated by job orientation (M), was filled out in the Process procedure
for SPSS (Hayes, 2012). The second part of my model (first hypothesis), the relation between
visions of continuity (X) and change support (Y) moderated by general uncertainty (M), was
tested in the same way as the first part. Gender, age, work hours a week, years in the
26 Table 1: Correlation matrix Mean Std. Deviation 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 1. Gender 1.42 0.49 1 2. Age 31.02 8.79 -.194* 1 3. Work hours in a week 33.47 11.27 -.437** .315** 1 4. Years at the current company 4.79 5.43 -.187* .721** .144 1 5. Years guidance from current supervisor 3.33 4.36 -.064 .576** .035 .824** 1 6. Dissatisfaction status quo 3.17 0.98 -.184* .036 .255** -.036 -.127 1 (.81) 7. Career orientation 3.53 0.99 .074 -.387** -.007 -.321** -.334** .081 1 (.67) 8. General uncertainty 1.97 1.02 .286** .034 -.073 -.008 -.005 -.094 -.015 1 (.79) 9. Vision of continuity 3.18 1.16 .106 -.037 -.327** .123 .250** -.391** -.285** -.238** 1 (.88) 10. Vision of opportunity 2.99 1.08 .105 .136 -.141 .252** .318** -.477** -.236* -.098 .646** 1 (.81) 11. Change support 3.76 1.03 -.241** .145 .305** .116 .142 -.015 .047 -.305** .341** .300** 1 (.94) 12. Perceived change support by leader 3.79 0.88 -.160 .137 .276** .056 .084 -.054 .028 -.329** .320** .278** .905** 1 (.97)
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
27
4. Results
In the result section, first the correlation matrix, (see table 1) will be discussed. Second the
direct relations between the two vision constructs and follower support will be presented.
Finally the results from the regression analyses will be outlined.
4.1 Correlation analyses
An overview of the descriptive statistics, correlations and scale reliabilities is presented in
table 1. The first observation derived from the table, is the correlation between the support of
change of the employee and the perceived change support by the leader, those two should
highly positive significant correlate and they do (r = .905**). This means that that the change support of employee does not differ much from the perceived change support by the leader,
thus the leaders have a good feel for the change support of employees. Second, we look at
general uncertainty, we see that there is a significant negative correlation between general
uncertainty and follower support for change (-.305**). Moreover there is also a significant
negative correlation between general uncertainty and perceived follower support for change
(-.329**). This effect is in line with other research because uncertainty has a negative effect
on change support. Third, career orientation significantly correlates with vision of
opportunity (-.236**) & continuity (-.285**). This is as expected because if the effect of the
visions is bigger the uncertainty of employees should be lower. Finally, the most important
correlations between the two types of visions and the change support of the employees. Both
visions have low positive significant correlations with both of the changes support constructs.
28
4.2 Direct effects
The two types of visions are new construct which have proven to have a strong internal
reliability and significant positive correlate with the support for change as well as for the
perceived support for change. The next step is to measure if there is a direct effect of the
visions on follower support. As presented in table 2, a direct relationship was found between
the two types of visions and the follower support. The control variables used in regression
analysis; age, years in the company, hours a week, years in the company and years guidance
from supervisor. The effect of vision of continuity is positively related to follower support.
(β=.49, p <.01, R2= .31). The effect of vision of opportunity is positively related to follower support (β=.35, p <.01, R2= .22) Furthermore, the control variable, hours a week (β=.37, p <.01) significantly predict follower support.
Subsequently the effects of the two types of vision on perceived follower support are
measured. Results were in line with the results of follower support; the effect of vision of
continuity is positively related to perceived follower support (β=.48, p <.01, R2= .28). The effect of vision of opportunity is positively related to perceived follower support (β=.34, p
<.01, R2= .19) and the control variable, hours a week (β=.32, p <.01) significantly predict follower support.
Table 2. Direct Effect of visions on perceived- and follower support
vision of opportunity vision of continuity
follower support β=.35 , p <.01, R2=
.22 β=.49 , p <.01, R2= .31
perceived follower support β=.34 , p <.01, R2=
29
In conclusion, visions of continuity as well as visions of opportunity have a direct
positive effect on follower support by employees and the perceived follower support by
leaders. The control variable hours a week significantly predict follower support and
perceived follower support. The difference between the effects on follower support and
perceived follower support does not appear to be substantial and therefore the distinction
between perceived- and follower support is irrelevant in this research.
4.3 Moderation effects
The two hypotheses proposed that the relationship between the two visions (opportunity and
continuity) and follower support would be moderated by career orientation and uncertainty.
The SPSS macro of Hayes (2012) was used for both of the relation to examine the effect.
The first hypothesis; Follower general-uncertainty moderates the effect of visions of
continuity on follower support for change, such that visions of continuity is more strongly
related to support with higher follower general-uncertainty. The analysis indicates that the
interaction vision of continuity* general uncertainty has an effect on follower support (β=
.017, p < .10). The direction of the effect is as expected; the relation between visions of
continuity and change support will be stronger if the value of the moderator is higher (people
are more uncertain). If we look at figure 1, we see that if employees are more uncertain the
visions of continuity are more effective to get follower support than when employees are less
30
The second Hypothesis; Follower job relation moderates the effect of visions of opportunity
on follower support for change, such that visions of opportunity is more strongly related to
support with a follower career type job relation. The analysis indicates that the interaction
vision of opportunity * career orientation has an effect on follower support (β= .053, p < .05).
However, the direction of the effect is different than expected. If we look at figure 2 we see
that the values of the moderator and the effects are different than expected, we see a bigger
positive effect of visions of opportunity on follower support when the value of career
orientation is low. This means that if someone looks at his or her job not as a step in their
career (score below 3) the effect of visions of opportunity on change support is bigger. This is
not in line with the hypothesis, but the opposite of what was expected. If people see their job
more as a stepping stone in their career and want to be in a better position in the future,
visions of opportunity have less of a positive relation on follower support. Hypothesis 2 is
rejected. 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Low Visions of continuity High Visions of continuity F oll ow er su p p or t Low General uncertainty High General uncertainty Figure 1: Plot of the moderation effect of general uncertainty on the relation between visions of continuity and follower support.
31 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Low vision of opportunity High vision of opportunity
F ollow er Su pp or t Low career orientation High career orientation Figure 2: Plot of the moderation effect of career orientation on the relation between visions of opportunity and follower support.
32
5. Discussion
In this section the most evident findings are discussed, together with the implications of these
findings with respect to the literature and management practice. Furthermore, the limitations
regarding the conclusions of this study are outlined. Finally a number of suggestions for
further research will be given.
5.1 Key results
The results of the analysis confirm that there is a positive direct effect of the two types of
vision on follower support in times of organizational change. This means that higher levels of
visions of continuity and opportunity lead to higher levels of follower support. Griffin et al.
(2010) found that there is a link between an effective vision and the willingness of employees to change and the outcome of this study support this general claim. Moreover, Venus et al. (2015) found that visions of continuity have a positive effect on follower support. This study also supports these finding because the direct effect of visions of continuity on follower support was a positive one (Table 2). Visions of opportunity, the sub-division of vision introduced in this study, has also a positive effect of follower support. The effect might be
smaller than the effect of vision of continuity, however it is significant and positive (Table 2)
as predicted in the hypothesis. For the study of visionary leadership this means that a
subdivision of visions is possible and that the vision of continuity and opportunity both have
a positive effect on the willingness of employees to change.
The first hypothesis of this study set out to confirm the findings of Venus et al.
(2015). I posited “that visions of continuity through infusing followers with the perception
that, despite change, the core of the organization remains preserved will motivate follower
change acceptance” (Venus et al. 2015, p. 33) to the extent that follower general uncertainty is high. I found support for this prediction in this study. Moreover if we look at the plots of
33
the interaction between the vision of continuity and follower uncertainty on support for
change and compare the two studies (Appendix 3), we see a high degree of similarity. This
means that it is safe to say that the outcome of this study support the results found by Venus
et al. (2015). For the study of visionary leadership this means that; a vision of continuity has
a positive effect on follower support and that this effect is stronger when employees have
higher levels of general uncertainty.
The second hypothesis of this study was constructed to find a relation between visions
of opportunity, career orientation and follower support. I predicted that follower job
orientation moderates the effect of visions of opportunity on follower support for change,
such that visions of opportunity is more strongly related to support with a follower career
type job relation. This prediction was supported by the outcomes of this study. Career
orientation does moderate the relation between visions of opportunity and follower support,
the effect of visions on follower support is stronger if the relation is moderated by career
orientation. However, this effect is stronger when the career orientation of employees is low,
and I predicted that the effect would be stronger when career orientation of employees was
high. Possible reasons for the different outcomes will be discussed in the next part of the
discussion. The results however do contribute to the study on visionary leadership; Visions of
opportunity have a positive effect on follower support and this effect is stronger when
employees have low levels of career orientation.
5.2 Theoretical and practical implications
Theoretical
The moderating effect of career orientation on the relation between visions of opportunity
and follower support is a positive one, but the effect is stronger for lower career orientation
34
orientation should value, a vision communication focused on the possible opportunities the
organizational change might offer, more. There is a positive effect, but the effect is stronger
when career orientation is low. A reason for this result is offered by the research of Chang
(1999). This research shows that employees see their career as being separate from the
organization they are currently working for. Together with the result of Wrzesniewski et al.
(1997) who found that, career orientated employees have amore negative view on their
current situation, and the strong negative correlation between dissatisfaction with the status
quo and the vision of opportunity (Table 1) in this study, we could suggest that employees
with a career orientation do not value a vision of opportunity because they simply look
outside of the organization for a step in their career. Chang (1999) also found that Career
commitment (in this research career commitment is a career inside the current organization)
moderates the relation between supervisors support and affective commitment. This indicates
that employees committed to the organization are less willing to leave the organization and
this effect is stronger when employees are highly committed to their internal career. This
effect is also visible the other way around. If employees are low in organizational
commitment and career commitment, employees had the highest turnover intentions, because
they didn’t care about the organization and current careers in the organization. Moreover, people with high career commitment and low organizational commitment are also more likely
to leave the company because they don’t believe that the current organization satisfies their career needs and goals (Chang, 1999). This means that employees with a focus on their
personal career are less likely to be committed to the organization, because they put their
personal needs before those of the organization. They do not commit to the organization as
such, but will support the organization only when this is best for their changes of career
development. Because in this study organizational commitment and turnover intentions were
35
not care about a vision, because their focus is on their own career development and not on the
development of the organization. The negative correlation between career orientation and the
visions of opportunity (-.236*) and continuity (-285**) could be an indication of this effect.
However, at the moment there is not enough evidence to suggest that this is the reason behind
the outcomes of the moderation effect of career orientation on the relation of visions of
opportunity on follower support in this study.
Another finding that caches the eye, in the result section, is the high significant
correlation between the constructs of the different types of visions (.646**, Table 1). One
would expect that there would be no or a lower correlation between the two. Moreover the
correlation between discrepancy vision and vision of opportunity (-.186*), suggest that the
vision of opportunity does not deviates from the status quo, but is perceived in a different
way. To confirm that the problem lies in the construct of the visions, the moderations are
reversed, career orientation as moderator for the relation between visions of continuity and
follower support (β= .052, p = < .05) and general uncertainty as moderator for the relation
between visions of opportunity and follower support (β= .031, p = < .05) The reversed
moderation effect are both there and work in the same way as in the in the original relations.
The outcome of the moderation effect of career orientation is in line with what you should
expect; a low value of career orientation (employees who value their current job) will have a
stronger positive effect on the relation between visions of continuity and follower support. On
the other hand, the outcome of general uncertainty indicates that employees which a high
level of general uncertainty value visions of opportunity better than employees with low
levels of general uncertainty. This means that it doesn’t really matter what type of vision the leader communicates the relation on follower support is a positive one and this relation is
enhanced by the moderation effects of general uncertainty and career orientation. The
36
distinction between the two. Future research is needed to clarify the distinction between the
two types of vision (see 5.4 Future research).
Table 3. Effect of visions on follower support
vision of opportunity vision of continuity follower support β=.35 , p <.01, R2=
.22 β=.49 , p <.01, R2= .31
When moderated by:
General uncertainty β= .031, p < .05 β= .017, p < .10 Career orientation β= .053, p < .05 β= .052, p < .05
Practical
The findings of this study have also important practical implications. First, this study shows
that it doesn’t matter what type of vision you use as a leader but it does matter that you communicate a clear vision to the employees. Both, the commonly suggested strategy of
creating a dissatisfaction with the status quo and focusing on the opportunities change might
bring (e.g. Kotter, 1995; Lewin, 1951) as the strategy of Venus et al. (2015), focusing on the
continuity, work in creating follower support for change. Second, this study disconnects the
vision communication from the leadership traits a leader possesses and offers a different way
on how to approach different types of people according to their needs. It acknowledges that
visions can make a difference, for employees and that having certain leadership traits is not
the only way in diversification of communication a vision, content matters. Finally, this study
shows that the difference between follower support and perceived follower support by the
direct supervisor do not differ that much from each other. This means that leaders could trust
37
5.3 Limitations
The findings of this study are subject to a number of limitations. First, the data used in the
current study comes from self-reports and reports of direct supervisors. This might lead to a
self-enhancement bias in the results. Respondents tend to rate themselves as better, or more
positive than they actually are (Krueger, 1998). The addition of the leader questionnaire does
take away the self-enhancement bias for the construct of support for change (correlation of
.905**), but only for this construct. Lindell and Whitney (2001) have researched common
method variance, which implies that a correlation arises between theoretically relevant
variables (e.g. visions of continuity) and other theoretically irrelevant variables (e.g. hours a
week, years guidance from supervisor) Especially cross-sectional studies can be considered
as vulnerable to common method variance, because factors such as current social norms or
respondents’ current emotional situation might lead to self-enhancement. A longitudinal study, in this case for instance with three possible points of measurement; before, during and
after the organizational change process is happening, could take away this problem. Although
there is the possibly that common method variance could be an issue, the use of self-reports
can be considered as the most appropriate data collection method, because the majority of the
variables can only be assessed by employees themselves. Others could be included in the
leader questionnaire.
A second limitation is related to the nature and size of the sample.The relatively small
sample size of 118 limits the ability to generalize the findings of this study, moreover the use
of only SMEs in the region of Amsterdam limits this even more. Finally, the use of
companies in different stages of the organizational change could have an effect on the
outcomes, because the different stages could have a different effect on the current emotional
38
5.4 Future research
The findings of this study suggest a number of interesting directions for further research. First
of all, the need to clarify the distinction between the two types of vision. Additional research
is needed on the two sub-divisions of vision to make the concepts stronger and accepted in
the field of visionary leadership. Second, this study only included two types of vision
communication. Westly and Mintzberg (1989) found evidence that a vision that is
communicated in a way that tailor the specific needs of employees the vision can be
“effectively articulated and communicated to followers” and “serve to empower those
followers so that they can enact the vision”. Because of the diversity of people, the two types
of vision are just a start. The different needs of individual followers, if those needs could be
captured in a type of vision, will be the basis of new types of visions. Third, other possible
mediation and moderation effect between the vision of opportunity and follower support.
This study only examines two moderators of the relation between vision and follower
support, so additional research is needed on possible other. Fourth, future research should
take the next step and link visions through follower support on positive outcomes of
organizational change. This research established the relation between visions and follower
support, but for managers in organizational change this is only have of the picture, the final
goal are better outcomes of organizational change. Because 70 % of organizational changes
fails (Beer and Nohria, 2000), a lot of profit could be gained. Follower support is an
important, success factor for change success, thus in turn visions could have an effect on
organizational success. Finally, a link could be made with the more practical approaches of
e.g. Kotter (1995) and Lewin (1952) in addressing organizational change. Because the link is
still missing between the practical ways of managing organizational change and the
39
foundation for the vision part of these practical approaches could bring the two closer
together and link this study even better to the both of them.
5.5 Conclusion
Every taken into consideration, this study did found some results that could contribute to the
discussion about vision in relation to follower support. The study was set out to investigate
“How different types of vision communication by leaders, in times of organizational change,
have an effect on resistance to change and mobilizing follower support by subordinates.”
Based on this study we can answer parts of this question. First of all, this study made a
distinction between visions of opportunity and continuity, which both have a positive direct
effect on follower support. Second, it confirmed the findings of Venus et al. (2015) that
uncertainty is a moderator in the relation between visions of continuity and follower support
and added career orientation as another. Third it found that career orientation and uncertainty
are a moderators between the relation of visions of opportunity on follower support, maybe
not in the way as originally predicted, but non the less in a way that may serve as a starting
point of further research. Fourth, this study shows that it is possible to include individualized
consideration into studies on visionary leadership which are, exclusively concerning the
communication of a vision, an image of the future as a collective (Stam et al., 2014; Venus et
al., 2015), by developing different types of visions. Finally, this study found that follower
support and perceived follower support have almost the same outcomes, meaning that direct
supervisors have a good feel to what extend employees support organizational change. This
could make research on follower support easier, because employees and direct supervisors
40
6. References:
Allen, J., Jimmieson, N. L., Bordia, P., & Irmer, B. E. (2007). Uncertainty during
organizational change: Managing perceptions through communication.Journal of
change management, 7(2), 187-210.
Appelbaum, S. H., Habashy, S., Malo, J. L., & Shafiq, H. (2012). Back to the future:
revisiting Kotter's 1996 change model. Journal of Management Development, 31(8), 764-782.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free Press; Collier Macmillan.
Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18, 19 –31.
Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European journal of work and organizational psychology, 8(1), 9-32. Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving Organizational Effectiveness through
Transformational Leadership. London: Sage.
Bartunek JM, Rousseau DM, Rudolph JW, DePalma JA. (2006). On the receiving end: Sensemaking, emotion, and assessments of an organizational change initiated by others. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42, 182–206.
Baumgartner, H., Pieters, R., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2008). Future‐oriented emotions: conceptualization and behavioral effects. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 38(4), 685-696.
Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (Eds.). (2000). Breaking the code of change. Harvard Business Press. Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leadership: The strategies for taking charge.New York. Buono, A. and Bowditch, J. (1993), The Human Side of Mergers and Acquisitions, Jossey‐
Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Burnes, B. (2004). Kurt Lewin and the planned approach to change: a re‐appraisal. Journal of
Management studies, 41(6), 977-1002.
Burnes, B. (2004) Managing Change: A Strategic Approach to Organisational Dynamics, 4th edn (Harlow: Prentice Hall)
