TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP, RESISTANCE TO
CHANGE AND THE MEDIATING ROLE OF PERCEIVED
EMPLOYEE VOICE
MASTER THESIS University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
MSc Business administration: Change Management MSc Human Resource Management
Hilde Blokzijl s1682067 van Swinderenstraat 27a
2
ABSTRACT
This study focuses on the relationship between transformational leadership and resistance to change and the mediating role of perceived voice. Current literature often links transformational leadership with reduced levels of resistance, but not much is known about how this process works. I expect that transformational leaders are able to reduce employees’ resistance by giving them the idea that they have voice. Because employees feel that they have voice and can influence the change process, their resistance to change will be reduced. The data for this study was collected through a questionnaire among 108 employees of two social service organizations in the Netherlands. The results show that all proposed relationships are supported, these results will be discussed.
3
CONTENTS
Abstract ... 2 Introduction ... 4 Literature review ... 5 Resistance to change ... 5Transformational leadership and resistance to change ... 6
Perceived voice ... 8 Methodology ... 11 Procedure ... 11 Participants ... 12 Measures ... 12 Factor analysis ... 13 Data analysis ... 14 Results ... 14
Correlations and descriptive statistics ... 14
Hypotheses testing ... 15 Discussion ... 17 Findings ... 17 Theoretical implications ... 18 Practical implications ... 19 Limitations ... 20
Directions for future research ... 21
References ... 23
Appendix 1: Employee questionnaire ... 30
Appendix 2: Initial factor analysis ... 36
4
INTRODUCTION
Due to the rapidly changing organizational environment of the last decades (technological developments, environmental focus) organizations are forced to make changes to their processes, structure, culture, vision and mission on a regular base in order to adapt to the changing organizational environment (Armenakis, Harris, & Mossholder, 1993).
However, despite the high amount of change initiatives undertaken, many of them are unsuccessful and fail to deliver the desired changes (Kotter, 1995; Myeong-Gu, Hill, Zhang, Tesluk, & Lorinkova, 2012; Santhidran, Chandran, & Borromeo, 2013). Only one-third of implemented change initiatives are considered successful by their initiators (Beer & Nohria, 2008; Pieterse, Caniëls & Homan, 2012). The factor considered to be most important in this context is employees’ resistance to change (Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979; Ford, Ford & D’Amelio, 2008; Pietserse et al. 2012). Employees and their negative reactions and emotions towards change play the most important role in the potential success or failure of the initiated change (Oreg, Vakola & Armenakis, 2011; Myeong-Gu et al., 2012; Vakola, 2013).
During periods of organizational change, leadership plays a critical role because relations have to be managed, change mechanisms need to be coordinated, and operations need to be aligned with strategy (Bommer, Rich & Rubin; 2005). The leadership theory most closely tied to organizational change is that of transformational leadership (Eisenbach, Watson & Pillai, 1999; Bass & Riggio, 2006; Myeong-Gu Seo et al., 2012). Transformational leaders are able to transform or change employees’ attitudes, beliefs and values (Podsakoff, MacKenzie and Fetter., 1990). This ability can be very useful in trying to reduce resistance among the employees. Changing employees’ beliefs and values about the change from negative to positive will aid in reducing their resistance. This assumption is shared by Bommer et al. (2005) who state that leaders showing transformational leadership behavior are more likely to overcome employees’ resistance to change. It seems that transformational leadership will be the most effective leadership style for reducing resistance.
Research has established the positive relationship between transformational leadership and the successful implementation of organizational change many years ago. This is also true for the positive effect of transformational leadership on the level of change resistance among employees. However, far less is known about the processes that make transformational leadership so effective in reducing resistance. De Cremer, van Dijke and Bos, (2007) state that in leadership research certain dimensions (perhaps related to transformational leadership) related to successful change have not been explored as extensively as the relation between transformational leadership and resistance itself.
5
Organizational change is a stressful event, but these stress levels can be reduced through employee participation (Jackson, 1983; Karasek 1990). Employee participation can be achieved through voice; having a say about decision making issues and work related activities (Wilkinson & Fay, 2011). When employees feel that they have voice (perceived voice) their stress levels can be reduced (Karasek, 2004). It is also important if leaders are seen as fair or not (de Cremer et al., 2007). Leader-based procedural justice is an important factor enabling successful organizational change (Tyler & Cremer, 2005). I believe that transformational leaders empower employees by giving them the feeling that they have something to say about the change process, perceived voice. Employees who believe they have voice are more likely to perceive their leader as fair, and in turn are likely to be less resistant towards the change. So, in the present study is argued that transformational leaders reduce employees’ resistance to change by giving them the idea that they voice in the change process.
In this study, the focus will be on how transformational leaders are able to reduce employees’ resistance to organizational change. I will asses whether perceived employee voice is a factor through which transformational leaders are able to achieve reduced levels of resistance among their employees. The study was conducted in two organizations active in the healthcare sector, both of which supply or aid in the supply of social services. Employees of both firms were asked to fill in a questionnaire, in which they were asked to rate their leaders on transformational leadership behavior, and themselves on resistance to change and perceived voice. The data collected from the 108 participants was used to test the hypotheses.
LITERATURE REVIEW
RESISTANCE TO CHANGE
When examining employees’ reactions to change the focus often lies on resistance to change (Peccei, Giangreco & Sebastiano., 2009). The ability to change is affected significantly by employees resisting to the change initiative (Iverson, 1996). In conventional change literature, resistance to change is generally perceived to be ‘collateral damage’ from organizational change programs (Pieterse, et al., 2012). This study will focus on resistance to change. When not dealt with appropriately it can thwart the change initiative and its intended effects. Valuable time, money and other resources will be wasted if change initiatives fail due to resistant employees.
6
In this study the focus will be on resistance to change on the employee level and will take a more behavioral approach like Peccei et al. (2009) and Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) do. Resistant behavior from employees can occur in many different shapes and forms, but is usually manifested by low engagement in pro-change behaviors (Giangrecco & Peccei, 2005). Resistance, according to Herscovitch and Meyer (2002), can be seen as a general failure to comply with explicit requirements for change. This failure to comply can have many different forms such as: foot-dragging, withdrawal, sabotaging the change initiative, having strikes, openly speaking out against the change in public or actively undermining the implementation of the change (Peccei et al., 2009; Moreno, 1999; Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Pieterse et al., 2012). In this study resistance to change will be defined as the different negative behaviors portrayed by employees opposing the change, aimed at negatively influencing the implementation of the change.
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND RESISTANCE TO CHANGE
Transformational leadership literature finds it origin with Burns (1978), who introduced the concepts of transactional and transformational leadership in the political context (Eisenbach et al., 1999). Bass (1985) then introduced these concepts in the context of organizations. He states that transformational leaders motivate employees to identify with the leader’s vision and sacrifice their self-interest for that of the group or organization (Bass, 1985). There are a variety of definitions of transformational leadership, and the behaviors that are attributed to a transformational leader. According to Yukl (1989) transformational leaders behave in ways that makes the employees respect and trust them, and in doing so motivates them to perform. Most authors though, cite the work of Bass (1985). He states that transformational leadership consists of four important elements: idealized influence (or charisma), individual consideration, intellectual stimulation and inspirational motivation. Following this line of thought Podsakoff et al. (1990) added another two elements to this definition; motivating teamwork and cooperation among employees, or the acceptance of group goals, and providing an appropriate model, the leaders show employees how to work towards their espoused values. An overview of the resulting six transformational leadership behaviors can be found below in Table 1.
7
In a change context, the effects of transformational leadership have often been researched. According to Oreg and Berson (2011), transformational leadership plays a part in the facilitation of employees accepting the change. Nemanich and Keller (2007) state that transformational leadership is important for creating a climate that will reduce employees’ resistance to change. Bass (1985) found a positive relationship between employee satisfaction and transformational leadership. According to Herold, Fedor, Caldwell and Liu (2007) employees’ commitment to organizational change is facilitated by transformational leadership. Research also proved that transformational leadership can help reduce cynicism that employees have towards the change (Bommer et al., 2005). These findings are all signals that leaders who display transformational leadership behaviors impact their employees’ responses to the change initiative in a positive way (Oreg & Berson, 2011; Groves, 2005; Bass & Riggio, 2006).
8
collective values and goals (Shamir et al. 1993). This focus towards the common goal rather than on self-interests increases employees’ commitment to the organization (Judge & Bono, 2000; Herold et al., 2008). Employees that are committed towards the organization and the change will experience lower levels of resistance towards the change.
Falbe and Yukl (1992) found that resistance to change can be reduced through influence tactics such inspirational appeals, getting employees enthusiastic for the change based on values and believes, and consultation, looking for support and participation. Transformational leaders often use these tactics to motivate employees towards taking responsibility for the change. Transformational leaders also aim to inspire the employees and create enthusiasm for the change. They increase employees’ participation in the change by focusing on employees’ individual needs and by articulating an inspiring vision for the future; transformational leaders also intellectually stimulate the employees to find new ideas (Bommer et al. 2005). So, employees that feel that their personal needs are taken in consideration and who are stimulated to form their own ideas about the change, are more likely to gain commitment and overcome resistance towards the change (Bommer et al., 2005).
Taking the above together I propose that transformational leadership will be effective in reducing resistance to change. The relationship between transformational leadership and resistance to change will be negative, the more transformational the leader is, the more resistance will be reduced. Therefore I propose the following hypothesis:
H1: Transformational leadership is negatively related to employees’ resistance to change.
PERCEIVED VOICE
9
outcome might be negative, the response would be more positive than when the employees feel they have no control. From the above can be derived that feelings of control can reduce the level of resistance.
The concept that voice plays an important role in reducing employees’ negative reactions to change is also supported by other authors. In the organizational justice literature, research on voice proposes that when employees feel they have a say or can influence the process, they perceive the change to be more fair (Thibaut & Walker, 1975). According to Peccei et al. (2011) the change is perceived to be fair when they are involved in the change process. Perceived fairness has an important influence on employees, as feelings of unfairness are believed to generate negative emotions which in turn lead to employees changing their behavior accordingly (Adams, 1965). Also, Cropanzano, Bowen & Gilliland (2007) state that when employees feel they have voice, they are motivated to perform better, are more satisfied and see the change process as more fair. So when employees find the change process to be fair, because they have voice, they are less likely to show resistant behavior.
Voice can also be seen as a communication strategy, because it increases participation and involvement and is based on two-way communication (Quirke, 1996; Lines, 2004). This is grounded in the idea that two-way communication offers people to have a say, voice (Tyler & Bies, 1990, Gilliland, 1993). Communication is often used as a tool to reduce resistance to change; it is a crucial resource that helps coping with the negative effects of organizational change (Bouckenooghe, 2012). According to Elving (2005) communication is needed during organizational change in order to avoid or at least try to reduce resistance to change. Failing to properly communicate about the change (i.e. not timely, incomplete information, false information) can have negative consequences. It can lead, for example, to cynicism about the change, rumors in which the negative aspects of the change are being exaggerated which in turn can result in resistance to change (DiFonzo, Bordia & Rosnow, 1994; Portoghese, Galetta, Batistelli, Saiana, Penna & Allegrini, 2012). Two-way communication allows the employees to share their opinions, thoughts and feelings about the change, and offer input on the change itself (Karasek, 2004). It will allow for feedback, follow-ups and the opportunity to link an employee’s individual needs to those of the organization (Bass, 1990). So when employees have voice, their levels of resistance to change are likely to be lower than when they do not have voice.
The impact of voice appears to be dependent on whether someone believes that their leader actually considers their input (Lines, 2004). Perceived voice will cause the employees to feel more control over the situation and in turn be more willing to participate and less resistant towards the change initiative. Employees also perceive the change to be fairer when they have voice. So, higher levels of perceived voice will reduce employees’ resistance to change. Therefore I propose the following hypothesis:
H2: Perceived employee voice is negatively related to resistance to change.
10
resistance by inspiring the employees, creating enthusiasm for the change, and by increasing participation (Bommer et al., 2005). The question however is, through which process do transformational leaders achieve these lower levels of resistance to change?
According to Levine, Muenchen and Brooks (2010) transformational leadership behavior will require the use of communication in order to be successful. Levine et al. (2010) emphasize the importance of communication by stating that a leader lacking the necessary communication skills for articulating, inspiring and motivating will have a hard time getting employees to accept the change, and embrace their vision for the initiated change. When leaders fail to motivate the employees for the upcoming change, the leader will have a difficult time reducing any existing resistance towards the change, and may even allow for more resistance to occur.
The importance of communication in transformational leadership lies in part in the behavior of these transformational leaders themselves. For example Yammarino, Spangler and Bass (1993) state that one of the six transformational leadership behaviors, individualized consideration, is for a part a method of communicating information to employees/team members in a timely fashion. This communication method allows for feedback, follow-ups and even the opportunity to link an employee’s current needs to those of the organization’s mission (Bass, 1990). This alignment of needs can in turn allow for a decrease in resistance to change. Transformational leadership behavior such as individual consideration operate through empowerment and communication (Dionne and Yammarino, Atwater, Spangler, 2004). Lyons, Swindler and Offner (2009) propose that by providing employees with the necessary resources, behavioral models, support and open communication channels, employees’ resistance to change will be affected positively. Also, Falbe and Yukl (1992) found that transformational leadership behavior such as inspirational appeals and feedback seeking often result in commitment to change rather than resistance to change. This can be explained by what was stated earlier about voice, it allows for employees to give input and share their ideas and feelings on the change. So when leaders ask employees to give them feedback, the employees will feel that they have voice, thus reducing resistance.
So, from the above it can be derived that transformational leaders try to reduce employees’ resistance to change mainly by empowering them, seeking feedback, communicating openly and involving them in the change process. According to Wilkinson and Fay (2011) employee participation can be achieved through voice. Quirke (1996) and Lines (2004) also state that voice increases participation and involvement and that it can be seen as a communication strategy. This is based on the notion that two-way communication offers people to have a say, voice (Tyler & Bies, 1990). Empowering employees by letting them have a say in the change process, giving them voice, will thus reduce resistance among those employees. Therefore I propose the following hypotheses:
H3: The expected negative relationship between transformational leadership and resistance to change is mediated by perceived employee voice.
11
METHODOLOGY
PROCEDURE
The data needed for this study was collected at two companies, both of which are active in the healthcare sector, they will be referred to as company A & B. Company A is one of 22 locations spread over different regions in the Netherlands. Company A is an organization that provides health related support to people needing assistance; i.e. people with physical disabilities, intellectual disabilities and or problems of psychiatric nature. Company B provides social services to people with more common issues such as psychosocial problems, family problems and grief counseling. These two companies work together regularly in order to provide the best care possible to their clients. New legislation requires municipalities to organize certain aspects of healthcare that are now being taken care of by central government. This will increase the workload of these two companies as they gain a lot of responsibility. This will influence the way in which they do their work. Changes need to be made in order to comply with the new legislation. Some changes have already been made, while other initiatives are about to be implemented in the near future.
12
PARTICIPANTS
The sample of employees consisted of 127 individuals from company A and 55 of company B, a total of 182. Of these companies respectively 87 and 37 actually responded, a response rate of 68.1 %. From the pool of 124 respondents 16 questionnaires were excluded from the data because there was too much data missing, leaving a pool of 108 participants (59.3% of the initial focus group). The sample included 80 females (74.1%) and 15 males (13.9%), 13 people (12%) did not answer this question. The employees’ age ranged from 28 to 62 years (Mage = 46.06, SDage = 9.19). Average tenure among the employees was 11.3 years (SDtenure = 6.2), ranging from 2
years to 32 years. The respondents in the sample were on average quite well educated with the largest group, 78 people (72.2%) having a HBO/bachelor degree.
MEASURES
Transformational leadership was measured using a validated six-item scale from v/d Kam (2012) which was adapted from Podsakoff et al.’s (1990) twenty-three item scale for transformational leadership. These six items were the highest loading items for each of the six transformational leadership dimensions from the original study. The scale consisted of the following items: “Leads by example” (Providing an appropriate model), “Develops a team attitude and spirit among employees” (Fostering the acceptance of group goals), “Will not settle for second best” (High performance expectations), “Inspires others with his/her plans for the future” (Identifying and articulating a vision), “Has stimulated me to rethink the way I do things” (Intellectual stimulation), and “Shows respect for my personal feelings” (Individualized support). The items were then translated into Dutch and adjusted to refer to the employee’s leader e.g. “my supervisor leads by example”. All items were rated on a five-point scale; 1 = ‘completely agree’ and 5 = ‘completely disagree’. All six items were then combined into the variable transformational leadership which has a Chronbach’s alpha of .72.
Voice was measured using the six-item scale of Van Dyne and LePine (1998). These items were translated into Dutch and adapted to refer to self-perceptions, e.g. “I feel that I can develop and make recommendations concerning issues that affect this work group”. All items were rated on a five-point scale; 1 = ‘completely agree’ and 5 = ‘completely disagree’. One of the voice items was deleted; explanation can be found in the section factor analysis. The five remaining items were combined in order to construct the variable of voice; α = .77.
Resistance to change was measured using the eight items of Metselaar (1997). The items were translated into Dutch and adapted to refer to self-perceptions, e.g. “I talk negatively about the change during meetings”. The items were rated on a five-point scale; 1 = ‘completely agree’ and 5 = ‘completely disagree’. Four of the items were deleted; this will be explained in the section factor analysis. The three remaining items were combined into the variable resistance to change; α= .65.
13
Age might be of influence on resistance to change because older employees are less resistance to change than their younger colleagues (Kuntze et al., 2013). This finding is the opposite of the commonly hold stereotype that older employees are more resistant to change. Age was measured in years.
Tenure might influence employees’ resistance to change as higher-tenured employees are more likely to resist the change than colleagues with low tenure (van Dam, Oreg & Schyn, 2008). Tenure was also measured in years.
FACTOR ANALYSIS
Before starting the initial factor analysis all negatively formulated questions were reversed, these questions are marked (r), as can be seen in Appendix 1. After reversing the questions a principle component analysis was conducted using an Oblique rotation. The choice for Oblimin rotation was made because the factors were expected to correlate amongst each other (Field, 2013). All variables were tested in one factor analysis. Expected was that from the 20 items three factors would be extracted. The initial factor analysis however yielded seven factors in stead of the expected three, as can be seen in appendix 2. KMO-SMA for this initial analysis was .778, and Bartlett’s test of Sphericity was significant. There were however a number of cross-loadings and not all items loaded on the factor they were expected to load on (e.g. some resistance items loaded on the same factor as voice). Those items were deleted and excluded from further analysis
The first deleted item was: “I feel I’m well informed about the change” this item had a cross-loading. Also, it seems to be measuring whether the employees are well informed about the change rather than perceived voice. Next, the item “I’m putting in a lot of energy to ensure the change’s successful implementation” was deleted; it loaded on the same factor as some of the voice items. This item consisted of two parts, leaving the question open to multiple interpretations. The item “I feel involved in the change but need more information” had a high loading (.91) but was deleted because it loaded on a separate factor. The question consisted of two parts. Also, the item seems to be measuring involvement and amount of information received rather than resistance. The item “I Follow a ‘wait and see’ policy regarding the change” had a high loading (.68) but loaded on voice in stead of resistance. The question is ambiguous because do people following a ‘wait and see’ policy show resistance or is it the other way around? This leaves the question open for multiple interpretations and was therefore deleted. The item “I talk negatively about the change in private” was deleted because it had a crossloading, and did not load on the resistance factor. The question regarded a private setting and could be irrelevant because it does not address the organizational context. Finally, the item “I call in sick more often since I know about the change” was deleted, it loaded high (.80) but on a separate factor. The question seems to be measuring absenteeism rather than resistance. Two questions from the transformational leadership scale “Will not settle for second best” and “Develops a team attitude and spirit among employees” did not load properly. One of the items had a double loading, the other loaded on a different factor. The items were however not deleted because the scale was validated by v/d Kam (2012).
14
Eigenvalue that is >1. KMO-SMA is.771, which is higher than the 0.6 limit (Kaiser, 1974), Bartlett’s test of Sphericity is significant (.00). The results of the final factor analysis can be found in appendix 3.
DATA ANALYSIS
In order to test the proposed relationships between transformational leadership, voice and resistance to change a hierarchical linear regression was performed. The independent, mediating and control variables were standardized before analysis. The hierarchical regression was executed in three steps; first the control variables (age & tenure) were entered in order to find out if they had a significant influence on the studied variables. Secondly, the independent variable (transformational leadership) was entered in order to test the main effect. In the third and last step the mediator (perceived voice) was entered to test for the mediation effect. To test the hypothesized mediation the four-step approach of Baron & Kenny (1986) was used. This method uses four requirements that have to be met in order to determine if voice indeed acts as a mediator. In this method the dependent variable is Y, the independent is X and the mediator is M.
The first step is determining whether there is a relation between X and Y, the main effect. Secondly, it needs to be determined whether there is a relationship between X and M. The third step is determining whether M relates to Y, controlling for X. Fourth and finally, it needs to be determined if X relates to Y, controlling for M, this needs to be done in order to see whether the mediator explains relation between X and Y. If it does, the effect of X on Y should become zero, meaning that M fully mediates the relation between X and Y.
RESULTS
CORRELATIONS AND DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
The means, standard deviations and Pearson correlations of all variables can be found in Table 2. As expected, the relationship between transformational leadership and resistance to change was negative (r = -.32, p < .005). So, the more a leader is transformational, the less resistance to change employees reported. The relationship between voice and resistance was also negative (r = -.49, p < .001). Which means that the more voice employees perceive they have, the less resistance to change they reported. The relationship between voice and transformational leadership was positive (r= .47, p < .001). So, the more a leader was transformational the more voice employees perceived. This is an interesting finding as the relationship was not predicted in the theory earlier but might be interesting for further research.
15
HYPOTHESES TESTING
In order to test the mediating role of voice in the relationship between transformational leadership and resistance to change a hierarchical multiple regression analysis was executed. The results of these analyses can be found in Tables 3 and 4. Transformational leadership explained a significant amount of variance in resistance to change (ΔR² = .11, ΔF = 9.30 p < .01). As expected the relationship between transformational leadership and resistance to change was negative and significant (B= -.23, t= -3.05, p = < .01). This supports hypothesis 1: Transformational leadership is negatively related to employees’ resistance to change. Thus the first requirement for mediation was met.
As predicted, transformational leadership also explained a significant amount of variance in voice (ΔR² = .24, ΔF = 22.85, p < .01). As can be seen in table 4 this relationship is positive (B = .34, t= 4.78, p < .01). This means that the second requirement for mediation has also been met.
The third requirement is that there is a significant relationship between perceived voice and resistance to change. Table 3 shows that perceived voice also explained a significant amount in resistance to change (ΔR² = .14, ΔF = 13.63, p < .01). This relationship is indeed significant and negative, as was proposed (B= -.32, t = - 3.69, p < .01). Therefore hypothesis 2: Perceived employee voice is negatively related to resistance to change, was also supported.
16
17
DISCUSSION
FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between transformational leadership and resistance to change and the mediating role of perceived voice. The expected main effect between transformational leadership and resistance to change was supported. This means that when a leader shows higher levels of transformational leadership behavior, the resistance levels of employees are reduced. This is line with earlier research from for example: Bommer et al. (2005) who found that transformational leadership behavior can aid leaders in making a compelling case which will show the need for change and will reduce resistance among change recipients.
Secondly, the proposed negative relation between voice and transformational leadership was also supported. This negative relation implies that the more voice employees perceive they have, the lower their level of resistance to change is, which is in line with the proposed theory. Employees that perceive to have voice experience lower levels of resistance because the feel they have more control over the situation, experience less stress and find the change to be fairer (Adams, 1965; Thibaut & Walker, 1975; Leung & Li, 1990).
18
mediator because the significant effect between transformational leadership and resistance to change disappeared when voice was added to the regression equation.
THEORETICAL IMPLICAT IONS
This research contributes to literature in the fields of human resource management and organizational change management. Examening the relationship between transformational leadership and resistance to change, has integrated both fields of literature. In the human resource literature, there is an abundance of theory to be found on transformational leadership and its effects on outcomes such as team performance (Dionne et al., 2003), organizational commitment (Podsakoff et al., 1990) and overall performance (Yammarino et al., 1993). Effects on change related behavior, specifically which of employees, have received far less attention. Despite the fact that change management depends on the enactment of leadership, little attention has been paid to it in change management literature (Eisenbach et al., 1999). Change literature often focuses on resistance on an organizational level, rather than on the individual employee level. The integration of both fields of research has given some new insights on how a certain leadership style can effectively reduce employee resistance, and calls for deeper investigation.
Transformational leadership was found to reduce employees’ resistance to change. This finding seems to be positive as resistance to change is generally unwanted and seen as detrimental for the successful implementation of the change. There are however authors that believe resistance to change is functional for the change process (Hirscheim & Newman, 1988; Rivard & LaPointe, 2012). Piderit (2000) states that negative reactions towards change might be driven by positive intentions. Functional resistance can signal problems in the change process; employees might show resistant behavior because the implementation process is flawed. Signaling these implementation problems can help in making the change successful. If that is the case, reducing resistance would not have such a positive effect on change success as I proposed earlier. In future research it might be fruitful to make a distinction between functional and dysfunctional resistance to change. By making this distinction, the functional resistance can be kept in order to help improve the change process.
Even though this study showed that transformational leaders are able to reduce employee resistance, it can be influenced by a number of things that were not examined in this study. For example, employees often mistrust the motives of those who call the shots and have negative attitudes towards the change. This makes it hard to reach the employees and get them to support the change initiative (Bommer et al. 2005). So trust in the leader might moderate the relationship between transformational leadership and resistance. This could mean that when employees have low trust in their leader, their leaders’ ability to reduce resistance will be decreased. The moderating effect of trust in leader may cause the relationship between transformational leadership to become smaller or even insignificant.
19
that there indeed seems to be overlap between the two. The question “Ik heb het gevoel dat ik betrokken ben bij de veranderingen die de kwaliteit van werken in deze groep beïnvloeden” regards involvement in the change process. So, when this question is answered negatively, employees do not feel involved, low involvement in the change is a precursor for resistance to change.
Also interesting is the proven negative relation between perceived employee voice and resistance to change. When employees believe they have voice, their level of resistance to change will be reduced. The high correlation (R = -.49, p < .001) between the two variables raises the question whether they might (for some part) measure the same construct. It could be very interesting to research whether there indeed is overlap between employees’ perceived voice and resistance to change. It could help in finding new and better understandings of why employees resist changing and how to reduce this resistance.
The relationship between transformational leadership and resistance to change is fully mediated by voice. But it is only one of the mechanisms through which transformational leaders reduce resistance. This is not surprising as transformational leadership involves a range of different influence processes (Yukl, 1998). It could be that although the mediation of voice is established, other factors are better able to explain how transformational leadership reduces resistance to change. Other mediating factors according to the literature may be, trust in the leader (Bommer et al., 2005), organizational support, which has been shown to have a positive relation with change readiness (Neves, 2011) or employees’ commitment to change (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002).
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIO NS
The findings of this research may offer several practical implications. First, learning that transformational leadership can help reduce employees’ resistance to change can have implications for leadership training and development programs. Barling, Weber and Kelloway (1996) propose that at least some of the six transformational leadership behaviors can be trained and developed. According to Berson and Oreg (2011) such programs should allow for training in crafting a vision which is able to helps employees see the positive side of the change and guide them through it. Awamleh and Gardner (1999) state that it is possible for leaders to improve and develop their vision-articulating abilities. Also important might be that leaders learn to pay attention to the differences between each individual employee and especially their different feelings about the change. By providing individualized support employees will feel more respected, and taken serious by their leader. Another possible aspect of training and development program is leading by example. When the leader himself shows the behavior he also expects from his employees, they will be more likely to show the espoused behavior.
20
enough to give employees the idea that they have voice, without actually giving them voice. Whether this is actually true, is cause for closer examination.
Also important is the role of voice as a communication strategy for achieving reduced levels of resistance. Transformational leaders should give employees the opportunity to speak their minds about the change. The leader can, for example ask his employees to give feedback and suggestions about the change and how it is proceeding (Bass, 1990). When there is a form of two-way communication employees are less likely to resist the change (Lyons et al., 2009), so transformation leaders should communicate openly about the change with the employees, and let the employees in turn give their leader feedback. However, according to Russ (2008) every communication strategy has its limitations and benefits. Also, individuals are likely to prefer certain communication strategies over others (Russ, 2008). This implies that whether voice is an appropriate communication strategy for reducing change is dependent on the employees and on the context or purpose of the intended change. Looking at the negative relation between voice and resistance to change, voice seems to be an appropriate communication strategy, at least for the context of this study. It is up to the leader to assess whether this strategy is fit for the change context in their organization.
LIMITATIONS
Although this research shows some promising findings, it is limited in several ways. The first limitation is related to the generalizability of the findings. Data was gathered at two organizations in the Netherlands, active in the social service industry. It could be that the healthcare setting of these organizations affects the levels of employees’ resistance to change. This could be explained by the fact that the Dutch healthcare system is experiencing a lot of turmoil due to recent developments in government healthcare legislation. Lots of people stand to lose their job due to the new legislation, so job security in this sector is very low. Job insecurity has been associated with negative emotions (Reisel, Probst, Swee-Lim, Maloles, & König, 2010). It has also been found to negatively influence mental and physical health, job performance and organizational attitudes performance (Sverke, Hellgren, and Näswall 2002). Taking job security into account, the people working in the healthcare industry (characterized by low job security) may be inclined to resist to change more than would people with higher levels of job security. If this research was done in sector that is experiencing far less turmoil, the results could be very different.
21
on transformational leadership from another source. A solution could be to let the leaders rate themselves on transformational leadership behavior. This has however not been done in this research, which makes this research also subject to mono-method bias.
In this study employees were asked to rate their leaders on possible transformational leadership behavior. These leaders were however not asked to rate themselves on the same behavior. Getting data from only one source can threaten validity because it provides a one sided look al the construct. It might be that leaders perceive themselves to be far more transformational than their employees do. The validity threats caused by mono-method or self-report bias can be ruled out by using a minimum of two data sources (Donaldson & Vallone, 2002). So, future research on this subject should definitely include collecting data from the leaders in order to prevent mono-method bias.
Ultimately the data of only 75 of the respondents was actually used for the testing phase of this study. This is a limitation as the amount of respondents is far below the level appropriate for generalizing the findings (Field, 2013). This generalizability was further limited by the fact that the study was done in only two organizations, active in the same sector. Another concern regarding the data is that this study is cross-sectional rather than longitudinal. Because this data was collected at a single point in time, it is believed that cross-sectional research is prone to common method variance (CMV) bias (i.e., “systematic method error due to the use of a single rater or single source”) (Rindfleisch, Malte, Ganesan, & Moorman, 2008). This can be prevented by doing a longitudinal study, because the time separation will make a person less able to access responses to predictors collected earlier in time. Being unable to access earlier responses, the possibility of earlier responses influence subsequent responses will be reduced (Rindfleisch et al., 2008
DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Based on the limitations stated above, it can be recommended that for future research on this subject, a larger and more divers sample of employees is needed, in order to increase generalizability. Even though the current results are robust, I do not know if this will hold true for a bigger, more diverse sample. This research also calls for a multiple source approach to avoid the possibility of a liking bias or a mono-source bias. And in order to reduce the possibility of a common method variance bias, a longitudinal study should be done rather than a cross-sectional one, as feeling and perceptions about the change can differ at different points in the change process.
Other directions for future research are first of all the correlation between perceived employee voice and resistance to change. There is a possibility that these two variables are, for some part, measure the same construct. According to Bollen and Lennox (1991), “indicators that are associated with the same construct should be positively correlated with each other”. This would mean that perceived voice and resistance indeed can be associated with each other, as they have positive correlation. Finding out whether there is indeed overlap between the two could help better understand the reasons for employees’ resistance to change and how to reduce it.
22
dependent on whether someone believes that their leader actually considers their input. So, employees need to perceive they have voice in order for it to have positive effects. If this were to be true than this could have some major implications for how leaders try to involve their employees in times of organizational change.
23
REFERENCES
Adams, T., S. (1965) Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 2: 267-299, New York: Academic Press.
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993) Creating readiness for organizational change. Human Relations, 46, 681–704.
Awamleh, R., & Gardner, W. L. (1999) Perceptions of leader charisma and effectiveness: the effects of vision content, delivery, and organizational performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(3), 345–373.
Barling, J.,Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996) Effects of transformational leadership training on attitudinal and financial outcomes: a field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6), 827–832.
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.
Bass, B.M. (1985) Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations, Free Press, New York, NY.
Bass B. (1990) From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19–31.
Bass B., & Riggio R.E. (2006) Transformational leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Beer, M. and Nohria, N. (2000) “Cracking the code of change”, Harvard Business Review, May/June, pp. 133-41.
Bollen, K., & Lennox, R. (1991) Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110(2), 305-314
Bommer WH, Rich GA, & Rubin RS. (2005) Changing attitudes about change: Longitudinal effects of transformational leader behavior on employee cynicism about organizational change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 733–753.
24
Bouckenooghe, D. (2012) The role of organizational politics, contextual resources, and formal communication on change recipients' commitment to change: A multilevel study, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 21:4, 575-602
Burns, J.M. (1978) Leadership, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Cropanzano, R., Bowen, D. E., & Gilliland, S. W. (2007) The Management of Organizational Justice. Academy Of Management Perspectives, 21(4), 34-48
Curtis, E., & White, P. (2002) Resistance to change. Nursing Management - UK, 8(10), 15-20
De Cremer, D., van Dijke, M., & Bos, A. (2007) When leaders are seen as transformational: The effects of organizational justice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 37 Issue 8, p1797-1816.
DiFonzo, N., Bordia, P. and Rosnow, R.L. (1994) “Reining in rumors”, Organisational Dynamics, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 47-62.
Dionne, S. D., Yammarino, F. J., Atwater, L. E., & Spangler, W. D. (2004) Transformational leadership and team performance. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17(2), 177-193
Donaldson, S. I., & Grant-Vallone, E. J. (2002) Understanding self-report bias in organizational behavior research. Journal Of Business & Psychology, 17(2), 245-260.
Eisenbach, R., Watson, K., & Pillai, R. (1999) Transformational leadership in the context of organizational change, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 12 No. 2 , pp. 80-88.
Elving, W.J.L (2005) The role of communication in organizational change, Corporate Communications: An International Journal Vol. 10 No. 2, 2005 pp. 129-138
Falbe, C. M., & Yukl, G. (1992) Consequences for managers of using single influence tactics and combinations of tactics. Academy of Management Journal, 35(3), 638–652.
Fandt, P. M., Labig Jr., C. E., & Urich, A. L. (1990) Evidence and the Liking Bias: Effects on Managers' Disciplinary Actions. Employee Responsibilities & Rights Journal, 3(4), 253-265.
25
Ford, J.D., Ford, L.W. & D’Amelio, A. (2008) “Resistance to change: the rest of the story”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 362-77.
Freeman, R. B., Boxall, P., & Haynes, P. (2007) What workers say: Employee voice in the Anglo-American workplace. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Giangreco, A. & Peccei, R. (2005) “The nature and antecedents of middle managers’ resistance to change: evidence from an Italian context”, The International Journal of Human Resources Management, Vol. 16 No. 10, pp. 1812-29.
Gilliland, S. W. (1993) THE PERCEIVED FAIRNESS OF SELECTION SYSTEMS: AN ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE PERSPECTIVE .Academy Of Management Review, 18(4), 694-734.
Groves KS. (2005) Linking leader skills, follower attitudes, and contextual variables via an integrated model of charismatic leadership. Journal of Management, 31, 255–277.
Groves, K. S. & LaRocca, M. A. (2012) Does transformational leadership facilitate follower beliefs in corporate responsibility? A field study of leader personal values and follower outcomes. Journal of leadership & organizational studies, 19, pp. 215-229.
Herold, D.M., Fedor, D.B., Caldwell, S. & Liu, Y. (2008) The effects of transformational and change leadership on employees’ commitment to a change: a multilevel study, Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, pp. 346–357.
Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J. P. (2002) Commitment to organizational change: Extension of a three component model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (3), 474-487
Hirschheim, R., & Newman, M. (1988) “Information Systems and User Resistance: Theory and Practice,” The Computer Journal (31:5), pp. 398-408.
Holmes, T.H., &Rahe, R.H. (1967) The social readjustment scale. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 11,213-18.
Iverson, R.D. (1996) “Employee acceptance of organizational change: the role of organizational commitment”, The International Journal of Human Resources Management, Vol. 7 No. 1,pp. 122-49.
26
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000) Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 751–765.
Kaiser, H. F. (1974) An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika. 39(1), 31-36.
Kam, van der, N.A. (2012).Leader self-enhancement: an interpersonal approach. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
Karasek, R.A. (1990) Lower Health Risk with Increased Job Control among White Collar Workers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 171-185
Karasek, R.A. (2004) An analysis of 19 international case studies of stress prevention through work reorganization using the demand/control model. Bulletin of science, technology & society, 24 (5), p. 446-456
Kotter, J.P. & Schlesinger, L.A. (1979) “Choosing strategies for change”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 106-14.
Kotter, J.P. (1995) ``Leading change: why transformational efforts fail'', Harvard Business Review, March/April, pp. 59-67.
Kunze, F., Boehm, S., & Bruch, H. (2013) Age, resistance to change, and job performance. Journal Of Managerial Psychology, 28(7/8), 741-760
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (1998) Predicting voice behavior in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 853– 868.
Leung, K., & Li, W.(1990) Psychological mechanisms of process-control effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 613-620.
Levine, K.J., Muenchen, R.A. & Brooks, A.M. (2010) Measuring Transformational and Charismatic Leadership: Why isn’t Charisma Measured? Communication Monographs Vol. 77, No. 4, pp. 576_591
Lines, R. (2004) Influence of participation in strategic change: resistance, organizational commitment and change goal achievement. Journal Of Change Management, 4(3), 193-215
27
Metselaar, E.E. (1997) Assessing the willingness to change: Construction and validation of the DINAMO (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). VU Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Moreno, V. J. (1999) “On the Social Implications of Organizational Reengineering”, Information Technology & People (12:4), pp.359-388.
Myong-Gu, S., Taylor, M.S., Hill, N.S., Zhang, X., Tesluk, P.E., Lorinkova, N.M. (2012) The role of affect and leadership during organizational change. Personnel psychology, 65, 121-165.
Nemanich, L.A., Keller, R.T. (2007) Transformational leadership in an acquisition: A field study of employees. Leadership Quarterly, 18.
Neves, P. (2009) Readiness for change: contributions for employees’ level of individual change and turnover intentions. Journal of Change Management. 9(2).
Oreg, S. (2003) Resistance to Change: Developing an Individual Differences Measure, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 88 issue 4, p680-693
Oreg, S., Berson, Y. (2011) Leadership and employees’ reactions to change: The role of leaders’ personal attributes and transformational leadership style. Personnel Psychology, 64: 627-654
Oreg, S., Vakola, M., & Armenakis, A. A. (2011) Change recipients’ reactions to organizational change: A sixty year review of quantitative studies. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47, 461–524.
Peccei, R., Giangreco, A., & Sebastiano, A. (2011) The role of organizational commitment in the analysis of resistance to change Co-predictor and moderator effects, Personnel Review, Vol. 40 No. 2.
Piderit, S.K. (2000) “Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: a multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 783-94.
Pieterse, J.H., Caniëls, M.C.J. & Homan, T. (2012) Professional discourses and resistance to change., Journal of Organizational Change Management Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 798-818
28
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996) Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 22, 259–298.
Portoghhese, I., Galetta, M., Battistelli, A., Saiani, L., Penna, M.P. and Allegrini, E. (2012) Change-related expectations and commitment to change of nurses: the role of leadership and communication, Journal of Nursing Management 20, 582–591
Quirke, B. (1996) Communicating corporate change. Berkshire: McGraw-Hill.
Reisel, W. D., Probst, T. M., Swee-Lim, C., Maloles, C. M., & König, C. J. (2010) The Effects of Job Insecurity on Job Satisfaction, Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Deviant Behavior, and Negative Emotions of Employees. International Studies Of Management & Organization, 40(1), 74-91
Rindfleisch, A., Malter, A., Ganesan, S., & Moorman, C. (2008) Cross-Sectional Versus Longitudinal Survey Research: Concepts, Findings, and Guidelines. Journal Of Marketing Research (JMR), 45(3), 261-279
Rivard, S., & Lapointe, L. (2012) Information technology implementers’ responses to user resistance: Nature and effects. MIS Quarterly, 36 (3), 897-920
Russ, T. L. (2008) Communicating change: A review and critical analysis of programmatic and participatory implementation approaches. Journal of Change Management, 8, 199–211.
Schweiger, D. M., & Denisi, A. S. (1991) Communication with employees following a merger: A longitudinal field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 110- 135.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993) The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4, 577–594.
Sverke, M., J. Hellgren, and K. Näswall. (2002) “No Security: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Job Insecurity and Its Consequences.” Journal of occupational health Psychology 7: 242–264
Tyler, T. R., & Bies, R. J. (1990) Beyond formal procedures: The interpersonal context of procedural justice. In J. S. Carroll (Ed.). Applied social psychology and organizational settings: 77-98. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
29
Vakola, M. (2013) Multilevel Readiness to Organizational Change: A Conceptual Approach, Journal of Change Management, 13:1, 96-109
Van Dam, K., Oreg, S., & Schyns, B. (2008) Daily Work Contexts and Resistance to Organisational Change: The Role of Leader–Member Exchange, Development Climate, and Change Process Characteristics. Applied Psychology: An International Review,57(2)
Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & Parks, J. M. (1995) Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity (a bridge over muddied waters). In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior Vol. 17, pp. 215–285
Wilkinson, A., & Fay, C. (2011) New times for employee voice? Human Resource Management, January– February , Vol. 50, No. 1, Pp. 65 – 74
Yammarino, F.J., Spangler, W.D., & Bass, B.M. (1993) Transformational leadership and performance: A longitudinal investigation. Leadership Quarterly, 4, 81_102.
Yukl, G. (1989) Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Journal of Management, 15, 251–289
Yukl, G. (1998) Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
30
APPENDIX 1: EMPLOYEE QUESTIONNAIRE
Beste medewerkers,Met behulp van deze vragenlijst onderzoeken wij wat u als medewerker vindt van de veranderingen in uw werk bij Stichting Maatschappelijk Werk Fryslân / MEE met betrekking tot de transitie van 2015. Aan de hand van deze vragenlijst kunnen interne processen mogelijk verbeterd worden binnen de organisatie.
Uw gegevens worden strikt vertrouwelijk behandeld. Alleen de onderzoekers krijgen de ingevulde vragenlijsten te zien.
Soms lijken vragen op elkaar, maar toch willen we u vragen alle vragen te beantwoorden. De vragenlijst neemt ongeveer 10 minuten van uw tijd in beslag.
31
LEIDERSCHAP
Onderstaande vragen gaan over uw directe leidinggevende. Geef aan wat voor u van toepassing is.
Volledig mee oneens Grotendeels mee oneens Niet eens/ niet oneens Grotendeels mee eens Volledig mee eens Mijn leidinggevende….
Inspireert anderen met zijn/haar plannen voor de toekomst
1 2 3 4 5
Leidt door het goede voorbeeld te geven 1 2 3 4 5
Ontwikkelt een teamgerichte houding en een teamgeest onder de werknemers
1 2 3 4 5
Zal geen genoegen nemen met een tweede plek (R)
1 2 3 4 5
Toont respect voor mijn persoonlijke gevoelens
1 2 3 4 5
Heeft ideeën die mij uitdagen om enkele aannames over mijn werk te
heroverwegen
32
COMMUNICATIE
De volgende vragen gaan over de communicatie in de organisatie over de verandering.
Volledig mee oneens Grotendeels mee oneens Niet eens/ niet oneens Grotendeels mee eens Volledig mee eens
Ik heb het gevoel dat ik aanbevelingen kan doen over veranderingen binnen onze werkgroep
1 2 3 4 5
Ik heb het gevoel dat ik kan zeggen wat ik denk en dat ik anderen in deze groep kan aansporen om zich te mengen in de situaties in de groep
1 2 3 4 5
Ik heb het gevoel dat ik mijn mening over werkproblemen kan delen met anderen in deze groep, ook al heeft hij/zij een andere mening
1 2 3 4 5
Ik heb het gevoel dat ik goed
geïnformeerd ben over de verandering
1 2 3 4 5
Ik heb het gevoel dat ik betrokken ben bij de veranderingen die de kwaliteit van werken in deze groep beïnvloeden
1 2 3 4 5
Als ik ideeën heb voor nieuwe projecten of veranderingen in procedures dan deel ik die
33
VERANDERING
De volgende vragen gaan over de verandering in uw organisatie. Bij u in de organisatie gaat de verandering om de transitie naar 2015. Geef aan in welke mate onderstaande stellingen voor u van toepassing zijn.
Volledig mee oneens Grotendeels mee oneens Niet eens/ niet oneens Grotendeels mee eens Volledig mee eens
Ik stop veel energie in de verandering, zodat hij succesvol kan worden ingevoerd (r)
1 2 3 4 5
Ik steun de verandering (r) 1 2 3 4 5
Ik voel me betrokken bij de verandering, maar ik heb meer informatie nodig
1 2 3 4 5
Ik praat niet over de verandering 1 2 3 4 5
Ik volg een ‘ afwachtend’ beleid met betrekking tot de verandering
1 2 3 4 5
Ik praat negatief over de verandering in privé gesprekken
1 2 3 4 5
Ik praat negatief over de verandering tijdens vergaderingen
1 2 3 4 5
Ik meld mij vaker ziek nu ik van de verandering afweet
34
ALGEMEEN
Tot slot willen we u graag nog wat algemene vragen stellen.Wat is uw geslacht? o Man o Vrouw
Wat is uw leeftijd?
o ………jaren
Heeft u kinderen?
o Ja o Nee
Wat is hoogst afgeronde opleiding? o Basisonderwijs / lageronderwijs o Lager beroeps onderwijs (lbo/lts/vmbo) o Middelbaar algemeen onderwijs (mavo mulo) o Middelbaar beroepsonderwijs (mts/meao/mbo) o Hoger algemeen onderwijs (havo/vwo)
o Hoger beroepsonderwijs (hbo/bachelor) o Wetenschappelijk onderwijs (wo/master)
o Anders, namelijk:………..
Hoeveel jaren bent u al in dienst binnen deze organisatie?
o ……….jaren
Wat is uw functie binnen de organisatie o ... ...
Hoeveel jaren zit u al in deze functie?
35
APPENDIX 2: INITIAL FACTOR ANALYSIS
Factor loadings
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6 Factor 7
Gevoel dat ik aanbevelingen kan doen over de veranderingen in onze werkgroep (V) -.10 .21 .09 .30 -.57 .11 -.33
Gevoel dat ik kan zeggen wat ik denk. anderen in de groep aansporen (V) .07 .03 .81 .05 -.21 -.08 .01
Gevoel dat ik mening kan delen over werkproblemen… (V) .11 .05 .84 .04 .05 -.13 .01
Gevoel dat ik goed geïnformeerd ben over de verandering (V) -.01 .32 .21 .44 -.11 -.31 -.12
Gevoel dat ik betrokken ben bij de veranderingen die kwaliteit beïnvloeden (V) -.05 .23 -.03 .07 -.62 -.25 -.00
Ideeën voor nieuw projecten of veranderingen in procedures deel ik (V) -.06 -.02 .24 -.03 -.70 .11 .18
Inspireert anderen met zijn/haar plannen voor de toekomst (TL) .16 .83 -.03 -.11 -.08 .07 -.04
Leidt door het goede voorbeeld te geven (TL) .16 .77 .12 .03 .13 -.04 -.06
Ontwikkelt een teamgerichte houding en een teamgeest onder de werknemers (TL) -.17 .63 .40 -.08 -.01 -.01 .04
Zal geen genoegen nemen met een tweede plek (r) (TL) -.17 -.21 .02 .86 .01 .09 .10
Toont respect voor mijn persoonlijke gevoelens (TL) -.08 .69 -.28 .29 .04 -.31 -.02
Heeft ideeën die mij uitdagen enkele aannames over mijn werk te heroverwegen (TL) -.08 .66 .08 -.22 -.19 .04 .09
Ik praat niet over de verandering (R) -.80 .10 -.12 -.10 -.16 -.06 .19
Ik volg een ‘ afwachtend’ beleid met betrekking tot de verandering (R) -.15 .26 -.05 .10 .69 .16 .17
Ik praat negatief over de verandering in privé gesprekken (R) -.32 -.18 .08 .14 .50 .37 .05
Ik praat negatief over de verandering tijdens vergaderingen (R) -.59 -.13 .10 -.00 .20 .30 -.16
Ik meld mij vaker ziek nu ik van de verandering afweet (R) .00 .04 -.18 .05 .01 .80 -.09
Stop veel energie in de verandering. zodat hij succesvol kan worden ingevoerd (r)(R) -.32 -.32 .16 -.12 .49 -.27 -.28
Ik steun de verandering (r)(R) -.57 -.27 -.26 .03 .16 -.09 -.19
Ik voel me betrokken bij de verandering. maar ik heb meer informatie nodig (R) -.06 -.06 .03 .09 .06 -.08 .91
37
APPENDIX 3: FINAL FACTOR ANALYSIS FOR ALL VARIABLES
Pattern MatrixDependent and independent variables
Factor loadings
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5
Gevoel dat ik aanbevelingen kan doen over de veranderingen in onze werkgroep (V) .15 -.08 .07 .69 .39
Gevoel dat ik kan zeggen wat ik denk, anderen in de groep aansporen (V) -.07 -.82 -.07 .24 .03
Gevoel dat ik mening kan delen over werkproblemen.. (V) .03 -.89 -.07 -.05 .05
Gevoel dat ik betrokken ben bij de veranderingen die kwaliteit beïnvloeden (V) .15 .03 -.05 .72 -.04
Ideeën voor nieuw projecten of veranderingen in procedures deel ik (V) -.17 -.14 -.09 .73 -.15
Inspireert anderen met zijn/haar plannen voor de toekomst (TL) .74 -.01 -.14 .12 -.15
Leidt door het goede voorbeeld te geven (TL) .80 -.17 -.15 -.14 -.00
Ontwikkelt een teamgerichte houding en een teamgeest onder de werknemers (TL) .59 -.48 .21 -.01 -.07
Zal geen genoegen nemen met een tweede plek (r) (TL) -.01 -.05 -.07 .03 .87
Toont respect voor mijn persoonlijke gevoelens (TL) .82 .25 .01 .08 .19
Heeft ideeën die mij uitdagen om enkele aannames over mijn werk te heroverwegen (TL) .51 -.06 .04 .24 -.34
Ik praat niet over de verandering (R) .06 .06 .79 .18 -.16
Ik praat negatief over de verandering tijdens vergaderingen (R) -.16 -.10 .68 -.25 .07
Ik steun de verandering (r) (R) -.14 .26 .58 -.18 .13
Eigenvalue 4.59 1.69 1.30 1.05 1.03
Variance explained (%) 32.81 12.07 9.27 7.50 7.33
