The impact of HR practices on the willingness to change of
older employees, compared to younger employees
Master Thesis, MscBA, specialization Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
August 30, 2012
2
Abstract
The well-known stereotype of older employees is that they are unwilling to change. But is this really true? And can HR practices account for age differences regarding the willingness to change? Therefore the main question in this thesis is: “ What is the impact of HR practices on
the willingness to change of older employees, compared to younger employees?”
To answer the research question eight hypotheses were developed and tested. An online questionnaire was applied in a sample of 217 respondents from a variety of organizations. Results derived from a regression analysis, showed that there is no relationship between age and willingness to change. So, this study proves that the stereotype about older employees, that they are less willing to change than their younger counterparts, is not true. Furthermore, it was examined to what degree a relationship between age and willingness is mediated by age-related variabilities of the HR practices. Evidence was found that younger employees are more willing to change if they receive more task autonomy in their job. On the other hand, older employees are more willing to change if their job is less formalised.
3
Table of contents
Page
1. Introduction 4
2. Organizational determinants of willingness to change 8
2.1 HR practices and willingness to change 10
3. Methodology 14 3.1 Data-analysis 14 3.2 Measures 14 3.3 Controls 16 3.4 Participants 17 4. Results 18 5. Conclusion 25 5.1 Implications 26 6. Discussion 27 6.1 Rejected hypotheses 27
6.2 Limitations and future research 27
References 29
4
1. Introduction
The Human Resource (HR) department of organisations is challenged to manage an ageing workforce (Kooij, Jansen, Dikkers, De Lange, 2009). The labour force is ageing, and in the Netherlands the average age of employees is rising. The Dutch population illustrates this. Figures of ‘het Centraal Bureau voor de statistiek’ show that 47 percent of the people between 50 and 65 years old were part of the labour force in 2001. In 2009, this percentage rose to 57 percent1. Nowadays the average age of the labour force is still rising2. It is important for organisations to invest in the skills and development of older employees because they comprise a great number of the labour force (Calo, 2007). The HRM department has to develop new strategies to manage older employees and keep them motivated to work. To keep older workers as a part of the workforce they have to be willing to make a career switch or operate in a different function, or maybe undergo training. In the next paragraph it will be discussed that the labour force is ageing and therefore it is important to know which HR practices have impact on the willingness to change of (older) employees.
Not only the age of employees is rising, but also changes in the work attitude have taken place. While employees of the ‘baby boom generation’, employees between 50 and 65 years of age, often had a 40-year career mostly in one organisation, whereas nowadays it is not that common that employees spend their whole career with one employer. Not only did the changing workforce bring about an end to this employer-employee relationship, there also have been changes within the work environment, more mergers took place, downsizing and globalization (Calo, 2007). These changes had a major influence on the lifetime employment of the ‘baby boom generation’ and the following generation. In 2012 it is not common that an employee spends his whole career with one employer. Because of the ageing workforce and the changes in work attitude it is necessary for organisations to adapt their HR practices to future demands. It is important that the HR practices and organisational policies match the need of (older) employees in such a way that the employees are willing to adapt themselves to the changing environment.
5 willingness to change of younger and older employees. The following definition of willingness to change will be adopted: “The perceivable willingness of people to cooperate with adjustments that result from the requirements that the dynamic of the evironment of an organisation demands” (Wissema, Messer and Wijers, 1993).
Because of the increased proportion of older employees it is interesting to investigate what kind of assumptions and stereotypes exist about the willingness to change of older employees; the assumptions are usually negative. For example; older employees are less willing to change or are not motivated to learn new skills. But is it really true that older employees are less willing to change? And if so, is this because of age differences or is it due to other age-related circumstances? And can those circumstances be influenced by the HRM department? By means of these questions it might be determined which HR practices have impact on the willingness to change of younger and older employees. To answer these questions the next paragraph will summarize some of the existing stereotypes.
The following studies examined stereotypes of older employees. Peeters, Nauta, De Jonge and Schalk (2005) concluded that older employees are perceived to be less flexible, more vulnerable in their health and less motivated to learn new skills. In addition to that, according to Cleveland and Shore (1992) older employees tend not to participate in training and development activities as much as younger employees. Capowski (1994) found that 59% of businesses stated that older employees show resistance to training. Based on these findings the HRM department is challenged to motivate older employees to keep developing themselves. Next to the stereotypes mentioned above, supervisors also have assumptions about the older employee. Supervisors prefer employees with an average age of 38.5 years in their own department; and they especially want more employees under the age of forty. The reasons for such wishes are: (1) less confidence in the ability of older employees to have efficient and creative share in new developments; (2) elderly would be inflexible; (3) youth would react quicker to challenges; and (4) younger people accept innovations sooner. (Boerlijst, Van der Heijden & Van Assen, 1993; Van der Heijden, 1998). Also according to Boerlijst et al. (1993), supervisors have the conception that employees above the age of forty usually hold on to their current function and are of minor importance in a different function. A lot of the stereotypes, mentioned in the previous paragraphs, are about the willingness to change of older employees or might contribute to their willingness to change.
6 flexible working hours, training and development opportunities and job design are important for both younger and older workers to keep them motivated to work and willing to change (Armstrong-Strassen, 2008). For that reason, it is quite possible that with the proper HR practices the willingness to change of older employees can be positively influenced, just as this can be done in the case of younger employees.
Limited research has been done about how Human Resource Management can influence the willingness to change of workers. There are studies about what motivates workers to continue to work and perform at their best. For example, Hermanussen and Hendrikse (2001) researched which factors influence the motivation of older employees. These authors concluded that the state of health, the degree of autonomy and the career path of an employee have influence on the functioning and motivation of employees. In particular, older employees who perform the same job for a long time are less willing to change (Hermanussen and Hendrikse, 2001). On the other hand some researchers argue that older employees are more willing to learn new skills than younger employees (De Lange, Taris, Jansen, Kompier, Houtman & Bongers, 2005).
7
2. Organizational determinants of willingness to change
The main conceptual model developed for this study is presented in Figure 1. The central idea in this model is that the HR practices could play a mediating role in clarify the nature of the relationship between age and willingness to change.
Figure 1 Conceptual model
This model presents three possible relations; Path A, the relation between age and the six HR practices. This means that variations in age may account for variations in the HR practices. Thus, older employees can be less willing to change than younger employees because older employees receive less or different HR practices from the organisation than their younger counterparts. A reason for this could be that organisations want to invest less in older
8 employees than younger ones. There are indications that age might have influence on the HR practices. For example, ageing employees have less interest in development opportunities to learn new skills (Warr and Fay, 2001). So, it is expected that age has a negative relationship with the HR practices.
Path B, the relation between the six HR practices and willingness to change. Variations in a single HR practice may account for variations in willingness to change. These relations are studied by means of hypotheses 3 through 8.
Path C, is the direct relation between age and willingness to change. Hypothesis 2 is developed to indicate this relationship. The main question which is based on the mediating model is formulated in hypothesis 1.
Hypothesis 1:The expected positive relationship between age and willingness to change is mediated by HR-practices
In the previous chapter a lot of stereotypes about the older employee are mentioned. For example, they are expected to be less flexible and less motivated to learn new skills (Peeters et al, 2005). To test whether older employees are really unwilling to change the second hypothesis is developed. This hypothesis tests path C in figure 1, the relationship between age and willingness.
Hypothesis 2: Older employees are less willing to change than younger employees
The model of Grant and Ashford (2008) and Huiskamp, De Jong and Den Hoedt (2008) was used to define HR practices which might influence the willingness to change of employees.
9 change are closely related. Willingness to change also means that employees have to anticipate future demands, and that they might be willing to perform tasks outside the job description. Therefore, I also refer to proactive behavior to indicate the willingness to change of employees. Grant and Ashford (2008) mention three situational antecedents which might have a relation to proactive behavior, namely accountability, ambiguity and autonomy. Accordingly, these three situational antecedents are hypothesized to promote employees’ willingness to change. As will be elaborated in the next section, accountability is supposed to relate to willingness, because it seems to be that when employees are held accountable for their actions they are more willing to change. Similarly ambiguity is supposed to relate with willingness to change because it could be that a higher degree of ambiguity can lead to more willingness to change. Autonomy is supposed to positively relate to willingness to change.
In addition to the above, the theory of Huiskamp et al. (2008) was used to complete the situational antecedents for this study. The situational antecedents used in this study can all be influenced by the HRM department. Therefore, I refer to the term HR practices instead of situational antecedents. Huiskamp et al. (2008) investigated the relationship between HR practices and innovative work behavior. Innovative work behavior implies that individuals initiate new ideas and are willing to implement those new ideas (De Jong and Den Hartog, 2010). The concept of innovative work behavior is related to the willingness to change of employees, because willingness to change is also about accepting a new idea and being willing to adapt to possible change (see page 5 for the definition of willingness to change). Huiskamp et al. (2008) mention a lot of HR practices which might have a relation to innovative work behavior. The most important HR practices, derived from their study, which will be used in this research are; formalisation, development opportunities and transformational leadership. These three HR practices are hypothesized to have a relation with employees’ willingness to change. It is expected that the more formalised the work processes are the less willing to change an employee is. And it is expected that development opportunities have a positive influence on the willingness of an employee. Transformational leadership is supposed to relate to willingness because leaders play an important role in determining the work behavior of an employee.
10 2.1 HR practices and willingness to change
Each of the variables presented in figure 1 will be tested on their relation to willingness to change (path B in figure 1). The first variable is task autonomy. Task autonomy is defined as “the degree to which an individual is given substantial freedom, independence, and discretion in carrying out a task, such as scheduling work and determining procedures to follow (Hackman, 1980). In their research, Grant and Ashford (2008) made a distinction between in-role and extra-in-role behavior; an example of in-in-role behavior is if an employee completes a task ahead of schedule. This distinction is mostly applicable to jobs with little autonomy, where the means of tasks are specified and in which employees have little control over their own job. Proactive role behaviors in jobs with low autonomy are anticipatory actions undertaken, following prescribed means or towards prescribed goals. Anticipatory actions undertaken beyond specific means or goals are proactive extra-role behaviors (Grant and Ashford, 2008). According to Grant and Ashford (2008), the amount of autonomy influences the proactive behavior of an employee. As mentioned before (page 8) willingness to change could mean that employees have to anticipate to future demands and is therefore closely related to proactive behavior. In this research it will be investigated whether task autonomy influences the willingness to change of employees. Therefore, the following hypothesis is developed:
Hypothesis 3: A higher degree of task autonomy leads to more willingness to change
11 So it can be said, that if employees are not held accountable they avoid proactive behavior, and therefore are most likely to keep working in their daily routine. Presumable they are not willing to make changes, because they have no sense of accountability. If employees are held accountable they engage in proactive behavior. As mentioned in the definition of proactive behavior (on page 8) employees take anticipatory actions to perform at their best, so they are willing to make changes to impact their environment. Based on this, it can be concluded that there might be a relation between accountability and willingness to change. As a conclusion, hypothesis 4 is developed.
Hypothesis 4: A higher degree of accountability leads to more willingness to change
Another variable, mentioned in figure 1, is ambiguity. Ambiguity is when an employee has to deal with circumstances that are unclear or uncertain and that one is not sure how to act. For example, unclear job and role prescriptions, vague task instructions or unclear expectations or operating procedures (Grant and Ashford, 2008). It is proposed in a literature study of Grant and Ashford (2008) that proactive behavior is more likely to occur under situations of ambiguity. They say, to reduce ambiguity employees seek information and support to clarify the purpose and goals of their actions, which is a form of proactive behavior. Thus it is claimed that ambiguity gives room to employees to reduce uncertainty by engaging proactive behaviors (Grant and Ashford, 2008). Employees do not like situations of ambiguity and as Grant and Ashford (2008) mention they will seek opportunities to reduce ambiguity. It can be said that employees are willing to change their situation to reduce amibiguity. So, a higher degree of ambiguity can lead to more willingness, to change their current situation. Therefore hypothesis 5 is developed.
Hypothesis 5: A higher degree of ambiguity leads to more willingness to change
12 between HR practices and innovative work behavior. In their research they state that one of the factors that determines innovative work behavior is formalisation. The more formalised the work processes are, the less innovative behavior employees will show (Huiskamp et al. 2008). So, as a consequence of formalisation employees are less willing to initiate new ideas and it also reduces their flexibility (Lin & Germain, 2003). For an employee to be willing to change he or she has to be flexible and be open to new ideas and implement those ideas. Based on these arguments the following hypothesis can be formulated.
Hypothesis 6: A higher degree of formalisation leads to less willingness to change
In this study, development opportunities are about the possibilities for an employee to develop themself in the organisation by means of education and training (Huiskamp et.al, 2008). Research has been done about the effects of development opportunities in organisations, but not in relation with willingness to change. Kraimer, Seibert, Wayne, Liden, and Bravo (2010), mention in their study that employees are more willing to put effort in the attainment of organisational goals because the employees hope that they can make use of the development opportunities the organisation is offering at that moment. As said, in the definition of willingness to change employees are willing to change if they cooperate with adjustments made by the organisation. So, it can be concluded that by means of offering development opportunities employees could be more willing to change. The following hypothesis is therefore proposed.
Hypothesis 7: A higher degree of development opportunities leads to more willingness to change
The last variable which might mediate the willingness to change of employees is transformational leadership. Transformational leadership is influencing followers by broadening and elevating their goals and providing them with confidence to perform beyond the expectations specified in the exchange agreement (Michaelis, Stegmaier and Sonntag, 2010).
13 work behaviors of an employee (Yukl, 2002, in De Jong, 2006, p.42). Huiskamp, De Jong and Den Hoedt (2008) concluded that the more transformational leadership the leader shows, the more innovative the employees behave in their job.
It is important for a leader to act as a role model, for example if leaders act creatively they produce more creativity in their followers. Leaders have to support their employees to make a change happen (Jaussi and Dionne, 2003, in De Jong and Den Hartog, 2007).
Basu and Green (1997) concluded that employees are more likely to deviate from the ordinary, engage in unconventional behavior and implement new ideas if they are sure that their leader will support them and that they will not be punished for their actions. So, it seems to be that leaders have influence on the work behavior of employees and that they have to support their employees to make a change happen. As mentioned before implementing new ideas can be seen as a form of willingness to change. Also unconventional work behavior and to deviate from the ordinary are also behaviors an employee has to face when they are cooperating in a change process. From here, hypothesis 8 is developed.
14
3. Methodology
3.1 Data-analysis
In order to test the hypotheses data were collected. The data were collected by means of an online questionnaire. The questionnaire that was developed for this research measured all the variables mentioned in the hypotheses. After collecting the data, the hypotheses were tested by means of two regression analysis using SPSS. The first regression analysis included all ages of the sample, to test hypotheses 3 through 8. To investigate if there is an age-related difference in the HR-practices that give rise to the willingness of change of employees, a second regression analysis was conducted. The sample of respondents was split up in young (<50) and old (>49).
3.2 Measures
Task autonomy. Task autonomy was measured by means of four items. The items contained concepts like freedom, independence and decision making to measure the amount of autonomy one has in his work (Hackman, 1980). The items were based on the questionnaire of Huiskamp et al. (2008). For the exact items I refer to appendix 1. The answers of the items were assessed by means of a 5-point Likert scale. The answer categories were totally disagree (=1), disagree (=2), neutral (=3), agree (=4) and totally agree (=5). Means and standard deviations of all the variables can be found in table 4.2. The Cronbach’s alpha for task autonomy was 0.91. All of the variables used in this study have their Cronbach’s alpha presented in table 3.1.
15
Ambiguity. Ambiguity was measured via six items. Respondents used a 5-point Likert scale to rate the items (1 = totally disagree to 5 = totally agree). The items were based on the questionnaire of Emans, Turusbekova, Broekhuis and Molleman (2004). Cronbach’s alpha for ambiguity was 0.79.
Formalisation. Formalisation was assessed via four items, and each of the items was scored on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = totally disagree to 5 = totally agree). The items contained concepts as rules, procedures and supervision to measure the degree of formalisation (Khandwalla, 1997). The Cronbach’s alpha for formalisation was 0.67.
Transformational leadership. Transformational leadership was assessed via seven items. The respondents scored the items on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = totally disagree to 5 = totally agree). To measure transformational leadership the items measured to what extent the respondents are supported by their supervisor to reach their goals and provide them with confidence (Michaelis, Stegmaier and Sonntag, 2010). The items were based on the questionnaire of van Wersch and Smit (2007). The Cronbach’s alpha for transformational leadership was 0.90.
Development opportunities. Development opportunities were measured with four items, each of items were scored on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = totally disagree to 5 = totally agree). The items were based on the questionnaire of Huiskamp et al. (2008). The Cronbach’s alpha for development opportunities was 0.80.
16
Table 3.1
Outcome of reliability analysis
Variable Initial number of items Initial α of items Number of deleted items α end scale Job level 4 0.84 - 0.84 Task autonomy 4 0.91 - 0.91 Accountability 6 0.38 3 0.67 Ambiguity 6 0.79 1 0.79 Formalisation 4 0.67 - 0.67 Transformational leadership 7 0.90 - 0.90 Development opportunities 4 0.80 - 0.80 Willingness to change 20 0.23 10 0.86 α = Cronbach’s alpha 3.3 Controls
Job level, working hours and education level were included as control variables. Job level was assessed via four questions, each of which was scored on a 10-point Likert scale. The respondents were asked to rate their job compared to the overall jobs in the Netherlands. They had to rate their job on the level of responsibility (1 = very little responsibility to 10 = very much responsibility), complexity (1 = not at all complex to 10 = very complex), making authority (1 = very little making authority to 10 = very much decision-making authority) and they were also asked to place themselves in the hierarchy of the organization (1 = at the bottom of the hierarchy to 10 = at the top of the hierarchy). The items were developed by myself. Scale scores were obtained by calculating the mean of the four answers. If the mean score was higher than 5 the job level was above average compared to the rest of the jobs in the Netherlands. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated to measure the reliability of the scale. The Cronbach’s alpha for job level was 0.84.
17 3.4 Participants
The data were collected by means of an online questionnaire, which was distributed by email. I approached 80 people by email, (family, friends and acquaintances) with the request if they want to cooperate with my research and if they wanted to forward my email to their friends and family. A sample of 217 respondents was realized. The characteristics of the sample of respondents are presented in table 3.2.
Table 3.2 Sample characteristics
Gender Men: 40.5 %
Women: 59.5 %
Average age 42 years (range 20-66 years)
Education MBO: 19.6%
HBO: 56.4% WO: 20.6% Average working hours
per week
18
4. Results
Means, standard deviations and Pearson correlations are presented in table 4.2. The correlation analysis shows that there is no significant relation with age and willingness to change (r = -0.049, p > 0.05). This finding is not consistent with hypothesis 2: “Older
employees are less willing to change than younger employees”. Table 4.1 provides more detailed information between age and willingness to change. The table shows that employees with the age of 35-39 years are the most willing to change. With the age of 40 and 50 the willingness to change of employees declines.
Table 4.1
Age and the mean of willingness to change
Age N Mean of willingness to change (scale 1-5) 20-24 3 3,28 25-29 36 3,65 30-34 39 3,60 35-39 14 3,83 40-44 16 3,72 45-49 10 3,78 50-54 19 3,59 55-59 18 3,55 60-69 25 3,57
Table 4.2
Intercorrelation and statistics
Legend: * p < 0.05 (1-tailed) ** p < 0.01 (1-tailed); M = mean; SD = standarddeviation Note: all scales ranging from 1 to 5, except job level has a scale from 1 to 10.
To test the hypotheses 3 through 8, regression analyses is performed. The results are presented in table 4.3, with willingness to change as the dependent variable. The control variables job level, working hours, education level and age are included in step 1. In step 2 the determinants of willingness to change are added.
The regression analysis shows that there is a positive relation between willingness to change and task autonomy (β = 0.22, p < 0.01). This corresponds with the relation found in the correlation analysis and is consistent with hypothesis 3: “A higher degree of task
autonomy leads to more willingness to change”. In the correlation analysis, formalisation showed no significant relation with willingness to change. However, the regression analysis shows a significant negative relationship between formalisation and willingness to change (β = -0.16, p < 0.05). This finding, based on the regression analysis, is consistent with hypothesis 6: “A higher degree of formalisation leads to less willingness to change”.
The correlation analysis, see table 4.2, shows a relationship between transformational leadership and willingness to change and between development opportunities and willingness to change. However, in the regression analysis there is no relation between willingness to change and transformational leadership (β = 0.07, p > 0.05) and between willingness and development opportunities (β = 0.05, p > 0.05). Hypothesis 7, “A higher degree of
development opportunities leads to more willingness to change” and hypothesis 8, “The
higher the use of transformational leadership, the higher the willingness to change” are inconsistent with the results from the regression analysis.
21
Table 4.3
Willingness to change regressed on the determinants controlled for job level, working hours and education level
Step 1 Step 2
Variables β Sig. β Sig.
Job level 0.07 0.40 -0.01 0.89 Working hours 0.02 0.80 -0.00 0.99 Education level 0.04 0.63 -0.02 0.83 Age 0.00 0.99 -0.01 0.88 Task autonomy 0.22 0.01 Accountability 0.07 0.39 Ambiquity 0.03 0.80 Formalisation -0.16 0.05 Transformational leadership 0.07 0.47 Development opportunities 0.05 0.56 R² 0.01 0.09
Legend: β = standardized coefficients; Sig. = significance
The results presented so far, did not point to any relationship between age and willingness to change (thus disconfirming hypothesis 2). That is not to say, though, that the age factor does not play a role in processes that promote or thwart willingness to change. It might be possible that the dynamics that give rise to willingness to change are different, depending on the age of the involved employees. In order to find out whether this is the case, hypothesis 1: “ The
expected positive relationship between age and willingness to change is mediated by HR Practices” was tested and additional analyses were performed. The sample of respondents was split up in ‘young’ (<50) and ‘old’ (>49), and the correlation and regression analyses performed for the whole sample were repeated for both of the resulting subsamples. The separation is made at this age because two representative samples had to be created. The outcomes are presented in tables 4.4 and 4.5.
Table 4.4
Intercorrelations and statistics
Legend: * p < 0.05 (1-tailed) ** p < 0.01 (1-tailed); M = mean; SD = standard deviation. The correlations on the right are for age < 50 and on the left for age > 49 Note: all scales ranging from 1 to 5, except job level has a scale from 1 to 10.
Table 4.5
Willingness to change regressed on the determinants, with age as extra control variable
Age < 50 (n=133) Age > 49 (n=71)
Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2
Variables β Sig. β Sig. β Sig. β Sig.
Job level 0.02 0.81 -0.05 0.66 0.16 0.35 -0.04 0.84 Working hours -0.07 0.5 -0.05 0.63 0.06 0.72 -0.01 0.96 Education level 0.09 0.35 -0.00 0.97 -0.04 0.78 -0.07 0.70 Age 0.15 0.11 0.07 0.47 0.02 0.88 -0.04 0.80 Task autonomy 0.33 0.00 0.08 0.58 Accountability 0.20 0.05 -0.21 0.16 Ambiquity 0.06 0.58 -0.01 0.93 Formalisation -0.06 0.54 -0.34 0.02 Transformational leadership -0.05 0.63 0.23 0.14 Development opportunities 0.00 0.98 0.24 0.17 R² 0.04 0.14 0.03 0.25
25
5. Conclusion
The main question in this research was:
“What is the impact of HR practices on the willingness to change of older employees, compared to younger employees?”
To answer this research question, the answer to which might give rise to an explanation of young/old differences as regards willingness to change, eight hypotheses were developed and tested. To that end, an online questionnaire was applied in a sample of 217 respondents who were employed in a variety of organizations. Hypothesis 2 was merely about the difference between older and younger employees as regards their willingness to change. Older employees were hypothesized to be less willing to change than their younger counterparts. This hypothesis failed to be confirmed.
Hypotheses 3-8 were about the impact of HR practices on willingness to change. Six practices were distinguished and only two of them, autonomy (positive relationship) and formalisation (negative relationship), turned out to be related to willingness to change. The other ones, such as accountability and development opportunities, appeared to be unrelated to willingness to change.
Furthermore, it was analyzed to what degree a relationship between age and willingness to change is mediated by age-related variabilities of the HR practices. Two out of the six variables mediate the relationship between age and willingness. It seems to be that the willingness to change of employees under the age of 50 is partly determined by the amount of task autonomy. And formalisation partly determines the willingness to change of employees above the age of 49.
26 5.1 Implications
This study makes three contributions to the literature about the willingness to change of employees regarding their age and the mediating role of HR practices. First, it demonstrates that there is no difference between younger and older employees as regards their willingness to change. Other theorists concluded that there is a difference between the willingness to change of younger and older employees (Hermanussen and Hendrikse, 2001). Older employees were expected to be inflexible and show resistance to training (Peeters et al, 2005 and Capowski, 1994). This study present outcomes that support the fact that older employees are not less willing to change than their younger counterparts.
Second, consistent with previous research findings, it shows that autonomy (positive relationship) and formalisation (negative relationship) are related to willingness to change. For the HRM department this means that if they want to increase the willingness to change of employees they have to increase the amount of task autonomy and limit the amount of formalisation in a certain job. Thus, if an employee is given substantial freedom, independence or discretion in performing a task (Hackman, 1980), the employee is more willing to change. Also the more rules, procedures and written instructions an employee has in performing his work (Khandwalla, 1997), the less willing to change the employee is. From these results, it can be concluded that with the right amount of autonomy and formalisation an employee becomes more willing to change.
27
6. Discussion
6.1 Rejected hypotheses
For this research eight hypotheses were formulated and only two are accepted. No evidence was found in this research for hypothesis 4, that a higher degree of accountability leads to more willingness to change. Although accountability showed no significant result in the regression analysis, it does have little influence on the willingness to change of younger employees because the significance of this relation was p = 0.051. A possible explanation for this is that accountabilty is a form of job enrichment and that could be more important for the younger employee than for older ones.
Hypothesis 5, about the relationship between ambiguity and willingness to change, is not accepted because the correlation was not significant. This may be because the determinant ambiguity was derived from a study that investigated the proactive behavior of employees. Ambiguity can be a good determinant for proactive behavior but not an adequate determinant for the willingness to change of employees. This may be because willingness to change has more to do with following, doing what someone else expects of you, like in a change process while proactive behavior is more about taking initiative.
Based on the regression analysis the hypothesis about transformational leadership was rejected. But the correlation analysis showed that there was a significant relationship between transformational leadership and willingness to change. This was also the case with the relationship between development opportunities and willingness to change.
6.2 Limitations and future research
28 Second, this study has a cross-sectional design, meaning that this study is conducted only at one single point in time (Cooper and Schindler, 2006). Therefore it is impossible to determine the causal direction of the hypotheses. A recommendation for future research is to perform a longitudinal research, so repeat measures over an extended period of time.
Finally, this research was not conducted in a specific organization or in a specific branch. The sample has a wide variety of people of all occupations and education levels. Therefore, the findings of this research are very generalized and may not be applicable to a specific organization. Future research should focus on one organization or branch. In that case the HR practices can be aligned with the job descriptions and the organization’s goals. For example in manufacturing it is maybe not possible to change the amount of task autonomy and formalisation, in such cases in might be interesting to use other HR practices.
29
References
Armstrong-Stassen, M. 2008. Organisational practices and the post-retirement employment experience of older workers. Human Resource Management Journal, 18: 36–53.
Basu, R. and Green, S.G. 1997. “Leader-member exchange and transformational leadership: an empirical examination of innovative behaviors in leader-member dyads”, Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 477-99.
Boerlijst, J.G., Van der Heijden, B.I.J.M., & Van Assen, A. 1993. Veertig-plussers in de onderneming. Assen: Van Gorcum.
Boerlijst, J.G. & Van der Heijden, B.I.J.M. 2003. Leeftijdsdiversiteit in arbeidsorganisaties. In: J.J.F. Schroots (red.), Handboek psychologie van de volwassen ontwikkeling
& veroudering. Assen: Van Gorcum.
Calo, T.J. 2007. Boomer generativity: An organizational resource. Public Personnel Management Volume 36 No. 4
Capowski, G. 1994. Ageism: the new diversity issue. Management review, 83, 1-15
Cleveland, J., & Shore, L. 1992. Self- and supervisory perspectives on age and work attitudes and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 469-484.
Cooper, D.R., and Schindler, P.S. 2006. Business Reaearch Methods. McGrawHill. Ninth edition
Crant, J.M. 2000. Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of management, Vol. 26, No. 3, 435-462
Davis, W.D., Mero, N., Goodman, J.M. 2007. The interactive effects of goal orientation and accountability on task performance. Human performance, 20(1), 1–21
30 in The Netherlands. Den Haag: Centraal Planbureau.
Emans, B.J.M., Turusbekova, N., Broekhuis, M. & Molleman, E. 2004. Psychologische aansprakelijkheid en werkmotivatie: goal-setting in een sociale context. Gedrag en organisatie, 17, 448-459.
Grant, A.M., and Ashford, S.J. 2008. The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in organisational behavior. 28.
Hackman, J.R. 1980. Work redesign and motivation. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 11, 445–455.
Hendrikse, A. en Hermanussen, R. Werkend ouder worden in het HBO. IVA Tilburg, november 2001. blz 7.
Huiskamp, R., De Jong, T., Den Hoedt, M.C.B. 2008. HRM en innovatief werkgedrag: een verkenning. Tijdschrift voor HRM, 3: 56-69
Jong, de J.P.J., and Den Hartog, D.N. 2007. How leaders influence employees’ innovative behaviour. European Journal of Innovation Management Vol. 10 No. 1
Jong, de J.P.J, Den Hartog, D.N 2010. Measuring innovative work behaviour. Creativity & Innovation Management, Vol. 19 Issue 1, p23-36,
Khandwalla, P.N. 1977. Design of Organizations. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Kooij, D., Jansen, P., Dikkers, J., De Lange, A. 2009. Retaining older workers: using a case study to formulate propositions on the role of HR bundles. Academy of management Annual Meeting Proceedings.
31 Lin, X. H., & Germain, R. 2003. Organizational structure, context, customer orientation, and performance: Lessons from Chinese state-owned enterprises. Strategic Management Journal, 24: 1131-1151.
Metselaar, E.E. 1997. Assessing the willingness to change: construction and validation of the DINAMO.Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Metselaar, E.E. & Cozijnsen, A.J. 2002. Van weerstand naar veranderingsbereidheid: over willen, moeten en kunnen veranderen. Heemstede: Holland Business Publications.
Michaelis, B., Stegmaier, R., Sonntag, K. 2010. Shedding light on followers’ innovation implementation behavior. The role of transformational leadership, commitment to change, and climate for initiative. Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 4, 2010
pp. 408-429
Peeters, M.C.W., Nauta, A., Jonge, de J., and Schalk, R. 2005. De toekomst van oudere werknemers: de revival van een ‘oud’ thema in de arbeids- en organisatiepsychologie. Gedrag en organisatie Vol. 18 Nr. 6
Sociaal-Economische Raad 2002. EU en vergrijzing: advies over de EU en de gevolgen van de vergrijzing. Advies 02/02. Den Haag: SER.
Szabla, D.B., 2007. A multidimensional view of resistance to organizational change: Exploring cognitive, emotional and intensional responses to planned change across perceived change leadership strategies. Human Resource Development Quarterly. Vol. 18 Issue 4, p525-558. 34p.
Veldhoven, M, van, and Dorenbosch, L. 2008. Age, proactivity and career development. Career Development International Vol. 13 No. 2, 2008 pp. 112-131
32 Warr, P. and Fay, D. 2001, “Age and personal initiative at work”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 10, pp. 343-53.
Wersch, van, M.E., and Smit, G. 2007. Het optimaliseren en digitaliseren van het medewerkerstevredenheidsonderzoek voor het UVW, KCC.
33
Appendix 1: Questionnaire
Algemene vragen
1. Bent u een man of vrouw? 2. Wat is uw leeftijd?
3. Hoeveel uur per week werkt u volgens uw contract? Baan niveau
4. Wilt u nu het geheel aan banen in Nederland voor ogen houden, en vervolgens bij de vragen 4a t/m 4e de plaats van uw baan binnen dat geheel aangeven?
a) Hoeveel verantwoordelijkheid heeft u in uw functie?
1= heel weinig verantwoordelijkheid, 10= heel veel verantwoordelijkheid
b). Hoe complex is uw functie?
1= helemaal niet complex, 10= heel complex c) Hoeveel beslissingsbevoegdheid heeft u in uw functie?
1= heel weinig beslissingsbevoegdheid, 10= heel veel beslissingsbevoegdheid d) Geef uzelf een plek in de hiërarchie van uw organisatie
1= onderaan in de hiërarchie 10= bovenaan in de hiërarchie
1 2 3 4 5
Helemaal mee oneens
Oneens Neutraal/geen mening
Eens Helemaal mee
eens Taakautonomie
5. Ik kan zelf beslissen hoe ik mijn werkzaamheden uitvoer 6. Ik heb veel vrijheid in het uitvoeren van mijn taken 7. Ik kan zelf de volgorde van mijn werkzaamheden bepalen 8. Ik beslis zelf wanneer ik een taak uitvoer
Verantwoordelijkheid
9. Ik zoek eerst informatie en overweeg alternatieven voordat ik een beslissing maak 10. Ik maak vaak overhaaste beslissingen
11. Ik moet verantwoording afleggen aan anderen over mijn prestaties
12. Ik moet verantwoording afleggen aan anderen over de beslissingen die ik maak 13. Er wordt toezicht gehouden op de taken die ik uitvoer en de beslissingen die ik maak 14. In mijn functie heb ik taken waar ik als enige verantwoordelijk voor ben
Ambiguïteit
34 17. De taken die ik moet uitvoeren zijn duidelijk voor mij
18. Ik begrijp precies wat mijn taken voor vereisten met zich meebrengen voor mijn werk 19. Ik begrijp hoe mijn persoonlijke resultaten beoordeeld worden met betrekking tot mijn
functie
20. Mijn leidinggevende geeft mij duidelijke aanwijzingen voor het uitvoeren van mijn taken
Formalisatie
21. Bij het vervullen van mijn functie is het belangrijk dat ik regels en procedures volg 22. Ik word sterk gecontroleerd in mijn gedrag
23. Voor elke situatie in mijn functie zijn er altijd geschreven procedures om met die bepaalde situatie om te gaan
24. In deze organisatie kan ik weinig ondernemen zonder de formele goedkeuring van mijn leidinggevende
Transformationeel leiderschap
25. Mijn leidinggevende stimuleert mij mijn doelen te verbreden
26. Mijn leidinggevende geeft mij vertrouwen dat ik de gestelde doelen kan behalen 27. Mijn leidinggevende motiveert mij om mezelf verder te ontwikkelen
28. Mijn leidinggevende steunt mij in mijn keuzes
29. Mijn leidinggevende geeft duidelijk aan wat hij van mij verwacht 30. Mijn leidinggevende heeft genoeg persoonlijke aandacht voor mij 31. Ik vertrouw mijn leidinggevende
Uitdagend werk
32. Mijn werk is gevarieerd
33. Mijn baan vereist dat ik nieuwe dingen leer 34. Mijn werk vereist creativiteit
35. Mijn werk is uitdagend Ontwikkelmogelijkheden
36. Ik heb voldoende mogelijkheden voor opleiding en training binnen deze organisatie 37. Ik kan mij breed ontwikkelen in deze organisatie
38. Ik word voldoende geïnformeerd over de ontwikkelingsmogelijkheden in de organisatie
39. Ik kan zelf ideeën aandragen voor het volgen van een training/opleiding Veranderingsbereidheid
40. Als mijn functie anders wordt ingedeeld heb ik daar geen problemen mee 41. Het maakt mij blij als ik een andere functie krijg binnen mijn organisatie 42. Ik toon weerstand als ik een andere functie krijg binnen mijn organisatie
43. Als ik omgeschoold moet worden in verband met de functie eisen zie ik dat als een uitdaging
44. Als ik omgeschoold moet worden in verband met de functie eisen zie ik dat als een extra belasting
45. Als ik wordt ontslagen en op zoek moet gaan naar een nieuwe baan zie ik dat als een uitdaging
46. Als ik de mogelijkheid krijg blijf ik het liefst mijn hele loopbaan binnen deze organisatie
35 48. Ik zie mijzelf als flexibel
49. Ik ervaar verandering als iets positiefs 50. Ik sta open voor veranderingen
51. Ik houd helemaal niet van verandering 52. Ik ben veranderingsbereid
53. Ik ervaar een verandering binnen deze organisatie als uitdagend 54. Ik ervaar een verandering binnen deze organisatie als bedreigend 55. Als ik aan verandering denk word ik vrolijk
56. Als ik aan verandering denk word ik enthousiast 57. Als ik aan verandering denk voel ik mij verdrietig 58. Als ik aan verandering denk word ik boos
