TOWARDS UNDERSTANDING AGENT-RECIPIENT EXCHANGE DURING CHANGE PROJECTS A bilateral study on the influence of agent-recipient exchange on change effectiveness.

(1)

1

TOWARDS UNDERSTANDING AGENT-RECIPIENT EXCHANGE

DURING CHANGE PROJECTS

A bilateral study on the influence of agent-recipient exchange on change

effectiveness.

by

Daniël Rogulic

Student number: 1776436 University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business

Master BA, Change Management

(2)

2

ABSTRACT

While our understanding of organizational change and the involved parties has increased drastically over the past decades, little remains known about the interaction between these parties; the change agents and recipients. This paper investigates this interaction by bilaterally researching towards change adjusted LMX, Agent-Recipient Exchange (ARX), and its effect on change effectiveness. An existing LMX scale was adjusted to measure ARX. The results show that, although agents do not perceive ARX to be an important determinant of change effectiveness, recipients do. Furthermore, a smaller gap between the agents’ and recipients’ perception of ARX relates to a smaller gap between their perceptions of change effectiveness, as well as to a better collective understanding of the change effectiveness. Future research suggestions to further explore the exchange between change agents and recipients are provided.

(3)

3

1 INTRODUCTION

Over the past decades, the view on organizational change has changed dramatically. Previously, the business environment was perceived as stable and change was seen as a disruptive event (Lewin, 1951). Nowadays, factors such as an increasing effectiveness of information and transportation technology cause the organizational environment to become more turbulent (Huber & Glick, 1993). Factors like these force organizations to change on a continuous basis to keep up with their ever-changing environments (Bechtold, 1997). However, in their attempts to change, prevailing knowledge remains that the vast majority of organizations fail (Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross, Roth & Smith, 1999).

The practical value of a better understanding of organizational change drove academics to explore this field thoroughly. In identifying the main actors involved in organizational change, two parties are distinguished over the years, namely change agents and change recipients. Regarding the change agent literature, some of the topics that get attention are specific behaviours (Higgs & Rowland, 2011), attributes (Armenakis, Harris & Mossholder, 1993), and change strategies that change agents deploy (Chin & Benne, 1985; Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008; Weick, 2000). Concerning the change recipient literature, returning topics are change recipients’ characteristics (Fried, Tiegs, Naughton & Ashforth, 1996; Martin, Jones & Callan, 2005) and their explicit reactions towards change initiatives (Armenakis, Bernerth, Pitts & Walker, 2007; Cunningham, 2006; Oreg, 2006).

Although the above mentioned researches have made an invaluable contribution to our understanding of the specific actors of organizational change, an important criticism can be made. Most of these researches take a unilateral perspective, thereby neglecting the role of one of the actors. Bouckenooghe, DeVos and Van Den Broeck (2009) call for the inclusion of both perspectives in change literature to create a thorough understanding of organizational change. A research that does take a bilateral approach has shown that a combination of both perspectives yields value that can lead to a reconsideration of prevailing assumptions (Ford, Ford & D’Amelio, 2008). However, while a combination of both the perspectives of the agent and recipient does occur, it is rather the exception than the rule. Moreover, a fundamental understanding of the interaction between both actors during organizational change remains an important gap in the current change literature.

(5)

5

(LMX) research, which intends to increase our understanding of the interaction between leaders and their followers (Maslyn & Uhl-Bien, 2001). Originated from leadership literature, LMX developed to explain the specific relationships that evolve between a leader and its members. However, by increasingly focusing on these stable relationships, LMX researchers inevitably neglected the explanatory power of LMX regarding the actual exchange between leaders and their members. Bernerth (2005) responded on this drift away from initial LMX literature intentions by ‘putting exchange back into Leader-Member Exchange’. Rather than describing exchange as a state that illustrates the extent to which the leader is loyal and likeable (Liden & Maslyn, 1998), Bernerth (2005) emphasizes the relevance of the actual exchange process.

The explanatory power of LMX literature in organizational change has been acknowledged and responded to (Self, Armenakis & Schraeder, 2007). Yet again, even though Self et al.’s (2007) attempt to apply LMX in an organizational change context yields important academic value, two major criticisms can be made. First, Self et al. (2007) take a unilateral approach towards LMX, focusing on the recipient’s perspective only. Second, instead of focusing on the social exchange process, they focus on the, more stable, earlier-developed working relationships. Due to this, they neglect the explanatory power of LMX regarding the exchange between agent and recipients during change initiatives.

Therefore, in essence, this research attempts to contribute to a better understanding of the interaction between change agents and recipients. The effect of this interaction on change effectiveness is researched to ultimately get a better insight in factors that could increase the success rate of organizational change initiatives. Consequently, we answer to Bernerth, Armenakis, Field, Giles and Walker’s (2007) request for researching LMX in an organizational change setting. In doing this, we adjust LMX towards organizational change, and label it Agent-Recipient Exchange (ARX). Furthermore, to guarantee a thorough understanding, we proceed in the direction initially taken by Bhal and Asari (1996), and research the exchange using a bilateral approach. In this respect, the agent’s and recipient’s separate perceptions are investigated, as well as the gap between their perceptions. The research question that follows from this is: How does the interaction between change agents and recipients influence the effectiveness of a change initiative (Figure 1)?

FIGURE 1 Research model Agent-Recipient

(6)

6

2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 Defining the actors and determining the scope

Before we elaborate on the main constructs, definitions of the main actors, together with a specification of the boundaries of this research are provided, to determine the scope of this study. Within organizational change literature, Lippitt, Watson and Westley (1958) are generally perceived to be the first authors to define the term change agent (e.g. Ottaway, 1983). In their definition, they focus on the external position of the change agent. Over the following years, a dozen of different definitions and taxonomies regarding the term change agent have been developed and used (Ottaway, 1983), each focusing on different aspects to be the key factor(s) distinguishing change agents from other people, such as specific tasks, characteristics and skills. A more recent research is the one by Ford et al. (2008), who focus on the specific tasks that define a change agent. Since the inclusion of both perspectives in their paper is closely in line with the bilateral approach we take in this paper, we stick to Ford et al. (2008: p. 362) for the purpose of defining the term change agent. Therefore we define change agents as those who are responsible for identifying the need for change, creating a vision and specifying a desired outcome, and then making it happen.

Next, it is important to provide clarity regarding the definition of the change recipient. The recipients are the largest group of people involved in organizational change (Mento, Jones & Dirndorfer, 2002). In line with Cawsey, Deszca and Ingols (2012), we think that the view of recipients as passive receivers of change deprives the potential of this group. Therefore, we stick to Kanter, Stein and Jick’s (1992) view on change recipients, and thus define change recipients as those people who are responsible for implementing, adopting, or adapting to the change(s).

(7)

7

Bouckenooghe, 2010), and strategies (e.g. Chin & Benne, 1985) are inextricably linked to the exchange between agents and recipients, they are beyond the scope of this research. Instead, this research focuses on the influence of the exchange between agents and recipient on the change effectiveness. This strictly delineated research model is decided upon to allow for the profundity that is necessary to thoroughly explore the diverging perspectives that are included in this research. However, this delineation does not exclude these change-related constructs from the chain of causation that is used to substantiate the argumentation in this research. Instead, it accentuates the focus on the exchange between agents and recipients, which is discussed below.

2.2 Agent-Recipient Exchange

This section elaborates on the ARX concept. Since this is the first study to research ARX, specific attention is given to the roots of this concept, namely LMX. First, the evolution of LMX is discussed, to get an understanding of the direction this research stream is heading. Subsequently, based on inconsistencies regarding the theoretical foundation of the measurements and the levels of analysis, ARX is delineated and defined. Finally, the different ARX-perspectives that are considered in this paper are discussed.

2.2.1 The evolution of Leader-Member Exchange

To understand the current status quo of the LMX literature, a basic conception of the evolution of this concept is critical. By understanding where LMX literature is coming from, and heading to, the foundation for the delineation of ARX is laid. The studies of Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) and Schriesheim, Castro and Cogliser (1999) both provide us with an overview of the evolution of LMX. Before the inception of LMX, the general perception was that leaders exhibit consistent behaviors towards all their followers, which was known as the Average Leadership Style (ALS) (e.g. Fleishman & Harris, 1962). In response, a stream of researches arose, which refuted this view on leadership and stated that leaders develop exclusive relationships with their different followers. This stream became known as Vertical Dyad Linkage (VDL) (e.g. Dansereau, Graen & Haga, 1975).

(8)

8

characteristics, as found in VDL studies. Furthermore, the relationships between LMX and specific organizational outcomes were further explored (Schriesheim et al., 1999).

During the following years, LMX evolved into several, relatively similar, directions. A critical research, causing a change in direction, is the one of Bernerth et al. (2007). Bernerth et al. (2007) argue that the evolution of LMX over the past decades had been nothing more than a change in terminology. According to the authors, rather than measuring the social exchange, LMX literature had remained to essentially measure the same as VDL, namely the established relationships between leaders and their members. In response to this, they propose a shift back toward the true intention of LMX literature, namely measuring the social exchange between leaders and their members.

2.2.2 Delineating and defining Agent-Recipient Exchange

The overview of the evolution of LMX literature shows how LMX developed into several distinct directions, regarding important aspects of the concept. Below, in line with Schriesheim et al. (1999), two important issues regarding our understanding of LMX are discussed, namely the theoretical foundation of the measurements and the level of analysis. These issues serve as a guide to properly delineate and define the ARX concept.

Theoretical foundation of the measurements

The theoretical foundation underlying the measures that are used to determine LMX has been a point of discussion during the development of this stream of research. Initially, LMX was measured by focusing on the negotiation latitude (Graen & Cashman, 1975). This measure focused on the extent to which leaders were open to individualize their assistance towards a member, for example the degree of willingness of leaders to consider role development requests by members (Dansereau et al., 1975). After these studies, this approach towards measuring LMX became the standard for nearly a decade (e.g. Graen, Novak & Sommerkamp, 1982).

(9)

9

that were later added to the multidimensional view on LMX, such as trust, liking and openness.

Although these multidimensional researches of LMX provided a valuable contribution to our understanding of the subdimensions of LMX, there is a major shortcoming. As acknowledged by Liden and Maslyn (1998), it appears difficult, if not impossible, to include all subdimensions in the conceptualization of LMX. Other researchers have responded that due to the high correlation between the subdimensions, measuring LMX using a unidimensional measure is justified (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Bernerth et al. (2007) moved forward in this direction by focusing on measuring LMX through the unidimensional social exchange concept. Furthermore, Bernerth et al. (2007) responded on Schriesheim et al.’s (1999) call for testing LMX measures for content validity. Since this research focuses on measuring the exchange between change agents and recipients, we proceed in the direction Bernerth et al. (2007) took with their research.

An issue of Bernerth et al.’s (2007) measure of LMX is the fact that only a member’s perspective is included. Schriesheim, Wu and Cooper (2011) emphasize this point and call for future efforts to focus on a bilateral approach. This research responds to Schriesheim et al.’s (2011) request by researching social exchange from both a change agent’s and recipient’s perspective.

Level of analysis

Next to the theoretical foundation that underlies the measurements, the level of analysis has been an important point of discussion within the LMX literature as well. Since organizations are composed of several different levels, it is crucial for researchers to determine the level they focus their analysis on (Klein, Dansereau & Hall, 1994). Regarding the LMX concept, this point is of specific interest, because this was the starting point of its development (Graen & Cashman, 1975). However, over the years, ambiguity regarding the most appropriate level of analysis to research LMX rose and caused different researches to focus on a variety of different levels of analysis.

(10)

10

Scandura (1987) expand this view, by claiming that these dyadic relationships do not exist independently from each other. According to them, LMX should be viewed as interdependent dyadic relationships, or network assemblies. This level of analysis is also known as the “dyads within group”-level.

A research that moved away from the standard dyadic level of analysis is the one by Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995). In essence, they are the first researchers who took a step back towards explaining the relationship between leader and members by describing LMX as a strictly relational concept. Rather than specific groups or persons, the level of analysis should be on the relational level. This view is criticized for the fact that this conceptualization does not specify the level of analysis, and subsequently assumes that all levels of analysis are appropriate (Dansereau et al., 1995).

Despite of this criticism, Graen and Uhl-Bien’s (1995) view formed the basis of Bernerth et al.’s (2007) social exchange approach. This research supports the view that the level of analysis should not be determined in advance, but instead serve the purpose of properly assessing the exchange in a specific situation. In doing this, Bernerth et al. (2007) used Blau’s (1964) conceptualization of social exchange. To assess this social exchange, Bernerth et al. (2007) focus on the two-way exchange in leader-member dyads (Bergh & Ketchen, 2011).

In this study, we are interested in assessing the exchange between agents and recipients. Therefore, we stick to Bernerth et al.’s (2007) approach and focus on the dyad as the level of analysis in assessing the two-way exchange between change agents and change recipients. This is line with Bernerth et al.’s (2007) call, to research this type of social exchange in an organizational change context.

Definition of Agent-Recipient Exchange

(11)

11

held by subordinates as to whether or not voluntary actions on their part will be returned by the supervisor in some way (p. 985).

Due to the focus of this research on the exchange between agents and recipients during organizational change initiatives, we focus on Bernerth et al.’s (2007) less stable, and more behavioral-oriented, view on LMX in defining ARX. However, where Bernerth et al. (2007) take a unilateral approach and focus on a more general context, this research includes bilateral perspectives in an organizational change context. Based on these differences, we adjust Bernerth et al.’s (2007) definition of LMSX, and define Agent-Recipient Exchange (ARX) as the perception held by the change agent/recipient as to what extent voluntary actions on one’s part will be returned by the other party in some way during the change initiative.

2.2.3 Agent-Recipient Exchange perspectives

The bilateral approach this research takes substantially contributes to the potential value of this research. A research in a different field, which attempted the same, is the one of Bhal and Ansari (1996), who performed a study on the quality of interaction between a leader and subordinates from both their perspectives. Although their initial idea of the inclusion of both perspectives yielded great value, we believe that their approach of focusing on the combined vision did not capture its full potential. By combining both views, all relevant information that the gap between both views yields, is averaged out.

In exploring the bilateral perspective on ARX, this research first explores the separate perceptions of the change agents and recipients. Gerstner and Day (1997) show that agreement on the quality of LMX is often shockingly low, borne in mind that the same exchange is rated. In line with this finding, this research first investigates the individual perceptions separately. The underlying reason for this is that a shared perception of exchange is often assumed, but rarely the case.

(12)

12

radical, while another person can perceive the same change as incremental (Helson, 1964; Pennings, 1988). Based on this, we define the ARX gap as the extent to which the perceptions held by change agents and recipients regarding the Agent-Recipient Exchange (ARX) differ (Figure 2). In line with the LMX literature, this ARX gap thus explains the degree of a shared understanding regarding the exchange between agents and recipient during change initiatives.

FIGURE 2

Agent/Recipient/Gap perspectives

2.3 Change effectiveness

2.3.1 Delineating and defining change effectiveness

As mentioned in the introduction, this study aims to explain the influence of ARX on change effectiveness. However, a clear definition (and related measurements) of change effectiveness is (are) often missing in current change literature (Elving, 2005). Next to that, Arvonen and Pettersson (2002) explain that the abundant number of potential criteria to include in defining change effectiveness can cause difficulties. Because of this, this research derives its definition from a more matured field of research in which the concept effectiveness has been researched extensively, namely project management. This is justified by other researches that combine an organizational change and project management perspective, based on their similar project-based nature (e.g. Markus, 2004; Partington, 1996).

A major contribution to our understanding of project effectiveness has been made by Baccarini (1999). His research explains that the success of a project depends on the effectiveness of the project’s management and the project’s product. Project management effectiveness concerns the effectiveness of the process, and project product effectiveness focuses on the project’s end-product. In line with their research, this paper will focus on the effectiveness of the change process, and the change outcome(s). Based on this delineation, the following definition for change effectiveness is used in this research: The degree, to which the change agent/recipient perceives the change as successful, based on the extent to which he/she is satisfied with the process and outcome(s) of the change initiative.

Agent Recipient

(13)

13

Because of the bilateral approach that is taken in this research, an important side note has to be made regarding the effectiveness of the change process. While change agents might hold specific ideas about the implementation of the change initiative, change recipients possibly hold different ideas. Several scholars have shown the importance of diverging views for effective organizational decision-making (Maier, 1970; Nemeth, 1997). Therefore, this study includes the degree to which these diverging beliefs can be expressed as an important component of the perceived effectiveness of the change process.

2.3.2 Change effectiveness perspectives

Regarding the different perspectives of effectiveness, Freeman and Beale (1992) showed that the perception of project effectiveness can differ between assessors. In their research, they propose a multi-dimensional framework for assessing project effectiveness, including the perspectives of the different actors involved. In this research, we build further in this direction, thereby including the perspectives of both the change agents and recipients separately.

Besides the fact that this view supports the focus on separate perspectives, this also shows the possibility of a diverging view of change effectiveness. Therefore, next to the individual perceptions of the change agents and recipients, a change effectiveness perception gap is researched as well (Figure 2). This gap again expresses the degree to which agents and recipients have a shared understanding of change effectiveness.

(14)

14

2.4 The influence of Agent-Recipient Exchange on change effectiveness

After having described ARX and change effectiveness, this section focuses on the development of hypotheses regarding how ARX influences change effectiveness. First, the influence of ARX on change effectiveness from a unilateral perspective is elaborated on. Subsequently, hypotheses are developed which concern the influence of the interaction of the agent’s and recipient’s ARX perspective on the collective understanding of change effectiveness. Finally, the influences of the ARX-gap on the change effectiveness-gap and the collective understanding of the change effectiveness are discussed.

2.4.1 The influence of ARX on change effectiveness from a unilateral perspective

In order to thoroughly research the influence of ARX on change effectiveness, we first study the relationship from both a change agent’s and recipient’s perspective separately. This is partially based on Gerstner and Day’s (1997) findings regarding diverging agent and recipient LMX perceptions. Next to that, Judge, Thoresen, Pucik and Welbourne (1999) suggested that the perceived success of the change initiative depends heavily on the individual that experiences the change. An explanation for this can be found in the diverging frames of reference that individuals can hold. Because of these diverging frames, different individuals can perceive essentially the same phenomena in a variety of ways (Gioia, Thomas, Clark & Chittipeddi, 1994). Based on this, we presume that ARX and change effectiveness are not objectively observable, but instead dependent on the observer.

If we look at the influences of LMX as found in the literature, we can see that LMX is positively related to a variety of work-related outcomes. As found in several studies, higher organizational commitment is an important outcome of high-quality exchange relationships between leaders and their members (Bernerth et al., 2007; Epitropaki & Martin, 1999). Moreover, LMX has been found to positively relate to task, contextual and general performance (Bernerth et al., 2007; Wayne, Shore & Liden, 1997).

(15)

15

change (or low feelings of resistance to change) that the change effort will be more effective. Based on the above argumentation, we thus assume that ARX positively influences change effectiveness.

Finally, since the perceptions of ARX and change effectiveness are dependent on expectations and frames of references, the assessment of these phenomena can differ between assessors. Because of this, the following separate hypotheses are developed (Figure 3):

H1a: The higher the agent perceives ARX, the higher the agent perceives the effectiveness of the change initiative.

H1b: The higher the recipient perceives ARX, the higher the recipient perceives the effectiveness of the change initiative.

FIGURE 3

The effect of ARX on change effectiveness from a unilateral perspective

2.4.2 The influence of ARX on change effectiveness from a bilateral perspective

The collective understanding of change effectiveness is a concept constructed by combining the change agent’s and recipient’s perceptions of the effectiveness of the change initiative. If there would be no difference between the agent’s and recipient’s perception of ARX, this would mean that the relationship between ARX and change effectiveness would remain in line with the above argumentation. However, it can be the case that an agent perceives the ARX to be of a high quality, while the recipient perceives the opposite, or vice versa. Bernerth et al. (2007) demonstrated that the social exchange, which forms the theoretical foundation of ARX, includes feelings such as gratitude, altruism and trust. In line with the above argumentation, we argue that these feelings contribute to a higher commitment, and ultimately to a higher change effectiveness. However, if only one party experiences these feelings, while the other party does not, a minimal effect on the collective understanding of the change effectiveness is expected. Thus, the other party’s perception of ARX plays an important moderating role in this relationship. Hence, we propose that the collective

(16)

16

understanding of the change effectiveness is only partially dependent on the agent’s or recipient’s separate perceptions of ARX, but to a larger extent on the interaction between both perceptions (Figure 4).

H2: The higher the interaction between the agent’s and recipient’s perception of ARX, the higher the collective understanding of change effectiveness.

FIGURE 4

The interaction effect of ARX on the collective understanding of change effectiveness

2.4.3 The effect of the ARX-gap on change effectiveness

A major premise, on which LMX is founded, is the assumption that leaders create unique relationships with their members (Graen & Cashman, 1975). Whether or not this is truly the case is difficult to determine due to the possibly differing perceptions of these relationships, and is beyond the scope of this research. However, that different members and leaders differ individually, and, based on this, can have diverging views on their exchange relationships, goes without saying (Schriesheim, Casto & Yammarino, 2001). The same applies to the effectiveness of the change initiative.

Within the LMX literature, a distinction is often made between “in-group” and “out-group” exchanges. Graen (1976) argues that because of time and energy restraints, leaders only develop high-quality exchange relationships with only a selected few members (in-group), while the rest of the members are only formally supervised (out-group). The differing exchange relationships differently affect the satisfaction and performance of followers (Schriesheim et al., 2001). A major shortcoming of this view is that, even though an agent might perceive the exchanges to be of high-quality, the recipient might view this in a different way. Based on the bilateral approach of this research, we explore the extent to which recipients experience the exchange with their agent to be of a high quality, in comparison to their agent’s experience. More specific, in this section we link the gap between a change agent’s and recipient’s perception of ARX to the perception gap of change effectiveness.

(17)

17

Graen and Cashman (1975) belong to the first authors to describe the difference between in-group and out-group members. In their research, they show that in-group members receive more inside information, have a greater influence in the decision-making process, and receive greater autonomy regarding their roles, than out-group members. Next to that, in-group members perceive to receive higher support from their leaders, higher responsiveness from their leader, and ultimately more positive evaluation of the intrinsic outcomes of their jobs (Dansereau et al., 1975). Dansereau et al. (1975) argue that the members that are perceived to be part of the in-group ultimately express a higher commitment. As mentioned before, we argue that this higher level of commitment results in more readiness and less resistance behavior, and thus a higher change effectiveness (Elving, 2005).

In line with this reasoning, we argue that if the change agent’s perception of the exchange is higher than the recipient’s perception, the recipient rates himself to be more out-group than the agent would. Because of this, the recipient would have a lower commitment than the agent would expect. Consequently, this recipient most-likely shows a lower contribution to the change, and ultimately perceives the change initiative to be less effective. The opposite holds as well.

H3a: The bigger the gap between the change agent’s and recipient’s perception of ARX, the bigger the gap between the change agent’s and recipient’s perception of the change effectiveness (Figure 5).

FIGURE 5

The effect of the ARX-gap on the change effectiveness gap

Next to linking the ARX-gap to the change effectiveness gap, there is evidence to relate this gap to the collective understanding of change effectiveness as well. Within LMX literature, several authors researched the extent to which leaders and members agree on their exchange relationship, which is also known as LMX agreement. Atwater and Yammarino (1997) show that agreement between members’ and their leader’s assessment regarding the leader’s behavior is positively related to performance. A study on a related subject found that congruence between managers’ and their subordinates’ perception of work-related attitudes

Agent-Recipient Exchange Gap

Change effectiveness Gap

(18)

18

was positively associated with job satisfaction (Wexley, Alexander, Greenawalt & Couch, 1980). They argue that this state of congruence can be considered as a measure for the accuracy of communication. Gils et al. (2009) conclude that if the LMX agreement is higher then so is the performance. In line with these findings, we argue that the more congruent the perceptions of the agent and recipient are regarding the interaction during the change initiative, the higher their collective understanding of the change effectiveness is. This is translated in Hypothesis 3b, which can be found below (Figure 6). An overview of all hypotheses is provided in Table 1 below.

H3b: The bigger the gap between the change agent’s and recipient’s perception of ARX, the lower the collective understanding of change effectiveness.

FIGURE 6

The effect of the ARX-gap on the collective understanding of change effectiveness

TABLE 1

Overview of the hypotheses on Influence of Change effectiveness Agent Change effectiveness Recipient Change effectiveness Gap Change effectiveness Collective Understanding

ARX Agent H1a: +

H2: +

ARX Recipient H1b: +

ARX Gap H3a: + H3b: -

Agent-Recipient Exchange Gap

(19)

19

3 METHOD

3.1 Data gathering procedure and participation criteria

In this section, the procedure that was used to gather the data is outlined. To begin with, two different questionnaires were developed to measure the relevant constructs from both an agent’s and a recipient’s perspective. After the development of the content of the questionnaires, a web-based version of the questionnaires was developed. The main reason for using digital questionnaires, over paper versions, was to lower the entry threshold, thereby presumably increasing the response rate. After the development of the questionnaires, a pilot was conducted with several relatively knowledgeable students. Based on this test-run, several (textual) adjustments were made to prevent clarity issues.

Secondly, teams that were willing to fill in the questionnaires were gathered. To find possible participants, a combination of convenience sampling and snowballing was used. First, a list of acquaintances was consulted to gather contact information of managers. The second method that was used, was consulting a list of participants from an earlier research, who agreed to participate in follow-up studies. Finally, contact information from random companies was gathered.

(20)

20

Finally, e-mails were send to both the agents and recipients. In these e-mails, the procedure was repeated to avoid ambiguities. Furthermore, participation numbers were provided to all participating individuals, for further coding. Most importantly, the e-mails contained a link to the version of the questionnaire that was relevant to the participant (either agent or recipient). To increase the response rate of this research, reminders were mailed to both the change agents and recipients after a one week period of non-response; this process was repeated two times.

3.2 Sample description

In total, 45 agents filled in the questionnaire. Regarding these change agents, 80.0% was male and 20.0% was female. Their age ranged from 23 to 60 (M = 43.96; SD = 9.72). Regarding their education, 75.5% finished a vocational study or higher. The amount of experience ranged from 1 year up to 26 years (M = 8.43; SD = 6.76). Together, these agents provided us with a total of 112 recipients, of which 64.3% was male and 35.7% was female. The recipients’ ages ranged from 19 to 64 (M = 39.12; SD = 12.98). The education level of the recipients 46.4% finished a vocational study or higher. The experience of the recipients ranged from 0 up to 27 years (M = 7.13; SD = 6.06).

Furthermore, a total of 30 companies participated, of which the size ranged from 1 employee, up to 9000 employees (M = 1035.40; SD = 2169.57). Within these companies, a total of 33 change projects were analyzed. Examples of change projects are fusions, structural- and cultural changes, automation, and authorization-related changes.

(21)

21 3.3 Measurement of the variables

To measure the constructs, two different surveys were developed; a change agent and a change recipient version. A complete list of all items that were used to measure ARX, change effectiveness, and several change-related control variables, together with their codes, can be found in Appendix A. The sources of the scales that were used to measure these constructs, together with important adjustments that were made to these scales, are provided below.

Agent-Recipient Exchange was measured using an adopted version of the LMSX-scale developed and validated by Bernerth et al. (2007). Since these items focus on the social exchange in a general organizational context, we adjusted the items to fit an organizational change context. Furthermore, the original scale of Bernerth et al. (2007) is focused at measuring LMSX from a member’s perspective only. Since this study explores the gap between the agent’s and recipient’s perceptions of this construct, a version to measure ARX from each perspective was developed. A total of eight items were developed to measure ARX (Appendix A). Both agents and recipients had to rate on a scale from Totally disagree (1) to Totally agree (7) to what extent they agreed with each statement. An example of a change agent’s ARX-statement is: “During the change process, there was two-way communication between my employees and me.” Based on these two perspectives, the gap was derived. To determine the gap, an adjusted version of Verdú-Jover, Lloréns-Montes and García-Morales’ (2006) fit approach was used (see Figure 7 in Appendix B). Essentially, the ARX gap is the absolute value of the subtraction of the recipient’s perception of ARX from the agent’s perception of ARX (ARX _Gap ARX _AARX _R ).

(22)

22

one of the items is: “During the change process, employees with diverging views got a saying in the process.” The effectiveness of the change outcomes was measured using three items. An example of such an item is: “I think the change was successful (or will be successful).” Besides the separate individual perspectives, the change effectiveness gap was determined. The change effectiveness gap is the absolute value of the subtraction of the change recipient’s rating of change effectiveness from the change agent’s rating of change effectiveness (ChaEff _Gap ChaEff _AChaEff _R ). Furthermore, the collective understanding of the change effectiveness was derived by combining the change agent’s and recipient’s perceptions of the change effectiveness (ChaEff _CUChaEff _ACha_Eff _R).

Control variables were subdivided in demographic variables and change-related variables. Demographic variables that were included as control variables are the agents’ and recipients’ age, gender, education and experience. To assure comparability between differently sized firms and change project of different scopes, the firm size and the scope of the change initiative were included as control variables. To measure the scope of the change, the depth and breadth items of the scale as developed by Vos and Brand (2012) were used.

Besides these more general variables, we included two specific change-related constructs as control variables as well. These variables are resistance and readiness behavior. The reason for including these variables in our further analyses is the importance of these constructs in our chain of causation. Without controlling for these variables, the effects of the other factors that are included in further analyses might be over- or underestimated, which is also known as the omitted-variable bias. By including resistance and readiness the presumed confounding effects of these variables are anticipated and taken into account. Resistance was measured based on an adjusted version of Oreg’s (2006) behavioral resistance items. Readiness behavior was measured by using Bouckenooghe et al.’s (2009) intentional readiness scale.

3.4 Data analysis

(23)

23

the constructs that are used for the further analyses were developed (Field, 2000)1. Cronbach’s Alphas of the main constructs were then measured to assure internal reliability.

First, a rotated Varimax factor analysis was performed on the recipients’ ARX and change effectiveness items. The extraction was based on an eigenvalue greater than one. The results can be found in Table 2 in Appendix C. The results show that, in line with earlier research, ARX loads onto one factor (Bernerth et al., 2007). The Cronbach’s Alpha of the recipient’s perception of ARX is .923. Furthermore, change effectiveness loads onto two factors, namely the process’ (Factor 2) and the outcome(s)’ effectiveness (Factor 3). This is in line with Baccarini’s (1999) theoretical dichotomy in project management effectiveness. The Cronbach’s Alpha of the recipient’s perception of change effectiveness is .881.

Next, a rotated Varimax factor analysis was performed on the agents’ ARX and change effectiveness items. Because an extraction based on an eigenvalue of greater than one caused the items to load on five different factors, an extraction based on three fixed factors was performed. The results can be found in Table 3 below in Appendix C. As can been seen, and again in line with Baccarini (1999), the change effectiveness items of the change agents load on a process (Factor 2) and outcome(s) (Factor 3) dimension as well. The Cronbach’s Alpha of the agent’s perception of change effectiveness is .806. However, the items ARX_1A and ARX_2A appear to load on the same factor as the change process effectiveness items, showing how the change agents perceive this part of the exchange during the change initiatives to be a measurement of process effectiveness, rather than a part of ARX. Based on this finding, we determined to remove ARX_1A and ARX_2A before performing the further analyses. To allow for comparability between the results of the agents and recipients, the ARX_1R and ARX_2R items of the recipient’s version are excluded as well. The new results of the factor analyses for both the recipient’s and agent’s version can be found below in Table 4 and 5, respectively. By removing the ARX_1 and ARX_2 items from both versions, the Cronbach’s Alpha of the recipient’s perception of ARX changed from .923 to .916. The Cronbach’s Alpha of the agent’s perception of ARX did not change and remained on .867. As can be seen, all constructs have Cronbach’s Alphas above the generally perceived minimum threshold of 0.7 (Nunnally, 1970). Concluding, the decision to remove ARX_1 and ARX_2

1

(24)

24

from the agent’s and recipient’s versions does not substantially harm the reliability of the scales, while increasing the validity considerably.

TABLE 4

Factor analysis on recipients’ items

1 2 3

Recipient’s perception of ARX

ARX_3R _.787 _.038 _.265 ARX_4R _.779 _.305 _.192 ARX_5R _.771 _.359 _.119 ARX_6R _.774 _.336 _.260 ARX_7R _.782 _.377 _.236 ARX_8R _.673 _.209 _.285

Recipient’s perception of change effectiveness

ChaEff_1R _.264 _.659 _.489 ChaEff_2R _.377 _.710 _.328 ChaEff_3R _.175 _.882 _.080 ChaEff_4R _.367 _.817 _.093 ChaEff_5R _.230 _.155 _.847 ChaEff_6R _.193 _.123 _.843 ChaEff_7R _.334 _.210 _.832 TABLE 5

Factor analysis on agents’ items

1 2 3

Agent’s perception of ARX

ARX_3A _.683 _-.093 _.040 ARX_4A _.655 _.304 _.131 ARX_5A _.671 _.436 _.014 ARX_6A _.780 _.291 _-.029 ARX_7A _.850 _.287 _.017 ARX_8A _.826 _.015 _.025

Agent’s perception of change effectiveness

(25)

25

Secondly, to test for normality, a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was performed. The results can be found in Table 6 below. All main constructs significantly deviated from a normal distribution. Because of this, skewness and kurtosis tests were performed, to further explore the shape of these distributions. As can be seen, the agent’s perception of change effectiveness has skewness and kurtosis values falling outside the -1.0 to 1.0 range (Cooper & Schindler, 2006). Based on this, we can say that this construct deviates from a normal distribution, in the sense that it is skewed to the left and more peaked. Findings related to this construct have to be interpreted considering this distribution and one should be cautious with generalizing the related results to the wider population.

TABLE 6

Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and Skewness & Kurtosis tests Variable Statistic Significance Skewness Kurtosis ARX_A .158 .000 -.389 .182 ARX_R .140 .000 -.426 .083 ChaEff_A .165 .000 -1.332 2.723 ChaEff_R .105 .004 -.577 -.239

(26)

26

4 RESULTS

4.1 Descriptive statistics and correlations

In Table 7 below, an overview of the descriptives of the main constructs and the control variables can be found. As can be seen, the agents have a slightly higher perception of ARX, than the recipients. Furthermore, agents scored approximately more than a full point higher on the change effectiveness. This again demonstrated the importance of exploring the gap between both perceptions.

TABLE 7

Main descriptive statistics (all variables on 7-point likert scale)

(27)

27

After computing the descriptive statistics, correlations between the control, dependent and independent variables were measured. The results can be found in Table 8 below. The correlation analysis provides us with an initial insight in whether or not, and to what extent the main variables correlate in line with the hypotheses. As can be seen, ARX from the agent’s perspective correlates positively with the agent’s perception of change effectiveness, which is in line with our expectations as expressed in Hypothesis 1a. Next, the recipient’s perception of ARX positively correlates with the recipient’s perception of change effectiveness, which is in line with Hypothesis 1b. The ARX gap positively correlates with the change effectiveness gap and negatively correlates with the collective understanding of change effectiveness. These findings are in line with Hypotheses 3a and 3b respectively.

(28)

28 TABLE 8

Correlations between the control, dependent and independent variables

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 1 GenderA - 2 AgeA -.33** - 3 EducationA .05 .18 - 4 ExperienceA -.28** .43** -.14 - 5 GenderR .30** -.25** .02 -.09 - 6 AgeR -.08 .07 -.08 .03 -.16 - 7 EducationR .06 .16 .19 -.14 -.08 -.20* - 8 ExperienceR -.15 .02 .01 .28** -.10 .43** -.29** - 9 FirmSize -.21* -.20* -.31** .02 -.17 .14 -.16 .24* - 10 Scope_A -.29** .23* -.06 .04 -.14 .21* .01 .06 .16 - 11 Scope_R -.26** .28** -.04 .13 -.00 .14 -.00 .07 .03 .47** - 12 Read_A .22* .14 -.05 .02 .00 -.06 .09 -.12 -.36**_.27** _.11 _- 13 Read_R -.04 -.08 -.16 -.15 -.01 .04 -.08 .01 .11 .09 .15 -.05 - 14 Resis_A -.15 .05 -.11 .09 -.09 .15 .10 .08 .11 .30** .02 -.15 -.16 - 15 Resis_R -.03 .03 .06 -.12 .06 .01 -.02 .07 -.18 .07 .05 .15 -.06 -.11 - 16 ARX_A .34** -.10 -.18 -.02 .11 -.14 .15 -.02 .01 .01 -.21* .35** -.11 -.02 -.05 - 17 ARX_R .06 -.07 .02 .02 .05 .03 .12 -.09 -.20* -.07 .09 .21* .05 -.08 -.05 .07 - 18 ARX_Gap -.03 -.11 -.22* -.01 -.03 .04 -.04 .09 .18 -.01 -.06 -.12 .02 .06 -.19* .08 -.35** - 19 ChaEff_A -.01 .06 .09 -.12 -.05 -.13 -.02 -.17 -.20* .42** .16 .70** .06 -.15 .15 .22* .06 -.17 - 20 ChaEff_R .01 -.02 .08 .00 .05 .06 .08 -.09 -.11 -.03 .07 .14 -.05 -.14 -.04 -.04 .70** -.24* .08 - 21 ChaEff_Gap -.03 .29** -.02 -.01 .00 .02 -.11 .01 -.07 .12 .01 .13 -.05 .07 .03 .06 -.50** .25** .23* -.69** - 22 ChaEff_CU .02 .02 .13 -.08 .01 -.04 .05 -.17 -.21* .23* .13 .55** .00 -.21* .07 .11 .57** -.29** .67**_.79**_-.36** _-

(29)

29 4.2 Testing the hypotheses

Hypothesis 1a states that the higher the agent perceives ARX, the higher the agent perceives the effectiveness of the change initiative. In order to test Hypothesis 1a, several steps were taken. In step one, the control variables that correlate significantly with the relevant concepts were added. In step two, ARX from both an agent’s and recipient’s perspective were added as independent variables. Finally, change effectiveness from an agent’s perspective was added as dependant variable. The results can be found in Table 9 below. As can be seen, ARX from an agent’s perspective does not significantly relate to change effectiveness from an agent’s perspective (β = .050, p > .05), thereby rejecting Hypothesis 1a. Furthermore, after adding the agent’s and recipient’s perception of ARX, the model as a whole explains 63.1% of the variance of the change agent’s perception of change effectiveness (F (2, 100) = 18.270, p < .01).

TABLE 9

(30)

30

Hypothesis 1b states that the higher the recipient perceives ARX, the higher the recipient perceives the effectiveness of the change initiative. To test Hypothesis 1b, instead of adding change effectiveness from an agent’s perspective, the recipient’s perspective was entered as the dependent variable. All of the other steps remained the same. The results can be found in Table 10 below. A positive relationship between the recipient’s perception of ARX and the recipient’s perception of change effectiveness was found (β = .508, p < .01), thereby confirming Hypothesis 1b. Next to that, the agent’s perception of ARX did not relate significantly to the recipient’s perspective of the change effectiveness. Again, after adding ARX from both perspectives, the explained variance of the complete model significantly rose with 41.2%. This model explained 47.1% of the total variance of the recipient’s perspective of change effectiveness (F (2, 100) = 9.967, p < .01).

TABLE 10

(31)

31

Next, Hypothesis 2 was tested. Hypothesis 2 reports that the higher the interaction between the agent’s and recipient’s perception of ARX, the higher their collective understanding of the change effectiveness. In step one the relevant control variables were added. In step two, the agent’s and recipient’s perceptions of ARX were added to control for separate effects of these variables. In step three, the interaction term (ARX_A*ARX_R) was added. The collective understanding of change effectiveness was added as the dependent variable. The results can be found in Table 11 below. As can be seen, the recipient’s perception of ARX positively relates to the collective understanding of the change effectiveness (β = .525, p < .01). The relationship between the interaction term and the collective understanding of the change effectiveness is non-significant (β = -.048. p = .207). Based on these results, we reject Hypothesis 2. Next to that, while model two added 20.9% of the explanation of variance in the collective understanding of the change effectiveness (F (2, 100) = 14.039, p < .01), model three did not add a significant percentage of explanatory power regarding this construct.

TABLE 11

Regression analysis ARX_A*ARX_R on ChaEff_CU Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Coefficients Coefficients Coefficients

Independent variables

(32)

32

Hypothesis 3a states that the bigger the gap between the change agent’s and recipient’s perception of ARX, the bigger the gap between the change agent’s and recipient’s perception of the change effectiveness. To test Hypothesis 3a, again the relevant control variables were added in step one. In step two, the ARX gap was added as the independent variable. The perception gap in change effectiveness was added as the dependent variables. The results are provided in Table 12 below. There appears to be a positive relationship between the ARX gap and the change effectiveness gap (β = 0.285, p < .01), thus confirming Hypothesis 3a. Furthermore, after adding the ARX gap, the model as a whole explained 13.2% of the variance of the change effectiveness gap (F (1, 101) = 2.681, p < .01).

TABLE 12

(33)

33

Finally, Hypothesis 3b states that the bigger the gap between the change agent’s and recipient’s perception of ARX, the lower their collective understanding of change effectiveness. To test Hypothesis 3b, once again the control variables were added. After that, the ARX gap was added as the independent variable. Lastly, the collective understanding of the change effectiveness was added as the dependent variable. The results are depicted in Table 13 below. The results show a negative relationship between the ARX gap and the collective understanding of the change effectiveness (β = -.167, p < .01). Based on this finding, Hypothesis 3b is accepted. Adding the ARX gap increased the explanatory power of the model regarding the collective understanding of change effectiveness with 4.4%, to 38.6% (F (1, 101) = 7.993, p < .01).

TABLE 13

(34)

34

5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

5.1 Discussion of the findings

Before we reflect on the findings of the regression analyses, an important note regarding the scope of this research has to be made. The correlation analysis shows that, besides several demographic variables, the scope of the change initiative and some specific attitudes towards change correlate with the main constructs. These findings confirm why years of research focused on the nature of change initiatives (e.g. Marshak, 2002), and change-related attitudes (Bouckenooghe, 2010). Furthermore, the correlation analysis substantiates that, even though beyond the scope of our research model, including such variables in organizational change research is fundamental.

The regression analysis to test Hypothesis 1a shows that, as opposed to our expectations, the agent’s perception of ARX does not influence the agent’s perception of change effectiveness. While the first model, containing the control variables, appeared to explain a significant degree of variance in change effectiveness, adding the change agent’s perception of ARX did not add a significant degree of variance. These findings suggest that agents perceive their interaction with recipients to have no influence on their perception of the effectiveness of the change initiative. Instead, agents perceive other variables, such as the scope of the change, and readiness and resistance behaviours, to be better determinants of the change effectiveness.

(35)

35

Hypothesis 2 was rejected, showing that not the interaction between the agent’s and recipient’s ARX perceptions, but rather the recipient’s perception of ARX was the most important predictor of the collective understanding of change effectiveness. This is closely in line with the findings of Hypothesis 1a, which show that agents do not perceive ARX as an important predictor of change effectiveness.

Hypothesis 3a was confirmed, thereby showing that when the gap between the agent’s and recipient’s perceptions of ARX increases, the gap between their perceptions of change effectiveness increases as well. Vice versa, this means that if agent and recipient to a greater extent have a shared understanding of the exchange, they have a better shared understanding of the change effectiveness as well. This finding can be explained by what Gils et al. (2009) call a socially-constructed reality. Based on diverging frames of reference, different people can interpret the same event in many different ways (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982). Based on a more equal frame of reference between agents and recipients, a higher shared understanding regarding ARX and change effectiveness can be explained.

Furthermore, Hypothesis 3b shows that the better the shared understanding of the ARX is between agents and recipients, the higher their collective understanding of the change effectiveness is. This finding can be substantiated by the researches of Atwater and Yammarino (1992), Wexley et al. (1980) and Gils et al. (2009), which show how congruence in the perceptions of leaders and their followers regarding LMX, also known as LMX agreement, is positively related to several important work-related outcomes. Next to that, a combination of the findings of Hypothesis 3a and 3b stresses the importance of aiming for a shared understanding of high-quality ARX.

(36)

36 5.2 Theoretical contributions

In essence, this research made one specific contribution to organizational change literature, namely researching the exchange between change agents and recipient, and its effect on change effectiveness. In accomplishing this, several other contributions were made. While several academics applied LMX literature in an organizational change context (Self et al., 2007), these authors did not adjust this research stream to organizational change. Rather, these studies focused on the earlier-developed relationships between leaders and members. This research adjusted LMX towards organizational change, by focusing on the interaction between change agents and recipients during change initiatives. In line with these adjustments, an existing LMX survey was adapted to come to a new scale to measure agent-recipient exchange. Additionally, this research contributed to the literature by answering Bernerth et al.’s (2007) call for the development of two surveys, to measure both the leader’s and member’s perception.

Next, where some LMX researchers employ a unilateral approach to research LMX (e.g. Liden & Maslyn, 1998; Schyns, Kroon & Moors, 2008), others utilize a bilateral approach (e.g. Bhal & Ansari, 1996). While these bilateral researches have shown a glimpse of the potential of such an approach, they do not explore its full potency. This research tried to make a contribution towards more fully exploring the potential of a bilateral approach, by exploring the different perceptions (agent’s and recipient’s), a combination of these perceptions, and the gap between them.

5.3 Practical implications

(37)

37

Specific ways in which change agents can enhance the perceived quality of the exchange during change initiatives are not directly available. However, LMX literature provides us with several actions leaders can undertake to increase the perceived quality of the exchange. Larwood and Blackmore (1978) demonstrated that when groups are composed of members from the similar gender, or when members are acquaintances from each other, the exchange is generally perceived to be from a higher quality. Steiner (1988) added that when group members hold the same intrinsic and extrinsic values, the quality is also enhanced. Change agents can use this information to compose change teams in which the members demonstrate similarities on some of these dimensions, to increase the perceived exchange quality. An important note of caution should be made to this recommendation. While a high in-group similarities might lead to a higher exchange quality, this effect does differ between cultures (Steiner, 1988). Furthermore, the possible negative effects of diminished work group diversity have to be taken into account as well (e.g. Jehn, Northcraft & Neale, 1999).

5.4 Limitations and recommendations for future research

Although this research made important contributions to both practice and literature, these contributions have to be interpreted in light of their limitations. An important limitation can be found in the conceptual approach of ARX. For the purpose of this research, we determined to focus on the social exchange within agent-recipient dyads, in line with Bernerth et al. (2007). In doing this, we excluded the possibility that agents create unique exchange relationships with their different recipients. In that sense, this research departs from initial LMX intentions (Dansereau et al., 1975), by revisiting the ALS theorists’ perspective (Fleishman & Harris, 1962) to explain the exchange between agents and recipients during change initiatives. An important ground for this decision was to focus on the actual exchange during the change initiative, rather than the stable, earlier developed relationships. While the findings prove that this method provide us with invaluable insights, other approaches might extend our knowledge. Therefore, future research could focus on individualized dyadic exchange relationships to further develop our knowledge of ARX.

(38)

38

beforehand, practice shows that human errors remain inevitable. The effects that these errors might have caused have to be taken into account when interpreting the results.

Besides these practical issues regarding the data gathering method, another limitation is the possibly limited generalizability of the findings. Several factors may cause this limitation. First, due to the complicated data gathering procedure that was used to gather data from dyads, the size of the data set was limited. Furthermore, the vast majority of participating companies were located in the Netherlands. Because of this, possibly important cultural differences, as for example identified by Hofstede (1980) were left out of account. Third, the test for normality showed that, even though most not significantly, all variables deviated from a normal distribution. This might mean that the results of this research are only applicable to this deviated population. In sum, future research should focus on securing a higher generalizability by increasing the data set, acquiring participants from outside the Netherlands, and using data gathering methods that assist in acquiring a normal distributed part of the population.

Regarding the analyses performed to test the hypotheses, a possible limitation could be the fact that only linear regression analyses were performed. Although u/n-shaped relationships are not expected in this case, specific confounding variables that could lead to spurious relationships could definitely be present. Although we included several relevant control variables, such as resistance and readiness behavior, confounding effects of other variables are not to be neglected. Future research could attempt to research whether the relationship between ARX and change effectiveness is spurious, meaning it can be explained by confounding effects.

Furthermore, this research is to my knowledge the first research to investigate the effects of agent-recipient exchange on the effectiveness of change initiatives. Because of the thorough bilateral approach to research this relationship, determinants of ARX are beyond the scope of this research. It can thus be seen as a limitation that, while we better understand the relationship between ARX and change effectiveness, we know little about factors that influence ARX. Future research could explore possible determinants of ARX to better understand how change agents could ultimately increase the effectiveness of change initiatives.

(39)

39

(40)

40

REFERENCES

Armenakis, A.A., Bernerth, J.B., Pitts, J.P., & Walker, H.J. 2007. Organizational change recipients’ beliefs scale: Development of an assessment instrument. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43: 495-505.

Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G., & Feild, H.S. 1999. Making change permanent: A model for institutionalizing change interventions. In Pasmore, W.A., & Woodman, R.W., Research in organizational change and development. New York: JAI.

Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G., & Mossholder, K.W. 1993. Creating readiness for organizational change. Human Relations, 46(6): 681-703.

Arvonen, J., & Pettersson, P. 2002. Leadership behaviours as predictors of cost and change effectiveness. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 18(1): 101-112.

Atwater, L.E., & Yammarino, F.J. 1992. Does self-other agreement on leadership perceptions moderate the validity of leadership and performance predictions? Personnel Psychology, 45: 141-164.

Atwater, L.E., & Yammarino, F.J. 1997. Self-other rating agreement: A review and a model. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 15: 121-174.

Baccarini, D. 1999. The Logical Framework Method for Defining Project Success. Project Management Journal, 30(4): 25-32.

Bandura, A. 2001. Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52: 1-26.

Bechtold, B.L. 1997. Chaos theory as a model for strategy development. Empowerment in Organizations, 5(4): 193-201.

Becker, T.E. 2005. Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research Methods, 8: 274-289.

Bergh, D.D., & Ketchen, D.J. 2011. Introduction: Building methodological bridges. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Bernerth, J.B. 2005. Putting Exchange Back into Leader-Member Exchange (LMX): An Empirical Assessment of a Social Exchange (LMSX) Scale and an Investigation of Personality as an Antecedent. Doctoral dissertation. Auburn University. Unpublished. Bernerth, J.B., Armenakis, A.A., Field, H.S., Giles, J.F., & Walker, H.J. 2007.

TOWARDS UNDERSTANDING AGENT-RECIPIENT EXCHANGE DURING CHANGE PROJECTS A bilateral study on the influence of agent-recipient exchange on change effectiveness.