READINESS FOR CHANGE

(1)

READINESS FOR CHANGE

THE EFFECT OF PERSONALITY TRAITS ON READINESS FOR CHANGE AND THE MODERATING ROLE OF EMPLOYEE VOICE

MASTER THESIS

MSC BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION –CHANGE MANAGEMENT

MSC HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN

FACULTY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS

February 20th_{, 2014} Word count: 12.683 Willemina Zoer S1698419 Tuinbouwstraat 126a 9717 JP Groningen Phone:+31630296246 E-mail:wilmazoer@gmail.com Supervisor - University Dr. H. Grutterink

(2)

2 | P a g e

ABSTRACT

Recipients’ reactions to organizational change are a main determinant of change success. Nevertheless, the role of the individual recipients in change success is often neglected. Individuals’ personalities may determine the different reactions toward change. Readiness for change, an attitude-related concept, is a reaction to change. Expected was that extraversion and openness to experience are personality traits that have a positive influence on readiness for change. The personality trait neuroticism was expected to have a negative influence on readiness for change. Also expected was that if recipients perceive employee voice, a communication strategy, the relation between the personality traits and readiness for change would be influenced. The aim of this study is to explore the relations between the three personality traits and readiness for change and the moderating effect of employee voice between these relations. Data was collected through a questionnaire in two Dutch healthcare organizations. A regression analysis with 84 respondents was used to test the hypotheses. Evidence was found for a positive relation between openness to experience and readiness, and voice and readiness for change. No evidence was found for the moderating effect of voice on the relation between the personality traits and readiness for change.

Key words: Readiness for change, change, personality traits, extraversion, openness to

(3)

3 | P a g e

1. INTRODUCTION

Change is an important part of organizational life. (Boukenooghe, Devos & Van den Broeck, 2009; Vakola, 2013; Armenakis & Bedeain, 1999; Armenakis, Harris & Mossholder, 1993). Organizations need to respond to changes in the environment, in order to create or continue a sustained competitive advantage and to survive in their industry (Holt & Vardaman, 2013). Kotter and Schlesinger (1979) argue that organizations should implement moderate organizational changes at least once a year, and should have major changes every four or five years. In the literature the statistics of change failures are dramatic, different researchers mentioned that 40-70 per cent of change projects fail (Beer & Nohria, 2000; By, 2005; Balogun & Hope Hailey, 2004; Isern & Pung, 2007). The frequency of organizational changes and their high failure rate make it an important topic.

A main determinant of change success is the reaction of recipients to organizational change (Oreg, Vakola & Armenakis, 2011; Jones, Jimmieson & Griffiths, 2005). Smith (2005) describes the recipients as ‘the targets of change’. In spite of their importance, the role of the individual recipient is often neglected (Choi, 2011; Armenakis et al., 1993). Oreg et al. (2011) summarize in their study different reactions to change of the recipients. Readiness for change is a reaction towards change. Accepting the change and weakening the extent of resistance means that there is readiness for change (Bouckenooghe et al., 2009). Readiness is an attitude-related concept in the organizational change literature (Bouckenooghe, 2010).

Boukenooghe (2010) argues that people have different characteristics and personalities and, therefore might differ in how they experience and react to change. Lau and Woodman (1995) and Vakola, Tsaousis, and Nikolaou (2003) argue that for studying individual differences in attitudes towards change, the big five personality traits are appropriate. Vakola’s et al. (2003) article is one of the few studies who examine the relationship between personality traits and readiness for change. They examine it as an indirect relation, with personal growth as mediator. Specific examination of the relationship between the personality traits and readiness for change has not been done yet. The big five consists of extraversion, agreeableness, openness to experience, conscientiousness, and neuroticisms (John, 1990; McCrae & John, 1992). The Five Factor Model (FFM) will be used in this research, because most personality traits individuals show are a component of one or more of the five dimensions (McCrae, 2011) and it is a commonly used model in studies about personalities (Deng, Liu, Li & Hu, 2013).

(5)

5 | P a g e

because people with this characteristic are mostly negative and it is expected that they have less readiness for change.

Change is stressful for the people who are involved (Armenakis & Bedeain, 1999). Stress can be reduced by employee participation (Karasek, 2004). A way to create a participatory work atmosphere is the use of open communication (Karaksek, 2004). Oreg et al. (2011) and Russ (2008) also mentioned that communication can influence the reaction of change recipients. Open communication means that employees can share their thoughts and opinions about their feelings of their ideas for changes and probably also the stress they experience (Karasek, 2004). In the human resource literature open communication is called “employee voice” (Wilkinson & Fay, 2011; Whiting, Maynes, Podsakoff & Podsakoff, 2012). Russ (2008) called this the participatory approach of communication during the implementation of change. When this communication strategy is applied there is a two-way communication flow. If employees have ‘voice’ in the organization, it means that they may give some input to their management or leader on proposed guidelines, policies, or rules.

In this research the concepts described above will be examined. It is expected that people with different personality traits will react differently towards readiness for change. Because, Vakola et al. (2003) already argued that personality traits can create differences in attitudes towards change. The effects of three personality traits (extraversion, openness to experience, and neuroticism) on readiness for change will be tested. After that the influence of employee voice on these relationships will be examined. The expectation is that voice will have a positive effect on the relationship between the personality traits and readiness for change, because voice can reduce stress during change (Karasak, 2004).

(6)

6 | P a g e

2. LITERATURE

REVIEW

2.1 R

EADINESS FOR CHANGE

The history of readiness for change can be found in the psychological and medical literature (Choi, 2011). Examination of readiness for change in the organizational literature is more recent (Choi, 2011; McKay et al., 2013). The definition of Armenakis et al. (1993) of readiness for change is used a lot in organizational literature: “As organizational members’ beliefs, attitudes and intentions regarding the extent to which changes are needed and the organization’s capacity to successfully make those changes”. It describes the perspectives recipients can have or create about a change project (McKay et al., 2013). Readiness for change exists when the organization and recipients adopt the change and resistance is reduced (Bouckenooghe et al., 2009). Recipients experience readiness for change when they observe the change process as necessary and achievable and when they are willing to support the process. Many researchers see readiness as one of the most important reactions to organizational change. A higher degree of readiness for change under the employees increases the chance that the change project will be successful.

Armenakis et al. (1993) see readiness as similar to the unfreezing stage from Lewin’s (1947) three stage change model. This model consists of the following stages: unfreeze, move, and refreeze. In the unfreeze process the recipients need to be influenced by trying to break with their well-established social habits.

However, according to Smith (2005) the unfreezing phase of Lewin (1947) is the first of three steps to achieve readiness. The first step Smith (2005) described is to ‘create a sense of need and urgency for change’. Recipients need to feel the need for a change. Creating urgency can result in a major crisis and can create stress by employees. It may be beyond the capacity of the organization and may even cause a dysfunctional organization. Implementers should be careful with this sometimes unavoidable approach (Smith, 2005). The second step is ‘communicating change messages and ensuring participation and involvement’. ‘Social energy’ plays a central role to attain a successful change. The third and last step is ‘providing anchoring points – building a base for change’. Recipients should know what their role will be during and after the change process. This last step is also described by Armenakis et al. (1993), recipients need to have the confidence that they possess the capabilities to cope with the change and they will accept the change if they believe, they can succeed in their new roles. Following the three phases an organization can achieve a ‘change-ready organisational culture and philosophy’ (Smith, 2005).

(7)

7 | P a g e

Holt, Armenakis, Field and Harris (2007) propose readiness as a multidimensional concept. Antecedents that have the most influence on readiness are appropriateness, change self-efficacy, management support and personal valence (Holt et al., 2007). Appropriateness refers to recipients, who believe and feel that the change will result in the desired state. Change self-efficacy is when recipients’ believe or feel that they do or do not have the skills, knowledge or ability to perform the activities related to the change to complete it successfully. Management support is if recipients feel that leaders and management are committed and support the change or not (Holt et al., 2007). The last factor personal valence is when recipients feel that they can receive benefits from the change or not.

Bouckenooghe et al. (2009) also consider readiness as a multidimensional concept. They distinguish three different dimensions of change: an emotional, cognitive, and intentional dimension. The emotional dimension is about the feelings recipients have towards the introduction of the change. A recipient can have enthusiastic feelings for the change but can also be frustrated. The intentional dimension regards the investment of effort or energy of recipients in the change, the actions recipients take for the change. Some recipients may try to convince other recipients to accept the change project. Beliefs and thoughts about the outcomes of the change are part of the cognitive dimension, the thought and beliefs can be positive or negative.

Piderit (2000) adopts a similar approach and distinguishes between the emotional, cognitive and behaviour state towards the change. The cognitive and emotional dimension is a consistent reaction someone shows in a change situation, the intentional dimension is related to a reaction in a specific change situation. In contrast to Boukenooghe et al. (2009), Piderit (2000) argue that the three dimensions are related to each other. Feelings, thoughts and behaviours are all related to readiness for change. Holt et al. (2007) and Bouckenooghe et al., (2009) see feelings and thoughts of recipients more as the central factors which result in readiness for change.

It can be concluded that in a lot of literature the feelings and thoughts of recipients towards a change project plays a crucial role in their willingness and readiness to change. Above is shown that different researchers see readiness for change as a reaction towards change. In this research the definition of Armenakis et al. (1993) will be used, so readiness will be seen as “the beliefs, attitudes, and intentions of organization members regarding the extent to which changes are needed and the organization’s capacity to successfully make the changes “. This definition overarches the explanations of other researchers about the readiness for change. For most people involved a change project is a stressful event (Bordia, Hunt, Paulse, Tourish, & DiFonzo, 2004; Pollard, 2001), personality can help explain how people cope with these situations and react to it (Bolger & Schilling, 1991; Bouckenooghe et al., 2009). Personality plays a central role in dealing with a change, and probably also affects readiness for change, therefore personality traits in relation to readiness will be introduced below.

2.2 R

EADINESS FOR CHANGE AND PERSONALITY

(8)

8 | P a g e

to events and situations. These differences between individuals are often subsumed in their personality the “consistent patterns of thoughts, feelings, or actions, which distinguish people from one another” (Johnson, 1997). Personality traits are the basic and general components where people are observed to differ (Allemand, Steiger & Hill, 2013) and are determined by genetic, physical, and environmental factors (Parks & Guay, 2009; Bouchard, 2004). Personality ensures that people behave, act or feel exactly the same in diverse situations (Roberts, 2009). Previous research has shown that traits can predict different crucial life moments such as death, career, divorce, intelligence and someone’s status in society (Roberts, Kuncel, Shiner, Caspi & Goldberg, 2007; Caspi, Roberts & Shiner, 2005; Ozzer & Benet-Martinez, 2006). Therefore it could also be expected that traits differences between people determine their reactions towards organizational change.

A major development in the field of personality literature is the appearance of the big five model in the last twenty years of the 20s century (Djuric Jocic & Petot, 2005; McCrae, 2011). The big five factor model (FFM) is a commonly used model since the 80s. The five factor model (FFM) is based on dimensions, most personality traits are a component of one of more of the dimensions (McCrae, 2011). The model indicates the amount of factors that are important and gives identity to apparently individual-difference variables which are central in personality literature and were introduced by other researchers (McCrae, 2011). McCrae and John (1992) described the FFM as ‘a view of the world that sees the essence of human nature in individual differences.’ The framework of the five factor model (FFM) will be used as guide in this research.

The five dimensions are: extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience. Extraversion is the first dimensions of the big five and is defined as “the tendency to be social, active, and outgoing, and place a high value on close and warm interpersonal relationships” (Deng et al., 2013). Agreeableness is also a dimension and described as “the tendency of being kind, considerate, likeable, helpful, cooperative, and forgiving” (Deng et al., 2013). The third dimension is Conscientiousness. Deng et al. (2013) describes conscientiousness as “the tendency to be self-disciplined, strong-willed, deliberate, and reliable”. Neuroticism is the fourth dimensions. The concepts anxiety, angry, hostility, depressions, self-consciousness, impulsiveness, and vulnerability are related to neuroticism (Costa & McCrae, 1992). It is defined as “the tendency to be anxious, self-conscious, and paranoid; it exhibits a lack of psychological adjustment and emotional stability” (Deng et al., 2013). Emotional stability is the positive perception of this dimension; this means that a high score on neuroticism means low emotional stability. Openness to experience is the last dimension. It is defined as “individuals’ tolerance of new ideas and willingness to try new and different things” (Deng et al., 2013). Terry, Puente, Brown, and Miller (2013) distinguish openness to experience into ‘openness’ (i.e. “engagement with sensory/ aesthetic information”) and intellect (i.e. “engagement with intellectual or abstract information”).

(9)

9 | P a g e

Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000). McCrae and Costa (1996) believe in the shaping of personality by genetic factors and that maturity is attained in early adulthood. The ‘hard plaster hypothesis’ states that there are no personality changes on the big five dimensions after the age of 30, the ‘soft plaster hypothesis’ states that personality changes after the age of 30 are weaker than before this age (Srivastava, John, Gosling & Potter, 2003). In results of previous studies, extraversion and openness to experiences change less than conscientiousness and agreeableness in a person’s life (Lehmann, et al., 2013). Conscientiousness and agreeableness have both a positive effect when persons become older, in contrast with neuroticism, which show a negative trend when recipients become older (Lehmann et al., 2013).

From above literature it can be concluded that individuals are important in change situations, they can ‘make or break’ a change. Individuals’ personality influences their behavior, thoughts and feelings about things that happen in life. It is expected that personality traits can influence the readiness for change. The focus in this research will be on the personality traits extraversion, openness to experience and neuroticism in relation to readiness for change. Extraversion and openness to experience are the focus because they show a flat trend during a person’s life (Lehman et al., 2013). Giving that these traits change less, a certain change approach can be used to create readiness for change for a longer time period. The stability of the traits ensures that an organization does not have to adjust their change approach often in the future. Also, both are seen as positive aspects of personality, it will be examined if these two positive traits will also have a positive effect on readiness for change (Schneider, Rench, Lyons & Riffle, 2012).

Neuroticism is chosen because this dimension is mostly seen as a negative characteristic. Coping with stress is difficult for high neuroticism (Bolger & Schilling, 1991) and a change can be a stressful event (Bryson, Barth & Dale-Olsen, 2013). Stress can be reduced by a participatory approach, which can be created by open communication strategy. I believe that perceiving employee voice can influence the relation between neuroticism and readiness positively. Therefore, neuroticism is chosen.

(10)

10 | P a g e

Hypothesis 1a:

Extraversion is positively related to readiness for change.

Openness to experience is defined as “individuals’ tolerance of new ideas and willingness to try new and different things” (Deng et al., 2013). A high score on openness to experience will result in experimenting with new ideas and projects (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Woo et al., 2014). These individuals are more flexible so can handle new situations easily and are more creative (Choi, 2011). High openness to experience individuals prefer varied and novel projects (Woo et al., 2014), a change is mostly varied and novel for employees. McCrae and Costa (1986) identified that having openness to experience helps to cope with events that are difficult and stressful. Because of the flexibility to handle with new situations, creativeness, preferring variety and novelty projects, and coping with difficult and stressful situations it is expected that openness to experience individuals experience readiness for change compared to individuals who score lower. Therefore the following hypothesis is established.

Hypothesis 1b:

Openness to experience is positively related to readiness for change.

Neuroticism is mostly seen as a negative characteristic. Individuals who score high on neuroticism have negative emotions; they feel fear, guiltiness, and anger (Liu et al., 2013). They have more feelings of anxiety and experience periods with depressions. All these negative feelings make it hard to cope with stressful situations and be emotional stable (Bolger & Schilling, 1991) and possibly also cannot cope with change situations. Therefore the expectation in this study is that the higher the score on neuroticism, the less readiness for change an individual will experience. This resulted in the following hypothesis.

Hypothesis 1c:

Neuroticism is negatively related to readiness for change.

2.3 R

EADINESS AND EMPLOYEE VOICE

(11)

11 | P a g e

Communication can be used for reducing resistance to change (Elving, 2005). Presumably it also can create readiness for change, because of the behavioral influence. Researchers (Allen, Jimmieson, Bordia, Irmer, 2007; Bordia et al., 2004) who examined communication in change situations are concentrating on the quality of information or content of the communication like Elving (2005). Another perspective is the communication strategy during a change project, but research is limited (Oreg, 2006; Lewis et al., 2006; Timmerman, 2003). Communication strategy is about the way how the management manages the communication flow in the organization. In this research the communication strategy is how the communication flows through the organization. Does the information about the change come from the top of the organization only or may everyone give their opinion about the information that is given. Because the limited research on strategy of communication this aspect will be used in this research.

Russ (2008) divides communication into two strategies: participatory and programmatic/linear. In the participatory communication strategy recipients get involved and can participate in the process (Russ, 2008). A programmatic/linear communication strategy is recognizable to the top-down approach. The key component is the “downward cascade of information about the change” which can include procedures and guidelines that recipients need to follow during the change implementation but also knowledge and facts about the project (Russ, 2008). The information flow is top-down, the top of the organization tells, the recipients listen and do what they are told, a selling and telling focus (Bouckenooghe, 2012). Only the most necessarily information will be discussed with the recipients (Ryan, Williams, Charles & Waterhouse, 2008; Russ, 2008). Recipients will not have the opportunity to be involved or participate in the change project (Russ, 2008; Bouckenooghe, 2012; Donohue, Atkin & Johnson, 1994).

The base of the participatory approach is that employees are not recipients anymore but participants. Andrea, Arnaldo, and Romano (2011) are describing this communication approach as informal communication, where personal interaction is one of the components. In the human resource literature a common communication strategy which has a similar description is ‘employee voice” “the ability of employees to have a say regarding work activities and decision making issues” (Wilkinson & Fay, 2011). Employee voice is an open communication strategy where employees may let their opinion hear in the organization. It is an important element for building work relationships and to reduce stress (Boren, 2013). Employee voice can reduce the stress which occurred during the change (Karasek, 2004). In a situation with voice, information is transferred from one person to another, mostly a leader/management and the recipient, to improve the organizations (Detert, Burris, Harrison & Martin, 2013; Rees, Alfes & Gatenby, 2013)

(12)

12 | P a g e

is therefore important for how they react on communication, and may possibly influence their readiness for change.

In this study the focus will be on employee voice. The definition of Wilkinson & Fay (2011) will be used during this study. Explained is that individuals can experience stress when a change is announced or during the implementation of a change. Karasek (2004) argue that voice can reduce stress, so negative feelings about the change will be reduced. Therefore we expect that employee voice can also increase readiness for change. The following hypothesis is therefore established.

Hypothesis 2:

Perceiving employee voice is positively related to readiness for change.

In this study the influence of employee voice on the relation between the personality traits (extraversion, openness to experience and neuroticism) and readiness for change will also be examined.

Extravert people are more assertive and talkative so they want to participate more in the organization. Employee voice is a manner to participate in an organization (Cawley, Keeping & Levy, 1998). Expected was already that a high score on extraversion result in experiencing more readiness for change. By perceiving employee voice I expect that this relation will become stronger, because of the opportunity of employee participation. In an organization without employee voice an extravert person will not have the opportunity to share their thoughts and meanings, and will therefore be more negative towards the change which will result in reducing readiness for change. Hypothesis 3a is established for this relationship.

Hypothesis 3a:

Employee voice will moderate the expected positive relation between extraversion and readiness for change in the sense that this relationship will be more positive if voice is high rather than low.

(13)

13 | P a g e

Hypothesis 3b:

Employee voice will moderate the expected positive relation between openness to experience and readiness for change in the sense that this relationship will be more positive if voice is high rather

than low.

Neurotic individuals have a lot of negative emotions (Wang, Repetti & Campos, 2011). These individuals want to avoid uncertain situations and stress, while changes mostly cause uncertainty and stress (Zeigler-Hill, Southard, Archer, Donohoe, 2013; Bouckenooghe, 2012). Employee voice can reduce the stress and therefore it is expected that when neuroticism persons get more information about the change and they get the feeling that they are more participants instead of recipients, these people will be more positive about the change. So, expected is that the predicted negative relationship between neuroticism and readiness for change will be less negative with employee voice in the organization. The following hypothesis is established.

Hypothesis 3c:

Employee voice will moderate the expected negative relation between neuroticism and readiness for change in the sense that this relationship will be more positive if voice is high rather than low.

2.4 C

ONCEPTUAL MODEL

(14)

14 | P a g e

3. METHODS

3.1. P

ROCEDURE

The data collection was done with a survey. The survey was distributed with the program ‘Qualtrics Survey Software’ on the internet to the employees. The choice for quantitative research was mainly made because of the limited amount of time available for this research. Thereby with a quantitative research statistical testing of the variables and relations in the conceptual model is possible (Cooper & Schindler, 2006).

The data for testing the hypotheses was collected in two organizations in the Dutch healthcare industry. Both organizations called the change the transition of 2015. A change in the financial compensation for personal healthcare in the Dutch law, made a change necessary. The change of the transition 2015 is that the financial compensation of personal health budget will be distributed by the municipalities instead of central government. Therefore the two organizations have to cooperate in the future more than they do now. The first organization gives support to persons with disabilities in different areas (e.g. intellectual disabilities, psychiatric disorders, and physical disabilities). The organization contains 22 regional locations and employs around the 3500 persons. One of the regional locations in northern Netherlands participates in this study and has approximately 150 employees. The other organization, also in the north of the Netherlands, is a social work organization, with services for more daily problems (e.g. family problems, grief counseling, and psychosocial problems).

Some changes were already implemented other implementations were just started and will be expanding towards 2015. In both organizations an announcement on the intranet was made by one of the leaders to ask the employees to participate in the research. In the announcement the purpose of the research was explained to the employees and that it was a research for examining the change project. In the introduction of the research link the information about the purpose of the research and the change project was provided and that answers respondents give would be process strictly confidential. After two weeks a reminder was send to all participants who did not respond yet. The survey can be found in Appendix I.

3.2 P

ARTICIPANTS

(15)

15 | P a g e

regression analysis only 84 respondents were used by SPSS, due to too much missing values in the crucial variables.

3.3 M

EASUREMENTS

In this section the measurement items for each variable will be discussed. Also a factor analysis for the variables will be described because this determines the measurement items which will be used to do the final analysis. A reliability analysis was also done for the variables to measure the Cronbach’s alpha’s for the constructs. The results of the factor analysis of the dependent variable can be found in appendix II, for the independent variables in appendix III.

The first step was reversing the items that were negatively formulated in the questionnaire. All reverse-coded items could be recognized in appendix I by the (r) behind the item. After that an exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the dependent variable readiness for change and the independent variables separately. Conducting one factor analysis for all variables resulted in overloading of the analysis.

Readiness for change

Readiness for change was measured with the scale of Bouckenooghe et al. (2009). This scale consists of three dimensions: intentional, emotional and cognitive readiness. The intentional dimension consists of three items, but was not measured in this research, because it was focusing more on the effort and energy a recipients wants to put in the change project (Bouckenooghe et al., 2009) and I will focus more on the thoughts and feelings that they experience. The other two dimensions were used to measure thoughts and feelings, both were measured with five items. An example of an emotional dimension item was: “I experience the change as a positive process.” “The change will improve my work”, was an item of the cognitive dimension. In the questionnaire the items were translated into Dutch. The items are rated on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = ‘completely agree’ to 5= ‘completely disagree’.

Factor analysis dependent variable

For the factor analysis of the dependent variable an oblique rotation was used, because it was allowed and expected that the factors correlate (Field, 2013). In appendix II the results of the original factor analysis and the final factor analysis for the dependent variable can be found. Readiness loaded on two factors that together explained 57.37% of the total variance. Two reversed items of the emotional dimension loaded on factor 2, while all other items load on factor 1 in the analysis. Perhaps the emotional dimension exists of two subscales. The fact that the two items that loaded on factor 2 were reversed-items can also be an explanation.

(16)

16 | P a g e

was therefore deleted. Finally, a reliability analysis for readiness for change was performed. The eight remaining items resulted in a Cronbach’s alpha of .82 for the construct.

Personality traits

The Dutch translation of the Big Five Inventory (BFI) was used for measuring the personality traits (Denissen, Geenen, Aken, Gosling, and Potter, 2008). Originally the Big Five Inventory measurement scale was created by John and Srivastava (1999). The three traits: extraversion, openness to experience, and neuroticism were all rated on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = ‘completely agree’ to 5 = ‘completely disagree’. All statements that were given started with: “I am someone who…”

Extraversion was measured with the six highest-loading items for extraversion from the empirical article of Denissen et al. (2008). These six items were items which were almost similar to the six highest-loading items for extraversion in the Five-Factor Personality Inventory of Hendriks, Hofstee, and De Raad (1999) and also used by Van der Kamp (2012). Some of them were reversed or translated a bit different. An example of one of the items was: “I am someone who is talkative.”

Openness to experience was measured with the seven highest-loading items of the BFI (Denissen et al., 2008). An item that was used in the questionnaire was: “I am someone who is original, comes up with new ideas.”

Neuroticism was also measured with the six highest-loading items of the BFI scale of Denissen et al. (2008). An example item was: “I am someone who can be tense.”

Voice

Voice was measured with the six items of Van Dyne and LePine (1998). All items were rated on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = ‘completely agree’ to 5 = ‘completely disagree’. A statement was: “I have the feeling that I can do recommendations concerning issues of the change project”.

Factor analysis independent variables

The independent variables were tested together in one factor analysis, in total 25 items were analyzed. Also this analysis was done based on the oblique rotation, because it was expected that the personality traits would correlate. During the analysis for all variables at least one item was deleted. The independent variables were loading on six factors which explained a total variance of 67.42%. Extraversion and Voice both loaded on two factors, which mean that they consist of two subscales. Extraversion loaded on factor 4 and factor 5, voice loaded on factor 3 and factor 6. Neuroticism and openness for experience both loaded on one factor, neuroticism on factor 2, openness to experience on factor 1. The results of the original factor analysis and the final factor analysis for the independent variables can be found in appendix III.

(17)

17 | P a g e

for others. The focus could be more on the others than on the respondent and was therefore deleted. Construct of extraversion had a Cronbach’s alpha of .65 with the five remaining items. It was not a very high score, so also a reliability test was done with the deleted item, but the difference was little.

Openness to experience - In the construct for openness to experience two items were deleted based on the factor analysis, due to cross-loadings. In the literature review was that some authors (e.g. Terry et al., 2013) distinguished the variable into ‘openness’ and ‘intellect’, which is a possible explanation for the cross-loading. In this research the focus was on the ‘openness’ component. The item “I am someone who is ingenious, a deep thinker” measured the intellect of a respondent and was therefore deleted. The item “I am someone who values artistic, aesthetic experiences” was also deleted. This item measured more the artistic creativity of a respondent which was not relevant in an organizational context. Openness to experience had with the remaining five items a Cronbach’s alpha of .82.

Neuroticism - Based on the factor analysis the item: “I am someone who gets nervous easily” was deleted. It had a very low loading in the factor analysis and was therefore deleted. The Cronbach’s alpha of neuroticism with the remaining five items was .75.

Voice - One item was deleted in this construct “I speak up in this group when I have new ideas for new projects or changes in procedures.” The item had a cross loading and was not relevant in this context because it measures for future plans and improvements, instead of ideas for the current change. Voice had a Cronbach’s alpha of .78 with a construct of five items.

All Cronbach’s alpha’s scores were high enough to compute a new variable in SPSS for analyzing the hypotheses. Cronbach’s alpha above .70 were accepted values for a construct, .60 scores were seen as ok (Field, 2013).

3.4 T

ESTING HYPOTHESES

A hierarchical multiple regression analysis was performed to analyze the relationship between the variables and how much influence the personality traits had on readiness for change with the moderation of employee voice. The independent variables and the moderating variable were standardized before analyzing. Besides a multiple regression also single regression analyses were performed for each independent variable separately for a detailed view.

4. RESULTS

4.1. C

ORRELATIONS AND DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

(18)

18 | P a g e

was positive related with readiness for change (r = .54, p < .001), extraversion (r = .32, p < .005), and openness to experience (r = .31, p < .005).

4.2. H

YPOTHESES TESTING

In the multiple regression analysis, the covariates age, gender and years of service were controlled in step 1. In step 2 the first hypotheses are tested. For hypothesis 1a it was expected that extraversion was positively related to readiness for change. The relation between extraversion and readiness was positive, but it was not significant (B = .10, t = 1.27, p = n.s.), so no evidence is found. In hypothesis 1b it was expected that openness to experience was positively related to readiness for change, which is confirmed. It was the first expected main effect (B = .19, t = 2.81, p = .006). In hypothesis 1c it was expected that neuroticism was negative related to readiness, but this also this was not significant (B =.-01, t = -.19, p = n.s.), so hypothesis 1c is not confirmed. Another expected main effect was the expected positive relation between employee voice and readiness in hypothesis 2 (B = .27, t = 4.07, p = .000). So, also hypothesis 2 was confirmed. The overall model in step 2 was significant (ΔRsquare = .37, ΔF = 11.28, p = .000).

In step 3 with the interaction effect only voice was significant (B = .27, t = 4.17, p = .000). The other results were not significant. Hypothesis 3a, moderating effect of voice on the relation between extraversion and readiness, was not confirmed (B = .11, t = 1.52, p = n.s.). The moderation of voice on the relation between openness to experience and readiness did not show a significant result (B = .14, t = 2.02, p = n.s.). So, hypothesis 3b was not confirmed. Also the expected effect of the moderating effect on the relation between neuroticism and readiness was not significant (B = -.04, t = -.55, p = n.s.). In the overall model there was no significant result (ΔRsquare = .05, ΔF = 2.26, p = n.s.).

(19)

19 | P a g e

(20)

20 | P a g e

5. DISCUSSION

5.1. F

INDINGS

The purpose of this research was to examine the relationship between three personality traits: extraversion, openness to experience, and neuroticism, and readiness for change, and the influence of voice on these relationships. Seven hypotheses were established to measure the relationships.

The relationship between extraversion and readiness for change was proposed to be positive, a positive correlation between the variables is found in this study. So, extraverts should have more readiness for change than introverts. In the regression analysis no evidence was found for this relation. In previous literature the outcome was that emotional extraverts and stable introverts were more likely to have positive reactions to change than stable extraverts and emotional introverts (Kirton & Mulligan, 1973). While, the definition of Deng et al. (2013) would give the expectation that extraverts should be more positive towards change than introverts. So the combination of more personality traits can possibly result in other outcomes.

Evidence is found for two of the four expected main effects. Based on existing literature the expectation was that openness to experience and readiness for change were related positively. It implies that recipients who score high on openness to experience are more readiness for change than recipients who score lower on openness, which was supported by this study. Also, Vakola et al. (2003) argue that a person should possess openness to experience as personality trait to be positive towards a change. In this study readiness was explained as a reaction of recipients which determine the success of change projects, so I see it as a positive attitude towards change.

For the expected positive relation between employee voice and readiness a significant result was found. So, hypothesis 2 is confirmed. The expectation was based on stress literature. Russ (2008) also mentioned that a participatory approach is effective by change implementation. However, Bryant (2006) argue that voice is not a way for creating a participatory work atmosphere, but that employees use it out of resistance, especially in a change context. In the study of Bryant (2006) voice was used by the recipients to receive information from the managers and that perceiving voice did not mean that recipients are participating in the change. Voice is studied from another perspective by Detert et al. (2013). They argue that the people who speak up only let their voice hear because of personal reasons and they are not seen as team player but as a person who complains (Milliken, Bartel & Kurtzberg, 2003).

(21)

21 | P a g e

stable extraverts; they found that only emotional extraverts have positive reactions to change. Possibly extraversion is influenced strongly by other personality traits.

Neuroticism was expected to have a negative relation with readiness for change. The regression analysis shows a small non-significant negative relation. In contrast to the expectation of this study, Steele-Johnson, Narayan, and Steinke (2013) found a significant positive relation between neuroticism and readiness, but did not predict that. The explanation they give for this relation is that the negative emotions can result in dissatisfaction and agitation about the current situation, and that neuroticisms therefore want to change. Steele-Johnson et al. (2013) used also the BFI of John & Srivastav. Due to the focus of literature used in this research and the study of Steele-Johnson et al. (2013) the positive relation was unexpected. In both studies the focus is on the negative aspect of neuroticism, while another view can give new insights.

There was also no evidence of employee voice, as moderator on the relationship between the personality traits and readiness for change. From the literature it was clear that communication plays a crucial role in reactions toward change (Russ, 2008; BMR, 2012), and that stress is reduced with perceiving employee voice (Karasek, 2004). So, from different fields of literature voice has a positive effect in all kind of situations, while in this research employee voice has no influence on the relationship between personality traits and readiness for change. An explanation for not finding evidence is that employee voice is viewed from another perspective. Detert et al. (2013) argue that voice has not always positive results. The person who speaks up can say things, for receiving only personal benefits, instead of the collective results. The relationship between the speaker and recipient determine also the effect of employee voice. (Detert et al., 2013). Another possible explanation is that the respondents who filled in the questionnaire are very independent in their work. Most of the respondents work on extern locations, at clients’ home and have not much contact with leaders of the organization and other employees.

5.2 T

HEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Theoretically, it is one of the first studies that examine the influence of employee voice as communication method on personality traits during an organizational change implementation. And who examine voice as moderator instead of main effect on readiness for change.

(22)

22 | P a g e

because it came clear that individuals can ‘make or break’ a change project. So individuals’ personality can determine change success.

Based on existing literature the expectation was that voice would have a moderating effect on the personality traits. The perspective of employee voice in this study was that it is a positive communication strategy and is mostly seen by employees and organizations as an instrument that should have positive effects. Other researchers (e.g. Detert et al., 2013; Morrison & Milliken, 2000) argue that employee voice is ‘unwanted and unhelpful’ for positive effects because recipients will only speak-up to receive individual benefits instead of creating the best results for the organization. According to Mesmer-Magnus and DeChurch (2009) voice is only a specific input of employees to improve organizational functioning and is quite different from the construct of communication what a lot of other studies argue. In the perspectives of authors as Detert et al. (2013), Morrison and Milliken (2000), and Mesmar-Magnus and DeChurch (2009) voice is not a communication strategy but more specific and not for information-sharing.

In previous literature inconsistent results are found for the relation between gender and readiness for change. Hanpachers, Morgan and Griego (1998) and Cunningham et al. (2012) did not found any significant results, while Goulet and Singhk (2002), Kirchmeyer (1995) and Ledgerwood, Wiedemann, Moore and Arfken (2012) found significant results. Kirchmeyer (1995) argue that women experience more readiness for change, because they are more committed. Ledgerwood et al. (2012) found differences between readiness for women and men in changing their gambling behavior, women will change quicker. Research on gender and readiness for change in an organizational context is in most studies not significant (Schlosser, Abdallah, Callahan, Bradford & Cottler, 2008). In this study the correlation between gender and readiness is negative but not significant, a possible explanation is the high percentage of female respondents (75.5%), a better proportion of gender is recommended.

(23)

23 | P a g e

5.3 L

IMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

A first limitation is that the survey is done by self-reports. Self-reports can cause social desirability response bias (Arnold & Feldman, 1981). The results can be influenced by this bias, especially in personality tests (Marlowe & Crown, 1964). Respondents want to gain acceptance and receive social approval by giving acceptable answers (Marlowe & Crowne, 1964). Respondents would rate the positive items about themselves and the change higher than the more negative items.

A second limitation is that it is a cross-sectional study, so the data is collected at one specific time point, due to the time constraints.

A third limitation is that the data was collected in two different organizations, with the same change. This can be a limitation, because the organizations communicate two different stories to the employees. In both organizations the change is implemented by internal leaders or management members, which means that they differ in handling with the change. The content of the information employees obtain determine how they react (McKay et al., 2013). So, in both organizations the information about the change needs to be exactly the same to determine the personal reactions. Individuals with the same personalities can score differ because they work in different organizations.

Due to the name of the change project: ‘transitie 2015’ it can be concluded that the change project is still in process, a fourth limitation of the study. The responses of the survey were in December 2013. Before the study everybody in the organization knows of the change, but the exact consequences of the change are unknown. In 2015 the Dutch law for the financial compensation will change so the change will be implemented completely in 2015. There is a lot of time left before the change will be completely finished, so a lot of things can still change. An examination after finishing the implementation can lead to other findings.

Further research should be done on neuroticism specifically. The relation between neuroticism and readiness for change is possibly related to other personality traits or other factors based on results of previous literature and this study. Steele-Johnson et al. (2013) expect that neurotic individuals with higher scores on openness to experience or conscientiousness can have a positive effect on the relation of neuroticism and readiness. Judge and Erez (2007) argue that combination of personality traits can change reactions of individuals; other traits may compensate the negative emotions. Thereby the view of someone’s personality is also more complete (Regts-Walter, 2012). Future research can concentrate on the combination of neuroticism with other traits in relation with readiness for change.

(24)

24 | P a g e

CONCLUSION

This study examined the relationship between three personality traits (extraversion, openness to experience, and neuroticism) and readiness for change and the influence of employee voice on this relationship. Two main effects are found: a positive relation between openness to experience and readiness, and voice and readiness for change. No evidence was found for the moderating effect of employee voice on extraversion, openness to experience, and neuroticism in relation with readiness for change. Explanations can be that the data was collected in two different organizations, a change which was not finished yet or the perspective I used for employee voice in this research.

Another research after finishing the change implementation in the organizations can influence the results and can possibly give more information. Analyzing the data for the two organizations separately can influence the results also, because it is likely that the information about the change distributed by the management will be different in both organizations.

(25)

25 | P a g e

REFERENCES

Allemand, M., Steiger, A.E., Hill, P.L. (2013). Stability of personality traits in adulthood. GeroPsych: Journal of Gerontopsychology and Geriatric Psychiatry, 26(1), p. 5-13.

Allen, J., Jimmieson, N.L., Bordia, P., Irmer, B. (2007). Uncertainty during organizational change: managing perceptions through communication. Journal of change management, 7(2), p. 187-210

Andrea, F., Arnaldo, C., Romano, P. (2011). Understanding how formal and informal communication purchasing, manufacturing and logistics integration. Advances in management, 4(7), p. 22-32.

Arnold, H.J., Feldman, D.C. (1981). Social desirability response bias in self-report choice situations. Academyy of management journal, 24(1), p. 377-385.

Armenakis, A., Bedeain, A. (1999). Organisational change: a review of theory and research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25, p. 293-315.

Armenakis, A., Harris, S.G., Mossholder, K.W. (1993). Creating readiness for organizational change, Human Relations, 46, p. 681-703.

Balogun, J., Hope Hailey, V. (2004). Exploring strategic change. Prentice Hall, London, 2nd_edition.

Beer, M., Nohria, N. (2000). Cracking the code of change. Harvard business review, p. 133-141. Beukeboom, C.J., Tanis, M., Vermeulen, I.E. (2012). The language of extraversion: extraverted

people talk more abstractly, introverts are more concrete. Journal of language and social psychology, 32(2), p. 191-201.

Bolger, N., Schilling, E.A. (1991). Personality and the problems of everyday life: the role of neuroticism in exposure and reactivity to daily stressors. Journal of personality, 59(3), p. 355-386.

Bordia, P., Hunt, E., Paulsen, N., Tourish, D., DiFonzo, N. (2004). Uncertainty during organizational change: Is it all about control? European journal of work and organizational psychology, 13(3), p. 345-365.

Bouckenooghe, D. (2010). Positioning change recipients’ attitudes toward change in the organizational change literature. The journal of applied behavioural science, 46(4) p. 500-531.

(26)

26 | P a g e

Bouckenooghe, D., Devos, G., van den Broeck, H. (2009). Organizational change questionnaire-climate of change, processes, and readiness: Development of a new instrument. The journal of psychology, 143(6), p. 559-599.

Bouchard, T.J. Jr. (2004). Genetic influence on human psychological. Current directions in psychological science, 13(4), p. 148-151.

Bowen, K.S., Uchino, B.N., Birmingham, Carlisle, M., Smith, T.W., Light, K.C. (2013). The stress-buffering effects of functional social support on ambulatory blood pressure. American psychological association.

Bradley, B.H., Baur, J.E., Banford, C.G., Postlethwaite, B.E. (2013). Team players and collective performance: how agreeableness affects team performance over time. Small Group Resource, 44(6), p. 680-711.

Bryant, M. (2006). Talking about change: Understanding employee responses through qualitative research. Management decision, 44(2), p. 246-258.

Bryson, A., Barth, E., Dale-Olsen, H. (2013). The effects of organizational change on worker well-being and the moderating role of trade unions. ILRReview, 66(4), p. 989-1011.

Business and Management review (BMR). (2012). A critical analysis of communication approaches for implementing organizational change. Business Management review 1(11), p. 27-35.

By, R.T. (2005). Organisational change management: A critical review. Journal of Change Management, 5(4), p. 369-380.

Caspi, A., Roberts, B.W., Shiner, R.L. (2005). Personality development: stability and change. Annual reviews psychology, 56, p. 453-484.

Cawley, B.D., Keeping, L.M., Levy, P.E. (1998). Participation in the performance appraisal process and employee reactions: A meta-analytic review of field investigations. Journal of applied psychology, 83(4), p. 615-633.

Choi, M. (2011). Employees’ attitudes toward organizational change: a literature review. Human Resource Management, 50(4), p. 479-500.

Cooper, D.R., Schindler, P. S. (2006). Business research methods. New York: McGraw-Hill education, 9th_edition.

(27)

27 | P a g e

Cunningham, C.E., Woodward, C.A., Shannon, H.S., MaxIntosh, J., Lendrum, B., Rosenbloom, D., Brown, J. (2002). Readiness for organizational change: A longitudinal study of workplace, psychological and behavioral correlates. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 75(4), p.

Daft, R.L. (1999). Management. Dryden Press 5th_edition.

Deng, S., Liu, Y., Li, H., Hu, F. (2013). How does personality matter? An investigation of the impact of extraversion on individuals’ SNS use. Cyber psychology, behaviour, and social networking, 16(8), p. 575-581.

Denissen, J.J.A., van Aken, M.A.G., Gosling, S.D., Potter, J. (2008). Development and validation of a Dutch translation of the big five inventory (BFI). Journal of personality assessment, 90(2), p. 152-157.

Detert, J.R., Burris, E.R., Harrison, D.A., Martin, S.R. (2013). Voice flows to and around leaders: understanding when units are helped or hurt by employee voice. Administrative science quarterly, 58(4), p. 624-668.

Djuric Jocic, D., Petot, J.M. (2005). Introduction to the special section on the Rorschach and the five-factor theory. Rorschachiana, 27(1), p. 7-10.

Eisenberg, N., Duckworth, A.I., Spinrad, T.L., Valiente, C. (2012). Conscientiousness: Origins in Childhood? American psychological association, Dec. 17.

Elving, W.J.L. (2005). The role of communication in organizational change. Corporate communications: an international journal, 10(2), p. 129-138.

Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage publications, 4th_edition.

Gardner, W.L., Reithel, B.J., Cogliser, C.C., Walumbwa, F.O., Foley, R.T. (2012). Matching personality and organizational culture: effects of recruitment strategy and the five-factor model on subjective person-organization fit. Management communication quarterly, 26(4), p. 585-622.

George J.M., Jones, G.R. (2001). Towards a process model of individual change in organizations. Human Relations, 54(4), p. 419-444.

Goulet, LR., Singh, P. (2002). Career commitment: A reexamination and an extension. Journal of Vocational behavior, 61, p. 73-91.

(28)

28 | P a g e

Hendriks, A., Hofstee, W., De Raad, B. (1999). The five factor personality inventory (FFPI). Personality and individual differences, 27(2), P. 250-279.

Hirokawa, K., Taniguchi, T., Tsuchiya, M., Kawakami, N. (2012). Effects of a stress management program for hospital staffs on their coping strategies and interpersonal behaviors. Industrial health, 50(6), p. 489-498.

Holt, D.T., Armenakis, A.A., Field, H.S., Harris, S.G. (2007). Readiness for organizational change: the systematic development of a scale. The journal of applied behavioral science, 43(2), p. 232-255.

Holt, D.T., Vardaman, J.M. (2013). Toward a comprehensive understanding of readiness for change: the case for an expanded conceptualization. Journal of Change Management, 13(9), p. 9-18.

Isern, J., Pung, C. (2007) Harnessing energy to drive organisational change. McKinsey Quarterly, 1, p. 1-4.

John, O. (1990). The big five factor taxonomy: dimension of personality in natural language and in questionnaires. Handbook of personality theory and research, Guilford Press, New York. Johnson, A.M., Lederer, A.L. (2005). The effect of communication frequency and channel richness

on the convergence between chief executive and chief information offers. Journal of Management information systems, 22(2), p. 227-252.

Johnson, A., Winter, P.A., Reio Jr., T.G., Thompson, H.L., Petrosko, J.M. Managerial recruitment: the influence of personality and ideal candidate characteristics. Journal of management development, 27(6), p. 631-648.

Johnson, J.A. (1997). Units of analysis and the description and explanation of personality. Handbook of personality psychology, p. 73-93. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson and S . Briggs. Johnson, J.D., Donohue, W.A., Atkin, C.K., Johnson, S. (1994). Differences between formal and

informal communication channels. The journal of business communication, 31(2).

Jones, R.A., Jimmieson, N.L., Griffiths, A. (2005). The impact of organizational culture and reshaping capabilities on change implementation success: the mediating role of readiness to change. Journal of Management studies, 42(2), p. 361-377.

Judge, T.A., Erez, A. (2007). Interaction and intersection: the constellation of emotional stability and extraversion in predicting performance. Personnel psychology, 60(3), p. 573-596. Kam van der, N.A. (2012). Leader self-enhancement: an interpersonal approach. Rijksuniversiteit

(29)

29 | P a g e

Karasek, R.A. (2004). An analysis of 19 international case studies of stress prevention through work reorganization using the demand/control model. Bulletin of science, technology & society, 24 (5), p. 446-456.

Kirchmeyer, C. (1995). Managing the work-nonwork boundary: an assessment of organizational responses. Human relations, 48(5), p. 515-536.

Kirton, M.J., Mulligan, G. (1973). Correlates of managers’ attitudes toward change. Journal of applied psychology, 58(1), p. 101-107.

Kotter, J., Schlesinger, L.A. (1979). Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business Review, 57(2), p. 106-114).

Lau, C.M., Woodman, R.W. (1995). Understanding organizational change: a schematic perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 38, p. 537-554.

Ledgerwood, D.M., Wiedemann, A.A., Moore, J., Arfken, C.L. (2012). Clinical characteristics and treatment readiness of male and female problem gamblers calling a state gambling helpline. Addication research and theory, 20(2), p. 162-171.

Lehmann, R., Denissen, J.J.A., Allemand, M., Penke, L. (2013). Age and gender differences in motivational manifestations big five from age 16 to 60. Developmental psychology, 49(2), p. 365-383.

Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in Group dynamics. Human Relations, 1(1), p. 5-41.

Lewis, L.K., Schmisseur, A.M., Stephens, K.K., Weir, K.E. (2006). Advice on communicating during organizational change. Journal of business communication, 43(2), p. 113-137.

Liu, T., Ode, S., Moeller, S.K., Robinson, M.D. (2013). Neuroticism as distancing: perceptual sources of evidence. Journal of personality and social psychology, 104(5), p. 907-920. Marlowe, D., Crowne, D.P. (1961). Social desirability and response to perceived situational

demands. Journal of consulting psychology, 25(2), p. 100-115.

McCabe K.O., Fleeson, W. (2013). What is extraversion for? Integration trait and motivational perspectives and identifying the purpose of extraversion. Psychological science, 23(12), p. 1498-1505.

McCrae, R.R. (2011). Personality theories for the 21st_{century. Society for the teaching of}

psychology, 38(3), p. 209-214.

(30)

30 | P a g e

McCrae, R.R., John, O. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of personality, 60, p. 175-215.

McKay, K., Kunts, J.R.C., Näswall, K. (2013). The effect of affective commitment communication and participation on resistance to change: the role of change readiness. New Zealand Journal of psychology, 42(2), p. 29-40.

Mesmer-Magnus, J.R., DeChurch, L.A. (2009). Information sharing and team performance: A Meta-analysis. Journal of applied psychology, 94(2), p. 535-546.

Miller, V.D., Johnson, J.R., Grau, J. (1994). Antecedents to willingness to participate in a planned organizational change. Journal of applied communication research, 22, p. 59-80.

Milliken, F.J., Bartel, C.A., Kurtzberg, T.R. (2003). Diversity and creativity in work groups: A dynamic perspective on the affective and cognitive processes that link diversity and performance. Group creativity: innovation through collaboration. New York: Oxford University Press.

Morrisson, E.W., Milliken, F.J. (2000). Organizational science: a barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of management review, 25(4), p. 706-725. Oreg, S. (2006). Personality, context, and resistance to organizational change. European journal

of work and organizational psychology, 15(1), p. 73-101.

Oreg, S., Vakola, M., Armenakis, A. (2011). Change recipients’ reactions to organizational change: a 60-year review of quantitative studies. The journal of applied behavioural science, 47(4), p. 627-659.

Ozzer, D.J., Benet-Martinez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual review of psychology, 57(1), p. 401-421.

Parks, L., Guay, R.P. (2009). Personality, values, and motivation. Personality and individuals differences, 47, p. 675-684.

Parmak, M., Euwema, M.C., Mylle, J.J.C. (2012). Changes in sensation seeking and need for structure before and after a combat development. Military psychology, 24, p. 551-564. Piderit, S.K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: a multidimensional

view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of management review, 25(4), p. 783-794.

(31)

31 | P a g e

Proctor, T., Doukakis, I. (2003). Change management: the role of internal communication and employee development. Corporate communication: an international journal, 8(4), p. 268-277.

Regts-Walters, G. (2012). To work is to relate: the influence of work relationships on individual work outcomes. University of Groningen

Richardson, P., Denton, D.K. (1996). Communicating change. Human resource management, 35(2), p. 203-216.

Roberts, B.W. (2009). Back to the future: Personality and assessment and personality development. Journal of research in personality, 43(2), p. 137-145.

Roberts, B.W., Delvecchio, W.F. (2000). The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: a quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological bulletin, 126(1), p. 3-25.

Roberts, B.W., Jackson, J.J., Fayard, J.V., Edmonds, G., Meints, J. (2009). Conscientiousness. Handbook of individual differences in social behaviour, Guilford Press, New York.

Roberts, B.W., Kuncel, N.R., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., Goldberg, L.R. (2007). The power of personality: the comparative validity of personality traits, socioeconomic status, cognitive ability for predicting important life outcomes. Perspectives on psychological science, 2(4), p. 313-345.

Roberts, B.W., Mroezek, D. (2008). Personality trait change in adulthood. Current directions in psychological science, 17(1), p. 31-35.

Roberts, B.W., Walton, K.E., Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patters of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological bulletin,132(1), p. 1-25.

Russ, T.L. (2008). Communicating Change: A review and critical analysis of programmatic and participatory implementation approaches. Journal of Change Management, 8 (3/4), p 199-211.

Ryan, N., Williams, T., Charles, M., Waterhouse, J. (2008). Top down organizational change in an Australian Government agency. International journal of public sector management, 21(1), p. 26-44.

READINESS FOR CHANGE

READINESS FOR CHANGE

MASTER THESIS

ABSTRACT

CONTENTS

1.

INTRODUCTION

2.

LITERATURE

REVIEW

2.1

R

2.2

R

2.3

R

2.4

C

3.

METHODS

3.1.

P

3.2

P

3.3

M

Readiness for change

Factor analysis dependent variable

Personality traits

Voice

Factor analysis independent variables

3.4

T

4.

RESULTS

4.1.

C

4.2.

H

5.

DISCUSSION

5.1.

F

5.2

T

5.3

L

CONCLUSION

REFERENCES