Change recipients’ beliefs and the readiness
for change and for institutionalization
“Competitors may understand a company’s products, technology, and finances, but they cannot easily replicate management processes that are deeply embedded in a company’s
traditions and culture”
David A.G. Simon
Master Thesis, Msc BA, Specialisation Change Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
Change recipients’ beliefs and the readiness
for change and for institutionalization
Abstract
This research examines the readiness assessment instrument of Armenakis et al. (1999) at insurance company XYZ. Armenakis et al. (1999) argue that the instrument can be used during the readiness phase as well as the institutionalization phase of a change initiative. However, it can be argued that the focus of the instrument should be adapted to assess a different kind of readiness, which is supported by the theory on institutionalization. The instrument should focus on the readiness of employees to behave according to the new way of working and their commitment towards the new way of working. Therefore, this research tries to create an assessment instrument for readiness during the institutionalization phase. The results show that the created instrument has a stronger positive relationship with readiness for institutionalization than the instrument of Armenakis et al. (1999). Additionally, the last instrument has a stronger positive relationship with readiness for change than with readiness for institutionalization. It is essential to mention that due to the limited amount of data this research should be regarded as a preliminary step in developing an instrument to assess readiness during the institutionalization phase.
Keywords: Change, beliefs, readiness, institutionalization, measurement tool.
Table of content
Abstract ... 2
Introduction ... 4
Theory ... 7
2.1 Readiness and the beliefs ... 7
2.2 Institutionalization and the beliefs ... 8
2.3 Hypotheses... 10
Method ... 13
3.1 Research setting ... 13
3.2 Data collection ... 14
3.3 Measurement ... 15
3.4 Preliminary data analysis ... 16
3.4.1 Validity and reliability ... 17
3.4.2 Normal distribution ... 20 Results ... 21 4.1 General statistics ... 21 4.2 Correlation ... 21 4.3 Simple regression ... 22 4.4 Multiple regression... 22 Conclusion... 24 5.1 Hypothesis 1 ... 24 5.1 Hypothesis 2 ... 24 Discussion ... 25
6.1 Implication for the organization ... 26
6.2 Limitations ... 27
6.2 Further research ... 27
References ... 29
Appendix A: The questionnaire for the readiness group ... 33
Appendix B: The questionnaire for the institutionalization group ... 35
Appendix C: The introduction letter for the readiness group ... 37
Appendix D: The introduction letter for the institutionalization group ... 38
Appendix E: Validity & Reliability Readiness phase ... 39
Appendix G: Results Spearman’s correlation test readiness ... 52
Appendix H: Results Spearman’s correlation test Institutionalization ... 53
Appendix I: Results for the regression analyse of readiness phase ... 54
Introduction
Change is essential for organizations to cope with the economic, technological, social or political changes in their environment (Jacobs and Russ-Eft, 2001; Burnes, 2004). Kotter and Schlesinger (1979) state that most organizations initiate major changes every four or five years and moderate changes at least once a year. Due to global competition the pace of changes initiated by organizations has increased during the years (Armenakis, Harris, and Field, 1999). As the pace of the changes within an organization increases, members are frequently faced with changes that are implemented as quick fix with little commitment for their long-term success. Therefore, members can see the changes as another fad-of-the-month and wait before they commit themselves to the change. This can be harmful for the timeline and success of a change initiative. When organizational members see the change initiative like this it decreases the chance of sustaining the change, which is also called institutionalization (Armenakis, Harris, and Field, 1999). Consequently, it is important for managers or change agents to understand how to successfully implement change initiatives (Armenakis and Harris, 2002; 2009).
models (Armenakis and Bedeian, 1999). One difference is for example that Tichy and Devanna (1986) also have three steps however the phases are labelled differently: recognizing need for change, creating vision, and institutionalizing change. Another example is the amount of steps/phases used by Kotter (1995) who uses eight steps or Thompson and Fulla (2001) whom use seven steps instead of three to explain how to implement a successful change initiative. In the process theory Lewin (1947) describes that a change is not an event but a process, this is used in other theories as well. Another similarity between the theories is that Fernandez and Rainey (2006) and Kotter (1995) start with ensuring that the members understand the need for the change initiative, which is the same as during the unfreezing phase.
Until now, the organization development and change literature has focused mostly on the readiness for change (unfreezing) and the change process (moving) but has provided limited studies addressing refreezing (institutionalization) (Buchanan et al., 2005; Jacobs, 2002; Jacobs and Russ-Eft, 2001). For example, Kotter and Schlesinger (1979) focus on the various causes for resistance to change and approaches for successfully implementing an organizational change. To overcome the resistance to change of organizational members they mention several strategies during the change process, e.g. education and communication, participation and involvement, and facilitation and support. Another example is that Ford, Ford, and D’Amelio (2008) emphasize that ensuring the need for the change to the members is essential to create readiness for change. Hence, previous research emphasize that readiness of employees is a key driver to successful change initiatives (Armenakis, Harris, and Mossholder, 1993; Cunningham et al., 2002; Eby et al., 2000).
knowledge about institutionalizing the success rate of change initiatives increases. Therefore, this research will especially focus on the institutionalization of a change initiative.
Armenakis, Harris, and Field (1999) state that much of the change initiatives do not become institutionalized due to the failure to guide the initiative through all the phases of a change initiative, from diagnosis until institutionalization. They mention two main reasons for the failure to guide the change initiative through all phases, firstly the change agent assume that successfully going through the introduction and implementation phase will automatically result in institutionalization. Kotter (1995) also recognizes this since he argues that change efforts can fail, because change agents are “declaring victory too soon”. The second reason is that the change agent fails to see the change initiative al the way through to the institutionalization phase. To improve the success rate of change initiatives Armenakis, Harris, and Field (1999) developed an institutionalization model. In their research they elaborate on five antecedents that are used as a tool to assess the readiness for change. The antecedents are beliefs of change recipients towards a change initiative on the following aspects: discrepancy, appropriateness, self-efficacy, principal support, and personal valance.
Discrepancy is defined as information regarding the need for change, taking in mind the
discrepancy between the current state and the ideal state in the organization. Appropriateness referrers to the question: is the specific change the appropriated reaction to the discrepancy?
Self-efficacy refers to the feeling of a recipient if the organizational or the individual is
post-change phase, since they assess the beliefs of the recipient before the post-change happened. Moreover, the five beliefs are mostly related to the readiness phase instead of the institutionalization phase, for example Armenakis, Harris, and Mossholder (1993) mention, “The primary mechanism for creating readiness for change among members of an organization is the message for change” that consists of the beliefs. Additionally, Armenakis et al. (2007) refer to two old studies that describe how a change agent used some of the beliefs to create readiness for change.
Furthermore, to the best of my knowledge the measurement instrument for the beliefs has not yet been assessed during the institutionalization phase. Even though Armenakis et al. (2007) argue that they assessed the beliefs, as they would apply, during the adoption and institutionalization phase since they assessed the beliefs in three organizations were the change initiative was already underway. However, a change initiative that is underway is not the same as a change that is adopted or completed. A change is in the institutionalization phase when the recipients behave according to and are committed to the new way of working. When a change initiative is underway the recipients are starting to change to the new way of working but is not yet fully adopted and they can still fall back to their old routines. For this reasons I conclude that the measurement tool is has not been tested in the institutionalization phase, which is after the change is already implemented. Although, they mention that the measurement tool needs to be adapted they do not explain why the measurement tool needs to be adapted and how it explicitly needs to be adapted. Therefore, this research first explains why the measurement tool needs to be adapted.
Theory
This section shortly elaborates on the theory of readiness for change, since this is a well know concept in the organizational change literature. Furthermore, it elaborates more extensively on the theory of institutionalization and explains the impact of that on the measurement tool to assess the five beliefs.
2.1 Readiness and the beliefs
change initiative. Another definition is that readiness is the cognitive state comprising beliefs, attitudes, and intentions towards a change effort (Armenakis et al., 1999). Where behavioural scientists emphasize that the beliefs play a role in affecting recipient’s behaviour regarding change initiatives. Therefore, when change agents can assess and influence the recipient’s beliefs they consequently can affect the degree of readiness and the success of a change initiative (Piderit, 2000; Szabla, 2007). One technique to influence change recipients readiness is the message communicated via the strategies, the change agent, the interaction between recipients and the social dynamics within the organization. The change message should emphasize the need for change, if this change is the appropriate action, the capability of the organization and its members to implement the change, the support for the initiative, and the benefits related to the change for the organization and the recipients (Armenakis, Harris, and Mossholder, 1993; Armenakis, Harris, and Field, 1999). Hence, the change message should address the five beliefs. There are many articles that support the theory and the significant impact of these beliefs for organization change, which are categorized by each belief in the article by Armenakis et al. (2007). Additionally, as mentioned previously the items to assess the beliefs are pre-change focussed. Hence, it can be concluded that the five beliefs are appropriate for the readiness phase during a change initiative.
2.2 Institutionalization and the beliefs
commitment to the new current state. Where commitment consists of the following three components, firstly, compliance commitment, deals with the expectation of recipients towards rewards and avoiding punishment when adopting. Secondly, identification commitment, that occurs when a recipient adopts the new behaviour to maintain a satisfying relationship. Thirdly, internalization commitment, that occurs when a recipient adopt the new behaviour since it is intrinsically pleasing and seen as appropriate. Other studies also emphasize that commitment influences the degree of institutionalization, where commitment leads to the development of common norms and values (Cummings and Worley, 1997; Goodman and Dean, 1981; Savoie, 1993). Second, Goodman and Dean (1981) create five facets to explain the degree of institutionalization. First, behaviour refers to the cognitive belief of a recipient if he/she is able to perform according to the new way of working. Second, performance, if the new behaviour is performed. Third, preference for the behaviour, focuses on the fact of the recipient likes or dislike performing the new behaviour. Fourth, normative consensus, “refers to the extent that (1) organizational participants are aware of other performing the requisite behaviours and (2) there is consensus about the appropriateness of the behaviour”. Fifth,
social consensus focuses on the degree whether there exist individual values and if the
recipients are aware of the fact that others in the organization hold the same values. The five facets are ordered from low to high degree of institutionalization, since institutionalization starts at the individual level and than ultimately collective normative and social consensus arise. Looking at the three forms of commitment and the five facets it can be concluded that it is post-change oriented, compared to the readiness phase that is pre-change oriented.
measurement tool will probably improve the assessment for the beliefs of change recipients during the institutionalization phase. Hence, in the readiness as well as in the institutionalization phase the readiness of change recipients is measured by assessing the beliefs, however the content of the beliefs changes. Additionally, the measurement tool needs to be post-change oriented since than the tool is in line with the theory on degrees of institutionalization, which is also post-change oriented.
Therefore, this research tries to create a measurement instrument that is post-change oriented and focuses on the readiness of change recipients to act according to and show commitment to the new way of working. The study is a preliminary step in the creation of an instrument to assess the readiness during the institutionalization phase and to test if it fits the institutionalization phase and needs to be examined during future research.
2.3 Hypotheses
institutionalization phase (I-scale). So, the R-scale as well as the I-scale consists of items to assess four beliefs. To test these relationships I use the two hypotheses.
The first hypothesis examines the relationship between the independent variable, scale, and two different dependent variables (Rc and Ri) are tested. It is expected that the R-scale has a stronger positive relationship with readiness for change than with readiness for institutionalization. Since, the R-scale assesses the beliefs that indicate the readiness for change and not the readiness for institutionalization, which is a different kind of readiness.
Hypothesis 1: The R-scale has a stronger positive relationship with readiness for change (Rc) than with readiness for institutionalization (Ri).
The second hypothesis tests the relationship between two independent variables (R-scale and I-scale) and the dependent variable, readiness for institutionalization, is tested. It is expected that the I-scale has a stronger positive relationship with readiness for institutionalization than the R-scale. Since, the I-scale is created to assess the beliefs that indicate the readiness for institutionalization and the R-scale has a different focus since it assess the beliefs that indicate readiness for change.
Hypothesis 2: The I-scale has a stronger positive relationship with readiness for institutionalization (Ri) than the R-scale.
Figure 1: Figure 2: Fo Discre effic F Discre effic Fo Discre effic Conceptual m Conceptual m The degree our beliefs ( epancy/app cacy, princip valanc The degree our beliefs epancy/app cacy, princip valanc The degree our beliefs ( epancy/app cacy, princip valanc
model for hypo
Method
This section focuses on the method to investigate the research question. First it elaborates on the research setting, then the data collection, the measures for the variables used in this research, and lastly the preliminary data analysis before testing the hypotheses.
3.1 Research setting
The European Parliament decided that banks and insurance companies should be aware of their processes and their financial status (solvability). This is codified in Solvency II, in EU insurance legislation. Solvency II reflects new risk management practices to define required capital and manage risk. Within insurance company XYZ, which contains around 650 employees, the project “In Control” is started to realise this. The goal of this project is: to be “in control” of 95% of the core processes within XYZ in 2012.
In the first phase of the project the focus is on nine of the 23 core processes. For these processes a process flow is created with the process-owners and the employees of that department. With this information risks are identified and a Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, and Informed table (RACI) and a Risk Control Matrix (RCM) has been created. This results in a list with risks of that particular process, how to control those risks, and who is responsible for each step of the process or a control activity. The previous deliverables are summarized in an overview, which additionally contains recommendations for the process-owners to be more “in control” of the process.
3.2 Data collection
The target population consists of 73 employees from different departments within XYZ who are asked to fill in the questionnaire. The respondents were selectively chosen, based on the phase of the change initiative the respondents are in during the project. The respondents are divided in two groups consisting of 21 employees in the readiness phase and 52 employees in the institutionalization phase. Respondents are placed in the readiness group if they just get started with the “in control” process, and are placed in the institutionalization group if they already work/behave according to the new way of working. A total of 51 employees eventually filled in the questionnaire (response rate of 70%), which was anonymously collected. The amount of respondents for the two groups are respectively 15 in the readiness phase and 36 were in the institutionalization phase. Table 1 shows the gender, age, and function categorization of the readiness and the institutionalization group. Although the response rate of 70% is high; the amount of respondents is to low to make valid conclusions based on the results of the data. The low amount of data has implications for statistical analysis like the normality test and the factor analysis. The implications and limitations will be explained at the specific subsections of this chapter. Hence, as mentioned previously the results are a preliminary step to see whether this measurement tool to assess readiness for institutionalization should be examined more in future research.
Readiness Group Institutionalization Group
Man 5 25 Women 10 11 <20 year 0 0 21 - 35 year 7 0 36 - 45 year 5 26 46 - 55 year 2 9 >56 year 1 1
Head of Department / Process-owner 4 16
Senior employee 7 14
Employee 3 1
Other function 1 5
3.3 Measurement
Two questionnaires are used in this research and are presented in Appendix A and Appendix B. The first questionnaire is used for the employees in the readiness group and the second questionnaire is used for the employees in the institutionalization group. The questionnaires first start with three basic questions and then consists of statements to which the respondents could indicate the degree to which they agreed to the statement on a five point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. The items concern the perception of the individual regarding their beliefs towards the change initiative. On request of the organizational the questionnaires were translated into Dutch. The employees received an email with a link towards the online program “Thesis Tools” were they could fill in the questionnaire. Before the questionnaire was distributed several people tested the questionnaire on duration and formulation of the items. Afore the employees could fill in the questionnaire an introduction letter was showed containing information about the questionnaire. The introduction letters are presented in Appendix C and Appendix D.
Dependent variables. The items used to directly measure the readiness for change and
towards a current state of working is the same as resistance towards changing the current state. Therefore, when employees are committed towards a new way of working the change can be seen as institutionalized (Armenakis, Harris, and Field, 1999; Becker, 1992).The items are tailored to the specific situation for example “If I think about the new way of working I feel happy (emotional), I plan to help colleagues/new employees to work according the new way of working (intentional), For me the new way of working has increased my job satisfaction (cognitive)”. For the cognitive response in the institutionalization questionnaire the following negative item is added, “In my opinion the old way of working has been released to quickly”. This item is added since this fits the previously mentioned reason of why change initiatives fail to sustain, namely the fact that people want to fall back to their old routines. Hence, the items for the readiness and institutionalization are generally the same were for institutionalization the statements are changed from the “change” towards “ the new way of working”.
Independent variables. The items for the measurement tool that are used to assess the
four beliefs are based on the previous study of Holt et al. (2007). As mentioned earlier this research uses four beliefs instead of five and the items are tailored to this specific situation. For example statements for the questionnaire for the readiness group are: “There are legitimate reasons for us to make this change (discrepancy/appropriateness), I have the skills that are needed to make this change work (efficacy), Our senior leaders have encourage all of us to embrace this change (principal support), I am worried I will lose my status in the organization when this change is implemented (valance)”. The measurement tool is adapted to assess the beliefs for the institutionalization group. The items are post-change oriented and focus on the readiness of change recipients to behave according to and commitment to the new way of working, for example: “The new way of working has improved the organization (discrepancy/appropriateness), I am capable of improving the new way of working (efficacy), Managers provide clear signals that the old way of working is not tolerated (principal support), The new way of working has increased my status in the organization (valence)”. Hence, in both phases the readiness of the change recipients is measured by assessing the four beliefs, however the content of the beliefs is adapted in the institutionalization phase.
3.4 Preliminary data analysis
3.4.1 Validity and reliability
3.4.1.2 Results for all items imputed simultaneously
The results for the R-scale during the readiness phase show that the items are divided into seven components. According to the theory the items should be divided in a different way, with only four components (Holt et al. 2007). Additionally, when looking at the items in each component there is no clear red line between the items that indicates the reasons why they are grouped together in the components. This also applies to the items of the dependent variable, Rc, that is divided into four components and the research of Szabla (2007) suggests that the items should be divided into three components.
When looking to the results of the R-scale during the institutionalization phase, the same applies as for the R-scale during the readiness phase. Furthermore, the results of the items for the I-scale show that they should be divided into six components. However, there is no clear red line between the items in the separate components that explains the way the items are divided. The items to measure the dependent variable are divided into three components, with some logical distinction between the items in the components. Component 1 consists of all the reverse coded items, component 2 includes the positive emotional and cognitive items, and component 3 consists of the positive intentional items. The fact that the positive emotional and cognitive items are placed in the same component could be explained by the fact that the cognitive response also has an influence/affinity with the emotional response. For example a high score at the cognitive item, “The new way of working has increased the chance that I keep at this job”, will probably also influence the emotional feeling of a person towards the job. However, Szabla (2007) argues that there is a difference between the emotional response and the cognitive response based on the theory, which is supported by the results of the factor analysis in that research. Additionally, the results show that the reverse coded items are in a separate component and this is in contrary with the study of Szabla (2007). Hence, there is no real logical explanation for the way that the items are divided for the dependent and independent variables in the readiness and institutionalization phase and it is in contradiction with the expectations and the study of Szabla (2007). So, based on these results it does not make sense to combine items into these components.
3.4.1.3 Results for the variables separately
accepted, however for an exploratory research an alpha of 0,60 or higher is satisfactory and is therefore used in this research (Hair et al., 2006). The results show that most of the items for a variable where divided into two components with no logically distinction between the items in each component. Additionally, for most of the variables some items are excluded to increase the variance % and the Cronbach’s alpha. Additionally, the excluding of the items resulted in the fact that the items are placed into one component instead of two without a clear distinction. For the variable discrepancy/appropriateness (R-scale) during the readiness phase I use two components to measure this variable, since there is a clear distinction. The first component includes items related to the reasons for the change and the second component consist of items related to the expected improvements as a result of the change. For the variable efficacy (R-scale) during the institutionalization phase also two components are used, where one component includes items that relate to general efficacy and the other components consist of items that refer to specific work activities. Furthermore, the results show that combined emotional, intentional, and cognitive variables can be summated, which is similar to the theory since these three together represent the response to change of recipients during the readiness phase (Rc) as well as during the institutionalization phase (Ri). The extensive results are presented in appendix E and F, including the explanation for the items that are excluded for each variable. The key results are presented in table 2 that shows the results for readiness phase and in table 3 that shows the results for the institutionalization phase.
Total Variance % Cronbach's Alpha
D/A “reasons” (R-scale) 84,342 0,814
D/A “improvements” (R-scale) 71,517 0,588*
Efficacy (R-scale) 76,407 0,677
Principal support (R-scale) 95,540 0,951
Valance (R-scale) 86,949 0,910
Rc 66,573 0,687
Total Variance % Cronbach's Alpha
D/A (R-scale) 65,830 0,849
Efficacy “general” (R-scale) 65,879 0,686 Efficacy “specific” (R-scale) 69,711 0,565* Principal support (R-scale) 86,931 0,911
Valance (R-scale) 75,063 0,827 Ri 66,866 0,907 D/A (I-scale) 78,073 0,859 Efficacy (I-scale) 77,171 0,842 PS “signals” (I-scale) 72,638 0,810 PS “support” (I-scale) 84,863 0,822 Valance (I-scale) 75,146 0,834
Table 3: The results of the factor and reliability analysis for the R/I-scale and Ri during the institutionalization phase. * The alpha is slightly lower than 0,6.
3.4.2 Normal distribution
This section elaborates on the results for the Kolmogorov – Smirnov test for normal distribution. This test assumes that the data is normally distributed. With a sample size of 30 respondents or lower the normality test is less useful, however the normal distribution test is still performed. Table 4 shows the p-values for the variables with a significance level > 0,05, consequently the null-hypothesis is not rejected and therefore they are normally distributed. The low amount of respondents probably explains the fact that during the readiness phase only the variables efficacy (R-scale) and Rc are normally distributed and the other variables are not normally distributed. During the institutionalization phase only the variables principal support (R-scale) and valance (I-scale) are normally distributed and the other variables are not normally distributed. Nevertheless, the variables that are not normally distributed are still used in this study to provide results that should be perceived as a preliminary step in the creation of a measurement tool.
Readiness phase P-values
Efficacy (R-scale) 0,133
Rc 0,127
Institutionalization phase P-values
Principal support (R-scale) 0,072 Valance (I-scale) 0,095
Results
4.1 General statistics
As previously mentioned, the answers to the items in the questionnaire have a 5-point Likert-scale rating from 1 = Strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Table 5 and 6 show the mean scores and the standard deviation for the answers to the questionnaire for the variables during the readiness and the institutionalization phase. The results show that all variables are moderate positive until positive, since all the scores are higher than 3, which represent neutral.
Mean Std. Deviation
D/A “reasons “(R-scale) 4,2333 0,53005 D/A “improvements” (R-scale) 4,2000 0,49281
Efficacy (R-scale) 3,7333 0,56273
Principal support (R-scale) 3,8667 0,85496
Valance (R-scale) 3,8000 0,86189
Rc 3,8593 0,40682
Table 5:The mean and std. Deviation for the R-scale and Rc during the readiness phase
Mean Std. Deviation
D/A (R-scale) 4,3111 0,55228
Efficacy “general” (R-scale) 4,0000 0,58554 Efficacy “specific” (R-scale) 4,2407 0,45503 Principal support (R-scale) 4,0463 0,68616
Valance (R-scale) 4,2130 0,61800 Ri 3,8981 0,56803 D/A (I-scale) 3,9167 0,51787 Efficacy (I-scale) 3,9444 0,61850 PS “signals” (I-scale) 3,8056 0,59295 PS “support” (I-scale) 3,1759 0,56617 Valance (I-scale) 3,7623 0,51778
Table 6: The mean and std. Deviation for the R/I-scale and Ri during the institutionalization phase.
4.2 Correlation
Spearman test Correlation coefficient Significance
D/A “reasons” (R-scale) - Rc 0,694 0,002**
Principal support (R-scale) - Rc 0,604 0,009**
Principal support (R-scale) - Ri 0,716 0,000**
Valance (R-scale) - Ri 0,509 0,001**
D/A (I-scale) - Ri 0,826 0,000**
Efficacy “general” (I-scale) - Ri 0,640 0,000** Efficacy “specific” (I-scale) - Ri 0,684 0,000**
Valance (I-scale) - Ri 0,717 0,000**
Table 7: Significant results for the correlation test, where * the significance level is < 0,05, ** the significance level is < 0,01
4.3 Simple regression
The simple regression test is used to see if there is a causal relationship between one variable of the R- and I-scale and Rc/Ri. The table below shows the regression coefficient and the ANOVA for the significant simple regressions analysis. The results for all the simple regression analysis are included in appendix G and H.
Simple regression Coefficient ANOVA
D/A “reasons” (R-scale) - Rc 0,468 0,016* Principal support (R-scale) - Rc 0,323 0,005**
Valance (R-scale) - Rc 0,249 0,044*
Principal support (R-scale) - Ri 0,575 0,000**
Valance (R-scale) - Ri 0,596 0,000**
D/A (I-scale) - Ri 0,850 0,000**
Efficacy “general” (I-scale) - Ri 0,740 0,000** Efficacy “specific” (I-scale) - Ri 0,598 0,000**
Valance (I-scale) - Ri 0,733 0,000**
Table 8: Significant results for the simple regression test, where * the significance level is < 0,05, ** the significance level is < 0,01
4.4 Multiple regression
Conclusion
5.1 Hypothesis 1
The R-square from the multiple regression analysis shows that the R-scale explains a larger part of the results for Rc than for Ri, since the R-square for that multiple regression analysis is higher. However, only the variable discrepancy/appropriateness “reasons” (R-scale) is significant in the multiple regression analysis. Additionally, when looking at the results of the simple regression analysis there are three variables of the R-scale that have a significant causal relationship with Rc and two variables of R-scale with Ri. The variables that have a significant causal relationship with Rc are respectively discrepancy/appropriateness “reasons”, principal support, and valance, where the later two also have a significant relationship with Ri. This also indicates that the R-scale have a stronger relationship with Rc than with Ri. The results of the correlation test show that discrepancy/appropriateness “reasons” and principal support are highly correlated with Rc and show that principal support and valance are highly correlated with Ri. These results are almost similar as the results of the simple regression analysis; only valance is not significantly correlated with Rc. Hence, these results, especially the higher R-square, show that the R-scale has a stronger positive relationship with Rc than with Ri. Therefore hypothesis 1 is accepted.
5.1 Hypothesis 2
these variables of the I-scale are better predictors for Ri. So, the I-scale has a stronger positive relationship with Ri than the R-scale. Therefore hypothesis 2 is accepted.
Consequently, it can be concluded that the R-scale has a stronger positive relationship with readiness for change than with readiness for institutionalization, and has a weaker positive relationship with readiness for institutionalization than the I-scale. However, these conclusions should be taken with caution, since they are based on a limited amount of data.
Discussion
The results of the factor analysis in this research are in contradiction with the results of the factor analysis of Armenakis et al. (2007). Since, in this research the beliefs discrepancy/appropriateness, efficacy, principal support, and valance (R-scale) are divided into two components during the readiness phase. The later three are also divided into two components during the institutionalization phase. This is contradiction with the results of Armenakis et al. (2007) since in their research the items are labeled as one component. The same holds for the beliefs of the I-scale; discrepancy/appropriateness, principal support, and valence during the institutionalization phase, which are also divided into two components.
Armenakis et al. (2007) assumes that the beliefs determine readiness for change. This research shows that for the R-scale during the readiness phase the variables discrepancy/appropriateness, principal support, and valance are positively correlated and have a positive regression coefficient with readiness for change. However, in contradiction with the assumption of Armenakis et al. (2007) this research shows that efficacy is negatively correlated and has a negative regression coefficient with readiness for change. The second component of discrepancy/appropriateness (improvements) is also negatively related to readiness for change in the multiple regression analysis. During the institutionalization phase the first component of efficacy (general) is negatively related to readiness for institutionalization in the multiple regression analysis.
is negatively related to both forms of readiness could be explained by the fact that the changes in the work activities after the change to the new way of working are not clearly specified for everybody. This is based on the fact that in group-meetings with the departments I noticed that for most of the recipients it was not clear what the differences in the work activities would be. This could results in low scores for efficacy during the readiness phase, so before the change is implemented, since recipients do not know what the changes in their work activities will be. Furthermore, this could results in higher scores for efficacy after the change, since than the recipients know the impact on their work. The mean scores indeed show that the efficacy score is lower for the readiness group and higher for the institutionalization group. Additionally, efficacy is stronger negatively related to readiness for change than to readiness for institutionalization. Since, the efficacy coefficients during the institutionalization phase are very weakly negative and only during the multiple regression analyses and the efficacy coefficient during the readiness phase is much higher and negative during the simple- and the multiple regression.
6.1 Implication for the organization
6.2 Limitations
Even though, the response rate from the target population is 70%, which is a very high percentage, this research is limited by the fact that it has too little respondents for the questionnaires. Additionally, this research is limited since all the respondents come from one company in the Netherlands. Furthermore, due to time constraints the questionnaires are filled in at one single point in time, instead of multiple points in time, which is preferred. Moreover, the institutionalization of a change initiative takes time, however due to time constraints the data for the institutionalization phase is collected only two months after the change initiative finished. Therefore, it can be argued that the measurement moment is to soon after the change initiative to collect the data. The last limitation is the fact that this research makes use of self-created items for the I-scale, which are not tested before. Due to these limitations of this research the results and conclusion should be interpreted with caution.
6.2 Further research
So, future research should include multiple organizations, increase the amount of respondents, and test the relationships during several moments through time to increase the validity of the results. Moreover, when the measurement tool is applied during the institutionalization phase it should be tested at a later moment in time as in this research, since institutionalization takes time. Additionally, the measurement tool of Armenakis and his colleagues is mostly tested by themselves and they refer to each other, so it should be tested and evaluated by others to improve the measurement tool. Furthermore, the measurement tool should be tested during different change initiatives to see if there are differences in the results. Besides different change initiatives as planned- and emergent change, testing the measurement tool during an ongoing change initiative could be interesting as well, to see if other beliefs are more important during an ongoing change compared to a planned change initiative. Hence, further research is required to test the measurement tool during all kinds of change initiatives and phases.
References
Armanakis, A.A., Harris, S.G., & Mossholder, K.W. 1993. Creating readiness for organizational change. Human Relations, 46(6): 681-703.
Armenakis, A.A., & Bedeian, A.G. 1999. Organizational change: A review of theory and research in the 1990s. Journal of management, 25(3): 293-315.
Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G., & Feild, H.S. 1999. Making change permanent a model for institutionalizing change interventions. Research in organizational change and development, 12: 97-128.
Armenakis, A.A., & Harris, S.G. 2002. Crafting a change message to create transformational readiness. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(2): 169-183.
Armenakis, A.A., Bernerth, J.B., Pitts, J.P., & Walker, H.J. 2007. Organizational change recipients’ beliefs scale development of an assessment instrument. The journal of applied behavioural science, 43(4): 481-505.
Armenakis, A.A., & Harris, S.G. 2009. Reflections: Our journey in organizational change research and practice. Journal of Change Management, 9(2): 127-142.
A.T. Kearney. 1999. Enterprise transformation: Mastering the art and science of managing change. A.T. Kearney, London.
Becker, T. 1992. Foci and bases of commitment: are they distinction worth making? Academy of management journal, 35: 232-244.
Beer, M. The technology of organization development. In M.D. Dunette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organization psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1976.
Buchanan, D., Fitzgerald, L., Ketley, D., Gollop R., Jones, J.L., Lamont, S.S., Neath, A., &Whitby, E. 2005. No going back: a review of the literature on sustaining organizational change. International journal of management reviews, 7(3): 189-205.
Burnes, B. 2004. Managing change: A strategic approach to organizational dynamics. Harlow: Financial times prentice hall.
By, R. 2005. Organizational change management: a critical review. Journal of change management, 5(4): 369-380.
Cummings, T.G., & Worley, C.G. 1997. Organization Development and Change, 6th edition. Minneapolis/St Paul: West.
Cunningham, C. E., Woodward, C. A., Shannon, H. S., Macintosh, J., Lendrum, B., & Rosenbloom, D. 2002. Readiness for organizational change: A longitudinal study, of workplace, psychological and behavioural correlates. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75: 377-392.
Dannefer, E.F., Johnston, M.A., & Krackov, S.K. 1998. Communication and the process of educational change. Academic medicine, 73(9): 16-23.
Eby, L. T., Adams, D. M., Russell, J. E. A., & Gaby, S. H. 2000. Perceptions of organizational readiness for change: Factors related to employees' reactions to the implementation of team-based selling. Human Relations, 53(3): 419-442.
Fernandez, S., & Rainey, H.G. 2006. Managing successful organizational change in the public sector. Public Administration Review, 168-176.
Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & D’Amelio, A. 2008. Resistance to change: The rest of the story. Academy of Management Review, 33(2): 362-377.
Goodman, P.S., & Dean, Jr. J.W. 1981. Creating long-term organizational change. In
Goodman, P. S. 1983. Change in Organizations: New Perspectives on Theory and Research and Practice, 226-280.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. 2006. Multivariate Data Analysis (6th ed). New York: Macmillion Publishing Company.
Hinrichs, J.R. 1978. Practical management for productivity. New York: van Nostrand Reinhold.
Holt, D.T., Armanakis, A.A., Field, H.S., & Harris, S.G. 2007. Readiness for organizational change the systematic development of a scale. The journal of applied behavioural science, 43(2): 232-255.
Jacobs, R.L. 2002. Institutionalizing organizational change through cascade training. Journal of European industrial training, 26(2/3/4): 177-182.
Jacobs, R.L., & Russ-Eft, D. 2001. Cascade training and institutionalizing organizational change. Advances in developing human resources, 3(1): 496 – 503.
Jones, R.A., Jimmieson, N.L., & Griffiths, A. 2005. The impact of organizational culture and reshaping capabilities on change implementation success: the mediating role of readiness for change. Journal of management studies, 42(2): 361-383.
Judson, A.S. 1991. Changing behaviour in organizations: minimizing resistance to change. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Kotter, J.P. 1995. Leading change: why transformation efforts fail? Harvard business review, 73(2): 59-67.
Koys, D. 2001. The effects of employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship behaviour, and turnover, on organizational effectiveness: A unit-level, longitudinal study. Personnel psychology, 54: 101-114.
Lewin, K. 1947. Frontiers in group dynamics. Human relations, 1: 5-41.
Meaney, M., & Pung, C. 2008. McKinsey global results: Creating organizational transformations. the Mckinsey Quarterly, August, 1-7.
Mirvis, P.H., & Berg, D.N. 1977. Failures in Organization Development and Change. Wiley Interscience, New York, NY.
Piderit, S. K.. 2000. Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 25: 783– 794.
Savoie, E. J. 1993. Recognition and revitalization: Fundamentals for sustaining change. Labor Law Journal, 486-491.
Szabla, D. B. 2007. A multidimensional view of resistance to organizational change:
Exploring cognitive, emotional, and intentional responses to planned change across perceived change leadership strategies. Human Resource Development Quaterly, 18(4): 525-558. Thompson, J.R., Fulla, S.L. 2001. Effecting change in a reform context: The national performance review and the contingencies of “microlevel” reform implementation. Public performance and management review, 21(2): 137-155.
Tichy, N.M., & Devanna, M.A. 1986. The transformational leader: moulding tomorrow’s corporate winners. New York: John Wiley.
Appendix A: The questionnaire for the readiness group
1) Wat is uw geslacht?a. Man b. Vrouw
2) In welke leeftijdscategorie valt u? a. 20 jaar or jonger
b. 21 - 35 jaar c. 36 - 45 jaar d. 46 - 55 jaar e. 56 jaar of ouder
3) Welke titel past het beste bij uw functie? a. Bedrijfshoofd / proceseigenaar b. Senior medewerker
c. Medewerker d. Overig
Discrepancy / Appropriateness:
o Er zijn legitieme redenen voor ons om tot de verandering over te gaan o Er zijn rationele redenen voor de verandering
o Ik denk dat de organisatie er profijt van heeft om te veranderen
o De verandering zal de algemene prestatie van de organisatie verbeteren o Het is niet relevant voor ons om te veranderen
o De verandering sluit aan bij de prioriteiten van de organisatie Efficacy:
o Ik voorzie geen problemen bij het aanpassen van mijn werkzaamheden naar aanleiding van de verandering
o Er zijn werkzaamheden die veranderen naar aanleiding van de verandering waarvan ik denk niet in staat te zijn om uit te voeren
o Ik heb het gevoel dat ik mijzelf gemakkelijk aan kan passen naar aanleiding van de verandering
o Ik heb de vaardigheden om de verandering tot een succes te brengen
o Als ik mij er toe zet kan ik leren wat nodig is om de verandering toe te passen Principal Support:
o De managers hebben ons aangemoedigd om de verandering te omarmen o De directieleden hebben er alles aan gedaan om de verandering te steunen o Elke manager heeft het belang van de verandering benadrukt
o De directieleden zijn toegewijd tot de verandering
o Ik heb het gevoel dat we veel tijd spenderen aan de verandering terwijl managers/directieleden niet willen veranderen
o De directie heeft een duidelijk signaal gegeven dat de organisatie gaat veranderen Valance:
o Ik ben bezorgd dat ik mijn status verlies in de organisatie wanneer de verandering is geïmplementeerd
o De verandering zal veel van mijn persoonlijke relaties die ik heb opgebouwd verstoren o Mijn toekomst in deze baan zal worden beperkt door de verandering
o Ik heb het gevoel dat de verandering voor mij op de lange termijn de moeite waard is o De verandering zal mijn werk makkelijker maken
Emotional:
o Als ik aan de verandering denk voel ik me blij o Als ik aan de verandering denk voel ik me enthousiast o Als ik aan de verandering denk voel ik me verdrietig o Als ik aan de verandering denk voel ik me boos Intentional:
o Ik ben van plan om suggesties aan te dragen om deze verandering te implementeren o Ik ben van plan om andere aan te moedigen om de verandering tot een succes te maken o Ik ben van plan om andere aan te moedigen om de verandering tegen te gaan
o Ik ben van plan om me tegen de verandering te verzetten Cognitive:
Appendix B: The questionnaire for the institutionalization group
1) Wat is uw geslacht?a. Man b. Vrouw
2) In welke leeftijdscategorie valt u? a. 20 jaar of jonger
b. 21 - 35 jaar c. 36 - 45 jaar d. 46 - 55 jaar e. 56 jaar of ouder
3) Welke titel past het beste bij uw functie? a. Bedrijfshoofd / proceseigenaar b. Senior medewerker
c. Medewerker d. Overig
Discrepancy / Appropriateness:
o Er zijn legitieme redenen voor ons om tot de verandering over te gaan o Er zijn rationele redenen voor de verandering
o Ik denk dat de organisatie er profijt van heeft om te veranderen
o De verandering zal de algemene prestatie van de organisatie verbeteren o Het is niet relevant voor ons om te veranderen
o De verandering sluit aan bij de prioriteiten van de organisatie Efficacy:
o Ik voorzie geen problemen bij het aanpassen van mijn werkzaamheden naar aanleiding van de verandering
o Er zijn werkzaamheden die veranderen naar aanleiding van de verandering waarvan ik denk niet in staat te zijn om uit te voeren
o I heb het gevoel dat ik mijzelf gemakkelijk aan kan passen naar aanleiding van de verandering o Ik heb de vaardigheden de verandering tot een succes te brengen
o Als ik mij er toe zet kan ik leren wat nodig is om de verandering toe te passen Principal Support:
o De managers hebben ons aangemoedigd om de verandering te omarmen o De directieleden hebben er alles aan gedaan om de verandering te steuren o Elke manager heeft het belang van de verandering benadrukt
o De directieleden zijn toegewijd tot de verandering
o Ik heb het gevoel dat we veel tijd spenderen aan de verandering terwijl managers/directieleden niet willen veranderen
o De directie heeft een duidelijk signaal gegeven dat de organisatie gaat veranderen Valance:
o Ik ben bezorgd dat ik mijn status verlies in de organisatie wanneer de verandering is geïmplementeerd
o De verandering zal veel van mijn persoonlijke relaties die ik heb opgebouwd verstoren o Mijn toekomst in deze baan zal worden beperkt door de verandering
o Ik heb het gevoel dat de verandering op de lange termijn de moeite waard is voor mij o De verandering zal mijn werk makkelijker maken
Emotional:
o Als ik aan de nieuwe manier van werken denk voel ik me blij o Als ik aan de nieuwe manier van werken denk voel ik me enthousiast o Als ik aan de nieuwe manier van werken denk voel ik me verdrietig o Als ik aan de nieuwe manier van werken denk voel ik me boos Intentional:
o Ik ben van plan om volgens de nieuwe manier van werken te handelen
o Ik ben van plan om collega’s / nieuwe werknemers te helpen om volgens de nieuwe manier te werken te handelen
o Ik ben van plan om andere de negatieve aspecten van de nieuwe manier van werken te laten inzien
o Ik ben van plan om te kijken of we terug kunnen naar de oude manier van werken Cognitive:
o De nieuwe manier van werken heeft mijn tevredenheid in mijn werk doen toenemen o De nieuwe manier van werken heeft de werkwijze van de afdeling verbeterd o Het is voor mij belangrijk om volgens de nieuwe manier te werken
o De nieuwe manier van werken vergroot de kans dat ik hier zal blijven werken o In mijn menig de oude manier van werken is te snel losgelaten
Discrepancy / Appropriateness:
o De nieuwe manier van werken heeft de afdeling / organisatie verbeterd o Op het moment zijn er geen plannen om de manier van werken te veranderen o Ik denk dat er geen directe verandering noodzakelijk is m.b.t. de manier van werken o Naar mijn mening is de nieuwe manier van werken functioneel
o De nieuwe manier van werken heeft voordelen voor de afdeling / organisatie Efficacy:
o Ik beschik over de kennis om volgens de nieuwe manier te werken o Ik ben in staat om op de nieuwe manier te werken
o Ik ben in staat om de nieuwe manier van werken te verbeteren
o Ik heb hulp nodig bij het handelen volgens de nieuwe manier van werken o Ik leer om steeds beter volgens de nieuwe manier te werken
o Ik ben in staat om collega’s / nieuwe medewerkers te helpen om volgens de nieuwe manier te werken
Principal support:
o De directieleden steunen de nieuwe manier van werken o Mijn manager steunt de nieuwe manier van werken
o Managers geven duidelijke signalen af dat de oude manier van werken niet gewenst is
o Managers geven duidelijke signalen af dat medewerkers worden geacht om volgens de nieuwe manier van werken te handelen
o Elk directielid/manager benadrukt het belang van de nieuwe manier van werken Valance:
o De nieuwe manier van werken heeft mijn status in de organisatie vergroot
o De nieuwe manier van werken heeft mijn persoonlijke relaties die ik heb opgebouwd verstoord o De nieuwe manier van werken biedt geen winst voor mij
o Mijn toekomst in deze baan is vergroot door de nieuwe manier van werken
o Ik heb het gevoel dat de verandering op de lange termijn de moeite waard is voor de organisatie
Ap
Geachte m Hierbij on Verander Het Europ hoogte m project Zw project. D streven is wordt er v risicobew zijn is het organisat Om betek belang. D eenvoudi De meest hoeverre antwoord indruk is deze vrag In de stel aantoonb Belangrij dit onderz worden g Mocht u v met Robe Alvast ha Met vrien Robert B Onder beppendix
medewerker, ntvangt u een rmanagement pese Parlemen moeten zijn van witserleven In De doelstelling s in control te verwacht dat d wust handelt co t ondertekenen tie brede veran kenisvolle resu Daarom willeng en zal circa te vragen in de
u het eens of den zijn; wij zi
vaak de beste gen toch allem
llingen wordt baar “In Con
k om te weten zoek gebruikt geen namen ge
vragen hebben ert Bok, op tel artelijk dank v ndelijke groet, ok egeleiding van
C: The
vragenlijst di aan de Rijksu nt heeft de we n hun processe n Control (ZL g is om in 201 zijn over 100 de medewerke onform de bin n van een In C ndering. ultaten te verk n wij u vragen 10 a 15 minu e vragenlijst z oneens bent m ijn juist geïnte e. Het kan ook maal invult. t het woord “ ntrol” worden n is dat deelna t en strikt vertr enoemd en het n over het inv lefoonnumme voor uw medew , n dr. J.C.L. Pauintroduc
ie is ontwikke universiteit in et/regelgeving en en hun fina IC) opgestart 12 in control te % van de kern ers hun verric nnen Zwitserle Control Verkla krijgen en het deze elektron uten duren. zijn geformule met de stelling eresseerd in uw k zijn dat u som“verandering n en blijven.
ame aan dit on rouwelijk en a t zal niet duid vullen van de v
r 06-4619121 werking.
ul
ction lett
eld in het kade Groningen. g aangepast wa anciële status. t. De afdeling e zijn over 95 nprocessen. O chtingen en ge even geaccept aring (ICV). H onderzoek te nische vragenl eerd als stellin g. Houd hierbi w mening. De mmige stellin g” gebruikt. H nderzoek gehe anoniem verw delijk zijn welk
vragenlijst of 1 of via het
e-ter for th
er van mijn afs aardoor banke Om dit te rea AO.IB heeft % van de kern Om als organis edrag aanpasse teerde risico’s Het bovenstaa laten slagen, lijst in te vulle ngen. Hierbij i ij in gedachten enkt u niet te l gen op elkaar
Het woord ver
eel anoniem is werkt. In de ein ke antwoorden over het onde -mailadres rob Raym Mana
he readin
studeeronderz en en verzeker aliseren is binn de verantwoo nprocessen, w satie en/of afd en. Tevens wo s. Een voorbee ande kan word is uw medewe en. Het invulle s het de bedoe n dat er geen g lang over iedeApp
Geachte m Hierbij on Verander Het Europ hoogte m project Zw project. D om in 20 zijn word men risic control zi als een or Om betek belang. D eenvoudi De meest hoeverre antwoord indruk is deze vrag Het is be plaatsgev verwijst wordt ve te zijn. Belangrij dit onderz genoemd Mocht u v met Robe Alvast ha Met vrien Robert B Onder bependix D
medewerker, ntvangt u een rmanagement pese Parlemen moeten zijn van witserleven In De doelstelling 13 in control t dt er verwacht cobewust hand ijn is het onde rganisatie bred kenisvolle resu Daarom willen g en zal circa te vragen in de u het eens of den zijn; wij zivaak de beste gen toch allem
elangrijk dat vonden. In de
naar het aan erstaan de we
k om te weten zoek gebruikt d en het zal nie
vragen hebben ert Bok, op tel artelijk dank v ndelijke groet, Bok egeleiding van
D: The in
vragenlijst di aan de Rijksu nt heeft de we n hun processe n Control (ZL g is om in 201 te zijn over 10 dat de medew delt conform d ertekenen van de verandering ultaten te verk n wij u vragen 10 a 15 minu e vragenlijst z oneens bent m ijn juist geïnte e. Het kan ook maal invult. Alu bij het invu e stellingen w ntoonbaar “In erkzaamhede n is dat deelna t en strikt vertr et duidelijk zij n over het inv lefoonnumme voor uw medew , n dr. J.C.L. Pau
ntroducti
ie is ontwikke universiteit in et/regelgeving en en hun fina IC) op gestar 12 in control te 00% van de ke werkers hun v de binnen Zwi een In Contro g. krijgen en het deze elektron uten duren. zijn geformule met de stelling eresseerd in uw k zijn dat u som ls een vraag voullen van de s wordt het woo n Control” wo
n die na de v
ame aan dit on rouwelijk en a jn welke antw vullen van de v r 06-4619121 werking. ul
ion lette
group
eld in het kade Groningen. g aangepast wa anciële status. rt. De afdeling e zijn over 95 ernprocessen. errichtingen e itserleven gea ol Verklaring onderzoek te nische vragenl eerd als stellin g. Houd hierbi w mening. De mmige stellin olgens u niet v stellingen ing ord “verande orden en blij verandering w nderzoek gehe anoniem verw woorden u hebt vragenlijst of 1 of via het
e-er for the
er van mijn afs aardoor banke Om dit te rea g AO.IB heeft % van de kern Om als organ en gedrag aanp ccepteerde ris (ICV). Het bo laten slagen, lijst in te vulle ngen. Hierbij i ij in gedachten enkt u niet te l gen op elkaar van toepassin gedachte houd ring” gebruik ven. Onder “ worden uitgev eel anoniem is werkt. In de ein t gegeven. over het onde -mailadres rob Raym Mana
e institut
studeeronderz en en verzeker aliseren is binn de verantwoo nprocessen, w nisatie en/of af passen. Teven sico’s. Een voo ovenstaande kis uw medewe en. Het invulle s het de bedoe n dat er geen g lang over iede
vindt lijken. H g is kunt u neu dt dat de vera kt. Het woord “de nieuwe m voerd om aan s. Uw gegeven ndrapportage w erzoek, dan ku bert.j.bok@gm mond Roussou ager afdeling A
tionaliza
zoek, voor de M raars beter op nen Zwitserle ordelijkheid v waarbij het streAppendix E: Validity & Reliability Readiness phase
To reduce the number of items, the items to measure the independent and dependent variable in the readiness phase are imputed in a factor- and reliability analysis to see if they can be combined. I present the results for the dependent and the independent variables separately and elaborate on the consequences for that particular variable for the measurement during the readiness phase.
The items for the R-scale during the readiness phase
Rotated component matrix Component
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 D/A 1 (R-scale) 0,825 D/A 2 (R-scale) 0,855 D/A 3 (R-scale) 0,904 D/A 4 (R-scale) 0,583 D/A 5 (R-scale) 0,834 D/A 6 (R-scale) 0,505 Effiacy 1 (R-scale) 0,768 Effiacy 2 (R-scale) 0,896 Effiacy 3 (R-scale) 0,277 -0,844 Effiacy 4 (R-scale) 0,702 Effiacy 5 (R-scale) 0,883
Principal Support 1 (R-scale) 0,603 Principal Support 2 (R-scale) 0,831 Principal Support 3 (R-scale) 0,559 Principal Support 4 (R-scale) 0,787 Principal Support 5 (R-scale) 0,87 Principal Support 6 (R-scale) 0,701
The times for the readiness for change
Rotated component matrix Component
1 2 3 4 Emotional 1 0,681 Emotional 2 0,735 Emotional 3 0,752 Emotional 4 0,732 Intentional 1 0,45 -0,809 Intentional 2 0,788 Intentional 3 0,871 Intentional 4 0,802 Cognitive 1 0,883 Cognitive 2 0,822 Cognitive 3 0,822 Cognitive 4 0,839
The results show that the items for the R-scale should be divided into seven components and the items for the dependent variable, readiness, should be divided into four components. However, according to the theory the items should be divided differently and there is no clear explanation for the way the items are grouped together in this research. Therefore, as discussed in the validity & reliability section the items for each variable are imputed separately in the factor analysis to see if those items can be summated into one item. The results are presented and discussed below.
Discrepancy / Appropriateness (R-scale) Rotated component matrix Component
1 2 D/A 1 0,940 D/A 2 0,801 D/A 3 0,858 D/A 4 0,722 D/A 5 0,719 D/A 6 0,597
combined, respectively 84% and 0,814 and 71% and 0,588. Hence, this variable is divided into the following two components:
1) There are legitimate reasons for us the change, there are rational reasons for the change;
2) I think the organization will benefit from the change, the change will improve the organizations performance.
Where components 1 and 2 are labeled “D/A reasons” and “D/A improvements”. Efficacy (R-scale)
Rotated component matrix Component
1 2 Efficacy 1 0,815 Efficacy 2 0,891 Efficacy 3 0,561 Efficacy 4 0,755 Efficacy 5 0,903
The results show that the variable efficacy should be divided into two factors. However, the explanation for the distinction between these two factors is not logically. Therefore, I imputed the items for each component separately in a factor- and reliability analysis. The results for factor 1 show a higher variance % and alpha (76% and 0,677) than the two components combined (72% and 0,619) and factor 2 alone (60% and 0,606) Thus, during this research item 1 and 2 are combined and used to measure efficacy in the readiness phase.
Principal support (R-scale)
Rotated component matrix Component
1 2 Principal Support 1 0,797 Principal Support 2 0,885 Principal Support 3 0,488 Principal Support 4 0,845 Principal Support 5 0,933 Principal Support 6 0,843
(0,951) than the two components combined (73% and 0,785) and component 2 separately (60% and 0,551). Hence, I use factor 1 to measure principal support in the readiness phase. Valance (R-scale)
Rotated component matrix Component
1 2 Valance 1 0,874 Valance 2 0,973 Valance 3 0,883 Valance 4 0,981 Valance 5 0,573 Valance 6 0,870
The results show that the items to measure valance should be divided into two components. However, the explanation for the distinction between the two components is not logically. I imputed the two components separately in a factor- and reliability analysis. The results show that factor 1 has a higher variance (86%) and alpha (0,910) than factor 2 (67% and 0,756) or the two factors combined (81% and 0,839). So, factor 1 is used to measure valance in the readiness phase.
Emotional (Readiness)
Rotated component matrix Component
1 Emotional 1 0,751 Emotional 2 0,793 Emotional 3 0,888 Emotional 4 0,883 Intentional (Readiness)
Rotated component matrix Component
1
Intentional 1 0,537
Intentional 2 0,767
Intentional 3 0,883
Cognitive (Readiness)
Rotated component matrix Component
1
Cognitive 1 0,525
Cognitive 2 0,884
Cognitive 3 0,879
Cognitive 4 0,858
The results show that the items to measure the emotional, intentional, and cognitive components of the response to change are placed into one component. The emotional analysis shows a variance 69% and an alpha of 0,835. The results for the intentional items are placed into one component, however the variance % and alpha are higher when item 1 is excluded. Hence, for intentional the other three items are used, which results in variance 71% and alpha of 0,797. The same holds for the cognitive items, which are also placed into one component but when item 1 is excluded the variance and alpha increase to respectively a variance of 79% and an alpha of 0,856. Thus, the other three items are used to measure the cognitive response to change.
Appendix F: Validity & Reliability Institutionalization phase
To reduce the number of items, the items to measure the independent and dependent variable in the readiness phase are imputed in a factor- and reliability analysis to see if they can be combined. I present the results for the dependent and the independent variables separately and elaborate on the consequences for that particular variable for the measurement during the institutionalization phase.The items of the R-scale during the institutionalization phase
Rotated component matrix Component
1 2 3 4 5 6 D/A 1 (R-scale) 0,843 D/A 2 (R-scale) 0,567 0,594 D/A 3 (R-scale) 0,528 D/A 4 (R-scale) 0,756 D/A 5 (R-scale) 0,801 D/A 6 (R-scale) 0,608 Effiacy 1 (R-scale) 0,883 Effiacy 2 (R-scale) 0,381 -0,731 Effiacy 3 (R-scale) 0,623 Effiacy 4 (R-scale) 0,789 Effiacy 5 (R-scale) 0,864
Principal Support 1 (R-scale) 0,772 Principal Support 2 (R-scale) 0,66 Principal Support 3 (R-scale) 0,863 Principal Support 4 (R-scale) 0,81 Principal Support 5 (R-scale) 0,781 Principal Support 6 (R-scale) 0,761
Valance 1 (R-scale) 0,79 Valance 2 (R-scale) 0,905 Valance 3 (R-scale) 0,759 Valance 4 (R-scale) 0,815 Valance 5 (R-scale) 0,759 Valance 6 (R-scale) 0,541
Discrepancy/appropriateness (R-scale) Rotated component matrix Component
1 D/A 1 0,785 D/A 2 0,890 D/A 3 0,738 D/A 4 0,796 D/A 5 0,587 D/A 6 0,794
The results for the variable discrepancy/appropriateness show that the items are placed into one component. Since item 5 has a low rating this item is excluded in a second factor- and reliability analysis and the variance % and alpha increased, resulting in a variance of 65% and an alpha of 0,849. Hence, I use the remaining five items to measure this variable during the institutionalization phase.
Efficacy (R-scale)
Rotated component matrix Component
1 2 Efficacy 1 0,895 Efficacy 2 0,732 Efficacy 3 0,794 Efficacy 4 0,813 Efficacy 5 0,778
The results show that the items are divided into two components:
1) I have the feeling I can adapt myself easily to the change, I have the capabilities to make the change to a success, if I put effort in I can learn what is necessary to apply the changes. 2) I don’t expected problems adaption my specific work activities because of the change, There are work activities the will change which I think I cannot perform.
Principal support (R-scale)
Rotated component matrix Component
1 2 Principal Support 1 0,843 Principal Support 2 0,600 Principal Support 3 0,854 Principal Support 4 0,939 Principal Support 5 0,940 Principal Support 6 0,846
The items to measure the variable principal support are divided into two components, where the explanation for the distinction between the two groups of items is not clear. I imputed the components separately in the factor- and reliability analysis, where factor 1 has a higher variance % and alpha compared to factor 2 (67% and 0,759) and the combination of the two factors (79% and 0,847). Hence, component 1 is used to measure this variable during the institutionalization phase, with respectively a variance of 86% and an alpha of 0,911.
Valance (R-scale)
Rotated component matrix Component
1 2 Valance 1 0,880 Valance 2 0,924 Valance 3 0,762 Valance 4 0,855 Valance 5 0,773 Valance 6 0,794
