The Indispensable Role of Perception
An Investigation of the Bilateral View on Leadership, Change Magnitude and
Change Success
EVA DE BOER Vlasstraat 30a 9712KV Groningen University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
MSc Business Administration – Change Management Student number: 1871994
Supervisor: Dr. J.F.J. Vos Second supervisor: Dr. J. Rupert
Word count: 11430
2
Abstract
This research investigates the (inter)relationship between perceptions of leadership styles, change magnitude and change success from a bilateral viewpoint (i.e., from both the change agent’s and change recipient’s perspective). This bilateral viewpoint has been largely overlooked so far. A quantitative approach was used and change agents and change recipients from 59 companies participated in this study. It was found that the perceptions regarding leadership styles, change magnitude and change success differed significantly between agents and recipients. In addition, it was found that change agents solely associate change success with the use of shaping, leader-centric leadership behaviors, whereas change recipients also associate change success with the use of framing, group-centric leadership behaviors. The moderating role of change magnitude differed for change agents (the relationship of shaping and creating on change success was moderated) and change recipients (the relationship of creating on change success was moderated).
3
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION 5
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 10
CHANGE SUCCESS 11
FROM ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP TO CHANGE LEADERSHIP 12
CHANGE LEADERSHIP 13
CHANGE MAGNITUDE 14
METHODS 16
DATA AND RESPONDENTS 16
QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS AND CONSTRUCT DEVELOPMENT 17
LEADERSHIP STYLES 17
MAGNITUDE OF CHANGE 17
CHANGE SUCCESS 17
VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY 18
DATA ANALYSIS 21
RESULTS 22
DESCRIPTIVES AND MULTICOLLINEARITY 22
TESTING RESEARCH QUESTIONS 24
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 32
THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS 33
LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 35
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS 37
REFERENCES 38
APPENDIX A – QUESTIONNAIRE 42
5
Introduction
For decades, business owners have had to deal with organizational change in order to
increase the survival probability of their businesses. Organizational change can occur as a result
of many instigators, among which the most commonly known are market changes (e.g., competitor
actions, new regulations, changing consumer demographics) and forces inside the organization
itself (e.g., tighter budgets, new leaders or managers) (Haveman, Russo, & Meyer, 2001).
Although organizational change has been around for decades, many change initiatives nowadays
still fail to accomplish the intended outcomes, by getting aborted at an early stage into the change
process or by reaching outcomes that were not envisioned when the change initiative started
(Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999). The rate of failure has often been estimated as being as high as
70% (Burnes, 2011). For this reason, an overwhelming body of research in recent decades has
focused on analyzing change initiatives and have tried to come up with theories or x-step plans for
implementing changes successfully. In addition, different organizational change philosophies have
been developed. However, looking at the critics of each of these theories, x-step plans and
philosophies, it appears that none of them have been proven to unlock the door to successful
change implementations. Instead of trying to uncover an all-encompassing theory or x-step model
on how to implement changes, this study will look into a small piece of the puzzle, namely how
perceived change magnitude affects the relationship between perceived leadership style and
success of the change initiative. By investigating this, a bilateral view of the relationship between
perceived leadership style and success will be added to the current literature, which is
“There are things known and there are things unknown, and in between are the doors of perception”
6
predominantly unilateral (meaning that they focus either the leader or the employee’s viewpoint).
In addition, by looking at the role of change magnitude, a more contingency-based view of
perceived leadership can be established. In this way, the differences in perceptions between actors
regarding type of change leadership and change magnitude can be explored.
Within change management literature, there are two actors that receive great attention,
namely the change agent and change recipient. Change agents are defined as “those who are responsible for identifying the need to change, creating a vision, specifying the desired outcome,
and then make it happen” (Ford, Ford, & D’Amelio, 2008, p. 362). Change recipients are most commonly defined as “those who are responsible for implementing, adopting or adapting to the change(s)” (Kanter, Stein, & Jick, 1992). These terms will be used throughout this study.
Various studies have looked into leadership styles in the organizational context. First and
foremost, some studies identified leadership as the key determinant of increased organizational
effectiveness (e.g., Collins, 2001). Others have focused on a specific type of leadership. Peterson,
Walumbwa, Byron, and Myrowitz (2008), for instance, focus on transformational leadership. After
looking into antecedents of transformational leadership, they found that transformational
leadership is essential for a firm’s performance. Waldman and Ramirez (2001) address charismatic and transactional leadership and their effects on a firm’s net profit, whereas others (e.g., Allen, Smith, & Da Silva, 2013) examine three leadership styles (i.e. transactional, transformational and
laissez-faire) at the same time. Even though all these authors focused on different types of
leadership and their effects on different outcomes, there is a general consensus on the pivotal role
leadership styles play in affecting organizational outcomes such as net profit, effectiveness and
7
As leadership style is such an important determinant of organizational performance, it
comes to no surprise that it is also considered to be an important factor in realizing an effective
change initiative. Conger (2000), for instance, considers change leaders as being the primary asset
making change initiatives successful. Bennis (2000) begs to differ. Calling Conger’s (2000) view
“wrong, unrealistic, maladaptive” and even “dangerous” (2000, p. 113), he makes a case for the power of the participation of all members of the organization.
Different organizational changes require different leadership styles (Nadler & Tushman,
1990). One key contextual variable when analyzing the relationship between leadership and
change success is magnitude of change (Groves, 2005). Different change magnitudes require
different leadership roles (Nadler & Tushman, 1990) for a change to be successful, which is why
this key contextual variable will be taken into consideration in this study.
Surprisingly, most of such studies so far have focused on the change agent perspective,
neglecting the employees’ perspective (Oreg & Berson, 2011). A leadership style that is self-reported by the leader could be completely different from what an employee experiences. Leaders
may be subjected to a self-enhancement bias (Agostinelli, Sherman, Presson, & Chassin, 1992),
answering questions regarding their leadership style in a manner that they wish the behavior was
like, instead of how it actually is in order to create flattering information. A major difference
between the current study and previous studies is that this study does not conceive of leadership
styles as something that is fixed, but as something that is perceived differently by different actors
(i.e., change agents and change recipients).
While studies incorporating the bilateral viewpoint towards change are not completely
8
change leadership literature. The fact that most research takes a unilateral, narrow stance on
leadership and change success, is problematic, in the sense that it does not factor in multiple
perceptions on leadership and change magnitude. The gap, therefore, is the realist approach to
leadership (e.g. “the leadership style is …”), as well as the unilateral approach to leadership. The current research undertakes the task of partially filling this gap in the literature by focusing on the
perception of both the change agent and the change recipient.
The current research will investigate the problem by limiting its scope to the following
question:
“How do change agents and change recipients differ in their perception of leadership, change magnitude and change success and how are these concepts interrelated?”
This research question will add the bilateral viewpoint to the contemporary research.
Answering this research question is interesting for both academics and practitioners in the field of
organizational change management. First, for academics, it allows for a more holistic view of the
role of leadership on change success, as the present study takes a bilateral perspective, whereas
many previous studies took a unilateral perspective. In addition, the present study focuses on a
new condition (i.e., change magnitude) of the effect of leadership style on change success, allowing
for opening up new avenues of research, such as the bilateral viewpoint. Secondly, for practitioners
of organizational change management, the findings of this research may have serious implications
9
The remainder of this study is structured as follows. First, the theoretical background will
discuss what is already known regarding the main research question and will build additional
research questions. After this, the method section will clarify how the study was conducted,
followed by a results section that will lay out the results of the study and draw conclusions based
on the results. Finally, a discussion will discuss the theoretical and managerial implications and
10
Theoretical background
In this section, the key concepts will be defined and the contemporary research on this topic
will be elaborated on.
As mentioned earlier, in change management literature, a distinction between two main
actors is usually made, namely change agents and change recipients. As these are two different
actors, it is likely to assume that they also perceive of a situation in their own ways. Therefore, it
is important to examine the viewpoints of both these actors. These different interpretations of the
same situation may be due to sensemaking. Sensemaking is the “process through which individuals work to understand novel, confusing or unexpected events” (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014, p. 58).
When taking a cognitive approach to sensemaking, in which sensemaking takes place inside the
individual (as opposed to a social approach where it takes place between individuals), one could
say that different perceptions of change success are related to the so-called schematas that people
have regarding the change process. Schematas are personal, easily accessible, persistent structures
of elements and the relationships between these elements, which entails both a representation of
knowledge and an information-processing mechanism (DiMaggio, 1997). Through the process of
using personal schematas, different interpretations and perceptions are formed of the same
situation. This means that, throughout the rest of this study, the word ‘perceived’ is implied, when
it comes to leadership style and change magnitude. As many studies in change management
literature focus on a unilateral perspective (i.e., either the change agent perception or the change
recipient perspective), this study will examine the difference between these two perceptions on the
11
As perception is an important element of this study, it is first interesting to analyze how
the change agents and change recipients differ in their perceptions of the three key concepts of this
study (i.e., leadership style, change magnitude and change success). The first research question is
therefore as follows:
How do change agents and change recipients differ in their perceptions of leadership styles, change magnitude and change success?
Change success
A change initiative is successful when the required outcomes of a change initiative are
achieved (Burnes, 2009). However, in real life situations, these required outcomes are often not
well-defined which makes it hard to say when a change initiative is successful. Burnes and Jackson
(2011) found that change success is largely influenced by the degree of value alignment of the
organization undertaking the change, and the underlying values of the content and approach to
change. Because change success will be in the same model as leadership style, a more narrow
definition of change success is adopted in this study. Change process (or in the terminology of
Burnes and Jackson (2011), the approach to change) takes place over the whole duration of a
change implementation. The success of the change process is influenced by the leadership style,
but at the same time it also influences the leadership style. Leaders may alter their leadership style
in an attempt to improve the change process. In effect, the success of the change process is affected
by the leadership style adopted. This means that it is hard to determine causality between
12
From organizational leadership to change leadership
One of the most renowned typologies of leadership was created by Bass (1985), who makes
a distinction between transactional, transformational and charismatic leadership. He defines
transformational leaders as those “working themselves out of the job to the extent that they elevate their subordinates into becoming self-actualizers, self-regulators, and self-controllers” (Bass,
1985, p. 16). Transactional leaders, on the other hand, are “more transaction-oriented and are more
concerned with efficient processes rather than with substantive ideas” (Bass, 1985, p. 122). They
typically use contingent reward and penalization to “maintain or improve what they see are satisfactory processes and organizational arrangements” (Bass, 1985, pp. 122–123; Zaleznik, 1967). Charismatic leaders are leaders who “by the power of their person have profound and
extraordinary effects on their followers” and “inspire in their followers unquestioning loyalty and devotion without regard to the followers’ own self-interest” (Bass, 1985, p. 35). In addition to the three types of leadership mentioned before (i.e., transformational, transactional and charismatic
leadership), in his later work, Bass (1990) distinguishes between two broad types of leadership,
namely, task-oriented leadership and person-oriented leadership. Task-oriented leaders are leaders
who inhibit skills used in relation to “organizational structure, design and control, and to establishing routines to attain organizational goals and objectives” (Bass, 1990). In addition, they are able to mobilize their team members as well as other stakeholders by redesigning
organizational processes and systems according to the change (Battilana, Gilmartin, Sengul, Pache,
& Alexander, 2010). Person-oriented leaders, on the other hand, use skills in an attempt to
13
between task-oriented and person-oriented leadership behaviors has been argued to be of great
importance in organizational change processes (Nadler & Tushman, 1999).
Change leadership
Some studies have tried to tie transformational leadership to change success (e.g., Burke et
al., 2006)). These studies have received a large range of criticism, ranging from them (i.e., the
studies tying transformational leadership to change success) taking an oversimplified stance of
transformational leadership (de Poel, Stoker, & van der Zee, 2012) to hindering employees’ ability
to express their individual thoughts and ideas (Mumford, Scott, Gaddis, & Strange, 2002). De Poel,
Stoker and van der Zee (2012) therefore looked into the effect of participative leadership.
Surprisingly though, Bass (1999) clarified that transformational leadership is not the opposite of,
or complementary to, participative leadership. In fact, he views it as a type of transformational
leadership. However, Bass’ (1985) theory of leadership styles still lacks empirical evidence in
relation to change initiatives (Higgs & Rowland, 2000). In addition, it is not related to leadership
behaviors in specific. That is why Higgs and Rowland (2005) conducted a study into change
leadership, in which they identify three leadership types that are specifically related to change
management. After analyzing leadership behaviors of seventy change stories and their effects on
change success, they combine leadership competencies with change behaviors, to create three
types of leadership behaviors, namely, shaping behaviors, framing change and creating capacity.
14
connections”(2005, p. 135). They classified the first type (i.e., shaping) as being leader-centric, whereas the other two (i.e., framing and creating) were classified as being group- and
system-focused. Due to the fact that this typology of change leadership is most relevant to the current
research topic (as it looks into leadership styles in different change contexts), this typology will be
used for the purpose of identifying both the change agents’ and change recipients’ perception of the change agents’ leadership style. It was found, for instance, that more leader-centric behaviors lead to a lower success rate (Higgs & Rowland, 2005). However, they merely interviewed leaders,
and did not look at the change recipients’ perspectives. On the other hand, a more enabling and facilitative style of leadership appeared to be positively affecting change success (Higgs, 2003).
As these studies merely look into the change agent’s perspective while neglecting the change recipient’s perspective, it is hard to determine how the change recipients’ ideas regarding their change agents’ leadership style affect their perception of change success. Therefore, the second research question is as follows:
How do change agent and change recipients differ with regard to which leadership style leads them to perceive of the change as more successful?
Change magnitude
Recent studies have called for a closer look into the effect of type of change on the
relationship between specific leadership styles and change success (e.g., Abrell-Vogel & Rowold,
2014). Different types of change are likely to require different leadership styles in order to lead to
a successful change.
Many of the studies concerning the effect of leadership style on change success look at one
type of change – for instance planned change (e.g., Battilana et al., 2010), incremental change,
15
the “magnitude of the change”, is also susceptible to how someone perceives of it. While this
appears to be self-evident, many studies thus far have treated the type of change and magnitude of
change as something stable. Change magnitude can be defined in terms of depth (i.e., how much
the change has changed for the daily lives of the employee involved) as well as the breadth (e.g.,
how many people or departments have been affected by the change). It may vary along the
dimension of strategic/incremental change, as well as the dimension of reactive/anticipatory
change (Nadler & Tushman, 1990). Keeping aside quantitative numbers (e.g. number of
employees involved; number of departments involved) to measure the magnitude of the change,
change agents and change recipients may perceive of the change differently. For instance, a change
agent may consider a specific change to be incremental, while the change recipients involved may
feel that their daily lives at the job have changed drastically and therefore may consider the change
to be more radical. It has also been argued before that studies focusing on leadership and change,
largely neglect change complexity (Battilana et al., 2010; Yukl, 1999). Higgs and Rowland (2005)
also looked into change magnitude as a contextual factor. They found that framing behaviors are
more often used in high-magnitude contexts while shaping behaviors are more often used in
low-magnitude contexts. However, they considered change low-magnitude to be something fixed, or stable,
not as something that can be conceived of in different ways by different actors. Looking at the
bilateral effect of the change magnitude, therefore, seems to be a promising avenue of research to
investigate. The third research question therefore is as follows:
What is the role of change magnitude when it comes to the relationship between leadership style and the success of the change initiative, and how does the change agent
16
Methods
In this chapter, methodological layout of this study is outlined.
Data and respondents
Two questionnaires were created and filled out by respondents from 59 companies
(representing 80 projects) that had recently undergone a change process. One questionnaire was
created for change agents and the other one was created for the change recipients. They were both
asked the same questions, with the difference that change agents had to mostly fill out questions
about their own behavior, whereas change recipients had to answer the same questions about their
change agent. The respondents were actively contacted as part of a mandatory course of the MSc
BA Change Management at the University of Groningen over the course of three years. In order
to ensure the participants’ animosity, participants were assigned respondents’ codes. In this way, the change recipients and their corresponding change agent(s) could be identified without private
information being saved. In addition, respondents filled out the questionnaire online without their
colleagues being able to see what they had answered. In total, 351 respondents filled out one out
of two questionnaires (i.e., either the recipient-questionnaire or the agent-questionnaire). Out of
these 351 respondents, 88 (25%) are change agents in the change process and the other 263 (75%)
are change recipients. Out of the 88 change agents, 63 (70%) are male and 25 (30%) are female.
Out of the 263 change recipients, 149 (57%) are male and 114 (43%) are female. This is also
visually represented in Table 2. The average age of change agents is 42 years old (Mage = 42.49,
SD = 9.963), while the average age of change recipients is 38 years old (Mage = 38.19, SD =
17
TABLE 1 – DESCRIPTIVES RESPONDENTS
Agent Recipient Total
Male 63 149 212
Female 25 114 139
Total 88 263 351
The companies that participated in the questionnaires cover a wide array of organizational
types and include, but are not limited to, financial institutions (e.g., banks), restaurants, public
institutions (e.g., public schools and counties) and production companies.
Questionnaire items and construct development
In this research, there are two independent variables and one dependent variable. These
variables were measured in the questionnaires.
Leadership styles
Questions regarding leadership style were based on Higgs and Rowland (2005) and included
questions like “I knew how to create confidence and trust during difficult times” and “I spent time with employees to come up with creative solutions”.
Magnitude of change
Questions regarding the magnitude of the change were based on an article by Vos and Brand (2012)
and included questions like “the change was directed at all employees” and “This change affected
the work of the employees very much”.
Change success
Questions regarding change success were based on an article by Vos and Brand (2012) and
18
Validity and reliability
In order to be able to test whether the questions asked are valid and reliable, a factor analysis was
conducted for the combined dataset of agents and recipients, followed by a Cronbach’s Alpha for
the valid items. Because the literature review indicates that five factors should be extracted (i.e.,
shaping, framing, creating, magnitude and success), the factor analysis was conducted with five
fixed factors. Because for the current study, correlation between factors is allowed, an oblique
rotation was used, in specific. In specific, an direct oblimin rotation method was used. The
preliminary factor analysis can be found in Appendix B. Subsequently, first the factors that did not
load above .4 on any of the five factors were removed one by one. Afterwards, the questions that
cross-loaded at a close range (i.e., difference less than .2 while loading above .4) were removed
one by one. Lastly, questions that did not load on the correct variables as indicated by literature
were removed. The KMO-Bartlett’s test of the final factor analysis showed a sampling adequacy
of .937 (p=0.00), which is well above the required .70, allowing for a continuation of the factor
analysis. The final factor analysis can be found in Table 2.
Subsequently, a Cronbach’s Alpha per factor was conducted, separately for change agents and change recipients. This was done because different perspectives may lead to different reliability
levels. The results of the Cronbach’s Alpha are sorted below per concept.
Leadership styles
The questions scoring on component 5 (see Table 2), were combined into a new variable,
19
scoring on component 4 (see Table 2) were combined into a new variable, “Creating”. This was
done for both agents (α = 0.841, N=5) and recipients (α = 0.884, N=5).
Change magnitude
The questions scoring on component 2 (see Table 2) were combined into a new variable,
“Magnitude”. This was done for both agents (α = 0.743, N=7) and recipients (α = 0.782, N=7).
Change success
The questions scoring on component 3 (see Table 2) were combined into a new variable,
“Success”. This was done for both agents (α = 0.870, N=3) and recipients (α = 0.851, N=3).
TABLE 2 - FINAL FACTOR ANALYSIS
Components
1 2 3 4 5
Mag1 This change affected the work of the
employees very much
.079 .748 -.034 .161 -.131
Mag2 This change affected the responsibilities of the employees very much
-.085 .722 -.018 .098 -.188
Mag3 This change affected the partnerships
between the employees very much
-.173 .588 .105 -.153 -.206
Mag4 Throughout this change, the work
conditions of the employees changed very much
.134 .687 -.025 -.070 .165
Mag5 The number of employees significantly
increased or decreased due to this change
.026 .535 .019 -.013 .111
Mag6 This change is pioneering -.052 .560 .366 -.131 -.008
Mag10 Through this change, the company goals changed
.050 .538 -.092 .014 -.072
SB1 I often checked the extent to which the
tasks were completed
.219 .120 .239 .264 -.410
SB2 I often clarified the direction of the change .152 -.016 .123 -.048 -.588
SB3 I regularly used my experience to shape
the implementation of change
.153 .077 .126 .018 -.646
SB4 I put in a lot of energy to convince people to go along with the change
-.084 .072 -.121 -.265 -.749
SB5 I showed my personal involvement to
motivate people to accept the change
20
SB6 I pointed the employees at their
responsibilities regarding their role in the change
.147 .031 .117 .045 -.644
SB7 I regularly tried to bring up my views
about the change
.088 .152 .168 -.188 -.488
SB8 I implemented the change based on my
previous experience with other changes
.126 .057 -.048 -.018 -.714
ET1 I did not make things look better than they were, I stuck with the reality
.478 -.157 .096 .034 -.313
ET2 I did not shy away from difficulties .566 -.157 .096 .034 -.313
ET3 I knew how to keep the employees
engaged in change even in difficult times
.467 -.139 .110 -.226 -.228
ET4 I did not compromise from quality .501 .040 .130 -.040 -.055
ET5 I discussed (unconscious) beliefs and
assumptions when needed
.563 .025 -.068 -.260 -.160
ET6 I was not afraid to go back to “ this is how we do things here” discussion even when this resulted in uncomfortable situations
.722 .121 -.102 -.175 .020
ET7 I challenged others to push a little bit harder to achieve the goals
.567 .178 .028 -.310 .039
ET8 I did my utmost best to find ways to
improve things
.615 .140 .057 -.276 .046
ET9 I communicated in a straightforward
manner with the employees and did not hold anything back
.780 -.103 .037 .141 -.105
Cont2 I knew how to create confidence and trust in difficult times
.412 -.103 .037 .141 -.105
Cont4 I showed confidence that I would bring
this change to a successful conclusion
.510 -.169 .212 -.107 -.190
Cont5 I set clear rules and boundaries so that the employees knew where they stood
.623 -.133 .117 .099 -.189
Cont7 I set high goals .632 .201 .027 .097 .055
Cont8 I confidently carried out my vision, even when it was tough to do so
.525 -.050 .082 -.213 -.138
Crea3 I broadened the way employees think by
making myself vulnerable
.150 -.069 .141 -.626 -.083
Crea4 I ensured that there was room for the employees to think differently
.238 .021 .105 -.605 -.106
Crea5 I took the employees out of their daily routines to allow them to think differently
.288 .184 .038 -.488 -.063
Crea6 I spent time with the employees to come up with creative solutions
.096 -.034 .056 -.720 -.173
Crea7 I organized discussions with the employees to come up with different solutions
21
CO1 I think that the goals of the change process are achieved (or will be achieved)
.004 -.049 .859 .022 -.028
CO2 In general, I believe that the organization benefited (or will benefit) from the change process
-.039 .032 .875 -.035 .054
CO3 I believe that the change is (or will be) successful
.018 -.009 .895 -.033 .033
Extraction method: Principal Component Analysis
Rotation method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization (pattern matrix)
Data analysis
In the current study, the data of agents and recipients are analyzed separately. However, no
consideration has been paid to change teams, which means that the tests have been run in an
aggregated manner. In order to analyze the data, several tests were used. Firstly, to examine the
difference between agents and recipients with respect to the different concepts (i.e., leadership
style, magnitude of change and change success), an independent-sample T-test (interval:
leadership style, change magnitude, and change success) was conducted. Subsequently, in order
to test the effect of leadership style on change success, a multiple regression was conducted. The
multiple regression analysis for change agents was conducted separately from the one for change
recipients so that differences between these two actors could be seen. Afterwards, a multiple
regression analysis was conducted for the moderating effect of change magnitude. This was done
by first mean-centering the independent variables. Subsequently, the interaction effects were
created with the centered variables (i.e., shaping * magnitude, framing * magnitude and creating
* magnitude). Afterwards the multiple regression analysis was run with change magnitude in the
first box, the independent variables in the second box and the interaction effects in the third box..
It was run separately for change agents and change recipients in order to be able to see differences
22
Results
In this section, the results of the data analysis are presented. First, descriptives regarding the dataset
are given, followed by tests regarding the direct effects of leadership style on change success.
Finally, tests are conducted to check for moderating effects of change magnitude.
Descriptives and multicollinearity
First, the means and standard deviations of the independent and dependent variables are
displayed for both recipients and agents(see Table 3). As all questions were asked on a 1-7 scale,
the range of the answers is always from 1 to 7.
The descriptives show that the perceived success rate is relatively high, while the change
magnitude appears to be perceived of as being in between of high and low. The use of both shaping
and framing behaviors appear to have been reported approximately equally often, while the use of
creating behaviors have been reported less.
To check whether multicollinearity issues should be taken into account, a bivariate Pearson
correlation matrix was consulted (see Table 3). This shows that the independent variables
23
TABLE 3 – DESCRIPTIVES AND CORRELATIONS
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 Recipients 1. Shaping 4.74 1.14 x 2. Framing 5.19 1.07 .746** x 3. Creating 4.47 1.23 .635** .699** x 4. Magnitude 4.00 1.15 .228** .077 .134* x 5. Success 5.34 1.21 .462** .491** ..417** .089 X Agents 1. Shaping 5.42 0.88 x 2. Framing 5.91 0.80 .718** x 3. Creating 5.12 1.05 .563** .625** x 4. Magnitude 4.32 1.11 .490** .498** .525** x 5. Success 5.99 1.03 .394** .308** .165 .297** x
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Because the significant correlations of the independent variables may indicate the presence
of multicollinearity, the variance inflation factor (VIF) was examined for each of these
independent variables. None of these VIFs were above 4.0 (for recipients: shaping: 2.55, framing:
2.84, creating: 2.09, magnitude: 1.08; for agents: shaping: 2.22, framing: 2.46, creating: 2.09,
24
Testing research questions
The first research question is as follows “How do change agents and change recipients
differ in their perceptions of leadership styles, change magnitude and change success?”. In order
to test which of their perceptions regarding leadership styles, change magnitude and change
success differ significantly from each other, an independent-samples T-test was conducted. Firstly,
the answers regarding shaping behaviors differed significantly (t(190) = 4.15, p = .000). This
means that agents (M = 5.41. SD = 0.88) reported higher levels of shaping behaviors than change
recipients (M = 4.74, SD = 1.14) did. Second, the answers regarding framing behavior differed
significantly (t(200) = 6.34, p = .000). This means that agents (M = 5.91, SD = 0.80) reported
higher levels of framing behaviors than recipients (M = 5.19, SD = 1.07) did. Third, the answers
regarding creating behaviors differed significantly (t(349) = 4.48, p = .000). This means that agents
(M = 5.12, SD = 1.05) reported higher levels of creating behaviors than recipients (M = 4.47, SD
= 1.23) did. Fourth, the answers regarding change magnitude differed significantly (t(349) = 2.25,
p = .025). This means that agents (M = 4.32, SD = 1.11) reported the change magnitude to be
higher than recipients (M = 4.00, SD = 1.15). Lastly, the answers regarding change success differed
significantly (t(173) = 4.89, p = .000). This means that agents (M = 5.99, SD = 1.03) reported the
change as being more successful than recipients (M = 5.34, SD = 1.21) did. The above can also be
seen in Table 4.
With regard to the first research question, it was found that change agents and change
recipients vary greatly in their perceptions of leadership style. All reported levels of leadership
style, change magnitude and change success are significantly different, with agents reporting
25
TABLE 4 – DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AGENTS AND RECIPIENTS
(SDs between brackets) Mean & SDs recipients Means & SDs agents Mean difference T Significance Shaping 4.74 (1.14) 5.41 (0.88) .58 4.15 .000 Framing 5.19 (1.07) 5.91 (0.80) .73 6.34 .000 Creating 4.47 (1.23) 5.12 (1.05) .65 4.48 .000 Magnitude 4.00 (1.15) 4.32 (1.11) .32 2.25 .025 Success 5.34 (1.21) 5.99 (1.03) .65 4.89 .000
The second research question is as follows: “How do change agent and change recipients
differ with regard to which leadership style leads them to perceive of the change as more successful?”. In order to be able to analyze this, a multiple linear regression was performed. This
was done separately for the change recipients sample and the change agents sample.
For the change recipients sample, the results of the regression (R2 = .267, F(4,261) = 23.36,
p = .000) reveal a significant effect. Firstly, there is a significant relationship between the reported
use of shaping leadership on change success (B = .201, t(261) = 2.237, p = .026). This means that
26
level of change success. Second, there is a positive relationship between the perceived use of
framing leadership and the perceived change success (B = .320, t(261) = 3.164, p = .002). When
recipients reported higher levels of framing leadership, they reported significantly higher levels of
change success. Third, there is no significant relationship between creating behavior and change
success (B = .090, t(261) = 1.179, p = .240). This means that when recipients report higher levels
of creating behavior, they not significantly alter their reported level of change success.
For the change agents sample, an additional multiple regression analysis was performed.
The results of this regression (R2 = .185, F(4,87) = 4.716, p = .002) reveal a significant effect.
First, the relationship between shaping behaviors and change success is significantly positive (B =
.409, t(87) = 2.354, p = .021). This means that when agents report higher levels of shaping
behaviors, they also report higher levels of change success. Second, the relationship between
framing behaviors and change success is not significant (B = .102, t(87) = 0.505, p=.615). This
means that when agents report higher levels of framing behaviors, they do not report higher levels
of change success. Third, the relationship between creating behaviors and change success is not
significant (B = -.170, t(87) = -1.276, p = .206). This means that when agents report higher levels
of creating behaviors, they do not report higher levels of change success. The above can be seen
in Table 5.
With regard to the second research question, it was found that change agents and change
recipients differ when it comes to the use of what leadership style leads them to perceive of the
change as more successful. Whereas for change recipients, there is a clear positive relationship
between the reported use of framing behaviors and the level of success, no such relationship can
be established for change agents. For both change agents and change recipients, however, there is
27
For neither change agents nor change recipients a significant effect of creating behaviors and
change success could be established.
The third research question was as follows: “What is the role of change magnitude when it comes to the relationship between leadership style and the success of the change initiative, and
how does the change agent perspective differ from the change recipient perspective?”. To identify
whether there is a moderating role of change magnitude on the relationship between leadership
styles and change success, an additional multiple regression analysis was conducted. To this end,
the direct effects was put in the first box of the regression analysis and the interaction effects were
put in the second box of the regression analysis.
The multiple regression analysis was conducted for both the change recipient’s sample and the change agent’s sample.This was firstly done for the recipients sample. The regression analysis
was significant (R2 = .282, F(7,261) = 14.285, p=.000). The moderating effect of change
magnitude on the relationship between shaping behaviors and change success was not significant
(B = -.070, t(261) = -.828, p = .408). This means that change magnitude does not significantly alter
the relationship between shaping behaviors and change success, according to change recipients.
The moderating effect of change magnitude on the relationship between framing behaviors and
change success was also not significant (B = -.063, t(261) = -.709, p = .479). This means that
change magnitude does not significantly alter the relationship between shaping behaviors and
change success, according to change recipients. The moderating effect of change magnitude on the
relationship between creating behaviors and change success was significant (B = .135, t(261) =
2.291, p = .023). This means that there is a significant moderating effect of change magnitude on
the relationship between creating behaviors and change magnitude, according to change recipients.
28
change is considered to be more successful by change recipients when the change magnitude is
also high. The opposite is true for low-magnitude situations, where an increased use of creating
behaviors is associated with lower levels of change success.
FIGURE 1 – SLOPE ANALYSIS INTERACTION CREATING - MAGNITUDE
For the agents sample, the multiple regression analysis was also significant (R2 = .401,
F(7,87) = 7.652 , p=.000). The moderating effect of change magnitude on the relationship between
shaping behaviors and change success was significant (B = -.495, t(87) = -3.70, p = .000). This
means that change magnitude significantly alters the relationship between shaping behaviors and
change success, according to change agents. This interaction effect (visualized in Figure 2) reveals
that when the change magnitude is low, a change is considered more successful by change agents
when a lot of shaping behaviors are used. For high-magnitude situations, the opposite appears to
29
The moderating effect of change magnitude on the relationship between framing behaviors
and change success was not significant (B = .043, t(87) = .267, p = .790). This means that change
magnitude does not significantly alter the relationship between shaping behaviors and change
success, according to change agents. The moderating effect of change magnitude on the
relationship between creating behaviors and change success was significant (B = .352, t(87) = 3.77,
p = .000). This means that there is a significant moderating effect of change magnitude on the
relationship between creating behaviors and change magnitude, according to change agents. Figure
3 shows the visual representation of this interaction effect. The simple slope analysis shows that
in high-magnitude situations, the use of creating behaviors is associated with higher levels of
change success whereas in low-magnitude situations, the use of creating behaviors is associated
with lower levels of change success. All betas of the multiple regression analysis can be found in
Table 5.
30
FIGURE 3 – SIMPLE SLOPE ANALYSIS INTERACTION CREATING - MAGNITUDE
TABLE 5 – RESULTS OF THE MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS
Recipients perspective Agents perspective M1 M2 M1 M2 Step 1 Shaping .201** .156* .409** .419** Framing .320*** .320** .102 -.132 Creating .090 .133* -.170 .006 Magnitude .008 .024 .165 .094 Step 2 Shaping * Magnitude -.070 -.495*** Framing * Magnitude -.063 .043 Creating * Magnitude .135** .352*** DV = change success. Unstandardized B’s are shown.
31
With regard to the third research question, it was found that change agents and change
recipients differ in the extent to which they find change magnitude to moderate the relationship
between leadership styles and change success. For recipients, only a moderating effect of change
magnitude on the relationship between creating behaviors and change success could be established.
For change agents, the only moderating effect that could not be established was the effect of change
magnitude on the relationship between framing behaviors and change success. For change agents,
moderating effects of change magnitude on both the relationship between shaping behaviors and
change success and the relationship between creating behaviors and change success could be
established. Both change agents and change recipients considered the change to be more successful
when creating behaviors were used in high-magnitude contexts as opposed to low-magnitude
contexts. Change agents considered the change to be more successful when shaping behaviors
32
Discussion and conclusion
The goal of this paper was to investigate the bilateral viewpoint of agents and recipients on
leadership and change success in change initiatives. After reviewing literature, three open
questions were developed and the results of the questionnaire were discussed. The tests have led
to interesting results, of which the implications will be discussed in this chapter.
The main research question that was posed in the introduction section was as follows:
“How do change agents and change recipients differ in their perception of leadership, change magnitude and change success and how are these concepts interrelated?”. The T-test showed that
the perceptions of change agents and change recipients differed significantly on all three concepts,
with agents consistently reporting higher scores (i.e., more presence of all types of leadership, a
higher change magnitude and a higher level of change success). Change recipients who reported
higher levels of shaping and/or framing behaviors also reported higher levels of change success.
The effect of the other leadership style (i.e., creating) was not significant. Agents who reported
higher levels of shaping behaviors reported higher levels of change success. The direct effects of
the other leadership styles (i.e., framing and creating) were not significant for change agents. For
both recipients and agents, a significant moderating effect of change magnitude on the relationship
between creating behaviors and change success could be established. In addition, for agents, a
significant moderating effect of change magnitude was found for the relationship between shaping
behaviors and change success. No significant moderating effect could be found for change
magnitude on the relationship between framing behaviors and change success. The findings are
33
FIGURE 4 – OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH FINDINGS
Theoretical implications
When reviewing the findings of the results section, the first thing that stands out is the
difference in perception. On all of the questions, the agents and recipients scored significantly
differently. This reaffirms the notion that perception is of great importance and that people make
34
effects for change agents and for change recipients. Whereas change agents and recipients both
reported higher levels of change success when they also reported higher levels of shaping
behaviors, only change recipients reported higher levels of change success when they also reported
higher levels of framing behaviors. Higgs and Rowland (2005) categorize shaping behaviors as
more leader-centric, while categorizing framing behaviors as being more group-centric. The
leader-centric approach is more directive and top-down, whereas the group-centric approach is
more participative and bottom-up (Higgs & Rowland, 2005; Higgs, 2003). Directive leadership is
defined as ‘providing organizational members with a framework for decision making and action that is aligned with leader’s vision’ (Sagie, 1997). Participative leadership is defined as ‘problem solving by a leader through consulting with the subordinates’ (Bass, 1990; Kahai, Sosik, & Avolio, 1997). Participative leaders allow subordinates (in this case, change recipients) to take initiative
and delegates responsibility to them (Sauer, 2011). The current study finds that agents and
recipients feel that more directive, top-down leadership leads to success, whereas recipients also
feel that more supportive, bottom-up leadership leads to success. This finding resonates with a
well-known psychological theory, namely attribution theory. According to attribution theory, and
more specifically self-serving bias, people tend to attribute success to their own actions (Miller &
Ross, 1975) and failures to those of others (Zuckerman, 1979) in an attempt to enhance self-esteem.
The findings of the current study support attribution theory partially, as change agents consider
the change as more successful when they themselves have had the greatest influence on the change
(leader-centric shaping). Whereas the change recipients in this sample also see the change as more
successful when there was a leader-centric leadership style (i.e., shaping), change recipients also
35
framing). The current study, however, does not find support for the attribution of failure to others,
in contrast to Zuckerman (1979).
An increasing amount of scholars agree that participative leadership is more advantageous
to use than directive leadership for realizing organizational goals (e.g., Hargreaves, 1994). This
does not appear to be completely true for organizational change initiatives. Whereas from the
change recipient perspective, the current study finds support for this statement, support is not found
for the change agents perspective. The current study finds no moderating effect of change
magnitude on the relationship between shaping behaviors and change success for change
recipients, and a negatively moderating effect of change magnitude on the relationship between
shaping behaviors and change success. This is surprising, as Higgs and Rowland (2005) found that
shaping behaviors are used more often in high-magnitude contexts. The findings of the current
study imply the opposite (i.e., using less shaping behaviors) would be considered more successful,
according to change agents. In addition, it contradicts findings in previous studies that found that
in change initiatives with a lot of ambiguity, directive leadership is preferred (Keller, 1989).
Another finding reflects the ambiguous role of creating behaviors. For both change agents and
change recipients, the use of creating behaviors is not directly related to change success. Higgs
and Rowland (2005) also did not find any significant effects of creating behaviors. However, this
study did find a significant moderating effect of change magnitude on change success for change
recipients and change agents. This has not yet been established before in other studies.
Limitations and directions for future research
This research should, of course, be interpreted in light of its limitations. These limitations
are twofold. First, in many instances the change agents decided which change recipients were to
36
chosen the most outspoken or most positive change recipients for the study. While this did not lead
to any apparent biases or non-generalizable outcomes, it may have led to distorted outcomes.
Secondly, data for this study was collected through the means of questionnaires with Likert scales.
While this allows for a large sample as well as a diverse sample (i.e., many organizational
backgrounds and different change projects), it does not allow for a nuanced evaluation of, for
instance, leadership styles. For example, if a recipient observed a change agent setting high goals
twice, there was no way to indicate this other than by giving the change agent a low score on the
Likert scale. A more nuanced option would allow for a more reliable analysis as all answer options
would reflect the exact same thing across respondents (e.g., ‘2’ always means that the agent has shown the behavior less than 5 times).
Based on this study, three main directions for future research can be identified. First, while
the current study was able to identify differences between the perceptions of the change agents and
change recipients, it was unable to look into the underlying processes that cause these different
perceptions to exist. For instance, this study did not shed any light on the reasons behind these
different perceptions. Therefore, for future research it would be interesting to take a more
qualitative approach so that the underlying processes leading towards a perception could be
explored. When these underlying processes are mapped out, it would help practitioners in the field
of Change Management understand how to alter change perceptions. Second, it fell outside the
scope of the current study to look into all contingencies in which the established relationships
occur. The only contingency that was examined in this study was change magnitude, while it is
likely that more contingencies affect the way leadership influences change success. Additional
contingencies (for example, size of the organization or type of organization (e.g., public sector or
37
establish a contingency-dependent blueprint for successfully managing change. Third, the
ambiguous role of creating should be further examined. Both the studies by Higgs and Rowland
(2000, 2005) and the current study do not find any direct effects of creating behaviors on change
success. However, the results of the current study do identify a moderating effect of change
magnitude on the relationship between creating behaviors and change success. For both recipients
and agents, the use of creating behaviors in high-magnitude contexts are associated with increased
change success. Further research should attempt to examine why no direct effects exist and what
the exact role of creating behaviors is when it comes to change success.
Practical implications
For change agents, it is important to be aware of the different perceptions of actors in
different roles of the organization. Only after one recognizes that people perceive of the same
situation in different ways, can one begin to understand and improve this situation. This study has
shown that both agents and recipients associate directive leadership approaches with change
success, whereas recipients associate participative leadership approaches with change success. The
role of perception is indispensable. Effective change agents should attempt to find middle ground
between themselves and their change recipients and find a way to have both parties perceive of the
38
References
Abrell-Vogel, C., & Rowold, J. (2014). Leaders’ commitment to change and their effectiveness in change – a multilevel investigation. Journal of Organizational Change Management,
27(6), 900–921.
Agostinelli, G., Sherman, S. J., Presson, C. C., & Chassin, L. (1992). Protection and Self-Enhancement Biases in Estimates of Population Prevalance. Personality & Social
Psychology Bulletin, 18(5), 631–642.
Allen, S. L., Smith, J. E., & Da Silva, N. (2013). Leadership Style in Relation to Organizational Change and Organizational Creativity: Perceptions from Nonprofit Organizational
Members. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 24(1), 23–42.
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.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectation. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1999). Two Decades of Research and Development in Transformational Leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 9–32.
Battilana, J., Gilmartin, M., Sengul, M., Pache, A.-C., & Alexander, J. A. (2010). Leadership Competencies for Implementing Planned Organizational Change. The Leadership
Quarterly, 21(3), 422–438.
Bennis, W. (2000). Leadership of Change. In M. Beer & N. Nohria (Eds.), Breaking the Code of
Change (pp. 113–123). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Halpin, S. M. (2006). What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. The Leadership
Quarterly, 17(3), 288–307.
Burnes, B. (2009). Managing Change (5th ed.). Harlow, England: Prentice Hall.
Burnes, B. (2011). Introduction: Why Does Change Fail, and What Can We Do About It?
Journal of Change Management, 11(4), 445–450.
Burnes, B., & Jackson, P. (2011). Success and Failure In Organizational Change: An Exploration of the Role of Values. Journal of Change Management, 11(2), 133–162.
39
Conger, J. A. (2000). Effective Change Begins at the Top. In M. Beer & N. Nohria (Eds.),
Breaking the Code of Change (pp. 99–113). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
De Poel, F. M., Stoker, J. I., & van der Zee, K. I. (2012). Climate control? The relationship between leadership, climate for change, and work outcomes. The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 23(4), 694–713.
DiMaggio, P. (1997). Culture and Cognition. Annual Review of Sociology, 23(1), 263–287.
Ford, J., Ford, L., & D’Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change: The rest of the story. Academy
of Management Review, 33(2), 362–377. Retrieved from
http://amr.aom.org/content/33/2/362.short
Groves, K. S. (2005). Linking Leader Skills, Follower Attitudes, and Contextual Variables via an Integrated Model of Charismatic Leadership. Journal of Management, 31(2), 255–277.
Hargreaves, A. (1994). Restructuring restructuring: postmodernity and the prospects for educational change. Journal of Education Policy, 9(1), 47–65.
Haveman, H. a., Russo, M. V., & Meyer, A. D. (2001). Organizational Environments in Flux: The Impact of Regulatory Punctuations on Organizational Domains, CEO Succession, and Performance. Organization Science, 12(3), 253–273.
Higgs, M. (2003). How can we make sense of leadership in the 21st century? Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 24(5), 273–284.
Higgs, M., & Rowland, D. (2000). Building change leadership capability: “the quest for change competence.” Journal of Change Management, 1(2), 116–131.
Higgs, M., & Rowland, D. (2005). All changes great and small: Exploring approaches to change and its leadership. Journal of Change Management, 5(2), 121–151.
Kahai, S., Sosik, J., & Avolio, B. (1997). Effects of leadership style and problem structure on work group process and outcomes in an electronic meeting system environment. Personnel
Psychology, 50, 121–146.
Kanter, R. M., Stein, B. A., & Jick, T. D. (1992). The Challenge of Organizational Change: How
Companies Experience It and Leaders Guide It. New York: Free Press.
Keller, R. T. (1989). A test of the path-goal theory of leadership with need for clarity as a moderator in research and development organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology,
74(2), 208–212.
40
Miller, D. T., & Ross, M. (1975). Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: Fact or fiction? Psychological Bulletin, 82(2), 213–225.
Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. (2002). Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(6), 705–750.
Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1999). Ihe Organization of the Future: Strategic Imperatives and Core Competencies for the 21st Century. Organizational Dynamics, 21(1), 45–60.
Nadler, D., & Tushman, M. (1990). Beyond the charismatic leader: Leadership and organizational change. California Management Review, 77–98.
Oreg, S., & Berson, Y. (2011). Leadership and Employees’ Reactions to Change: the Role of Leaders' Personal Attributes and Transformational Leadership Style. Personnel Psychology,
64, 627–659.
Peterson, S. J., Walumbwa, F. O., Byron, K., & Myrowitz, J. (2008). CEO Positive Psychological Traits, Transformational Leadership, and Firm Performance in High-Technology Start-up and Established Firms. Journal of Management, 35(2), 348–368.
Sagie, A. (1997). Leader Direction and Employee Participation in Decision Making:
Contradictory or Compatible Practices? Applied Psychology: An International Review,
46(4), 387–416.
Sauer, S. J. (2011). Taking the reins: the effects of new leader status and leadership style on team performance. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 574–87.
Sobel, M. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 13, 290–312.
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, 53(3), 477–512.
Vos, J. F. J., & Brand, M. J. (2012). How Do Change Agents in SMEs Approach Change? A Cross-Sectional Study in Change Projects Within Dutch SMEs. In Euram Conference
Rotterdam.
Waldman, D., & Ramirez, G. (2001). Does leadership matter? CEO leadership attributes and profitability under conditions of perceived environmental uncertainty. Academy of
Management Journal, 44(1), 134–143.
Yukl, G. (1999). An Evaluation of Conceptual Weaknesses in Transformational and Charismatic Leadership Theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 285–305.
41
42
Appendix A – Questionnaire
Change magnitude
Mag1 This change affected the work of the employees very much
Mag2 This change affected the responsibilities of the employees very much
Mag3 This change affected the partnerships between the employees very much
Mag4 Throughout this change, the work conditions of the employees changed very
much
Mag5 The number of employees significantly increased or decreased due to this
change
Mag6 This change is pioneering
Mag7 Overall, the company has remained about the same after the change
Mag8 The change was directed at all employees
Mag9 Through this change we are aiming at changing how we achieve the company
goals
Mag10 This change affects all parts (braches, departments) of the company
Mag11 Through this change, the company goals are changed
Leadership style
During the change…
SB1 I often checked the extent to which the tasks were completed
SB2 I often clarified the direction of the change
SB3 I regularly used my experience to shape the implementation of change
SB4 I put in a lot of energy to convince people to go along with the change
SB5 I showed my personal involvement to motivate people to accept the change
SB6 I pointed the employees at their responsibilities regarding their role in the change
SB7 I regularly tried to bring up my views about the change
SB8 I implemented the change based on my previous experience with other changes
Attr1 I felt myself responsible to help the employees deal with the change
Attr2 I was very aware of my role as the change agent
Attr3 I easily put my personal ambitions aside in order to achieve the goals of the change project
Attr4 I made the future vision of the organization clear to the employees
Attr5 I kept the change focused on the organizational goals
Attr6 I used the daily work practices to give meaning to the change
Attr7 When needed, I adapted my approach to change to get things done
Attr8 I made the employees in the organization aware of the behavior patterns that hinder or boost the change.
ET1 I did not make things look better than they were, I stuck with the reality
ET2 I did not shy away from difficulties
ET3 I knew how to keep the employees engaged in change even in difficult times
ET4 I did not compromise from quality
ET5 I discussed (unconscious) beliefs and assumptions when needed
ET6 I was not afraid to go back to “this is how we do things here” discussion even
43
ET7 I challenged others to push a little bit harder to achieve the goals
ET8 I did my utmost best to find ways to improve things
ET9 I communicated in a straightforward manner with the employees and did not
hold anything back
Cont1 I ensured that the top management acted consistently about the change
Cont2 I knew how to create confidence and trust in difficult times
Cont3 I ensured a safe environment for others by making myself vulnerable
Cont4 I showed confidence that I would bring this change to a successful conclusion
Cont5 I set clear rules and boundaries so that the employees knew where they stood
Cont6 I made difficult topics discussable by trying out and living through these difficulties
Cont7 I set high goals
Cont8 I confidently carried out my vision, even when it was tough to do so
Crea1 I started off the change process by responding to what was happening at the
moment
Crea2 I broke existing routines to create a change motion
Crea3 I broadened the way employees think by making myself vulnerable
Crea4 I ensured that there was room for the employees to think differently
Crea5 I took the employees out of their daily routine to allow them to think differently
Crea6 I spent time with the employees to come up with creative solutions
Crea7 I organized discussions with the employees to come up with different solutions
Change success
CO1 I think that the goals of the change process are achieved (or will be achieved) CO2 In general, I believe that the organization benefited (or will benefit) from the
change process
CO3 I believe that the change is (or will be) successful
NB: All questions were posed on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’.
