1
COMMITMENT TO MULTIPLE FOCI AS MEDIATORS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE AND CHANGE LEADERSHIP, AND
READINESS FOR CHANGE: AN INTEGRATIVE FRAMEWORK
Master thesis, MSc Business Administration, Change Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
January 3rd, 2013
WESLEY ZONNE Student number: 1616102
Supervisor – University 1st supervisor: Prof. Dr. O. Janssen
Co-assessor: Dr. C. Reezigt
*** I would like to show my gratitude to my supervisor Onne Janssen, whose expertise and support have enabled me to develop a satisfying result. Furthermore, I want to thank all contact persons for embracing my research. In addition, compliments to all employees who participated in this quantitative study.
2 Abstract
This study takes a complementary view on two types of leadership - i.e. Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) and change leadership - as positive contributors to employees’ organizational commitment and commitment to change respectively, which are on their turn crucial for their readiness for change. Data for this study was obtained from 107 employees of eight organizations. The findings lead to an integrative framework, where affective organizational commitment mediates the relationship between LMX and readiness for change, and where affective commitment to change mediates the relationship between change leadership and readiness for change. Unexpectedly, change leadership was positively related to (affective) organizational commitment. Theoretical and practical implications are mentioned, as well as limitations and suggestions for further research.
3 TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 5
THEORY 7
Readiness for Change 7
Commitment and Readiness for Change 9
Organizational commitment and readiness for change. 9
Commitment to change and readiness for change. 11
Leader-Member Exchange, Organizational Commitment, and Readiness for
Change 13
The Mediating Role of Organizational Commitment 15
Change Leadership, Commitment to Change, and Readiness for Change 16
The Mediating Role of Commitment to Change 18
METHOD 19
Procedures and Sample 19
Measures 21
Readiness for change. 21
4
RESULTS 22
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations 22
Hypotheses Testing 22
Exploratory Analyses 24
Factor analyses 24
Descriptive statistics and correlations 24
Alternative hypotheses testing 26
DISCUSSION 36 Findings 36 Theoretical Implications 37 Practical Implications 39 Limitations 41 Future Research 42 REFERENCES 44 APPENDICES 56
Appendix A: Formal Letter 56
Appendix B: Questionnaire 57
5 INTRODUCTION
In spite of substantial existing literature on change management, most significant change initiatives fail to meet expectations (Soumyaja, Kamalanabhan, & Bhattacharyya, 2011). Seven out of ten change efforts that are critical to organizational success fail to achieve their intended results (Beer & Nohria, 2000). Burnes (2004) suggests that the failure rate may even be higher. The main reason why change initiatives fail is the inability of people to adapt and become change-able (Holbeche, 2006). The most important construct for assessing employee reactions to change is readiness for change (Armenakis, Harris & Mossholder, 1993). Readiness for change determines whether employees support the change project or not (Armenakis et al., 1993). If people in an organization are not motivated or ready for change, the organizational change is doomed to fail (Antoni, 2004). Thus, understanding employees’ readiness to change could serve as a guide to organizational leaders as they approach changes and determine the best mode of implementing those changes (Soumyaja et al., 2011).
6 itself (Soumyaja et al., 2011). Even though organizational commitment encourages employees to develop attitudes consistent with that commitment (Salancik, 1977), it may be naive to think that employees will continue to display the same pattern regarding other foci of commitment (Kang, Stewart, & Kim, 2011). Regarding these distinct foci, literature requests to examine the relative influence of employees’ organizational commitment and commitment to change in relation to their readiness for change. Organizational commitment has been modelled as a cause of commitment to change, but both concepts have also be seen as competing with each other as predictors of change-related outcomes (Jaros, 2010). This study proposes a complementary view in which both concepts are argued to be positive contributors to readiness for change.
7 study proposes a complementary view in which both types of leadership are argued to be positive contributors to employees’ commitment.
This study contributes to literature by researching both organizational commitment and commitment to change to clarify their roles regarding readiness for change. In addition, while the concepts of readiness for change and commitment have received considerable attention in literature, few studies have used both constructs together. Moreover, by integrating the relationship-based and leader-focused perspectives on leadership into one framework, this study aims to provide insights on how these contrasting perspectives on leadership influence individual readiness for change in an organizational change context. By doing so, the role and benefits of change leadership will be made more visible. Lastly, this study includes both organizational commitment and commitment to change in their multidimensional composition as possible mediators of the relationship between leader-member exchange and change leadership, and readiness for change. More specifically, this study differentiates between a general path from leader-member exchange to readiness for change possibly mediated by the general form of organizational commitment, and a specific path from change leadership to readiness for change possibly mediated by the specific form of commitment to change. In light of the notion that commitment to organization and commitment to change may bring out different landscapes, researchers and practitioners may have much to gain by considering separate approaches to multiple commitments in order to increase followers’ readiness. As said, understanding individual readiness for change is crucial in this fast changing modern world as organizational leaders have to approach changes all the time. Their roles with subordinates and specific behaviours may have important consequences and implications as well.
THEORY Readiness for Change
8 through a major change, it is important for management to consider the human side of change as well. Some authors even go one step further and state if people in an organization are not motivated or ready for change, the organizational change is doomed to fail (George & Jones, 2001; Antoni, 2004). Accordingly, numerous authors have called for a more person-focused approach to the study of organizational change (e.g. Vakola & Nikolaou, 2005).
One of the oldest models on human systems resembles the change process model of Lewin (1954). He proposed three stages to bring about change in any system - unfreezing, changing and refreezing. In a further exploration, Schein (1980) considered unfreezing as a process of creating readiness for change and motivation (disconfirmation, introduction of guilt or anxiety and creation of psychological safety). Holt, Armenakis, Field and Harris (2007) further reinforced this by identifying three stages in the change process of a successful implementation, namely: 1) readiness for change, 2) adoption, and 3) institutionalization.
Readiness for change can be defined as an organizational member’s beliefs, attitudes, and intensions regarding the extent to which changes are needed and the organization’s capacity to successfully make changes (Armenakis et al., 1993). It can be considered as one of the most important constructs for assessing employee’s reactions to change, because it determines whether employees support the change project or not (Drzensky, Egold & Van Dick, 2012). “Change is a word that shakes somebody, while others welcome it as a vision to make things better” (Anjani & Dhanapal, 2012: 24). Importantly, when readiness exists, an individual is primed to embrace change and resistance is reduced. When readiness not exists, the change may be rejected, and organizational members may engage in negative reactions such as sabotage, absenteeism and output restriction (Soumyaja et al., 2011).
Assessing employee’s reactions can be measured on a continuum; on the one end there is resistance to change, and on the other end readiness for change (Elving, 2005). Others interpret readiness for change as the opposite of resistance to change (Drzensky et al., 2012). Anyhow, several researchers have argued that the term resistance is negative and that a focus on resistance will actually lead to the creation and exhibition of it (Metselaar, 1997). Therefore, this study chooses for readiness for change as it has a more positive connotation.
9 resembles what one thinks about the change, i.e. if the change is necessary or whether it will be beneficial. The emotional state concerns feelings about the change, e.g. anxious or enthusiastic feelings. The behavioural state regards intentions or actions in response towards the change, i.e. convincing others about the usefulness of the change. This study focuses on the behavioural dimension since the cognitive and emotional dimensions were found to be conceptually and empirically overlapping with the construct and measures of commitment to change (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Soumyaja et al., 2011). Accordingly, readiness for change can be defined as “a positive behavioral intention of an employee with respect to the implementation of a change in the structure, culture or process of an organization or department, resulting in an effort on behalf of the employee to support or accelerate the change process” (Metselaar, 1997: 34).
As Lewin (1954) calls it, creating readiness for change is a process of ‘unfreezing’ the current situation or an individual’s mind-set. This mind-set includes thoughts and feelings that binds an individual to a course of action and is called commitment (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002). Hence, commitment will be discussed next.
Commitment and Readiness for Change
Literature recognized that employees can become committed to many different work-related foci (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002). The capacity for an individual to form commitments does not appear to be limited (Klein, Molley, & Brinsfield, 2012). Actually, the prediction of behaviour is improved when commitment to multiple foci are considered (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002). As such, an important question is how organizational commitment and commitment to change would relate to readiness for change (Jaros, 2010). Although the construction of commitment to change is based on the model of organizational commitment, the concepts can be clearly separated as will be shown below.
10 The term organizational commitment has been described and defined in a variety of ways (Dirani & Kuchinke, 2011). Early research defined it as a strong identification with a particular company or organization (Mowday et al., 1982). Others defined it as a psychological link between the employee and the organization that makes it less likely that the employee will voluntarily leave the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1997). In general terms, organizational commitment can be defined as the employees’ overall feelings and levels of attachment towards their organization (Bartlett, 2001).
While practitioners are always looking for a diversity of instruments to measure these concepts in organizations (Fields, 2002), it is critical to have reliable instruments to measure these constructs (Dirani & Kuchinke, 2011). Meyer and Allen (1997) presented a framework of organizational commitment with three broad themes: affective, continuance, and normative. Affective commitment reflects an affective orientation towards the organization. It is the condition when individuals like their organization and identify with and get involved in the organization (Dirani & Kuchinke, 2011). Continuance commitment reflects recognition of costs associated with leaving the organization. It is the condition when individuals remain with an organization because they need to do so (Cohen, 1996). Normative commitment reflects a feeling of moral obligation to remain with an organization. It is the condition when individuals feel that they ought to remain with the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1997).
It has been suggested that individuals with strong commitment to their organization would be more valuable than employees with weak commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1997). More specifically, Heffner and Rentsch (2001) found the affective component to be the most consistent measure that explained correlations between organizational commitment and various performance indices. More change-related, an individual’s commitment to an organization affects the individual’s evaluation of an organizational change (Kwahk & Kim, 2008). Indeed, Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) argue that commitment is one of the most important factors involved in employees’ support for change initiatives. This is in line with earlier research where employees with a sense of organizational commitment are less likely to engage in withdrawal behaviour and more willing to accept change (Iverson & Buttigieg, 1998). Thus, organizational commitment as related to “individuals’ desires, needs, and feelings of obligation to remain in the organization” (Dirani & Kuchinke, 2011: 1182) can predict change-related behaviour.
11 to have increased willingness to work in accordance with organizational goals (Dirani & Kuchinke, 2011). More specifically, Meyer and Allen (1991) argue that employees who want to remain out of affection (affective commitment) are likely to attend work regularly, perform assigned tasks to the best of their ability, and fulfil additional tasks as well. These work activities can include actions towards a particular change project. It makes sense that organizational commitment would help facilitate a readiness for change within individual employees (Madsen et al., 2005). Those who remain out of a sense of obligation (normative commitment) may do likewise only if they see it as a part of their duty, or as a mean of reciprocation for benefits received. Indeed, employees who feel obliged to reward their organization are more open to change (Hackett, Bycio, & Hausdorf, 1994).
This suggests that individuals’ commitment to the organization has different positive effects on their readiness for change (Kwahk & Lee, 2008). Thus, committed employees are more likely to intend to or actually perform change-related activities through attitudes and orientations that link individual identity with an organization, through having congruent goals, through involvement of that individual with the organization, and through rewards associated with continuous participation (Meyer & Allen, 1997). Therefore:
H1a: Organizational commitment is positively related to readiness for change.
Commitment to change and readiness for change. Whereas organizational commitment reflects a more general attachment with an organization, commitment to change is specified to a particular change initiative. Commitment to change can be described as “the glue that provides the vital bond between people and change goals” (Conner, 1992: 147).
12 commitment to change), and (c) a sense of obligation to provide support for the change (normative commitment to change). That is, employees can feel bound to support a change because they want to, have to, and/or ought to” (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002: 475). The value of this multidimensional conceptualization is widely acknowledged (e.g., Bernerth, Armenakis, Feild, & Walker, 2007; Chen & Wang, 2007).
According to Herscovitch and Meyer (2002), this commitment is one of the most important factors involved in employees’ support for change initiatives. Commitment has been placed as a key variable in theoretical models of readiness for change (Armenakis et al., 1999). In addition, there are strong linkages found between commitment to change and change support (Meyer et al., 2007), and the willingness of employees to engage in change-related behaviours as well (Jaros, 2010). Therefore, it is expected that individuals who believe in the benefits of the change or feel a sense of obligation to provide support for the change are more likely to intend to or actually perform change-related activities.
Concluding, whereas previous research has seen organizational commitment and commitment to change as competing predictors of change-related outcomes (Jaros, 2010), this study proposes a complementary view. That is, both organizational commitment and commitment to change are expected to be positively related to readiness for change. More specifically, both a strong attachment towards the organization and a positive mind-set regarding a change initiative will lead to a positive behavioural intention with respect to the change initiative. However, some researchers observed that commitment to change contributes over and above organizational commitment to the prediction of employees’ self-reported behavioural support for change (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002). This can be strengthened by the finding that organizational commitment may decline as organizations start to change (Fedor, Caldwell & Herold, 2006). In addition, Ford, Weissbei and Plamondon (2003) agree that both kinds of commitment are empirically distinct and demonstrate that commitment to a significant change (labelled strategy change in their research) does a better job of predicting specific change-related behaviours than does the broader, organizational commitment. Thus, readiness for a change is expected to be influenced by commitment to the change above and beyond the influence by commitment to the organization. Therefore:
13 By distinguishing the specific commitment to change from the general organizational commitment, the question raises whether these distinct commitment constructs might have different antecedents. This study differentiates literature on leadership between a specific leader-focused perspective and a more general relationship-based perspective. As a result, change leadership and quality of leader-member exchange are identified as different antecedents for either commitment constructs. So, these concepts will be separately deliberated beneath.
Leader-Member Exchange, Organizational Commitment, and Readiness for Change In times of change, interpersonal interaction with superiors is highly valued, making the nature of such relationships a salient feature in shaping readiness for change (Bouckenooghe et al., 2009). However, this relationship is expected to be mediated by commitment, especially the affective component. Primarily, one of the major tasks of leaders is to facilitate employees’ participation in order to create commitment (Schneider et al., 1996). The leader-member exchange (LMX) theory “focuses explicitly on how one-on-one reciprocal social exchanges between leader and followers evolve, nurture, and sustain the dyadic relationship” (Wang et al., 2005: 420). A central tenet of LMX theory is that leaders do not treat each subordinate the same (Rockstuhl, Dulebohn, Ang, & Shore, 2012). The dyadic exchanges can be seen on a continuum where they range from high to low quality (Loa, Ramayahb, Minc, & Songan, 2010). High-quality supervisor–subordinate relationships are characterised by higher levels of mutual support, trust and respect, including access to information and participation in decision making than low-quality relationships (Brunetto et al., 2012). In other words, whereas low-quality LMX relationships are based on exchanges directly specified by the employment contract, high-quality LMX relationships include exchanges of both material and non-material goods beyond what is required by the formal employment contract (Le Blanc & González-Romá, 2012).
14 is that members’ work-related attitudes and behaviours depend on how their leaders treat them (Rockstuhl et al., 2012).
People need support to function effectively (Schneider et al., 1996). Supported employees can undertake and complete tasks quicker and can solve work related problems more efficiently and effectively compared with employees in low-quality relationships (Gerstner & Day, 1997). Employees in high-quality supervisor–subordinate relationships are likely to have access to relevant information and resources, as well as an empowering relationship because supervisors allocate increased levels of organizational resources (e.g. time) towards them (Sparrowe & Linden, 1997). In other words, in an exchange characterized by trust and loyalty, leaders would delegate more challenging and relevant responsibilities that involve greater risk-taking to subordinates that they trust (Lee, 2008). This supportive environment makes them more productive and enhances their perceptions of empowerment and thereby, their commitment to the organization (Brunetto et al., 2012). A supportive environment can also include social support, i.e. the degree to which a supervisor provides sympathy and care (Noe, Hollenbeck, Gerhart, & Wright, 2005). Providing social support can play a critical role in enhancing the emotional attachment to the organization (Joo, 2010), thus influencing affective organizational commitment. Joo (2010) emphasizes the importance of support, by explaining that employees who see congruence between their own goals and those of the organization are more likely to commit to the organization.
Interestingly, the positive exchanges in a relationship are typically reciprocated with positive outcomes from the subordinates. That is, each member of the dyad has the other’s best interest at heart and this is reflected in more supportive behaviour (Murry, Sivasubramaniam, & Jacques, 2001). This can be explained by social exchange theory, where individuals who are engaged in a high-quality relationship will behave in such a way that their exchange partner will also get the benefits (Murphy, Wayne, Liden, & Erdogan, 2003) and where employees continually commit themselves and stay with the organization if they are satisfied with their needs, expectations, desires or preferences (Chew & Chan, 2008). Concluding, if there is apparent and systematic LMX, employees will be more committed to the organization (Loa et al., 2010). Hence, using the LMX lens, it is expected that the quality of supervisor–subordinate relationship affects employees’ organizational commitment. Therefore:
15 The Mediating Role of Organizational Commitment
Whereas readiness for change is argued to be influenced by organizational commitment, organizational commitment is argued to be influenced by Leader-Member Exchange. This suggests a mediating role of organizational commitment in the relationship between LMX and readiness for change. This suggestion requires a short recap of previously mentioned.
A high-quality supervisor–subordinate relationship characterised by high levels of mutual support, trust and respect (Brunetto et al., 2012) can create a supportive environment characterized by trust and loyalty (Lee, 2008). By empowering and providing social support, employees become more productive and more committed to their organization (Brunetto et al., 2012). Providing social support also enhances the emotional attachment to the organization (Joo, 2010). Social exchange theory holds a virtuous circle where both leader and member get the benefits (Murphy et al., 2003) and continually commit themselves towards the organization.
Committed employees on their turn are more willing to accept change (Iverson & Buttigieg, 1998). Especially affectively committed employees are likely to fulfil additional tasks (Meyer & Allen, 1991) such as actions towards a particular change project. Normatively affected employees may do likewise, only if they see it as a part of their duty, or as a means of reciprocation for benefits received. In short, committed employees are likely to have increased willingness to work in accordance with organizational goals (Dirani & Kuchinke, 2011) and are more likely to intend to or actually perform change-related activities.
This reasoning indicates that organizational commitment mediates the relationship between LMX and readiness for change. Initially, a high-quality LMX leads to organizational commitment. Subsequently, committed employees are more likely to show readiness for change. Therefore, it is proposed that organizational commitment mediates the relationship between LMX and readiness for change.
H3: Organizational commitment mediates the relationship between Leader-Member Exchange and readiness for change.
16 This relative immature construct (Lyons et al., 2009) and its influence on commitment to change and readiness for change will be considered next.
Change Leadership, Commitment to Change, and Readiness for Change
There are many schools of thought on leadership and it has been studied more than any other aspects of human behaviour (Dulewicz & Higgs, 2005). An approach that is used to better understand the role played by leadership in shaping followers’ responses to change is rooted in the organizational change literature and is called change leadership (Herold et al., 2008). Change leadership refers to “the here-and-now, focusing on the specific change at hand and how the leader is handling it from a tactical point of view” (Herold et al., 2008: 348). Change leadership pertains to an organizational change context (Lyons et al., 2009) and is expected to clearly influence the outcomes of organizational change efforts (e.g. Kotter, 1996).
Since Lewin’s (1954) model to bring about change processes, the way which leaders treat and involve employees during a change received great amount of attention and has been shown to be a powerful determinant of individuals’ reactions to organizational changes (Herold et al., 2008). More recently work resembles the eight steps of Kotter (2007) for transforming an organization. Kotter (1996) identifies change-leadership prescriptions such as developing a sense of urgency, building a guiding coalition, creating a vision, and communicating the plan for the change. In these recommendations, inspiration through vision, empowerment through involvement, and being sensitive to followers’ needs are key elements (Herold et al., 2008). These change-leadership behaviours focus on the specific change at hand and have been linked to commitment or support for the change (Burke, 2002; Kotter, 1996).
17 to the organization’s future (Detert & Burris, 2007), leaders can promote a feeling of obligation to contribute to the implementation of the change in a way that benefits the organization (Hill et al., 2012). Another promotive condition mentioned by Hill et al. (2012), is created when employees feel that their leader understands their concerns and are willing to help them solve problems. Subsequently, employees may feel a moral obligation to reciprocate such positive treatment by supporting the organization and its specific change efforts (Meyer & Parfyonova, 2009). This way, an individual can obtain a sense of obligation to provide support for the change because they ought to (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002). It is this personal support and encouragement that is likely to enhance followers’ commitment to change (Michaelis, Stegmaier, & Sonntag, 2010).
Other scholars support the utility of change leadership by outlining that a lack of visioning, lack of leadership support, and accordingly a lack of commitment to change are major barriers to successful change (Ostroff, 2006; By, Diefenbach, & Klamer, 2008). Based on these lines of reasoning, I hypothesize:
H4: Change leadership is positively related to commitment to change.
The Mediating Role of Commitment to Change
Whereas readiness for change is argued to be influenced by commitment to change, commitment to change is argued to be influenced by change leadership. This suggests a mediating role of commitment to change in the relationship between change leadership and readiness for change. Consequently, a short recap will be provided to the reader.
Change leadership focuses on the specific change at hand (Herold et al., 2008) and resembles prescriptions including developing a sense of urgency, building a guiding coalition, creating a vision, and communicating the plan for the change (Kotter, 1996). By doing so, leaders can create change-promotive conditions in which followers are more likely to commit to the change at hand (Hill et al., 2012), especially affectively (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002). This way, change leadership has a positive influence on employees’ commitment to the change at hand (Burke, 2002).
18 + + + + Organizational Commitment Commitment to Change Readiness for Change Change Leadership Leader-Member Exchange
engage in change-related behaviours (Jaros, 2010). In other words, individuals who believe in the benefits of the change are more likely to intend to or actually perform change-related activities.
This reasoning indicates that commitment to change mediates the relationship between change leadership and readiness for change. Firstly, change leadership behaviours lead to a commitment to the change at hand on behalf of the employees. Subsequently, employees who are committed to the change at hand are more likely to show readiness for change. Therefore, it is proposed that commitment to change mediates the relationship between change leadership and readiness for change.
H5: Commitment to change mediates the relationship between change leadership and readiness for change.
The assumed hypotheses lead to the conceptual model illustrated in figure 1.
FIGURE 1 - Conceptual model
METHOD Procedures and Sample
19 industry, one is micro since it employs only six people. Two are medium sized (50-250 employees) and one of them is large (more than 250 employees). From the companies which belong to the financial service industries one is small (10-50 employees). The two others are large banks employing more than 250 employees. Finally, the firm in the trade industry is large as well.
In each participating organization, an employee served as the contact for this research. This employee, with job positions ranging from trainee to CEO, was asked to identify a specific current or anticipated change in his/her work unit that had a significant impact on the work unit. The types of change initiatives in this sample encompassed cultural changes (some of which were coupled with leadership changes), strategy changes and new technology implementation. Importantly, all changes should lead to significantly new ways of working.
First, each contact person and I carefully formulated the specific change at hand to make sure every respondent recognized this change. Second, and in line with Fedor et al. (2006), I sent a formal letter with the link to the online questionnaire to all contact persons to explain the nature of the research and the voluntary and anonymous nature of participation. Consequently, each contact person was asked to forward this letter to everyone possible in the affected work unit. This way, each potential respondent was contacted by the contact person via written communications (e.g., memo or e-mail) which included the formal letter ‘from me’ and a description of the specific change ‘from the contact person’. See Appendix A.
A time window was tailored to the size of the company. Larger companies had three to four week to complete the questionnaire and reminders were sent once a week. Smaller companies often completed questionnaires within three weeks and reminders were sent in the second and third week. See Appendix B for the survey.
In total, 111 surveys were completed out of 181 people who were asked to participate, representing an overall 61% response rate. Notably, two companies delivered only one questionnaire each and were therefore excluded from this study. Also, two respondents filled only the half of the questionnaire which made these responses invaluable. After removing these cases, 107 surveys were included in the dataset. The range of actual respondents per work unit varied from 5 to 30, with a median of 8 and mean of 13. The high response rate provides some assurance that contact persons were not biased towards soliciting participants who were supportive of, or antagonistic towards the change.
20 Measures
To measure the study variables, existing scales were used that have proven reliability, validity and practical relevance. All measures have been translated into Dutch or were already successfully translated. All items of the study variables were measured on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = Totally disagree to 7 = Totally agree. The reliabilities for the scales are all above .70.
Readiness for change. Readiness for change was measured using the four-item scale developed by Metselaar (1997). One item is, ‘I intend to put effort into achieving the goals of the change’. Cronbach’s alpha of the scale is 0.86.
Organizational commitment. Organizational commitment was measured using the 15-item scale developed by De Gilder, Van den Heuvel and Ellemers (1997). This scale entails three dimensions: affective, continuance and normative. Example items are: ‘I really feel as if this organization’s problems are my own’ (affective commitment), ‘I believe that I have too few options to consider leaving this organization’ (continuance commitment), and ‘Even if it were to my advantage, I do not feel it would be right to leave my organization right now’ (normative commitment). Cronbach’s alpha of the scale is .82.
Commitment to change. Commitment to change was measured using the 18-item scale developed by Herscovitch and Meyer (2002). This scale includes the dimensions of affective, continuance and normative commitment to change. Example items are: ‘I believe in the value of this change’ (affective commitment), ‘I have no choice but to go along with this change’ (continuance commitment), and ‘I feel a sense of duty to work toward this change’ (normative commitment). Cronbach’s alpha of the scale is .73.
Leader-member exchange. Leader-member exchange was measured using the 7-item scale developed by Van Breukelen & Konst (1996). One item is, ‘my supervisor considers my suggestions for change’. Cronbach’s alpha of the scale is 0.93.
21 Control variables. This study is controlled for variables on an individual-specific level, firm-specific level, and context-specific level. Regarding the individual level, I controlled for gender, age, tenure and education because they have sometimes been found to be related to employee commitment (e.g., Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002). For example, individuals might respond to organizational changes differently depending on their tenure-based experience in the organization (e.g., van Dam et al. 2007). More experienced employees might respond to organizational change less favourably because they are more embedded in the organization’s existing processes and ways of operating (Hill et al., 2102). Education has been found negatively related to organizational commitment (Yoon & Thye, 2002). Gender was a dichotomous variable (male = 1, female = 2). Age and tenure were coded as continuous variables. Education was coded as an ordinal variable and ranged from base education to academic education.
At the firm level I controlled for firm size. Firm size was a categorical question for the number of employees. The answer possibilities ranged from 0-10, 10-50, 50-250, to larger than 250 which respectively represent a micro, small, medium and large firm (Belderbos, Carree, Diederen, Lokshin & Veugelers, 2004).
In accordance with Herscovitsch and Meyer (2002), given that participants were from different organizations and experienced different types of organizational changes, I included a change-relevant control variable for this thesis as well. This was a single-item measure (change significance) that assessed respondents’ perceptions of how significant the change was for their organization (ranging from 1 = minor, to 7 = extremely major).
Data analyses
22 change mediated the relationship between change leadership and readiness for change. Lastly, Sobel (1982) tests were used to determine the significance of the mediated relationships.
RESULTS Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
Descriptive statistics and correlations among all variables are presented in Table 1. The highest ratings were given for the dependent variable readiness for change (M = 5.84, SD = .91). As predicted, all independent variables correlate positively with readiness for change. For example, LMX and change leadership show strong correlations with readiness for change (Table 1; r = .39, p < .01, r = .43, p < .05, respectively). Essentially, all variables show positive correlations with each other, except for LMX and commitment to change. Furthermore, the mediators organizational commitment (OC) and commitment to change (CTC) correlate with each other (r = .29, p < .01), as well as the predictors LMX and change leadership mutually do (r = .49, p < .01).
Regarding the control variables, age significantly correlates with readiness for change (r = .28, p < .01) and OC (r = .32, p < .01), indicating that older employees are more ready for change and organizationally committed. Tenure significantly relates logically to age (r = .44,
p < .01) and to OC (r = .20, p < .05), suggesting that employees who are longer in the
organization are more committed to the organization. Education negatively correlates with OC (r = .36, p < .01), age (r = .37, p < .01), and tenure (r = .21, p < .05). Firm size negatively correlates with LMX (r = -.19, p < .05), indicating lower LMX quality in larger firms. Lastly, change significance correlates significantly with readiness for change (r = .45, p < .01), CTC (r = .27, p < .01), and change leadership (r = .31, p < .01), affirming the importance of a change-relevant control variable.
Hypotheses Testing
23 variance (Table 2; ΔR² = .08, F = 5.12, p < .01). While age (β = .21, p < .10) and change significance (β = .32, p < .01) still positively influence readiness for change, education has a weakly significant effect (β = .18, p < .10). As expected, organizational commitment shows a positive relationship with readiness for change (β = .31, p < .01). Somewhat disappointing, commitment to change has an insignificant β-coefficient. Thus, there is support for hypothesis 1a but hypothesis 1b cannot be confirmed.
Hypothesis 2 assumes a positive relation between Leader-Member Exchange and organizational commitment. The control variables add significantly to the prediction of OC (Table 3; R² = .18, F = .323, p < .01). From these control variables, education (β = -.31, p < .01) and change significance (β = .18, p < .10) influence OC. Because LMX and change leadership showed strong correlation (Table 1; r = .49, p < .01), both are entered in the second step, resulting in an increased explained variance (Table 3; ΔR² = .14, F = 5.21, p < .01). LMX contributes significantly to the prediction of OC (β = .18, p < .10). Thus, hypothesis 2 finds support. Not expected, change leadership appears to have a positive relationship with organizational commitment too (β = .26, p < .05).
Hypothesis 4 assumes a positive relation between change leadership and commitment to change. The first model is weakly significant (Table 3; R² = .11, F = 1.97, p < 0.10). Thus, the controls firm size (β = .20, p < .05) and change significance (β = .24, p < .05) influence CTC only weakly in the first step. In the second step, both change leadership and LMX are entered and the explained variance increases (Table 3; ΔR² = .09, F = 2.80, p < .01). Change leadership contributes significantly to the prediction of CTC, and inspection of the β-coefficient demonstrates that the relationship is positively significant (β = .33, p < .01). Accordingly, hypothesis 4 can be supported.
24 .18* .33*** .19* -.01ns Organizational Commitment Commitment to Change Readiness for Change Change Leadership Leader-Member Exchange .26** -.06ns * p < 0.10 ** p < 0.05 *** p < 0.01
by including OC and CTC, only OC significantly relates to readiness for change (Table 4; β = .19, p < .10). Also, the initial significant effect of LMX on readiness for change remains (Table 4; β = .19, p < .10), indicating that mediation not occurs. Finally, Sobel (1982) tests do not support mediating roles of organizational commitment (z-value = 1.51, SE = .03, p = n.s.) and commitment to change (z-value = -.10, SE = .00, p = n.s.). Therefore, hypotheses 3 and 5 cannot be supported. The results are presented in figure 2.
FIGURE 2 – Results of Conceptual Model
Exploratory Analyses
The conceptual model contains foci of commitment as composite constructs including the distinct components of affective, continuance, and normative commitment. The multidimensionality of these constructs allows for a more detailed view of the research model. This way, it becomes noticeable which components of commitment are especially important in predicting readiness for change. However, before it is possible to make statements, certain analyses have to be performed.
25 Concerning commitment to change, factor carries three remarks (see App. D). Again, the first continuance item loads highest on another factor (“I have no choice but to go along with this change”). Likewise, the two reversed items of the normative dimension (“I would not feel badly about opposing this change”, “I do not feel any obligation to support this change”) load quite high on the corresponding factor, but highest on another factor. After deleting the continuance item, the scale is computed (α = .79). The affective dimension (α = .84) and normative dimension (α = .73) are reliable as well.
Factor analyses for all other constructs were successfully conducted. Readiness for change (KMO-value 0.79, p < 0.01) is one-dimensional (71.78% variance) and reliable (α = .86). LMX (KMO-value 0.90, p < 0.01) consists of one component (69.34% variance) and shows good reliability (α = .93). Finally, factor analysis of change leadership (KMO-value 0.90, p < 0.01) extracts one component (69.21% variance) and is reliable (α = .92).
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations. Descriptive statistics and correlations among all variables including the newly computed variables are presented in Table 5. Most interestingly, the affective dimension of organizational commitment (Table 7; r = .55, p < .01) and commitment to change (r = .59, p < .01) show strongest correlations with readiness for change. Both normative dimensions are also related to the dependent variable (r = .20, p < .01, and r = .22, p < .01). Contradicting, continuance commitment to change negatively correlates with readiness for change (r = -.24, p < .05) providing a potential explanation of the insignificant effect of commitment to change on readiness for change in initial analyses. LMX correlates strongest with affective OC (r = .47, p < .01) but also with normative OC (r = .30, p < .01). Similarly, change leadership correlates with affective CTC (r = .43, p < .01) but also with normative CTC (r = .41, p < .01).
Concerning the control variables, more specific correlations can be reported compared to Table 1. For example, the correlations between age and education on the one hand and organizational commitment on the other hand, only hold for the affective and normative components. Lastly, change significance emphatically correlates with affective organizational commitment (r = .24, p < .05) and affective commitment to change (r = .27, p < .01).
26 shown in Table 6. In the first step, age (β = .24, p < .05) and change significance (β = .38, p < .01) positively influence readiness for change. In the second step, the six dimensions of OC and CTC are entered, resulting in an increased significant model (Table 6; R² = .56, F = 8.96,
p < .01). While age and change significance remain significantly positive, only the affective
dimension of OC contributes significantly to readiness for change (β = .19, p < .05). Whereas the effect of CTC on readiness for change was omitted in initial analyses, the affective dimension of CTC on its own shows a significantly relationship with readiness (β = .40, p < .01). Thus, both affective dimensions positively influence readiness for change, and affective commitment to change has a positive relationship with readiness for change, above and beyond the influence of affective organizational commitment.
Because the affective components of OC and CTC significantly contribute to readiness for change, they will be set as dependent variables for subsequent analyses. Regarding affective OC, change significance contributes in the first step (Table 7; β = .20, p < .05). In the second step, when entering LMX and change leadership, education becomes significantly negative (β = -.19, p < .05). However, LMX contributes most to affective OC (β = .32, p < .01). Change leadership appears to have a weak significant but positive relationship with affective OC as well (β = .20, p < .10). Regarding analyses of affective CTC, the first model is not significant. In the second step, change significance is influencing (β = .21, p < .05). However, change leadership contributes most to the prediction of affective commitment to change (β = .30, p < .05).
27 .32** .30* .20* .39** Affective Organizational Commitment Affective Commitment to Change Readiness for Change Change Leadership Leader-Member Exchange .20ns .15ns * p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01
(1982) tests provides some evidence for the mediating relationship of affective organizational commitment (z-value = 1.74, SE = .03, p < .10) on the one hand, and full support for affective commitment to change (z-value = 2.29, SE = .04, p < .04) on the other hand. This indicates full mediation of both affective dimensions. Accordingly, an integrative framework is presented in figure 3. Shortly explaining, the statistically significant and positive coefficients can be seen for the paths from LMX to readiness for change, mediated by affective organizational commitment, and from change leadership to readiness for change, mediated by affective commitment to change.
28 TABLE 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations
Study variables entered M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Readiness for change 5.84 .91 (.86)
2. Organizational commitment 4.23 .82 .38** (.82) 3. Commitment to change 4.79 .61 .21* .29** (.73) 4. LMX 4.82 1.16 .39** .37** .09 (.93) 5. Change leadership 4.23 1.35 .43* .38** .41** .49** (.92) Control variables 6. Gender 1.25 .44 -.01 -.01 .11 -.09 .10 - 7. Age 33.36 7.38 .28** .32** -.03 .11 .05 -.10 - 8. Tenure 3.92 3.89 .10 .20* .03 .08 .01 -.16 .44** - 9. Education 6.75 1.37 .04 -.36** .05 .04 .02 .12 -.37** -.21* - 10. Firm size 2.94 .82 -.17 -.15 .16 -.19* .05 -.07 -.19 .00 -.07 - 11. Change siginificance 5.23 1.26 .45** .17 .27** .04 .31** .10 .13 .00 .14 -.13 -
Note. n = 107; reliability coefficients for the scales are in parentheses along the diagonal. Dashes indicate a single-item
measure.
29 TABLE 2
Results Regression Analysis: Predictors of Readiness for Change
Steps and variables entered 1 (RFC) 2 (RFC)
Step 1. Gender -.05 -.06 Age .24** .21* Tenure .01 -.02 Education .09 .18* Firm size -.05 -.02 Change significance .38*** .32*** Step 2. Organizational commitment .31*** Commitment to change .01 R² .23 .31 Δ R² .23 .08 F 4.59*** 5.12*** Δ F 4.59*** 5.39***
Dependent variable: readiness for change (RFC)
30 TABLE 3
Results Regression Analyses: Predictors of Organizational Commitment and Commitment to Change
Steps and variables entered 1 (OC) 2 (OC) 1 (CTC) 2 (CTC)
Step 1. Gender .04 .05 .09 .07 Age .10 .09 -.07 -.07 Tenure .09 .07 .09 .08 Education -.31*** -.33*** .07 .07 Firm size -.09 -.10 .20** .15 Change significance .18* .13 .24** .16 Step 2. LMX .18* -.06 Change leadership .26** .33*** R² .18 .32 .11 .20 Δ R² .18 .14 .11 .09 F 3.23*** 5.21*** 1.97* 2.80*** Δ F 3.29*** 9.22*** 1.97* 4.80***
Dependent variables: organizational commitment (OC), commitment to change (CTC)
31 TABLE 4
Results Regression Analyses: Organizational Commitment and Commitment to Change as Mediators
Steps and variables entered 1 (RFC) 2 (RFC) 3 (RFC)
Step 1. Gender -.05 -.03 -.04 Age .24** .22** .21** Tenure .01 -.01 -.02 Education .09 .06 .12 Firm size -.05 -.04 -.02 Change significance .38*** .34*** .32*** Step 2. LMX .23** .19* Change leadership .20* .15 Step 3. Organizational commitment .19* Commitment to change -.02 R² .23 .36 .62 Δ R² .23 .13 .02 F 4.59*** 3.44*** 2.94*** Δ F 4.59*** 8.96*** 1.72
Dependent variables: readiness for change (RFC)
32 TABLE 5
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations
Study variables entered M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
1. Readiness for change 5.84 .91 (.86)
2. Affective (OC) 4.87 1.06 .55** (.82) 3. Continuance (OC) 3.66 1.35 -.01 .02 (.82) 4. Normative (OC) 4.04 1.12 .20* .49** .05 (.83) 5. Affective (CTC) 5.76 .75 .59** .45** -.03 .02 (.84) 6. Continuance (CTC) 3.44 1.22 -.24* -.12 .28** .10 -.23* (.79) 7. Normative (CTC) 4.88 .94 .22* .21* .23* .05 .35** .18 (.73) 8. LMX 4.82 1.16 .39** .47** .02 .25** .30** -.14 .08 (.93) 9. Change leadership 4.23 1.35 .43** .43** .14 .23* .43** .04 .41** .49** (.92) Control variables 10. Gender 1.25 .44 -.01 -.09 .12 -.01 -.02 .13 .06 -.08 .10 - 11. Age 33.36 7.38 .28** .29** .14 .22* -.02 .00 .00 .11 .05 -.10 - 12. Tenure 3.92 3.87 .10 .10 .15 .10 -.02 -.02 .13 .08 .01 -.16 .44** - 13. Education 6.75 1.37 .04 -.23* .01 -.49** .08 -.12 .12 .04 .02 .12 -.37** -.21* - 14. Firm size 2.94 .82 -.17 -.16 .04 -.14 .03 .15 .13 -.19* .05 -.07 -.19 .00 -.07 - 15. Change siginificance 5.23 1.26 .45** .24* .06 .03 .27** .12 .17 .04 .31** .10 .13 -.00 .14 -.13 -
CTC = commitment to change, OC = organizational commitment
33 TABLE 6
Results Regression Analysis: Predictors of Readiness for Change
Steps and variables entered 1 (RFC) 2 (RFC)
Step 1. Gender -.05 .01 Age .24** .23** Tenure .01 .00 Education .09 .13 Firm size -.05 -.02 Change significance .38*** .24*** Step 2. Affective (OC) .19** Continuance (OC) -.01 Normative (OC) .13 Affective (CTC) .40*** Continuance (CTC) -.14 Normative (CTC) -.00 R² .23 .56 Δ R² .23 .33 F 4.59*** 8.96*** Δ F 4.59*** 10.49***
Dependent variable: readiness for change (RFC)
34
TABLE 7
Results Regression Analyses: Predictors of Affective Dimensions of Organizational Commitment and Commitment to Change
Steps and variables entered 1 Affective (OC) 2 Affective (OC) 1 Affective (CTC) 2 Affective (CTC) Step 1. Gender -.09 -.07 -.06 -.06 Age .14 .11 -.03 -.04 Tenure -.02 -.04 .00 -.01 Education -.16 -.19** .08 .05 Firm size -.09 -.07 .06 .04 Change significance .20** .17* .27** .21** Step 2. LMX .32*** .15 Change leadership .20* .30** R² .11 .31 .09 .23 Δ R² .11 .20 .09 .15 F 1.97* 5.10*** 1.47 3.40*** Δ F 1.97* 12.98*** 1.47 8.47***
Dependent variables: affective organizational commitment (OC), affective commitment to change (CTC)
35 TABLE 8
Results Regression Analyses: Mediating roles of Affective Organizational Commitment and Affective Commitment to Change
Steps and variables entered 1 (RFC) 2 (RFC) 3 (RFC)
Step 1. Gender -.05 -.03 .01 Age .24** .22** .22** Tenure .01 -.01 .00 Education .09 .06 .08 Firm size -.05 -.04 -.05 Change significance .38*** .34*** .23*** Step 2. LMX .23** .11 Change leadership .20* .04 Step 3. Affective (OC) .20** Affective (CTC) .39*** R² .23 .36 .54 Δ R² .23 .13 .19 F 4.59*** 6.28*** 10.46*** Δ F 4.59*** 8.96*** 17.79***
Dependent variable: readiness for change (RFC). Mediators: affective organizational commitment (OC), affective commitment to change (CTC)
36 DISCUSSION
This study elaborates on the call for a more person-focused approach to the study of organizational change (Vakola & Nikolaou, 2005). In line with Lewin’s (1947) model, a key issue for successful change management remains the manner change agents unfreeze the current state i.e. increase readiness for change. Although, literature paid considerable attention to readiness for change and commitment, few studies used both constructs together. As this study took organizational commitment and commitment to change to clarify their roles in relation with readiness for change, different paths were identified. By integrating the relationship-based and leader-focused perspectives on leadership into one model, it was possible to research the influence of these contrasting perspectives on leadership on individual readiness for change in an organizational change context.
Findings
37 From the theoretically distinguished commitment dimensions, only the affective dimensions prove to be positive contributors to readiness for change. Thus, whereas the composite construct of commitment to change initially not contributed to readiness for change, the affective component especially does. Supremely, affective commitment to change excels. Employees with a desire to provide support for the change based on a belief in its inherent benefits are most strongly bounded to a course of a change-related action i.e. ready for the change.
With regard to the mediators, affective organizational commitment was mainly influenced by LMX and slightly by change leadership. Affective commitment to change was particularly shaped by change leadership. Results of mediation analyses using subscales of both foci of commitment led to gratification. That is, affective organizational commitment mediates the relationship between LMX and readiness for change. Affective commitment to change in turn mediates the relationship between change leadership and readiness for change.
As Bernerth (2004) states, it is essential to understand how to create readiness for change for both researchers and practitioners, the implications of the results are outlined below.
Theoretical Implications
The results of this study have important theoretical implications. In agreement with Herscovitch and Meyer (2002), the prediction of (intended) behaviour is improved when commitment to multiple foci are considered. Regarding the clarification of the roles of the affective components of organizational commitment and commitment to change (Jaros, 2010), it can be stated that both concepts are positive contributors to readiness for change which advocates a complementary view. Likewise, it was questioned in the introduction whether a high-quality LMX and change-specific leadership both suffice for increasing followers’ readiness for change, it can be stated that both types of leadership are positive contributors to an employee’s commitment, which again advocates a complementary view.
38 effects of other components were omitted. Thus, an affective orientation towards the organization leads to more change supportive behaviour and affective commitment to change, which reflects the employee’s ‘free’ choice to implement the change (Neves & Caetano, 2009) lead to enthusiastic efforts.
By testing the theoretically grounded model, two different paths shape an integrative framework. More specifically, (a) the general path from leader-member exchange to readiness for change, mediated by affective organizational commitment and (b) the more specific path from change leadership to readiness for change, mediated by affective commitment to change. As a result, researchers have much to gain by considering separate approaches to multiple commitments. For example, focusing explicitly on how one-on-one reciprocal social exchanges between leader and followers evolve, nurture, and sustaining the dyadic relationship (Wang et al., 2005) is fundamental to regulate employees’ work-related attitudes and behaviours (Loa et al., 2010), such as (affective) organizational commitment and readiness for change. While technological change approaches remain popular (Beer & Nohria, 2000), and some state organizational commitment may decline as organizations start to change (Fedor et al, 2006), this study once more shows how affective organizational commitment is valuable in predicting change-related behaviours. To optimize an affective orientation towards the organization, the interpersonal interaction with superiors is highly valued crediting LMX theory.
Another approach to increase readiness for change is achieved by the execution of change-specific leadership through the enhancement of affective commitment to change. That is, focusing on the specific change at hand and how a leader is handling it from a tactical point of view (Herold et al., 2008), can lead to increased followers’ (affective) commitment to change. To further clarify the benefits of change leadership (Lyons et al., 2009), this leader-focused perspective proves significance in building affective organizational commitment. In an attempt to explore the multidimensionality of the change leadership construct (Herold et al., 2008), factor analysis revealed only one component. However, the fifth item (“my leader empowered people to implement the change”) item scored significantly higher than the other items (M = 4.95, SD = 1.81 versus M = 4.06, SD = 1.61). Also, the communality after extraction was only .371. This given can be interpreted as empowering to be a crucial element of change leadership on the one hand, or almost a variable on its own on the other hand.
39 perceptions of the change, even when they work within the same organizational context and experience the same objective reality. Additionally, the individuals’ behaviours and attitudes are more determined by their perceptions of reality than by objective reality. This study supports these statements. Thus, employees’ attitudes towards organizational change are shaped significantly by the way each individual experiences and regards the significance of the change situation.
In short, travelling on different paths can lead to different results. Paying attention to both streams of leadership enable to build commitment to multiple foci as it is unlikely that employees will continue to display the same pattern regarding other foci of commitment (Kang et al., 2011). Concerning readiness for change, it can be uttered that all roads lead to Rome. Although, it is noteworthy the prevailing and specific path from change leadership is one step ahead through the enhancement of affective commitment to change, in order to gain an individual’s readiness for change.
Practical Implications
Businesses are confronted by continuous and unparalleled changes. For organizations to assist employees in being motivated and prepared for change, it is essential that managers, leaders, and organization development professionals understand how to create readiness for change (Cummings & Worley, 2005; Madsen et al., 2005). The results of this study suggest recommendations for practitioners. As firms become more concerned with assisting employees in becoming more open and ready for change (Madsen et al., 2005), the findings of this research provide evidence that employees’ commitment to the organization still is an important factor. If organizations focus solely on the technical, financial, or operational elements of change, they might face unexpected consequences at the employee commitment levels (Neves & Caetano, 2009). Accordingly, organizational commitment cannot be overemphasized in today’s business arena. Firms that fail to secure a loyal base of workers are found to constantly place an inexperienced group of non-cohesive units on the front lines of their organization, much to their own detriment (Joo, 2010).
40 1997) and access to information (Brunetto et al., 2012). It pays off, as the benefits of high-quality LMX end up at both member and leader (Murphy et al., 2003). Employees generalize their exchange relationship from their supervisor to the organization because they view the supervisor as representing the organization (Eisenberger, Karagonlar, Stinglhamber, Neves, Becker, Gonzalez-Morales, & Steiger-Mueller, 2010). Therefore, supervisors should be aware of their representing function. However, changing one issue of LMX alone will not build affective organizational commitment if other issues are not in place. In other words, supervisors should apply these issues in a concerted way and in a holistic perspective.
However, paying attention to LMX will not be sufficient for shaping readiness for change. The complementing change leadership contains more concrete elements which deserve attention. These are developing a sense of urgency, building a guiding coalition, creating a vision, communicating the plan for the change (Kotter, 1996), creating empowering opportunities and paying individual attention (Herold et al., 2008). This way, employees get more involved in the change project, i.e. are more committed to the change at hand which is crucial in shaping an individual’s readiness for change. However, executing one issue of change leadership alone will not bring affectively committed employees to the change. Therefore, enhancing commitment to change will require a combined strategy, incorporating all elements of change leadership.
Combining high-quality LMX and change leadership, managers and human resource development professionals can support employees’ organizational commitments on individual levels by developing, improving, and delivering the relevant practices. For example, trainings could provide awareness and useful tools to better understand and execute LMX and change leadership handlings. Also, recruitment can be tailored to more carefully attract personnel, managers or organizational leaders with personality traits and communication skills that suit their future roles. It is worthwhile because interventions based on increasing commitment may also assist employees in being ready for upcoming organizational changes (Madsen et al., 2005).
41 employees with evidence concerning the consequences of not supporting the change (i.e., continuance commitment to change) rather than focusing on the benefits of changing (i.e. affective commitment to change), the expected outcomes, such as change supportive behaviour, will not happen.
In short, readiness for change is definitely not a stop and go moment. Therefore, it cannot be seen as a milestone on a project management like fashion. By uncovering the antecedents of readiness, supervisors may focus on the quality of the relationship with their subordinates and organizational leaders might closely monitor their specific change behaviours.
Limitations
In terms of methodology, this study has several potential limitations. First, this thesis, like most employee-behaviour studies, relied on self-reported data. Because of the perceptual nature of the data, there is the possibility of a percept–percept bias. Percept-percept inflation results when each subject provides information for the independent and dependent variable at the same point in time (Gerhart, 1999). This research on perceptions of readiness for change and employee attitudes suffer from percept-percept bias, as experiences are measured by an individual’s perceptions and then show to be associated with their attitudes.
Another common considered form of systematic bias in organizational research is the halo bias. Halo error exists when respondents use a common schematic framework to rate items or scales for distinct constructs (Avolio, Yammarino & Bass, 1991). Given that responses were made anonymously, I maximized expectations that participants might be more likely to provide honest assessments of their own behaviour. Nevertheless, there are problems associated with the use of self-reported data. Therefore, future research needs to include objective outcome indicators and needs to be conducted with multisource data.
42 makes it possible to examine the dynamics between leadership, commitment and readiness for change.
Because this is not a longitudinal study, the direction of causality cannot be determined. The presumed relationships in this study are purely based on theoretical grounds and simply tested with correlations. For example, whereas commitment to change acts as a predictor of readiness for change, it is imaginable that a ‘ready’ person, becomes even more committed to change once actually behaving according to it. In a similar vein, whereas LMX leads to increased organizational commitment, it can also be that committed employees are putting more effort to build a high-quality relationship with their supervisor. This way, the relationships can be the other way around. As such, the proposed framework should be interpreted with caution. Again, a longitudinal approach would have placed the researcher in a better position to draw causal conclusions.
A fifth limitation, related to the procedure of this research, is the possible selection bias by the contact persons. Although the response rates were high for most companies, the risk remains that contact persons were biased towards soliciting participants who were supportive of the change. Accordingly, selection biases may have resulted in less variance in measures than otherwise would be the case. As a result, the findings may not fully reflect the impact of leadership and commitment on readiness for change.
Lastly, there is a limitation regarding the instrument for collecting data. Although measurements of most variables were taken from existing Dutch scales, the variables commitment to change and change leadership were originally developed in English and later translated into Dutch. This is partly due to the fact that the change leadership scale has only been previously published (Herold et al., 2008). However, translations could have led to some loss of accuracy in the measurement. Following Gao, Janssen and Shin (2011), a translation– back-translation procedure is advised with two bilingual academics to ensure that the English and Dutch versions of the items were comparable at a high degree of accuracy.
Future Research
