Leading to involvement
A study on the influence of leadership on employee involvement during a
change process at Organization X
Master thesis, Msc Business Administraion, specialization Change Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
October, 2012 Frans Zantman Student number: 1911767 Peizerweg 63b 9726JE Groningen The Netherlands Tel.: +31 641548099 E-mail: f.j.zantman@student.rug.nl Supervisor / University J. Rupert J.F.J. Vos
ABSTRACT
Employee involvement and successful change are inextricably connected. In a change process employee involvement contributes to a better end product, reduces resistance to change and positively influences work ethic among employees. Also, leaders have a great share in the successfulness of change. An example of this is the influence leaders have on increasing employee involvement. These relations have been demonstrated in multiple studies. This study specifically explores how leaders can increase employee involvement. Interviews with 16 employees and 8 associated leaders resulted in an overview of how leadership styles and leadership behaviours influence employee involvement. Also, the relation between the investigated leaders and their own leader was examined and appeared to have positive outcomes.
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ... 5 1.1 Organization ... 5 1.2 Change process ... 6 1.3 Research questions ... 6 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ... 8 2.1 Employee involvement ... 8 2.2 Leadership ... 11
2.3 Employee involvement and leadership ... 16
3. METHODOLOGY ... 19 3.1 Interviews ... 19 3.2 Interview questions ... 19 3.3 Sample ... 21 3.4 Analysis ... 21 4. RESULTS ... 23 4.1 Employee Involvement ... 23
4.1.1 Information and knowledge ... 23
4.1.2 Power ... 25
4.1.3 Explanation low employee involvement... 27
4.1.4 Expectations of employee involvement ... 29
4.1.5 Result of employee involvement. ... 30
4.2 Leadership ... 30
4.2.1 Transformational and transactional leadership style... 31
4.2.2 Shaping, framing and creating leadership behaviour ... 36
5. DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION ... 45
5.1 Results ... 45
5.2 Limitations and Further research ... 50
5.3 Practical implications ... 51
5.4 Conclusion ... 52
6. REFERENCES ... 54
7. APPENDICES ... 67
Appendix I - Characteristics leadership behaviour sets ... 67
Appendix II - Employee involvement interview questions ... 70
Appendix III - Employee involvement interview questions ... 71
Appendix IV - Leadership style interview questions ... 73
1. INTRODUCTION
Despite all the research on organizational change, most of the companies still make mistakes during change activities. Research shows that 70 percent of all change initiatives fail (Beer and Nohria, 2000; Burnes, 2009; Szabla, 2007). Beer et al. (1990) discussed why change efforts do not produce change. They argue that many leaders think change will occur through company-wide training programs and that employee behaviour is changed by altering a company’s formal structure. However, it appears that the opposite is true.
One of the pitfalls of a failing change process is a lack of employee involvement (Kotter, 1995; McNabb and Sepic, 1995). Employee involvement can be seen as the degree to which power, knowledge, information and rewards flow down to the lower-level employees (Lawler, 1986). As will be discussed later, employee involvement has a positive effect on several aspects. The most important aspect, for this study, is that with the presence of a high degree of employee involvement, a greater chance of a successful organizational change exists (Bartunek et al., 1999; Sagie & Koslowsky, 1996).
Within a change process the role of a leader is also crucial (Cummings & Worley, 2009; Miller, 2001). The last decades leadership has been the topic of investigation for a count-less times. A pioneer in the field op leadership once stated that “leadership is one of the most observed and least understood phenomena on the earth” (Burns, 1978, p.2). As a result of this, a plethora of leadership definitions have been formulated, with each scholar holding an own perspective. Although there is no common agreement in the literature about a definition of leadership (Burns, 1978), some notable definitions are provided. Dubrin (2007, p. 2) views leadership as “the ability to inspire confidence and support among the people who are needed to achieve organizational goals.” Burnes (2009, p. 598) defines leadership “as the process of establishing goals and motivating others to pursue and achieve these goals.” Peter Northouse (2007, p. 3) defines leadership as “a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal.” Finally, Manfredi (1994) describes leadership as “an interactive process directed towards mutual goal achievement in leader and follower.” Yukl (1998) notes that the definitions of leadership have several things in common and stand central to the phenomenon of leadership: leadership is a process, leadership involves influencing others, leadership happens within the context of a group, leadership involves goal attainment, and these goals are shared by leaders and their followers.
1.1 Organization
Organization X is a non profit organization located in The Netherlands. For this study, the three northern departments; Friesland, Drenthe and Groningen, have been investigated.
1.2 Change process
Organization X is highly dependent on information and IT. In recent years both information provision and the IT facilities were organized far from flawless. The below three topics are of most concern.
First of all, employees are dissatisfied with the functionality and usability of the information provision and IT facilities. Secondly, research demonstrated that the various computer centers of Organization X have a lot of maintenance in the technology and organization. Finally, for years there is a demand to increase the exchange of information between units. Some of the reasons for the lack of exchange are differences in work processes and the handling of information by employees.
Above issues led to a plan to reorganize the IT facilities. Two changes receive particular interest and will be the focus of this research: ‘Application A’ , part of ‘Application Y’ will be phased out nationwide and ‘Application Z’ will be implemented nationwide. Phasing out the HKS and implementing ‘Application Z’ will cause a change in the working process. In order to implement ‘Application Z’ as efficient and effective as possible, and to everyone’s satisfaction, this study will review the implementation of ‘Application Y’. The ‘Application Y’ application replaced ‘Application X’ . Experiences of employees and leaders regarding this change process will serve as input for the upcoming change to ‘Application Z’.
1.3 Research questions
At Organization X, it is believed that a high degree of employee involvement leads to a better chance of a successful change of the working process. It is argued that this will ultimately lead to more and better information sharing within Organization X and between partners, as is also formulated as one of the goals of the ‘Report X’. Furthermore, Organization X also believe that leadership plays an important role in increasing the involvement of employees. But, they are curious how leadership influences employee involvement within a change.
So, in this research attention goes to the leadership styles and leadership behaviours which may have a positive contribution to the degree of employee involvement during a change process. Specifically, the question is how leadership styles and behaviours influence employee involvement. The aim of this study is to expand the body of literature on these relationships.
leaders pass down the changes to the tactical leaders, the tactical leaders direct the operational leaders and the operational leaders, eventually, direct the affected employees. This means that the tactical and operational leaders are both leader and follower, or in other terms, both agent and recipient. The behaviour and leadership style of these operational leaders may be affected by the behaviour and style of their own leader, which may have implications for the way employees are treated in a change process. It appears that in the current literature, there is a lack of research on this topic. Since this study aims at the operational leaders and their employees at Organization X, this leader-leader relation will receive attention.
The issues above lead to the following research question:
“How does leadership influence employee involvement during a change process at the three northern departments of Organization X?”
Sub-questions:
1. How do leadership styles (transformational / transactional) influence employee involvement?
2. How do leadership behaviours (shaping / framing / creating) influence employee involvement?
3. What kind of interaction takes place between leaders and employees that results in a higher degree of employee involvement?
2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Employee involvement
Employee involvement has been the topic of investigation for many studies and, therefore, has been extensively described in the existing literature. As a consequence, multiple authors formulated their own definition of employee involvement. Early studies of Lawler (1986; 1988) and Locke & Schweiger (1979) emphasized the importance of employee involvement for organizations and formed the basis for future research. Employee participation, employee
commitment and employee empowerment show considerable overlap with employee involvement
and are often used interchangeably (Cabrera, 2003; Collins, et al.,1994; Denton, 1994; Kanter, 1982; Macy et al., 1989; Marchington et al., 1992; Vogt & Murrell, 1990). Employee involvement is defined by Lawler (1988, p. 197) as “the amount of involvement being calibrated by focusing on how much power, information, knowledge, and rewards are moved to the lower levels in organizations”. Others describe employee involvement as “actions initiated principally by management, designed to enlarge the amount of information which employees receive about their organisation, provide them with the opportunity to contribute to decisions made at workplace level and ultimately enhance their commitment to their employer” (Marchington et al., 1994, p. 869). Owusu defines employee involvement as the participation of the entire workforce to improve the working environment, product quality, equipment productivity, and eventually, the competitiveness of the company (1999, p. 110). Guest et al. (1993, p. 192), at last, state that employee involvement is a rather loose concept, and can be viewed as a set of initiatives designed to increase the level of employee commitment to an organization. In this study the definition of Lawler is leading.
It may show difference according to the incentives of that organisation such as individuality, team spirit, gain sharing and profit sharing (Lawler et al., 1992). How people are rewarded at Organization X will not be a topic of this study, as it appeared to be of little relevance in past change activities. Lawler et al. divide power in two forms. Firstly, power sharing is employed in order to increase employee suggestions and to support problem solving. Secondly, practices involve self managing work teams, which are considered to be an advanced form of employee involvement or job improvement (Lawler et al., 1992). Concluding, employee involvement comes down to the following key concepts: information sharing, distribution of power and knowledge and the degree of participation and commitment to the organization.
Numerous studies show the positive outcomes of, and motives to encourage employee involvement. Marchington et al (1992) list information and education, commitment, enhanced employee contributions, recruitment and retention, conflict handling and external pressures, as espoused motives behind management interest in employee involvement. Colvin et al. (2007) add to this that greater employee involvement, and thus greater involvement in decisions related to their job, should promote alignment by helping to connect employees with the broader functioning of the organization and helping to reconcile inconsistency. Guest and Peccei (1992) agree to this and state that positive attitudes and a positive view towards the organisation are a result of employee involvement. Others devote these positive attitudes to the reduction in ambiguity and uncertainty (Jackson, 1983; Sagie & Koslowsky, 1996) and increased levels of knowledge about decisions (Miller & Monge, 1986) that employee involvement brings forth. In addition, Guest and Peccei (1992) believe that employees perceive a greater sense of identity with the organization and its goals. Furthermore, research of Kathuria and Partovi (1999) shows that employee involvement has a positive impact on the flexibility of employees. In addition, several authors agree on the finding that employee involvement contributes to an increase of performance (Latham et al., 1982; Wagner 1994). Also, employee involvement has a positive impact on individual effectiveness and innovation (Quinn & Spreitzer, 1997).
2.1.1 Employee involvement and organizational change.
A last, and for this study most relevant, positive outcome of employee involvement is a greater chance of a successful organizational change (Bartunek et al.,1999; Quinn & Spreitzer, 1997; Sagie et al., 1995; Sagie & Koslowsky, 1996; Wanberg & Banas, 2000).
participative acts of employees in an organization that is undergoing change, ranging from the lowest level (simply joining and participating in a system), to contributing (helping to improve the existing system), to collaborating (seeking to involve or support others in changing the system), to creating (transcending the current system). Bartunek et al. (1999, p. 459) argue that the specifics of the participative continuum of Pasmore and Fagans (1992) are not pertinent to all change initiatives, it does suggest, however, that a simple distinction between participating and not participating in an organizational change effort is inadequate.
In addition, employees involved in planning the changes increases the likelihood that employees’ interests and needs will be accounted for during the intervention. As a result, employees will be committed to implementing the change because doing so will suit their interests and meet their needs (Cummings & Molloy, 1977).
Furthermore, participation and involvement can lead to designing high-quality changes and to overcoming resistance to implement them (Chirico and Salvato, 2008; Dunphy, 1996; Nutt, 1986). Kotter and Schlesinger (1979) showed that, to increase the chance of a successful change, during a change activity managers need to listen to employees’ suggestions and heed their advice. Wanberg & Banas (2000) agree on this finding, they state that a higher degree of participation is related to a more positive view of changes and higher levels of change acceptance.
Also Bartunek et al. (1999) conclude that that the greater the level of participation, the more positive the outcomes of an organizational change effort. Bordia et al. (2004) clarify this positive relation by arguing that participation is suggested to lower the level of uncertainty by increasing the employees’ level of knowledge about decisions. In addition, Bartunek et al. (2006) argue that the degree of participation and involvement of employees in a change effort affects sensemaking of the change. Sensemaking, in this context, includes a better understanding of the nature of the change, appraisal of whether implementation deviates from the articulated plan and personal impacts of the change (Bartunek et al., 2006, p. 186).
greater the extent of participation, the more satisfied employees are and the quicker they meet new goals.
McNabb and Sepic (1995) state that a lack of involvement and participation in change activities is even one of the major causes of failing organizational changes. Taking the above into consideration, it can be concluded that employee involvement is of great value to organizations and has a large share in the chance of a successful organizational change.
2.2 Leadership
In the literature on organizations the terms ‘manager’ and ‘leader’ are often used interchangeably. However, there is an important distinction between the terms (Zaleznik, 1978). Bryman (1993) argues that managers are associated with periods of stability and leaders with periods of turbulence. Burnes (2009) adds to this that managers are concerned with the present, as they maintain the status quo. In contrast, leaders are concerned with the future. Burnes (2009) further states that leadership is about change and about values and emotions. Managers, on the other hand, deal with tasks as allocation of roles, tasks and resources needed to achieve organizational goals, coordination of the allocated activities and processes and monitoring the everyday operation of the organization (Bryman, 1993). As argued by Burnes, leadership is about organizational change and will be therefore the subject of this study.
2.2.1 Leadership behaviour.
three broad sets of leadership behaviour: (1) Shaping behaviour, the communication and actions of leaders related directly to the change: “making others accountable,” “thinking about change,” and “using an individual focus”; (2) Framing change, establishing starting points for change: “designing and managing the journey” and “communicating guiding principles in the organization”; and (3) Creating capacity, creating individual and organizational capabilities and communication and making connections (Higgs & Rowland, 2011, p. 312). Appendix I shows the behaviour sets with its characteristics, as composed by Higgs & Rowland (2011). In a later study, Higgs & Rowland (2011) show that leader-centric behaviours (shaping) have negative impact on successful change, whereas the more enabling behaviours (framing and creating) appear to facilitate successful change implementation.
2.2.2 Leadership style
Next to the leadership behaviours, particular interest will be paid to the studies of Lewin et al. (1939); who came up with the autocratic and democratic leadership style, and Bass (1985); who refined Burns’ (1978) work on transactional, transformational and passive/ avoidant leadership. These studies receive serious attention in the current literature and appear to have had a great impact on the development of insights of and knowledge about leadership (Avolio, Walumba, & Weber, 2009).
2.2.2.1 Autocratic and democratic leadership
An important study on leadership has been conducted by Lewin, Lippitt and White (1939). In their view on leadership they made a general distinction between two clusters of leadership styles; with democratic and autocratic leadership at the extreme ends of the spectrum. This model correlates with the power of employees (Bass, 1990; Vroom & Yetton, 1973). Schoel et al. (2011, p. 522) provide a definition of the distinction between both styles: “The primary difference between democratic and autocratic leadership lies in the degree of participation granted to other people or, on the other side of the coin, in the amount of control that group members have over decision-making processes and courses of action” (Bass, 1990; Van Vugt et al., 2004). This study of Lewin et al. (1939) served as a foundation for the transformational and transactional leadership styles, later developed by Burns (1978) and Bass (1985).
Autocratic leadership. Autocratic leaders dictate methods and stages of goal attainment to their
more self-centered ways and supervise employees’ work activities more closely (Muczyk & Reimann, 1987). The autocratic cluster is a group of the following leadership styles: authoritarian, directive, Theory X; leaders' role is to coerce and control employees (McGregor, 1960), coercive, production oriented, leader-derived decision making, initiating structure, production-centered, goal emphasis, task oriented, and performance concern (Stewart & Manz, 1995).
Democratic leadership. Democratic leaders, on the other hand, encourage employees to employ
their own methods and policies and elicit equal input when decisions are to be made (Lippitt, 1940). The democratic leadership style is characterized by a high degree of employees’ involvement and participation, especially in the decision-making process (e.g., Van Vugt, Jepson, Hart, & De Cremer, 2004). This style can involve either participative or consultative decision-making (Bass, 1990; Vroom & Yetton, 1973). The former implies that decisions are made in collaboration with group members, often using majority rules or similar social decision schemes. With the latter, a leader makes decisions himself, after talking with group members about their opinions (Bass, 1990; Vroom & Yetton, 1973). The democratic cluster is a group of the following leadership styles: consideration, participative, consultative, consensual, employee-centered, people oriented, relations focused, interaction facilitating, relations emphasis, Theory Y; leaders’ role is to develop the potential in employees and help them to release that potential towards common goals (McGregor, 1960) and group-derived decision making (Stewart & Manz, 1995).
2.2.2.2 Transactional, transformational and passive/ avoidant leadership
One of the most influential studies on leadership has been conducted by Burns (Burnes, 2009). Burns felt that earlier leadership studies, conducted up to the mid-seventies, were lacking ethical and moral dimensions (Carlson, 1996). Therefore, Burns came up with a major study of the nature of leadership, which resulted in two basic organizational states or contexts, convergent and divergent (broadly stable vs. unstable condition); and two matching management-leadership styles, transactional leadership and transformational leadership (Burns, 1978). While Burns was primarily concerned with leadership in the political context, Bass refined Burns’ findings and applied them to organizations (Bass, 1985). Bass contrasted the transactional and transformational approaches with passive/ avoidant, or laissez-faire, leadership.
Transactional leadership. Transactional leadership fits the convergent state of an organization, a
upon the accomplishment of a clearly defined goal. This suggests that leaders respond to lower level subordinate basic and security needs (Burns, 1978). The relation between both is thus based on a transaction, or an exchange process (van Eeden, 2008; Bass & Avolio, 1994). This transaction can be separated into two leadership styles: contingency reward and management-by-exception (Bass, 1985; 1999). The first style, contingency reward, describes the familiar arrangement between the leader and the follower where work is exchanged for pay. Both decide in consultation what rewards or recognition the employee will receive for a specific level of performance (Bass, 1985). Thus, the agreement displays the minimal acceptable performance standard of the employee (Waldman, Bass & Yammarino, 1990). According to Howell and Hall-Meranda (1999), the contingency reward style yields positive effects on individual performance. Secondly, in the management-by-exception style, the leader acts proactive by monitoring performance and looking for mistakes, irregularities, exceptions and takes corrective action before deviations in the usual patterns occur. Transactional leadership appears to have a negative influence on change processes (Howell and Hall-Meranda, 1999). Research of Tierney (1999) indicates that transactional leadership seems to negatively relate to a climate of change. In addition, it does not support the employees’ readiness for chance (Burnes, 2009).
Transformational leadership. Whereas transactional leadership fits the convergent state of an
organization, transformational leadership is most appropriate with the opposing, divergent state of the organization. Hereby the efficiency of the organization and the appropriateness of an organization’s goals, structures and ways of working are challenged by environmental changes (Burnes, 2009). Instead of a contractual agreement, as with transactional leadership, the relationship between the leader and employees is with transformational leadership based on trust and commitment. It involves developing a closer relationship between leaders and followers (Jung & Avolio, 1999). Avolio, et al. describe transformational leadership as “leader behaviours that transform and inspire followers to perform beyond expectations while transcending self-interest for the good of the organization” (2009, p. 423).
employees and recognise individual achievements. Through supportive leadership, leaders express confidence in the abilities of their employees to perform effectively and to succeed in achieving challenging goals. Support is especially important when difficult and challenging goals are set (Nadler & Tushman, 1990; Yukl, 1994). Transformational leaders involve employees in decision making. By sharing power and information with employees and encouraging autonomy they involve them in this decision making process (Conger & Kanungo, 1988b; Nadler & Tushman, 1990). Furthermore, they set up policies and procedures which involve employees in the problem-solving and decision making of the team. Employees are ensured by their leaders they have the authority to implement policies. Also, the acts of transformational leaders in empowering the employees involve creating a climate of trust, respect, open communication and cooperation which facilitates a cooperative, participative group climate (Conger & Kanungo, 1988b; Riechmann, 1992). Being innovative implies that leaders use innovative strategies to achieve their goals and are willing to take risks to achieve their vision. In addition, employees are encouraged to think laterally and are given challenges (Bass, 1985; Conger & Kanungo, 1988a; Tichy & Devanna, 1986). Furthermore, transformational leaders express self-confidence and set an example for employees that is congruent with the attitudes and values they espouse (Bass, 1985; Conger & Kanungo, 1988a).
According to Carless et al. (2000) there is a debate about whether charismatic leadership is a distinct and separate transformational leader behaviour or a generic term to describe a style of leadership. Bass (1985; 1992) proposes that charismatic leadership is the most important quality of a transformational leader. Therefore, charismatic leadership is included as a component of transformational leadership. Bass & Avolio describe charismatic leaders as trustworthy, highly competent and worthy of respect (1990). This behaviour inspires followers to heightened levels of motivation and performance in support of the organisational goals (Conger & Kanungo, 1988a). Opposed to transactional leadership, transformational leadership appears to have a positive influence on change (Higgs & Rowland, 2011; Herold et al., 2008). According to Bommer et al. (2009), transformational leadership positively influences employees’ readiness for change. Also, it has a positive influence on the climate of change (Tierney, 1999). Finally, this leadership style supports the employees’ commitment to the organization (Bycio et al., 2005) and has a positive impact on employees’ commitment to change (Herold et al., 2008).
Passive/avoidant leadership. Passive/avoidant leadership includes the passive form of
unacceptable performance. Research indicates that this style does not has a positive influence on performance (Howell & Avolio, 1993). Laissez-fair leaders are according to Bass (1997) not leaders, for they do not accept the responsibility of the role. Furthermore, they are often absent when needed, ignore their followers’ request for help and do not make their views and values known to others (Bass, 1997). Several studies (e.g. Deluga, 1990; Kelloway et al., 2005; Skogstad
et al., 2007) demonstrate the negative effects of this kind of leadership. Skogstad et al. conclude
that “laissez-faire leadership may be more of a counterproductive leadership style than a zero type of leadership style, associated with a stressful environment characterized by high levels of role stress and interpersonal conflicts” (2007, p. 89). Therefore, this leadership style will receive no further attention in this research.
2.3 Employee involvement and leadership
As discussed earlier, the importance and positive effect of employee involvement has been proven in a dozen studies (e.g. Colvin et al., 2007; Marchington et al., 1992; Sagie & Koslowsky, 1996; Wanberg & Banas, 2000). The fact that employee involvement has a positive effect on the successfulness of change is also evident (e.g. Kotter and Schlesinger, 1979; Wanberg & Banas, 2000). Assuming that a higher degree of employee involvement leads to a greater chance of a successful change, demands ways to stimulate employee involvement. Previously described leadership styles will be linked to employee involvement. The discussed leadership behaviour sets of Higgs & Rowland (2005; 2011) are relatively new. Consequently, evidence for a possible direct relation between these behaviour sets and employee involvement, during a change process, is not present. Therefore, a possible relation between these two variables will be searched for in the discussion of this study.
Transformational leadership has a positive effect on employee involvement for a number of reasons (e.g. Bartram & Casimir, 2007; Bono & Judge, 2003, Walumbwa & Lawler, 2003). First of all, transformational leaders energize employees by providing them with an exciting vision for the future. Beyond that, these leaders engage in inspirational behaviours by acting as mentors. Hereby, self-confidence, with respect to goal attainment, of the employees will increase (Bass and Avolio, 1993; Shamir et al., 1993). Next to this, transformational leaders alter employees in that they are able to reach their full potential (Lowe et al., 1996). Avolio et al. (2004) argue that transformational leaders “build team spirit through their enthusiasm, high moral standards, integrity, and optimism and provide meaning and challenge to their followers’ work, enhancing followers’ level of self-efficacy, confidence, meaning, and self-determination” (Avolio
et al., 2004, p. 953). In addition, transformational leaders use intellectual stimulation to challenge
employees’ values, beliefs, and mindset by having employees reconsider the way they do things and encourage them to try novel and creative approaches to their work. Ultimately this will increase the employees’ commitment to the organization (Bass, 1999; Bass and Avolio, 1994). At last, transformational leaders provide employees with individualised consideration by attending to their higher order needs and encourage them to take on more responsibilities in order to develop their full potential (Bass and Avolio, 1994; Kark and Shamir, 2002). Walumbwa et al. (2005) state that 20 years of leadership studies conclude that leaders who possess some values of transformational leadership style would generate high levels of both employees’ commitment and satisfaction.
The effect of transactional leadership on employee involvement is less clear and studies show contradicting results (Loa et al., 2010). A study conducted by Hayward et al. (2004) shows no correlation between transactional leadership and affective commitment, reflecting the employee's emotional attachment to and involvement with the organization; nor normative commitment, the employee's feelings of obligation to stay and continuance commitment, relating to the costs the employee associates with leaving. On the other hand, Meyer and Allen (1991) suggested that there is a relationship between transactional leadership and employee commitment. This is further supported by a study by AL-Hussami (2008). Findings of this study show that there actually is a positive relationship between transactional leadership and employee commitment and employee involvement. However, results of both studies are not strongly convincing.
result in nothing more than an illusion of empowerment (Mulder, 1971). Lawler (1986) argues that by autocratic leadership, initiative and individual feelings of ownership are destroyed. Taking the above into consideration, it can be concluded that there is no positive relation between autocratic leadership and improved employee involvement.
Democratic leaders, on the other hand, provide employees with external encouragement and reinforcements (Lawler, 1986). Furthermore, democratic leaders stimulate the creation of a culture that sustains team-level decision making and behaviour control (Manz & Sims, 1990). Employees are able to manage itself by solving its own problems and directing its own work (Lawler, 1992), as democratic leaders teach employees interaction skills (Walton, 1977). This self-management can ultimately lead to higher degrees of employee involvement (Lawler, 1986).
3. METHODOLOGY
This section describes the methods used for this study. This study aims to research how leadership influences employee involvement within a change process, at Organization X in the three northern departments. Therefore, this study has been designed as a qualitative research. The choice for a qualitative research can be justified for a number of reasons. As opposed to quantitative research, qualitative research is designed to tell how (process) and why (meaning) things happen as they do. With qualitative research the different meanings that people place on their experiences can be understand (Cooper & Schindler, 2008). Furthermore, qualitative research deals better with complex situations (Hutjes & Van Buuren, 1992) and provides explanations of beliefs and behaviours (Kvale, 1996).
3.1 Interviews
In this study, interviews formed the basis of the data collection. These interviews, conducted between 26th of June 2012 and 19th of July 2012, lasted about one hour and were held on site. The interviews were semi-structured, with open-ended in depth questions, and were conducted individually. Hereby interviewees could speak freely and share facts as well as opinions and feelings (Baxter & Babbie, 2003).
3.2 Interview questions
The table below provides an overview of the original measurements, per variable. Next, a detailed explanation for each measurement will be provided.
TABLE 1
Measurements per variable
Variables Measurements per variable
Employee involvement OCQ–C, P, R (Bouckenooghe et al., 2009) and CATOCQ (Bennebroek Gravenhorst et al., 2005)
Leadership style MLQ-6S (Bass and Avolio, 1992)
Leadership behaviour Shaping, Framing, Creating (Higgs & Rowland, 2011)
3.2.1 Employee involvement. Lawler’s (1988) definition of employee involvement is leading in
Organization X, and were therefore left out in this study. Since Lawler does not provide instruments to measure employee involvement, two other instruments were selected.
Bouckenooghe et al. (2009) designed the “Organizational Change Questionnaire–Climate of Change, Processes, and Readiness; OCQ–C, P, R”, an instrument that can be used “to gauge the internal context or climate of change, the process factors of change, and readiness for change” (Bouckenooghe et al., 2009, p. 559). Next to these three components, it also measures the participation of employees during a change activity. Appendix II shows the original scale and the associated interview questions in Dutch.
Another instrument that was used is the ‘Communication and Attitudes Towards Organizational Change Questionnaire’ (CATOCQ) (2008). The CATOCQ is based on the Communication and Organizational Change Questionnaire (COCQ) of Bennebroek Gravenhorst
et al. (2005), and is developed by students and scholars of University of Amsterdam (2008).
Bennebroek Gravenhorst et al. (2005) designed this instrument to find out which aspects of communication are problematic. Next to that the authors found it important to expose the communication behaviour in a change activity. As communication contributes to the knowledge level of the employees, and thus employee involvement, this instrument is valuable to use in this research. Appendix III shows the original scale and the associated interview questions in Dutch.
3.2.2 Leadership. Leadership, the independent variable, was multi-faceted in this study as both
the leadership styles of Bass (1985) as the leadership behaviours of Higgs & Rowland (2011) were examined.
A recognized instrument to measure transformational and transactional leadership of Bass (1985) is the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) developed by Bass (1985). This instrument is one of the most used methods to measure the leadership style of a leader (Den Hartog et al, 1997), and thus a logical choice for this study. The MLQ is made up of questions that measure followers' perceptions of a leader's behaviour. In addition it measures extra effort, effectiveness and satisfaction. In 1992 Bass and Avolio have developed an abbreviated version of the MLQ, called the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire - Short Form 6S (MLQ-6S). Given the scope and the limited time of this study, the MLQ-6S was used. The MLQ is originally a quantitative instrument. In this occasion, however, the questions have been transformed, to use them in an interview. Appendix IV shows the original scale and the associated interview questions in Dutch.
framing and creating. In their 2011 study, Higgs & Rowland summarize different characteristics which are part of the three leadership behaviour sets. Appendix V shows the original scale and the associated interview questions in Dutch.
3.3 Sample
This study represents the three northern departments of Organization X. Therefore, in each department interviews were held. In total, eight leaders and sixteen employees, associated with the leaders, evenly distributed over the three northern departments, were interviewed. Marshall (1996, p. 523) argues that “an appropriate sample size for a qualitative study is one that adequately answers the research question.” By questioning two employees per leader, and eight leaders in total, reasonable information was gathered about a considerable number of leaders. The leaders were selected on the basis of referral. A coordinator of the upcoming ‘Application Z’ change composed a list of potential respondents, evenly distributed over the three departments, and informed them about the interview by email. Afterwards, the researcher contacted them and invited them for an interview. In addition, these eight leaders selected two of their own employees for an interview. These employees were selected on the basis of the criteria that they witnessed the change of ‘Application X’ to ‘Application Y’ and their availability. Given the amount of time and the knowledge of the researcher of the organization, respondents were selected via the ‘convenience sample strategy’. This involves the selection of the most accessible subjects (Marshall, 1996). Four of the respondents were female, twenty were male. Every respondent had the Dutch nationality. The average age of the respondents was 48.1 years, ranging from 33 to 59 years. As the average age of employees at Organization X is approximately 46 years for men and 40 years for women, this sample is representative. The average length of service was 28.5 years.
3.4 Analysis
4. RESULTS
In this section the results of the interviews will be presented. First the dependent variable employee involvement will be elaborated and then the independent variable leadership will be reported. Also, the link between the dependent and independent variable, the role of a leader in influencing employee involvement, will be elaborated. During the interviews it soon became clear that there was little to no involvement during the change of ‘Application X’ to ‘Application Y’. Therefore, also a desired situation was questioned.
4.1 Employee Involvement
This study follows Lawler’s definition of employee involvement, and will therefore present how information, knowledge and power are moved to the lower levels of the organization prior, during and after the change of ‘Application X’ to ‘Application Y’. All these dimensions are part of the dependent variable employee involvement. Also the role of the leader at influencing employee involvement will be examined. First the reactions of the employees will be discussed and after that the views of the leaders will be reported.
4.1.1 Information and knowledge
Here the way of information provision regarding the change, the quality of the information and training and the role of the leader in providing the information, as interpreted by the employees, and leaders, will be presented.
4.1.1.1 Information. According to half of the employees, the information provision on the change
of ‘Application X’ to ‘Application Y’ proceeded according to a series of steps. The first messages on the change were circulated through the rumour mill. Employees caught information regarding the upcoming change from fellow colleagues, during their break at the coffee machine. After this unofficial way, most of the respondents were informed through work meetings and daily briefings. During these meetings their leader informed them about the first signs of the upcoming change. A next step, when things became more official and concrete, was that employees were informed by email about the change. In this email message the employees were told about the change. This information was also published on the intranet of Organization X.
4.1.1.2 Quality of information. Half of the questioned employees reported that they were
need the information for when I am not involved? I will see it when it when the change is there.”
Twelve respondents do question this approach and have comments about timing, completeness and clearness.
The remarks about the timing of information are two-sided. On the one hand, four employees complained about the fact that information about the change came too early. These employees argued that when vague, often incomplete, information hits the work floor too early, they become restless. Also, information was badly timed since people had other concerns. As a respondent declares: “Timing is important. When people have other concerns at that time, they
cannot handle additional information and certainly not extra pressures.” On the other hand, three
employees complained about the time span between the training and the launch of the new system. They believe this span, 3 to 4 months was too big which caused loss of knowledge and skills about the new system. “If you have the training of a complete new system half a year before
the actual launch, and half a year later you work with it, you already forgotten it.”
Another dimension is the completeness of information. Three employees noted that the information regarding the change was limited. Employees missed a context and reasons for the change; in their eyes the change was making little sense without this. One employee reacts on this: “They said “it” was coming, but why and how was not told. I missed a context.” Other employees did not mention this aspect.
Also, three interviewees complained about the clearness of the information. Especially the first waves of information, mostly unofficial, were very unclear. In those early stages employees could not get clarification about what they have heard, since nobody was well informed. Again this led to restless employees, these three employees argued. Another interviewee adds to this that she believes the information is too impersonal and cold: “If you want to involve people, you have
to do it in a warm and personal way. Personal information and a decent training, not an e-learning. It may be more costly, but the return will be higher.” Other employees did not mention
this aspect.
So even though half of the employees were satisfied with the information provision, complains were raised about timing, completeness and clearness.
4.1.1.3 Knowledge. Every employee reported that they were satisfied about the content of the
why these instructors were appreciated: “In this way employees who after the training still had
problems adapting to the new system, could get direct help from fellow colleagues.”
4.1.1.4 Role of leader in information and knowledge. All the employees declared that their
leader made a short notice about the change during the daily briefings and forwarded relevant email messages regarding the change. Also, the leader had to make sure that the employees visited the training. Two employees declared that this action stemmed from self-interest, as leaders were held responsible for the participation of their employees and could receive a penalty when their employees did not show up at the training. One interviewee comments on this: “I know he was
pushing us because his own manager was pushing him.” As said, employees adjusted their
expectations over the past years and therefore did not resent their leader. However, they did regret the fact that their leader was not capable of providing sufficient information in time.
4.1.1.5 Leader’s view on information and knowledge. Seven out of eight questioned leaders
believe the information for their employees regarding the change was provided on time. Two of these leaders believe that the information came too early. While the actual change did not take place until one year, employees were fed with “unnecessary” information. According to these leaders, their employees are often inundated with information, and they do not have space to store additional, for that time, irrelevant information.
Five interviewed leaders gave a positive valuation of their own role in the provision of information to their employees during the change of ‘Application X’ to ‘Application Y’. Every leader argued that their main job was to make the first announcements during work meetings. Three leaders admitted that they did not know everything about the change and their knowledge about the new system was simply bad. But they did act as a good messenger and they retrieved the required information elsewhere. Five leaders declared they also spent time on explaining why the change was about to happen and point out the benefits of the new system.
4.1.2 Power
During the interviews the power dimension of employee involvement was divided in several interview questions about: the extent to which employees were involved in decision making, the extent to which employees have been heard and had an opportunity to participate in discussions about the change and the extent to which employees were stimulated to come with input for the change. Also, employees were asked if they believed their suggestions were taken serious. Again, also the results of the interviews with the leaders will be reported.
4.1.2.1 Decision making. Not a single respondent declared he was involved in the decision
declared that changes like these, ICT changes on a national level, cannot be made in consultation with each employee, and therefore they could understand the situation.
4.1.2.2 Contribution. Only one interviewee was actual involved in the change process. He did
not so much contributed to the development of ‘Application Y’, but had a share in the deployment, as he declared himself. As he was involved in a workgroup to improve the administrative process, he was automatically involved in the process of ‘Application Y’.
Fifteen out of sixteen interviewees indicated that they were not involved in the development of ‘Application Y’. Of these fifteen interviewees, eleven said they could not understand why they have not or barely been involved in the development, and feels somewhat forgotten. Someone reacts on this: “I do not get it, we are the end users of the product, and I know
what I need.” Prior, during and after the change they saw many opportunities to contribute to the
change, but they simply could not act on this. They regret the fact that no more chances were given to participate in the change process.
Thirteen interviewees also find that they have been consulted too little, prior, during and after the change. As they are the consumer of the new system, these employees believe they should have been consulted more. “From day one of the training me and my colleagues ran into
problems with ‘Application Y’ and several issues were raised, but until today nothing has changed”, as argued by someone. This same group of interviewees declared that they were never
stimulated to come up with input. Especially prior to the change, no one recalls a request for input, neither from the initiators of the change nor from their own leaders.
On the occasion employees were consulted, it was after the implementation of ‘Application Y’, six interviewees declared. More than half of the employees had the idea they were busy with damage control. “Users were asked at the moment the system was already
running, then you are too late. The only thing you can do than is repairing.” They declared that
instead of contributing in the beginning of the development of the new system, employees could report issues afterwards, and for most of them, this was not satisfying. One respondent reacts on this: “When there is a bad product, and you give a solution, you have a little less bad product. But
when there is a good product, and an even better solution is found, you have a really good product.” On the occasions employees did have a voice, as revealed earlier almost every time
matter and was taken into consideration. A respondent explains this: “I find it important to get
feedback on my suggestion, even when it is unfeasible. We are adults and I discuss serious matters. Therefore, I also want to be taken seriously.”
4.1.2.3 Role of leader in power. Based on the results above, it can be concluded that there was
little to no involvement of employees during the change of ‘Application X’ to ‘Application Y’. Twelve interviewees declared that the influence of their leader on the involvement and participation was therefore also limited. As discussed earlier, according to the interviewees, the primary task of the leader in this change, regarding to employee involvement, was informing his employees. One interviewee was seriously involved in the change process, as discussed earlier. His leader had a prominent role in putting him in a workgroup of ‘Application Y’. This employee reacts on this: “My leader organized the first contacts for me to join this workgroup. Also, he had
a facilitating role in this, as he arranged time for me to participate in this group.” This shows
that this leader had both a coordinating role, in that he had to select and recruit one of his own employees for this workgroup, an organizing role wherein he had to acquire a place in the workgroup and finally a facilitating role.
4.1.2.4 Leader’s view on power. Eight leaders argued the involvement in the decision making
and the development of ‘Application Y’ was too little. All of the interviewed leaders also stated that their employees were not heard and were not involved in discussions prior to the development of ‘Application Y’. Again, the large majority regrets this, as they believe that employees, as being the end user of the new system, are of great value to generate valuable input. One adds to this:
“My people know a lot more than I do, they are my input. We should use them.”
4.1.3 Explanation low employee involvement
Based on the results of above, it can be concluded that the role of the leader in stimulating and increasing employee involvement during the change of ‘Application X’ to ‘Application Y’ is very limited. Interviewed employees and leaders hold thoughts about the reason why, in this particularly change, the amount of employee involvement was this little. During the interviews, they provided four reasons for the lack of employee involvement and hence the limited influence the leader had in increasing employee involvement.
ICT change. Four employees and three leaders declared that changes like these, ICT changes on a
employee states: “A situation where everyone can participate in decision making is not feasible,
because everyone has their own opinion. One is in favour, another one against. You will never reach agreement.” A leader adds to this: “I do not think you have a choice. When you give employees a say in the decision about getting a new system or not, chaos is complete. That will never work.” These employees and leaders acknowledged that decisions of this kind are made at
the top of the organization and do not need involvement of employees.
Low impact. Five employees and three leaders argued that the change was brought, and felt as a
simple change, without a serious impact. As one of the employees clarifies this: “In itself, not
much was changed. They only created a new skin to the system.” Another employee comments: “To my mind, nothing has changed.” This low impact of the change led to little interest from both
employees and leaders, as three employees and one leader argued. “The change was to my
opinion rather small and was not debateable. We just had to accept it”, an employee explains.
Another employee adds to this: “The change was brought as an isolated fact. We adjusted to it as
we were asked to.”
Top-down decision. The change of ‘Application X’ to ‘Application Y’ was a top-down decision,
as interpreted by eight employees and three leaders, and this declared the lack of employee involvement. One employee argues: “It was a top-down decision and change process. It felt like
that and they also delivered it like that.” A leader reports: “The change of ‘Application X’ to ‘Application Y’ was made at the top of the organization, it is just impossible to involve people from the workplace in such discussions and decisions.” Another leader adds to it: “Changes like these are decided at the top of the organization, it is a top-down process. Management does not need to pretend like employees can participate or have a say in such changes. Employees know better, you can not fool them.”
Leader as a victim. Leaders could not play a significant role in increasing employee
involvement, as the leaders were just as much victims of the change as the employees were, as five employees argued. One comments on this: “I know he was trying and he did his best to
involve us, but he is on the same level as we are and is also a victim of the change.” Therefore,
these employees do not blame their leader for this. “His hands were tied and he did not have any
voice in the change as well”, as one respondent comments. Every interviewee believes that
influence in the change. One reacts on this: “I understand that. There are hundreds, or maybe
even thousand leaders on my level, that makes it very complicated.”
Thus, apart from the fact that there were no possibilities for employee involvement, leaders were just as powerless and helpless as their employees, in this particularly change, and could not influence the level of employee involvement. Above findings demonstrate that other factors than acts of the leader caused the absence of employee involvement.
4.1.4 Expectations of employee involvement
When it appeared during the interviews that employees were little to no involved in the change process of ‘Application X’ to ‘Application Y’, and little to no information regarding approaches to employee involvement, or the role or actions of their leader in increasing employee involvement was gathered, the scope of study was broadened. Employees were also asked what kind of involvement they missed in this change and what they believed would be satisfying for future changes. Later on, in the leadership section, also the desired role of their leader to increase involvement will be elaborated.
The interviewed employees came up with two prerequisites employee involvement. Half of the interviewees declared that they want to be involved at the beginning of the process. According to this group, involving employees later in the process will only result in correcting errors and will not lead to an ideal product. In addition, four interviewees insist that the right people are involved with the change process. Someone gives a clarification for this: “In the past it
has happened that office workers tested clothing for people who work in the field.”
4.1.5 Result of employee involvement.
During the interviews, employees were also asked about their opinion about employee involvement during changes. Furthermore, employees were asked what they believe employee involvement contributes to. This to determine the added value of employee involvement in change processes at Organization X.
Every interviewed employee declared that they like to be involved in decisions, discussions or the development of a new system or product, or in a change process. The effect of employee involvement is also clear to all of the interviewees. They sum up numerous positive effects of involvement and participation. Thirteen interviewees find it important to be heard and to have a voice in upcoming changes. This gives them the feeling of being taken seriously. Next to that, two interviewees declared that when they are involved, their understanding of the situation increases, and as a result of that their level acceptance to accept the change increases. One argues:
“This greater understanding will reduce possible resistance to change as I will adapt easier to the new situation.” Also, a higher degree of employee involvement leads to a more job satisfaction,
according to two respondents. In addition, one interviewee responds that his enthusiasm increases when he is more involved. “When I am involved, I have the feeling that I matter.” This also contributes to his work ethic, as he declared. Finally, a higher degree of involvement leads to a better product, as two respondents declare. One of them argues: “With the involvement of the end
user, more ideas and suggestions are delivered. When this input forms the basis for the development of a new product, success will be guaranteed.”
4.2 Leadership
Also leadership, the independent variable in this study, was a subject during the interviews. Questions were asked to determine transformational or transactional leadership, and the leadership behaviour; shaping, framing and creating. Per underlying dimension, the results of the interviews with the employees will be reported and then the results of the interviews with the leaders will be elaborated. At the end of both sections, a recapitulation follows.
and actions to increase employee involvement and the associated leadership style and leadership behaviour set, as elaborated in the current literature, will be provided in the discussion section.
4.2.1 Transformational and transactional leadership style
To determine whether the interviewed leaders have a transformational or a transaction leadership style, questions were asked about: the level of trust employees have in their leader, the extent to which the leaders inspire their employees, the extent to which the employees are stimulated and to come up with new ideas, the extent to which leaders assist their employees with personal development, to determine transformational leadership. For determining transactional leadership questions were asked about: the extent to which leaders provide job clarity and the extent to which they set standards.
4.2.1.1 Transformational leadership
Trust. Every interviewed employee declared that they completely trust their leader. Twelve of
them argued that this trust is supported by the fact that they can discuss everything with their leader, both private and business related. One comments on this: “If I would have any problem, I
would visit him first.” Two respondents argued that their leader in turn tells everything to their
employees, both private and business related. They believe that this supports mutual trust. One explains: “We do not only discuss work related things, we also talk about personal issues. And not
only my matters, also those of him.” Five employees declared that their leader is sincerely
interested in their lives and that he informs regularly how they are doing. Finally, two interviewees trust their leader because they never bail on them. One of them explains: “He does
not criticise you afterwards when you have made a wrong decision.”
Also every interviewed leader believes that their employees trust them. Half of them declared this by the fact that their employees are completely open to them and share their personal stories. Four leaders believe their employees trust them because they are open and transparent. One of them comments on this: “I have no hidden agendas, and I tell my employees that.” Two of them add to this that they are very approachable: “The door of my office is always open.” Also, half of the interviewees explain this level of trust by the fact that they act very thoughtful, as one of them reacts on this: “I am sincerely interested in my employees. I often ask how they are
doing.”
Inspiration. The interviewed employees divide the way their leader inspires them in two
categories. Three respondents declared that their leader is inspiring them by leading by example. They argued that their leader is a hard worker and is passionate about his job. One respondent comments on this: “His way of work inspires me, he will never give up.” Two employees believe their leader inspires them by the conversations they have. They argued that their leader motivates them in one-to-one conversations and tries to explore new opportunities. Six interviewees do not think their leader has an inspiring function. Four of them declared that they find their inspiration somewhere else, they do not need their leader for this. Someone comments on this: “I get my
inspiration from people who have a lot of knowledge, this is not per se my leader”, and another
one: “I inspire myself, and my fellow colleagues inspire me.”
Every interviewed leader believes he inspires their employees to some extent. Two of them declared that employees believe they are inspiring because they are enthusiastic in their work. One comments on this: “People think I am very excited and have lots of energy.” Three of them believe they have an inspiring function because they often motivate and stimulate their employees. They argued that they help their employees to a next level. One leader believes that his attitude and his hard work works inspiring. He declares: “People do not dare to complain
because I am such a hard worker myself and have lots of energy.”
Leaders seem to be more convinced about their inspiring role than the employees are. However, four employees argued that they do not mind whether their leader inspires them or not, as they find inspiration elsewhere. It can be concluded that leaders have a moderate inspiring function.
Stimulation. Seven of the interviewed employees declared that their leader challenges and
stimulates them in inventing new ideas or solutions. Four of them explained that their leader provides space for own initiatives and hands them responsibility. One comments on this: “He
leaves it with us and gives us thereby lots of responsibility.” Three interviewees reported that their
leader challenges them in one-on-one conversations. Two respondents believe they are little to no challenged or stimulated to come up with new solutions by their leader. One of them believes this is not necessary: “I believe that you need to have that professionalism and independence by
yourself.”
All interviewed leaders reported that they spend much attention to challenging and stimulating their employees to be inventive and innovative. Two of them are even constantly busy challenging their employees, as they declared. “There is no field that is stationary. Colleagues
as one respondent calls as a reason. He adds to this: “Standing still in this line of work results in a
decline, so I force my employees to look ahead and to change.”
Again, leaders are more positive, towards their role of stimulating employees, than the employees are. Though, also the employees are predominantly positive.
Personal development. Twelve interviewed employees declared that their leader helps them in
their personal development. These employees divide the tasks of their leader regarding personal development in three categories. Four employees believe their leader has a facilitating role in their development. They argued that when they come up with a new training they want to attend, their leader will organize this. One interviewee explains this: “If I want to follow a new training, my
leader is the one who organizes this.” Two employees reported that their leader has a proactive
role in developing employees. These leaders bring up new opportunities and try to develop their employees. An employee reacts on this: “He asks me if I want to attend a new training or asks me
if I like certain vacancies.” The last task of the leader, as acknowledged by eight interviewees, is
having one-on-one conversations with employees and making a personal development plan. One reacts: “In these conversations he asks me: “What have you done so far, where do you want to
go?”” Two interviewees believe their leader could spend more time in helping them with their
personal development. “He is way too busy with other things, that is a pity”, as one of them explains.
Eight out of eight leaders believe they are of great help in developing their employees. Half of them argued they often hand opportunities to their employees. Three others stimulate their employees to come up with own initiatives for their career. “I stimulate my employees to come up
with own initiatives”, as one leader declares. Six leaders reported they often have one-on-one
conversations with their employees to discuss their wishes regarding their careers. One leader reports: “I ask my employees what their development needs are. My standard question during
these meetings is: “Where do you stand over five years?” What will you have achieved and how do you get there?””
Only two interviewed employees believe that their leader could spend more time in helping them with their personal development, versus twelve positive employees. Leaders agree with this, and argued they are thoughtful towards personal development.
4.2.1.2 Transactional leadership
Clarity. Every interviewee stated that their leader provides them with enough clarity. They all
