CREATING READINESS FOR CHANGE
Can past performances provide guarantees for the future?
Master thesis, MscBA, specialization Change Management
University of Groningen, Faculty of Management and Organization
August 23, 2011
Erik van Klinken
Student number: 1714309
Koopmansgracht 76
8606 XZ Sneek
Phone: +31(0)627450898
Email: erikvklinken@gmail.com
Supervisor/university
Dr. C. Reezigt
Co-supervisor/university
Drs. H.P. van Peet
Supervisor/ field of study
Dhr. S. de Ridder
Abstract
Literature on change readiness was always focused on one change (project). This research focused on the question whether past experiences with changes could influence the readiness for change and the creation of readiness for change. Literature on culture and imaging showed people form images of everything they experience. These images will influence their acting and behavior in the future. The research question was how do the experiences employees had with changes in the past influence the change readiness of employees for current or future changes? Data was at municipality organization the CJIB using a questionnaire based on the studies of Bouckenooghe (2009). The data showed twelve hypotheses where accepted and two where rejected, which led to the conclusion the view people have about past changes do influence the current level of change readiness for current or upcoming change projects.
Key words: change readiness, imaging, culture, change, organizational change.
Table of contents
1 Introduction ... 2
1.1 Introduction... 2
1.2 Organization ... 4
2 Theory ... 5
2.1 Culture and Imaging ... 5
2.2 Readiness for change... 6
2.3 Conceptual model...12
3 Methods ...13
4 Results ...18
4.1 Results General Questions ...18
4.2 Results Spearman ...21
4.3 Results Single Regression...22
4.4 Results Multiple Regression ...23
1 Introduction
1.1 Introduction
A strong organizational culture can be a source of a sustainable competitive advantage (Barney 1986). The uniqueness and imperfectly imitable of the culture can give an organization a unique advantage over their competitors. There are many definitions on organizational culture, of which some are very specific, whereas others are rather broad. ‘Culture is how things are done around here’ (Drennan 1992) would be considered a broad definition of culture, whereas an example of a very specific one is ‘Culture is a pattern of beliefs and expectations shared by the organization’s members. These beliefs and expectations produce norm and powerfully shape the behavior of individuals and groups in the organization’ (Schwartz and Davis 1981). Although differently, these definitions describe the key norms, values and beliefs of the organization. These aspects cover everything within the organization, for instance how employees interact with each other, the way they cope with setbacks or how the managers lead and communicate.
There are several links between organizational culture and change; one is changing the organizational culture. This type of change may be one of the most researched types of changes, because the majority of change projects have a connection with the culture of an organization. In a study of Pauke and Zunderdrop (1990) the focus was on a link between the organizations culture and changes in the organization. Again, culture is very broad and illustrates how organizations and its employees work. This raises the question if there is something like a ‘change culture’. For instance, when putting the word ‘change’ in the definition of Drennan mentioned above, ‘how changes are done around here’, it could describe a so called ‘change culture’. When speaking of changes literature often entails projects, change projects, because in practice change often occurs in project form. Projects are more tangible for implementation. Changes and the process of change become clearer when the change is executed in a project. How to plan changes, which phases need to be executed, what the desired end goal of the change is and how to manage all these different parts of the change are defined when executing change as a project. Examples of these project approaches for change are the approaches of Kotter (1996) or Kanter et al (1992). In addition to change approaches, many characteristics of projects make changes more tangible. Examples of these characteristics could be; ‘projects are often defined as complex and one-time processes, projects are limited by budget, schedule and resources’, ‘projects are developed to resolve a clear goal or set of goals or projects are customer-focused’. These elements of a project can be found in many descriptions of guidelines on how to execute a change in an organization (Pinto 2007).
To measure whether experiences with changes in the past are of any influence on changes in the future, this research has focused on employees’ experiences with changes and change projects. There was assessed whether the view on change employees had developed was of any influence on their view on current or future changes, or their level of change readiness. Secondly, this research will focused on the first phase of a change, when the readiness to change of the employees was created. Besides this phase is a very important one, it is also a phase which is most likely influenced by a ‘change culture’. Just like organizational culture, the creation of change readiness focuses on the norms, values and beliefs of individuals. The importance of change readiness is shown in a research called ‘Why is the failure rate for organizational change so high?’ (Lucey 2008), which shows that the preparation- or so called unfreeze phase during the change process is very important. Many failures are related to the preparation for change and to a staff which is not being sufficiently committed to the change during this phase. The unfreeze phase is a concept which originated from the three step model of Lewin (1947). Lewin distinguished three main phases of organizational change: unfreeze, transition and refreeze. During the unfreeze phase, the employees and the organization are being prepared for the change and they have to accept the need to change. Therefore it is mostly about breaking down the existing status quo (Lewin 1947). After Lewin, there were many authors who wrote about change readiness. Examples of the most influencing writers on this topic are Armenakis, Haris, Neves and Bouckenooghe. Studies of Armenakis and Harris advocate the ‘change message’ for creating readiness for change (Armenakis et al 2007). Their ‘change message’ consists of five key components: discrepancy, efficacy, appropriateness, principal support and personal valence. According to them these five components apply for all possible change efforts and will provide the needed readiness for change. The creation of readiness for change can be seen as a precursor of resistance towards change (Armenakis et al 1993).
The reason for focusing on this phase in the change process was not only because of its importance, but also because it is, as mentioned before, most likely highly influenced by a possible ‘change culture’. This assumption was made because the first step into a change process is the first step that is repeated for each change. If employees are indeed influenced by earlier changes, the starting point for the first step of the change process will be influenced the first.
This leads to the following central question of the research:
How do the experiences employees had with changes in the past influence the change readiness of employees for current or future changes?
(figuur 1.1 clarification figure research question)
1.2 Organization
The research was conducted at the CJIB, which is translated as the Central Fine Collection Agency. CJIB is an implementing organization of the Dutch government. Its tasks include the collection of fines for traffic offences, financial penalties imposed by the Court and proposals for out-of-court settlements of fixed penalties from the police and the Prosecution Service as a means to avoid further criminal proceedings.
The history of the CJIB starts with the establishment which was closely related to the implementation of the ‘wet administratiefrechtelijke handhaving verkeersvoorschriften’ (Wahv) in 1989. This law, known as the Law Mulder, allows small traffic violations now being settled administratively rather than through criminal proceedings. The CJIB is an executing office of the Ministry of Security and Justice and is the responsibility of the Directorate-General Justice and Law Enforcement. Their tasks expanded over the years with fine judgments, transactions and compensation measures. The organization has also been coordinating tasks assigned in the other justice areas. The organization, which is based in Leeuwarden, has close to 1100 employees and handles over 11 million cases each year.
Because of the size of the organization and the ever changing law and registrations of the government, there are many change projects within the CJIB. These changes vary from the construction of new office buildings to after work activities for the employees, and from by law mandatory changes in work processes to changes in the IT facilities. The CJIB works with a functional/diamond structure where there are different business units, each with own field of work and few staff units. For implementing changes, the CJIB has a separate business unit, which is ‘ICT
Changes in the past
Current and/or future
changes
View of the employees towards changes in the past.
Level of Change readiness and view of the employees towards current and/of
future changes. Now (timeline)
ontwikkelingen en projecten’ (IT developments and projects, IOP). This unit delivers project managers for the entire project portfolio of the CJIB. This project portfolio, which is determined by all business unit directors and the board of directors, contains on average over 100 projects. Because there are this many changes and projects at the CJIB, this makes the organization interesting for this research; not only because the amount of projects, but also because the variety in types, size, duration and costs of the executed change projects. Therefore, this organization could gave an interesting overview of the topic of change readiness, and the influence of opinions about changes in the past to the current opinion on change.
2 Theory
2.1 Culture and Imaging
Before getting to the concepts of the creation of readiness for change, first, creating and developing organizational culture and secondly, how experiences influence employees’ actions and view on things needed to be investigated. To start with organizational culture, as mentioned in the introduction of the research, the organizational culture defines how things are done in an organization (Drennan 1992). Another definition is one by Eldridge and Crombie (1974), which is, according to Burness (2009) one of the most widely accepted definitions. They state ‘culture refers to the unique configuration of norms, values, beliefs, ways of behaving and so on, that characterize the manner in which groups and individuals combine to get things done.’ This definition indicates that culture is unique, defined through the groups and individuals who are part of the culture, affects the whole group, and prescribes how to act in certain situations. An important characteristic of organizational culture is that it changes and grows. A part of it affects the employees and prescribes them how to act. Growth of the organizational culture starts directly at the beginning of starting an organization (Schein, 1983). Schein states there is clearly a certain evolution right at the start of a company; the companies’ founder’s cultural values and behavioral norms define the organizations culture. The founder of the company has determined this is the way to be successful. Any employee who is added to the organization will endorse the same values and standards, and will add new experiences and values which tighten or replace the existing cultural aspects (Dusschoten-De Maat, 2004). Thus, with the growth of the organization there will be a tight system of values and behavior patterns formed, which will change the organizations culture.
observer and what is observed. This is called the stimulus. The observers’ knowledge is stored in so called cognitive schemas, and the outputs of this information are images formed by the events or things the observer has stored in his head (Vonk, 2003). Somewhere in the future, when the actual event or thing is not there, the observer can still evoke a mental picture. This picture contains both a mental representation of factual information and the affect that it had on the observer. This results in the creation of either positive or negative feelings. Because the observer also added the affect that it had on him, the reflection will seldom be a perfect match to reality but is sufficiently close to the actual reality (Smelik & Meijer, 1999, Vonk, 2003). Similar to culture, imaging is constantly evolving (Deaux & Philogene, 2001). Everything one sees or experiences, from the furniture and the weather till dogs and cate, he makes a scheme as described above.
To conclude, establishing whether the images employees have on changes in the past are of influence on their change readiness, the concept of organizational culture and how it creates images in people’s minds provides an important basis before diving into the concept of readiness for change.
2.2 Readiness for change
Organizational changeWhen investigating the concept of readiness for change, first the concept of change and, specifically for this research, organizational change has to be more clarified. Similar to culture there are many definitions on change and organizational change. Metselaar (1997, p.5) defines organizational change as ‘the planned modification of an organization’s structure or work and administrative processes, initiated by the organization’s top management which is aimed at improving the organization’s functioning’. Off course there are elements of this definition that can be criticized. Are, for example, all organizational changes initiated by the organization’s top management? However, the definitions shows that types of changes can vary, and that change is aimed to improve the organization’s functioning. Furthermore organizational changes are becoming increasingly important in business world because the organizations environment is becoming more unpredictable. Besides, the environment is constantly changing due to the rise of the use of internet (Burness 2009). The growing importance of organizational change and the increasing amount of changes, do not mean all changes are executed successfully. Kotter indicates in his article ‘Why transformation efforts fail’ (2000) only few changes are successful, and Lucey (2008) agrees with Kotters indication of the number of failed change projects. Lucey states that between 70 and 85 percent of the organizational change projects are failures.
Readiness for change
out of their safety zone, in order to get them moving. The term 'change ready' is often used to describe people who are ‘unfrozen’ and ready to take the next step. The second phase is transition; at this point the process of the organizational change project is executed. According to Lewin change is a journey, which requires time and leadership and in some cases coaching or other psychological support. Finally in the third phase, when the on forehand desired state is reached, refreezing becomes important. The refreezing is for putting down roots again and establishing the new place of stability, mostly called institutionalizing the change. After Lewin many other authors made their own models, with often more specific phases or steps for executing change projects. Examples are the eight step model of Kotter (2000/2008), Bullock and Batten’s four phase model of planned change (Bullock and Batten, 1985) and Kanter’s Ten Commandments for executing change (Kanter et al, 1992). This research has focused on the first step(s) of many of these models, which are all linked to the creation of readiness for change.
Various authors studied the field and all described their view on readiness for change and the creation of it. One of the widely accepted models is the ‘Change Message’ of Armenakis et al (1993). The ‘Change Message’ first defined three key elements of change readiness and after more extensive research this got expanded to five key elements to determine the level of change readiness among employees. The elements are discrepancy, appropriateness, self-efficacy, principal support and personal valence (2002). The description of the elements can be made clear by attaching a question to every element (table 2.1). According to Armenakis et al (2002), these five components apply for all possible change efforts and will provide the needed readiness for change to implement change successfully. Many other authors have tested the ‘Change Message’ (Neves 2009, Holt 2007, Cunningham 2002) and state in their researches in most cases the five elements indeed indicate the level of change readiness.
Key elements Questions
Discrepancy Is change really necessary?
Appropriateness Is the specific change being introduced as an
appropriate reaction to the change?
self-efficacy Can I successfully implement the change?
principal support Does management support the upcoming
change?
personal valence What is in it for me?
(table 2.1; five key elements ‘Change Message’ Armenakis et al (1993))
(2002) and Sashkin & Burke (1987) all agreed that there are three main components of change in combination with readiness for change. These components are internal climate of change, the process of how change is dealt with and the level of readiness for change in the previous two components. This should lead to a successful implementation of the change. Whereas the ‘Change Message’ of Armenakis et al prescribed how to create readiness for change, Bouckenooghe et al used the climate for change, the process of how change is dealt with as antecedents to determine the level of readiness for change. The model of Bouckenooghe is called ‘Organizational Change Questionnaire’ (figure 2.1). This model distinguishes three main components, namely the process of change, the context of change and the outcome. In the following part of the research, these three components will face a closer look and, the elements of the components will be discussed. This will lead to the hypotheses of the research.
(figure 2.1, Organizational Change Questionnaire (Bouckenooghe 2009))
Process of change
The process of the change will indicate how the change is dealt with. The model of Bouckenooghe (figure 2.1) shows there are four elements which define the process of the change: the quality of change communication, the support by supervisors, the attitude of top management and the participation.
The quality of communication is all about how the change is communicated. Bouckenooghe describes the following definition on this concept: ‘the clarity, frequency, and openness determine whether communication is effective. Therefore the following questions are relevant: is the staff clear about how they must apply change in practice? Should they learn about changes through rumors.’ The importance of communication during change projects is shown in various models. Kotter’s (1992/2000) famous eight step model has communicating the vision as a separate step, when looking at the Organizational Development approach (OD approach) Cummings and Worley (2005) talk during their description on leading and managing change about the importance of communication as a tool to
Context
Trust in leadership Politicking
Cohesion
Process
Quality of Change Communication Support by Supervisors Attitude of top management
Participation
Criterions Outcome
overcome resistance. Also in Kanters’ (1992) Ten Commandments communication is crucial in various steps like creating a shared vision and creating a sense of urgency. Almost all models have steps or phases in the change project where communication is the key. The reason for communicating during the change process is, according to Kotter and Kanter, to create a sense of urgency and to get everyone in the same direction. Furthermore, uncertainty plays an important role. The reasons for the importance of high quality communication is that it shows the link towards culture and imaging and whether the quality of communication in the past has any influence on the view of employees towards present or future changes.
H1 The higher the satisfaction about quality of communication during past changes, the higher the satisfaction about quality of communication during current change projects will be.
The support by supervisors relates to the extent employees experience support and understanding from their supervisors. Bouckenooghe defines more specifically that it measures their openness to reactions of their staff and their ability to lead them through the change process. The support by supervisors is important because it is linked to the participation of the employees in the change project. Again this is very clearly present in Kotters’ eight step model: empowering to act on the vision, this is about encouraging the employees to take risks and actions. Furthermore in Cummings & Worley (2007) wrote support is very important. They mention the importance of active listening in order to overcome resistance to change. Finally, the supervisors and the support by supervisors play an important role in self-efficacy, according to Armenakis et al, (1993). This shows the importance of support by supervisors. Linking this to culture and imaging, support by supervisors in the past, for instance in helping to improve the level of self-efficacy, could raise the level of self-efficacy when starting a new change process.
H2 The higher the satisfaction about support by supervisors during past changes, the higher the satisfaction about support by supervisors during current change projects will be.
Attitude of management toward change involves the stance top management is taking with regard to change. This is described by Bouckenooghe with the questions does the management support the change initiative and are they actively involved in the change? This aspect is clearly recognizable in Kotters’ eight step model. Leading by example and the formation of a strong guiding coalition both are important aspects to create a sense of urgency and to show the importance of the change that has to be made. The link with culture and imaging lies in the level of support people have experienced during previous projects. How did people experience the involvement of the management during previous change processes and is it common for the management to show their support or resistance to the change?
Participation refers to the extent which staff member are involved and informed about decisions that directly concern them, decisions about organizational change inclusive. Bouckenooghe states the following question to determine the participation: can procedures and guidelines be discussed bottom up? In other words, is the information supplied by front line staff considered, and is the frontline involved in the change process? This can be recognized in the 9th of Kanters’ Ten Commandments which is communicating: involve people and be honest. Furthermore, Cummings and Worley’s Organizational Development (OD) theory describes applying participation in order to overcome resistance. Input of employees provides both new insights and a diversity in information and ideas, and the employees will have the feeling they are part of the change. The importance of participation is to create commitment to the change process. The link between culture and imaging and participation it that employees have or haven’t experienced participation or commitment in the past, which could influence their view on new change processes. Maybe if they have not got the feeling they are really part of the change this could negatively influence their readiness for change.
H4 The higher the satisfaction about participation during past changes, the higher the satisfaction about participation during current change projects will be.
Context of change (climate to change)
The context of change can be defined as the organizations climate to change or the general context characteristics which influence the people’s perception of the internal circumstances for the change. The model of Bouckenooghe (see figure..) shows there are three elements which define the context of the change: Trust in leadership, Politicking and Cohesion.
Trust in leadership is the extent to which staff members perceive their supervisors and top management as trustworthy. Bouckenooghe added that in order to measure the trust in leadership the following questions need to be answered: does management practice what they preach, do they keep their promises. And are they honest and fair towards all departments? To put it differently, employees feel like they can communicate openly about problems, without running the risk of being held responsible. This is very recognizable in de OD approach of Cummings and Worley, which describes in creating readiness and in overcoming resistance the aspect of leadership. Also trust in leadership can be found in the need for project leaders to put in energy in the change project and show they care about and invest time and effort in the project. Furthermore, communication is very crucial in the OD approach through sharing information via emails, memos, presentations and meetings. Similar aspects are mentioned in Kotters’ eight step model to indicate the importance of measuring the level of change readiness. It helps for employees to get involved in the change. When trust is there, people are more open. This is highly related to culture: there has to be an open culture for this kind of trust to arise.
Politicking describes the perceived level of political games within the organization. According to Bouckenooghe a high degree of politicking leads to unnecessary expense, considerable delays and unwillingness to share knowledge. For this aspect a project called the VONK-project is a good representation. Pauka and Zunderdrop (1990) wrote about this project at the municipality of Groningen in the book ‘Banaan voor gevorderden’ (‘Banana advanced’). A large cultural change had to be made and the influence of the political dimension during change was highly present. Pauka en Zunderdrop state politics come in to play when for instance the public opinion is important. Choosing for a certain project can be determined by the public opinion. The reputation of the managers can increase when they choose to implement a project with greats profits or cost reductions, these profits or reductions can be at the expense of the workforce below. This political aspect is also described by Armenakis’ (1993) in the ‘Change message’ with Personal valence, in other words the aspect of ‘what is in it for me’. Motivation to change rises when the desired end state is attractive for the person, but it also works the other way around: when the end state is not attractive, it can be a source of resistance to the change. Finally the political aspect, is present in Kotter’s (2008) model: politic can show itself in not sharing information about the new project or in trying to find information about why the change might not work. Dealing with these personal interests is very important for the readiness for change, and a history of political games has a possible influence on the view towards new change projects.
H6 The higher the satisfaction about politicking during changes, the higher the satisfaction about politicking during current change projects will be.
Cohesion refers to the extent of cooperation and trust in the competence of team members. It is the perception of togetherness or sharing within the organizational setting including the willingness of members to support each other. In other words, are colleagues accessible? This is clearly recognizable in the ‘Change message’ of Armenakis’ (1993) with Self-efficacy, here is a distinction made between individual readiness and collective readiness. Self-efficacy is the believe someone has in his or her own capabilities to make the change. When combining the individual level of Self-efficacy of the entire team, this builds the trust in the team and the believe within the team to support each other and the believe to make the change to a success. Cohesion also gets formed by the vision and communication through the project leaders. This vision and communication is crucial for the change according to Kotter, Kanter and Cummings and Worley’s OD. The links to imaging and culture are the structures and groups where employees have been part of during changes in the past. If these where good in the past this could have influence on the current level of cohesion among the work force.
Outcome
The outcome is the reaction towards the change, located in the model of Bouckenooghe (see figure 2.1) as the outcome of the previous two determinants: context and process. With reaction Bouckenooghe means the reaction of the people have to the change translated into a level of readiness for change. Bouckenooghe divides this readiness for change into three dimensions.
Readiness for change is divides through Bouckenooghe into the following three dimensions: an emotional dimension, the affective reactions toward change, the cognitive dimension, the beliefs and thoughts people hold about the change, and the intentional dimension, the extent to which employees are prepared to put their energy into the change process. Various Authors have divided the concept of readiness into these three sub concepts. The three groups come into play at different stages within the change effort (Armenakis et al., 1993; Bouckenooghe, Devos and Van den Brook, 2009; George and Jones, 2001; Oreg, 2006; Piderit, 2000; Szabla, 2007). The outcome of the change is linked with imaging and culture because the result is one of the important aspects which determine what image will be made and remembered towards new changes. It could also be of influence on the view on these new change projects.
H8 The higher the satisfaction about readiness for change during past changes, the higher the satisfaction about readiness for change during current change projects will be.
2.3 Conceptual model
Based on the topic of this research, the central research question and the hypotheses mentioned in the paragraph above, the following conceptual model can be constructed. All the hypotheses show a possible positive connection between the level of satisfaction of the employees about the changes in the past and the level of satisfaction of the employees during current changes. The conceptual model (figure 2.2) shows the same possible relation, accepting there will be a positive relation, only on a higher level. When combining each specific hypothesis, they form a view on a more general aspect. On one side the general level of employees’ satisfaction on changes in the past and on the other side the employees’ level of change readiness (measured through the level of satisfaction of the employee during current change projects). Therefore, a positive view on the past leads to a higher level of readiness of the employee. The data collected through research will either confirm or deny these assumptions.
(figure 2.2: Conceptual Model)
+
Employees’ level of
change readiness
Employees’ satisfaction
3 Methods
This research consists of two interrelated steps. First a desk research is done. This was central in order to further investigate the concept of change readiness and the link with culture. During this desk research the variables which are important to measure change readiness and the general view on changes will be identified using electronic databases (Business Source Premier, Econlit and Academic Search Premier). The second step was the gathering data from employees of the organization. To gather this data, various sessions where planned with small groups of employees to inform the about the questionnaire, to let them fill in the questionnaire and discus it afterwards. After these questionnaire sessions some interviews were conducted in order to gain more insight information behind the answers given at the questionnaire.
Participants
Important in the decision for choosing participants ongoing change projects were crucial. The research was about the view the employees have on changes in the past, and about their level of change readiness for change and view on current of future changes. Therefore, participants both needed to have had experience with change projects at the organization, and had to be affected in someway by a current change project. Important for the research was to have a variety of roles among the participants. The following roles were determined: end user, change agent and administrator of the change. These differences in change projects, differences in role during the change and the experiences from the past gave the data used for the research the needed variety. Therefore the selection of the participants was very crucial to be able to draw the right conclusions form the data. The whole organization employs just over 1100 employees. For this research 100 participants were needed. However, after various attempts to reach this goal the actual amount of participants was 78. Table 2.1 shows the participants contain the needed variety and suffice the preset citeria.
Active in or affected by project 33 employees - project ‘EIS’ 45 employees - project ‘Anders Werken’ Years of employment at the organization 1 employee - less than one year
11 employees - one to three years
17 employees - three to six years
49 employees - more than six years Experience with change projects 11 employees - one or two changes 18 employees - three or four changes 9 employees - five or six changes 40 employees - six or more changes Role during current
change project 52 employees - (end) user 22 employees - change agent 4 employees - administrator of the change
The different change projects
Organizational change is the process in which organizations move from their current state to a desired future state to increase their effectiveness. This is a very vague definition, because there is no mentioning of what is to be changed. Normally there are four levels distinguished where the change can occur. Human resource changes, functional resource changes, changes in the technological capabilities and changes in the organizational capabilities (Jones 2007). For this research there are two different types of projects selected for conducting the interviews:
- Anders Werken – This project is called ‘Anders Werken’ or translated into English: ‘Different Working’. The project is about a change in office spaces and assigned office spaces. Before every employee of the CJIB had his or her own desk, own chair etc. With ‘Anders Werken’ this changed. Employees can sit where ever they want, and there are various types of work desks suitable of the type of work the employee needs to do. The reason for this change was the inefficient use of office space and time losses. On an average day there are 70 out of 100 employees present in the office. Of those 70 employees only 55 where behind their desks, so about 45 percent of the desks where empty. In order to use the office space more efficiently and to create more coherencies among the employees, this new interior of the building is introduced. This type of change is clearly a human resource change. It is a change where employees are affected in their work, workspace and tasks and procedures.
- EIS 2.0 – This project is one of the deliverables of a larger project: EIS. EIS stands for Executive Information System. There are many releases over the past years and for the next years to come. EIS is about changes in a technological process of allowing full intake of new cases to be processed all the way up to sending out reminders for new case flows. This system is constantly changing and evolving, both input of the government by stating new-, or changed laws and because of the development of the technology. These changes are necessary to make the system more effective, efficient and error prove. Project EIS 2.0 is a clear technological change. It is a change where the technological capabilities of the process are changed. Additionally, there is a small link to a human resource change because the development of the process has influence on the tasks and procedures of some employees who work with the information system.
Measures
organization where the sample is from. Each question consisted of an ‘A’ statement and a ‘B’ statement. The ‘A’ statement measured the level of satisfaction the employee had on the variable based on past experiences with changes at the CJIB. The ‘B’ statement measured the current level of satisfaction the employee had on the variable based on the change project where the employee currently is somehow involved with. For answering both statements a seven-point scale ranging from “completely disagree” to “completely agree” clearly defines the answering possibilities. The complete questionnaire is added in appendix 1. After the questionnaires a series of interviews has followed. Participants of the various change projects and various roles within those projects were interviewed in order to find extra information and clarification about the results from the questionnaire. For this non-structured interviews will be conducted. Input for topics to discuss depended on the results of the questionnaire and is expected to be one or more of the eight variables Bouckenooghe (2009) determined in his ‘Organizational Change Questionnaire’.
Data Analysis
The answers to the questions were analysed using SPSS. First the items had to be re-coded. The second step was to combines various individual items into the eight variables which were linked to the eight hypotheses. In his questionnaire Bouckenooghe determined which question was linked to which variable. Sometimes a question was linked to multiple variables. In order to analyse the data and to determine the validity of the hypotheses, the questions needed to be combined and brought back to a collection of sixteen results. Eight variables on the satisfactions of the past and eight variables on the current level of change readiness got their own grade. Factor analyses and the Cronbach Alpha analyses were used in order to determine whether the collected data were valid and reliable and whether it was possible to reduce the data to the eight variables. After this step the analysis of the hypotheses was made using the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient, the single regression analyses and multiple regression analyses. These tests indicated whether the hypotheses were confirmed or rejected. All test results are presented in appendixes 5 and 6. The hypotheses is confirmed when the test shows a significance of p < 0,05.
Validity and reliability tests
In order to determine whether the collected data were valid and reliable, there were factors analyses and cronbach alpha analyses performed. An additional reason for executing these tests is to reduce the data into fewer variables to make further analyses synoptic. From each concept of Bouckenooghe there are two variables. In the section below the results of these tests are presented and the extensive test results of the factor analyses and cronbach alpha analyses is included in appendix 2.
Process factors
score 0,871 on the cronbach alpha analyses. Therefore these questions are combined into one variable on quality of change communication ‘A’ and one variable quality of change communication ‘B’. Support by supervisors In the questionnaire there were ten questions (questions 1, 2, 3 and 4 and 25 up to 30) related to determining the level of support by supervisors. Factor analyses showed the ‘A’ variable questions were related to one component. This was also confirmed through the cronbach alpha score of 0,953. These ‘B’ variable questions did not match sufficiently. Therefore questions 28B, 29B and 30B were dropped in order to maintain high validity in the variable. The cronbach alpha of the questions left scored 0,896. To conclude, the questions of the ‘A’ variable were all combined into one variable on Support by supervisors ‘A’ and the questions of the ‘B’ variable minus questions 28B, 29B and 30B were combined into variable Support by supervisors ‘B’.
Attitude of top management To measure the level of the variable attitude of top management the questionnaire contained three questions (questions 31, 32 and 33). The factors analyses showed there was, both for the ‘A’ and ‘B’ variable strong relationship to one component each. This was also confirmed with the cronbach alpha scores, where the ‘A’ variable scored 0,854 and a 0,835 score for the ‘B’ variable, resulting into combining the questions into one variable Attitude of top management ‘A’ and one variable Attitude of top management ‘B’.
Participation Questions 13, 14, 15 and 23 and 24 were the five questions to measure the variable participation. The results of the factor analyses showed the questions on the ‘A’ variable were high and indicated a strong relationship to one component. This was also confirmed with 0,915 score on the cronbach alpha analyses. The ‘B’ variable of participation showed no relationship between the questions to one common component (both in factor analyses and cronbach alpha analyses), however the results of the factor analyses of the ‘A’ variable ensured that the questions of variable ‘B’ also be merged in to one variable. The research continued with a constructed ‘A’ variable with the name participation ‘A’ and ‘B’ variable called participation ’B’.
Context factors
Trust in leadership In the questionnaire there where seven questions (questions 5 up to 8 and 28, 29 and 30 ) related to measure the variable Trust in leadership. Factor analyses showed the variable ‘A’ questions were divided over two components, questions 5A to 8A and 28A to 30A. cronbach alpha analyses on these two groups indicate respectively 0,915 and 0,921. The ‘B’ variable’s factor analyses lead to the execution of questions 28B, 29B and 30B, those questions showed no relation to the component where questions 5B to 8B were. The cronbach alpha of questions 5B, 6B, 7B and 8B was 0,912. Therefore the following combined variables were created: Trust in leadership ‘A1’, based on questions 5A to 8A, Trust in leadership ‘A2’, based on questions 28A, 29A and 30A and Trust in leadership ‘B’, based on questions 5B to 8B.
matching cronbach alpha score of 16B and 18B is 0,625. Resulting into combining the questions into one variable each, variable Politicking ‘A’ and variable Politicking ‘B’.
Cohesion The variable Cohesion was measured in the questionnaire through questions 9, 10, 11, 12. The four questions did not show any relationship to the same component. Therefore the research will continue with each question separately in order to describe the variable Cohesion.
Outcome factor
Readiness for change (emotional-, cognitive- and intentional dimension) The variable Readiness for change was measured through nine questions (question 34 up to 42). Similar to the subdivisions Bouckenooghe made, the factor analyses also showed three components, both among the ‘A’ questions and among the ‘B’ questions. Bouckenooghe made the distinction between emotional readiness for change (questions 34, 35, and 36), cognitive readiness for change (questions 37, 38 and 39) and, intentional readiness for change (questions 40, 41 and 42). The cronbach alpha scores which belong to each of these six variables were emotional readiness ‘A’ 0,859, cognitive readiness ‘A’ 0,818, intentional readiness ‘A’ 0,949, emotional readiness ‘B’ 0,955, cognitive readiness ‘B’ 0,750 and lastly intentional readiness ‘B’ 0,923. Therefore, the variable readiness for change questions could be combined but would be divided into the following new variables Emotional readiness ‘A’, Cognitive readiness ‘A’, Intentional readiness ‘A’, Emotional readiness ‘B’, Cognitive readiness ‘B’ and Intentional readiness ‘B’.
Extreme values
The extreme values of each concept were examined through box plots (see appendix 3). Extreme values can make an incorrect drawing of the results. There were some outliers found in the results of the different variables. SupportA, AttitudeA, AttitudeB, ParticipationA, TrustA1, TrustA2, TrustB, PolitickingA, PolitickingB, Emotional ReadinessA, Emotional ReadinessBl had a few outliers, but no extreme values. The other concepts had no outliers and no extreme values. So, there were no extreme values that could make an incorrect drawing of the results.
Normal distribution
4 Results
The following section presents the results of the statistical analysis, extensive test results can be found in the appendices.
4.1 Results General Questions
The questionnaire started with several general questions in order to establish the needed variety in the research population and in addition to that to get a first general view on their ideas on change readiness, their grades given to current change projects and the level of change readiness they experience for their colleagues.
First there were a few questions on the general view of employees on changes and change projects at the organization. Participants were asked to grade the process of changes at the organization, value their own level of change readiness and value their colleagues level of change readiness, with the following results.
(figure 4.1: Graph general grade for change processes)
When asked to value their own general level of change readiness and the general level of change readiness of your average colleague the following answers were given:
(figure 4.2: Graph general grade own change readiness) (figure 4.3: Graph general grade colleagues change readiness)
The left graph (figure 4.2) shows their own changes readiness. The great majority answered average (green), high (gray) and really high (purple). Only a few answered low (blue). The grades they give to their colleagues (figure 4.3) were somewhat lower, average (gray) and high (purple) still are more than 50 percent, however, really low (blue) and low (green) are much more present than the previous graph. This is also indicated after calculating the means, own level of change readiness is graded a 3,99 out of 7 and the colleagues level of change readiness is graded a 3,03 out of 7. When translating this to the answer possibilities of the question, the participation rate their own level of change readiness ‘high’ and the level of their colleagues ‘average’.
Similar questions where asked specifically based on the change project there are currently working on of being affected by. This resulted into the following reviews. First the results for project ‘Anders Werken’.
Again the graph (figure 4.4) shows the majority graded the change process of project ‘Anders Werken’ with a sufficient grade, about three-quarters of the grades are 6 or higher and the average grade was a 6,33 out of 10.
When asked to value their own general level of change readiness and the general level of change readiness of your average colleague the following answers were given.
(figure 4.5: Graph ‘Anders Werken’ own change readiness) (figure 4.6: Graph ‘Anders Werken’ colleagues change readiness)
Left, the graph (figure 4.5) shows the participants own value of their own level changes readiness. The great majority answered average (green), high (gray) and really high (purple). Only a few answered low (blue). The grades they give to their colleagues were somewhat lower (figure 4.6), average (gray), high (purple) and really high (yellow) still are more than 50 percent, however, really low (blue) and low (green) are much more present than the previous graph. This is also indicated after calculating the means, own level of change readiness is graded a 3,76 out of 7 and the colleagues level of change readiness is graded a 2,91 out of 7. When translating this to the answer possibilities of the question, the participation rate their own level of change readiness ‘high’ and the level of their colleagues ‘average’.
Finally the same analyses where made for the other project, project ‘EIS’, with the following outcome.
Again the graph (figure 4.8) shows the majority graded the change process of project ‘EIS’ with a sufficient grade, about two-thirds of the grades are 6 or higher and the average grade was a 6,09 out of 10.
When asked to value their own general level of change readiness and the general level of change readiness of your average colleague the following answers were given.
(figure 4.8: Graph ‘EIS’ own change readiness) (figure 4.9: Graph ‘EIS’ colleagues change readiness)
The left graph (figure 4.8) shows their own changes readiness. The great majority answered average (green), high (gray) and really high (purple) and only a very small group answered low (blue). The grades they give to their colleagues were somewhat lower (figure 4.9), average (green) and high (gray) still are more than 50 percent, however, low (green) has grown a lot compared to the previous graph. Within this project the values of change readiness is much closer together, something also indicated after calculating the means, own level of change readiness is graded a 3,91 out of 7 and the colleagues level of change readiness is graded a 3,39 out of 7. These grades are the closest together of all the previous comparisons.
4.2 Results Spearman
Variables Correlation Coefficient Sig. (1-tailed) Process factors
Quality of change communication A - B 0,721 0,000
Support by supervisors A - B 0,576 0,000
Attitude of top management A - B 0,801 0,000
Participation A - B 0,624 0,000 Context factors Trust in leadership A1 - B 0,750 0,000 A2 - B 0,375 0,000 Politicking A - B -0,123 0,141 Cohesion 1A - 1B 0,088 0,223 2A - 2B -0,247 0,015 3A - 3B 0,714 0,000 4A - 4B 0,810 0,000 Outcome factors
Readiness for change (emotional-, cognitive- and intentional dimension)
Emotional dimension A - B 0,451 0,000
Cognitive dimension A - B -0,386 0,000
Intentional dimension A - B 0,435 0,000
(table 4.1: Spearman rank correlation test results)
4.3 Results Single Regression
After testing whether there is a coherency between the ‘A’ variables and ‘ B’ variables using the Spearman test, now the causality between both variables will be tested using single regression analyses. The results are presented in table 4.2 and the extensive test results can be found in appendix 6.
Variables Regression Coefficient Sig. (1-tailed) Process factors
Quality of change communication A - B 0,659 0,000
Support by supervisors A - B 0,502 0,000
Attitude of top management A - B 0,840 0,000
Participation A - B 0,681 0,000 Context factors Trust in leadership A1 - B 0,819 0,000 A2 - B 0,475 0,000 Politicking A - B -0,059 0,607 Cohesion 1A - 1B 0,136 0,236 2A - 2B -0,217 0,056 3A - 3B 0,732 0,000 4A - 4B 0,796 0,000 Outcome factors
Readiness for change (emotional-, cognitive- and intentional dimension)
Emotional dimension A - B 0,338 0,002
Cognitive dimension A - B -0,327 0,003
Intentional dimension A - B 0,475 0,000
4.4 Results Multiple Regression
Single regression tests show there where causality relationships between the ‘A’ and ‘B’ variables, to investigate whether there are causal relationships between multiple independent variables and a dependent variable there will be multiple regression analyses. The results are below presented and the extensive test results can be found in appendix 6.
There were not many multiple regression relationships between variables. Results of the process factors show each independent variable has one dependent variable which shows a significant relationship. Quality of change communication ‘A’ only relates to the connected Quality of change communication ‘B’ and Politicking ‘B’ has a causal relationship with independent Support by supervisors ‘A’. Attitude of top management had similar results as the Quality of change communication and is only the connected with Attitude of top management ‘B’. Finally Trust ‘B’ shows a causal relationship with independent variable Participation ‘A’.
The multiple regression analyses of the context factors had similar results, independent variable Trust in leadership ‘A1’ is connected to Trust in leadership ‘B’, independent variable Trust in leadership ‘A2’ has no significant relationships. Further Emotional readiness ‘B’ has a causal relationship with independent variable Politicking ‘A’ and independent factors of Cohesion 1A, 2A, 3A and 4A only have causal relationship with their connected ‘B’ dependent variables.
Finally the outcome factors, again all independent variables only show a casual relationship with one other dependent variable. Emotional Readiness ‘A’ is connected to Emotional Readiness ‘B’, Cognitive Readiness ‘A’ is connected to Trust in leadership ‘B’ and Intentional Readiness ‘A’ is connected to Attitude of top management ‘B’.
5 Conclusion
The following section is on the conclusions which can be drawn based on the results described above.
Process factors
Context factors
The context variables referred, according to Bouckenooghe (2009), to the climate of change, or in other words the employees’ perception of the internal circumstances under which the change occurs. There where three hypotheses stated to measure the context: hypotheses H5, H6 and H7. After the factor analyses and the cronbach alpha tests there where some adjustments to these hypotheses. Variable Trust in leadership was split up into hypotheses H5A – The higher the satisfaction about
the trust in communication of leaders during past changes, the higher the satisfaction about the trust in communication of leaders during current change projects will be, and H5B – The higher the satisfaction about the trust in capacities of leaders during past changes, the higher the satisfaction about the trust in capacities of leaders during current change projects will be.
The spearman tests and single regression analyses both agreed with the hypotheses and significantly indicated there is both a cohesion and casual relationship between the variables of H5A and H5B. The variable Politicking was tested with hypotheses H6 and test results indicated there was no significant relationship between both variables, therefore, H6 was rejected (Sig.(1-tailed)-score: 0,141).
Thirdly, the concept of Cohesion was measured with hypothesis H7, however, the factor analyses and cronbach alpha tests again did not show any relationship between the factors, therefore, these variables where split up into four new hypotheses: H7A – The higher the satisfaction about the
rivalry during past changes, the higher the satisfaction about the rivalry during current change projects will be, H7B – The higher the satisfaction about the competencies of colleagues during past changes, the higher the satisfaction about the competencies of colleagues during current change projects will be, H7C – The higher the satisfaction about the confidence in colleagues during past changes, the higher the satisfaction about the confidence in colleagues during current change projects will be. and H7D – The higher the satisfaction about the openness of the departments during past changes, the higher the satisfaction about the openness of the departments during current change projects will be. Test results show H7A is
rejected (Sig.(1-tailed)-score: 0,223) and H7B, H7C and H7D are accepted. The accepted hypotheses H7C and H7D showed at both spearman analyses and single regression analyses significant relationships H7B did not had a significant relationship with the single regression analyses (sig. score of 0,056 is just over the needed 0,05). Hypothesis H7A was rejected both with the spearman analyses and single regression analyses. Multiple regressions analyses did not lead to any significant relationships between independent and dependent variables.
Outcome factors
The outcome variables referred, according to Bouckenooghe (2009), to the readiness for change, or how the change is felt through the employees. The variable readiness for change was split up into three dimensions: emotional, cognitive and intentional readiness. This led to some adjustments of the hypotheses. First all three dimensions combined form hypothesis H8. After factor analyses and cronbach alpha tests the three dimensions where split up, giving three new hypotheses: H8A – The
higher the satisfaction about the emotional readiness for change during current change projects will be, H8B – The higher the satisfaction about the cognitive readiness for change during past changes, the higher the satisfaction about the cognitive readiness for change during current change projects will be, and H8C – The higher the satisfaction about the intentional readiness for change during past changes, the higher the satisfaction about the intentional readiness for change during current change projects will be. Hypotheses H8A, H8B
and H8C measured these three dimensions separately and the spearman results showed there was a significant relationship between the level of satisfaction about these variables based on experiences with past change projects, and the level of change readiness of the employees. Adding the single regression analyses, which also proved there were significant casual relationships between both variables, all three hypotheses are accepted. However, again the multiple regression analyses did not add any more significant relationships with other variables.
5.1 Accepted hypotheses
Results and conclusions above indicate the following hypotheses are accepted: H1, H2, H3, H4, H5A, H5B, H7B, H7C, H7D, H8A, H8B and H8C.
5.2 Rejected hypotheses
Results and conclusions above indicate the following hypotheses are rejected: H6 and H7A. Because these hypotheses are rejected there were some additional analyses performed on the data of the related questions. The data set included variety in participants, experienced projects, time of employment, role during the change project and types of projects. In order to determine whether lack of significance of these hypotheses could be related to one of these aspects, the analyses where executed again and selections where made based on the variety in the participants.
Politicking
Distinction Sig. (1-tailed)
Type of change EIS 0,182
Anders Werken 0,259
Role during change project End User 0,355
Change Agent 0,096
Change Agentadministrator of the change 0,333
Years of employment 0 to 6 years 0,363
more than 6 years 0,145
Number of changes experienced 0 to 6 changes 0,398
more than 6 changes 0,215
(table 5.1 additional Spearman rank correlation test results on H6)
Cohesion
Hypothesis 7A was related to the variable cohesion. Table 5.2 shows additional test results of performing Spearman rank correlation tests made with the distinctions of the data based on the same four general characteristics of the participants used analyzing H6. Some results did lead to a significant relationship between the variables. When only selecting participants who were change agents and who were employed for over 6 years at the organization, this could have lead to a significant relationship between the variables of hypothesis 7A. But still no results which could lead to acceptance of H7 occurred (the extensive test results are presented in appendix 5 and 6).
Distinction Sig. (1-tailed)
Type of change EIS 0,167
Anders Werken 0,400
Role during change project End User 0,262
Change Agent 0,021
Change Agentadministrator of the change 0,211
Years of employment 0 to 6 years 0,337
more than 6 years 0,024
Number of changes experienced 0 to 6 changes 0,201
more than 6 changes 0,321
(table 5.2 additional Spearman rank correlation test results on H7A)
6 Discussion
or even the influence on their current level of change readiness. For instance, there is no mentioning of taking imaging in to account when starting a change project. Literature on imaging indicated the connection between peoples view of the past and how this will influence their view now and possibly also the peoples current level of change readiness. Studies of Vonk (2003) and Hall (1997) proved imaging is all about building images of experiences from the past and will also value these experiences. When a certain object or situation will occur again, this image will make people remember how they should act in certain situation or what the object is and how the people valued the object or situation. The value linked to the image will influence the people view on the object or situation.
These findings from the literature resulted into a research where the possibility of the influence of culture and imaging on the creation of change readiness was investigated.
Data were collected at a government organization, using questionnaires and interviews in order to measure at first the view the employees had on change projects in general at the organization and secondly the view the employees had on the current change projects they where participation in or being affected through. The collected data provided the research with interesting results which showed most variables of creating readiness for change had a significant relationship, when the view about change readiness variables during past change projects was positive and the view during current or future change projects was also positive. Meaning, when people have a positive view of change projects in the past, this leads to a higher current level of readiness for change.
Taking this, the rejection of these two hypotheses and the acceptance of the others, into account when looking back at the central research question of this study: ‘How do the experiences
employees had with changes in the past influence the change readiness of employees for current or future changes?’, there can be concluded experiences of employees during past changes
indeed influence the level of change readiness of these employees. Based on the analyses of this study higher satisfaction on experiences from the past will lead to a higher level of change readiness. An outcome supported by literature on imaging and the interviews with employees discussing the results of the data analyses. Applying this to the literature on change projects and change readiness, this means the theories on imaging and the influence of peoples view on past change projects should be taking into account in the creating change readiness model of authors like Kotter, Kanter, Bullock and Batten. Their prescribing models of managing change projects all contain a part or a phase where creating change readiness is mentioned but never was spoken about influences of views of employees about past change projects. When this will be added to their models, it could mean the models become more continuous and will make change projects more linked and consecutive to each other. Finally the timeline presented earlier in figure 1.1 will become more present in the models.
Limitations and future research
Based on the research there are some limitations which need to be taken into account, and the findings of the research lead to the following possible future research proposals. One of the limitations is the fact the research was done in only one Dutch organization. Also the organisation is a non profit and government organization what makes it a very specific type of organization. This could have influenced the results. Furthermore, research data was collected at a single point in time, this too has implications for the data. Additional to the data collection, feedback after the questionnaire sessions showed the participants had difficulty with separating the statements in the questionnaire. Participants were asked to first focus on experiences from the past and than focus on their view on change readiness in the present. This difficulty could also have influenced the answering. Finally the data analyses showed not all variables passed the factor analyses and cronbach alpha tests, however for further analyses some variables were still compressed into one new variable because their connected variable did pass the factor analyses and cronbach alpha tests.
