TIMES CHANGE, WILL WE?
A RESEARCH IN THE ATTITUDES OF EXECUTIVES TOWARDS
CHANGE
Master Thesis, MscBa, specialization Change Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Management and Organization
27 April 2011 Lars van der Meer Student number: 1384945 Adress: Oosterhamrikkade 92b 9714 BH Groningen tel.: +31 (0)6 144 58 284 E-mail: l.g.w.van.der.meer@student.rug.nl Supervisors University Prof. A. Boonstra Dr. J.F.J. Vos Organizational Supervisor: Miss B. Aukema
Acknowledgements: I would like to thank my university and organizational supervisors for their comments and directions for writing this paper. Furthermore I would like to thank family
ABSTRACT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ...4
1.1 Research Context: Gasunie...5
1.2 Management Question and Problem Statement ...6
1.3 Objective Statement and Research Question...7
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK...8
2.1 Theory of Planned Behaviour ...8
2.2 Commitment to Change ...9
2.3 Attitudes and Perceived Behavioural control... 10
2.4 Culture and Organizational Identity... 14
2.5 Conceptual Model... 15
3. METHODS... 17
3.1 Research Design... 17
3.2 Quantitative Data collection ... 18
3.3 Data Analysis: Reliability and Normality ... 20
3.4 Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis. ... 22
4. RESULTS ... 23
4.1 Quantitative Results... 23
4.2 Conclusion of Quantitative Analysis... 27
4.3 Qualitative Research Results... 29
5. DISCUSSION... 32
5.1 Interpretation of the results ... 32
5.2 Theoretical explanation... 32
5.3 Limitations ... 33
5.4 Other recommendations for future research ... 34
5.5 Implications for practice ... 35
5.6 Final Conclusion... 35
REFERENCE LIST ... 37
INTRODUCTION
"The re-educative process [of individuals] has to fulfill a task which is essentially equivalent to a change in culture." (Lewin, 1945: 50)
Organizations increasingly perceive the need for change to cope with their environment. Employees turn to the organization’s executive managers expecting leadership from them. Thus executives feel the pressure to improve or change their management style or learn more leadership competencies, as research shows that leadership competencies contribute to change (Batitilana et al., 2010). Likewise the way as to how executive managers communicate change to their employees can make or break the acceptance of change (Sonenshein, 2010).
However to change an executives management style is easier said than done, as the change in behaviour of any individual is difficult in itself (Piderit, 2000; Randall & Procter, 2008; Ajzen 1991). This following statement about leadership and change makes this topic even more complex and controversial: These dynamic processes of culture creation and management are the essence of leadership and make one realize that leadership and culture are two sides of the same coin... Leadership [must possess the ability and willingness] to step outside the culture that created the leader and start evolutionary change processes that are more adaptive. This ability to perceive the limitations of one's own culture and to evolve the culture adaptively is the essence and ultimate challenge of leadership. (Schein, 1985: 2). So in order to change managerial values into leadership values, one needs leaders to change these values. With regard to executive development, it would seem one is in an impossible situation or a so-called Catch-22.
This research will focus on understanding the behavioural motivations of top managers to commit or perhaps resist these development endeavours and what motives are the decisive factors for their commitment. Although several studies have focused on exploring leadership styles or successful CEO’s that changed organizations, research is still lacking regarding what factors lead to the commitment of executives to change their management style (Randall & Procter, 2008). This introduction shows that this however is not an easy task. Executive development is more than meets the eye and this research aims to shed more light on this topic in the following chapters.
1.1 Research Context: Gasunie
The organization where this research is conducted is Gasunie NV. As a public organization, Gasunie is responsible for maintenance and improvement of the Dutch gas infrastructure. Since natural gas is a large energy resource within the Netherlands, Gasunie has an important role within the Dutch economy. In 2009, Gasunie has 1732 employees in the Netherlands and Germany. In figure 1 the organizational structure of Gasunie is given.
Although Gasunie is in relatively stable market, the market environment is changing. New governmental regulations lead to heavy costs for Gasunie. Furthermore the detachment of several organization branches into independent organizations because of privatization has led Gasunie to reassess their core values and identity.
Gasunie Corporate Partipations & Business Development Gas Transport Services Construction & Maintenance Legal, Regulatory, Communication and Public Affairs
ICT HR
Finance & Corporate
Services
1.2 Management Question and Problem Statement
In the following section the management question and its problem statement will be further explained. Based on a previously performed culture scan, the company felt their classic hierarchical culture did not fit anymore within their environment. Due to their culture and internal organization, communication between divisions was poor and taking responsibility for activities lacked. They needed to become more flexible and market driven as an organization 1 to cope with their environment. Based on that conclusion, Gasunie set out a management development initiative called Gasunie 2012 to prepare and even change Gasunie’s executive management for the greater organizational challenges to come.
Gasunie 2012
Gasunie 2012 is a management development-project aimed at (re-) educating around 100 executive managers of Gasunie in their behaviour and management styles. Most executive managers range among the tier 1 up to tier 3 managers within the organization. The project is aimed at the individual qualities a manager has, as well as his responsibility to his team and his organization. By realigning all executive managers towards Gasunie’s current goals and strategy they hope to set a common ground for managers to act upon during their work.
The scope of this research is aimed at this population that are members of the higher tiers within the organization. The initiative Gasunie 2012 is meant to align executives better with the organization and its strategy, to learn how they can manage their teams and know their personal leadership skills and competencies better in order to be more flexible. Gasunie 2012 was specifically designed this way of going back and forth between the individual and organizational level to let them align among themselves, their peers and in the end with the organization.
The goal of Gasunie 2012 was for managers to reflect upon their management styles and behaviour, recognize the flaws and the need to change this. As a result, Gasunie intends their management executives to be more flexible and anticipate changes coming from within or from outside of the organization.
1.3 Objective Statement and Research Question
This study is driven by the ambition to better understand human behaviour undergoing any form of change in an organizational context and what motivates them towards this change. Management development initiatives, like Gasunie 2012, are common in corporate organizations. Nevertheless the level of success of these initiatives is difficult to validate. Assessment tools by Armenakis, Berneth, Pitts and Walker (2007) and Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) claim to provide attitudinal indicators for successful change. Although these instruments have been empirically tested and proven on several occasions, we feel knowledge on these instruments regarding executives is still lacking and requires more attention.
As was mentioned before in the introduction, behavioural change on the executive level can be difficult (Lorsch, 1986, Geletkanycz, 1997) and executives have their own subculture. As a result the objective of this research is to see what attitudinal factors are of importance for executive managers to commit themselves towards changing their behaviour and to see to what extent these instruments apply on the executive level. Therefore in order to fulfill this objective we propose the following research question:
To what extent do the attitudes of executive managers influence them to commit themselves to change and to what level do assessment tools regarding change beliefs and commitment measure these attitudes?
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
In the following section the theoretical grounds for this research will be further elaborated. As is previously mentioned, this research focuses specifically on the motivations and values of participants to a management development project. Therefore we will first define the basis in on how to focus on this behaviour. Next we will further define, elaborate and justify the variables that are researched within the scope of this research and the succeeding research question.
Figure 2: Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991)
2.1 Theory of Planned Behaviour
planned behaviour as a model that can predict recipient’s intention and behaviour (Jimmieson, White & Zajdlewicz, 2009; Armitage & Connor, 2001)
Intentions are a result from behavioural variables such as the attitude towards the action that is to be taken, the subjective norm and the perceived control over this behaviour. As Ajzen (1991) explains the view of perceived behavioural control is best compatible with Bandura’s construct of Self-efficacy (1995). Confidence in one’s own ability is a strong influence for people’s actual behaviour to perform.
Subjective norms relate to the social pressure to perform or not perform the behaviour. Within this factor one can see resemblances to the social constructs on which we will go into detail in a later section of this paper. The third factor in Ajzen’s theory is the attitude towards behaviour. This regards to the beliefs or values someone has towards the behaviour and its outcome. An underlying theory of behaviour even originates back from Lewin’s equation for behaviour. Behaviour (B) is a function (F) of the person (P) and its environment (E) or in short B = F (P,E) (Lewin, 1946: 337). Using Ajzen’s model of planned behaviour as the basic outline of this research we will elaborate on each of its constructs.
2.2 Commitment to Change
One of the critical items required for organizational change, especially cultural change, is the commitment or willingness of the people undergoing the change, as is stressed by Burnes (2009a: 456). The author follows the definition of commitment to change as given by Herscovitch and Meyer (2002: 475): Commitment to Change […] a force (mind-set) that binds an individual to a course of action deemed necessary for the successful implementation of a change initiative. Although having different terminology in the theories of Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) and Ajzen (1991), commitment and intent are based on similar concepts. Therefore we approach commitment to change as the intent-construct and to be applicable within the theory of Ajzen (1991) in relation to organizational change.
Instead, this paper adds support to the suggestion that commitment or resistance to change are both a response to change (Piderit, 2000) and that these are a result of complex behavioural motivations. Sonenshein (2010) perceives it as three outcomes to a change initiative; resistance, acceptance and championing, but also clearly states that ‘why’ recipients resist is of importance. This would confirm that the antecedents for commitment are important to understand. Kegan and Lahey (2001) give an addition to this multidimensional approach by saying that resistance to change is a result of the competing commitments of an employee. The employee has some inner conflict in his/her values towards this behaviour, which leads to resistance to the change. Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) provide a multidimensional approach to commitment with their three-component model. The mind-set to which they refer can be arranged on three levels; The mind-set [….] can reflect (a) a desire to provide support for the change based on a belief in its inherent benefits (affective commitment to change), (b) a recognition that there are costs associated with failure to provide support for the change (continuance commitment to change), and (c) a sense of obligation to provide support for the change (normative commitment to change). (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002: 475)
Affective commitment is shown to have a positive relationship with organizational change or the implementation of it (Michaelis, Stegmaier & Sonntag, 2009; Meyer, Srinivas, Lal & Topolnytsky, 2007) and is reinforced through charismatic leadership and employee trust in management. The complexity of employee behaviour can thus result in commitment or resistance to individual change, but they do not necessarily exclude one another as different motivational drivers can drive an individual.
2.3 Attitudes and Perceived Behavioural control
Seen from an individual perspective each person has a behavioural mind-set that enables him or her to decide whether or not to participate to change. The outcome of a change initiative is influenced whether or not the change recipients will accept the change according to their values and beliefs (Armenakis et al., 2007). These values are thus antecedents of people’s commitment to change. In the following paragraph, these values and their surrounding constructs will be discussed.
Change recipients are influenced by multiple contextual factors either through their personality, former experiences or ethical values given by their social constructs (Hamilton & Bean, 2005; Hambrick & Mason, 1984). Armenakis et al. (2007) state that there are five different belief scales for a change recipient. By measuring these beliefs one can acquire an indication of the level of buy-in or intention recipients have with change and the level of success the change implementation will have. These are the following beliefs; Discrepancy, Appropriateness, Efficacy, Principal Support and Valence.
Peer and Principal Support
A factor of influence for change acceptance is whether or not peer and principal support is present. Armenakis et al. (2007) approached this concept as one unifying principal support, however I feel these are two different constructs. Principal support in this research context would be expected to be less relevant due to the managerial position the research group has. Martin (2010) demonstrated that peer support in development initiatives positively influences transfer rates of training. When managers are set in groups with its peers, they are more positively inclined to adopt new knowledge.
Furthermore, positive feelings, views, attitudes on an employee’s colleagues, subordinates or even supervisor also affect the willingness of the employee to be more open to change (Madsen, Miller & John, 2005). In a study by Chiaburu and Marinova (2005), both peer and principal support were researched, but only peer support provided a positive relationship to motivation and training transfer. With aforementioned literature I can propose the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: Recipients perceived support from its peers show a positive relationship to affective commitment to change.
Discrepancy
This term relates to the necessity of change in the eyes of a recipient regarding the current state it is in (Armenakis et al., 2007). Discrepancy is a result of the recipient’s perception between their current status and where they would like it to be. If the recipients perceives a higher need for change, they are more inclined to accept proposed change. For change recipients one of the key items during the process is understanding the reasons for the change (Fisher, 2005). Discrepancy can lead to a sense of urgency (Armenakis et. al, 2007).
According to Balogun (2006) change recipients make their own interpretation of what the intended change outcome should be and that this can deviate from the original change outcome. Research from Knippenberg, Martin and Tyler (2006) however also shows that recipients that identify highly with the organization are not necessarily interested in the desired outcome but more in the change process. This can indicate contextual factors that influence the outcome of change. I therefore propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: Recipients discrepancy to change has a positive relationship to affective commitment to change.
Appropriateness
Appropriateness is the term that Armenakis et al. (2007) use to specify whether change recipients approve of the chosen change proposal and whether it is the right ‘fit’. A study by Neves (2009) shows that change appropriateness is influenced by affective commitment to change and leads to individual change. Reasons for this is because Neves (2009) argues that when the values of the individual are in his eyes aligned with the change initiative a recipient is also more willing to change. When it is perceived appropriate, acceptance and cooperation for the initiative follow, but when perceived as inappropriate, stress, anxiety or displacement occur (Kavanagh & Ashkanasy, 2006). Recipients can perceive the proposed initiative as insuperable and powerless to influence it and thus feel obliged to accept it.
Hypothesis 4: Recipients appropriateness shows a positive relationship to affective commitment to change.
Hypothesis 5: Recipients appropriateness has a negative relationship to continuance commitment to change.
Hypothesis 6: Recipients appropriateness has a negative relationship to normative commitment to change.
Hypothesis 7: Principal support has a negative relationship to normative commitment to change.
Self-Efficacy
This aspect regards to the self-motivation of a recipient to complete things. Self-efficacy is a term that is probably best known by Bandura (1995). Perceived Self-Efficacy refers to the beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to manage prospective situations (Bandura, 1995: 2). According to Ajzen (1991) the construct of Perceived Behavioural Control is similar to Bandura’s concept of self-efficacy and is also used by Armenakis et al. (2007) as one of the belief constructs. Executive self-efficacy has strong relationships with organizational performance and even with inspiring followers to perform better (Paglis, 2010; Pool & Pool, 2006). Paglis and Green (2002) provided partial support that high leadership self-efficacy led to more leadership attempts to change things. Additionally self-efficacy in training also leads to higher skill transfer according to Chiaburu and Morinova (2005). This indicates that self-efficacy has a positive relationship to affective commitment to change.
Hypothesis 8: Recipients’ Self-Efficacy has a positive relationship to affective commitment to change
Valence
for training motivation and as a result to its training outcomes (Colquitt, LePine & Noe, 2000). Especially with respect to goal orientation and intention (Smith, Jayasuriya, Caputi & Hammer, 2008).
Commitment to change has been shown to be higher if employees have a personal need for growth through development projects (Elias, 2007). This also implies for change agents that they should show that the development is not just beneficial for the organization, but for the individual as well. This is also acknowledged by Colquitt et al. (2000), who state that trainers should emphasize the benefits to increase valence and in turn motivation to learn. Interestingly recipients identifying low with their organizational identity show a higher interest in outcome and in the personal gains that can occur during these initiatives (Knippenberg et al., 2006), which might imply a negative relationship to valence.
Hypothesis 9: Valence has a positive relationship with affective commitment to change Hypothesis 10: Recipients’ Organizational identity has a negative relationship with Valence.
2.4 Culture and Organizational Identity
In light of the original model by Ajzen (1991) on which this research focuses, the subjective norm is often perceived as the social pressure to behave or not behave. When one discusses values and believes in organizations one can quickly touch the subject of organizational culture as a collective set of those believes (Schein, 1992).
Organizational culture, change and emotions are social constructs as a result of the beliefs of the collective values of its employees (Smollan & Sayers, 2009). According to Schein (1992), individual behaviour brought together in a collective perspective is culture at its core. Organizational culture typologies however do not apply on senior managers (Thompson and Phua, 2005) and although management executives can have their own subculture (Geletkanycz, 1997), we feel it is instead better to focus on the organizational identity of these executives.
demanded of its executives, it would be likely that the level of organizational identity plays an active role in commitment to change.
Research from Knippenberg, Martin and Tyler (2006) has shown that recipients that identify highly with the organization are interested in the change process, instead of the outcome. This can indicate that organizational identity has a positive relationship with appropriateness and discrepancy. Pool and Pool (2006) have shown that high levels of organizational commitment contribute to high amounts of motivation among executives. Although organizational commitment and identity are two different but related constructs, we argue that in light of previous findings organizational identity should have a positive relationship on recipients’ self-efficacy (Van Knippenberg & Sleebos, 2006). In summary, the following hypotheses can be formulated:
Hypothesis 11: Recipients organizational identity has a positive relation to affective commitment to change.
Hypothesis 12: Recipients organizational identity has a negative relation to continuance commitment to change.
Hypothesis 13: Organizational identity shows a positive relationship with Discrepancy Hypothesis 14: Organizational identity shows a positive relationship with
Appropriateness
Hypothesis 15: Organizational identity shows a positive relationship with recipients Self Efficacy
2.5 Conceptual Model
Regarding perceived behavioural control, the similarity was already made with self-efficacy, which is therefore uniquely positioned. Peer and Principal support have been divided as was explained in previous paragraphs. Positive relations are given with a complete line, while negative relations are given with a dashed line.
3. METHODS
In the following section we will focus on how we did our mixed methods research. First an explanation of the research design is given, next we will focus further on the different methods of data collection and how we analyse them.
3.1 Research Design
For the answering of the research question we approach this research through a mixed methods design. Mixed methods studies are usually applied when both types of methods will lead to a better understanding and enrichment of the topic then just one single method (Creswell, 2008; McCracken, 1988). In this research our mixed methods approach in specific is an ‘embedded design’ (Creswell, 2008). The data collection occurs simultaneous. This method looks similar to triangulation, but its exception is that this method emphasizes on one primary form of data and uses the other as secondary support. In this research we place the emphasis on the quantitative part, since we partially focus on the applicability of assessment tools, but use the qualitative part to interpret its results. Based on these analyses, we hope to get a complete picture with regard to answering the research question.
In figure 4 the research process is portrayed, which consist out of 3 stages. The first stage, theory, was discussed in the previous chapter. In the second stage we will conduct both researches simultaneous, where the quantitative part focuses on answering the main research question, whereas the qualitative part focuses more on the context in which the recipients are active. In the final stage, we reflect at both results and give our interpretation of how to answer the research question.
Figure 4: Research process
3.2 Quantitative Data collection
A survey will be used as primary tool to measure the constructs discussed in chapter two. This survey is a combination of three different and empirically proven tests. All answering options have a five point Likert-scale, unless stated otherwise. Because the research population is from a single Dutch organization, we decided to translate and adapt the original questions to this context. Collection of the data was performed through use of a web survey that was sent out to managers who participated with the management development program. The survey could be completed anonymous to avoid social bias due to the sensitive nature of the survey. 87 executive managers of the organization were contacted by e-mail with the request to fill in the survey.
Attitudes and Perceived behavioural control
For the attitudes of the executive management the 24-item ‘Organizational Change Recipients' Beliefs Scale’ developed by Armenakis et al. (2007) is used in this survey. Their model is according to them applicable within each phase of the change project, which makes it very useable for change management research (Armenakis et al. 2007). Efficacy, which was stated by Ajzen (1991) as an important construct in his model, is also encapsulated within the item-scale of Armenakis et al. (2007). Furthermore we have divided the peer and principal support questions as were mentioned in the previous chapter.
Commitment to change
To measure the commitment construct, we apply the commitment to change-scale developed by Herscovitch and Meyer (2002). They have created an item-scale with 18 questions to analyse commitment to change. Their commitment to change scale measures the level of intention a recipient has towards its change.
Organizational identity
Preliminary testing and construction of the scale.
Because we combine several surveys altogether in one format, we first want to measure reliability for each of the constructs. Preliminary testing of the item-scales is done by administering the questionnaire on colleagues who are known with this topic but not part of the research population. After this first preliminary filtering the questionnaire was submitted to a test population of five participants from within the research population. This pilot testing was done to test the research constructs for validity and reliability before it is sent out to the entire research group. In appendix A the full questionnaire is given, whereas in appendix B the outcome of the testing is presented.
3.3 Data Analysis: Reliability and Normality
Before we can test hypotheses, we need to test the data for several factors, such as reliability and normality to know which statistical methods can be applied on the data.
Since we have used Likert scales in our questionnaire the summated variables will be based on ordinal data. Next to the fact that the data is foremost on behavioural aspects we are inclined to expect skewed data curves. Because of these two factors we do not expect normal distributions. As a reliability test we look at the Cronbach’s alpha as well as the mean inter-item correlation. We will use the Shapiro-Wilk test to look for evidence for normality, since that is especially suitable with small samples (Field, 2005).
The results are shown in table 2 and further elaborated in the following paragraph.
Variables Reliability Test Normality Test
Items Alpha R Statistic Significant
Appropriateness 4 .71 .38 .95 .02 Discrepancy 3 .58 .32 .93 .00 Efficacy 3 .57 .33 .89 .00 Principal Support 2 .75 .61 .94 .01 Peer Support 2 .64 .47 .90 .00 Valence 3 .64 .37 .90 .00 Affective Commitment 6 .89 .57 .92 .00 Normative commitment 4 .42 .15 .97 .18** Continuance Commitment 5 .72 .35 .98 .40**
Table 1: Reliability and Normality analysis **p>0.05 suggests normality
Reliability
correlation (r) is also reported, as that is also appropriate to report since the amount of items per scale is low and can affect the Cronbach’s alpha (Pallant, 2007). An inter-item correlation mean between .2 and .4 is the optimal level according to Briggs and Cheek (1986).
As expected, those variables with few items also have a low alpha, but have acceptable levels of inter-item correlation. A higher correlation value might incline that they measure the construct too specific or with redundant questions (Briggs & Cheek, 1986). As a result we can conclude that most item-scales are reliable. Only the normative-commitment construct has trouble with its internal consistency. By removing question 25, we could improve the Cronbach’s alpha to .42, and with a .22 inter-item correlation. It still proves to be a weak scale, which is perhaps possible because of several negatively posed questions. This would indicate respondent’s bias regarding this topic.
Normality
3.4 Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis.
In order to better comprehend the research subject, a qualitative approach is being used. By conducting interviews regarding this topic, we want to gain better insight in the theoretical framework and approach its context with an open mind.
Data Collection
At the beginning of each interview permission to record the interview was requested and anonymity was guaranteed. According to McCracken (1988) the selection size of respondents for interviewing and eight respondents is perfectly sufficient. Participants were selected from each of the seven subgroups of the project, as well as making sure they were diverse in the aspects of organizational tenureship, different divisions and gender. As a result seven interviews of around one hour were conducted.
As an interview tool we selected appreciative interviewing as a method to avoid biased answering. Appreciative interviewing is an aspect of the Appreciative Inquiry School. In short, appreciative interviewing approaches topics by asking questions in a positive manner. This leads to discussing subjects that people might not do in other interview types, because of the method and its open nature according to Michael (2005). The possibility to discuss current issues can be discussed and identified, since most interviewees are inclined to speak openly and can make comparisons of their best experiences. The questions were developed through the use of the interview guides available from the appreciative inquiry-website (http://apprciativeinquiry.case.edu, 2010), but adapted for use in this context.
The layout of each interview consists of open- ended questions in a semi-structured conversation style as in accordance with appreciative interviewing as well as maintaining neutrality as the interviewer. The questionnaire is in appendix C. Whether this method achieved the results we wanted and if we can encourage it for further research, will be discussed in the last chapter.
Qualitative Data analysis
4. RESULTS
From the 87 approached executive managers 63 surveys were started. Some of the cases are left out of the data analysis, because some participants have not started with the program or did not complete the survey in total. As a result the result was 53, which yields a return response of 61%, which we feel is a reasonable return rate.
4.1 Quantitative Results
With the data we can now do the exploration of the data. This exploration is useful as it gives us knowledge as to how the recipients rated their project. In table 4 the descriptive statistics are shown. The mean indicates what the majority rated for each variable, while the deviation shows how different the opinions vary. The attitude and commitment questions were posed in a five-point Likert-scale, so scores would range between 1 (Fully agree) and 5 (Fully Disagree). The variables that are best rated were discrepancy (the need for change) and affective commitment. Rated to a lower degree are efficacy, appropriateness, peers and normative commitment who’s mean are still positively positioned.
Organizational identity is scored quite positive, as a seven-point scale with the maximum score being a full one-on-one identification. Since the mean is on a 4.83 this would indicate most people tend to identify themselves with the organization.
(N=53) Mean Minimum Maximum Std. Deviation
Discrepancy 2.03 1,00 3.67 .57 Efficacy 2.49 1,33 24.67 .60 Valence 2.97 2,00 5.00 .58 Appropriateness 2.45 1.25 4.00 .59 Principal support 2.70 1.00 5.00 .74 Peer support 2.46 1.50 4.50 .64 Affective commitment 2.21 1.00 4.00 .60 Normative commitment 2.49 1.25 3.50 .53 Continuance Commitment 3.39 2.00 4.80 .64 Organizational Identity 4.83 1.00 7.00 1.14
Correlations
In order for us to understand what the relations are between the variables, we need to look at the underlying structure. First we will look at the correlations between the hypothesized variables. Because assumptions for parametric tests have not been met, we will apply non-parametric tests. Kendall’s tau test is very suitable and better for small data sets with large numbers of tied ranks instead of Spearman’s rho (Field, 2005). We will do a 1-tailed test since we assume that relations should exist based on our literature findings. Table 5 shows the results of these assumed correlations.
Correlation Significance H1: Peer support – Affective Commitment .45** 0.00
H2: Principal support – Affective commitment .27** 0.00
H3: Discrepancy-Affective Commitment .29** 0.00
H4: Appropriateness – Affective Commitment .60** 0.00 H5: Appropriateness – Continuance commitment -.17* 0.05 H6:Appropriateness – Normative commitment .18* 0.04 H7: Principal Support – Normative commitment .11 .15
H8: Efficacy – Affective Commitment .36** 0.00
H9: Valence – Affective commitment .25** 0.01
H10: Org. Identity – Valence .22* 0.03
H11: Org. Identity – Affective Commitment -.13 0.13 H12: Org. Identity – Continuance commitment -.12 0.13
H13: Org. Identity – Discrepancy -.09 0.21
H14: Org. Identity – Appropriateness .03 0.39
H15: Org. Identity – Efficacy .17 0.07
Table 3: Correlation Table. * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level., ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.
Regression Analysis
In the previous paragraph we found several correlations between the variables. These indicate relations between the variables, but do not give us the level of prediction a variable has towards the hypothesized dependent variable. In order to pinpoint the prediction level of a particular outcome we conduct several single linear regression analyses. However there are some limitations. First, the sample size (n=53) is small for a regression analysis, but allowable (Field, 2005). We approach our summated data to be on interval level, which is not preferred, but commonly accepted (Field, 2005).
Preliminary analyses were conducted to ensure no violation was made with regard to normality and linearity. This was checked, by observing the normal P-P plot and how it plots the residuals of the regression. The normal P-P plots did not show much variation, thus suggesting no major deviations from normality. These plots are in appendix D. Because of our small sample it is more appropriate to report the adjusted R square (Pallant, 2007). The results are given in table 6.
Hypothesis
(Predictor à Outcome)
Adjusted
R Square F (df 1,51) Unstandardized coefficient Std. Error Sig. H1: Peer Support à Affective
commitment .46 45.2 .64 .10 .00**
H2: Principal Support à Affective commitment .14 9.1 .32 .11 .00** H3: Discrepancy à Affective Commitment .18 12.7 .47 .13 .00** H4: Appropriateness à Affective commitment .67 104.8 .84 .08 .00** H5: Appropriateness à Continuance Commitment .11 7.14 -.38 .14 .01** H6: Appropriateness à Normative Commitment .03 2.40 .19 .12 .13 H8: Efficacy à Affective commitment .30 23.2 .56 .12 .00** H9: Valence à Affective Commitment .10 6.53 .35 .14 .01*
H10: Org. identity à Valence .04 2.86 .12 .07 .10
Table 4: Single Regression Analysis.
**Regression is significant at 0.01, * Regression is significant at 0.05
Multiple regression
Based on the single regressions, we conduct a standard multiple regression with affective commitment as the independent variable and attitudes to change as the dependent variables (peer and principal support, appropriateness, discrepancy, valance and efficacy). To see which of those variables has the greatest contribution to affective commitment. Since we want to compare these variables we will focus on the standardized coefficient (Beta).
After inspecting the preliminary results of the analysis, we can conclude that multicollinearity does not exist between the independent variables based on correlation scores lower than .70, the variance inflation factor (VIF) under 10 and tolerance above .10 for each of the independent variables. The P-P plot shows a reasonable straight line, suggesting no deviations of normality. Possible outliers could exist as one of them seems to be according to the scatter plot, but which is difficult to interpret due to the low amount of cases. However, the Mahalanobis distance as well as Cook’s Distance shows them as allowable (Pallant, 2007). Therefore we refrain from adjusting the dataset and proceed with the analysis.
The model summary shows us that the adjusted R square is .73, meaning that 73% of the variance in affective commitment can be explained by the independent variables. Furthermore the ANOVA shows a F (6,46) = 24,8, p <.001, indicating a significant result. In table 7 the coefficients table is given which shows each variables contribution to affective commitment.
Standardized Coefficient Correlations Variables Beta (B) Significance (p<0.01) Part Discrepancy .09 .30 .08 Efficacy .13 .18 .10 Valence -.06 .48 -.05 Appropriateness .54 .00 .36 Principal support .06 .46 .05 Peer support .30 .00 .24
Table 5: Coefficient Table
4.2 Conclusion of Quantitative Analysis
As a result of the single and multiple regression analyses we can now look back the original hypotheses. In table 8 the strength of each hypothesis is shown and whether it is accepted.
Hypothesis Strength
relationship
Conclusion Hypothesis 1: Peer support shows a positive relationship to
affective commitment to change.
Strong positive Accepted Hypothesis 2 Principal support show a positive relationship
to affective commitment to change,
Moderate Positive Accepted Hypothesis 3: Discrepancy to change has a positive
relationship to affective commitment to change.
Moderate Positive Accepted Hypothesis 4: Appropriateness shows a positive
relationship to affective commitment to change.
Strong Positive Accepted Hypothesis 5: Appropriateness has a negative relationship
to continuance commitment to change
Weak negative Accepted Hypothesis 6: Appropriateness has a negative relationship
to normative commitment to change.
Weak positive Rejected Hypothesis 7: Principal support has a negative relationship
to normative commitment to change.
No significance Rejected Hypothesis 8: Self-Efficacy has a positive relationship to
affective commitment to change
Moderate positive Accepted Hypothesis 9: Valence has a positive relationship with
affective commitment to change
Weak positive Accepted Hypothesis 10: Organizational identity has a negative
relationship with valence.
Weak positive Rejected Hypothesis 11: Organizational identity has a positive
relation to affective commitment to change.
No significance Rejected Hypothesis 12: Organizational identity has a negative
relation to continuance commitment to change.
No significance Rejected Hypothesis 13: Organizational identity shows a positive
relationship with discrepancy
No significance Rejected Hypothesis 14: Organizational identity shows a positive
relationship with appropriateness
No significance Rejected Hypothesis 15: Organizational identity shows a positive
relationship with efficacy
No significance Rejected
Based on these results we can make the following conclusions. Hypothesis 1 and 4 show a strong positive relationship. Hypotheses 2, 3 and 8 have a moderate positive relationship. Furthermore hypotheses 6 and 9 have a weak positive relationship, while hypothesis 5 affirms the hypothesized negative relationship to be correct, although weak. These hypotheses are therefore all accepted. Hypotheses 6 and 10 are rejected as it indicates a positive relationship instead of the hypothesized negative relationship. Hypotheses 7, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 are rejected, because of no relation among the variables. Based on the results, we can now redraw our conceptual model with the relations that were significant (Figure 5).
We can conclude that affective commitment is influenced by the five conceptual attitudes to change(H1, H2, H3, H4, H8, H9) . As the multiple regression has shown, especially appropriateness (H4) and peer support (H1) are highly related to affective commitment. Furthermore it shows that appropriateness does indeed have a negative relation with continuance commitment, but does have a positive relationship to normative commitment. This would indicate that if the initiative is felt appropriate, it relates to the recipient sense of obligation towards committing them to it.
4.3 Qualitative Research Results
In the following section the findings from our interviews are given. Since we did not want to influence the interviews with our other findings, the results of the survey were not reported at the interviews. Purpose of the interviews was to better understand the context as to how interviewees perceive the change initiative and change in general. This in turn should also give us more material to better reflect the results from both methods as well as giving us more insight in the overall objective of the research that was understanding human behaviour undergoing any form of change in an organizational context and what motivates them towards this change. In table 9 examples of quote’s people gave during the interview are presented with regard to the variables.
Variable Example (interview / line number)
Peer Support You’re no longer alone calling in the desert. There are more people, and that gives support. (6:169)
Principal Support You recognize that in the message the CEO gives, everything needs to be more flexible, faster anticipating on changes. (1:226)
Discrepancy Gasunie 2012’s strong point is that it has made people aware. (2:135)
Appropriateness What I liked was that this was an initiative, where not just some individuals took part in, but the entire group so that everyone followed the same initiative. (1:115). Efficacy What you see is that when you do organizational
change, it empowers people, it gives fervour, some movement in the organization, that alone is very positive ( 7: 228)
Valence You now see you can do things different and that provides more insight (7: 154)
Affective Commitment
I’m open for change, I am willing to have the dialogue between other divisions, where I feel I can be of use there. (1:459)
Organizational identity
I think Gasunie is just fully convinced of being a great company for the Netherlands. (2:323)
Attitudes to Change
The interviewees gave several responses that could be identified as their attitude to change. Almost every interviewee expressed his or her concern that change was going to be necessary, which confirms discrepancy. Reasons for change however were different; several interviewees expressed the new governmental regulations as a reason for change, while others underlined the necessity to change due to organizational issues in its structure and communication, and not just the new regulations. For a greater part most interviewees experienced the development project as a moment in which they could meet up with their fellow colleagues, but also gain mutual understanding for others work processes. This was perceived the most valuable part of the program.
Regarding peer support, most of the interviewees addressed that they thought their fellow colleagues were highly intelligent and committed co-workers who are sensitive to reasoning. This combined with the experiences of their mutual agreement on the necessity of change, gave lot of the interviewees a perceived support of their peers.
Every interviewee expressed up to some level that the executive development program was appropriate, but for the larger part only for its content-part and most saw it just as a form of alignment with the whole group. The managerial skills part was useful to some, but not necessarily appropriate due to the amount of time, lack of support to implement it or if they themselves were suited for managerial functions. We will look further into this particular finding in the discussion section of this paper.
Self-efficacy was not so much as an issue, except that some just did not find time to do what was required. Most interviewees were however confident in their efficacy and the company’s efficacy to achieve things. The follow-up question for that, ‘If you say we can do it, why have we not done it already?’ was however met with answers such as, ‘well I try to, and most in my division do it too, but I know of stories were things go very different.’ This does not necessarily contradict their view on peer support, but the habit to accredit most problems to others is remarkable and suggests a different cause. This will be further discussed in the following chapter.
Commitment to Change
Commitment to change, especially normative and continuance, was expressed more implicit. Most of the interviewees embraced the content of Gasunie 2012 and giving support for affective commitment. Some embraced the upcoming change whatever its form, while others were more weary in what would actually change and how much. Uncertainty is in this sense the issue and the interviewees often addressed a need for clear and transparent communication. For the record, these interviews were done before the actual organizational change was announced.
Although normative commitment was not outspoken, most interviewees expressed their organizational identity with Gasunie and spoke in ‘we’ form instead of ‘they’. Several even literally expressed the values that they held dear that are similar with the organization’s mission. Although not everyone expressed a level of oneness with the company, based on their familiarity with the company and their colleagues, the expressed values and their tenureship, a rather large indication was present that most of the interviewees have a form of loyalty towards the company and a level of normative commitment.
Conclusion
5. DISCUSSION
In the following chapter we will interpret our combined results, discuss limitations of this research, give recommendations for future research and make our final conclusion.
5.1 Interpretation of the results
Looking back at the research question and the conceptual model we expected to see that attitudes would lead to higher commitment to change and eventually behaviour. Based on that model we have stated several hypotheses and did a mixed method approach to analyse it. A conclusion of this research could be, with respect to the results, that the conceptual model is correct. Several hypotheses were accepted and supported the theory that attitudes relate to affective commitment to change. A majority of the executive population is aligned and ready for organizational change.
The interviews give a different perspective. At first glance the interviews would support most of the quantitative results. This would answer our research question and that the theorized beliefs are indeed related to commitment for change in which appropriateness and peer support have the greatest contribution. Even more, the assessment tools we used indeed provide valuable information for change agents and organization. But that would be cutting corners. Most interviewees expressed the need for change not for themselves, but for others. On an individual level, department level or organizational level. This justification to put reasons and/or subjects for change at someplace other than themselves was perceived at almost every interviewee on several levels. And whether right or wrong, because people might be telling the truth or actually believe that they indeed perform efficiently, self-reflection tends to miss out and their circular argumentation stands out. This observation would imply that although the conceptual model can be accepted, it does not provide the entire picture and lacks an essential component.
5.2 Theoretical explanation
occurrence might be that several respondents inhibit an external locus of control. Locus of control refers to the fact whether people perceive that their outcome of behaviour stems from themselves (internal) or from outside influences (external) (Rotter, 1990). Persons with an external locus would probably place the blame elsewhere. Accordingly locus of control operates more strongly in new situations, a characteristic with change, and that the locus of control should be measured instead of self-efficacy as an expectancy to behaviour (Rotter, 1992). Ajzen (2002) disagrees as he perceives locus of control to be conceptually different from the measurement of self-efficacy and should not influence it. Even if managers approach goals from an external locus of control they could still believe in self-efficacy, by help from outside influences. Nevertheless locus of control might be the cause of our contradicting findings.
Another psychological effect, that avoids this discussion and could explain this occurrence, would be cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957). This effect occurs when behaviour is inconsistent with their attitudes and the subject has a tendency to reduce this inconsistency by changing their attitudes to their behaviour or vice versa. For example, when a manager argues that he has not got enough time to do it, he lowers the value of the change, saying that the change was not valuable to begin with instead of trying to find the time to do it. This perception of ‘reality’ and its distortion can explain the justifications or circular argumentation we perceived during the interviews.
5.3 Limitations
Although this research has yielded interesting results, there are also some limitations to this research that should be addressed. The replicability of this research is somewhat constricted by the context in which this research was performed. It was conducted only one time and in one specific organization. The self-reporting nature of the survey perhaps is flawed, but we will attend to that in the following paragraph. Some questions were removed in the survey, which might have led to measuring differently than the original authors. Nevertheless, we feel it has still measured what was intended. Another limitation is the sample size of the survey. A response of 53 is quite low for statistical procedures, however we confined to this number, due to the fact that there were not many other executives available.
The fact that organizational identity in the survey was not significant could be a fallacy of the measurement scale. One could of course argue that organizational identity perhaps is not that strong, but the survey simply gave various results. This would imply that either organizational identity is not suitable as a construct to measure subjective norms or the scale was not good. We assume the latter, since what was expressed during the interviews was often commitment and respect for their organization, their colleagues and their work. We are interested to see if other researches can provide more evidence for its application with respect to this topic.
5.4 Other recommendations for future research
This research has shown the value of doing mixed method studies as both methods gave a more complete image than when we would have had with simply one method. In turn it gave us better understanding on how to interpret both results. Although the quantitative research has shown its empirical value, the qualitative research portrayed a different interpretation into these results. If we had conducted a single method approach, we would have misunderstood our results and make faulty conclusions.
The appreciative interview method certainly has given its value, although it is probably more useful, when practiced for building theory or for contextual purposes. Due to the open nature of this method is specifically meant to let the participants lead the conversation, whereas the interviewer itself only serves as a guide. Nevertheless, we feel that appreciative interviewing has its value, since through our interviews we gained useful information for this research, but a great deal of other information as well. Furthermore, the low entry level for inexperienced interviewers makes this method very easy to use, while the positive approach also makes it enjoyable and understandable for both parties.
caused by a locus of control, cognitive dissonance or other unknown reasons. If we can shed more light on this matter, it would greatly enrich our knowledge regarding these models.
5.5 Implications for practice
Based on the findings of this research, what can organizations do to really let their managers commit to change programs and in turn change their behaviour and organization? First accepting that assessment tools alone cannot provide all the answers. We underscore its value to measure mentality, but we have reservations to use it as a justification to proceed further in the change process. The larger the population the more one could be inclined to use assessment tools, nevertheless we feel that qualitative information can supply a lot of contextual information.
With regard to future development initiatives, one should be aware of people’s internal and external locus of control and act upon that knowledge. Furthermore to reduce cognitive dissonance a possible solution is suggested by Stone and Fernandez (2008), who suggest a hypocrisy procedure that can be effective to motivate people to show the intended behaviour. This procedure makes people aware of their pre-existing inconsistencies while completing certain tasks. One task is publicly advocating, the importance of the intended behaviour, in our case, why change is necessary in front of their peers or employees. Since peer support is one of the strengthening factors to commitment in our model, this would perhaps be even more reinforced to change behaviour. The second step is to actually confront these persons when they do not show their advocated behaviour. According to Stone and Fernandez (2008) this leads to that person becoming aware of their dishonesty, and since people uphold their integrity as important they will adjust their behaviour to that what they have preached. It is not the goal to publicly humiliate these persons, so one should deal with this respectfully, but still try to enable self-insight in people’s own behaviour.
5.6 Final Conclusion
REFERENCE LIST
Ajzen, I., 1991. The Theory of Planned Behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human
Decision Processes, 50: 179-211.
Ajzen, I., 2002. Perceived Behavioural Control, Self-Efficacy, Locus of Control, and the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(4): 665-683.
Armenakis, A.A., Bernerth, J.B., Pitts, J.P. & Walker, H.J. 2007. Organizational Change Recipients' Beliefs Scale. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 43(4): 481-505.
Armitage, C.J. & Connor M., 2001. Efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behaviour: A Meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40: 471-499.
Balogun, J., 2006. Managing Change: Steering a Course between Intended Strategies and Unanticipated Outcomes. Long Range Planning, 39: 29-49.
Bandura, A., 1995. Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Battilana, J., M. Gilmartin, M. Sengul, A. Pache & J. A. Alexander, 2010. Leadership competencies for implementing planned organizational change. The Leadership Quarterly, 21:422-438.
Briggs, S.R. & Cheek, J.M., 1986. The role of factor analysis in the development and evaluation of personality scales. Journal of Personality, 54(1): 106-148.
Carden, L.L. & Callahan, J.L. 2007. Creating leaders or loyalists? Conflicting identities in a leadership development programme. Human Resource Development International, 10(2):169-186.
Chiaburu, D.S. & Marinova, S.V., 2005. What predicts Skill Transfer? An Exploratory Study Of Goal-orientation, Training Self-Efficacy and Organizational Supports. International
Journal of Training & Development, 9 (2): 110-123.
Colquitt, J.A., Lepine, J.A. & Noe, R.A., 2000. Toward an integrative Theory of Training Motivation: A Meta-Analytic Path Analysis of 20 years of Research. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85(5): 678-707.
Creswell, J.W., 2008. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. New Jersey: Pearson Education.
Elias, S.M,. 2007. Employee Commitment in Times of Change: Assessing the Importance of Attitudes towards Organizational Change. Journal of Management, 35(1): 37-55.
Festinger, L. ,1957 (reprint). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Field, A., 2005. Discovering Statistics using SPSS. London: Sage Publications.
Fisher, J.M., 2005. A Time for Change? Human Resource Development International,8(2): 257-263.
Fink, E.L, Kaplowitz, S.A., & Bauer, C.L., 1983. Positional Discrepancy, Psychological Discrepancy, and Attitude Change: Experimental Tests of some Mathematical Models.
Foster, R.D., 2010. Resistance, Justice and Commitment to Change. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 21(1): 3-39.
Geletkanycz, M.A.A, 1997. The Salience of ‘Culture’s Consequences’: Three Effects of Cultural Values on Top Executive Commitment to the Status Quo. Strategic Management
Journal, 18(8): 615-634.
Hambrick, D.C., & Mason, P.A, 1984. Upper-Echelons: The Organization as a Reflection of Its Top Managers. The Academy of Management Review, 9(2): 193-206.
Hamilton, F. & Bean, C.J. 2005. The importance of context, beliefs and values in leadership development. Business Ethics: A European Review, 14(4): 336-347.
Herscovitch, L. & Meyer, J.P., 2002. Commitment to Organizational Change: Extension of a Three-Component Model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3): 474-487.
Jimmieson, N.L., White, K.M, & Zajdlewicz, L., 2009. Psychosocial Predictors of Intentions to Engage in Change Supportive Behaviours in Organizational Context. Journal of Change
Management, 9(3): 233-250.
Kavanagh, M.H., & Ashkanasy, N.M., 2006. The Impact of Leadership and Change Management Strategy on Organizational Culture and Individual Acceptance of Change during a Merger. British Journal of Management, 17: 81-103.
Kegan, R. & Lahey L.L., 2001. The real reason people won’t change. Harvard Business
Review, 79(10): 84-92.
Knippenberg, van, B., Martin, L., & Tyler, T., 2006. Process-orientation versus outcome orientation during organizational change: the role of organizational identification. Journal of
Knippenberg, van, D. & Sleebos, E., 2006. Organizational Identification versus Organizational Commitment: Self-definition, social exchange and job attitudes. Journal of
Organizational Behaviour, 27: 571-584.
Lewin, K. 1945. Conduct, Knowledge and Acceptance of New Values. In G.W. Lewin (Eds.),
Resolving Social Conflicts, 48-56, Washington: American Psychological Association.
Lewin, K. 1946. Behaviour and Development as a function of the Total Situation. In D. Cartwright (Eds.). Field Theory in Social Science, 337-381, Washington: American Psychological Association
Lorsch, J.W., 1986. Managing Culture: The Invisible Barrier to Strategic Change. California Management Review, 28(2): 95-109.
Madsen S.R., Miller, D. & John, C.R., 2005. Readiness for Organizational Change: Do Organizational Commitment and Social Relationships in the Workplace Make a Difference?
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16(2): 213-233.
Martin, H.J., 2010. Workplace Climate and Peer Support as Determinants of Training Transfer. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 21(1): 87-104.
McCracken, G., 1988. The Long Interview. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Meyer, P.M., Srinivas, E.S, Lal J.B. & Topolnytsky, L., 2007. Employee commitment and support for an organizational change: Test of the three-component model in two cultures.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80: 185–211.
Neves, P., 2009. Readiness for Change: Contributions for Employees’ Level of Individual Change and Turnover Intentions. Journal of Change Management, 9(2): 215-231.
Pallant, J., 2007. SPSS Survivor Manual. New York: Open University Press.
Paglis, L.L. & Green, S.G., 2002. Leadership Self-Efficacy and Manager’s Motivation for Leading Change. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 23(2): 215-235.
Paglis, L.L., 2010. Leadership Self-Efficacy: Research findings and practical applications.
Journal of Management Development, 29(9): 771-782.
Piderit, S.K., 2000. Rethinking Resistance and Recognizing Ambivalence: A Multidimensional View of Attitudes Toward an Organizational Change. Academy of
Management Review, 25(4): 783-794.
Pool, S., & Pool, B., 2006. A management development model: Measuring organizational commitment and its impact on job satisfaction among executives in a learning organization.
Journal of Management Development, 26(4): 353-369.
Randall, J. & Procter, S, 2008. Ambiguity and Ambivalence: Senior managers’ accounts of organizational change in a restructured government department. Journal of Change
Management, 21(6): 686-700.
Rotter, J.B., 1990. Internal versus External control of reinforcement: A case history of a variable. American Psychologist, 45(4): 489-493.
Rotter, J.B., 1992. Some comments on the Cognates of personal control, Applied &
Preventive Psychology. 1: 127-129
Smith, R,, Jayasuriya, R., Caputi, P. & Hammer, D., 2008. Exploring the role of goal theory in understanding training motivation. International Journal of Training and Development, 12(1): 54-72.
Smollan, R.K. & J.G. Sayers. 2009. Organizational Culture, Change and Emotions: A Qualitative Study. Journal of Change Management, 9(4): 435-457.
Sonenshein, S., 2010. We’re changing- or are we? Untangling the role of progressive, regressive and stability narratives during strategic change implementation. Academy of
Management Journal, 52(3): 477-512.
Stone, J. & Fernandez, N.C., 2008. To practice what we preach: The use of Hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance to motivate behaviour change. Social and Personality Psychology
Compass, 2(2); 1024-1051.
Thompson, E.R., & Phua, F.T.T., 2005. Are National Cultural Traits Applicable to Senior Firm Managers? British Journal of Management, 16: 59-68.
APPENDIX Appendix A: Survey questions
Geachte Heer/Mevrouw,
Ten eerste dank voor het feit dat u de tijd neemt om deze vragenlijst te willen invullen. De resultaten uit deze lijst kunnen onze nieuwe handvaten geven om verder te gaan met
Gasunie 2012 en te kijken waar we onze nadruk verder op willen zetten. Deze vragenlijst zal anoniem zijn en zoals u mag verwachten met eer en geweten behandeld worden.
Het thema van deze vragenlijst gaat over Gasunie 2012 en de voorlopige resultaten hiervan. Iedere vraag bevat een stelling die u kunt beantwoorden middels vijf keuzeopties. Opties hierin zijn zeer eens, eens, neutraal, oneens, zeer oneens.
Uiteraard staat het u vrij de tijd nemen om de vragen te beantwoorden, maar in principe kunt u deze vragenlijst binnen 10 minuten makkelijk beantwoorden.
Vragenlijst
1. Heeft u Gasunie 2012 al afgerond?
2. Voor de toekomst is het noodzakelijk dat het personeel van Gasunie fit for purpose wordt.
3. Het is binnen mijn vermogen om met de management drives, waarin ik inzicht heb gekregen, mijn voorkeursleiderschapstijl optimaal toe te passen binnen Gasunie. 4. Met de bewustwording van mijn leiderschapstijl, zal ik meer plezier beleven in mijn
werk.
5. We moeten de manier waarop we te werk gaan binnen Gasunie verbeteren. 6. De meeste van mijn collega's omarmen Gasunie 2012.
7. De bewustwording van onze leiderschapstijlen zal betere resultaten opleveren voor Gasunie.
8. Door Gasunie 2012 kan ik de gewenste leiderschapstijl in mijn functie beter toepassen. 9. Doordat ik meer bewust ben van mijn leiderschapstijl en dit kan toepassen, zal ik ook
een hoger salaris krijgen.
10. De RvB+ staat achter Gasunie 2012.
11. De thema's die besproken worden in Gasunie 2012 sloten goed aan bij de huidige situatie waarin Gasunie zich bevind. Geheugensteun: De thema's van Gasunie 2012 werden samengevat onder de 4 modules: Melting Iceberg, Learning Organisation, Changing Envir
12. Het is voor mijzelf mogelijk om mijn taken in aansluting op de thema's van Gasunie 2012 succesvol uit te voeren.
13. Om de effectiviteit te verbeteren moet Gasunie de uitvoering van de operationele activiteiten veranderen.
14. Door bewustwording van mijn leiderschapstijl zal ik meer voldoening uit mijn werk halen.
15. De meerderheid van mijn collega’s heeft zich ingespannen om Gasunie 2012 tot een succes te laten leiden.
