FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE EQUIPPEDNESS TO CHANGE TO A RESULTS- ORIENTED CULTURE: BEYOND READINESS TO CHANGE

EQUIPPEDNESS TO CHANGE TO A

RESULTS-ORIENTED CULTURE:

BEYOND READINESS TO CHANGE

Master thesis, Msc Business Administration, specialization Change Management

University of Groningen, Faculty of Management and Organization

February 14

, 2014

Lemmie Wouda

Studentnumber: 1781294

J.C. Kapteynlaan 9B

9714 CL Groningen

phone: +31 (0) 657992817

e-mail: lemmie_wouda@hotmail.com

Supervisor/university

Dr. B.J.M. Emans

Second assessor/university

Dr. J. Rupert

Supervisor/ field of study

M. F.J. Talsma

P&O advisor, Menzis Groningen, Netherlands

FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE

EQUIPPEDNESS TO CHANGE TO A

RESULTS-ORIENTED CULTURE:

BEYOND READINESS TO CHANGE

ABSTRACT

While researchers acknowledge the importance of readiness to change, there is less research on the importance of obstacles to change. The focus of this study is on equippedness to change, which combines the employees’ readiness to change and the nonexistence of obstacles to change. The central research question is formulated as: “What is the influence of the employees’ change-related self-efficacy and the applied change strategy on the employees’ equippedness to change in an organization that moves from an internally oriented culture towards a results-oriented culture?” In order to get an answer on this research question, a literature study was performed and the change process of a Dutch health insurance company was investigated. In total, 21 qualitative interviews were held with employees. The results of this study reveal that change-related self-efficacy and a normative-reeducative strategy together with aspects of a rational-empirical strategy positively influence the equippedness to change to a results-oriented culture. Furthermore, the results also indicate that vision clarity, interdepartmental cooperation and leadership by example are important antecedents of equippedness to change to a results-oriented culture.

KEY WORDS: Culture change, Equippedness to change, Change-related self-efficacy,

CONTENT

1.1 Organizational culture and culture change ... 5

1.2 The culture change process within Menzis ... 7

1.3 Management question ... 9

1.4 Research question ... 9

  2. THEORY ... 10

2.1 Equippedness to change ... 10

2.1.1 Employees’ readiness to change ... 10

2.1.2 Nonexistence of obstacles to change ... 12

2.2 Change-related self-efficacy ... 13

2.3 Organizational change strategy ... 14

2.3.1 Rational-empirical change strategy ... 14

2.3.2 Normative-reeducative change strategy ... 15

2.3.3 Power-coercive change strategy ... 16

  3. METHODS ... 18 3.1 Data collection ... 18 3.2 Data analysis ... 21   4. RESULTS ... 23

4.1 Equippedness to change to a results-oriented culture ... 23

4.2 Change-related self-efficacy and equippedness to change ... 26

4.3 Organizational change strategy and equippedness to change ... 30

4.4 Vision clarity and equippedness to change ... 36

4.5 Interdepartmental cooperation and equippedness to change ... 41

4.6 Leadership by example and equippedness to change ... 45

  5. DISCUSSION ... 49

5.1 Theoretical and practical contributions ... 51

5.1.1 Theoretical contributions ... 51

5.1.2 Practical contributions ... 51  

5.2 Methodological commentary ... 53

5.3 Limitations of the study ... 53

5.4 Suggestions for future research ... 54

REFERENCES ... 56

  APPENDIX ... 61

1. INTRODUCTION

“Culture eats strategy for breakfast,” a remark popularized by Mark Fields, president of Ford Motor

Company. With this quote he wants to emphasize that culture has a greater effect on the performance of a company than the company’s strategy or vision. Besides him, also organizational scholars and observers now recognize that organizational culture has a powerful effect on the performance and long-term effectiveness of organizations. Empirical evidence has produced an impressive array of findings demonstrating the importance of culture for enhancing organizational performance (Cameron & Quinn, 1999). Besides this, many authors put forward that no organization’s culture is static (Fang, 2005-6; Kotter & Heskett, 1992). An organization’s culture tends to evolve in a slow and unplanned fashion as a result of the turnover of group members, changes in the organization’s environment and general changes in society. While culture is important in relation to organizational performance, the success rate of cultural initiatives is very low (Smith, 2003).

This study is about a piece of research and focuses on a specific culture change, namely the planned change to a results-oriented culture. Moreover, this study is a single case study and examines the change process within Menzis, a Dutch health insurance company that wants to change to a results-oriented culture. By the use of this case-organization, this study provides insight in the factors that influence the change to a results-oriented culture.

Because the main focus of this study is to explain the change to a new culture type, the next chapter begins with an explanation about organizational culture and organizational culture change. In order to get a clear consensus on what organizational culture is, a definition of organizational culture is given and thereby, in order to understand the process of changing to a new culture, different approaches to culture change are explained as well. In other words, this section serves to broaden the knowledge about the steps that organizations need to take in order to change to a new culture. After this, information is given about the case-organization. Based on the Competing Values Framework the current and preferred culture of the case-organization is defined and thereby the change process from the current to the preferred culture. Finally, the management question is given and based on that, the central research question is formulated.

1.1 Organizational culture and culture change

and since then more attention is given to this concept (Cameron & Quinn, 1999). There is no clear consensus of an organizational culture definition (Howard, 1998; Zammut, Gifford & Goodman, 2000), but many researchers have adopted Schein’s (1990) three-dimensional view of organizational culture.

According to Schein (1990) three levels can be distinguished at which culture manifests itself: 1) observable artifacts, 2) values and 3) basic underlying assumptions. When a person enters an organization, he/she observes and feels the artifacts. Artifacts are the behaviors, the visible language and material symbols that exist in an organization. Secondly, by the use of survey methods one can study a culture's espoused and documented values. Values are the shared beliefs and rules that govern the attitudes and behaviors of employees, making some modes of conduct more socially and personally acceptable than others (Rokeach, 1973). Finally, through more intensive observation and through more focused questions, a person can seek out the assumptions. Assumptions are the taken-for-granted beliefs about human nature and the organizational environment that reside deep below the surface. Given that values are considered to be so central to understanding an organization’s culture (Ott, 1989) and they are seen as a reliable representation of organizational culture (Howard, 1998), the measurement of organizational culture has typically focused on values (Jones, Jimmieson & Griffiths 2005).

As told earlier, no organization’s culture is static, because of the turnover of group members, changes in the organization’s environment or changes in the society. Given that an organization’s environment can change rapidly, situations arise where an organization’s culture and structure may be out of step with the environment (Burnes, 2009). Many writers believe that culture can be changed and different approaches are available for changing culture and some of the most important, well-known approaches are shortly explained below.

Firstly, Schein (1984) analyzes organizational culture at several different levels, starting with the visible artifacts and followed by values and underlying assumptions. According to Schein, in order to really understand a culture it is necessary to delve into the underlying assumptions, which are typically unconscious but which actually determine how group members perceive, think and feel. In order to change the culture, a period of unfreezing that includes the pain of disconfirmation is required. Leadership is critical in this stage; the leaders need to help members of the group to survive the anxieties that accompany transitions. After this period, new concepts and new meanings of old concepts need to be learned. Finally, the last stage deals with the internalization of new concepts and meanings (Schein, 2009). These three stages proposed by Schein can be compared with the change model of Lewin (1947). The change model of Lewin also consists of three stages and these three stages are named: unfreezing, moving and refreezing.

organization needs to go through all these steps or stages in order to change successfully. The six steps for cultural change according to Cummings and Worley are: 1) formulate a clear strategic vision

(stage 1, 2 and 3 of Kotter), 2) display top-management commitment (stage 4 of Kotter), 3) model

culture change at the highest-level (stage 5 of Kotter), 4) modify the organization to support organizational changes, 5) select and socialize newcomers and terminate deviants (stage 7 and 8 of

Kotter) and 6) develop ethical and legal sensitivity. As can be seen, most of the steps and stages of the

two models can be compared (Ugbomhe & Dirisu, 2011). Moreover, in the next chapter it becomes clear that some aspects of stage 5 of Kotter can also be compared with step 4 of Cummings and Worley. Besides this comparison, the eight steps of Kotter can also be mapped onto Lewin’s phases. The first five steps of Kotter lead to the process of unfreezing, the sixth and seventh step lead to the process of moving and the last step leads to the process of refreezing (Cummings & Worley, 2009).

Thirdly, according to Cameron and Quinn (1999) a company should follow six steps in order to design and implement an organizational culture change effort. The first three steps deal with helping to ensure that the organization is clear from the outset about its current culture and the reason why it needs to change. A common viewpoint among employees about where the organization is starting and where it needs to go is important (Cummings & Worley, 1999). The fourth step deals with communicating the key values of the future culture by the help of illustrative stories. Finally, the last two steps pay attention to the action steps and the implementation plan so that the organization can change to the preferred culture.

In the beginning of this section it was told that values are considered to be central to understanding an organization’s culture and that they are seen as a reliable representation of organizational culture. So, from this it can be concluded that it is necessary to change the values in order to change the organizational culture successfully. According to Burnes (2009), approaches of culture change appear to be attempting to manipulate or change artifacts and norms of behavior. These changes in artifacts and norms of behavior lead to changes in values, but only when the approach to change is not directive or coercive so that people can voluntarily participate in this process and have the possibility to make their own decisions.

1.2 The culture change process within Menzis

The previous section served to explain more about organizational culture and the approaches to culture change. In this section more information is given about Menzis and about the change process within this case-organization.

Before the changes in the Dutch health care industry, Menzis had an internally oriented culture with a high concern for people and a managerial way of working. However, the Board of Directors concluded that there was no fit anymore between the organizational culture and the current changes in the environment. In order to stay one of the biggest health insurance companies in the Netherlands, they concluded that it is necessary for Menzis to change the culture. According to Menzis, the culture that is required is the current culture in combination with a more results-oriented, and innovative culture. To define the preferred culture, Menzis used the Competing Values Framework of Cameron and Quinn (1999).

The Competing Values Framework consists of two dimensions, which are created from a list of thirty-nine indicators made by Cameron and Quinn (1999). One dimension differentiates effectiveness criteria that emphasize flexibility, discretion, and dynamism from criteria that emphasize stability, order, and control. The second dimension differentiates effectiveness criteria that emphasize an internal orientation, integration, and unity from criteria that emphasize an external orientation, differentiation, and rivalry. Based on these two dimensions, the authors identified four different organizational cultures: clan, adhocracy, hierarchy and market. All the four culture types can exist in an organization; however some values are more dominant than others (Quinn & Cameron, 1983). This means that organizations often have a dominant culture type, but can also have characteristics of other culture types.

Based on the Competing Values Framework the current culture of Menzis is characterized mostly by a clan culture. Next to that, also some values of a hierarchy culture are included in the definition of the current culture. These cultures are both located on the left side of the Competing Values Framework. The preferred culture of Menzis is located at the right side of the Competing Values Framework. Most characteristics of the preferred culture are related to a market culture, but also values from an adhocracy culture are included. Instead of using the term market culture, Menzis defines the preferred culture as a results-oriented culture and because this study examines the change process within Menzis, the term results-oriented culture is also used by this study.

fail (Cameron, 1997). Either quality does not improve, or the

ini-tiatives are abandoned after a short time. Two of the major reasons

for this failure are partial deployment and failure to integrate TQM

and culture change. Partial deployment means that only a limited

number of aspects of TQM are implemented. For example, many

or-ganizations create teams or gather customer satisfaction data but not

much else. Or some organizations implement new statistical controls

or redesign processes to prevent defects, but little else changes.

Fig-ure 3.3 uses the Competing Values Framework to highlight a more

comprehensive set of TQM factors. When all of these are integrated

in a TQM project, the success rate increases significantly.

50 DIAGNOSING AND CHANGING ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE

QUALITY STRATEGIES Empowerment

Team building Employee involvement Human resource development Open communication

Stability and Control Flexibility and Discretion

External Focus and Differentiation

Internal Focus and Integration

CLAN

QUALITY STRATEGIES Surprise and delight Creating new standards Anticipating needs Continuous improvement Finding creative solutions

ADHOCRACY

QUALITY STRATEGIES Error detection

Measurement Process control

Systematic problem solving Quality tools (fishbone diagrams, Pareto charting, affinity

graphing, variance plotting)

HIERARCHY

QUALITY STRATEGIES Measuring customer preferences Improving productivity Creating external partnerships Enhancing competitiveness Involving customers and suppliers

MARKET

Figure 3.3 The Competing Values of Total Quality Management

Source: Cameron and Quinn (1999).

Figure 1. Competing Values Framework

1.3 Management question

In March 2012, 1308 employees (60% response) completed a questionnaire (the organizational culture assessment instrument) about the cultural fit within Menzis. In total, 66.9% of the employees experienced that the preferred culture was not realized yet and 65.2% of the management team did not experience the realization of the preferred culture. Based on this, Menzis concluded that it is still more internally oriented instead of externally and results-oriented. As a consequence of these results, the organization wants to examine why the preferred culture is not realized yet. Moreover, the organization wants to investigate if the results of former employee surveys have a relation with the change to a results-oriented culture. Former employee surveys show that the employees are dissatisfied about the way Menzis implements organizational changes. Next to this, Menzis also wants to know if the employees are capable of becoming more results-oriented and if this has an influence on the success of the culture change.

1.4 Research question

it. In other words, the focus is on readiness to change as well as on the possibility for employees to make use of this readiness so that they are able to change to a results-oriented culture. The term that includes both aspects and that is used by this study is equippedness to change, which combines employees’ readiness to change and the nonexistence of obstacles to change. The focus of this study is to show that employees’ readiness to change is not enough; in order to change successfully to a results-oriented culture, the obstacles within the organization also need to be removed so that the employees are able to change to a results-oriented culture. Not many studies within the literature focus on these two aspects and in this way this study differentiates itself from other studies that are related to culture change.

This study investigates factors that influence the equippedness to change to a results-oriented culture. Based on the management question and specifically the results of former employee surveys, the influence of an employee competence, namely change-related self-efficacy and an organizational factor, namely organizational change strategy on equippedness to change to a results-oriented culture is investigated. So, the central research question of this study is:

Central research question: What is the influence of the employees’ change-related self-efficacy and

the applied change strategy on the employees’ equippedness to change in an organization that moves from an internally oriented culture towards a results-oriented culture?

The next chapter serves to explain the central research question. Firstly, attention is paid to the dependent variable and thereafter attention is paid to the two independent variables. These variables are placed in a conceptual model.

2. THEORY

2.1 Equippedness to change

Equippedness to change includes both the employees’ readiness to change and the nonexistence of obstacles to change. In this chapter, both aspects of this term are explained.

2.1.1 Employees’ readiness to change

1990; Lowstedt, 1993). Furthermore, research also shows that individuals’ attitudes toward a change initiative influence their behavioral support for it (Jones, Jimmieson, & Griffiths, 2005). From the above, it can be concluded that readiness to change is important for the success of a change initiative.

Readiness to change is defined by researchers in different ways; nevertheless a lot of definitions of readiness to change are related to the extent to which employees hold positive views of the need for change (change acceptance), as well as the extent to which employees believe that such changes are likely to have positive implications for themselves and the wider organization (Armenakis, Harris & Mossholder, 1993; Holt, 2002; Miller, Johnson & Grau, 1994). Readiness to change is comparable with Lewin’s (1951) concept of unfreezing- the process by which organizational members’ beliefs and attitudes about a change are altered so that members perceive the change as both necessary and likely to be successful.

According to Rafferty, Jimmieson and Armenakis (2013), it is important to pay attention to both the cognitive and affective variables that influence change readiness and that readiness must be analyzed on three different levels. In this study, readiness to change is only analyzed on the individual level, because the focus of this study is on the employees’ readiness to change.

The cognitive variable can be divided into five different variables. These five variables have an influence on the individuals’ change readiness, according to Armenakis and Harris (2002). Firstly, the change message must create a sense of discrepancy and secondly an individual must believe that a proposed change is an appropriate response to a situation. These two variables are categorized as the need for change. Thirdly, the change message must create a sense of efficacy. Fourthly, the individual must believe that his/her organization will provide tangible support for change and finally the fifth variable, personal valence, is concerned with an individual’s evaluation of the benefits or costs of a change for his or her job and role.

Besides these variables many researchers broadly acknowledge that affect is also an important variable that influences change readiness. Rafferty et al. (2013) propose that discrete emotion items that capture individual’s positive emotions concerning a specific change event should assess affective change readiness. Affective reactions to change may result from currently experiencing an emotion due to the prospect of a desirable or undesirable future event (Baumgartner, Pieters & Bagozzi, 2008). For example, an employee can experience a positive emotion, because the employee imagines that he/she will obtain a promotion after an organizational restructure.

2.1.2 Nonexistence of obstacles to change

The second aspect of equippedness to change is the nonexistence of obstacles inside the organization, so that employees are able to change to a results-oriented culture. Three different change models are discussed that put forward the importance of the nonexistence of obstacles to change.

Step five- Kotter (1995). Based on the analysis of more than 100 organizations that were

trying to implement changes, Kotter (1995) identified eight common errors companies make when they implement changes and on the basis of this, defined eight stages that organizations need to pass in order to change successfully. The fifth error companies often make is not removing the obstacles inside the organization. According to Kotter (1995), too often an employee understands the vision and wants to help make it happen, but an elephant appears to be blocking the path. In some cases the obstacle is in the person’s head, but most of the time the obstacles are very real. These obstacles can for example be the organizational structure, compensation or performance-appraisal systems or bosses who refuse to change and who make demands that are inconsistent with the overall effort. Most organizations do not have the time and power to get rid of all obstacles, but it is important that the big obstacles that do not support the vision are confronted and removed (Kotter, 1995).

Step 4- Cummings and Worley (2009). As already discussed, Cummings and Worley (2009)

offer six steps that organizations should follow in order to change the culture. The fourth step is that the organization needs to be modified so that the organizational change is supported. The researchers emphasize that cultural change must be accompanied by supporting modifications in organizational structure, human resource systems, information and control systems and management style. These organizational features can help to orientate people’s behaviors to the new culture; they can make people aware of the behaviors required to get things done in the new culture and can encourage performance of those behaviors.

White-print thinking- Caluwé and Vermaak (1999). Caluwé and Vermaak (1999)

conceptualized five perspectives on realizing change. One of these perspectives is the white-print thinking that deals with change from a self-organization point of view. In the white-print way of thinking, change is autonomous; people and organizations are in a constant state of change. An important aspect for achieving the change is removing obstacles. Interventions for removing obstacles to change are necessary for people and things to change. Despite the fact that the concept of planned change is somewhat at odds with white-print thinking, interventions for removing obstacles to change are also important for the other change perspectives (Caluwé &Vermaak, 1999).

2. 2 Change-related self-efficacy

Researchers identified a number of individual characteristics that contribute to the development of a positive attitude towards change (Rafferty & Simons, 2006). In this study, the focus is on one of these factors, namely change-related self-efficacy. Change-related self-efficacy is an individual’s perceived ability to handle change in a given situation and to function well on the job despite demands of the change (Wanberg & Banas, 2000). Several authors studied the relationship between change-related self-efficacy and organizational change and suggested that change-related self-efficacy is an important antecedent of change readiness (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999; Eby, Adams, Russell & Gaby, 2000).

First of all, Wanberg and Banas (2000) suggest that employees need to have confidence about their abilities in order to perform well in change contexts. Managers should bolster employees’ confidence in their abilities to accommodate workplace change in order to decrease resistance to change. As became evident from their research outcomes, change-related self-efficacy is positively related to change acceptance.

Secondly, Jimmieson, Terry and Callan (2004) also examined the role of change-related self-efficacy to organizational change. The authors argued that employees with high levels of change- related self-efficacy are unlikely to be distressed by feelings of inadequacy and for this reason are expected to persist in their efforts to manage the organizational change process. This is consistent with the suggestions of Bandura (1977) who argues that when employees doubt their ability to respond to the demands of a specific organizational change event they are likely to focus attention on their feelings of incompetence. These feelings of incompetence will be accompanied by feelings of psychological distress and the failure to deal with a situation. However, employees with a high level of change-related self-efficacy appraise the changing work as less stressful, thereby experiencing less strain. As became evident from the study, employees who perceive higher levels of change-related self-efficacy report higher levels of psychological well-being in the early phases of the change process.

This study looks into the relation between change-related self-efficacy and the equippedness to change to a results-oriented culture. The question to be answered by the research in this study is stated as follows:

Sub question one: How does the level of change-related self-efficacy influence the equippedness to

change to a results-oriented culture?

2.3 Organizational change strategy

The second independent variable that is included in this study is organizational change strategy. Change strategies used by the leader of an organization are critical in the change recipient’s sensemaking as well as the development of their readiness to organizational change (Choi & Ruona, 2011). In the literature, different organizational change strategies can be found.

In 1961, Chin and Benne summarized in their article the most utilized approaches to change management. The framework has remained an often-cited guide to change practice and a useful tool for the analysis of potential approaches to change strategy development. Within this framework, the approaches to change management are divided into three general strategies, namely: 1) rational-empirical, 2) normative-reeducative and 3) power-coercive. Each of these organizational change strategies approaches the planning and implementation of change from different philosophical and practice-based sets of assumptions (Miles et al. 2002). Most change processes base their approach on one of the three above mentioned change strategies and use tactics from the other two to initiate change efforts (Miles et al., 2002). Because of this, all the three change strategies are included in this study. The three general strategies are explained in the section below and thereby their relation with the equippedness to change to a results-oriented culture. Moreover, a sub question is formulated for each strategy.

2.3.1 Rational-empirical change strategy

By using the rational–empirical strategy people are considered to be rationally self-interested. An employee adopts a proposed change if the proposed change is rationally justified, and when the change agent demonstrates the benefits of the change. This means that when the change is in the self- interest of the employee, change comes simply by telling the employee about the change (Quinn & Sonenshein, 2008). The key component of the rational-empirical strategy is a focus on information; the use of information is the primary change motivator. This means that in order to implement the necessary changes the change must be supported by many data (Miles, Thangaraj, Dawei & Huiqin, 2002).

behavioral patterns, however in many cases people do (Quinn & Sonenshein, 2008). Researchers contend that the diffusion of new practices depends more on the change recipients’ beliefs in the benefits of new practices, rather than the actual benefits, and that the beliefs are shaped and promoted by the interaction between change agents and change recipients (Ford, Ford & D’Amelio, 2002). This means that employees will implement the changes when they can interact actively with the change agent instead of just knowing the benefits of the change. By using the rational-empirical change strategy there is not much interaction between the change agent and the employees and therefore it is expected that only short-term problems are solved by using this change strategy (Quinn & Sonenshein, 2008).

Researchers demonstrate that rational-empirical change strategies are much used in organizations, but most of the time unsuccessfully (Chin & Benne, 1961). As became evident from research done by Nutt (1996), rational-empirical change strategies are not the most effective method for implementing organizational change within a health care organization. From the research by Zaltman and Duncan (1977), it became clear that persuasive strategies gain greater commitment among employees than power strategies, but less commitment than reeducative strategies. Besides, also another study by Nutt (1998) found that persuasion is the most frequently used tactic by managers, but it is not the most successful one. However, Szabla (2007) found a positive relationship between a rational-empirical strategy and responses to change. Szabla (2007) studied the relationship between the perception of a change leadership strategy and the response to change and found that a perception of a rational-empirical change strategy elicits positive feelings by the employee, as feelings of optimism and enthusiasm. Because of this, these employees intend to support the change and encourage others to make it effective.

This study investigates the relation between a rational-empirical change strategy and the equippedness to change to a results-oriented culture. Based on this, the second sub question to be answered by the research of this study is:

Sub question two: How does the level of a rational-empirical change strategy influence the

equippedness to change to a results-oriented culture

?

2.3.2 Normative-reeducative change strategy

employees and the values of the organizational environment are found. Participation of the client system in designing, developing, and implementing the change effort is the distinguishing feature of this change strategy (Szabla, 2007).

Normative-reeducative change strategies are cited as very successful strategies for implementing organizational change. When employees are involved in the change process, resistance to change can often be minimized, because the initiators of the change will listen to the people and to their advice and thereby the employees have a choice to contribute by giving their opinion (Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979). Under this change strategy, individuals have the potential to view the change as necessary and valuable and to provide feedback to the organizational system about the change in ways that can enhance the change implementation. Eventually, this increases the knowledge they need to believe in the benefits of the change and thereby it fosters their commitment to and support for the change (Freedman, 2006; Huy, 2001).

As already became evident from early research, participation is important during change. Lewin (1948) found that participative discussions are far more effective than lecturers. Coch and French (1948) concluded that workers accept and learn new methods if they participate in the decisions associated with the change. They discovered that participative decision-making lessens resistance to change. Besides, also from recent research it becomes clear that participation is important for implementing organizational change. Due to the research outcomes, Lines (2005) found that there is a positive relationship between participation and organizational commitment after the change and that participation is also positively related to the achievement of change objectives. Besides, Szabla (2007) also found a positive relation between the normative-reeducative strategy and responses to change. The people included in the research that perceived that the organization used a normative-reeducative strategy, held the most positive beliefs and had the highest intentions to support the change.

This study investigates if the normative-reeducative change strategy has an influence on the equippedness to change to a results-oriented culture. Due to this, the third sub question to be answered by the research of this study is:

Sub question three: How does the level of a normative-reeducative change strategy influence the

equippedness to change to a results-oriented culture?

2.3.3 Power-coercive change strategy

used in effecting changes. Besides, the power-coercive strategies are characterized by their emphasis on political power, economic sanctions or the utilization of moral power (Chin & Benne, 1985). In order to implement the changes, the change agent simply announces the change and specifies what the employees must do to meet the terms of the change (Zaltman & Duncan, 1977). Employees will implement the changes, because they are dependent on those with authority (Chin & Benne, 1961).

As became clear from research, the power-coercive change strategy is the least effective strategy for implementing change. Initially by using this strategy resistance can be override, but it often comes at the expense of trust and thereby it often undermines long-term commitment to the change process (Quinn & Sonenshein, 2008). Under power-coercive strategies, employees are forced to comply with the goals and may in the end conform to the direction without reflecting on their beliefs and values (Huy, 2001).

White and Lippitt (1960) found that autocratic styles create tension and hostility and led to submissive and dependent behavior. Besides, also Nutt (1998) concluded that a change strategy based on power is the least desirable change strategy for implementing decisions. Furthermore, the results of the study by Harris (2002) showed that organizational members want to sabotage the change when the change is politically motivated, unjust, impulsive, or suppressive. Finally, the results of the study by Szabla (2009) also suggest that the use of power-coercive strategies elicit the least positive responses. The group that perceived that the organization used a power-coercive strategy experienced anger and frustration and did not believe that the new appraisal system would gratify their job-related needs.

This study investigates the relation between the level of a power-coercive strategy and the equippedness to change to a results-oriented culture. Related to this, the final sub question to be answered by the research of this study is:

Sub question four: How does the level of a power-coercive change strategy influence the

equippedness to change to a results-oriented culture?

Figure 2. Conceptual Model

3. METHODS

The theory related to this study was explained in the first two sections and in this section more is told about the data collection and the data analysis.

3.1 Data collection

As told above, this study investigates if change-related self-efficacy and organizational change strategies influences the equippedness to change to a results-oriented culture.

Data method. In order to give an answer to the above mentioned research questions; data was

collected by the use of qualitative interviews. The qualitative interview was used for this study, because through this research method it was possible to get detailed descriptions, to integrate multiple perspectives from the respondents and to describe the processes (Weiss, 1994). By the use of qualitative interviews it was possible to receive as many insights as possible about the underlying processes that are related to the equippedness to change.

The interview was semi-structured; for each variable different topics were made, but next to that the respondents also had the possibility to tell and discuss their own ideas related to the culture change. This means that I was open-minded for other factors that were not included in the four sub questions. Because of this, I took into account the possibility that the amount of sub questions would increase.

Equippedness to change

to a results-oriented

culture

Change- related

self-efficacy

Organizational change strategy

- Rational- empirical change

strategy

- Normative- reeducative

change strategy

- Power- coercive change

strategy

Before the interview started, information was given to the respondents about the objective of the study, the interview structure and the confidentiality of the data discussed by the respondents. With regard to the objective of the study, the respondents were told that they had the possibility to tell all their experiences and to put forward all the factors that have a relation with their equippedness to change to a results-oriented culture. Moreover, it was told that based on these experiences, the relationship between different factors and the equippedness to change to a results-oriented culture could be investigated. After everything was clear for the respondents, the respondents were asked to tell something about themselves and about their function within Menzis. After this, each interview started with the same open question: “What was your first reaction when you heard that the Board of

Directors wanted to change the culture to a more results-oriented culture?” Hereafter, respondents

were given the opportunity to tell all their experiences with regard to the culture change. Of course, special attention was given to the influence of change-related self-efficacy, organizational change strategies and other factors discussed by the respondents on the equippedness to change to a results-oriented culture.

Based on the definitions of the three variables given in chapter 2, each variable was divided into different topics. Every topic reflected something of a variable and together the topics of one variable covered the definition of that variable. Based on these topics, questions could be asked to the respondents about the variables. The answers on all the topics together of one variable gave a good understanding of that specific variable. These topics were discussed throughout the interview, depending on what the respondents discussed and at which point during the interview. At the end of the interview, the respondents were asked if everything was told with regard to the culture change. The interviews lasted for about 50 minutes.

In order to be sure that enough data was gathered about the three variables, a checklist was made and was controlled at the end of every interview. When enough information was gathered for all the topics on the checklist, the interview ended and the respondent was thanked for the collaboration. However, when not all the information for each topic on the checklist was gathered, the respondent was referred back to the situation when something was said about that specific topic and was asked to share the missing information. The interview checklist is translated to English and can be found in Appendix A.

Respondents. The respondents that participated in this study were employees from Menzis

described as a judgmental sampling procedure (Blumberg, Cooper & Schindler, 2008). The objective of the first three interviews was to gain more knowledge about the independent variables and the dependent variable of this study and to increase the knowledge about the culture change process within Menzis. Because of this, in total 18 interviews were used for this study. As can be seen in table 1, the sample is diverse with regard to the location, the age and gender of the respondents and years of service.

Table 1. Background information respondents

The confidentiality was assured by changing the names of the respondents into numbers and by assuring the respondents that no names would be mentioned in the study. Further, the respondents were contacted by email and the interview was face-to-face and took place in an office with closed doors. The only possibility that data is shared with other employees is that the respondents shared it by themselves.

Interview questions. The topics and thereby the interview questions related to the dependent

variable and the two independent variables were based on the definitions given in chapter 2. The interview questions were open questions, so that the respondents were able to give in-depth responses. First of all, questions were asked about each variable and thereafter questions were asked about the relation between that specific variable and equippedness to change to a results-oriented culture. In order to get as many evidence as possible about these relationships, the respondents were asked to tell their experiences so that they could clarify the different relationships. The focus was to gather as many facts as possible about the relation between the independent variables and the dependent variable.

Equippedness to change to a results-oriented culture. The dependent variable equippedness to

change consists of the variables employees’ readiness to change and nonexistence of obstacles to change. The topics and thereby the questions related to employees’ readiness to change were based on the definition given in chapter 2.1.1. The questions were related to the opening question and besides that, the questions were aimed to investigate the employees’ willingness to implement the changes:

“To which extent are you willing to implement the necessary changes?” Other questions were aimed to gather data about the need for change: “To which extent do you think that the changes are

necessary for Menzis?” Questions related to the nonexistence of obstacles were based on the theory

discussed in chapter 2.1.2. An example question: “To which extent do obstacles exist within Menzis

and to which extent do these obstacles prevent you and other employees from changing to a results-oriented culture?”

Change-related self-efficacy. The definition of Wanberg and Banas (2000) was used to

develop the topics and thereby the questions related to change-related self-efficacy. Some questions were related to the confidence of the respondent in handling the culture change: “To which extent do

you believe that you are able to handle the culture change?” The other questions were related to the

confidence of the respondent in performing well following the culture change: “To which extent do

you believe that you can perform well in your job following the culture change?” After these

questions, questions were asked about the influence of change-related self-efficacy on the equippedness to change to a results-oriented culture. As told above, the respondents were asked to share their experiences in order to clarify the relationships. Questions were asked like: “How does the

level of change-related self-efficacy influence the equippedness to change to a results-oriented culture? Can you give some examples that clarify this relationship?”

Organizational change strategy. Based on the literature provided in chapter 2.3, questions

were made in order to gather information about the applied organizational change strategy. In total three topics were included. Firstly, questions were asked about the fact if certain methods/strategies are used in order to get employees to change: “To which extent do people who are leading the change,

use certain methods/strategies so that the employees will implement the necessary changes?”

Secondly, questions were asked about the decisions regarding the change: “How are the decisions

made regarding the culture change and who is making those decisions?” Finally, questions were

asked about the relation between the people who are leading the change and the people who are carrying out the change: “How should you describe the relation between the people who are leading

the change and the people who are carrying out the change?” After these questions, the respondents

were asked how the change strategy used by Menzis relates to the equippedness to change to a results-oriented culture. The respondents were asked to tell their experiences, so that facts could be gathered about the relation between this independent variable and the dependent variable.

3.2 Data analysis

information could be coded into groups of variables. The codes related to equippedness to change, change-related self-efficacy and organizational change strategy are given in table 2 below:

Table 2. Codes related to the four sub questions

Coding was used to link information that was shared by the respondents with the categories that would appear in the report (Weiss, 1994). Each group of variables was divided into two or three variables that together defined one group of variables. In order to make sure that the right codes were chosen, three fellow students from the University of Groningen also coded the 18 interviews. The codes were compared with each other and despite the fact that the groups of variables were almost similar to each other, some changes with regard to the initial codes were made (example: strategies for achieving the vision was changed into targets for achieving the vision). As can be seen, the codes are almost similar to the topics included in the checklist.

As told above, the respondents were given the opportunity to also discuss factors in relation to their equippedness to change that were not included in the four sub questions. As became evident from the analysis, the interviews provided insight into some factors that influence the equippedness to change and which do not correspond with one of the factors included in the four sub questions. In total, the interviews provided insight into three factors: 1) vision clarity, 2) interdepartmental cooperation and 3) leadership by example. For this reason, more codes were included in the analysis and thereby the amount of research questions was increased by three. The codes related to these three factors are given in table 3 on the next page:

Equippedness to change to a results-oriented culture 1. Employees’ readiness to change to a results-oriented culture 2. Nonexistence of obstacles to change

Change-related self-efficacy

1. Confidence of the respondent that he/she can handle the culture change, influencing the equippedness to change to a results-oriented culture

2. Confidence of the respondent that he/she can perform well following the culture change, influencing the equippedness to change to a results-oriented culture

Organizational change strategy

1. The way by which those who are leading the change get employees to change, influencing the equippedness to change to a results-oriented culture

2. The way by which the decisions regarding the culture change are made, influencing the equippedness to change to a results-oriented culture

Table 3. Codes related to the three extra factors

For all the six groups of variables (the dependent variable included) tables were made in order to structure the data. In the tables, the answers given by the respondents related to the specific variable was summarized and moreover evidence about the existence of a relationship between that specific variable and the equippedness to change to a results-oriented culture. In the last column, a distinction was made between the fact if the respondents said something about the relation based on facts or based on their opinions. These tables are discussed in the next section.

4. RESULTS

In this section, the results from the data analysis are discussed by the use of tables and besides that, answers are given to the four sub questions. As can be seen, especially with regard to the three variables not related to the initial sub questions, data is missing in some instances. Because no topics were developed for these variables, the possibility was there that not every interview would collect enough information for each of these three ‘extra’ variables. Furthermore, some respondents were not able to share experiences related to some variables because they didn’t have enough information

.

4.1 Equippedness to change to a results-oriented culture

The data related to equippedness to change is divided into two variables: 1) employees’ readiness to change and 2) nonexistence of obstacles to change.

Employees’ readiness to change. As can be seen in table 4, 16 respondents have a positive

attitude about the change. These respondents think that it is necessary to change the culture and therefore they reacted very positive when they heard about the culture change. Moreover, these respondents are also willing to implement the changes. For example, one respondent stated: “I’m a big

proponent of the culture change, a few months ago I sent an e-mail to one of the Board members regarding the culture change and said to him that it is important to take more steps in order to change the culture. I really think that we need to change and I’m willing to implement the changes.”

Vision clarity

1. Communication of a clear vision to help direct the culture change, influencing the equippedness to change to a results-oriented culture

2. Communication of a clear definition of a results-oriented culture, influencing the equippedness to change to a results-oriented culture

3. Clear targets are set for achieving the vision, influencing the equippedness to change to a results-oriented culture

Interdepartmental cooperation

1. Understanding of the roles and responsibilities of other departments, influencing the equippedness to change to a results-oriented culture

2. Amount of alignment between departments, influencing the equippedness to change to a results-oriented culture

Leadership by example

1. Managers lead by example, influencing the equippedness to change to a results-oriented culture

In total, 2 respondents told that they are not entirely positive about the culture change.

According to these respondents, it is not clear for them how the culture change will affect them and therefore they are not positive about it yet. Example from the interview: “You just don’t know what

they expect from you and that results in uncertainty. When things will be made clearer, the uncertainty will decrease and the willingness to implement the changes will increase.”

Nonexistence of obstacles to change. As can be concluded from table 5, respondents

experience that there are obstacles with regard to organizational systems and processes, like one respondent told: “I think we are still in a preliminary phase, we still have to improve a lot of processes

inside Menzis.” Another respondent stated: “A results-oriented culture means that you have to be more professional and clear about things, we can win a lot with regard to that.” According to these

respondents, these obstacles need to be removed in order to be equipped to change to a results-oriented culture. One respondent told: “I really question if the culture is already changed. If you ask me the

question if we work already results-oriented? My answer is no, if you look at the main processes, I would say no. I already reviewed some processes several times and I noticed that these processes are not running well, still a lot of things are going wrong and based on that I do not think that we are already a results-oriented organization.”

In total, 11 respondents told that there are some obstacles in the organization and 6 respondents told that there are too many obstacles in the organization. According to these respondents, systems and procedures within the organization prevent employees from changing to a results-oriented culture. One respondent stated: “Still a lot of things are not going well and that shows that we are not

Table 4. Dependent variable: Equippedness to change to a results-oriented culture

Table 5. Dependent variable: Equippedness to change to a results-oriented culture

to a results-oriented

culture

change to a results-oriented

culture

results-oriented culture, based on this I’m equipped to change to a results-oriented culture.

My first reaction was positive when I heard about the culture change. I definitely think that it is necessary for Menzis to change and therefore I’m willing to implement the necessary changes.

2. Not entirely positive about the culture change, in order to be equipped to change to a results-oriented culture more things should be made clear with regard to the culture change.

My first reaction was not entirely positive when I heard about the culture change. I do not really know how I will be affected by the culture change.

2

Total number of respondents: 18 (100%)

Groups of variables

Variable

Categories

Number of respondents

Equippedness to change

to a results-oriented

culture

Nonexistence of obstacles to

change

1. Some obstacles in the organization are not removed yet; when these obstacles are removed I’m equipped to change to a results-oriented culture.

Still some things with regard to organizational systems and procedures need to be improved in order to change successfully to a results-oriented culture.

11

2. There are too many obstacles in the organization, without removing those obstacles I’m not equipped to change to a results-oriented culture.

A lot of things in the organization with regard to systems and procedures need to be improved in order to change successfully to a results-oriented culture.

6

3. Missing data 1

4.2 Change-related self-efficacy and equippedness to change

The data related to change-related self-efficacy is divided into two variables: 1) confidence in handling the culture change and 2) confidence in performing well following the culture change. The first variable is more related to the amount of changes and thereby the confidence that the respondent is able to handle the culture change despite of all the extra pressures of the culture change. The second variable is related to the fact if the respondent has confidence in executing the new tasks.

Confidence in handling the culture change. As can be seen in table 6, respondents are

confident that they can handle the culture change. In total, 11 respondents are highly confident that they can handle the culture change, because they already work results-oriented and therefore are not influenced that much by the culture change. They do not have to change their work that much and thereby do not feel that much pressure from the culture change. By the use of experiences, these respondents told that a high confidence in handling the culture change has a positive influence on the equippedness to change. As one respondent stated: “I have a lot of confidence in handling the culture

change. I don’t have to implement that many changes and we already work results-oriented, we have like for example dashboards so that we know what kind of results we achieved. Compared to others, we are not affected that much by the culture change and thereby we can easily combine our work with the small changes that we have to implement. Because of this I do not have any resistance regarding the changes.”

In total, 5 respondents have confidence in handling the culture change. They just have to implement some changes and besides that they already have a focus on results, so they also do not feel that much pressure from the culture change. The answers of these respondents were practically similar to the ‘high-confidence’ group, however these respondents did not react that enthusiastically as the ‘high-confidence’ group and just said that the culture change is fine to them. These respondents say that confidence in handling the culture change has a positive influence on the equippedness to change. An example from the interview: “I’m already really structured and organized and my work also

requires me to be structured and organized. Maybe I have to change some small things, but further the change will not affect me that much. Because I will not be affected that much, I have a positive attitude about the culture change.”

Confidence in performing well following the culture change. As can be seen in table 7, the

respondents also have confidence in performing well following the culture change. In total, 12 respondents are highly confident that they can perform well following the culture change. These respondents are already results-oriented and already work that way and perform well and because of this they have a positive attitude about the change and are willing to implement the changes. A respondent stated for example: “I am competitive and I also think that it is important that you possess

confidence that I can perform well after implementing the changes. As a consequence of this high confidence and as a consequence of the fact that I already possess competences that are related to a results-oriented workplace, I’m more than willing to implement the changes.”

In total, 5 respondents are confident in performing well following the culture change. Like the other group, these respondents already work fairly results-oriented and also look forward to the changes, however they did not react that positive as the other group and they expect that they maybe have to focus more on results. Respondents told that because of the fact that they are already fairly results-oriented they are looking forward to the changes and thereby are confident that they also perform well after the changes. An example from the interview: “If you value a results-oriented

workplace the culture change will not influence your way of working that much. I always work with deadlines and I have to deliver things with a high quality. I do not think that a lot of things will change with regard to my work, so I’m also confident that I can perform well after the changes are implemented. Because of the fact that I value a results-oriented workplace, my reaction was positive when I heard about the culture change.”

The research question related to the influence of change-related self-efficacy on the equippedness to change to a results-oriented culture was formulated as:

Sub question 1: “How does the level of change-related self-efficacy influence the equippedness to

change to a results-oriented culture?” From the results above, it can be concluded that change-related

Table 6. Independent variable: Change-related self-efficacy

culture

Change-related

self-efficacy

Confidence of the respondent

that he/she can handle the

culture change, influencing

the equippedness to change to

a results-oriented culture

1. High confidence in handling the culture change, influencing the equippedness to change to a results-oriented culture.

I do not have to change that much, I already work results-oriented so I will not be influenced that much by the culture change; therefore I’m highly confident that I can handle the culture change.

Number of respondents: 11

Positive influence Based on fact: 8 Based on opinion: 3

No influence Based on fact:

Based on opinion: Negative influence Based on fact:

Based on opinion: Missing data

2. Confidence in handling the culture change, influencing the equippedness to change to a results-oriented culture.

I have to implement some changes, but I already work fairly results-oriented, so I won’t feel that much pressure from the culture change and

therefore I’m confident that I can handle the culture change.

Number of respondents: 5

Positive influence Based on fact: 4 Based on opinion: 1

No influence Based on fact:

Based on opinion: Negative influence Based on fact:

Based on opinion: Missing data

3. Missing data

Number of respondents: 2

Missing data 2

Total number of respondents: 18 (100%)

Table 7. Independent variable: Change-related self-efficacy

culture

Change-related

self-efficacy

Confidence of the respondent

that he/she can perform well

following the culture change,

influencing the equippedness

to change to a results-oriented

culture

1. High confidence in performing well following the culture change, influencing the equippedness to change to a results-oriented culture.

I’m already results-oriented and I already perform well, so I’m highly confident that I will perform well following the culture change.

Number of respondents: 12

Positive influence Based on fact: 10 Based on opinion: 1

No influence Based on fact:

Based on opinion: Negative influence Based on fact:

Based on opinion:

Missing data 1

2. Confidence in performing well following the culture change, influencing the equippedness to change to a results-oriented culture

I’m already fairly results-oriented, maybe I have to be more results-oriented but I’m confident that I will perform well when I have to work like that.

Number of respondents: 5

Positive influence Based on fact: 3 Based on opinion:

No influence Based on fact:

Based on opinion: Negative influence Based on fact:

Based on opinion:

Missing data 2

3. Missing data

Number of respondents: 1

Missing data 1

Total number of respondents: 18 (100%)

4.3 Organizational change strategy and equippedness to change

The data regarding organizational change strategy is divided into three variables: 1) the way by which those who are leading the change get employees to change, 2) the way by which decisions regarding the culture change are made and 3) relationship between the people who are leading the change and the people who are carrying out the change.

The way by which those who are leading the change get employees to change. With regard

to the variables related to organizational change strategy, there are some mixed results. As can be seen in table 8, 11 respondents argue that the people who are leading the change use logical arguments and factual evidence to carry out the change. These respondents state that the changes in the external environment are used to explain the need for change and to get employees to change. When the organization will not implement the changes, it will be out of fit with the environment, so many respondents state that because of these logical arguments they are willing to change. One respondent told: “The people who are leading the change give us logical arguments as the increase of the

competition in the health care market and the cost cuts from the government. Because of this, the change is logical, there is a high sense of urgency and because of these logical arguments I’m also willing to change.”

Besides this, there are also two respondents that state that those who are leading the change involve employees from many levels of the organization. One respondent thinks that this will have a positive influence on the equippedness to change and the other one believes that this has a negative influence and believes that only people from the higher levels should be involved in the change process. However, these statements are based on opinions and therefore are less relevant than the other ones who are based on facts.

Finally, two respondents say that the people who are leading the change use their positions of power and use threats to implement the changes. The use of positions of power and threats are negatively related to the equippedness to change according to the two respondents. By the use of this method, employees do not feel the need for change because they do not have the possibility to participate or to give their opinion. A respondent stated: “It is more based on coercion, for them

changing to a results-oriented culture seemed to be the right thing to do; I didn’t have the possibility to say something about it or to participate. Because of this, I do not feel the need for change and I’m less willing to implement the changes.”

The way by which decisions regarding the culture change are made. Despite the fact that the