A study about the antecedents and consequences of commitment to change at Company X
Master thesis, Msc Business Administration, Change Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
March 2012 GERDINE BLAAUWENDRAAD Student number: 1604775 Julianaweg 225 bis 3525 VE Utrecht T: +31 (0)6 12452844 Email: g.blaauwendraad@gmail.com Supervisors - University
1st supervisors: Drs. F.M. de Poel and Dr. J. Rupert 2nd Supervisor: Dr. C. Reezigt
COMMITMENT TO CHANGE AT THE OPERATIONAL LEVEL
ABSTRACT
Commitment to change has become increasingly important, due to the fast changing conditions and environments in which companies act. Research at this large supplier of bakery-ingredients has revealed that most operators in the plants were very committed to the large number of changes and the organization. Transformational leadership and training were seen by the managers as anticipatory factors with a positive influence on commitment to change. A study under the operators did not reveal any link between training and commitment to change. Transformational leadership on the other hand, was negatively related to turnover intentions of employees. A salient detail in this study is the influence of age and tenure on the assessment of the leadership style of the production leader. Older and more experienced employees assessed their managers as less transformational. The production managers on their turn, saw the older employees as less committed and more resisting the changes.
CONTENT
1. Introduction ... 6
2. Theory ... 10
2.1 Importance of Commitment to Change Research ... 10
2.2 Commitment to Change ... 12
2.3 Difference between commitment to change and organizational commitment ... 13
2.4 Commitment Outcomes ... 14
2.5 Antecendents of Commitment ... 16
2.6 Research Model ... 19
3. Methods ... 20
3.1 Organizational Context ... 20
3.2 Participants and Design of Study 1 ... 20
3.3 Participants and Design of Study 2 ... 21
3.4 Measurements ... 22
4. Results ... 26
Study 1 ... 26
4.1 Regression Analysis ... 28
4.2 Commitment to change ... 29
4.3 Other Findings of This Study ... 29
4.4 Conclusion ... 31
Study 2 ... 32
4.5 Commitment to Change ... 32
4.6 Commitment to Change and Turnover Intentions ... 33
4.7 Commitment to Change and Performance ... 33
4.8 Transformational Leadership and Commitment to Change ... 34
4.9 Training Effectiveness and Commitment to Change ... 36
5. Discussion ... 37
5.2 Other findings ... 39
5.3 Limitations and Future Research ... 40
5.4 Practical Implications ... 41
6. Conclusion ... 43
7. References ... 44
8. Appendices ... 51
Appendix 1: Organizational Chart Company X ... Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. Appendix 2: Chart Operations ... 51
Appendix 3: The questionnaire ... 52
Appendix 4: The interview questions ... 56
Appendix 5: Factor Analysis ... 58
1. INTRODUCTION
In recent decades there have been many changes in the bakery world. The introduction of new rules about hygiene, allergens and nutrition labels, new products and the emergence of new competitors. Special labels and training have been set up to provide bakers with the right knowledge about the new and important topics for the industry. Rigorous checks by the Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority ensure that the rules are followed carefully. Because of all these external changes, the suppliers of raw materials for bakeries have to change as well. The quality of the raw materials have to be perfect and the workplaces should be shiny clean. This requires the introduction of new procedures and standards.
The largest supplier of raw bakery materials in the Netherlands is Company X. This family-owned company started with the production of rusk jelly in the year 1900. Nowadays, it is the second largest bakery of Europe with a turnover of €350 million a year. They produce and sell all kinds of bakery-ingredients such as: jelly, marzipan, cake mixes, bread mixes and other useful products for the bakery-industry in more than seventy countries. The core values of the organization are quality, innovation and inspiration. The company wants to move on and expand their international activities through mergers and joint ventures.
they get and retain the required labels. In the meantime, the employees at the operational level are hardly aware of the changes of the last years. The technical changes were directly related to their work, but the recent more ‘cultural’ changes are not as closely related to their immediate work.
The operational employees show little involvement in recent change projects. Their involvement does not go beyond what is relevant to their tasks. This causes an ever-expanding gap between the heavily laden middle managers and the operational employees in the factories. Company X wants to bridge the gap and enlarge the commitment to changes at the operational level. Researchers have defined commitment as ‘an individual’s attitude towards a particular object or the strength of their belief in a position or course of action (Katzev & Wang, 1994)’. Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) defined commitment to change as ‘a force (mind-set) that binds an individual to a course of action deemed necessary for the successful implementation of a change initiative’. Their definition already includes the necessity of commitment for a successful implementation. This is confirmed by many researchers, who investigated the role of commitment in change situations. Commitment seems to have a positive influence on the willingness of employees to engage in change-related behaviors (Jarros, 2010). These behaviors are necessary to implement the change initiatives in the entire company. New ideas, structures and procedures will only be formed through the activities and behaviors of employees. The commitment of employees is necessary to make sure that organizational changes will be implemented successfully (Parish, Cadwallader & Busch, 2008).
over the last years are taking their toll. Employees had to change habits, behaviors and methods, which led to higher levels of stress and sometimes lower production levels. Literature suggest that commitment to change can help to overcome the negative effects of change (Hunter & Thatcher, 2007).
When looking at the antecedents of commitment to change, we can focus on several concepts, for instance leadership, training, communication, technology and culture (Shum, Bove & Auh, 2007). These concepts are all provable related to commitment to change. However, for Company X there are two important concepts to look at. The first antecedent in this study will be the leadership style of the managers. Company X believes that the leadership style of a manager has a great influence on the behaviors and results of a team. Recently they fired one of the managers, because he could not cope with the new culture in which leadership should be more participative instead of directive. Company X wants to know if the leadership style of their managers influences the commitment of employees. Beside influencing employees through leadership, Company X also believes that training can help to change behaviors and results. They started with a new training called Company X Ontwikkeling en Opleiding (Z.O.O.). The aim of this training program is to learn employees new skills and behaviors. Last year all the employees were assessed to find gaps between the optimal level of knowledge and skills necessary to perform the job and the actual level of the employees. The employees are trained to use new ways of working and to work with new systems. Company X believes that the training will help to implement the new ways of working and to commit the employees to these changes.
2. THEORY
The main focus of this research is to investigate the antecedents and consequences of commitment to change. First the perspectives on and the definitions of commitment to change will be discussed. Subsequently, two outcomes of commitment to change are discussed. Then two organizational features will be described and the influence of these characteristics on the level of commitment to change of operational employees. All will be presented in a conceptual model at the end of this chapter.
2.1 Importance of Commitment to Change Research
goals.’ In a similar vein, Herscovitch and Meyer (2002: 474) argued that ‘commitment is arguably one of the most important factors involved in employees’ support for change initiatives’. Commitment to change is an inevitable issue for organizations in a transition situation. Managers who can get their subordinates to commit to new goals, programs, policies, and procedures may stand a better chance of having these critical business activities successfully implemented (Kotter, 1996). Commitment influences employees willingness to engage in change-related behaviors (Jarros, 2010). Without these behaviors, change initiatives will fall apart and no results will be obtained. Prior research on commitment antecedents assumes that the relationship between employees and their environment is static. Later on, researchers as Desarbo and Grewal (2008) described employees’ commitment as a dynamic variable that may fluctuate as a consequence of changes in the psychological contract (Chen and Indartono, 2011)
promote commitment to change for employees (developing a strong theoretical model of its development), and further progress can be made in determining what outcomes it impacts upon and which issues are of greatest importance to the change-manager. It is clear that commitment to change has an important and positive influence on the change process (Jaros, 2010) Before commitment can be used as a tool for change, more evidence is required, which is the reason why this research is conducted.
2.2 Commitment to Change
Commitment is frequently used in different contexts. In this study we focus on the commitment to change initiatives. According to Herscovitch and Meyer (2002), commitment to change can be seen as a force that binds an individual to the change action, This force is a multidimensional construct, which can take different forms: desire (Affective Commitment), perceived cost (Continuance Commitment) or obligation (Normative Commitment). Affective commitment to change entails supporting the initiative based on the belief that it will provide benefits to the organization and there is a desire to remain. Normative commitment to change reflects a sense of obligation to support the change program. Finally, employees who treasure long-term relationships with their target have stronger continuance commitment, because moving away from the target usually involves high-perceived switching costs (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002). Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) argued, in compliance with previous research of Meyer and Allen (1991), that employees can experience varying combinations of all three sets simultaneously. Together, the measures of the three mind-sets reflect what they referred to as an employee’s commitment profile regarding the organizational changes.
obligation to support the change (strong NC), should be willing to do more than is required of them, even if it involves some personal sacrifice (e.g. working extra hours to learn new sales procedures). In contrast, employees whose commitment to the change is based primarily on the perceived cost of failing to support the change (strong CC) should do little more than is required. However, the three forms of commitment can also lead to similar consequences as proved by Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky (2002). Affective, normative and continuance commitment are all negative related to turnover and withdrawal cognition. These effects of commitment to change will be discussed later on. First the difference between organizational commitment and commitment to change will be explained.
2.3 Difference between commitment to change and organizational commitment
change is a measure of attachment to a specific change process or initiative of planned scope within the organization. In this study we will try to distinguish the influences of organizational commitment and commitment to change, to ensure that we can draw conclusions about the effects of commitment to change.
2.4 Commitment Outcomes
The first effects of commitment to change we were asked to look at, are the turnover intentions of employees. Turnover can simply be defined as: ‘leaving any job of any duration’ (Schmidt & Lee, 2008). Every change will introduce new roles, procedures or methods. Employees who do not agree with the value or content of the changes or the change process, will be motivated to leave the company (Shapiro & Kirkman, 1999). Although changes sometimes include the dismissal of some employees, most companies want to keep skilled employees and reduce their turnover intentions. Cunningham (2006) and Neves and Caetano (2009) found that commitment to change has an important effect on turnover intentions. Cunningham (2006) concluded from his empirical study that as employees feel a sense of duty and obligation to support the change process (strong NC), they will be unlikely to leave the organization, because of such initiatives. Neves and Caetano (2009) confirmed the results of Cunningham’s study and found a strong negative link between affective commitment to change and turnover intentions. However, both studies disagree about the influence of the other dimension of commitment. According to Cunningham there is a positive correlation between continuous commitment to change and turnover intentions, while the study of Neves and Caetano does not reveal any link between those two variables.
between affective commitment and turnover intentions. All these studies support the expectation that a high level of commitment to change will lead to lower turnover intentions Hypothesis 1: A higher level of commitment to change will lead to lower turnover intentions of employees.
The second consequence of commitment to change is the individual performance of the employee. Individual performance is a relatively broad concept and depends on the specific tasks of an employee. To be able to compare the different jobs, this study will not focus on the objectively measurable outcomes of the actions of employees, but on the quality of the actions. In these subjective performance evaluations of the employees themselves, effort and skills are rewarded (Kren & Tyson, 2009).
2.5 Antecedents of Commitment
vision. Third, transformational leaders exhibit the behavior of intellectual stimulation. They provide a safe environment in which others can think creatively and challenge the status quo. Finally, through the behavior of individualized consideration, leaders recognize the developmental needs of employees and provide support to their followers (Colbert, Kristof-Brown, Bradley & Barrick, 2008).
Opposite to the transformational leadership style is the so called transactional style. This style is associated with followers accepting or complying with the leader in exchange for praise, rewards or the avoidance of disciplinary action. It is associated with close monitoring of performance and taking appropriate action as soon as deviant behaviors occur (Bass, Avolio, Jung & Beson, 2003). In accordance with Conway and Monks (2008) we expect that followers of transformational leaders will show higher commitment to change than followers of more transactional leaders Hypothesis 3: A transformational leadership style will lead to higher levels of commitment for employees.
of a health information system. The overall experiences underlined the need for training and commitment. According to Noe (2003: 68), training can be defined as: ‘a planned effort to facilitate the learning of job related knowledge, skills and behavior by employees.’ Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) consider that training is likely to impact on support for, and identification with, the change and thus promote affective commitment to change. Training provides employees with the necessary resources and knowledge to change. Scholars have noted that change-related training may have a significant role in shaping employees’ perceptions and attitudes towards the change because training is often the employees’ first significant exposure to the organizational change (Jacobs & Russ-Eft, 2001). Robey, Ross and Boudreau (2002) proved that training helps employees overcome knowledge assimilation barriers, and as a result, become more committed to change programs. According to Drennan (1992), training the employees serves two goals: it will explain to the employees what the reasons are why the company wants to change, and it shows how everybody can make his contribution to the change process.
2.6 Research Model
Resulting from the previous, the research follows a sequential trajectory, starting with the influence of the independent variables ‘transformational leadership’ and ‘training effectiveness’ on the commitment to change. After this the research will look at how the commitment to change has an influence on the dependent variables ‘turnover intentions’ and ‘tndividual performance’. The antecedents and consequences of commitment to change are schematically shown in a conceptual model (Figure 1). The four hypotheses mentioned above will be tested in this study.
Figure 1: Conceptual Model
3. METHODS
To investigate the influence of the two antecedents on commitment to change and the outcomes of commitment, we performed a quantitative and a qualitative research. The quantitative study provided us with verifiable data which could be used for statistic analysis and to draw conclusions about the commitment to change. The qualitative analysis offered a deeper insight in the thoughts about commitment to change at Company X. The combination of both studies makes it possible to profit from both the advantages of quantitative and qualitative research. This chapter will describe the procedures, participants and measures used for these studies.
3.1 Organizational Context
For this study we only focus on the Dutch part of Company X. Company X has a functional structure, as can be seen in the organization chart (see Appendix 1). This study focuses on operational employees of Company X who are working in the operational division. There are five plants, which are managed by four plant managers. One of the managers is responsible for two plants. The structure of the operational division is further specified in the operations chart (see Appendix 2).
3.2 Participants and Design of Study 1
powder factory. All the employees in the plants are low skilled and work at production lines. In plant A, 8 out of the 15 employees filled out the questionnaire, in plant B 11 out of 20 employees and in plant C 14 out of the 15 employees. The total number of responses is 33, which results in a response rate of 66%.
The age of the respondents ranges from 22 to 61 years (M = 43.39, SD = 9.95), 97% is men, only one respondent is a woman, this corresponds to the actual distribution of men and women in the plants. Most of the employees are operators in plant A, B or C and some are forklift driver. The job tenure ranged from a few months to 38 years (M = 15.15, SD = 11.65). Participation was encouraged by management and all the surveys were made anonymously. Questionnaires were handed out by the production managers of each factory and could be returned in a box, to ensure anonymous participation. The results of this study are described in chapter 4.
3.3 Participants and Design of Study 2
The qualitative study is conducted with the three manager of the three plants of Company X which were involved in study 1. The interviews were held with the production managers of the plants, we asked about the level of commitment to change of the employees, the assessment of their own leadership style, their reaction to the availability and quality of training and the performance of the employees in their plant (see appendix 2). The interviews were semi-structured and lasted 45 till 60 minutes each. All the interviews were audio-taped and transcribed, to maximize the objectivity of the processing of the results of the interviews.
held in Dutch, it is not correct to quote them with formal quotation marks; however, there has been a continues effort to translate their words as exact as possible.
The manager of plant A, ‘manager A’ works five years for Company X in the function of production manager. He is 42 years now and started his career as fitter at another company. He took some management courses and a study change management of Schouten en Nelissen. He started as production manager at another plant, and moved to plant A two years ago. Plant manager B is 39 years and started his career in the printing industry, two and half years ago he switched from chef of a division of his old company, to production manager at Company X. He received a lot of training to become more familiar to the food industry and he also got some management training. Plant C is managed by Manager C, who works already eleven years at Company X. He studied food technology and started at Company X as staff member of the Quality and Support department, right after his graduation. Since April 2011 he started in the function of production manager of Plant C. The answers of the three managers will be compared with each other in chapter 4.
3.4 Measurements
To minimize the burden for employees, we made the questionnaire as short as possible, by choosing only the questions with the highest factor load on each factor. All the questions have been translated in Dutch and adapted to the level of the employees (see Appendix 1 for the complete questionnaire). For all the items responses were made on a five-point Likert scale, with 1 (strongly disagree) and 5 (strongly agree).
based on the factor analysis, and the reliability of each factor, calculated with the Cronbach’s alpha.
Perceptions of leadership style: transformational leadership behavior was measured with the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) Form 5X (Bass, Avolio & Jung, 1999). We could make use of the ten items measuring the factors: Idealized Influence, Intellectual Stimulation and Individualized Consideration to measure transformational leadership α = .95 (e.g. ‘My production leader has my respect’).
Effectiveness of the training: the measure developed by Tan et al. (2003) is used to measure the effectiveness of the training. Tan et al. (2003) makes use of two factors in this, namely Positive Training Evaluation and Negative Training Evaluation, which are also used in this research. The five items of the Positive Evaluation Scale could all be used to form the Positive Training scale α = .88 (e.g., ‘I have an overall good feeling about how the training program was carried out’). The Negative Training factor did not show up in the factor analysis due to unclear reasons. However, the reliability analysis reported a Cronbach’s Alpha of .77 for the four items of the Negative Evaluation Scale α = .77 (e.g., ‘The training program was useless for me’). A factor analysis with all the items for training did reveal a two factor solution, which made a clear distinction between the positive and negative evolution of training. This is in compliance with the factors of Tan et al. (2003); therefore, based on the reliability analysis and the second factor analysis, we decided to make use of both factors of training in this research. One remarkable characteristic of the structure of the factor is that the fourth item (‘The training is performed poorly’) loaded negatively on the factor of transformational leadership. This may be due to the fact that part of the training was given by their own managers, which leaves open a small room for bias.
on the research of Neves and Caetano, who used the three items and the reliability analysis, we decided to use the three items α = . 79 (e.g., ‘I would rather work in a different organization’). Subjective individual performance: the four items adapted from Abramis (1994) could all be used to measure the subjective performance of employees α = . 73 (e.g., ‘I am satisfied with the global quality of my work’).
4. RESULTS Study 1
Table 1: Means, standard deviations and intercorrelations for the aggregated variables M SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 1. Age 43.39 9.95 - 2. Job Tenure 15.15 11.65 .78** - 3. Affective Commitment 3.74 0.81 .02 -.02 (.67) 4. Continuance Commitment 3.48 1.06 .04 .06 .32* (.74) 5. Positive Training 3.58 0.79 -.22 -.10 .25 .09 (.88) 6. Negative Training 1.86 0.68 .32 .33 -.28 -.11 -.62** (.77) 7. Transformational 3.72 0.80 -.67** -.38** .18 .01 .61** -.43* (.95) 8. Turnover Intentions 1.62 0.77 .30 .21 -.26 -.12 -.18 .11 -.42** (.79) 9. Subjective Performance 4.61 0.41 -.04 .07 .23 .34* .01 -.04 -.02 -.30* (.73) 10. Organizational Commit. 4.20 0.56 -.10 -.03 .56** .37** .25 -.08 .20 -.48** .53** (.70) Note: Cronbach’s alphas are displayed on the diagonal. N = 33 exempt for training (N = 19).
4.1 Regression Analysis
First, we will discuss the suggested linear relationships of the first four hypotheses to see if there is any evidence for them. In the next paragraph some additional analyses that were executed are presented. Finally, a conclusion of this first study will be presented.
The first hypothesis suggests a positive influence of commitment to change on the intentions to stay at the company. As could be seen in table 1, there is no significant relation between affective or continuance commitment and the turnover intentions of employees. A regression analysis also does not show a relationship between turnover intentions and affective (β= -. 26, p <.15, R2= .07) or continuance commitment to change (β= -.12, p <.52, R2= -.02), therefore hypothesis 1 should be rejected.
The second hypothesis states that a higher level of commitment to change will lead to higher subjective performances. The high correlation (rcc = 0.34) between continuance
commitment and subjective performances indicates that there is a relationship between the two factors. However, there is no significant relationship between affective commitment to change and subjective performances (β= .23, p <.20, R2= .05). A regression analysis confirmed the positive influence of continuance commitment to change on the subjective performances of employees (β= .34, p <.05, R2= .12). Hypothesis 2 could be confirmed for continuance commitment to change and has to be rejected for affective commitment to change; however, when controlled for organizational commitment (β= .47, p <.01, R2= .30), the significant relationship between continuance commitment and subjective performance vanished (β= .17, p <.31, R2∆= 0.25). Employees who showed more organizational commitment did have higher performances than employees with less organizational commitment; therefore, hypothesis 2 should be rejected.
reveal any significant relationship between transformational leadership and affective or continuance commitment to change. The regression analyses show that hypothesis 3 should be rejected for both affective (β= .18, p <.33, R2= .03) and continuance commitment to change (β= .01, p <.97, R2= .00).
The same conclusion can be drawn for hypothesis 4, although affective commitment has a weak positive link with positive training evaluation and a small correlation with negative training evaluation. The regression analyses shows that the link between training and affective commitment is not strong enough to result in significant attribution of positive evaluation of training (β= .25, p <.31, R2= .06) or negative evaluation of training (β= -.28, p <.25, R2= .08). Positive or negative training evaluation are not related to continuance commitment (βp= .09, pp <.72, R2p= .01 and βn= -.11, pn <.65, R2n= .01).
4.2 Commitment to change
Although we could not find any evidence for the proposed hypothesis, there were some other effects for commitment to change we wanted to report. Analysis of variance showed that there was a difference in the affective commitment of the employees between the three factories (F (2, 30) = 3.27, p = .05). LSD post-hoc comparisons of the three factories indicated that employees of factory A (M = 4.08, 95% CI [3.30, 4.87]) gave significantly higher affective commitment ratings than employees of factory C (M = 3.43, 95% CI [2.69, 3.86]), p = .03. Comparisons between factory B (M = 4.08, 95% CI [3.61, 4.20]) and the other two factories were not statistically significant at p < .05. Levels of continuance commitment did not differ between the three factories (F (2, 30) = 0.72, p = .50).
4.3 Other Findings of This Study
different production managers were compared with each other, to see if the employees of the three plants perceived any differences in leadership styles of the managers from the three plants. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that there was a marginal difference between the leadership styles of the three production managers (F (2, 30) = 3.03, p = .06). LSD post-hoc comparisons of the three factories indicate that employees of factory A (M = 4.24, 95% CI [3.93, 4.55]) assessed their production manager as more transformational than the employees of factory B (M = 3.41, 95% CI [2.83, 4.00]), p = .02. However we have to keep in mind that the number of participants in each factory is quite low, which could lead to biased results. Comparisons between factory C (M = 3.73, 95% CI [3.38, 4.07]) and the other two factories were not statistically significant at p < .05. According to the correlation analysis there is a strong negative link between transformational leadership and turnover intentions. This could be confirmed with a regression analysis (β= -.42, p=.02, R2= .18). Employees who assessed their managers as more transformational did have less intentions to leave the company. An ANOVA of the difference between the turnover intentions of employees of the three factories, did not show a significant result (F (2, 30) = 1.47, p = 0.25).
The employees of factory B and C already received some training and were asked to evaluate the effectiveness of these trainings. Because not all employees participated in the training, only 19 employees could answer the questions about the training. An independent t- test of the employees in factory B and C on the evaluation of the training showed that there were no differences between factory B and C in positive, (t (17) = -0.57, p = .59) and negative (t (17) = -0.26, p = .80) evaluation of the training. Positive and negative evaluation are both related to the transformational leadership style. Employees who assessed their manager as more transformational, also evaluated the training as more effective.
4.4 Conclusion
Study 2
Company X has gone through major changes the last five years. The introduction of continuous improvement strategies, the installation of new machines and robots, a new training program and new managers and team leaders. Although these changes are seen as useful and necessary by managers, the employees have to carry out many of these changes. We interviewed the production managers of the three factories to understand more about the underlying processes and interest that could affect the commitment to change of the operational employees. We tried to find some support for the hypothesis that transformational leadership and training have a positive influence on commitment to change, and commitment to change itself, lowers the intentions to leave and stimulates the performances of employees.
4.5 Commitment to Change
4.6 Commitment to Change and Turnover Intentions
Changes can cause a lot of stress and uncertainties, which also happened at Company X. The managers of the three factories agree that the implementation of new processes or machines was not always flawless. Manager A indicated that some employees were irritated about the introduction of a new robot which caused a lot of problems. Manager B pointed out that especially the older workers had some problems with the fact that they had to change and learn new skills and behaviors. However, as Manager C explains, most employees work very long at Company X, and yellow blood (the color of Company X) flows through their veins. The employees have to be very dissatisfied before they will leave the company. It became clear from the interviews that the level of organizational commitment did have a noticeable impact on the turnover intentions of employees. However, employees who were committed to the changes had less reasons to be dissatisfied than employees who did not believe in the value of the changes. Manager C also saw that employees who resisted the introduction of new machines and methods, were more intended to leave Company X. This is in correspondence to hypothesis 1, that employees who were not committed to the change were more likely to leave the company than committed employees.
4.7 Commitment to Change and Performance
the factory. The performance of factory A also increased; however, Manager A was less content about the individual performances of his employees. The lack of cooperation, and willingness to help each other did have a negative influence on the overall performance of the factory. If there were any problems with a product they accused each other, instead of helping others to find a solution. The new ways of working and continuous improvement projects were not fully accepted, which lead to less efficiency in factory A. Overall, the three managers agreed that saw a positive influence of commitment to change on the individual performance, this correspondents to hypothesis 2.
4.8 Transformational Leadership and Commitment to Change
Manager B was very content about how the processes were organized in his factory and how employees worked together. Although recent changes caused some problems in factory B, he always supported the change initiative and tried to convince the employees of the value of the changes. He described his leadership style as participative and recognized many aspects of the transformational leadership style. As production manager he would not focus on the mistakes, but tried to find solutions and improvements together with the employees. He also spend a lot of time on the workplace, to pay attention to individual needs of the employees When someone mentioned to have some problems with one of the changes, he tried to come up with good arguments to convince this person and to make him believe in the change. Manager B believed that his way of managing factory B supports the acceptance and commitment to changes of his employees.
managers all believed that a transformational leadership style has a positive effect on the level of commitment to change of their employees, this supports hypothesis 3.
4.9 Training Effectiveness and Commitment to Change
5. DISCUSSION
In this chapter the research question and the hypotheses will be reviewed, together with some other interesting findings. After this the limitations and possibilities for future research will be discussed and this chapter will end with practical implications.
5.1 Conclusions on the hypotheses
The research question of this study is: What is the influence of leadership and training on the commitment to change of operational employees and how does commitment influence the turnover intentions and individual performances of operational employees at Company X? To give an answer to this question we will first provide the results on the hypotheses tested. The first hypothesis is: ‘A higher level of commitment to change will lead to lower turnover intentions of employees.’ Although we did find enough literature to support this hypothesis, the results of the first analysis does not confirm the hypothesis. In the qualitative study we did find some support for this first hypothesis. The managers saw that employees which were not much involved with the changes, were more likely to leave the company. Furthermore, the managers noticed that especially high organizational commitment of employees leads to lower turnover intentions. Altogether, we did not find enough support to approve this hypothesis.
The second hypothesis: ‘A higher level of commitment to change will lead to higher performance levels of employees’, could be confirmed for continuance commitment to change and should be rejected for affective commitment to change. Employees who showed more continuance commitment outperformed employees with less continuance commitment. The managers recognized the positive influence of commitment to change on the performances of employees. Committed employees do want to perform better in changing situations than employees who are less committed to the changes.
transformational leadership on commitment to change of the employee could be shown. On the other hand, the managers did see an effect of their leadership style on the commitment of their employees. According to the qualitative analysis, transformational leadership does have an influence on turnover intentions of the employees; however, this does not implicitly mean that employees are more committed to the changes. Therefore, the third hypothesis cannot be confirmed.
For hypothesis four: ‘The availability of change related training will lead to a higher level of commitment of the employee’, a marginal correlation could be found; however, due to the low number of participants no significant effect was found for the change related training. Despite this, the managers did see the added value of change related training to involve the employees in the changes.
The only hypothesis that was confirmed by study 1, is the relation between continuance commitment and subjective performance evaluations. Employees who believed that the costs of resistance were high and, therefore, supported the change initiatives, evaluated their performances higher than employees who reported lower levels of continuance commitment. However, this relation vanished when controlled for organizational commitment. This is in accordance with the research of Wright and Bonett (2002), which states that employees that are involved with the changes and the organization will perform better in change situations than less committed employees.
research of Vecchio and Anderson (2009), showed that especially older male managers tend to overestimate the effect of their leadership. This can be a possible cause for the divergent results found in study 1 and 2. The managers also seem to overestimate the effect of commitment to change on the subjective performances and turnover intentions of employees. This can be caused by the influence of organizational commitment, which seemed to have a great impact on both the turnover intentions and the subjective performances.
5.2 Other findings
Besides the testing for the main effects, some additional tests were conducted. The conclusions from these analyses will be mentioned in this part.
Although managers and employees did not have the same opinion about the suggested relationships, they agreed on some results of this study. The first finding we will mention is the transformational style of leadership, which had a strong negative influence on turnover intentions of employees. This negative relationship between transformational leadership and turnover intentions is also found by other researchers (Gill, Mathur, Sharma & Bhutani, 2011). We controlled this relationship for organizational commitment, which also negatively influenced turnover intentions; however, it did not reduce the contribution of transformational leadership.
stated that the higher the job experience of employees, the more difficult it is for these employees to commit to the change. This can be linked to Company X, considering their low turnover rate. Employees stay for a long time at the company and are thus most likely the employees with the most experience. On the contrary, Finkelstein, Burke and Raju (1995) found that managers anticipated negative reactions, such as decreased commitment, if they have negative attitudes about older workers. More research on the topic of change and age is needed, because there seems to be influences of both older employees on this topic and the way managers look at older employees, which might create self fulfilling prophecies.
5.3 Limitations and Future Research
First, we will discuss some limitations of this present research, to come up with possibilities for future research. Because the study was based on one company, it can be seen as a case study (Flyvberg, 2011). This implies that it is difficult to generalize the findings of this study to other situations. This major drawback of a case study is not very relevant for Company X. The findings of this study will hold for this organization and organizations that are quite similar to Company X. However, it is not possible to draw conclusions from this research for other types of organizations. Future studies have to integrate employees of different companies to find relationships that can be generalized to other organizations.
A second limitation that should be mentioned is the small sample size of study 1. A small sample size implies a greater probability that the answers given were just particularly good or particularly bad. It is harder to find significant relationships from the data, as statistical tests normally require a larger sample size to justify that the effect did not just happened by chance alone. The results of this study should be treated with some reservations. New research on this area can support the relations that are found in this study.
of the employees, the way of measuring the performance can distort the results of the study. However, the employees and managers do generally agree on the level of performance of the employees. A longitudinal study on this topic is needed to measure differences in performance levels during change processes.
New in this study is the found direct relationship between age and leadership style. Older and more experienced employees tended to assess their managers as less transformational, and their managers saw older employees as less committed to the changes. The influence of age on the assessment of leadership and commitment to change could be a new topic of research, which is quite actual in an ageing economy.
5.4 Practical Implications
Company X has gone through major changes recent years. This has an impact on the employees and managers of the factories. One of the main questions of Company X was how the commitment of the employees could be enlarged. The findings of this study suggest that the level of commitment, both to the organization and the changes, is quite high. However, we want to suggest some recommendations, based on this study.
First, the impact of the transformational leadership style. The three managers could be described as transformational managers, by their employees and by themselves. According to the results of study 1 and 2, this leadership style could be effective for Company X and the implementation of the future changes. Transformational leadership can be beneficial, also for other production leaders of Company X.
overcome the inconveniences of changes, it helps to increase the efficiency of the factories, and employees perform better and are less intended to leave the company.
6. CONCLUSION
7. REFERENCES
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. 1990. The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63: 1–18.
Amenakis, A. & Bedeian, A. 1999. Organisational change: a review of theory and research in the 1990 s. Journal of Management, 25(3): 293-315.
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Feild, H. S. 1999. Paradigms in organizational
change: Change agent and change target perspectives. In R.T. Golembiewski (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior: 631– 658. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Avolio, B.J. and Bass, B.M. 1995. Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis: A multi-level framework for examining the diffusion of transformational leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2): 199-218.
Barnsley, J., Lemieux-Charles, L. & McKinney, M.M. 1998. Integrating learning into integrated delivery systems. Health Care Management Review, 23(1): 18-28.
Bass, B. M. 1990. From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, (Winter): 19-31.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. 2000. Multifactor leadership questionnaire (form 5x). Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden, Inc.
Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., Jung, D.I. and Berson, Y. 2003. Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2): 207–218.
Chen, C.H. & Indartono, S. 2011. Study of commitment antecedents: The dynamic point of view. Journal of Business Ethics, 103(4): 529-541.
Chonko, L.B., Jones, E., Roberts, J.A. & Dubinsky, A.J. 2002. The role of environmental turbulence, readiness for change, and salesperson learning in the success of sales force change. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 22(4): 227-245.
Coetsee, L. 1999. From resistance to commitment. Public Administration Quarterly, 23: 204–222.
Colbert, A.E., Kristof-Brown, A.L., Bradley, B.H. & Barrick, M.R. 2008. CEO transformational leadership: the role of goal importance congruence in top management. teams. Academy of Management Journal, 51(1): 81–96.
Conner, D. R., & Patterson, R. W. 1982. Building commitment to organizational change. Training and Development Journal, 36: 18–30.
Conway. E. & Monks. K. 2008. HR practices and commitment to change: an employee-level analysis. Human Resource Management Journal, 18(1): 72–89.
Cunningham, G.B. 2006. The relationships among commitment to change, coping with change, and turnover intentions, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15(1): 29–45.
Desarbo, W. S. & Grewal, R. 2008. Hybrid Strategic Group, Strategic Management Journal, 29: 293–317.
Downs, C.W. & Adrian, A.D. 2004. Assessing Organizational Communication: Strategic Communication Audits. The Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Drennan, D. 1992. Transforming Company Culture: getting your company from where you are now to where you want to be. Berkshire: McGraw-Hill
employment contexts: an integrative analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, 80: 652-663.
Flyvbjerg, B. 2011, Case Study. In: Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 4th Edition, 301-316, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Ford, J., Wessbein, D. & Plamandon, K. 2003. Distinguishing organizational from strategy commitment: linking officers’ commitment to community policing to job behaviors and satisfaction. Justice Quarterly, 20(1): 159–183.
Gill, A., Mathur, N., Sharma, S. P. & Bhutani, S. 2011. The Effects of Empowerment and Transformational Leadership on Employee Intentions to Quit: A Study of Restaurant Workers in India. International Journal of Management, 28(1): 217-229.
Hamel, J.A., Bruel, M. & Geerlings, J.R. 2008. Uitblinken als een familiebedrijf, over de inrichting en werking van goed bestuur. Van Gorcum, Assen
Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J. P. 2002. Commitment to organizational change: Extension of a three-component model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 474-487.
Herold, D., Fedor, D., Caldwell, S. & Liu, Y. 2008. The effects of transformational leadership and change leadership on employees’ commitment to change: a multi-level study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2): 346–357.
House, R. J. & Adita, R. N. 1997. The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Management, 23: 409–473.
House, R.J., Spangler, W.D. & Woycke, J. 1991. Personality and charisma in the US presidency: a psychological theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3): 364–396.
Hunter, L.W. & Thatcher, S.M.B. 2007. Feeling the heat: effects of stress, commitment and job experience on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4): 953-968.
Iverson, R.D. 1996. Employee acceptance of organizational change: the role of organizational commitment. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 7(1): 122–149.
Jacobs, R. L. & Russ-Eft, D. 2001. Cascade training and institutionalizing organizational change. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 3: 496-505.
Jarros, S. 2010. Commitment to Organizational Change: A Critical Review. Journal of Change Management, 10(1): 79–108.
Katzev, R, & Wang, T. 1994. Can commitment change behavior? A case study of environment actions. Journal of Social Behavior Personality, 9(1): 13–26.
Klein, K. J., & Sorra, J. S. 1996. The challenge of innovation implementation. Academy of Management Review, 21: 1055–1080.
Kotter, J.P. 1996 Leading Change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Kren, L & Tyson, T. 2009. Trade-offs in objective and subjective performance evaluation: a case study examining the validity of agency theory predictions. Management Accounting Quarterly, 10(2): 12-23.
Lau, F. & Herbert, M. 2001. Experiences from health information system implementation projects reported in Canada between 1991 and 1997. Journal of End User Computing, 13(4): 17-25.
Lok, P, & Crawford, J. 1999. The relationship between commitment and organizational culture, subculture, leadership style and job satisfaction in organizational change and Development. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 20(7): 365-373. Lowe, K. B., Galen Kroeck, K. 1996. Effectiveness correlates of transformational and
transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. Leadership Quarterly, 7(3): 385- 426.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. 1991. A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1: 61–89.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. 2002. Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61(1): 20-52.
Meyer, J. P., Srinivas, E. S., Lal, J. B. & Topolnytsky, L. 2007. Employee commitment and support for an organizational change: Test of the three-component model in two cultures. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80: 185–211. Michaelis, B., Stegmaier, R. & Sonntag, K. 2010. Shedding light on followers' innovation
implementation behavior: The role of transformational leadership, commitment to change, and climate for initiative. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(4): 408-429. Mowday, R., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. 1979. The measurement of organizational
commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14(2): 224–247.
Munir, S. & Sajid, M. 2010. Examining locus of control (LOC) as a determinant of organizational commitment among university professors in Pakistan. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, 1(3): 78-93.
Neubert, M.J. & Cady, S.H. 2001. Program commitment: a multi-study longitudinal field investigation of its impact and antecedents. Personnel Psychology, 54(2): 421-448. Neves, P. 2007. Readiness for Change: Contributions for Employee’s Level of Individual
Change and Turnover Intentions. Journal of Change Management, 9(2): 215–231. Neves, P. & Caetano, A. 2009. Commitment to change: contributions to trust in the
supervisor and work outcomes. Group and Organization Management, 34(6): 623-644.
Niessen, C., Swarowsky, C. & Leiz, M. 2010. Age and adaption to changes in the workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(4): 356-383.
Noe, R.A., Hollenbeck, J.R., Gerhart, B. & Wright, P.M. 2003. Human Resource Management: Gaining a competitive advantage. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Overton, G.K. & MacVicar, R. 2008. Requesting a commitment to change: conditions that produce behavioral or attitudinal commitment. Journal of Continuing Education in Health Professions, 28(2): 60-66.
Parish, J., Cadwallader, S. & Busch, P. 2008. Want to, need to, ought to: employee commitment to organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 21(1): 32–52.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H. & Fetter, R., 1990. Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors, The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2): 107-142.
Robey, D., Ross, J.W. & Boudreau, M. C. 2002. Learning to implement enterprise systems: an exploratory study of the dialectics of change. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(1): 17-46.
the differential associations with work and non-work commitment constructs, Journal of Business and Psychology, 22(4): 297-309.
Shadur, M.A., Rodwell, J.J. & Bamber, G.J. 1995. Factors predicting employees’ approval of lean production. Human Relations, 48(12): 1403 –1424.
Shapiro, D. L., & Kirkman, B. L. 1999. Employee’s reaction to the change to work teams: The influence of ‘‘anticipatory’’ injustice. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12: 51 – 66.
Shum, P., Bove, L. & Auh, S. 2007. Employees‘ affective commitment to change. European Journal of Marketing, 42(11/12), 1346-1371.
Tan, J.A., Hall, R.J. & Boyce, C. 2003. The role of employee reactions in predicting training effectiveness. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14(4): 397- 411.
Vecchio, R.P. & Anderson, R.J. 2009. Agreement in Self-Other Ratings of Leader Effectiveness: The role of demographics and personality. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17(2): 165-179.
Wright, T.A. & Bonett, D.G. 2002. The moderating effects of employee tenure on the relation between organizational commitment and job performance: a meta-analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6): 1183-1190.
8. APPENDICES Appendix 2: Chart Operations
Appendix 3: The questionnaire
Algemene vragen: Geslacht:
Leeftijd:
Tijd werkzaam bij Company X: Functie: Fabriek: Man / Vrouw ………. jaar ………jaar………..maand(en) ……… ………
Deze vragen gaan over hoe betrokken jij je NU voelt bij de veranderingen bij Company X.
Helemaal Helemaal
mee oneens mee eens
1 2 3 4 5
AC 1. Ik geloof in de waarde van de veranderingen bij Company X
NC 2. Ik voel een soort verplichting om mee te werken aan de veranderingen
AC 3. Het zou beter zijn bij Company X zonder alle veranderingen
CC 4. Ik heb geen keus dan mee te gaan met deze veranderingen
CC 5. Er staat te veel op het spel om me te verzetten tegen de veranderingen
CC 6. Weerstand bieden aan de veranderingen is geen mogelijk optie voor mij
AC 7. De veranderingen zijn een goede strategie voor Company X
NC 8. Ik zou me schuldig voelen wanneer ik me verzet tegen de veranderingen
Mijn huidige productieleider… 1 2 3 4 5 10. … heeft mijn respect
11. … gedraagt zich zoals het behoort
12. … kijkt niet alleen naar wat hem zelf interesseert 13. … praat enthousiast over het werk
14. … stelt nieuwe manieren van werken voor 15. … heeft nieuwe ideeën en invalshoeken 16. … bekijkt zaken van verschillende kanten 17. … benadrukt waar je goed in bent
18. … leert je nieuwe dingen
19. … geeft je persoonlijke aandacht
20. … legt uit waarom je een bepaalde beloning krijgt 21. … beloont je prestaties
22. … ziet wat je goed doet 23. … zoekt je fouten op
24. … benadrukt vooral wat je fout doet 25. … let op wat verkeerd gaat
26. … reageert vooral op problemen als ze ernstig zijn 27. … vermijdt het maken van keuzes
28. … is afwezig wanneer hij nodig is
De volgende vragen gaan over Pilot Z.O.O. Als je hier niet aan meedoet hoef je dit deel niet in te vullen.
Helemaal Helemaal mee oneens mee eens
1 2 3 4 5
1. Ik zou Z.O.O. aanbevelen aan andere werknemers van Company X
2. Ik heb een goed gevoel over hoe Z.O.O. uitgevoerd wordt
3. Op de trainingen leer ik specifieke vaardigheden die ik kan gebruiken bij mijn werk
4. De trainingen zijn over het geheel genomen heel effectief
5. De trainingen zijn bruikbaar
6. De trainingen leren me niets dat ik kan gebruiken bij mijn werk
7. De trainingen zijn een verspilling van mijn tijd 8. De trainingen zijn zinloos voor mij
9. De trainingen worden slecht uitgevoerd
De volgende vragen gaan over wat je vindt van eigen werk
Helemaal Helemaal mee oneens mee eens
1 2 3 4 5
1. Ik ben toegewijd aan mijn werk
2. Ik ben over het algemeen tevreden met de kwaliteit van mijn werk
De volgende vragen gaan wat je vindt van Company X
Helemaal Helemaal mee oneens mee eens
1 2 3 4 5
1. Ik voel weinig loyaliteit voor Company X
2. Ik vind dat mijn waarden erg gelijk zijn aan de waarden van Company X
3. Company X haalt het beste in mij naar boven voor de uitvoering van mijn werk
4. Ik ben erg blij dat ik ervoor gekozen heb om voor Company X te gaan werken
5. Ik ben het vaak niet eens met het beleid van Company X als het gaat om belangrijke zaken die met werknemers te maken hebben
6. Als alles gaat zoals gedacht, dan denk ik dat ik over 3 jaar nog steeds bij Company X werk.
7. Ik zou liever bij een andere organisatie werken. 8. Ik ben van plan om lang bij Company X te blijven.
Hier is ruimte om eventueel extra uitleg of opmerkingen op te schrijven.
Appendix 4: The interview questions Algemene vragen:
1. Naam: niet weergegeven in verslag (uiteindelijk, productieleider A etc.) 2. Leeftijd:
3. Werkzaam bij Company X: 4. Werkzaam in functie: 5. Verantwoordelijk voor:
6. Achtergrond (opleiding/ trainingen):
Vragen over Veranderingen:
1. Welke veranderingen hebt u meegemaakt? 2. Hoe bent u voorbereid op de veranderingen? 3. Voelt u zich betrokken bij de veranderingen?
4. Zijn de veranderingen een goede strategie voor Company X? 5. Hoe reageren werknemers in uw fabriek op de veranderingen? 6. Hoe zijn werknemers in uw fabriek voorbereid/ ingelicht?
7. Zijn de werknemers in uw fabriek betrokken bij de veranderingen? 8. Hoe kan de betrokkenheid van werknemers vergroot worden? 9. Zijn werknemers bereidt om nog meer te veranderen?
10. Zijn er nog veranderingen die u graag zou willen zien?
Vragen over Training:
1. Hebt u de P.O.P. training gedaan? 2. Wat vond u hiervan?
3. Zou u de training aanbevelen voor andere werknemers? 4. Wat vindt u van Pilot Z.O.O./ Feedbacktraining? 5. Moet deze verder uitgerold worden?
6. Wat zijn de positieve/ negatieve kanten van deze pilot? 7. Hebben trainingen invloed op betrokkenheid werknemers?
Vragen over Leiderschap:
1. Hoe zou u uw manier van leidinggeven beschrijven? 2. Bent u tevreden over u manier van leidinggeven?
3. Hebt u als leidinggevende invloed op betrokkenheid werknemers? 4. Hebben de veranderingen invloed op uw manier van leidinggeven? 5. Is uw leiderschapsstijl meer transformationeel of transactioneel? Prestaties werknemers:
1. Bent u tevreden over de prestaties van de werknemers? 2. Is de productiviteit veranderd sinds de veranderingen?
4. Hebben de veranderingen ook een negatieve invloed op de productiviteit?
5. Hebben de veranderingen invloed op hoe thuis werknemers zich voelen bij Company X?
6. Zijn er werknemers die denken over vertrek door deze veranderingen? 7. Wat bindt werknemers aan Company X?
Extra:
Appendix 5: Factor Analysis
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Affective Commitment Item 1 06 .35 .31 .65 .20 .14 .16 .15 .10
Item 2 .08 .18 -.09 .17 .14 .84 .05 .00 .02 Item 3 -.20 .43 .20 .15 .07 .69 .23 -.03 .09
Continuance Commitment Item 1 -.24 .37 -.03 .06 .41 -.26 -.06 .03 .33 Item 2 -.05 .78 -.03 -.06 -.12 -.00 -.36 .34 .18 Item 3 -.15 .85 .14 .22 .10 -.01 -.06 .12 .35
Normative Commitment Item 1 -.13 .09 .14 -.09 .25 -.73 .20 .04 -.05 Item 2 .09 .12 .29 .00 .03 .64 -.02 .04 -.24 Item 3 -.05 .79 .01 .28 -.01 -.05 .29 .01 -.16
Transformational Leaderschip Item 1 .86 -.00 -.09 .13 -.05 -.01 .09 -.04 .12 Item 2 .91 -.11 .06 .02 .26 .01 .12 -.01 .04 Item 3 .93 -.05 .15 -.05 .05 .01 .13 .26 .05 Item 4 .82 -.01 .08 .20 .06 -.05 .00 -.39 -.01 Item 5 .80 -.02 .12 -.21 .41 .03 .18 -.20 .08 Item 6 .88 .19 .03 .14 .12 .05 .01 .26 -.13 Item 7 .69 .02 .03 .20 -.01 -.33 .34 .32 -.25 Item 8 .88 -.05 .12 .14 .07 .14 .18 -.04 .12 Item 9 .79 .15 -.17 -.06 .20 .21 .01 -.08 .27 Item 10 .80 .04 -.48 .04 .03 .03 .02 .09 .01
Positive Training Item 1 .19 -.02 -.07 .22 .91 -.01 -.03 .01 -.00
Item 2 .44 -.11 -.12 .04 .59 -.17 .20 .21 -.14 Item 3 .42 -.16 .07 .15 .59 .09 .03 -.22 .06 Item 4 .30 .10 .15 .23 .63 .06 -.21 -.23 -.24 Item 5 .36 .34 .19 .14 .48 .16 -.14 -.10 -.00
Negative Training Item 1 -.37 -.28 .14 -.37 -.01 -.01 .11 .66 .19
Item 2 .08 .08 -.07 -.90 .04 .04 .08 .10 -.27 Item 3 -.27 -.00 .01 -.84 -.05 -.34 .02 -.01 .11 Item 4 -.78 -.13 .18 -.29 .10 -.06 -.06 .19 .24
Subjective Performance Item 1 -.10 .24 .74 .27 -.04 .09 .05 .13 .15 Item 2 -.20 .38 .56 .30 -.26 -.25 -.08 -.19 -.03 Item 3 .00 .17 .74 -.21 -.14 -.09 -.21 -.19 -.46 Item 4 .01 -.00 .92 .07 -.01 -.24 -.08 .08 .09
Organizational Commiment Item 1 .09 .75 .24 -.02 -.08 .08 .10 -.33 .06 Item 2 -.12 .58 .15 .00 .15 .22 .06 .12 .02 Item 3 .04 .64 .09 -.10 .15 -.12 -.21 -.07 .15 Item 4 -.11 .57 .23 -.00 .20 .16 .45 -.16 -.22 Item 5 .29 -.08 .07 .14 -.05 .04 .08 .01 .84
Turnover Intentions Item 1 .02 .39 .63 .11 .23 .14 .55 .11 .05
Item 2 .36 -.08 -.13 -.14 -.10 -.06 .85 .00 .03 Item 3 .40 .17 .06 -.03 -.00 .04 .83 .03 .14
Appendix 6: Code list of the qualitative analysis
Codes Subcodes Semicodes
General background Factory
Age
Tenure
Leadership experience
Changes Reaction of employees Resistance
Acceptance
Continuous improvement
Implementation of changes New working methods
New culture
Automation Value of changes
Turnover intentions Acceptance of changes
Yellow blood
Organizational commitment
Commitment to change
Leadership Positive about changes
Find ways for improvement
Individualized attention
Set example
Directive leadership
Transformational leadership
Training Reaction on training Positive evaluation
Negative evaluation
Recommend training to others
Feedback
Z.O.O.
Influence on commitment
Performance Team performance Increase of performance
Cooperation
Willingness to help
Individual performance Increase
Decrease Commitment to change Automation Job rotation Satisfaction Commitment to change of
employees Willingness to change
Involving employees
Overcome barriers of change
Older employees
Enlarge commitment
