The influence of leadership self-efficacy on the interplay
between individual- and collective attitudes toward change
A case study
Master Thesis, MSc Business Administration: Change Manangement
University of Groningen
Faculty of Economics and Business
March 21, 2016
Koen Simonis Oude Herengracht 17a
2312 LN Leiden Student number: 1728121 k.s.simonis@student.rug.nl
Abstract
This study explores the influence of leadership self-efficacy on individual- and collective level readiness for change. For this theory development research, a case study approach was used to collect empirical data. Within the context of a Dutch physiotherapy clinic, the underlying dynamics and interrelationships between individual- and collective attitudes toward change were investigated, and how these interrelationships are influenced by leadership self-efficacy. The findings of this research contribute to the work of Rafferty et al. (2013) and Vakola (2013) on collective level readiness for change. This study indicates that change agent leadership self-efficacy influences the interplay between individual- and collective attitudes toward change, and that the interplay between individual- and collective attitudes can be deliberately nurtured through leadership self-efficacy to create collective readiness for change.
Word count: 17500
Table of content
1.0 Introduction 5
2.0 Literature review 9
2.1 Attitudes toward change 9
2.2 Individual attitudes toward change 10
2.3 Collective attitudes toward change 13
2.4 Antecedents of individual- and collective attitudes toward change 14 2.5 Interplay between individual- and collective attitudes toward change 16
2.6 Leadership Self-Efficacy 18
2.7 Theoretical Framework 20
3.0 Methodology 22
3.1 Case study 22
3.2 Research site and case selection 22
3.3 Data collection 23
3.4 Quality criteria 24
4.0 Results 26
4.1 Individual readiness for change 26
4.2 Collective readiness for change 32
4.3 Leadership Self-Efficacy 37
4.3.1 LSE of Change Agent 1 (CA1) 37
4.3.2 LSE of Change Agent 2 (CA2) 40
4.3.3 Survey results on Leadership Self-Efficacy 43 4.4 Interplay of individual- and collective attitudes toward change 44 4.5 The influence of LSE on attitudes toward change and on the interplay
between individual- and collective attitudes toward change 49 4.5.1 Influence of LSE on attitudes toward change: CA1 49 4.5.2 Influence of LSE on the interplay between individual- and
collective attitudes toward change: CA1 52
4.5.3 Influence of LSE on attitudes toward change: CA2 53 4.5.4 Influence of LSE on the interplay between individual- and
collective attitudes toward change: CA2 56
5.1 Mechanisms that underlie the interplay between individual- and collective
attitudes toward change 60
5.2 Differences in behavior and beliefs between high / low LSE 61 5.3 LSE influence on the interplay between individual- and collective attitudes
toward change 62
5.4 Theoretical and practical contribution 62
5.5 Managerial implications 63
5.6 Limitations 64
5.7 Further research direction 64
6.0 References 65
7.0 Appendix 1: Interview protocols 70
8.0 Appendix 2: Codebook 74
9.0 Appendix 3: Survey 78
10.0 Appendix 4: Survey response rankings 83
1. Introduction
Efforts of business organisations to remake themselves into significantly better competitors have gone under a variety of banners: re-engeneering, turnaround, total quality management, rightsizing, restructuring or cultural change. In almost every case, however, the goal has been the same: to make fundamental changes in how business is conducted in order to cope with a new, more challenging market environment (Kotter, 2007). In making these fundamental changes, organisational leaders must be sensitive and regardful about the context in which their organisation is situated, being particularly attentive to changes in the general and task
environments (Armenakis & Harris, 2009). Quinn (2004) estimates that as much as fifty per cent of all change efforts fail, often as a result of poor change leadership. Beer and Nohria (2000) even argue that seventy per cent of change programs fail, due to lack of strategy and vision, lack of communication and trust, lack of top
management commitment, lack of resources, lack of change management skills and resistance to change.
In response to the high rate of change failure, researchers have sought to identify factors that may increase the likelihood of successfully implementing organisational changes (Rafferty et al., 2013). One plausible explanation for the disappointing results in organisational change efforts, may be that change leaders/change agents and
researchers are inattentive to some of the human variables that are important during organisational change efforts (Self et al., 2007).
existing context of action, ways of thinking, and interactions with others, are likely to be key in organisational change outcomes.
Indeed, a surge of recent studies on organisational change demonstrated the meaningfulness of change recipient attitudes toward change for understanding the organisational change process (Oreg et al., 2011). As follows, a multitude of studies have been conducted on recipient’s attitudes toward change adopting an individual level of analysis. However, as Bouckenooghe (2010) maintains; “the focus should not
only be on single-level thinking but also on multilevel thinking”. And, following
Rafferty et al. (2013), a major limitation of the change readiness literature is that researchers have not adopted a multilevel perspective, which we argue is essential for understanding the individual and organisational implications of change readiness. Namely, change recipients base their attitudes not only on individual reflection but also through collective sensemaking that comes from the interaction with colleagues and change agents (Ford et al., 2008). Additionally, Bouckenooghe (2010) argues that statements made on collective or organisational level attitudes are often based on individual level data. This concern is also expressed by Paul et al. (2012) by
questioning whether it is possible to aggregate individual measurements on attitudes to the collective level. Finally, as is noted by Vakola (2013), groups can have a
powerful effect on members’ behaviour, beliefs and values; group readiness to change is neglected in the literature. All in all, it seems there is a lack of empirical research on the reciprocal mechanisms of influence between the individual level and the organisational or group level attitudes toward change.
In sequel, change studies often are focused on the change agent despite the fact that one antecedent on which recipients base their attitudes toward change is their
interaction with the change agent (Ford et al., 2008). Ford and Ford (1995) pointed at the change agent influence on the recipient’s process of making sense of an
even in the face of obstacles (Laura et al. 2002). In considering the influential mechanisms between individual- and group- or organisational level attitudes toward change, a gap in literature prevails of research on the change agent’s self-efficacy and his or her belief in the ability to steer these mechanisms. Therefore, this study will provide insights on the ability of change agents to influence the reciprocal
mechanisms between individual level and group level attitudes toward change.
In summary, this research tries to fill the literature gap in before mentioned topics. Primarily, the goal is to provide more insight in the reciprocal mechanisms between individual- and collective attitudes toward change. As is already mentioned by Bouckenooghe (2010) and Vakola (2013), more empirical research is needed to further clarify this relationship. Rafferty (2013) and Bouckenooghe (2010) suggest addressing questions as “What mechanisms underlie the transition of individual
readiness for change into a strong collective readiness for change? How changeable are individual and collective attitudes toward change”. Furthermore, the perceived
efficacy of the change agent to influence and steer the relationship between individual- and collective readiness for change will be taken into account. Does it help to achieve collective readiness for change experiencing a high level of self-efficacy as being a change agent and what are the differences in behavior and beliefs compared to change agents with a lower level of efficacy? Is self-efficacy of the change agent contributing to the creation of readiness for change at individual and collective level and in turn, how will it affect the relationship between individual- and collective level attitudes toward change? In order to provide answers to these
questions, the main research question of this study is outlined below:
How is leadership self-efficacy related to individual- and collective readiness for change and how does it affect the interplay between individual- and collective attitudes toward change?
Sub-questions in deriving an answer to the research question are:
• What mechanisms underlie the transition of individual attitudes toward change into collective attitudes toward change and vica versa?
• How does high/low perceived leader efficacy affect individual and/or collective attitudes toward change?
2. Literature review
In order to answer the research- and sub-questions posed in the previous section, a brief summary of existing literature on the main topics addressed in this study is required. Attitudes toward change will be approached from a general, individual and collective perspective. The most prevalent antecedents of attitudes toward change on individual and collective level will be reviewed as well as the relationship between both levels of attitudes toward change. Also, existing implications of leader efficacy are delineated. The literature review will be concluded with a conceptual framework on which this study is founded.
2.1 Attitudes toward change
Attitudes towards change in general consist of a person’s cognitions about change, affective reactions to change, and behavioral tendency toward change (Vakola and Nikolaou, 2005) where change is ‘a situation that interrupts normal patterns of
organisation and calls for participants to enact new patterns, involving interplay of deliberate and emergent processes that can be highly ambiguous’ (Mintzberg and
Waters, 1985). The reaction of employees to such changes will be influenced by how a specific change has touched their lives. This notion is supported by Piderit’s (2000) argument that individuals often exhibit resistance because of the anticipated impact change will have on them personally, rather than resisting the change itself.
Three dimensions of attitudes; the cognitive, emotional, and intentional are distinguished. This conception is known as the tripartite view of attitudes (Ajzen, 1984). The cognitive dimension is related to an individual’s or group’s beliefs about the change, as described by Elizur and Guttman (1976), opinions about its advantages or disadvantages, usefulness, and necessity, and about the knowledge and information required to operate it. The emotional, or affective dimension, refers to a greater or lesser feeling of being linked to, satisfied with, or anxious about the change. At last, the intentional or behavioral dimension concerns the actions taken or which may be taken in the future for or against the object of change, thus adopting an instrumental response (Bouckenooghe, 2010).
readiness for change was introduced by Jacobsen in 1957 (Bouckenhooghe, 2010). As from then onward, the positive–negative mindset in attitudes toward change research has been a fact, where readiness and resistance to change are the most used attitudes toward change in literature. Bouckenooghe (2010) and Choi (2011) provide for several other constructs that have entered the stage in studies on attitudes toward change: cynicism about organisational change, openness to change, coping with
change, acceptance of change, commitment to change, and adjustment to change.
Because of the fact that before mentioned constructs overlap or ‘at least represent the
core essence’ (Bouckenooghe, 2010) under the umbrella of attitudes toward change,
the following section delineates these constructs in more detail by focusing on individual attitudes toward change.
2.2 Individual attitudes toward change
The majority of studies indicate that attitudes are individual level concepts; however, they can be shared at collective levels (i.e., team or organisation). In addition,
attitudes have been mainly examined in an episodic change context by means of quantitative variance research (Bouckenooghe, 2010). In the following section, the most prevalent concepts of attitudes toward change are addressed from the
perspective of the individual level.
Readiness for change
The term ‘readiness’ is used to reflect three different concepts: individual readiness to change such as confidence in one’s abilities (self-efficacy); perceived organisational readiness to change, such as confidence in organisational ability to manage the change; and the actual organisational readiness to change, which is the organisation’s ability to implement changes (Vakola, 2013). Individual readiness to change is
explained by Vakola (2013) as the situation where an employee may be more likely to engage in change, if he or she feels ready and willing to support change, has
confidence in his/her ability to succeed in change, perceives his/her organisation as ready and capable of implementing the change, and perceives his/her group or social environment as supportive of such initiative(s). In addition, as is stated by Armenakis et al. (1993); readiness is reflected in organisational members’ beliefs, attitudes and
Armenakis (2007) and Oreg et al. (2011) extended the work on individual readiness for change by identifying five beliefs underlying an individual’s change readiness. As he argues, an initiative for change must create a sense of discrepancy, clarify why the change is appropriate, establish a sense of efficacy, establish principal support and
valence. Where discrepancy and appropriateness are cognitions related to ‘the need
for change’, efficacy relates to the individual’s perceived ability to implement a change initiative, principal support the belief that the individual’s organisation will provide tangible support, and valence to the evaluation of the individual on whether the change inclines costs or benefits on his or her job and role.
At last, readiness for change was defined as a comprehensive attitude that is
influenced simultaneously by the content, the process, the context and the individuals involved (Holt et al. 2007). Holt (2007) states that readiness is reflected by the extent to which an individual or individuals are cognitively and emotionally inclined to accept, embrace, and adopt a particular plan to purposefully alter the status quo. This reflection is, consequently, influenced by the individual’s current and future affective and emotional responses to a specific change event (Rafferty et al., 2013).
Resistance to change
Although the importance of readiness is regularly discussed, it has seldom been recognized as distinct from resistance (Armenakis et al. 1993). However, explicit definitions of ‘resistance to change’ exist. Peiperl’s (2005, p. 348) definition of resistance to change is that of “active or passive responses on the part of a person or
group that militate against a particular change, a program of changes, or change in general”. This definition is eleborated by Erwin and Garman (2010, p. 42),
explaining that resistance can be viewed as “multi-dimensional; involving how
individuals behave in response to change (behavioral dimension), what they think about the change (cognitive dimension), and how they feel about the change (affective dimension)”.
A final remark on resistance to change can be made in relation to the intensity of resistance. A strong case can be made that acceptance of change and rejection of change (commitment and resistance) are not only important change management issues but also represent two poles of a continuum (Johnson, 1991). The phases between these two poles are from passive resistance, indifference, to active resistance (Coetsee, 1999).
Commitment to change
Commitment to change is a force that binds an individual to a course of action deemed necessary for the successful implementation of a change initiative
(Herzkovitch and Meyer, 2002). Bouckenooghe (2010) describes three dimensions of commitment to change; affective-, continuance-, and normative commitment to change. Where the affective dimension expresses the willingness to support the change originating from the belief in a beneficial outcome, the continuance dimension relates to the recognition that costs are associated with failure to provide support for the change. The normative dimension encompassess the sense of obligation that the individual experiences for supporting the change.
Additionally, commitment to change described in the article by Bouckenooghe (2010), delineates the notion of support for change from the definition of acceptance
of change by (Coetsee, 1999). Where commitment is acquired through empowerment;
giving employees the power to make decisions about their work, involvement; by extending the concept of rewards to “rewards and recognition” and shared visions; shared values and goals.
Openness to change
Cynicism toward change and coping with change
Cynicism to organisational change is, similar to openness to change, comprised out of two parts; pessimism about future change to be successful and blaming those
responsible – management – for one’s pessimism (Choi, 2011). Cynicism to change is conceptually different from more general forms of cynicism; it is more associated with the intention to resist change.
The concept of coping with change refers to a person’s cognitive and
intentional/behavioural efforts to manage the internal or external demands of the person–environment transaction when it is appraised as taxing or exceeding a person’s resources (Bouckenooghe, 2010). In other words, change is viewed as a major stressor that can be dealt with through cognitive and behavioral problem-focused strategies.
2.3 Collective attitudes toward change
In determining the target of change one of the dualities that is central, and at the same represents one of the key building blocks in organisational development, is the
distinction between individual-level versus collective-level focus (Bouckenooghe, 2010). Following Coghlan (1994, p. 18), who stated that ‘articles that focus on how
individuals resist change tend to be deficient or one-sided in that they deal with the individual in isolation from the group with which the individual may identify’
(Vakola, 2013). Rafferty et al. (2013) consequently argue that a work group’s change readiness and an organisation’s change readiness attitude emerge from the cognitions and affects of individuals that become shared because of social interaction processes that manifest as higher level collective phenomena: work group- and organisational readiness for change. They propose that a work group’s change readiness and an organisation’s change readiness are influenced by (1) shared cognitive beliefs among work group- or organisational members (a) that change is needed, (b) that the work group or organisation has the capability to successfully undertake change, (c) that change will have positive outcomes for the work group or organisation and by (2) the occurrence of current and future-oriented positive group- or organisational emotional responses to an organisational change. Finally, as Vakola (2013) states; ‘group
group will benefit from change outcomes and (4) the group has the capacity to cope with change requirements’.
When work group members interact with each other, over time each individual in that group converges on a consensual view of events and key features of the workplace (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). This is a result of observations that individuals in teams or groups make, and the fact that they are exposed to a range of top-down processes that produce a common set of stimuli. Top-down processes may include the leaders, organisational events, and processes that all group members experience and make sense of (Rafferty et al., 2013). In addition to writers who propose a direct link between collective attitudes and individual sensemaking efforts, others indirectly confirm this linkage by arguing that collective belief is developed through shared individual beliefs that change will have positive outcomes, and that this belief is reinforced by the belief of a need for change. While Vakola (2013) and Raffery et al. (2013) specifically focus on readiness for change and sensemaking, Bouckenooghe (2010) approaches collective attitudes toward change more superficially. As he maintains; ‘the strengths of an individual attitude of resistance or support that is
shared by a team or group of individuals determines the collective atitude toward change’.
2.4 Antecedents of individual and collective attitudes toward change
On the individual level, a multiplicity of antecedents may be identified from the before mentioned, most prevalent individual attitudes. However, research by
Armenakis & Bedeian (1999) reveals that on the individual level, three general factors are of major importance in shaping recipient reactions to change; context, content and
process.
The change specific content is related to the reactions of change recipients. When change is expected to have significant influence on the change recipient’s life or work situation, the chance of positive reactions is less likely. When the influence of a change effort on the recipient’s situation will have less impact, their responses can be more positive (Self et al., 2007). In the change readiness domain, Rafferty et al. (2013) describe this phenomenon by the fact that employees will report less positive beliefs about change and less positive affective responses to change. Which
individual is ready for change. The influence of change is mainly determined by the type and nature of the change effort; transformational or incremental e.g. (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999).
Circumstances and conditions of the organisations’ internal and external environment shape the contextual antecedent of individual attitudes (Self et al., 2007). Rafferty et al. (2013) identified individual’s perceptions of his or her change history in a firm, an individual’s exposure to change, perceived organisational support, the perceived congruence of values between change agents, and change recipients and employees’ perceptions of an organisations’ values as important internal contributors to the contextual antecedent. Unfortunately, it seems there is little research done on the external contributors to the contextual antecedent of individual attitudes toward change.
The third antecedent of individual attitudes toward change is the process. As the change process is studied widely (Oreg et al. 2011), there is much information about how change can be conducted and what tools and methods are used by change agents. Effective communication during a change effort is recognized as essential for a successful change process. Besides communicating the change, possibilities for the change recipients to participate and to be actively involved during the change process are vital contributors to the change process (Rafferty et al., 2013, Devos et al., 2007).
Bouckenooghe (2010) takes another perspective on collective attitudes toward change and explains them in more general terms; resistance or support toward change by a team or group of individuals. He further argues that a group’s attitude toward change is consequently determined by the strength of one or several shared attitudes among a collective of individuals.
Several antecedents of collective attitudes can be distinguished from both perspectives. Under the collective emotional responses of change recipients, antecedents may include task- and social interdependence, the frequency and continuity of contact, mood regulation norms, identification with the work group, commitment to the group and work group climate. Social comparison and social contagion, where individuals use cues from similar others and try to influence the emotions and behaviors of others, are important in collective emotional responses and the formation of attitudes (Rafferty et al., 2013). In addition to the change readiness literature, the work of King and Anderson (1995) identified group cohesiveness, social norms, participation in decision-making and autonomy for self determination of actions as sources of group resistance. The articulation of a group-level vision by a group leader, in combination with displaying emotional aperture, may be a method to overcome such resistance.
Collective attitudes are also shaped by organisational level factors (Rafferty et al. 2013). On the cognitive level, organisational socialization processess assist in the likelihood that organisational members will develop common interpretations of events in their workplace. Rafferty et al. (2013) argue that socialization processes will
contribute to a shared understanding regarding key beliefs about change events and that these beliefs act as proximal antecedents of employees’ collective evaluative judgment that an organisation is ready for change. On the affective level,
transformational and charismatic leadership might play a role in shaping collective attitudes toward change (Oreg & Berson, 2011). The establishment of a clear vision of the future create similar beliefs or interpretations about change events. Finally,
2.5 Interplay between individual and collective attitudes toward change
Literature on attitudes toward change is often focused on the change agent and the individual level (Ford et al., 2008). In order to extend existing literature on attitudes toward change, and to better understand the interplay between individual- and
collective attitudes toward change, researchers often use individual level data to make statements about an organisation’s readiness for change (Bouckenooghe, 2010). They thus aggregate information obtained from individual level analysis to derive
conclusions about collective level attitudes. Ostroff (1993) finds this problematic, because ‘relationships that hold at one level of analysis may be stronger or weaker at
a different level of analysis and may, in fact, even reverse’. Rafferty et al. (2013)
therefore argue that more empirical research needs to be done to the interrelationships between individual- and collective attitudes toward change, where Vakola (2013) proposes to study the underlying dynamics and relationship between the attitudes on individual and collective level because; Perceptions of organisational readiness to
change may be affected by the state of individual readiness to change (Vakola, 2013:
100).
The commonality between individuals’ schemata leads to an enacted reality (Weick, 1995) at group level in the form of routines, rituals, systems, norms, assumptions and beliefs. This is a social process which Weick (1995), drawing upon Wiley (1988), refers to as the level of inter-subjective sensemaking. It is where ‘Individual
representations (thoughts, feelings, “intentions”) become merged or synthesized; not directly into supra-interactive structures, but into face-to-face conversations and interactions’ (Wiley, 1988: 258). In 2013, Rafferty et al. (2013) refined this statement
by arguing that collective attitudes might be the shared belief of the social interaction and communication process between individuals that share their cognitions and affects about a change. The cognitive and affective dimensions of the interrelationship between individual- and collective attitudes is, untill now, most prominently
attitudes toward change consequently affect attitudes toward change at the individual level. As is described above, change recipients attitudes toward change are derived from both personal reflection and through conversations and interactions with others. As Cummings (2004) explains, ‘groups can have a powerful effect on group
members’ behavior, beliefs and values by exerting pressure on members to conform to group norms, which may in turn result in group behavior. This can be related to the
study of George (1990), who found that individual characteristics are associated with the level of positive or negative group affectivity and with the overall emotional tone of group interaction. In short, group dynamics such as the pressure of conformity to a norm, affectivity and emotional tone may influence and affect change recipient’s individual attitude toward change, especially when they strongly identify with the group (Vakola, 2013). In an attempt to contribute to, and expand existing literture, this paper will further investigate these transitional mechanisms between individual- and collective attitudes toward change.
2.6 Leader Self-Efficacy
Many strategies, tools and tactics are used by change agents to give meaning to specific change requirements. Hereby, they try to influence the attitudes of change recipients. Szabla (2007), e.g., investigated the relationship between the perception of change leadership strategy by change recipients and their attitude toward change along emotional, cognitive and intentional dimensions. In last-mentioned study, a distinction is made between three leadership strategies for planned change;
rational-empirical, normative-reeducative and power-coercive. Where the strategies applied
are related to reason and logic, participation and involvement, and power and
dependancy of the recipients respectively. It is important to note that change agents
may believe they employ a specific strategy, while change recipients perceive this particular strategy of influence tactics as a different strategy (Szabla, 2007).
Besides the three leadership strategies distinguished by Szabla (2007), Higgs and Rowland (2011) did research on leader behavior and its consequences for change success. They also divided leader behavior into three categories; shaping behavior,
framing behavior and creating behavior. Here, shaping behavior of the leader is
herein is to guide and communicate, manage and design the journey from a starting point toward the goal of the change. In creating behavior, the leader is concerned with establishing the necessary capabilities to change on individual and organisational level. The leader functions as a connector between individuals and departments, and communicates the objectives of the change. As Higgs and Rowland (2010, 2011) conclude in their studies; ‘Leaders need to be aware of the systems underpinning
behavior in the organisation’ and; Evidence suggests that leaders need to focus efforts on doing change wíth people rather than doing change to them’.
This focus of efforts on doing change wíth people is also stressed by Battilana et al. (2010) in their research on leadership competencies for implementing planned organisational change. They use the task-oriented and person-oriented behaviors model from Bass (1990) to analyse leadership competencies. Person-oriented behaviors are described as behaviors that promote collaborative interaction among organisational members, establish a supportive social climate, and promote
management practices that ensure equitable treatment of organisational members (Battilana et al., 2010). Moreover, person-oriented behaviors rely on the ability to show consideration for others as well as to take into account one's own and others' emotions (Gerstner and Day, 1997). These interpersonal skills enable leaders to motivate and direct followers.
Therefore, today's organisations need to be able to identify individuals who are motivated to confront organisational inertia and spearhead continuous improvement effort (Paglis & Green, 2002). Perceptions of leadership self-efficacy (LSE) are, related to the organisational ability to identify above-mentioned individuals, an important source of a manager's motivation for taking on the difficult task of
attempting change initiatives. Self-efficacy is defined as an estimate of one's ability to orchestrate performance through successfully executing the behaviors that are
LSE is a person's judgment that he or she can successfully exert leadership by setting a direction for the work group, building relationships with followers in order to gain their commitment to change goals, and working with them to overcome obstacles to change (Paglis and Green, 2002).
Leadership self-efficacy is thus measured alongside three dimensions; direction
setting, building relationships and commitment, and to overcome obstacles. From the
LSE-model (Paglis and Green, 2002: 217), four types of antecedents of LSE can be derived; individual antecedents which may include successful experiences in leadership roles or a high level of self-esteem; subordinate antecedents which may include cynicism about change and performance characteristics; superior antecedents which include leadership modelling and coaching, and organisational antecedents; which include support for change, resource supply and job autonomy.
Cawsey et al. (2012) point out that successful change leadership is not only a matter of personality, or having the right personal attributes; it is rather a combination of the person who leads the change, the vision for the outcomes of change, and the situation wherein the change will take place. However, this study will merely focus on the personal attributes of the change agent, specifically on his or her level of self-efficacy, simply because this aspect is not yet fully addressed in literature. Consequently, self-efficacy of the change agent will be related to the interplay between individual- and collective level attitudes toward change. In the following section, a conceptual framework for this study is presented.
2.7 Theoretical framework
With the theoretical constructs mentioned in the theoretical background, a conceptual framework can be derived. The purpose of this study is to clarify how these concepts are related by posing the following research question;
How is leadership self-efficacy related to individual- and collective readiness for change and how does it affect the interplay between individual level and collective level attitudes toward change?
Figure 1 - Conceptual Framework
3. Methodology
3.1 Case study
There is not much literature about the influence of leadership self-efficacy on group- and individual attitudes towards change. Therefore, an explorative study is conducted in order to develop and extend theory on this subject. Because the emphasis of this study is on knowledge generation, and thus the ‘how’ question, the appropriate form of research is a case study (Yin, 2009). This particular research design is focused on explaining how collective- and individual attitudes towards change, and their
interplay, are influenced by leadership self-efficacy. Eisenhardt’s (1989) work is used as a guide along this research.
3.2 Research site and case selection
The research is conducted at a physiotherapy clinic in Groningen named Medisch Centrum Zuid – Flytta (MCZ-Flytta). The clinic has its main office in Groningen, however, it also has an annexe in Haren, near Groningen. The clinic employs 48 people of which the majority is active at the location in Groningen. Six of the 48 employees are the ‘main members’, or board of directors, of the clinic (in Dutch: de maatschap). The organisation has grown exponentially over the past two years. This resulted in an increase of employees from 11 to the current number of 48. Among others, this organisational growth compelled the clinic to operate more formally, entailing the implementation of new organisational structures and procedures. For the change agents this included an enrichment of their jobs and a shift in the tasks for which they are held responsible.
Previously, there were no formally written rules and regulations regarding the way of working at the clinic, nor extensive quality control systems on the provision of medical services by the clinic. The board of directors at the clinic (in Dutch: de maten) made decisions predominantly “in the hallway” without application of formal consultation structures or formal consensus. Due to the desire to supply
giving these two main members management responsibilities, their daily tasks expanded and changed significantly. However, they do not have any managerial experience or background. Furthermore, a managerial department was created to coordinate operational, HRM and project issues.
The combination of exponential growth of the organisation and a lack of knowledge and experience in managing a formal business organisation called for the assistance of an external consulting agency (Estafette), providing guidance to the board during the formalisation of the clinic. The lack of management experience of the daily board and lack of knowledge on formal businesses provided a case to investigate the influence of leadership self-efficacy on attitudes towards change. The two members of the daily board are thus representing the leaders, or change agents. All other participants in this study are considered change recipients.
3.3 Data collection
The research initiated in the final week of 2015 with an informative meeting with one of the change agents and by distributing a ‘press release’ to all employees within the organisation. The message was sent by mail and informed everyone in the
organisation about the purpose, theme and design of the research. Data collection was completed on January 16, 2016.
Interviewees were selected in cooperation with someone from the administration department in order to create a distributed sample; interviewees consisted of
employees from all departments including the daily board, administration department, management and the general physiotherapy practitioners or professionals.
Furthermore, the length of employment or state of service of the employee was considered during the creation of the sample.
In total, 14 semi-structured interviews were conducted of which two interviews with
change agents (the daily board) and twelve interviews with change recipients,
Both deductive and inductive codes were used, they can be found in the attachments (Appendix 2). Furthermore, a chain of evidence is created to account for a
chronological overview of the case by means of dispositioning research participants’ quotations (Appendix 5).
Research instrument Type of actor Number of respondents Code Semi-structured
interviews
Change Agent 2 CA1, CA2
Semi-structured interviews Change Recipients Professionals 9 R1-R3, R5-R10 Semi-structured interviews Change Recipients Managerial Department 1 R4 Semi-structured interviews Change Recipients Administration Department 2 R11-R12
Survey Change Recipients 26
Table 1 - Case overview
Secondary data was gathered by distributing a survey with statements related to the concepts of interest in this study, shown in the theoretical framework. The survey consisted of 52 statements (Appendix 3). Statements were Likert-scaled along five scales ranging from strong disagreement to strong agreement respectively. Moreover, average accumulated scores on all statements were calculated (Appendix 4). There were 26 anonymous respondents on the surveys; it is estimated that approximately five respondents on the survey also participated in an interview.
3.4 Quality criteria
Efforts have been made to ensure that this research complies to controllability, reliability and validity criteria. As is generally known, it is important to establish inter-subjective agreement during academic research, which refers to a commonly agreed upon idea; consensus about ‘the truth’ by all individuals affected by or related to the study (Swanborn, 1996). Inter-subjective agreement is obtained when peer researchers agree with the study’s methodology and when controllability, reliability and vailidity are warranted (van Aken et al., 2012).
research. The possibility to replicate this study is therefore guaranteed. Lastly, this study is published.
4. Results
The data derived from the fourteen semi-structured interviews and distributed surveys is analysed and presented in this section. The section is structured along the concepts investigated in this research, individual attitudes toward change, collective attitudes
toward change and leadership self-efficacy.
First, an analysis of the gathered data is given for each of the concepts seperately. Prevailing patterns from the data will be presented and described. In the presentation of the results, it is clearly announced from which type of participant the data is originating; change agents or change recipients. Moreover, it is always mentioned which instrument is used to obtain the particular data. Analysis of the data obtained from the semi-structured interviews is presented first, data from the surveys is presented subsequently.
Second, the relationship or interplay between the constructs is explained. This means that ‘the arrows’ between the constructs shown in the conceptual framework are further analysed. Besides the influence of leadership self-efficacy on both individual- and collective attitudes toward change that is discussed, its influence on the
transitional mechanisms between individual- and collective attitudes toward change is eleborated.
Third, the findings prevailing from the semi-structured interviews will be
complemented with data from the surveys. The surveys are excusively distributed to 26 change recipients, from which approximately five respondents also participated in an interview. Therefore, data from the surveys is solely used to enrich the data from the semi-structured interviews.
Finally, the goal of the results section is to give an in depth understanding of the constructs and their interrelationships. A distinction between the two change agents is made in all relevant paragraphs in order to describe the differences and effects of leadership self-efficacy on attitudes toward change and the transitional mechanisms between individual- and collective attitudes toward change.
4.1 Individual attitudes toward change
readiness and change resistance are shown. Quotations from participants are added to the text to support the analysis. Finally, relevant results from the survey data are presented.
The physiotherapy clinic experienced some significant developments in several areas the past two to three years. First of all, the main members of the clinic decided that the clinic’s operations should conform to new HKZ criteria concerning quality management, this in relation to the healthcare services offered by the organisation. Second, MCZ merged with Flytta, another fysiotherapy clinic with valuable
experience and knowledge in the field of physio healthcare. The merger caused the number of employees to grow exponentially. Lastly, the implementation of a more formal business structure was initiated, changing the structure of the organisation and work related procedures and processes. In addition, the desired formal business structure resulted in shifts in tasks of specific employees: two of the six main members (board of directors) are appointed to form a daily board, and a managerial department was established to arrange processes concerning human resources.
Within this environment full of developments, there is much to tell about the attitudes toward the change project of the various individuals active at the organisation. In the results presented, a major distinction is made between the two change agents and the change recipients. However, there are also differences within the group of change recipients. A distinction can be made between the healthcare professionals, the managerial staff (HRM) and the administration department. It is important to note existing differences between the change recipients. The core business of the organisation is provided by the professionals: physiotherapy healthcare. The managerial- and administration departments support the healthcare professionals in their work and facilitate organisational processes and procedures.
Readiness for change
The healthcare professionals at MCZ – Flytta have a positive attitude toward the initiated changes at the clinic; eight out of nine professionals is very ready to change and work on a common organisational vision and mission. On the cognitive
“The direction of the company is unknown, nobody knew anything about any future organisational development aspired by the board of directors”
The belief that a change toward a common direction is required, is strongly present. Two out of nine professionals even state it is essential to establish common
organisational objectives. In other words, the content of the change is perceived by the professionals as highly relevant. As much as five out of nine professionals mentioned the Dutch expression “de neuzen dezelfde kant op krijgen”, which can be translated to “it is important to establish a common direction”.
On the affective dimension, six of the professionals mention to feel ready and willing to support the change project. This is mainly due to a large amount of newly hired professionals (6 out of 9 interviewed professionals), who are young and open-minded regarding innovative work processes and new organisational structures. Because the young professionals are relatively inexperienced, they have a more flexible attitude toward new initiatives than the professionals with a longer state of service. As R10 states:
“Employees with a longer state of service at the clinic sometimes have the feeling they deserve to have particular priveleges within the organisation”
Consequently, four professionals clearly state to feel confident to succeed in the change project personally and that the social environment within the organisation is supportive regarding the change initiative. Moreover, seven interviewed professionals estimate that the organisation is capable to undertake the change. The feeling of an appropriate social environment, as three of the professionals argue, is mainly caused by the staff meeting in December and the group of young professionals that is recently hired. The staff meeting in December is the event where the change project was announced in presence of all organisational members, and where a follow-up meeting regarding the change project was planned.
about “why things are done in a particular way instead of just focusing on what we
do at the organisation” (R5).
On behalf of the managerial department, R4 displays a positive general attitude toward the change project. On the cognitive dimension he states to belief that “the
creation of a common vision, mission and objectives will contribute to the reputation of the clinic as an expert centre in physiotherapy”. Moreover, R4 feels there is a need
for clarity of structures and procedures within the organisation. Tasks and
responsibilities are not clearly defined nowadays which, as he describes, results in a feeling of “agitation”. Intentionally, R4 is very willing to engage in the change and contribute to the project. As he eleborates;
“I like to describe my role within the project as one of an ambassador, being the connection between the professionals and the daily board”
Lastly, the change recipients from the administration department are also enthusiast about the initiation of this change project. As is described by R11;
“I think it is important to recreate a sense of teamspirit among all the organisational members”
Additionally, R12 states that “the direction of the organisation is lost, establishing a
common vision is very important to get back on track”. Within the affective
dimension, R12 feels to be recognized again by the daily board for the efforts made by the administration department. As R12 argues:
“I sometimes have the feeling that our contribution to the organisation is underestimated and sometimes forgotten, however, within the change project I have
the feeling my opinion counts again”
R3 “I experienced the announcement of the project as very positive. Personally, I think it is of greater importance to discover ‘why’ we are doing certain things instead of just knowing ‘what’ we do”
R5 “I feel more free to share my opinion after the project has been announced, I think that equality between the organisational members is emphasized with the start of this project, which contributes to the success of this project”
R6 “I think it would be good for the organisation to stabalize after a chaotic period of time, if a common vision is necessary to bring back tranquility within the organisation, that is fine with me”
R7 “I enjoyed the staff meeting where the change project was announced. I am new in the organisation, it was nice to hear from others how they think about the organisation and think about how the organisation should develop”
R9 “It is definitely important to establish a common organisational direction”
R10 “The clinic has grown rapidly, however, the organisation did not structurally adjust to the increase in employees and patients”
Table 2 – Quotes on individual level readiness toward change
Resistance to change
As is described above, in general, the individual attitudes of all change recipients are positive regarding the change project. However, three of the twelve interviewed change recipients mentioned to have slightly cynical or negative thoughts or feelings related to the project. As the constructs of change ‘readiness’ and ‘resistance’ are central tenets along this research, this paragraph revolves around some of the less positive reactions on the change initiative at the clinic.
The reactions from the interviewed change recipients with a longer state of service at the clinic slightly differed from the reactions of the other interviewees. Most prevalent under the professionals with a longer state of service is the cognition that the project is “just another initiative without direction and purpose” (R9). As past initiatives at the organisation were ended without further notification to the organisational
members, the interviewees with more experience at the clinic display a slightly cynical tone in their opinion on this change project regarding a common
organisational vision. Moreover, after the departure of some employees in the period before the project was initiated, one of the professionals mentioned to be more careful nowadays in sharing her opinion within the organisation (R6):
“I am not sure if I can, or want to, speak freely and share my opinions during the change project. In the past, sharing an uncensored, work-related opinion had very
negative effects sometimes for the person sharing the opinion”
argued to experience a social environment ready to change, all twelve change recipients who were interviewed admitted that communication and transparancy within the organisation needs to improve. The individually perceived organisational readiness to change is thus lower, however, it does not result in active resistance toward the change project or undermining behavior.
Finally, two professionals mentioned to have difficulties with new organisational processes and procedures related to the change project. A formal quality management system was introduced, which resulted in negative thoughts about changes at the organisation:
R6: “Nowadays, all operational output needs to be translated into graphs, it needs to
be numerically presented. When the numbers under the line are green, everything goes well, when the numbers are red… We have a problem. I still do not agree with
this mindset in an organisation that provides healthcare”
In summary, individual attitudes toward the change project are generally positive among all change recipients. Some change recipients with a longer state of service at the clinic experience cynical or slightly negative cognitions and emotions regarding the change project. However, no active resistance is found and there certainly is an intention to engage in the change project under all interviewed change recipients.
R4 “With the recent growth of the organisation, it became necessary to communicate in a more formal fashion. Although formal communication within the organisation is still in
development, I think it works better than the informal practices from the past”
R6 “Communication within the organisation needs to improve. I have no idea what the daily board does”
R6 “I think the daily board is doing better during the start of this project than they did in all previous projects”
R9 “In the recent past many colleagues have left the organisation, I am sensitive to such organisational fusses, I hope this project results in more stability”
R9 “In this new project, I do not want to be the one who takes initiative”
R12 “Previous initiatives were suddenly disrupted and not continued or completed”
R12 “There are certainly structures and other issues causing the formulation of a common organisational vision to be problematic, especially concerning clarity in tasks and responsibilities, but also in communcation”
Table 3 - Quotes on individual level resistance toward change
Survey results on individual attitudes toward change
organisation. Change recipients are interested in the content and objectives of the change and in getting involved in the project. Cognitions and beliefs among the change recipients about the effects of the change are positive.
The context and processes of the change are perceived by some change recipients as ambiguous. However, all change recipients valued the staff meeting in December and appreciate it when they remain informed about progress of the project. Also, the posibility to participate in the project would be valued by the change recipients.
Regarding individual feelings and affects toward the project, a minority of the change recipients indicate to experience sceptic thoughts. Several statements regarding the individual attitudes toward change are presented below in table 4, accumulated scores range from strong disagreement (1 point) to strong agreement (5 points). More survey results can be found in Appendix 4.
Statement nr. Full statement Accumulated
score (scale 1-5) 3 Het formuleren van een gezamelijke ‘why’ is noodzakelijk 4,4 15 Ik vind het belangrijk dat er een duidelijke en eenduidige visie
voor de organisatie is
4,5 18 Het formuleren van een gezamenlijke ‘why’ zal een positief
effect hebben op het functioneren van de organisatie
4,5 30 Ik vind het belangrijk op de hoogte gehouden te worden van
vorderingen omtrent het formuleren van de gezamenlijke ‘why’
4,1 32 De doelstellingen omtrent het formuleren van een gezamenlijke
‘why’ zijn voor mij heel duidelijk
3,3
Table 4 - Survey statement scores on individual attitudes toward change
4.2 Collective attitudes toward change
In the analysis of the collective attitudes toward change below, again, data from the semi-structured interviews is used first whereafter results from the survey follow. The change recipients represent ‘the collective’ in this research, quotes from interviewees are used to support the analysis.
findings, data is analysed and divided into paragraphs according to before mentioned dimensions.
Shared cognitive beliefs and affects
Although different cognitions regarding the change project prevail between the departments, the belief that change is needed exists among all change recipients. The healthcare professionals share the cognition that a common vision and mission would contribute to more organisational coherence and stronger cooperation. As R1 states:
“We would definitely benefit from increased and more efficient cooperation, we can learn a lot from each other here on the workfloor. Also, it would provide new insights
for the organisation as a whole”
The aspiration to cooperate more intensively exists exclusively among the group of professionals (9 out of 12 interviewed change recipients), five professionals
mentioned to perceive the perspective on better cooperation as an incentive to engage in the change project.
The most prevalent cognition regarding the change project among the three
interviewees from the supporting departments, is the belief that change is required to establish common organisational objectives. As R14 explains;
“We have lost our point of reference at the horizon, the organisation swings from left to right with ideas, initiatives and short-term objectives”
The cognition that change is needed to establish common organisational objectives, is also shared by four of the nine professionals.
Despite the fact there is a difference between the paramount beliefs regarding the need for change among the change recipients, ten interviewed change recipients have the feeling that the change project will have positive outcomes for the work group- or organisation. These positive outcomes vary from the belief that it will result in clearly redefined tasks and responsibilities, and the feeling it will establish more transparancy between all actors regarding interests, motivation and ambitions.
effects of our involvement in such initiatives at the workfloor previously”
R4 “For the organisation, the major objective is to create a common objective; for example that we want to become an expert centre”
R5 “We were completely blank regarding ideas about organisational objectives”
R5 “When we get familiar with each others ambitions and ideas about the organisation during the project, it would definitely contribute to our cooperation”
R6 “The organisation is changing rapidly without a clear direction”
R7 “Everyone works somehow for his own at the moment despite the fact we work in one and the same organisation, hopefully we can cooperate more when a common organisational vision is established”
R7 “We need to work as a team”
R11 “We need to get back the feeling of being a team”
R12 “We need to discuss where we want to go with the organisation”
Table 5 - Quotes on shared cognitive beliefs and affects
In short, a collective belief that there is a need for change exists among the change recipients. Because of the cognition that increased cooperation would benefit the group and the organisation, there is a collective intention and willingness to engage in the change project.
Collective ability to undertake change
Mixed responses are found on whether the group- and organisation is capable to conduct the change toward a common vision and mission. Two dimensions are dominant regarding this capability: a large amount of young professionals and the quality of communication within the organisation.
The recently hired group of young professionals (the specific number is unknown but is estimated around ten), have a flexible and open-minded attitude toward work processes and change initiatives at the organisation, which is perceived as increasing the ability of the group to undertake change by six of the interviewed change
recipients. Also, they do not have negative experiences with previous initiatives undertaken at the organisation.
R1: “We as young professionals have less experience in the field and at the
organisation, I think we therefore have a more open perspective on new practices and work structures”
However, literally all of the twelve interviewed change recipients mentioned that communication within the organisation needs to improve before the organisation is capable to undertake the change. Where communication is inadequate at all
R4: “Communication is paramount, previously there have been situations where
people did not receive or possess essential information, this has agitation and frustration as a consequence”
R1 “The young professionals are more open to changes”
R3 “Work needs to be done on communication, untill now, communication within the organisation has been insufficient or incomplete”
R3 “More attention should be given to the young professionals who are new here at the organisation”
R4 “Communication needs to improve”
R4 “It is a challenge not to make a distinction between people with a short state of service at the organisation and people with a longer state of service. People who have more experience at the organisation may be very willing to engage in changes as well”
R7 “Sometimes it takes a long time before something is communicated”
R8 “I see differences between people who are new at the organisation and people with a longer state of service”
R8 “I think the biggest obstacle in establishing a common organisational vision is miscommunication and misunderstandings within the organisation”
Table 6 – Quotes on collective ability to undertake change
In sum, the group capability to undertake the change is medium-high which is mainly due to the young professionals who have an open and flexible attitude toward change. However, the organisational ability to undertake change is low because of insufficient and ambiguous communication throughout the whole organisation.
Common stimuli for collective attitudes toward change
Common stimuli for collective attitudes prevail when individuals in groups are collectively exposed to top-down processes and when the individuals in the group make observations. Besides leadership, which will be discussed in detail later, two other top-down processes represent common stimuli for collective attitudes toward change: the staff meeting in December where the change project was announced, and the recently implemented quality management system.
This increased, as was mentioned by five change recipients, positive group cognitions and emotional affects regarding the change project.
R3: “Yes I attended the staff meeting, it was the kick-off of the project toward a
common organisational vision where everyone had the opportunity to share their motivation and ambition within the organisation”
Contrary to the positive influence of the staff meeting, the new quality management system that is implemented has a negative influence on the collective attitude toward change. The system is considered to be part of the change project at the organisation and four of the interviewed change recipients mentioned to have negative emotions regarding the system.
R7: “Next month there will be an audit, when we conform to all criteria it will feel as
a relief for everyone here at the organisation” R6 “Many people think that the new quality management system is a burden”
R7 “Everyone was positively surprised by the emotional aperture of the board of directors during the staff meeting”
R8 “Everyone was very enthusiast about the staff meeting”
R9 “After the staff meeting, everyone was very positive about the things that were discussed during the meeting. However, that enthusiasm has disappeared more or less to the background by now”
R9 “We have many administrative responsibilities which I do not like”
R10 “The staff meeting certainly created a more overt climate among the organisational members”
R11 “During the staff meeting we were given the opportunity to tell about our personal ideas regarding the future of the organisation”
Table 7 – Quotes on common stimuli for collective attitudes toward change
Survey results on collective attitudes toward change
Regarding patterns in the survey data on collective attitudes toward change, it can be stated that change recipients frequently interact with each other on social- and professional level. Cognitions, beliefs, but also affects are shared among change recipients. The accumulated survey scores are calculated and have a range from strong disagreement (1 point) to strong agreement (5 points).
Statement nr. Full statement Accumulated score (scale 1-5) 14 Ik wil graag betrokken worden bij het formuleren van een
gezamenlijke ‘why’
4,1 42 Het is mij bekend hoe mijn collega’s over bepaalde zaken
binnen de organisatie denken
4,0 44 Ik wil meer samenwerken met mijn collega’s 4,0
51 Ik word gemotiveerd door collega’s 4,2
52 Collega’s die enthousiast zijn over iets dat gebeurt op de werkvloer maken mij ook enthousiast
4,2
Table 8 – Survey statement scores on collective attitudes toward change
In conclusion, collective beliefs and affects regarding the change project exist within the organisation. The belief that change is needed prevails on collective level, and the common stimulus in the form of the staff meeting created positive group cognitions and emotional affects regarding the project. Whether the group- and organisation is capable to undertake the change is still in question, cognitions and beliefs are diversified on that dimension.
4.3 Leadership Self-Efficacy
This section of the results eleborates on the concept of leadership self-efficacy (LSE). Mainly data from the semi-structured interviews with the change agents is used, which is enriched by quotes from interviews with change recipients where relevant. This is important to underline the existence of different perceptions of LSE from the viewpoint of the leader and that of the change recipient. Therefore, the differences between CA1 and CA2 in their self-efficacy and opinions on the change project are described in seperate sections. Moreover, leadership self-efficacy is measured along three dimensions in this research, paragraphs are formed to present the findings within a specific dimension. At last, survey results on LSE of the daily board will be
presented.
4.3.1 LSE of Change Agent 1 (CA1) Direction setting
Within the dimension of direction setting, CA1 displays uncertainty regarding his capabilities. CA1 experiences the responsibility to set direction for the organisation and its members as difficult and frustrating. As he explains:
experience or background in organisational management, therefore, we now try to redefine the roles and tasks of all individuals in the organisation with the help of an
external consulting agency”
It is mentioned several times by CA1 that the organisation is in a dynamic phase of transition, where consciously steering the organisation is problematic. In giving direction to the organisation, CA1 experiences restraining factors at floor level and at board level. It is attempted by CA1 to find a balance between organisational direction setting and direction setting at floor level.
CA1: “I do not like the term ‘ivory tower’, it suggests a certain distance. However,
slightly more distance between me as part of the daily board and the professionals was simply necessary because we have a lack of time to focus on determining new policies. But I am aware of the fact it is important to maintain a connection with the
people at floor level.
And:
CA1: “The daily board spends too much time on minor issues at floor level, which
actually do not fall under the responsibility of the daily board”
The leadership skills to determine roles, tasks and responsibilities within the organisation are low under CA1. He is not capable of establishing agreement and consensus among the board of directors regarding the organisational direction. At floor level, ambuigity exists concerning tasks and responsibilities of individuals and organisational departments. In sum, it can be concluded that CA1 scores low on the dimension of direction setting.
CA1 “It is difficult for me to set direction within that process due to its dynamic, transitional nature”
CA1 “I have no experience or background in organisational management, therefore, we now try to redefine the roles and tasks of all individuals in the organisation with the help of an external consulting agency”
CA1 “We as a daily board are still in search for a more formal and professional business
structure. Specific roles of some people in the organisation remain unclear for me untill now”
CA1 “We linger in old practices and procedures”
CA1 “A common vision first needs to be established among the members of the board of directors before an organisational direction can be communicated to all organisational actors”
