CHANGE FATIGUE AND ORGANIZATIONAL
COMMITMENT
Explaining the individual differences in response to change fatigue
Master thesis, MScBA, specialization Change Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
June 27, 2016 Theo Klein Studentnumber: 2223376 Holtingerbrink 198 7812 DC, Emmen tel.: +31 (0)6-48707286 e-mail: theo-klein@hotmail.com
First Supervisor / University:
Dr. J.C.L. Paul / Rijksuniversiteit Groningen
2
Explaining the individual differences in response to change fatigue
ABSTRACT
This study examines the moderating effect of personality traits on the relation between change fatigue and organizational commitment. Change fatigue is tested as a predictor of organizational commitment, and the personality traits of openness to experience, extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness are tested for a possible moderating effect. The study is conducted at a large healthcare organization in the north of Holland. The sample consists of 120 employees, of whom 83 responded. A self-administered survey is conducted to gather the data, using an online questionnaire consisting of 16 items which were drawn from theory. Support is found for a negative relation between change fatigue and organizational commitment. Support was also found for the moderating effects of openness to experience and extraversion in this relation, both weakening the negative influence of change fatigue upon increase. The moderating effects of agreeableness and conscientiousness were not supported.
Keywords: Change fatigue, Organizational commitment, Personality traits, Openness to experience, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness.
Word count: 9.296 (excluding appendices)
Acknowledgements:
3 1. INTRODUCTION
The heightened pressures and challenges which organizations face cause organizational change to happen at an increasing frequency (Hansson et al., 2008), making the study of change phenomena an increasingly important topic (Caldwell & Yi, 2011). With each change employees have to adapt to new circumstances. At the same time, retaining some stability benefits an employee’s sense of identity and understanding (Huy, 1999). When the rate of change is perceived as too frequent, the organization risks that this may come at the expense of other important organizational factors such as commitment or satisfaction (Rafferty & Griffin, 2006; Huy, 2001). This perception that too much change is taking place can be defined as change fatigue (Bernerth et al., 2011).
Change fatigue has emerged as a different concept offering a way of explaining change failure (McMillan & Perron, 2013). Change fatigue, unlike resistance to change, is rarely apparent to managers as it is mostly associated with passive behaviours which often go unnoticed (Bernerth et al., 2011; McMillan & Perron, 2013). This might explain why change fatigue has not been the focus of scholarly investigation and discussion. Regardless, the concept of change fatigue is said to offer insight beyond that of resistance to change, enhancing the understanding of organizational change (McMillan & Perron, 2013).
The effect of change fatigue on the organization was explored by Bernerth et al. (2011), who showed that change fatigue is positively related to feelings of exhaustion and turnover intentions, and negatively related to organizational commitment. One problem they faced in further explaining the construct of change fatigue was that only few researchers had investigated how the frequency of change initiatives impacts employees (Bernerth et al., 2011).
This research elaborates on hints in literature that personality traits of employees have a moderating effect on the relation between change fatigue and organizational commitment, explaining how change fatigue decreases an employee’s organizational commitment. Bernerth
et al. (2011) suggested that the personality trait of openness to experience might explain the
4 2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES
Change fatigue
Change fatigue can be defined as “a perception that too much change is taking place” (Bernerth et al., 2011). Aside from the amount or size of change, the rate at which changes are introduced is also an import factor to change fatigue (McMillan & Perron, 2013). These seemingly endless efforts can put a strain not only on organizations but also on individuals (Vakola et al., 2004). A result of this ‘relentless change’ is that employees lose trust (Reineck, 2007), potentially influencing important organizational outcomes.
Change fatigue should not be confused with resistance to change, which is conceptually different, even though both terms are often used interchangeably as the distinctions between the two are rarely identified (McMillan & Perron, 2013). With change fatigue employees can become disengaged and apathetic, often feeling disempowered, burnt out, disillusioned, and passive about the changes which the organization introduces. Signs of change fatigue may include questioning the value and objectives of the change, diverting resources to other initiatives, showing impatience with the pace of change, and key leaders no longer being visibly engaged with the change (Reineck, 2007; Mayar & Hammelef, 2013).
In contrast to resistance to change, change fatigue causes passive behaviours, behaviours which often go unnoticed by management (Bernerth et al., 2011; McMillan & Perron, 2013). The apathy created by change fatigue, however, has been pointed out as a threat to the success of change initiatives as well as having the potential to increase rates of change failure (Kotter, 2007). Change fatigue does not have to imply that employees oppose change, though. Employees can be disengaged, apathetic, and ambivalent, yet passively accepting changes and showing no signs of resistance (Brown & Cregan, 2008). Resistance to change, on the other hand, is often blatant, because resisting individuals often make their position publicly known (McMillan & Perron, 2013). Likewise, change fatigue is conceptually different from change cynicism, as this refers to the perception of whether a change can be successful (Bernerth et
al., 2011).
5 1999). Worse, when employees have the perception that the organization changes too much, employees may attempt to minimize further losses of their resources by removing themselves from the situation (Walumbwa et al., 2011; Huy, 2014; Hobfoll, 1989). Change fatigue has been associated with increased rates and lengths of sick leave during periods of organizational change (Hansson et al., 2008; McMillan & Perron, 2013).
In their research, Bernerth et al. (2011) found that change fatigue is positively related to exhaustion and turnover intentions, the latter mediated by exhaustion. They also found evidence of a negative relation with organizational commitment, both as a direct relationship and an indirect relationship, the latter mediated by exhaustion. The indirect relation to commitment can be explained as those people whose exhaustion causes them to avoid depleting more resources are also likely to refrain from investing additional resources into their work, thereby reducing their commitment to the organization (Wright & Cropanzano, 1998). Bernerth et al. (2011) explain the direct negative relation between change fatigue and organizational commitment by suggesting that the relentless change, where employees have to constantly adapt to new circumstances, reduces the likelihood that they can identify with one unifying organizational goal (Zorn et al., 1999), as change initiatives may undermine an employee’s sense of identification.
Organizational commitment
It is noted that despite research interest and management belief in the value of commitment to the organization, there still remains much confusion and disagreement among scholars about the definition and effects of commitment (Hunt et al., 1985; Herscovitch & Meyer, 2001). To make matters more complex, there are multiple forms and definitions of commitment, depending on the target of commitment, such as organizational, occupational, change, or goal commitment (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2001).
6 Whether shown through attitude or behaviour, commitment, in general, can be defined in three ways (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2001). Firstly there is the employee’s emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization. This is called affective
commitment, the desire to remain with the organization. Continuance commitment is the
second type, where perception focuses on the cost of leaving an organization, and where employees feel that they ‘need’ to remain with the organization. A third, and less common, approach is normative commitment, where commitment is perceived as an obligation. Rather than feeling the need or desire to stay, the employee feels like he or she ‘ought’ to remain with the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991; Bhalerao & Kumar, 2016; Herscovitch & Meyer, 2001).
More specific, organizational commitment can be defined as “the relative strength of an individual’s identification with and involvement in a particular organization” (Mowday et al., 1979). Or, alternatively, Hunt et al. (1985) defined organizational commitment as “a strong desire to remain a member of the particular organization, given opportunities to change jobs”. Hunt et al. (1985) found that organizational commitment has six major groups of antecedents: personal attributes, personal investments, anticipatory socialization variables, job search behaviours, work relationships, and job characteristics. These antecedents influence employee organizational commitment, and it is found that high commitment leads to high levels of satisfaction and performance and low levels of turnover and absenteeism (Hunt et al., 1985).
It should be noted that in this paper the target of commitment is the organization, and not the individual or multiple change efforts. The bond between people and change goals (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002) can be defined as commitment to change. This commitment to change focuses on dynamic processes (Neubert & Wu, 2009), rather than the organization as a whole, which is a relatively static entity. However, the two foci of commitment are not unrelated. Research has shown that organizational commitment is an antecedent of commitment to change, although nature of the relationship is contested (Jaros, 2010) as both evidence of a positive (Neubert & Cady, 2001; Herold et al., 2008) and a negative relationship (Woodman, 1995) has been found.
Hypothesis 1: High change fatigue diminishes an individual’s organizational commitment.
Personality traits
7 creates a strain on the resources the employee has. Hobfoll (1989) describes resources as the single unit necessary for understanding this stress. He defined resources as the “objects, personal characteristics, conditions, or energies that are valued by the individual or that serve as a means for attainment of these objects, personal characteristics, conditions, or energies” (Hobfoll, 1989). Personal characteristics influence the perceptions and reactions of people (Appley & Trumbull, 1986), which explains that personality is one of the factors that influences how people recognize and respond to challenges from their environment (Sarason, 1975). Especially when these challenges, or threats, are not against their physical wellbeing (Spielberger, 1972).
The relative sensitivity to stress is a product of personality (Sarason, 1975). Within the context of change fatigue and the Conservation of Resources model, personality affects how quickly an individual’s resources are depleted and how soon change fatigue influences the individual into taking measures to conserve energy as more change is introduced in their organization (Bernerth et al., 2011).
It is, however, an oversimplification to address ‘personality’ as a single variable. There are five personality traits that comprehensively describe the sphere of normal personality (Barrick & Mount, 1991). These ‘Big Five’ are openness to experience, extraversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Four of these traits, excluding neuroticism, are stated to have a significant relation with attitudes towards change (Vakola et
al., 2004). These ‘attitudes towards change’ are a person’s cognitions about change, affective
reactions to change, and behavioural tendency toward change (Elizur & Guttman, 1976), among which change fatigue can be counted (Vakola et al., 2004). The same four personality traits are also proven to be related to organizational commitment (Choi et al., 2015). The personality trait neuroticism, which is the tendency to experience negative affect, such as anxiety, insecurity and psychological distress, was excluded from this research as it was not suggested to have a significant enough relation with attitudes towards change (Vakola et al., 2004).
8 Openness to experience
Individuals with high openness to experience are imaginative, cultured, curious, original, broad-minded, and artistic (Raja et al., 2011). Openness is said to increase when people grow older (Soto et al., 2011), but decreases at later age (Roberts et al., 2006; Costa & McCrae, 2006). It has been noted to generally be higher for men, in comparison to women (Costa et al., 2001; Soto et al., 2011). Openness to experience, which is the proactive seeking and appreciation of new experiences (Vakola et al., 2004), is related to intelligence, especially the aspects of intelligence which are related to divergent thinking, creativity (McCrae, 1987), and training proficiency (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Openness is, along with agreeableness, a less investigated trait among the Big Five (Judge & Bono, 2000). However, openness has gained attention in the change literature because of the significant role it plays in how individuals handle the demands of change (LePine et al., 2000).
This ‘significant role’ can be explained because openness can be interpreted in two ways: motivational and structural. The motivational aspect suggests a passive tolerance to new experiences. The structural aspect, however, refers to the flexibility of one’s attitudes (McCrae, 1994). In other words, openness provides a tolerance to adapt, but also relates to the ability to adapt to new circumstances. As such, the greater the amount of change that is occurring for an individual, the more the individuals’ openness to experience becomes a factor in how individuals perceive and react to the new situation, as it affects their tendencies to explore and enjoy new situations (Caldwell & Yi, 2011). Bernerth et al. (2011) suggest that the personality trait of openness to experience might explain the individual differences for employees and the response to the strain which change initiatives put on them.
Hypothesis 2a: Openness to experience moderates the relationship between change fatigue
and organizational commitment.
9 While researching the influences of personality and aspects of the change situation on individual reactions to change, Caldwell and Yi (2011) found that under conditions of high procedural fairness, openness to experience has a positive effect on an employee’s attitudes towards change, but when the procedural fairness is low, openness has little to no effect (Caldwell & Yi, 2011). Likewise, Vakola et al. (2004) relate openness to positive attitudes toward chance, as it “describes employees who can demonstrate effective coping mechanisms, are open to new ideas and suggestions and are tolerant and perceptive” (Vakola et al., 2004). In conclusion, the expectation is that a person who scores high on openness to experience feels less of a strain on his or her resources, reducing the consequences of change fatigue.
Hypothesis 2b: The moderating effect of hypothesis 2a is such that a negative relationship
between change fatigue and organizational commitment will be stronger at low levels of openness to experience than high levels of openness to experience.
Extraversion
Extraversion is the “quantity and intensity of interpersonal interaction and activity level” (Vakola et al., 2004). Individuals who score high on extraversion are often described as sociable, talkative, gregarious, assertive, aggressive, and energetic (Watson & Clark, 1997). Extraversion is said to gradually decline as people grow older (Roberts et al., 2006; Costa & McCrae, 2006; Soto et al., 2011), and it is noted that literature is inconsistent, as extraversion combines masculine and feminine traits, in determining whether men or women score higher on the trait of extraversion (Costa et al., 2001).
Hypothesis 3a: Extraversion moderates the relationship between change fatigue and
organizational commitment.
Given their higher levels of positive affectivity, extraverts tend to perceive their work environments more positively and are more likely to recall positive information (Watson & Clark, 1997). As extraverts more often experience positive emotions, they also experience more positive emotions when faced with organizational change (Saksvik & Hetland, 2009). In general, it can be said that extraverts are more likely to be satisfied with their jobs (Judge et
al., 2002) and affectively attached to their organizations and its members (Raja et al., 2011).
10 when the organization does something that arouses feelings of violation, they are likely to show stronger reactions, due to their deep emotional involvement with the organization, such as a decrease in job satisfaction and performance and increasing the likelihood of them leaving the organization.
Choi et al. (2015) explain that personality traits are not the only aspects to be included, but that situational factors also explain individual differences in attitudes towards change (Meyer et al., 2002). With regard to extraversion, Choi et al. (2015) note the larger risk of extraverted people leaving their organization in case of the rewards of a new organization outweigh the cost of leaving the current organization (Zimmerman et al., 2012). As extraverts are socially adroit, ambitious, and likely to take initiative, they are more likely to leave their organization when good job opportunities emerge, preferring the riskier and more sensational external opportunities (Choi et al., 2015).
However, this does not necessarily imply that change fatigue is an argument for extraverts to leave the organization. In the contrary, Saksvik and Hetland (2009) found that extraverts welcome changes, rather than resist them. To extraverts change is more often related to positive emotions (Saksvik & Hetland, 2009). Vakola et al. (2004) relate extraversion to positive attitudes toward chance. In conclusion, the expectation is that a person who scores high on extraversion feels less of a strain on his or her resources, limiting the consequences of change fatigue.
Hypothesis 3b: The moderating effect of hypothesis 3a is such that a negative relationship
between change fatigue and organizational commitment will be stronger at low levels of extraversion than high levels of extraversion.
Agreeableness
The personality trait of agreeableness describes the quality of one’s interpersonal interaction along a continuum from compassion to antagonism (Vakola et al., 2004). Agreeableness is a relatively less investigated trait among the Big Five (Judge & Bono, 2000). It is said to slowly increase with age (Roberts et al., 2006; Costa & McCrae, 2006; Soto et al., 2011), and that women generally score higher on this trait than men (Costa et al., 2001; Soto et al., 2011).
Hypothesis 4a: Agreeableness moderates the relationship between change fatigue and
11 Individuals who score high on agreeableness are often described as friendly, socially conforming, courteous, flexible, trusting, cooperative, and tolerant (McCrae & John, 1992). These individuals are inclined to avoid tenses and disagreement in the workplace (Costa & McCrae, 1992). This makes agreeableness related to positive attitudes toward change, as employees with high agreeableness will be more reluctant to resist, and more prone to follow, the new policies and procedures which may be applied during organizational change (Vakola
et al., 2004).
Agreeable people often have a preference for close relationships with others, and through their cooperative and altruistic nature they are inclined to be affectively attached to their organization and its members (Raja et al., 2011), forming a psychological contract. Due to this attachment, people with high agreeableness usually show a strong reaction when they experience feelings of betrayal, mistrust, and anger arising from contract breach (Raja et al., 2011). That same attachment, however, is also said to make people more tolerant of organizational change. Agreeableness has a positive effect on the social relationships at work (Piedmont, 1998), which in turn is related to readiness for change (Madsen et al., 2005; Saksvik & Hetland, 2009). Vakola et al. (2004) found that agreeableness positively predicts attitudes toward organizational change, pointing out a significant influence of individual characteristics on employees’ attitudes toward organizational change. The expectation is that people who score high on agreeableness feel less of a strain on their resources, limiting the consequences of change fatigue.
Hypothesis 4b: The moderating effect of hypothesis 4a is such that a negative relationship
between change fatigue and organizational commitment will be stronger at low levels of agreeableness than high levels of agreeableness.
Conscientiousness
Conscientiousness, often called the most important of the ‘Big Five’ personality traits for various work contexts (Mount & Barrick, 1998; Orvis et al., 2008), describes the amount of persistence, organization, and motivation in goal-directed behaviours of an individual (Vakola
et al., 2004). The traits of conscientiousness is said to increase when people grow older
(Roberts et al., 2006; Costa & McCrae, 2006; Soto et al., 2011), and women generally score slightly higher on this trait than men (Costa et al., 2001; Soto et al., 2011).
Hypothesis 5a: Conscientiousness moderates the relationship between change fatigue and
12 Along with openness to experience, conscientiousness has gained a lot of attention in the change literature, as the two personality traits have a significant role in how individuals handle the demands of change (LePine et al., 2000; Caldwell & Yi, 2011). The dimension of conscientiousness, which is tied to self-discipline, ambition and competence (Costa & McCrae, 1992), correlates positively to positive attitudes toward change, since employees who score high on conscientiousness are dutiful and tend to obey to principles and obligations initiated by management (Vakola et al., 2004).
However, conscientious individuals may have difficulty in maintaining the structured and disciplined approach to situations they prefer, frustrating their need for achievement and their desire to be seen as dependable during change (Caldwell & Yi, 2011). As such, conscientiousness is not always positively related to change. Lepine et al. (2000) found that conscientiousness related negatively to an individual’s performance and decision-making in case unexpected changes alter the way in how the task was to be accomplished. Even if conscientious employees are more likely to be ready to change, they are also considered to be less flexible (Saksvik & Hetland, 2009).
Saksvik and Hetland (2009) found that people with high scores on conscientiousness are more inclined to seek for routine. In case of change fatigue, where people get the perception that too much change is taking place (Bernerth et al., 2011), people will lack routine in the face of constant and overwhelming changes. In these conditions, conscientiousness is expected to negatively affect an individual’s attitude towards change. Conscientious people are described as aversive of risks, and actively seek information as to not being faced with unpleasant surprises (Raja et al., 2004), as such it is expected that change creates a relatively larger strain on the resources the person has. A strain which would only increase in conditions of relentless change. Caldwell and Yi (2011) note, however, that procedural fairness decreases the negative influence of conscientiousness on an employee’s attitudes towards change, as procedural fairness may also be seen as managerial goodwill in facilitating adaptation during change. The expectation would be that a person who scores high on conscientiousness feels a greater strain on his or her resources when facing ‘relentless change’, increasing the consequences of change fatigue.
Hypothesis 5b: The moderating effect of hypothesis 5a is such that a negative relationship
13 3. RESEARCH METHODS
This chapter describes the research methods that are used in this study in order to test the conceptual model. First, the method of data collection and the sample of this study are explained. Afterwards, the measures and data analysis are described.
Participants
Quantitative research has been done to test and refine the conceptual model using a questionnaire. The sample consisted of 120 participants, spread over four locations. Participant’s age ranged from 24 to 64 years, with an average of 45.3 years old (S.D. = 9.89). 20.5% of the participants were male, the remaining 79.5% female. Of the 120 employees that received an e-mail to participate, 84 participants filled out the survey, of which 17 filled out the survey after being sent a reminder. The questionnaire was designed in such a way that all questions required to be answered prior completion. Regardless, as the item on age was an open box, one case had to be dropped considering an unrealistic high age was filled in, leaving a total of 83 respondents, which comes down to a total response rate of 69.17%.
The participants work for a healthcare group, with a fulltime-equivalent of nearly 1.000, which is operating in the northern provinces of Holland. The group provides healthcare services for the elderly that live in one of their nursing homes, or pay for home care services. For several years in a row, the organization is undergoing organization-wide changes both in reaction and anticipation to healthcare reforms issued by the national government. Due to these reforms the elderly who receive the lower ratings for the amount of care they officially are expected to need, have to remain at their homes, to get support through home care rather than moving to nursing homes. For the organization this means that it intensifies its focus on the expanding market of home care services, while the facilities for the clients with lower ratings have to be reformed as there is a strong decline in the number of these clients entering the nursing homes. This decrease implies that fewer employees are needed within the nursing homes, leading to the nurses being transferred to the home care branch of the organization, while the facility services are partly being divested as these cannot be transferred to the home care sector.
14 Procedure
A self-administered survey was used to conduct the research (Keller, 2008). The questionnaire consisted of sixteen items. Participants received a link through an e-mail, leading them to the online questionnaire on Google Forms. The questionnaire is included in Appendix A. The version which was translated to Dutch can be found in Appendix B. The purpose of the research was shortly described, and after the final question the respondents are thanked for their participation. Established scales were used to measure the constructs. The questionnaire was kept as short as possible to encourage respondents to complete the survey (Keller, 2008).
Measures
For the measurement of the constructs, established scales were used that have been proven to be valid and reliable. These multiple item scales were derived from existing questionnaires and were customized to the study. An overview of the items, as included in the questionnaire, is provided in Appendix A. An explanation for each scale is provided further in this section.
Apart from the personality traits, all variables were measured using statements which rated participants’ agreement or disagreement on a 7-point Likert scale (from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 7 = “strongly agree”). The items of all scales were averaged to form one score. Several items were reverse-coded, to ensure that both negatively-keyed and positively-keyed items were appropriately represented. A Cronbach’s Alpha test was used to measure the internal consistency between the different dimensions of the scales (Mac Kenzie et al., 2011). Table 1 presents the conducted factor analysis. This analysis, with the expected outcome of two factors, with the suppression of absolute values less than .40, shows the correlated factors. An orthogonal rotation, using the varimax method, was used to generate the data. All loadings were .65 or higher, supporting the internal consistency and discriminant and factorial validity of the scales.
Change fatigue (Cronbach’s alpha = .89). Change fatigue was measured with the six
15 Table 1: Factor analysis, rotated component matrix
Item source Change fatigue Organizational commitment Change fatigue
(1) Too many change initiatives are introduced at xxx. .72
(2) I am tired of all the changes in this company. .86
(3) The amount of change that takes place at xxx is overwhelming. .65
(4) We are asked to change too many things at xxx. .77
(5) It feels like we are always being asking to change something around
here. .90
(6) I would like to see a period of stability before we change anything
else in this company. .77
Organizational commitment
(1) I would be willing to change companies if the new job offered a
25% pay increase. .72
(2) I would be willing to change companies if the new job offered more
creative freedom. .89
(3) I would be willing to change companies if the new job offered more
status. .79
(4) I would be willing to change companies if the new job was with
people who were more friendly .81
Organizational commitment (Cronbach’s alpha = .85). Organizational commitment was
measured using the four items developed by Hunt, Wood, and Chonko (1985). An example includes “I would be willing to change companies if the new job offered more status.” In their research on change fatigue and organizational commitment, Berneth et al. (2011) used the nine items developed by Mowday et al. (1979), however the choice in this research fell on the four items of Hunt et al. (1985) as these are newer and have a higher consistency, with a coefficient alpha of .85 against .83 from Mowday et al. (1979). With the limitations of time and resources, the four items of Hunt et al. (1985) were preferred, as the sample size did not allow the analysis of too many items. A coefficient alpha for the combined four items was calculated to be .85, equal to that of Hunt et al. (1985).
Personality traits. To measure the personality traits of extraversion, agreeableness,
16 item measures are said to have greater statistical power in moderated regression analyses (Aguinis, 1995; Russell & Bobko, 1992). A disadvantage is that the use of a single item measure makes it difficult to provide estimates of internal reliability. Wood and Hamson (2005) offered an alternative to the coefficient alpha for the single-item scales through factor analyses with items from longer scales. Overall, they found that their single-item measures demonstrated reasonably good convergence with the longer measures, with an overall mean convergence correlation of .61 for all five personality traits. In Table 2, the mean convergence for each personality trait is shown. Spörrle and Bekk (2013) translated the measures designed by Wood and Hamson (2005) to German, finding the items to be similarly reliable and valid in their meta-analysis, also finding that the items showed good stability over time.
Table 2: Convergence correlations (from: Woods & Hamson, 2005)
(1) Extraversion 0.76 (2) Agreeableness 0.54 (3) Conscientiousness 0.62 (4) Emotional Stability 0.56 (5) Openness to experience 0.51 Mean 0.61
Control variables. Control variables were used in order to rule out the effects of other
potentially relevant variables. Therefore, two demographic variables, age and gender, were included as control variables because both may personality traits (Soto et al., 2011; Raja et
al., 2011). These demographic questions were deliberately asked at the end of the
questionnaire to avoid negative feelings about the provision of personal information, which could negatively affect the answering behaviour or preparedness of respondents to answer questions (Lietz, 2010). In coding for gender, female was codes as ‘1’, while male was coded as ‘2’.
Correlations
Table 3 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations for all variables. Change
fatigue correlates negatively with organizational commitment (r = -.46, p <.01). Openness to experience shows a negative correlation to change fatigue (r = -.33, p <.01), while its
17 Table 3: Means, standard deviations, and correlations
variables mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Organizational commitment 3.43 1.52 - 2 Change fatigue 5.39 .96 -.46** - 3 Openness to experience 6.37 1.54 -.02 -.33** - 4 Extraversion 5.40 2.21 -.29** -.24* .42** - 5 Agreeableness 6.42 2.25 .26* -.10 -.28* -.46** - 6 Conscientiousness 4.98 2.25 .30** -.11 .09 .28** -.58** - 7 Age (years) 45.30 9.89 -.02 -.18 .18 .00 .19 -.35** - 8 Gender (F=1; M=2) 1.20 .41 -.24* .03 .17 .37** -.26* -.10 .22 -
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
Data analysis
The statistical program SPSS version 20.0 was used to analyse the gathered data in order to test the hypotheses. First of all, all the surveys that were submitted were standardized, especially with regard to the input given on the variable ‘age’, and checked for completion. Hereafter the negative formulated items were reversed in positively formulated items. These items were the four items of organizational commitment, and the items for extraversion and conscientiousness. After this, a missing value analysis was conducted, which revealed no significant missing values. Lastly, an analysis of potential outliers was performed, which showed no problematic cases.
18 4. RESULTS
This chapter presents the results of the study. This part contains the outcomes of the regression analysis, as well as the moderation analyses.
Regression analysis
In this paragraph the results of the regression analyses will be discussed. A regression analysis was performed to the test the hypotheses to see whether they should be accepted or rejected.
Organizational commitment – Hypothesis 1 assumes that high change fatigue diminishes an
individual’s organizational commitment. In accordance to the findings of Bernerth et al. (2011) this research also concludes that hypothesis 1 is supported. Table 4 shows that a significant negative relationship between change fatigue and organizational commitment, B = -.74, p < .001. This means that an increase in one’s change fatigue will lead to a decrease in organizational commitment.
Table 4: Regression analysis
Model 1 Model 2
Step and variables B SE B SE
Intercept 4.34** (0,84) 8.79** (1,21) Control Age 0.01 (0,02) -0.01 (0,02) Gender (F=1; M=2) -0.93* (0,42) -0.81* (0,37) Main effects Change fatigue -0.74** (0,16) R Square 0.06 0.27 Δ R Square 0.21** * p < .05 ** p < .01 Moderation analysis
19 In order to test whether or not a variable has a moderating role, three models were calculated for each of the four personality traits. In the first model, the control variables (age and gender) were taken into account. While age has an insignificant positive effect on organizational commitment, gender has a significant negative effect (B = -0.93, p < .05). With female being set as ‘1’ and male as ‘2’, this would imply that the female respondents scored relatively higher on organizational commitment. At the second model, the dependent and moderator variable were entered. In the third and final model the two-way interaction was included. When executing the moderation analysis, standardized values of the independent and moderator variables were used.
Openness to experience – Hypothesis 2a predicts that openness to experience moderates the
relationship between change fatigue and organizational commitment. Hypothesis 2b expanded on this by predicting that this moderating effect reduces the negative effect which change fatigue has on organizational commitment. The results from the moderation analysis, as presented in Table 5, show that both hypotheses are supported.
Table 5: Moderation analysis of openness to experience
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Step and variables B SE B SE B SE
Intercept 4.34** (0.84) 4.69** (0.77) 5.00** (0.75) Control Age 0.01 (0.02) -0.01 (0.02) -0.01 (0.02) Gender (F=1; M=2) -0.93* (0.42) -0.75 (0.38) -0.72* (0.36) Main effects Change fatigue -0.76** (0.16) -0.95** (0.17) Openness to experience -0.15 (0.16) -0.45* (0.18) Two-way interaction Fatigue x Openness 0.73** (0.25) R Square 0.06 0.27 0.34 Δ R Square 0.22** 0.07** * p < .05 ** p < .01
20 openness to experience the negative effect of change fatigue on organizational commitment will be weaker, while the negative effect is stronger when openness to experience is low.
Extraversion – Hypothesis 3a predicts that extraversion moderates the relationship between
change fatigue and organizational commitment. Hypothesis 3b expanded on this by predicting that this moderating effect reduces the negative effect which change fatigue has on organizational commitment. The results from the moderation analysis, as presented in Table 6, show that both hypothesis 3a and 3b are supported.
There was a highly significant interaction between extraversion and change fatigue, B = .82, p < .001. This means that an increase in one’s change fatigue will lead to a decrease in organizational commitment, and that this relation will be less pronounced when one’s extraversion is high as opposed to low. At higher levels of extraversion the negative effect of change fatigue on organizational commitment will be weaker, while the negative effect is stronger when extraversion is low.
Table 6: Moderation analysis of extraversion
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Step and variables B SE B SE B SE
Intercept 4.34** (0.84) 4.47** (0.70) 4.76** (0.66) Control Age 0.01 (0.02) -0.02 (0.01) -0.02 (0.01) Gender (F=1; M=2) -0.93* (0.42) -0.19 (0.37) -0.35 (0.35) Main effects Change fatigue -0.88** (0.14) -1.32** (0.19) Extraversion -0.62** (0.15) -0.74** (0.15) Two-way interaction Fatigue x Extraversion 0.82** (0.24) R Square 0.06 0.39 0.47 Δ R Square 0.33** 0.08** * p < .05 ** p < .01
21
Agreeableness – Hypothesis 4a predicts that agreeableness moderates the relationship
between change fatigue and organizational commitment. Hypothesis 4b expanded on this by predicting that this moderating effect reduces the negative effect which change fatigue has on organizational commitment. The results from the moderation analysis, as presented in Table 7, show that both hypotheses are rejected.
There is little to no evidence to support that there is interaction between agreeableness and change fatigue, B = -.20, p > .10. This implies that, while an increase in one’s change fatigue will lead to a decrease in organizational commitment, it cannot be said with enough certainty that agreeableness plays a role in this relationship. The negative influence found is not significant enough to conclude that hypothesis 4a can be supported. Even in case the result had been statistically significant, the assumed influence from hypothesis 4b would have been rejected, as a negative influence was found when a positive influence was expected.
Table 7: Moderation analysis of agreeableness
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Step and variables B SE B SE B SE
Intercept 4.34** (0.84) 4.88** (0.75) 5.27** (0.90) Control Age 0.01 (0.02) -0.02 (0.02) -0.03 (0.02) Gender (F=1; M=2) -0.93* (0.42) -0.58 (0.38) -0.62 (0.39) Main effects Change fatigue -0.69** (0.15) -0.69** (0.15) Agreeableness 0.30 (0.16) 0.38* (0.19) Two-way interaction Fatigue x Agreeableness -0.20 (0.25) R Square 0.06 0.30 0.30 Δ R Square 0.24** 0.01 * p < .05 ** p < .01
Conscientiousness – Hypothesis 5a predicts that conscientiousness moderates the relationship
22 Table 8: Moderation analysis of conscientiousness
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Step and variables B SE B SE B SE
Intercept 4.34** (0.84) 4.16** (0.79) 4.57** (0.84) Control Age 0.01 (0.02) 0.01 (0.02) 0.00 (0.02) Gender (F=1; M=2) -0.93* (0.42) -0.79* (0.36) -1.06* (0.41) Main effects Change fatigue -0.64** (0.15) -0.65** (0.15) Conscientiousness 0.38* (0.16) 0.30 (0.16) Two-way interaction Fatigue x Conscientiousness 0.31 (0.22) R Square 0.08 0.32 0.33 Δ R Square 0.23** 0.02 * p < .05 ** p < .01
There is little to no evidence to support that there is interaction between agreeableness and change fatigue, B = .30, p > .10. This implies that, while an increase in one’s change fatigue will lead to a decrease in organizational commitment, it cannot be said with enough certainty that conscientiousness plays a role in this relationship. The positive influence found is not significant enough to conclude that hypothesis 5a can be supported. Even in case the result had been statistically significant, the assumed influence from hypothesis 5b would have been rejected, as a positive influence was found when a negative influence was expected.
Empirical model
As the prior analyses showed, hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 are accepted, while hypotheses 4 and 5 are rejected as the results were not significant. The empirical model of the study is presented in Figure 1.
H1: Β = -.74
H2: Β = .73 H3: Β = .82 H4: ns H5: ns
23 5. DISCUSSION
This chapter pays attention to the new insights that can be derived from the research results and will give a deeper understanding of the concept of change fatigue and its influence on organizational commitment. The focus of the discussion is to find an answer to the proposed research questions. Furthermore, the limitations of the study, suggestions for further research and the practical lessons that can be learned will be discussed.
Results
Change fatigue, unlike resistance to change, is rarely apparent to managers as it is mostly associated with passive behaviours which often go unnoticed (Bernerth et al., 2011; McMillan & Perron, 2013). The effect of change fatigue on the organization was explored by Bernerth et
al. (2011), one of the few who investigated its impact on employees. The main objective of
this study was to find out which personality traits would affect the consequences of change fatigue, explaining why individuals respond differently to similar circumstances. This study contributes to the existing literature in various ways. The findings considering the direct negative relation between the change fatigue and organizational commitment are in accordance to the findings of Bernerth et al. (2011), even when different items to measure commitment were used. Bernerth et al. (2011) explained the direct negative relation as the undermining of an employee’s sense of identification with the organization as a result of relentless change. This study broadens that view, as a different definition for organizational commitment was used. Change fatigue can be said to decrease the desire of employees to remain a member of an organization, and/or increase their desire to change jobs.
24 The findings on conscientiousness failed to provide a significant result. Theory suggests that conscientious people would have difficulty when overwhelmed with changes. Being orderly and structured, conscientious people are less flexible, preferring routine and less ready to change (Saksvik & Hetland, 2009). On the other hand, conscientiousness is also said to correlate positively to positive attitudes toward change (Vakola et al., 2004). Saksvik and Hetland (2009) found that conscientious people might seek routines, even when faced with continuous change. Much like in the dissonance in theory, this study found no clear answer with regard to how conscientiousness influences the impact that change fatigue has on organizational commitment. A possible explanation could be that other aspects of the change situation played a role in the case, as suggested by the interactionist perspective (House et al., 1996). This perspective proposes that situational factors and personal characteristics interact to influence the psychology of individuals affected by change, leading to a person-environment fit (Caldwell & Yi, 2011). An example of this is that whereas procedural fairness is said to positively affect an employee’s openness to experience, it decreases the negative influence of conscientiousness (Caldwell & Yi, 2011).
Bernerth et al. (2011), and later McMillan and Perron (2013), remark how change fatigue and resistance to change are subjects that are often used interchangeably within literature, with distinctions between the two rarely identified. While McMillan and Perron (2013) expanded on the differences, the conceptual overlap Bernerth et al. (2011) spoke of is nevertheless interesting when looking at the findings for agreeableness and conscientiousness. This research found no significant evidence that suggests that either agreeableness or conscientiousness had moderating roles, just like Oreg (2003) and Saksvik and Hetland (2009) found similar results, except in relation to resistance to change rather than change fatigue. While the two concepts elicit different behaviour from employees, it remains unclear to what degrees they differ with regard these personality traits.
This study can be considered as an extension of the study on change fatigue from Bernerth
et al. (2011), as it gives new insights in the relation between change fatigue and
25 Limitations and future research directions
This section describes the limitations of this study. Additionally, some recommendations for further research are provided. An important limitation is the sample size of the study, since it includes 83 respondents from a single case. Although the sample size is enough to perform data analysis, it provides low statistical power to discover the hypothesized effects. Anticipating on this, a relatively low number of items were included in the design of this research. Future research should strive for a higher number of participants for testing the hypothesized effects. Furthermore, the study is not longitudinal. The measurement of the variables took place once. Further research should repeat the measurements of the same variables over time to make the results more accurate. This would also enable the calculation of the test-retest reliability of single-item measures, which could not be done for this research.
A further limitation is that cultural differences were not taken into account. While gender or age were included as control variables, cultural differences could not be addressed, even though these differences are also said to affect personality traits (Costa et al., 2001). The case covered four locations of the same organization, but the respondents were all operating within the same region, all within the healthcare sector. As such, the aspect of culture was left out of the scope of this research. Future research should, if the case is suitable, investigate the possible influence of cultural differences.
Another limitation is the usage of single-item questions in the questionnaire. While Wood and Hamson (2005) and Spörrle and Bekk (2013) have shown the validity of the single-item method, and other researchers such as Aguinis (1995) have shown the benefits of single item measures for moderating variables, a more comprehensive scale, such as the NEO Five-Factor Inventory by Costa and McCrae (1992), might allow a more detailed test of the hypotheses. With the expected number of participants in this research, as well as the limitations in time, single-item questions were preferred in the design of this study. For the same reasons, the items from Hunt et al. (1985) were chosen for commitment, while a more expansive measurement instrument, such as those developed by Meyer et al. (1993), might have provided more detailed results. A further limitation in the questionnaire is the fact that the items were translated from English to Dutch. While verified by a supervisor from the university, the fact that the items were translated might affect the outcome of this study.
26 related criteria. Bernerth et al. (2011) suggest that self-efficacy and tolerance for ambiguity may impact the extent to which organizational change is experienced as stressful. In extension, the interactionist perspective form House et al. (1996) would suggest that situational factors also have to be explored for a more complete image of how individuals are affected by change, thus leading to a better explanation of the consequences of change fatigue. Further development and testing of the concept of change fatigue would offer an opportunity to examine aspects of the organizational change process that have yet to be explored, and to further the understanding of organizational change.
Practical implications
This research provides new insight in the literature on change fatigue, which results in new managerial implications. Firstly, this research confirms that change fatigue has a negative impact on organizational commitment. The perception of employees that they are faced with too much change is at contrast with the idea that organizations strive for constant and continual change (Zorn et al., 1999). Organizational change creates a strain on the resources of employees, and when they gain the perception that there is too much change a decrease in their commitment to the organization is a consequence. Bernerth et al. (2011) argued that organizations and change agents need to remember that there has to be some structure and continuity.
This research shows that the personality traits of employees are a factor of importance. Some employees might decide to leave the organization, while others would remain loyal. To organizations that anticipate on a time of constant change, employees who are open to experience, who are extraverted, would be more desirable to hire than those who are not. By contrast, the valued employees who score low on these traits should be carefully managed in times of great and many changes, or the organization risks losing those employees’ commitment to the organization, to the point of reduced job satisfaction and an increase in their intentions to leave the organization.
27 6. CONCLUSION
28 7. REFERENCES
Aguinis, H. (1995). Statistical power problems with moderated multiple regression in management research. Journal of Management, 21, 1141-1158.
Baron, R.M. & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
Barrick, R.M. & Mount, M.K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44. 1–26.
Bernerth, J.B., Walker, H.J. & Harris, S.G. (2011). Change fatigue: Development and initial validation of a new measure. Work & Stress, 25(4), 321-337.
Bhalerao, H. & Kumar, S. (2016). Role of emotional intelligence in leaders on the
commitment level of employees: a study in information technology and manufacturing sector in india. Business Perspectives & Research, 4(1), 41-53.
Brown, M., & Cregan, C. (2008). Organizational change cynicism: The role of employee involvement. Human Resource Management, 47, 667-686.
Burisch, M. (1997). Test length and validity revisited. European Journal of Personality, 11(4), 303-315.
Caldwell, S.D. & Yi, L. (2011). Further investigating the influence of personality in employee response to organisational change: the moderating role of change-related factors.
Human Resource Management Journal, 21(1), 74-89.
Choi, D., Colbert, A.E. & In-sue, O. (2015). Understanding organizational commitment: a Meta-analytic examination of the roles of the five-factor model of personality and culture. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(5), 1542-1567.
Costa Jr, P.T. & McCrae, R.R. (1992). NEO PI-R Professional Manual. Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa, FL.
Costa Jr, P.T. & McCrae, R.R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and
NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources.
Costa Jr., P. T., Terracciano, A & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality & Social
29 Costa Jr., P.T. & McCrae, R.R. (2006). Age changes in personality and their origins:
Comment on Roberts, Walton, and Viechtbauer (2006). Psychological Bulletin, 132(1), 26-28.
Elizur, D. & Guttman, L. (1976). The structure of attitudes toward work and technological change within an organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 611-23.
Hansson, A., Vingard, E., Arnetz, B.B., & Anderzen, I. (2008). Organisational change, health, and sick leave among health care employees: A longitudinal study measuring stress markers, individual, and work site factors. Work & Stress, 22, 69-80.
Herold, D., Fedor, D., Caldwell, S. & Liu, Y. (2008). The effects of transformational
leadership and change leadership on employees’ commitment to change: a multi-level study, Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 346–357.
Herscovitch, L. & Meyer, J.P. (2001). Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general model. Human Resource Management Review, 11(3), 299.
Herscovitch, L. & Meyer, J.P. (2002). Commitment to organizational change: extension of a three-component model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 474-487.
Hobfoll, S.E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress.
American Psychologist, 44, 513-524.
House, R.J., Shane, S.A. & Herold, D.M. (1996). Rumors of the death of dispositional research are vastly exaggerated. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 203–224.
Hunt, S.D., Chonko, L.B., & Wood, V.R. (1985). Organizational Commitment and Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 49(1), 112-126.
Huy, Q.N. (1999). Emotional capability, emotional intelligence, and radical change. Academy
of Management Review, 24(2), 325-345.
Huy, Q.N. (2001). Time, temporal capability, and planned change. Academy of Management
Review, 26, 601-623.
Huy, Q.N., Corley, K.G. & Kraatz, M.S. (2014). From support to mutiny: shifting legitimacy judgments and emotional reactions impacting the implementation of radical change.
Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1650-1680.
Jaros, S. (2010). Commitment to organizational change: a critical review. Journal of Change
30 Judge, T.A. & Bono, J.E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transformational
leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85. 751–765.
Judge, T.A., Heller, D., & Mount, M.K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 530–541.
Keller, G. (2008). Managerial Statistics (8th edition). Stamford: Cengage Learning.
Kotter, J. P. (2007). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business
Review, 85(1), 96-103.
LePine, J.A., Colquitt, J.A. & Erez, A. (2000). Adaptability to changing task contexts: effects of general cognitive ability, conscientiousness, and openness to experience. Personnel
Psychology, 53(3), 563-593.
Locke, E.A. & Latham, G.P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Lietz, P. (2010). Research into questionnaire design. A summary of the literature.
International Journal of Market Research, 52(2): 249 – 272.
Mac Kenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M. &, Podsakoff, N.P. (2011). Construct measurement and validation procedures in MIS and behavioral research: integrating new and existing techniques. MIS quarterly, 35, 293-334.
Madsen, S.R., Miller, D., & John, C.R. (2005). Readiness for organizational change: Do organizational commitment and social relationships in the workplace make a difference? Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16, 213-233.
Mayar, D.K. & Hammelef, K. (2013). Change fatigue in clinical practice. Clinical Journal of
Oncology Nursing, 17(5), 461-2.
McCrae, R.R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1258–1265.
McCrae, R.R. (1994). Openness to Experience: expanding the boundaries of Factor V.
European Journal of Personality, 8(4), 251-272.
McCrae, R. & John, O. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications.
Journal of Personality, 60, 175-215.
McMillan, K., & Perron, A. (2013). Nurses amidst change: The concept of change fatigue offers an alternative perspective on organizational change. Policy, Politics, and
31 Meyer, J.P. & Allen, N.J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational
commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61.
Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J. & Smith, C,A, (1993). Commitment to organizations and
occupations: extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 78(4), 538-551.
Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D.J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20–52.
Mount, M.K., & Barrick, M.R. (1998). Five reasons why the “Big Five” article has been frequently cited. Personnel Psychology, 51(4), 849–857.
Mowday, R.T., Porter, L.W., & Steers, R. (1982). Organizational linkages: The psychology of
commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M., & Porter, L.W. (1979). The measurement of organisational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.
Neubert, M.J. & Cady, S.H. (2001). Program commitment: a multi-study longitudinal field investigation of its impact and antecedents, Personnel Psychology, 54(2), 421–448.
Neubert, M. & Wu, C. (2009). Action commitments, in: H. Klein, T. Becker and J. Meyer (eds) Commitment in Organizations: Accumulated Wisdom and New Directions, 181– 210 (New York: Routledge).
Oreg, S. (2003). Resistance to change: Developing an individual difference measure.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 680-693.
Orvis, K.A., Dudley, N.M & Cortina, J.M. (2008). Conscientiousness and reactions to
psychological contract breach: a longitudinal field study. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93(5), 1183-1193.
Piedmont, R.L. (1998). The revised NEO Personality Inventory. Clinical and research
application. New York: Plenum.
Rafferty, A.E., & Griffin, M.A. (2006). Perceptions of organisational change: A stress and coping perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1154-1162.
32 Raja, U., Johns, G. & Bilgrami, S. (2011). Negative consequences of felt violations: the
deeper the relationship, the stronger the reaction. Applied Psychology: An International Review. 60(3), 397-420.
Reineck, C. (2007). Models of change. Journal of Nursing Administration, 37(9), 388-391.
Roberts, B.W., Walton, K.E. & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies.
Psychological Bulletin, 132, 3–27.
Russell, C.J. & Bobko, P. (1992). Moderated regression analysis and Likert scales: too coarse for comfort? Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 336-342.
Saksvik, I.B. & Hetland, H. (2009). Exploring dispositional resistance to change. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 16(2), 175-183.
Sarason, I.G. (1975). Test anxiety, attention, and the general problem of anxiety. In C.D.
Spielberger & I.G. Sarason, Stress and anxiety, 1, 165-187. Washington DC:
Hemisphere.
Soto, C.J., John, O.P., Gosling, S.D. & Potter, J. (2011). Age differences in personality traits from 10 to 65: big five domains and facets in a large cross-sectional sample. Journal
of Personality & Social Psychology, 100(2), 330-348.
Spielberger, C.D. (1972). Anxiety: Current trends in theory and research (Vols. 1-2). New York: Academic Press.
Spörrle, M. & Bekk, M. (2013). Meta-analytic guidelines for evaluating single-item reliabilities of personality instruments. Assessment, 21(3), 272-285.
Trumbull, R., & Appley, M.H. (1986). A conceptual model for the examination of stress dynamics. In M.H. Appley & R. Trumbull, Dynamics of stress: Physiological
psychological and social perspectives. New York: Plenum Press.
Vakola, M., Tsaousis, L. & Nikolaou, L. (2004). The role of emotional intelligence and personality variables on attitudes toward organisational change. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 19(2), 88-110.
33 Watson, D., & Clark, L.A. (1997). Extraversion and its positive emotional core. In R. Hogan,
J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (767–793). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Woodman, R. & Lau, C. (1995). Understanding organizational change: a schematic Perspective, Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 537–554.
Woods, S.A. & Hampson, S.E. (2005). Measuring the Big Five with single items using a bipolar response scale. European Journal of Personality, 19(5), 373-390.
Wright, T.A., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Emotional exhaustion as a predictor of job
performance and voluntary turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3), 486-493.
Zimmerman, R.D., Boswell, W.R., Shipp, A.J., Dunford, B.B., & Boudreau, J.W. (2012). Should I stay or should I go? Explaining the motivational “black box” between personality and employees’ job search behavior. Journal of Management, 38, 1450– 1475.
34 8. APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE
Thank you for participating in this research! This questionnaire contains sixteen questions. Please give one answer to each question: the answer which you think is best. The first ten questions follow a seven-point Likert scale, where (1) is 'strongly disagree' and (7) is 'strongly agree'. This research is conducted for my thesis, for the study MSc Business Administration. All collected data is treated confidentially, and will not be shared with anyone. The estimated duration of this questionnaire is approximately five minutes.
Change Fatigue (from: Bernerth et al., 2011) (7 point Likert scale)
1. Too many change initiatives are introduced within our organization. 2. I am tired of all the changes in this company.
3. The amount of change that takes place within our organization is overwhelming. 4. We are asked to change too many things at our organization.
5. It feels like we are always being asking to change something around here. 6. I would like to see a period of stability before we change anything else in this
company.
Organizational commitment (from: Hunt, Wood, & Chonko, 1985) (7 point Likert scale)
7. I would be willing to change companies if the new job offered a 25% pay increase. 8. I would be willing to change companies if the new job offered more creative freedom. 9. I would be willing to change companies if the new job offered more status
10. I would be willing to change companies if the new job was with people who were more friendly
Personality traits (from: Woods & Hamson, 2005) (9 point scale between both descriptions)
Two descriptions, rate which one sounds the most like you. If description one fits you
perfectly, and two is nothing like you at all, rate (1). If description one is nothing like you, but description two is right, rate (9). If both descriptions fit you equally well, rate 5. If one fits slightly better than two, rate 4.
11. Openness to change
1) I am someone who is a practical person who is not interested in abstract ideas, prefers work that is routine and has few artistic interests
2) I am someone who spends time reflecting on things, has an active imagination and likes to think up new ways of doing things, but may lack pragmatism
12. Extraversion (R)
1) I am someone who is talkative, outgoing, is comfortable around people, but could be noisy and attention seeking.
2) I am someone who is reserved, private person, doesn’t like to draw attention to themselves and can be shy around strangers.
35 1) I am someone who is forthright, tends to be critical and find fault with others and
doesn’t suffer fools gladly
2) I am someone who is generally trusting and forgiving, is interested in people, but can be taken for granted and finds it difficult to say no
14. Conscientiousness (R)
1) I am someone who likes to plan things, likes to tidy up, pays attention to details, but can be rigid or inflexible
2) I am someone who doesn’t necessarily work to a schedule, tends to be flexible, but disorganized and often forgets to put things back in their proper place
Control variables
The final two questions are asked because these items may influence the questions you have answered previously. Age and gender, in theory, are said to affect personality traits.
15. What is your age?
16. What is your gender? 1. Female 2. Male
