Commitment to a change process

-./0123.4561.75.7'8693.3:53' ' ;!

Commitment to a change process

An empirical study on the influence of perceived involvement and

perceived commitment to a change process.

-./0123.4561.75.7'8693.3:53' ' @'

Commitment to a change process

An empirical study on the influence of perceived involvement and

perceived commitment to a change process.

University of Groningen, the Netherlands Faculty of Economics and Business

MSc Business Administration Change Management Master thesis June 1st, 2012 JUDITH HUISKAMP S1458442 Kleine Raamstraat 21 9711 CG Groningen Tel: +31 (0) 652 688 447 E-mail: huiskamp.judith@gmail.com

Supervisor University: Dr. M. P. Mobach Co-assessor University: Dr. K. S. Prins

Supervisor organization: R. Doorten Organization X: The Netherlands

-./0123.4561.75.7'8693.3:53' ' A' ABSTRACT

The organizational need to be able to change in today’s turbulent business environment is evident. This study provides an exploration of factors that enhance change process success by investigating the relationship between change process involvement and change process com-mitment.

It is theoretically validated that change process commitment positively influences change pro-cess sucpro-cess. A quantitative research is performed to explore how change propro-cess involve-ment influences change process commitinvolve-ment.

A survey was conducted and the findings showed that change process involvement is positive-ly related to change process commitment. Change process involvement was measured via four factors; perceived impact, level of empowerment, influence in decision-making and infor-mation sharing. The findings show that these change process involvement factors are positive-ly related to change process commitment. The findings indicate that both a desire to support change and a sense of obligation to support change are positively related to change process commitment. Two contextual factors were explored and the study confirms that hierarchical function is related to change process commitment whereas it is not proven that duration of employment is related to change process commitment.

!

-./0123.4561.75.7'8693.3:53' ' B'

It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but rather the one most adaptable to change.

~ Clarence Darrow ~

Resembling evolution, no organization has ever been immune from implementing organiza-tional changes (Armenakis and Harris 2009). Amplifying this, today’s business environment is more turbulent than ever. Continuously advanced technologies and complex economies depict the challenging business fashion of modern globalization. It looks as if there is an ob-vious urgency for change (Kotter 1995) for organizations in order to be able to conquer. Most organizations, however, find difficulties to change successfully. “Some have estimated that as many as 70 percent of change initiatives fail” (Higgs and Rowland 2000).

On the one hand, various studies investigate causes for organizational change failure; inade-quate change management competencies (Griffith 2002), misalignment between change inter-vention and organizational values (Burnes and Jackson 2011), or resistance to change (Atkin-son 2005) are only some of the possible rea(Atkin-sons for change to fail.

On the other hand, however, there are also studies that identify factors that contribute to or-ganizational change success. Communication (Palmer, Dunford and Akin 2009), a clear change vision (Paper and Chang 2005), top management support (Young and Jordan 2008) are just a few factors that contribute to organizational change success. The approach of ex-ploring change process success factors is continued within this paper.

-./0123.4561.75.7'8693.3:53' ' C! committed team is able to sustain the momentum of the change implementation and institu-tionalizing the change (Meyer, Srinivas, Lal and Topolnytsky 2007; Beer, Eisenstat and Spec-tor 1990). Thus, a change process requires a clear goal that can be achieved after finalization of the process and organizational members need to feel committed to this change goal. Change process success is achieved when the change goal is met. It is presupposed that the above-mentioned prerequisites for change process success are met for the purpose of this study.

As stated above, change process commitment is an important factor to consider. The factor change commitment is, according to Meyer et al. (2007), commonly identified as an essential element for the effective implementation of organizational change. On top of that, Her-scovitch and Meyer (2002) argue that commitment to change is perhaps one of the most im-portant factors involved in employees’ support for change initiatives. Beer et al. (1990) state that high levels of change commitment are essential for the effort, initiative and cooperation that coordinate change actions successfully. Also, Shum, Bove and Auh (2008) identify the importance of change commitment by claiming that it has positive effects on large-scale or-ganizational change programs. “Commitment to change is the glue that provides the vital bond between people and change goals” (Conner 1992). All in all, change commitment can be identified as an additional factor that is related to change process success and is investigated within this study.

It should be preconceived that change is appreciated as a necessity for business survival. Ad-ditionally, organizational members ought to be advocates for change. It would be, otherwise, more relevant to focus on topics such as Kotter’s urgency for change (1995) or organizational change cynicism (Reicher, Wanous and Austin 1997). Assuming that organizational members underline the change necessity and support the change, it is worthwhile to explore causes for change commitment to increase so that it positively influences the change process and ulti-mately to the success of this process. The purpose of this study is to further investigate change process commitment.

-./0123.4561.75.7'8693.3:53' ' D'

enhance and reinforce employee commitment to the organization once the process of change is underway. Secondly, Neubert and Cady (2001) suggest that committed employees demon-strate enthusiasm, get involved, persist in the face of difficulties, and take personal responsi-bility of the success of the change program implementation. Thirdly, “organizational devel-opment and related approaches stress the importance of those who are to be affected by the change being involved in the diagnosis. The rationale is usually that such involvement pro-duces greater commitment to the change process and, as a result, enhances prospects of suc-cess” (Palmer et al. 2009). Hence, change process involvement is an appropriate factor to ex-plore as it appears to be related to change process commitment. This study attempts to verify this relation by investigating the possible influence of perceived change process involvement on perceived change process commitment.

Thus, this paper contains an analysis that explores the influence of the independent variable ‘perceived change process involvement’ on the dependent variable ‘perceived change process commitment’ via an empirical study. The following research question is formulated for this study:

How does perceived change process involvement influence perceived change process commitment? The subsequent section elaborates upon the terms change process commitment and change process involvement with theoretical substantiation. This allows for further elucidation of the relationship between the research aspects, the formulation of hypotheses and the construction towards the conceptual model.

THEORY AND HYPOTHESES

In order to be able to measure the influence of change process involvement on change process commitment it is a necessity that these terms receive theoretical clarification. It is assumed that a high level of change process involvement positively influences change process com-mitment. This is tested via the following hypothesis.

Hypothesis 1: High perceived change process involvement positively influences perceived change process commitment.

-./0123.4561.75.7'8693.3:53' ' E!

Change process commitment

Com-mit-ment (noun) - when you are willing to give your time and energy to something that you believe in, or a promise or firm decision to do something.

In business, commitment is often observed as organizational commitment and is critically analyzed by many authors (Griffin and Bateman 1986; Morrow 1983; Mowday, Porter and Steers 1982; Reichers 1985; Salancik 1977; Scholl 1981). Commitment can be seen and measured in various ways. Meyer and Allen (1991) argue that commitment has at least three separable components reflecting (a) a desire to remain (affective commitment), (b) a need, due to perceived costs of leaving (continuance commitment), and (c) perceived obligation to remain (normative commitment) to maintain employment in an organization. This elucidation of commitment facilitates the understanding of the motives for organizational members to be commitment to the organization.

Commitment to a change process, however, is different from organizational commitment. Multiple studies highlight the differences between these two types of commitment. Meyer et al. (2007) explain that employee commitment is a key to the successful implementation of organizational change, wherein organizational commitment would appear to be beneficial whereas commitment to the change initiative might even be more important. Moreover, the study of Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) concluded that commitment to change is a better pre-dictor of behavioral support for a change than organizational commitment.

In order to enable organizational members to be committed to the change program and its goals, it is essential that the change goals and the program scope are apparent so that people can get attached to it. “Change commitment differs from the traditional conceptualization of goal commitment in that change program commitment is a psychological attachment to the overall goals of a program rather than commitment to individual performance goals” (Neubert and Cady 2001). Thus, establishing a clear and compelling change goal is important in order to be able to create change process commitment.

-./0123.4561.75.7'8693.3:53' ' F'

motives for change commitment. However, Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) found that both affective (desire) and normative (obligation) commitments to change are associated with higher levels of support of the change than continuance commitment. On that account, Choi (2011) solely addresses these two types of change commitment and explains that affective commitment to change entails a desire to provide support for a change initiative based on the belief in its inherent benefits whereas normative commitment to change reflects a sense of obligation to provide support for the change. Thus, affective and normative commitments seem to be more relevant in establishing change support. As such, these two commitments are used for this study. Parish, Cadwallader and Busch (2007) provide a definition for affective commitment to change and normative commitment to change based on the study of Her-scovitch and Meyer (2002). “Affective commitment to change refers to a desire to support a change, (…) and normative commitment to change reflects a sense of obligation to be sup-portive” (Parish et al. 2007).

Affective commitment to change. Rego and Cuna (2008) explain that; “affective commitment

-./0123.4561.75.7'8693.3:53' ' G! locus, could lead to distress. However, employees that do not find any difficulty in controlling their work scope are more likely to adapt their work conducts according to the changes more easily. Internal locus of control is linked to positive attitudes toward organizational change (Lau and Woodman 1995). Thirdly, “it is believed that when an individual is intrinsically mo-tivated, he or she will possess positive attitudes toward organizational change because organi-zational change, assuming the change is for the better, will likely allow for new experiences and goals. In addition, his or her affective organizational commitment should benefit because of his or her place of work allowing for new experiences that would be considered rewarding” (Elias 2009). All in all, it is found that need for growth, internal locus and internal work moti-vation are all positively related to attitudes towards change and affective commitment. These items provide a possibility to explain the desire of employees to support organizational change. This paper uses these three items to investigate whether there is a positive relation between the desire to support the change and change process commitment.

Hypothesis 2: A desire to support the change enhances perceive change process commitment.

Normative commitment to change. Iverson and Buttigieg (1999) explain that normative

commitment focuses on the right or moral thing to do and concentrates on the obligation and/or moral attachment of employees which is produced by socialization of employees to the organizational goals and values. Employees with strong normative commitment remain be-cause they feel that they ought to (Iverson and Buttigieg 1999). In relation to organizational change, employees with strong normative commitment remain at the organization as they feel that they have an obligation to reciprocate and are, therefore, more receptive to change (Iver-son and Buttigieg 1999). Rego and Cuna (2008) explain; “normative commitment develops when people internalize the organization’s norms through socialization, receive benefits that induce them to feel the need to reciprocate and/or to accept the terms of a psychological con-tract”. Relating this interpretation of normative commitment to change would entail that the change process should have benefits to individuals that would induce them to feel the need to reciprocate. A high need to reciprocate would entail a high sense of obligation to support the change. This paper investigates whether a high sense of obligation to support the change is positively related to change process commitment.

-./0123.4561.75.7'8693.3:53' ' ;H'

It ought to be clear that change process commitment is an important factor in establishing change process success. Change process commitment is explained and the relevant hypothe-ses are presented. The following section clarifies change process involvement with theoretical substantiation.

Change process involvement

In-volve-ment (noun) - the act or process of taking part in something.

Peccei et al. (2011) elucidate that, in theoretical explanations of the development of organiza-tional commitment, positive perceptions of the benefits of change and involvement in the change process itself may help not only to generate more positive attitudes towards the change, but also to enhance employee commitment to the organization during major programs of change. Moreover, Morgan and Zeffane (2003) explain involvement, like Lawler (1994), as the equivalent to participation and distinguish four elements: power, information, knowledge and rewards. Additionally, other writers (Glew, O’Leary-Kelly, Griffin and Van Fleet 1995; Cotton, Vollrath, Forggatt, Lengnick-Hall and Jennings 1988; Black and Gregersen 1997; Wagner 1994) include influence sharing, participative decision-making, the degree of em-ployee involvement, work teams and empowerment, and participation. Hence, there are mul-tiple factors that can be linked to change involvement.

A selection of factors are theoretically explored and empirically investigated for this study. This selection is made based on the availability of literature on that factor and the applicabil-ity to the case study. This selection of factors that influence change process involvement is presented below.

Perceived impact. First, however, attention needs to be paid to the pertinent input given by

Brown and Cregan (2008) who argue that not all involvement mechanisms are successful. They explain that the absence of employee support for involvement can result from the em-ployees’ assessment of their impact of their involvement. Spreitzer (1995) explains that im-pact can be seen as “the degree to which an individual can influence strategic, administrative or operating outcomes at work”. In other words, employees will not be involved when the perceived impact of their involvement is low. This study investigates whether high-perceived impact of involvement positively influences perceived change process involvement. The fol-lowing hypothesis is drawn up to test this.

-./0123.4561.75.7'8693.3:53' ' ;;! The subsequent sections explain three factors that also enhance change process involvement. These factors, empowerment, decision-making and information, facilitate determining the level of change process involvement.

Empowerment. The second factor that enhances change process involvement is

empower-ment. The institutionalization of power, according to Boonstra and Bennebroek-Gravenhorst (1998), influences the organizational change processes. They claim that CEOs, top managers, change managers, consultants, work councils, employees, and other interest groups use pow-er. The goal of these interest groups throughout the organization is to manage and influence the change process by using power and influence tactics. However, this is only possible when organizational members are empowered. Logan and Ganster (2007) found two interpretations of empowerment; “role empowerment refers to management practices that seek to give more power to the employee and psychological empowerment refers to the individual’s basic belief that he or she can effectively influence the course of activities at work so as to produce signif-icant impact on the quantity and quality of work that is accomplished”.

Several studies have linked empowerment with attitude changes such as job satisfaction (Kirkman and Rosen 2000; Laschinger, Finegan and Shamian 2001) and organizational com-mitment (Laschinger et al. 2001; Sigler and Pearson 2000). Logan and Ganster (2007) ex-plain; empowerment (…) has various titles ranging from high involvement (Lawler 1986) to high commitment management (Walton 1985). Thus, besides the fact that empowerment in-creases satisfaction and commitment, it can also be linked to change process involvement in a way that it strengthens each other. The theory of Logan and Ganster (2007) provides two items to measure empowerment. Firstly, empowerment would occur when individual’s belief that they can influence the course of activities related to the change process in such a way that the course of the change process or the outcome of the change process is adapted effectively according to their input. Secondly, it could also be achieved whenever individuals feel they have a power position to influence the change process or change outcome. Thus, these two items are used for this study to measure the perceived level of empowerment and investigate whether high-perceived level of empowerment is positively related to perceived change pro-cess involvement.

-./0123.4561.75.7'8693.3:53' ' ;@' Decision-making. The third factor that is considered to be contributing to the enhancement of

change process involvement is decision-making. Including people in the decision-making process could increase involvement. There are various classifications in participative deci-sion-making; formal-informal, direct-indirect, and as a location along a continuum of how much access or influence employees have in making a decision (Cotton et al. 1988). Indeed, Black and Gregersen (1997) claim that the degree of involvement is often conceptualized in terms of a continuum and actually put forward one; (a) no advance information concerning a decision, (b) employees are given advance information, (c) employees are allowed to provide their opinion about the decision, (d) employees’ opinions are taken into consideration in mak-ing the decision, (e) employees can veto a decision, (f) the decision is completely in hands of the employees. Decision-making is important for change process involvement as it motivates employees. “When employees are involved in making decisions, they not only have a greater say in them but also better understand the rationale for them, thereby resulting in greater mo-tivation and effort” (Wagner, Leana, Locke and Schweiger 1997). This study uses some ele-ments of the decision-making continuum of Black and Gregersen (1997) to explore the possi-ble positive impact that high-perceived level of influence in the decision-making process has on perceived change process involvement.

Hypothesis 6: Perceived high level of influence in the decision-making process intensifies perceived change process involvement.

Information. The last factor that enhances change process involvement is information. Brown

-./0123.4561.75.7'8693.3:53' ' ;A! Thus, in order to measure the level of information sharing it is key to investigate whether people feel informed and educated about the need for change, its progress, its possible prob-lems and, eventually, its results. Additionally, it needs to be measured to what extend individ-uals would feel encouraged to express their opinion on the change process based on the in-formation provided. This study investigates whether a high-perceived level of inin-formation sharing on the change process is positively related to perceived change process involvement.

Hypothesis 7: Perceived high level of information sharing during the change process intensifies perceived change process involvement.

The theory on change process involvement is provided and the related hypotheses to test the theory are drawn up. The conceptual model for this research is presented below in figure one.

Contextual factors

It is key to include contextual aspects as it can be expected that the outcomes on change pro-cess commitment could differ in certain circumstances. Two contextual aspects are explained in the following section. These factors are selected due to the applicability with the case study.

Hierarchical function. Commitment to the change process can vary per hierarchical level of

the organization. Fuller, Marler and Hester (2006) explain that when an individual rises within the organizational hierarchy, he or she incurs an increasing responsibility to act in ways that enhance the organization (Hamilton 1978) and are expected to take action (Gibson and Schroeder 2003). As such, it is expected that people that are higher up within the organiza-tional hierarchy are more committed to change than people that are lower in the organization-al hierarchy. Normative commitment Affective commitment Change process involvement Perceived impact Perceived decision-making Perceived empowerment Perceived information + + + + Change process commitment

Figure 1 – Conceptual model +

-./0123.4561.75.7'8693.3:53' ' ;B'

On that same account, Fuller et al. (2006) explain that people are likely to feel greater respon-sibility for constructive change because they believe that change-oriented behavior is an im-portant aspect of their leadership role within the organization. It can be expected that people, who work higher up on the organizational hierarchy, feel the need to be an example for people lower in the organizational hierarchy in adopting organizational change. This study tests whether there is a difference in change process commitment based on hierarchical function.

Employment duration. Employees can experience different emotions towards the change

pro-cess and feel differently committed to it due to past experiences with change propro-cesses within the organization. As such, change process commitment can be influenced by the duration of employment. Stensaker, Falkenberg, Meyer and Haueng (2002) present four types of coping mechanisms for change. One of these coping mechanisms is placed in the quadrant pas-sive/change improbable and is called BOHICA (bend over, here it comes again). Dunsing and Matejka (1994) explain this mechanism by the passage used by old, experienced, cynical em-ployees with long memories; “this, too, shall pass”. As such, it is expected that emem-ployees might differ in change process commitment based on the years of employment. This study investigates whether there is a difference in change process commitment amongst employees based on the years they have been employed.

METHODOLOGY

This section provides information concerning the case study including the change project, the research method and an analysis on the data acquired. The hypotheses are tested in the results section. The data required to test the hypotheses on the relation between change process in-volvement and change process commitment was acquired via a quantitative research. A case study facilitated this exploratory research. The organization that was subject to investigation was organization X.

Case

manage--./0123.4561.75.7'8693.3:53' ' ;C! ment. This manifests itself in ad hoc decision-making, insufficient communication and struc-tural gaps within the core process. Given the fact that this conduct of business is happening for years, it seems as if employees have become passive in their attempts to improve matters. This case study covers all research aspects of this study, which makes this case a valid re-search subject and suffices as the sole case used for this study. The next section explains how this case study facilitates all the research aspects.

Change project

The change project is focused on optimizing the internal structure of the business processes is the subject of investigation for this paper. It is attempted to improve the internal structure of the organization in such a way that business will be conducted in a more tactical and strategic manner. Accordingly, it is tried to establish matching internal processes, effective decision making processes and correct communication flows. This part of the change project is subject to investigation.

The change project of organization X is an excellent subject to study for this research. Firstly, the goals of the change project are clearly defined. Achieving these goals would indicate change project success. Secondly, change process commitment is an interesting factor within this organization. In the past, there have been other change projects. One major effect is that people are more hesitant towards change projects as the realized effectiveness of those pro-jects have not been experienced by the employees and multiple lay-offs happened simultane-ously. Also, these change projects were poorly communicated which increased the gap be-tween the board of directors and the other organizational members. It can be expected that this has an influence on commitment towards the current change project. As such, job duration and hierarchical function are critical factors in this change project. Thirdly, the change pro-cess involvement factors are very relevant for this study. Perceived impact, empowerment, decision-making and information are the independent variables for this study. As stated earlier on, communication within organization X is a pitfall. Communication is essential for proper empowerment, decision-making and information sharing. The next section addresses the methods applied to for this research.

Research method

uantita--./0123.4561.75.7'8693.3:53' ' ;D'

tive methodology can be described as experimental or manipulative: questions and hypotheses are proposed, then tested and verified while ensuring confounding conditions to prevent out-comes from being improperly influenced (Guba and Lincoln 1994). Slevitch (2011) continues by addressing that the quantitative approach calls for methods grounded in statistical analysis and include such techniques as inferential statistics, hypothesis testing, mathematical analysis, (…) and questionnaires with limited range of predetermined responses (Lee 1999).

On that account, the change process involvement variables, change process commitment vari-ables and contextual varivari-ables were measured via a survey that was built up with questions and statements with a range of predetermined answers.

The four change process involvement factors are measured separately. Perceived impact was measured with the following items; ‘the board of directors is open-minded for ideas of em-ployees’, ‘my input is valued and used within my department’, and ‘my input will always be used somewhere within the organization’. Empowerment was measured with four items, for example; ‘most people have some influence in the change policy of this organization’. Deci-sion-making was also measured with four items. One example is; ‘I make decisions myself’. The last change process involvement factor is information. There were four items to measure this factor, for example; ‘I feel that I am sufficiently informed about the changes’ Employ-ment duration and hierarchical function were not measured via stateEmploy-ments. These factors were measured via inquisitive questions with a range of predetermined answers.

The three items are provided by Elias (2009) as to measure affective commitment to a change process; need for growth, internal locus and intrinsic motivation. These factors were measured with items, such as; ‘I would like to learn new (work-related) things’, ‘I organize my own work schedule’ and ‘the current changes are beneficial for the organization’. Items that meas-ure normative commitment to a change process, were; ‘I feel strongly committed to this or-ganization’, ‘I devote myself to the change project’ and ‘I am happy with my job’.

The theory for this survey is presented in English, however, the items for the survey had to be translated into Dutch as all respondents were Dutch. The translation tool of Microsoft Word and the dictionary facilitated this translation. The survey can be found in appendix A.

-./0123.4561.75.7'8693.3:53' ' ;E! option and, in this way, to force the respondents into making a specific choice that is either related to (strongly) agreeing with the statement or (strongly) disagreeing with it. The option ‘no idea’ was added to allow respondents to be able to answer the question in case they did not know what to answer as to decrease the possibility for missing values. This could be due to not understanding the statement, or not being able to identify with the statement. The ques-tions concerning the contextual factors were also predetermined in order to enable grouping of answers.

The intended procedure to distribute the surveys was to hand out hard copy versions to all individuals to ensure that all employees received a copy. A list with the names of all employ-ees held service as to ensure that all employemploy-ees received and returned their survey. All filled out surveys were kept collectively and could not be traced back to the respondent to ensure confidentiality. Respondents had one week to fill out their survey.

However, distribution and collection of the surveys happened in various ways. There were 45 employees of which 41 filled out the survey as intended and these surveys were collected ac-cordingly; one employee received the survey via postal services and returned a filled out copy in the same way; one employee answered the questioned via phone; one employee received the survey via email and returned a scan of a filled out survey via email; and one employee did not receive a survey due to long-term illness. This person is left out of the research.

The filled out surveys were gathered and the data was analyzed via the statistical computer program SPSS. Unanswered questions would be recoded in ‘missing value’ in order to ex-clude these from calculations. The option ‘no idea’ was given a special value as to not let it be a value similar to the other four options and it could also not be accounted for a ‘missing val-ue’.

Cronbach’s Alpha. There were seven items to measure change process commitment and

-./0123.4561.75.7'8693.3:53' ' ;F'

scores of the subscales can be found in appendix B. However, too few questions are evaluated per subscale to be used these for the purpose of this paper, as such it is chosen to use change process commitment and change process involvement. The next section addresses the results of the analyses and relates these to the hypotheses that are set for this study. The following section provides an analysis of the data gathered.

Regression analysis. Hypotheses one to seven were tested via a linear regression analysis.

This method is selected as it provides a better understanding of the relationship between the variables of the hypotheses. Regression analysis measures the relationship between two varia-bles in which the dependent variable in regression is the variable the value of which is to be predicted and the independent variable is the variable being used to make the prediction (Howitt and Cramer 2008). Hypotheses one to seven all have an independent and a dependent variable. As stated earlier, change process involvement is the independent variable and change process commitment is the dependent variable in hypothesis one. Change process commitment is the dependent variable for hypotheses two and three and hypotheses four to seven have change process involvement as the dependable variable. A high score on one of these variables would indicate that change process involvement or change process commit-ment is strong, whereas a low score would indicate a weaker level of involvecommit-ment or com-mitment with the change process. The variables perceived impact, perceived empowerment, perceived decision-making, perceived information, desire and obligation are all independent variables. A regression analysis provides more information than simply determining whether a relationship exists between the two variables as the correlation analysis designates. For ex-ample, it also indicates the declared variance of the relationship.

Kruskal-Wallis analysis. The Kruskal-Wallis analysis is used to measure the contextual

-./0123.4561.75.7'8693.3:53' ' ;G!

Data analysis. In total, 44 respondents participated in this research, which is a 100% response

rate. Figure one illustrates the division in hierarchical function within the response group. As to be seen, 15.9% (N=7) of the respondents is head of a department, 70.5% (N=31) is an em-ployee and 13.6% (N=6) is part of the board of directors.

Figure 2 – Division in hierarchical function

Most people have been employed for a longer period. Only 11.4% (N=5) of the respondents have been employed for zero to two years whereas 27.3% (N=12) of the respondents have received employment for two to nine years. The majority of 61.4% (N=27) has been em-ployed for more than nine years.

!

-./0123.4561.75.7'8693.3:53' ' @H'

RESULTS

This section provides the results from the quantitative research performed. Firstly, the average scores on change process commitment and change process involvement are provided. Second-ly, the outcomes of the hypothesis are presented. ThirdSecond-ly, the contextual aspects are ad-dressed.

The mean scores for commitment and involvement were calculated for the respective three respondent groups and can be found in table one and two. These mean scores show that the average scores on change process commitment and involvement were relatively high. It was chosen to leave respondents out of the sample whenever too few statements were filled out per item. This meant; less than five statements concerning the factor change process commit-ment, less than two statements on the factor perceived impact and less than three statements on the other factors concerning change process involvement.

Function Involvement Commitment

µ

!

µ

!

Dep. head 3.06 (6) .42 3.57 (7) .23 Employee 2.61 (25) .42 3.27 (30) .44 Director 3.45 (5) .34 3.73 (6) .14

Table 1 – Mean score involvement and commitment per function

Years of employment Involvement Commitment

µ

!

µ

!

0 – 2 years 2.96 (3) .43 3.39 (4) .30 2 – 9 years 2.78 (11) .47 3.28 (12) .45 > 9 years 2.79 (22) .55 3.43 (27) .43

Table 2 – Mean score involvement and commitment in relation to employment years

-./0123.4561.75.7'8693.3:53' ' @;! Pearson correlation Adjusted R square Sig. (1-tailed) Hypothesis 1 .78 .59 .00* Hypothesis 2 .96 .92 .00* Hypothesis 3 .82 .66 .00* Hypothesis 4 .78 .60 .00* Hypothesis 5 .87 .75 .00* Hypothesis 6 .89 .79 .00* Hypothesis 7 .65 .41 .00* * ! 0.001

Table 3 – Regression analyses

The outcome of the analysis (F (1,34) = 52.07, P<0.01) supports hypothesis one. Therefore, hypothesis one is accepted.

Hypothesis two claims that a desire to support the change (affective commitment) enhances change process commitment. Table one shows that there is a high (Pearson) correlation between both factors given the score .96. Also, the adjusted R square of .92 indicates that the declared variance of the relationship of both factors is 92%. The relationship is significant (.00). The outcome of the analysis (F (1,38) = 474.23, P<0.01) supports hypothesis two. Hypothesis two is also accepted.

The third hypothesis states that a sense of obligation to support the change (normative commitment) enhances change process commitment. The (Pearson) correlation between these two factors is .82. The adjusted R square indicates .66 and the score on the significance is " .00. The outcome of the analysis (F (1,41) = 82.79, P<0.01) supports hypothesis three. Hypothesis three is also accepted.

Hypothesis four claims that high perceived impact of involvement enhances change process involvement. Table three illustrates that the Pearson correlation score is .78 which is relatively high. The adjusted R square is .60, which indicates that the declared variance of the relationship between both factors is 60%. The relationship is considered to be significant with a score of .00. The outcome of the analysis (F (1,34) = 53.18, P<0.01) supports the fourth hypothesis. Hypothesis four is accepted.

-./0123.4561.75.7'8693.3:53' ' @@'

Hypothesis six claims that a perceived high level of influence in the decision-making process enhances change process involvement. The Pearson correlation between these two factors is .894 which is relatively high. The adjusted R square score of .79 indicates a 79% declared variance in this relationship and this relationship is also significant (.00). The result of the analysis (F (1,34) = 135.54, P<0.01) supports the hypothesis. Therefore, hypothesis six is ac-cepted.

The seventh hypothesis states that a high level of information sharing during the change pro-cess enhances change propro-cess involvement. Table three shows the results of the analysis per-formed for this hypothesis. The (Pearson) correlation between the two factors is .65 and the adjusted R square is .41. The declared variance of this relationship is 41% and the relationship is significant as the results provide .00 on this item. The outcome of the analysis (F (1,34) = 25.04, P<0.01) supports the hypothesis. Hypothesis seven is also accepted.

More detailed results of the regression analyses done for the above mentioned hypotheses are to be found in appendix C.

As stated earlier, it is expected that there is a difference in change process commitment in relation to the function one holds within the organization. Performing the nonparametric test for multiple independent samples provides the Kruskal-Wallis test. The three sample groups, based on function, are compared against each other whether there is a significant difference within the results. The outcomes of Kruskal-Wallis test are to be found in table four.

Function Years of employment

Chi-square 7.67 .99

df 2 2

Asymp. Sig. .02 .61

Table 4 – Outcomes contextual factors

The significance score is .02 indicating that there is a relationship between the factors. Thus, there is a difference in change process commitment in relation to the function one holds with-in the organization.

-./0123.4561.75.7'8693.3:53' ' @A! duration of employment based on these results. The mean ranks per sample group of both the Kruskal-Wallis tests can be found in appendix D.

DISCUSSION

This section addresses a summary of the findings generated in the result section of this paper. Additionally, the managerial implications of these findings are explained. The limitations of this research and suggestions for future research are given thereafter.

Summary of findings

The purpose of this research was to investigate how change process involvement influence change process commitment. In order to gain a better understanding of the motives for organ-izational members to be commitment to the change process, Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) highlight affective commitment and normative commitment as the most effective aspects in relation to change. The results of this research indicate that affective commitment and norma-tive commitment posinorma-tively influence change process commitment. The three factors of Elias (2009) need for growth, internal locus and internal work motivation, are evident in the case study of this research. On that same account, this research also found that people feel a need to commit to the change (normative commitment).

-./0123.4561.75.7'8693.3:53' ' @B'

Fuller et al. (2006) suggests that change commitment differs per hierarchical level. This study supports this theory as change process commitment scores differently amongst the hierar-chical levels.

Nevertheless, an interesting result was found. Current literature (Stensaker et al. 2002; Dun-sing and Matejka, 1994) suggests that long-term employees are more resistant towards change. However, this study does not support this theory. The results do not indicate a signifi-cant difference in change process commitment between long-term employees or short-term employees. Assumed can be that the long-term organizational members of organization X are more submissive towards change than theory suggests or short-term organizational members are more obstinate towards change.!

Managerial implications

The findings of the various factors explored with this research provide a number of relevant suggestions for managerial utilization.

It should be evident that involvement of the entire organization in the change process is an important influential factor towards achieving change process commitment. Change process involvement is measured with four factors, which were all positively related to change pro-cess commitment. An organization should ensure that managerial practices that increase the perceived impact of participation of organizational members are in place. “An examination of the range of human resources practices (Armenakis and Bedeian 1999) implemented and the message they convey to employees can have an impact on the willingness of employees to become involved” (Brown and Cregan 2008). Higher change process involvement and com-mitment can be expected once organizational members are aware that their involvement is appreciated and used. “Employees (…) are more likely to perceive advantages from being actively involved” (Brown and Cregan 2008).

man--./0123.4561.75.7'8693.3:53' ' @C! agement of all four. It is only through the integration of the mechanistic and organic perspec-tive that sustained levels of employee empowerment can be achieved” (Quinn and Spreitzer 1997).

Also, management of an organization would increase change process involvement and com-mitment when organizational members have influence in decision-making within the change process. It is important to explore opportunities to support and include staff in fact-finding, feedback, and decision-making opportunities (Kohm and LaPiana 2003; Marks and Mirvis 1998).

Lastly, an informed organizational member would be more understanding of the changes when sufficient information is provided. Bordia, Hunt, Paulsen, Tourish and DiFonzo(2004) also highlight the importance of creating feelings of control by providing stakeholders with quality information about changes that are introduced. Therefore, it is important that there is an active information flow throughout the organization concerning the change. Lewis, Schmisseur, Stephens and Weir (2006) provide a couple of communication tactics for change; asking for input, use informal networks and knowledge of key stakeholders, disseminate in-formation, manage the style and content of communication, be motivational in communica-tion, formulate and follow a communication plan.

-./0123.4561.75.7'8693.3:53' ' @D' Recommendations for the organization

Based on the findings of this research it can be said that the overall attitude of all organiza-tional members towards the change process is positive. This is encouraging information, pro-vided that the success of the change process is important for business survival.

Theory states that long-term employees might find more difficulties in being committed to organization change. The results of this research, however, indicate that there is no significant difference in change process commitment by the long-term employees. This is an encouraging finding provided that the majority of employees have worked for the organization for more than nine years. As such, additional effort to attain change process commitment amongst long-term employees is not indispensable. Despite the outcome of this research that there is not a significant difference in change process commitment between short-term employees and long-term employees, however, it is still urged that the earlier mentioned change process in-volvement factors are actively applied in order to increase change process commitment fur-ther of all organizational members.

However, a change process is a longitudinal endeavor and requires long-term dedication of all organizational members. The pitfall of organizational leaders, as stated in the section ‘the change process’, is to make decisions and adopt changes without informing the other organi-zational members in time. It is strongly recommended to setup a tool that assures formal communication flows. Regular meetings for, and between, all hierarchical levels of the organ-ization allow for horizontal and vertical communication flows. Information on (upcoming) change can be provided to all organizational members. As stated earlier, it should be made possible that organizational members can enforce their input, or have some influence in deci-sion-making, regarding the change process on at least departmental level as long as it contin-ues to be in line with the change process and organizational goals. This can be achieved when a formal structure is put in place in which organizational matters are discussed. In this way, top management empowers other organizational members for small-scale or operational af-fairs.

Limitations

-./0123.4561.75.7'8693.3:53' ' @E! number of other critical change success factors; the deployment from long-term strategy of the company and the ability to make the necessary resources available, an adequate participa-tion of the individuals and groups affected by the changes -particularly the employees- instead of expert-driven approaches, consideration of the impact of company’s or plant’s culture, co-herence between different change initiatives -managing them not in an isolated but in a holis-tic process-, emphasis on structures and behavior and considering the interdependencies be-tween them, and change initiative seen as an evolutionary process but not as a time-limited programs.

On that same account, change process involvement was selected as the factor that influences change process commitment. However, there are multiple factors that could influence change process commitment. An overview of ideas on how to sustain commitment to change is pro-vided by (2005): Strong leadership, communication, new culture, structure and systems, re-sources, education, people support and clear measures of success used to enhance perfor-mance. Nonetheless, this research reinforced the relevance change process commitment and change process involvement as the findings indicate the importance of these factors.

Additionally, a selection of factors for change process involvement was made whereas more factors could have an influence on this. One example is the use of rewards as Morgan and Zeffane (2003) and Lawler (1994) have investigated. Or the use of work teams (Glew et al. 1995; Cotton et al. 1988; Black and Gregersen 1997; Wagner 1994) could provide more in-sight in how change process involvement can be enhanced.

The validity of the outcomes of this study is limited as it only takes into account the results of a short-term study at one organization with a limited number of respondents. A longitudinal study at multiple organizations with a larger sample size will provide a more accurate indica-tion to the relaindica-tion between the research factors. This type of study could also provide more relevant factors in relation to change process involvement, change process commitment and change process success. Thus, this case study cannot be generalizable for all situations.

-./0123.4561.75.7'8693.3:53' ' @F' Recommendations

It would be interesting to have access to data based on a longitudinal study at multiple organi-zations that undergo a change. More specified information can be retained and more accurate conclusions can be drawn. In addition, the survey used for this research should be reevaluated and amended as to increase the internal relationship amongst the questions.

In order to attain more specified findings it would be interesting to conduct a focused research on one change process involvement variable in relation to change process commitment. Also, it may be interesting to measure the extend to which each change process involvement varia-ble influences change process commitment in order to make a more precise indication on how change process involvement influences change process commitment.

In order to improve the survey it is suggested that an extensive factor analysis is performed. As stated earlier, it is suggested that the survey is distributed to more respondents as to incor-porate for more data that would allow for more accurate data for the factor analysis.

CONCLUSION

This paper contributes to literature by endorsing the existing theory on the influence of change process involvement on change process commitment. A case study provided the quan-titative data to test the seven hypotheses that were drawn up for this research. The research question that was formulated for this study is: How does change process involvement influ-ence change process commitment? Seven hypotheses were drawn up to enable the answering of this question. The first hypothesis tested whether change process involvement actually in-fluences change process commitment. The hypothesis was accepted based on the outcomes of the survey. As such, it can be presumed that change process involvement has a positive rela-tion with change process commitment. However, addirela-tional hypotheses were drawn up to get more in-depth information on both factors and how change process involvement influence change process commitment.

-./0123.4561.75.7'8693.3:53' ' @G! process involvement and a high level of information sharing also has a positive influence on change process involvement.

Two hypotheses were setup to gain more understanding of change process commitment. The-se hypotheThe-ses (two and three) were formulated to discover the influence of specific types of change process commitment, namely affective and normative commitment. Both these hy-pothesis can be accepted based on the findings of this research. Therefore, it can be presumed that a desire to support the change would increase change process commitment. Also, a sense of obligation to support the change would be beneficial for change process commitment. The findings on the contextual factors indicate that the hierarchical function one holds within the organization influences the level of change process commitment whereas a difference in years of employment does not have a specific influence in change process commitment. To answer the research question, based on the findings of this research, it can be stated that the applied change process involvement factors; perceived impact, empowerment, decision-making and information, have a positive relation with change process commitment. Addition-ally, hierarchical function also influences change process commitment.

-./0123.4561.75.7'8693.3:53' ' AH' REFERENCES

Armenakis, A. A., Bedeian, A. G. 1999. Organizational change: A review of theory and re-search in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25: 293-315.

Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G. 2009. Reflections: Our journey in organizational change re-search and practice. Journal of Change Management, 9: 127-142.

Atkinson, P. 2005. Managing resistance to change. Management Services, Spring: 14-19. Beer, M., Eisenstat, R. A., Spector, B. 1990. Why change programs don’t produce change.

Harvard Business Review, Reprint 90601 Nov-Dec.

Black, J. S., Gregersen, H. B. 1997. Participative decision-making: An integration of multiple dimensions. Human Relations, 50: 859-878.

Boonstra, J. J., Bennebroek-Gravenhorst, K. M. 1998. Power dynamics and organizational change: A comparison of perspectives. European Journal of Work and Organizational

Psy-chology, 7(2): 97-120.

Bordia, P., Hunt, E., Paulsen, N., Tourish, D., DiFonzo, N. 2004. Uncertainty during organi-zational change: Is it all about control? European Journal of Work & Organiorgani-zational

Psy-chology, 13(3): 345-361.

Brown, M., Cregan, C. 2008. Organizational change cynicism: The role of employee in-volvement. Human Resource Management, 47(4): 667-686.

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.

Cabrera, E. F., Ortega, J., Cabrera, A. 2003. An exploration of the factors that influence em-ployee participation in Europe. Journal of World Business, 38(1): 43-54.

Choi, M. 2011. Employees’ attitudes toward organizational change: A literature review.

Hu-man Resource Management, 50(4): 479-500.

Conner, D. R. 1992. Managing at the speed of change: How resilient managers succeed and

-./0123.4561.75.7'8693.3:53' ' A;! Cotton, J. L., Vallrath, D. A., Froggatt, K. L., Lengnick-Hall, M. L., Jennings, K. R. 1988. Employee participation: Diverse forms and different outcomes. Academy of Management

Review, 13: 8-22.

Darrow, C. 1987. Improving the quality of life for the black elderly: challenges and opportu-nities. Hearing before the select committee on aging, House of Representatives, One Hun-dredth Congress, first session, September 25.

Dunsing, D., Matejka, K. 1994. Overcoming the BOHICA effect. Business Horizons, July-August: 40-42.

Elias, S. M. 2009. Employee commitment in times of change: Assessing the importance of attitudes toward organizational change. Journal of Management, 35(1): 37-55.

Fuller, J. B., Marler, L. E., Hester, K. 2006. Promoting felt responsibility for constructive change and proactive behavior: Exploring aspects of an elaborated model of work design.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27: 1089-1120.

Gibson, D. E., Schroeder, S. J. 2003. Who ought to be blamed? The effect of organizational roles on blame and credit attributions. International Journal of Conflict Management, 14: 95-107.

Glew, D. J., O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., Griffin, R. W., van Fleet, D. D. 1995. Participation in or-ganizations: A preview of the issues and proposed framework for future analysis. Journal of

Management, 21: 395-422.

Griffin, R. W., Bateman, T. S. 1986. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment.

Inter-national Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 157-188.

Griffith, J. 2002. Why change management fails. Journal of Change Management, 2(4): 297-304.

Guba, E. G., Lincoln, Y. S. 1994. Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds). Handbook of qualitative research. 105-117. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

-./0123.4561.75.7'8693.3:53' ' A@'

Herscovitch, L., Meyer, J. P. 2002. Commitment to organizational change: Extension of a three-component model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3): 474-487.

Higgs, M., Rowland, D. 2000. Building change leadership capability: The quest for change competence. Journal of Change Management, 1(2): 116-13.

Howitt, D., Cramer, D. 2008. Introduction to SPSS in psychology. Harlow, England: Pearson Education Limited.

Iverson, R. D., Buttigieg, D. M. 1999. Affective, normative and continuance commitment: Can the ‘right kind’ of commitment be managed? Journal of Management Studies, 36(3): 307-333.

Jick, T. D. 1993. Managing change: Cases and concept. Homewood, IL: Irwin.

Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B. 2000. Powering up teams. Organizational Dynamics, 28: 48-65. Kohm, A., La Piana, D. 2003. Strategic restructuring for nonprofit organizations: Mergers,

integrations, and alliances. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Kotter, J. P. 1995. Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business

Re-view, March-April: 59-67.

Laschinger, H. K. S., Finegan, J., Shamian, J. 2001. The impact of workplace empowerment, organizational trust on staff nurses’ work satisfaction and organizational commitment. Health

Care Management Review, 26: 7-33.

Lau, C. M., Woodman, R. W. 1995. Understanding organizational change: A schematic per-spective. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 537-554.

Lawler, E. E. 1986. High-Involvement Management. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Lawler, E. E. 1994. Total quality management and employee involvement: Are they compati-ble? Academy of Management Executive, 8(1): 68-76.

-./0123.4561.75.7'8693.3:53' ' AA! Lewis, L. K., Schmisseur, A. M., Stephens, K. K., Weir, K. E. 2006. Advice on communi-cating during organizational change: The content of popular press books. Journal of Business

Communication, 43(2): 113-137.

Logan, M. S., Ganster, D. C. 2007. The effects of empowerment on attitudes and perfor-mance: The role of social support and empowerment beliefs. Journal of Management

Stud-ies, 44(8): 1523-1550.

Marks, M., Mirvis, P. 1998. Joining forces: Making one plus one equal three in mergers,

acquisitions, and alliances. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Maurer, R. 2005. Sustaining commitment to change. The Journal for Quality &

Participa-tion, spring: 30-35.

Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J. 1991. A three-component conceptualization of organizational com-mitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1): 61-89.

Meyer, J. P., Srinivas, E. S., Lal, J. B., Topolnytsky, L. 2007. Employee commitment and support for an organizational change: Test of the three-component model in two cultures.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80: 185-211.

Morgan, D. E., Zeffane, R. 2003. Employee involvement, organizational change and trust in management. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(1): 55-75. Morrow, P. C. 1983. Concept redundancy in organizational research: The case of work com-mitment. Academy of Management Review, 8: 486-500.

Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M. 1982. Employee-organization linkages: The

psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic Press.

Neubert, M. J., Cady, S. H. 2001. Program commitment: A multi-study longitudinal field in-vestigation of its impact and antecedents. Personnel Psychology, 54: 421-448.

Nunnally, J. 1987. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Palmer, I., Dunford, R., Akin, G. 2009. Managing organizational change: A multiple

per-spectives approach. Singapore: McGraw-Hill Education.

-./0123.4561.75.7'8693.3:53' ' AB'

Parish, J. T., Cadwallader, S., Busch, P. 2007. Want to, need to, ought to: Employee commit-ment to organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Managecommit-ment, 21(1): 32-52.

Peccei, R., Giangreco, A., Sebastiano, A. 2011. The role of organizational commitment in the analysis of resistance to change: Co-predictor and moderator effects. Personnel Review. 10(1): 185-204.

Quinn, R. E., Spreitzer, G. M. 1997. The road to empowerment: Seven questions each leader should consider. Organizational Dynamics. Autumn: 37-49.

Rego, A., Cunha, M. P. 2008. Workplace spirituality and organizational commitment: An empirical study. Journal of Organizational Change Management. 21(1): 53-75.

Reichers, A. E. 1985. A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment.

Acad-emy of Management Review, 10: 465-476.

Reichers, A. E., Wanous, J. P., Austin, J. T. 1997. Understanding and managing cynicism about organizational change. Academy of Management Executive, 11(1): 48-59.

Salancik, G. R. 1977. Commitment and the control of organizational behavior and belief. In Staw, B. M., Salancik, G. R. (Eds), New directions in organizational behavior, 1-54. Chica-go: St. Clair.

Scholl, R. W. 1981. Differentiating commitment from expectancy as a motivating force.

Academy of Management Review, 6: 589-599.

Shahin, A., Mahbod, M. A. 2007. Prioritization of key performance indicators. An integration of analytical hierarchy process and goal setting. International Journal of Productivity and

Performance Management, 56(3): 227-240.

Shum, P., Bove, L., Auh, S. 2008. Employees’ affective commitment to change: The key to successful CRM implementation. European Journal of Marketing. 42(11/12): 1346-1371. Sigler, T. H., Pearson, C. M. 2000. Creating an empowering culture: Examining the relation-ship between organizational culture and perceptions of empowerment. Journal of Quality

-./0123.4561.75.7'8693.3:53' ' AC! Slevitch, L. 2011. Qualitative and quantitative methodologies compared: Ontological and epistemological perspectives. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 12(1): 73-81.

Spreitzer, G. 1995. Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 1442-1464.

Stensaker, I., Falkenberg, J., Meyer, C. B., Haueng, A. C. 2002. Excessive change: Coping mechanisms and consequences. Organizational Dynamics, 31(3): 296-312.

Wagner, J. A. 1994. Participation’s effects on performance and satisfaction: A reconsideration of research evidence. Academy of Management Review, 19(2): 312-330.

Wagner, J. A., Leana, C. R., Locke, E. A., Schweiger, D. M. 1997. Cognitive and motivation-al frameworks in U.S. research on participation: A meta-anmotivation-alysis of primary effects. Journmotivation-al

of Organizational Behavior, 18(7): 49-65.

Walton, R. E. 1985. From control to commitment in the workplace. Harvard Business

Re-view, 63: 77-85.

Whelan-Berry, K. S., Somerville, K. A. 2010. Linking change drivers and the organizational change process: A review and synthesis. Journal of Change Management, 10(2): 175-193. Young, R., Jordan, E. 2008. Top management support: Mantra or necessity? International

Journal of Project Management, 26: 713-725.

Zink, K. J., Steimle, U., Schröder, D. 2008. Comprehensive change management concepts: Developments of a participatory approach. Applied Ergonomics, 39: 527-538.

-./0123.4561.75.7'8693.3:53' ' AD' APPENDIX A – Survey

Beste collega,

Zoals je weet, hebben er al verschillende veranderingen plaatsgevonden binnen Organisatie X en is het bedrijf nog steeds volop aan het veranderen om de uitdagende markt het hoofd te kunnen bieden. Met het verandertraject ‘change management’ probeer ik, samen met de direc-tieleden, het volgende te bereiken;

• Organisatie- en afdelingsdoelstellingen voor 2012,

• 100% inzicht in de taken en een heldere takenverdeling per afdeling,

• Duidelijkheid in verantwoordelijkheden, beslissingsbevoegdheden en communicatie door middel van gestructureerde overleggen op afdeling-, AO en directieniveau. Naast het deelnemen aan dit veranderproject, doe ik ook een onderzoek voor mijn afstudeer-scriptie. Voor mijn scriptie zou ik graag jouw persoonlijke mening willen weten in hoeverre jij je met het verandertraject betrokken voelt. Met de informatie die ik van jou krijg, wil ik een aantal theoretische factoren testen. Deze factoren vind je boven de vragen.

Individuele antwoorden zullen niet te achterhalen zijn in mijn scriptie want ik gebruik alleen algemene informatie van verschillende groepen. De antwoorden op de vragenlijst zullen strikt vertrouwelijk worden behandeld en alleen door mij worden geanalyseerd.

Ik zal de vragenlijst woensdag 18 januari aanstaande ophalen, zodat je voldoende de tijd hebt om alle stellingen zo compleet en correct mogelijk in te vullen.

Mocht je vragen hebben dan hoor ik dit graag (Judith@organizationx.nl) of kom even langs. Alvast bedankt voor je medewerking!

Met vriendelijke groeten, Judith Huiskamp

-./0123.4561.75.7'8693.3:53' ' AE!

Een aantal huishoudelijke mededelingen voor je begint;

Het invullen van deze enquête duurt ongeveer 10 minuten. Wanneer er wordt verwezen naar veranderingen of het verandertraject dan gaat dit enkel over;

• Organisatie- en afdelingsdoelstellingen voor 2012,

• 100% inzicht in de taken en een heldere takenverdeling per afdeling,

• Duidelijkheid in verantwoordelijkheden, beslissingsbevoegdheden en communicatie

door middel van gestructureerde overleggen op afdeling-, AO en directieniveau. Ik wil je vragen om op alle stellingen jouw mening te geven. Mocht je een antwoord willen veranderen dan kan je het foute antwoord doorkruisen en een ander antwoord invullen. Er zijn geen goede of foute antwoorden, het gaat om jouw persoonlijke mening en je eerste inge-ving is vaak het beste.

Algemene vragen

Deze vragen zijn bedoeld om een algemeen beeld te krijgen. 1. Mijn functie;

(Vink aan wat van toepassing is)

! Afdelingshoofd ! Afdelingsmedewerker ! Directielid

2. Ik werk … bij het bedrijf;

! 0jr – 2jr ! 2jr – 9jr ! 9jr <

3. Hoeveel veranderingen binnen de organisatie heb je, naar jouw beleving, meege-maakt?

! Geen ! Zeer weinig ! Weinig

! Niet weinig / niet veel ! Veel

-./0123.4561.75.7'8693.3:53' ' AF' Geef voor onderstaande stellingen aan in hoeverre je het eens bent door het antwoord aan te vinken dat van toepassing is.

Verbondenheid

Deze stellingen zijn bedoeld om te meten in welke mate jij je verbonden voelt met het verandertraject.

Helemaal eens Redelijk eens Redelijk oneens Helemaal oneens Geen idee

4 Ik ben blij met mijn baan ! ! ! ! !

5 Ik zou graag nieuwe dingen (qua werk) willen leren

! ! ! ! !

6 Ik deel zelf mijn werkindeling in ! ! ! ! ! 7 Door de veranderingen zal ik

(nog) meer grip krijgen op mijn werkzaamheden

! ! ! ! !

8 De huidige veranderingen zijn ten goede voor het bedrijf

! ! ! ! !

9 Ik voel me sterk verbonden met dit bedrijf

! ! ! ! !

10 Ik wil me inzetten voor het ver-anderproces

! ! ! ! !

Betrokkenheid

Deze stellingen zijn bedoeld om te weten te komen hoe jij je betrokken voelt in het verandertraject.

Inbreng

11 De directie staat open voor idee-en van medewerkers

! ! ! ! !

12 Binnen mijn afdeling wordt mijn inbreng gewaardeerd en gebruikt

! ! ! ! !

13 Met mijn inbreng wordt altijd wel iets gedaan in dit bedrijf

! ! ! ! !

Bevoegdheid

14 Ik kan zelf bepalen hoe de ver-anderingen mijn werkzaamheden beïnvloeden

! ! ! ! !

15 Ik kan er wel degelijk voor zor-gen dat anderen, ook de directie, naar mij luisteren

! ! ! ! !

16 De meeste mensen in deze orga-nisatie hebben wel wat invloed op het veranderbeleid van de organisatie

! ! ! ! !

17 Ik ben tevreden met de hoeveel-heid invloed die ik heb op de veranderingen