Behavioural Support during a Specific Organizational Change
MARIJKE BLOOM Student number: 1263285
University of Groningen
MscBA, Faculty of Economics and Business, Human Resource Management e-mail: marijke_bloom@hotmail.com
Internal Supervisor:
Dr. F. Walter
Organization of internship:
Noorderpoortcollege, Groningen
ABSTRACT
HOW CAN TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERS GUIDE CHANGE IN TEAMS?
Important factors for the success of change projects are employee commitment and employees’ behavioural support for change initiatives. Transformational leaders can positively affect these constructs. Nevertheless, hardly any empirical research is available about the effects of transformational leader behaviours on followers’ responses to a specific change. Therefore, the purpose of this research is to explore the influence of transformational leadership on teams’ affective commitment to change and teams’ behavioural support to change. I tested the hypotheses in a sample of 51 teams from an educational institution. The results strongly confirmed a positive relation between transformational leadership and teams’ commitment to change. However, teams’ commitment to change, and teams’ behavioural support to change were not significantly related. Consequently, the mediating role of teams’ commitment to change between transformational leadership and teams’
behavioural support to change was not established either. Eventually, the implications of these findings are discussed.
INTRODUCTION
Statements like “No organization is immune to change” (Kotter, 2005: 5) or “Change or die”
(Beer & Nohria, 2000: 1) reflect the necessity of change for organizations nowadays. To be competitive, organizations need to respond to more unstable business markets, changing customer needs and more diverse and complex information flows (Masood, Dani, Burns & Backhouse, 2006).
However, only few reorganizations are successful (Higgs & Rowland, 2005; Kotter, 2005). Many organizations perceive problems with the time and costs change takes, or with the emotional commotion it delivers (Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008).
Employee commitment and employees’ behavioural support for change initiatives are important factors for the success of change projects (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002). Employees’
commitment to change is defined as “a force (mind-set) that binds an individual to a course of action deemed necessary for the successful implementation of a change initiative” (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002: 475). This course of action can be driven by “a desire to provide support for the change based on a belief in its inherent benefits (affective commitment to change)” (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002:
475). Affective commitment best reflects a positive attitude toward a change effort (Herold, Fedor, Caldwell & Liu, 2008). Thus, for the purpose of this research a focus on affective commitment to change is utilized. Behavioural support for change reflects the degree to which employees engage in behaviours demonstrating support for a change (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002).
Leaders can positively affect employees’ commitment and employees’ behavioural support for change initiatives (Avolio, Gardner, Walumbwa, Luthans & May, 2004; Myeong-Gu, Taylor & Hill, 2007; Walumbwa, Orwa, Wang & Lawler, 2005). Especially, transformational leadership is an effective leadership style during times of change (Herold et al., 2008). Transformational leaders
“articulate a vision of the future of the organization, provide a model that is consistent with that vision, foster the acceptance of group goals, and provide individualized support, to change the basic values, beliefs, and attitudes of followers so that they are willing to perform beyond the minimum levels specified by the organization” (Podsakoff, MacKenzie & Bommer, 1996: 260). In the past twenty years, much attention has been paid to transformational leadership and its effects on followers (Judge
& Piccolo, 2004; Higgs & Rowland, 2005). Many studies focused on the outcomes of transformational
leadership like satisfaction and motivation of followers, extra effort of followers and higher performance and effectiveness, increased trust and positive ratings by supervisors of the leader’s performance (Lowe, Kroeck & Sivasubramaniam, 1996, Podsakoff et al., 1996).
However, hardly any empirical research is available “about the effects of transformational leadership behaviours on followers’ responses to a specific change” (Herold et al., 2008: 346). The results of Herold et al.’s (2008) research are one exception. These authors showed that transformational leadership had a positive impact on followers’ commitment to change. Clearly, more research is required to learn about the effects of transformational leadership on commitment to a specific change, and also, beyond attitude, on behaviour. So, the scientific contribution of this research is an expansion of the knowledge about these relationships. Herold et al. (2008), for instance, investigated commitment to a specific change at the individual level. However, “transformational leadership behaviours are directed at the leader’s group and thus are a form of ambient stimuli that influences the group as a whole, as well as individuals within the group” (Kark, Shamir & Chen, 2003:
247). So, investigating the effects of transformational on commitment to a change as a group level construct will broaden the present knowledge. Besides, this research is executed in a different context and country namely at a Dutch educational institution. Furthermore, Herold et al.’s (2008) research only focused at transformational leadership and its influence on attitudinal outcomes or intentions of followers. However, it is not clear how the leadership style and teams’ commitment to change influence the actual behaviour of employees. As a consequence, the research model of Herold et al.
(2008) will be extended by investigating how the commitment of employees influences behavioural support to change. This will broaden the ability to predict employees’ change related behaviours in practice (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002). It leads to some practical implications for how organizations can make use of the leadership approach with regard to influencing the change commitment and change behaviours of teams.
Thus, the purpose of this paper is to explore the influence of transformational leadership on the commitment of teams to a specific change and their behavioural support to the change program.
--- Insert Figure 1 about here ---
As shown in figure 1, I hypothesize that transformational leadership has a positive impact on teams’ commitment to change (Herold et al., 2008). Besides, it is expected that there is a positive relation between teams’ commitment to change and teams’ behavioural support to the change (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002). Thus, teams’ commitment to change will mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and teams’ behavioural support to the change. I tested these hypotheses in a sample of 51 teams from a medium- sized educational institution in the Netherlands.
HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT Transformational Leadership and Teams’ Commitment to Change
I propose that there is a positive relationship between transformational leadership and teams’
commitment to change. “Transformational leadership refers to the leader moving the follower beyond immediate self-interests (Bass, 1999) through identifying and articulating a vision, providing an appropriate model that is consistent with that vision, fostering the acceptance of group goals, high performance expectations, providing individualized support, and intellectual stimulation” (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman & Fetter, 1990). As a result, “the follower’s level of maturity and ideals elevate as well as concerns for achievement, self actualization, and the well-being of others, the organization, and society” (Bass, 1999: 11).
Leader behaviour can be a powerful determinant of how teams react to organizational changes (Herold et al., 2008). When followers involvement, value relevance or identification to the change increase, teams’ affective commitment will be developed (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002). Furthermore, leader behaviours affect followers’ commitment through implicating the self-concept of followers (Shamir, Zakay, Breinin & Popper, 1998). For example, the transformational leadership behaviours
‘visioning’, and ‘setting high performance expectations for the group’ are helpful in motivating employees to remain attracted to the group, make personal sacrifices, and work towards a common goal (Pillai & Williams, 2004). People may be attracted by these transformational leadership behaviours, and it can give them hope for the future. The self-concept of followers of the team will be
influenced through social identification or value internalization (Shamir, House & Arthur, 1993).
Subsequently, this affects the self-efficacy, and collective efficacy of the group. Team members feel motivated and more willing to commit to the change. This results in teams which are committed to collective interests, and it can bring about the desired organizational change (Pillai & Williams, 2004).
So, the values of the leader are internalized, and followers identify with the vision (Pillai & Williams, 2004). Furthermore, a transformational leader can form a cohesive group which performs at higher levels, and is committed to the group as well as the organization (Pillai & Williams, 2004). The relationship between the leader and follower is based on personal understanding. The team may trust the leader, and the self-esteem, and self-worth will be influenced (Shamir et al., 1993). This can lead to personal identification with the leader. The self-consistency of team members may have been increased, and they are more convinced of succeeding the change. Ultimately, these motivational mechanisms should lead to teams’ commitment to the change. Finally, with ‘intellectual stimulation’
leaders “provide followers with challenging new ideas, and encourage them to break away from old ways of thinking” (Walumbwa et al., 2005: 238). Employees are encouraged to think critically and to seek new ways to approach their job. The self-consistency, and self-efficacy may be influenced (Shamir et al., 1993). Followers may attach value to the change, and give more self-expression to it. In that way, followers become more involved in their jobs, and it will lead to higher levels of commitment (Walumbwa, Wang, Lawler & Shi, 2004).
In conclusion, it can be stated that transformational leadership is mainly about motivating followers to commit to and to realize performance outcomes that exceed their expectations (Conger, 1999). The influence of transformational leadership on commitment to a specific change has not widely been investigated. Only one recent study showed that transformational leadership had a positive impact on followers’ individual commitment to change (Herold et al., 2008).
Transformational leaders appeared to ‘buy in’ to an organizational change. They build trust with their followers over time, and over multiple change events. The relation between transformational leadership and commitment to change at the team level has not been studied before. However, transformational leadership behaviours are also directed at the team level. It is expected that the
positive effects of transformational leadership on individuals’ commitment to change also influences teams’ commitment to change, and that a positive relation will be found.
Hypothesis 1: Transformational leadership will be positively related to teams’ affective commitment to a specific organizational change.
Teams’ Commitment to Change and Teams’ Behavioural Support to Change
I propose that there is a positive relationship between affective commitment to change and behavioural support to change. For instance, support behaviours towards a change include acting in a way that is asked by the organization in the implementation of the change, being prepared to do little extras to make the change work, and convincing others of the value of the change (Meyer, Srinivas, Lal & Topolnytsky, 2007).
Commitment to change can be distinguished from other attitudes towards change like for example ‘readiness for change’ or ‘openness to change’, in a way that “it represents a behavioural intention to work toward success of the change rather than just reflecting a favourable disposition toward it” (Fedor, Caldwell & Herold, 2006: 3). As Ajzen’s (1991) theory of planned behaviour indicates, followers’ behavioural intentions are the most proximal antecedents of specific behaviour.
Behavioural intentions are “indications of how hard people are willing to try, of how much of an effort they are planning to exert, in order to perform the behaviour” (Ajzen, 1991: 181). Thus, behavioural intentions can help predict teams’ behaviour.
Notably, “it is only recently that measures of commitment to change have been developed and used to examine its relation to change-relevant behaviour” (Meyer et al., 2007: 185). Nevertheless, affective commitment to change has been shown to correlate positively with behavioural support to change in various studies (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Meyer et al., 2007; Myeong-Gu et al, 2007).
When followers’ commitment to the change is positively activated, less behaviours which resist the implementation of the change were shown (Myeong-Gu et al., 2007). Followers may believe in the positive outcomes of the change, and in their ability to realize it. Their enthusiasm for participating will increase. This promotes followers to engage in more supportive and creative behaviours to advance the change (Myeong-Gu et al., 2007). Besides, they are willing to do more than is expected of them, even if it demands some personal sacrifice (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002).
Research showed that affective commitment can advance behavioural support to change in several ways. For example, it may influence followers’ participation (Neubert & Cady, 2001), which in turn leads to behavioural support. Furthermore, commitment to change may increase followers’
intrinsic motivation, trust in their ability, or self efficacy beliefs (Ajzen, 1991). These factors can positively influence followers’ preparation for an activity, emotional reactions or thought patterns (Ajzen, 1991) which in turn result in their behavioural support to the change.
Hypothesis 2: Teams’ affective commitment to change will be positively related to teams’
behavioural support to the change.
The Mediating Role of Teams’ Commitment to Change
Hypothesis 1 predicts a positive relationship between transformational leadership and teams’
affective commitment to a specific organizational change. Hypothesis 2 predicts a positive relationship between teams’ affective commitment to change and teams’ behavioural support to the change. Taken together, these hypotheses form a model in which transformational leadership indirectly positively influences teams’ behavioural support to change by contributing to teams’ affective commitment to the respective organizational change. Based on this, it is presumed that teams’ commitment to change mediates the relationship between transformational leadership on the one hand, and teams’
behavioural support on the other.
Hypothesis 3: Teams’ affective commitment to change will mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and teams’ behavioural support to the change.
METHOD Organizational Context
The study was conducted at a Dutch medium-sized educational institution. At this organization a large-scale (cultural) change program has been started in 2007. As a result of the increased bureaucracy, the organization had to be ‘revitalised’. Once again, employees have to focus on the core business of the organization, namely offering education, and interacting with students, colleagues, and the organization’s environment. Therefore, some cultural values and clear frames for teams are formulated. The starting point of the change program is a formulated and shared perspective for the future of the organization. The degree in which management succeeds in convincing employees
of the vision of the organization, its inherent output, and values and norms will be essential for realising the organization’s future perspective. The process is supported by repeatedly training sessions for the teams.
Data Collection and Sample Description
To test the hypotheses, survey data were collected from the educational institution described above. In total, 81 leaders and 1,263 followers received an invitation to participate the survey. Two different versions of questionnaires were offered: one for leaders, and one for followers. Especially, the lower level teams were selected for the present study. Each selected team consisted of at least one leader and four followers. Both education teams as well as staff teams were included in the survey.
First, the respondents received an announcement per e-mail from the author of this paper in which the purpose of the study was declared. A few days later an e-mail with a link to the web-based questionnaire was sent. Also, information about the expected time for completing the questionnaire, and a clarification about the processing of the results were included. Participants were assured confidentiality. The respondents who did not respond after a week received a reminder by e-mail.
In order to prevent common method variance, the measures of the outcome variable and the predictor variables were collected independently of each other (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee &
Podsakoff, 2003). The leaders survey measured the level of behavioural support of the team members to the change program. Besides, the followers survey measured the degree of transformational leadership of their direct leader, and the team’s commitment to the change. However, the questionnaires were labelled with unique identification numbers such that leader and follower data could be matched. Both questionnaires were presented in Dutch: the questions were translated using a back-translation procedure. Employees from the organization checked if the questionnaires were clear and understandable for the respondents.
Eventually, 51 of the 81 leaders fully completed the questionnaire (response rate = 63%), against 492 of the 1,263 followers (response rate = 39%). From these 492 followers 335 could be linked to the direct leader. Thus, the final dataset consisted of 51 teams: 51 leaders, and 335 of their
direct followers. The response rate per team was between 1 and 18 followers2. So, on average, each leader could be linked to 4 direct followers.
Most leaders who participated at this survey were male (67%), between 50 and 59 years old (59%), and they mostly had been working as leader of their current team between 0 to 5 years (78%).
The amount of male/ female of followers who participated was distributed proportionally (53% to 47%). Most followers had the age of 50 to 59 years (51%), and they belonged to the category of education personnel (67%). 40 per cent of the followers had been working at their current team for 0 to 5 years.
Measures
Transformational leadership. Transformational leadership was measured in the follower
questionnaire with the help of the 22 items of Rubin, Munz, and Bommer (2005) based on the work of Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Bommer (1996). The items measured the extent to which followers assess the degree of transformational leadership behaviour their leader generally shows. Examples of items which were asked are: “I believe my leader has a clear understanding of where we are going”, “I believe my leader inspires others with his/her plans for the future”, and “I believe my leader develops a team attitude and spirit among his/her employees”. A 5-point scale was used, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The responses to the 22 items were averaged to compute an overall transformational leadership score, and were aggregated to the team level. Cronbach’s alpha was .96.
Teams’ affective commitment to change. Teams’ affective commitment to change was measured in the follower questionnaire with the scale of Herscovitch and Meyer (2002). However, for the purpose of this study the individual level scale was transformed to a team level measure. Thus, the word ‘I’ in the original scale, became ‘my team’. Examples of the six items being used are: “My team believes in the value of this change”, and “This change is not necessary” (reverse-coded). A 7-point Likert-type scale was used, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The responses to the items were averaged to compute an overall teams’ affective commitment to change score. Besides, the responses were aggregated to the team level. Internal consistency reliability for this measure is .88.
2 The results remained unchanged when teams with only one follower responses were excluded (n = 4)
Teams’ behavioural support to change. Teams’ behavioural support to change was measured
in the leader questionnaire with the 17 items of Herscovitch and Meyer (2002). However, the individual level scale was transformed to the team level. Thus, the word ‘I’ in the original scale, became ‘my team’. The following example questions were used to measure teams’ behavioural support to change: “My team accepts role changes”, “My team tries to keep themselves informed about the change”, and “My team speaks positively about the change to co-workers”. Responses to the items were provided on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1=strongly disagree; 7=strongly agree). The responses were averaged to compute an overall teams’ behavioural support to change score.
Cronbach’s alpha for behavioural support to change is .93.
Control variables. In the leader questionnaire the control variable ‘leaders’ time with the
current team’ was used as this may affect leaders attitude or perceptions (Shamir et al., 1998). Also, the control variable team size was inserted. A wider span of control can decline the influence of the leader, and it can lead to fewer resources allocated across followers (Rubin et al., 2005). Besides, leaders do have less time “to engage followers with transformational leadership behaviour such as providing individualized support or intellectual stimulation” (Rubin et al., 2005: 851).
Data Analyses
Two hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to test the hypotheses. The first regression analysis contained two steps. In a first hierarchical step, teams’ commitment to change was regressed on the control variables team size and leaders’ time with the current team. In a second step transformational leadership was inserted to test hypothesis 1. In the second regression analysis teams’
behavioural support to change was regressed on the control variables team size and leaders’ time with the current team. In step two transformational leadership and commitment to change were inserted in order to test hypothesis 2. To test hypothesis 3, based on these regression results, I used Baron and Kenny’s (1986) multi-step approach.
RESULTS Correlations
The results of the means, standard deviations, and Pearson correlations of the study variables are presented in table 1. As expected, a positive and significant relation between transformational
leadership and teams’ commitment to change was found (r = .64, p<.001). To the contrary, I did not find a positive relation between teams’ commitment to change and teams’ behavioural support to change (r = .21, n.s.), and neither between transformational leadership and teams’ behavioural support to change (r = .17, n.s.). Leaders’ time with the current team seems to have a negative and significant effect on teams’ commitment to change (r = -.24, p<.10). This means that when leaders are leading their current team for a longer period of time, teams’ commitment to change may decrease.
--- Insert Table 1 about here --- Hypotheses Tests
Tables 2 and 3 present the results of the mediated hierarchical regression analyses. The first regression analysis showed a significant and positive relationship between transformational leadership and teams’ commitment to change after taking into account the effects of the control variables, team size and leaders’ time with the current team, in step 1 (β = .61, p<.001). Transformational leadership contributed for 36 per cent to the prediction of teams’ commitment to change. Thus, hypothesis 1 is supported.
The second regression analysis tested hypothesis 2. In the first step the control variables team size and leaders’ time with the current team were inserted. In step two the variables teams’
commitment to change, and transformational leadership were included. It appeared that teams’
commitment to change and teams’ behavioural support to change are not significantly related (β = .16, n.s.). So, hypothesis 2 is not confirmed.
Furthermore, transformational leadership and teams’ behavioural support to change are not significantly related (β = .06, n.s.). Even though a relation between transformational leadership and teams’ commitment to change was supported, a relation between teams’ commitment to change and teams’ behavioural support to change, controlling for transformational leadership, was not confirmed (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Thus, there is no mediation, and support for hypothesis 3 can not be provided.
--- Insert Table 2 about here ---
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to explore the influence of transformational leadership on the affective commitment of teams to a specific change and on teams’ behavioural support to the change program.
It was expected that transformational leadership would positively relate to teams’ commitment to change, and that teams’ commitment to change would be positively related to teams’ behavioural support to change. Besides, it was hypothesized that teams’ commitment to change mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and teams’ behavioural support to change. The results strongly confirmed the positive relation between transformational leadership and teams’
commitment to change. However, there were also some unexpected results. Teams’ commitment to change, and teams’ behavioural support to change were not significantly related. Therefore, the mediating role of teams’ commitment to change between transformational leadership and teams’
behavioural support to change was not established either.
This study extends prior research in several ways. First, more knowledge about the influence of transformational leaders on teams’ affective commitment to a specific change has been gained. The results present a strong positive relation between these two constructs. This confirmed the earlier findings of Herold et al. (2008). However, these authors investigated commitment to change at the individual level. The present study showed that transformational leaders also positively influence commitment to change at the team level. Furthermore, these findings are in line with earlier results from the organizational commitment literature. Although organizational commitment is a broader concept than commitment to change, the ‘core essence’ of organizational commitment should be comparable to the commitment to change construct (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001). The positive relation between transformational leadership and organizational commitment has been found in several studies (Myeong-Gu et al., 2007; Pillai & Williams, 2004; Walumbwa et al., 2004).
Secondly, this was the first study where transformational leadership and teams’ affective commitment to change were linked to actual behaviour during a specific change situation. This study
did not find a (positive) relation between teams’ affective commitment to change and teams’
behavioural support to change. This finding was contradictory to earlier research outcomes where these variables were tested at the individual level (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Meyer et al., 2007;
Myeong-Gu et al., 2007). On base of the results of the current study, it is hard to declare precisely why a relation between these two constructs was not found, and what other mechanisms could have influenced this relation. Nevertheless, some interferences might be deduced from earlier research. For instance, as an improvement on behavioural intentions models, behavioural reasons theory explains specific cognitive factors that motivate and maintain people’s intentions and behaviours (Westaby &
Fishbein, 1996). As such, people make use of specific reasons which explain why they form their behavioural intentions, and subsequently influence their behaviour. Thus, when a new change initiative is introduced, employees want to reconsider their current reasons that either support or do not support the initiative (Christensen, 2006). Reconsidering current reasons involves watching and interacting with other team members before deciding how to act. It is possible that they become uncertain about their current intentions and on-going behaviour, and that a new set of accessible reasons, a new intention, and a new course of action will be formed. However, it also might be possible that followers are not convinced by the new gathered information, and that they do not adjust their current reasons and behaviours. In that case, it might be possible that although team members are committed to the change, teams’ behavioural support to change is not shown. Another factor that can interrupt the relation between teams’ commitment to change and teams’ behavioural support to change are the competences of team members. Teams may be committed to the change. However, when they lack the knowledge, capabilities, or skills needed to participate the change effectively, it will be hard to support the change behaviourally (Beer & Nohria, 2000). Participation of followers can only be established when the organization invests in key personal, professional, and corporate capabilities.
Moreover, coping with change could possibly mediate the commitment to change and behavioural support to change relation (Cunningham, 2006). “Employees who are confident in their ability to cope with change are likely better equipped to contribute to the change process” (Cunningham, 2006: 31).
Furthermore, the results of this study showed that teams’ commitment to change did not mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and teams’ behavioural support to
change. This suggests that other factors influence this relation. First, situational variables may affect the relation between managerial behaviour and the desired end results like behavioural support to change (Kreitner, Kinicki & Buelens, 2002). For example, at the individual level, followers ability or motivation can be of influence, and at the organizational level the external environment or resource adequacy. Other factors that may be of influence are organizational power and politics, organizational structure, and organizational culture and climate (Avolio et al., 2004; Conger, 1999). For example, an organization’s culture, as expressed by its values, norms, and politics may influence the effectiveness of leadership (Avolio et al., 2004). Eventually, goal importance congruence among followers, trust, and self-efficacy help explain the link between transformational leadership and positive outcomes (Colbert, Kristof-Brown, Bradley & Barrick, 2008).
Some scholars even criticised the role of leaders in realizing organizational outcomes (Shamir, et al., 1993). They use the argument that “people are biased toward over-attributing to leaders influence on events which are complex and difficult to understand” (Shamir, et al., 1993: 590). They disseminate that some inter-follower processes, which occur among followers, do not solely arise out of the interactions between leaders and followers (Shamir, et al., 1993). However, this does not rule out that leaders also can stimulate these inter-follower processes by applying their transformational leadership behaviours. Besides, many available study results do absolutely show a significant relevance of the role of leaders in affecting organizational outcomes.
Finally, a complementary role of leaders can be mentioned which can contribute to a (positive) relation between transformational leadership behaviours and teams’ behavioural support to change.
Thus far, the process role of leaders during a specific change period is discussed. The leader has to implement the change and uses effective change-leadership behaviours to shape followers’ responses (Kotter, 1996; Stoker, 2005). However, the role of leaders during change can be twofold (Stoker, 2005). In spite of the process role, there is also a dimension concerning content. The latter is hardly mentioned in the literature. However, the objective of the change often requires first changing leader behaviours before influencing effectively follower behaviours. Thus, changing leader behaviour is a necessary precondition for realising a change in follower behaviours (Stoker, 2005). Especially the investigated cultural change, may require self-awareness and an example function of leaders.
Positive Attributes and Limitations
This study has positive attributes, as well as some limitations. A strong aspect is the measurement method being used. The measures of the variables were collected from different sources.
The followers were asked to asses the degree of transformational leadership of their direct leader, and about the affective commitment to change of their team. At the other side, leaders received questions about the behavioural support of their team. By separating the predictor and criterion variables, it was possible to reduce common method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Furthermore, the scales for transformational leadership, affective commitment to change, and behavioural support to change were previously being tested (Rubin et al., 2005; Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002). Due to this, construct validity was assumed.
Regardless these positive attributes, some limitations of this study can be mentioned. First, the generalizability of the findings. The data are collected from one Dutch organization through which results are not generalizable to other organizations. Connected to this, the sample size of 51 working teams was relatively small to generalize the results. Thus, future research should be conducted at different organizations, in other countries, and with larger samples to reduce this limitation. Thirdly, common method variance between transformational leadership and teams’ affective commitment to change can not be ruled out due to followers responses on both constructs. Finally, a cross-sectional study design was utilized. This type of research study takes place at only one point in time. Due to this, it is not possible to exactly determine the direction of causality. A series of measurements taken over a period of time, and experiments should clarify the confidence of causality between the study variables.
Practical Implications
Besides the earlier presented theoretical implications, some practical implications can be given. The study results showed a strong positive relation between transformational leadership and teams’ affective commitment to change. Unfortunately, a connection to behavioural support failed to appear. However, earlier research showed that committed employees are also important for realizing follower motivation, job satisfaction, and job performance (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). Much can be done to improve transformational leadership in organizations. First, practitioners can enhance an
organization’s success in recruitment, selection, and promotion (Bass, 1990). For instance, candidates for recruiting may be more attracted to an organization where transformational leaders are functioning.
Besides, the organization can select appropriate leaders by providing personality checks (Bono &
Judge, 2004). Subsequently, the transformational leadership behaviours of employees can be measured and assessed. Due to this, feedback on the functioning of transformational leaders can be delivered, and the organization can decide to promote a manager or to a start a coaching or mentoring project.
Secondly, improving transformational leadership also has some practical implications for organizations’ training and development activities (Bass, 1990). Leaders can be trained in transformational leadership. A training can be offered individually with a counsellor or more collectively by participating a workshop. Furthermore, management trainees can be supervised by higher level transformational leaders. That way, a big difference in the trainees’ career success can be developed. Altogether, these opportunities can be supported by the organizational policy (Bass, 1990).
Future Research
In conclusion, some further research recommendations will be provided. First, future research needs to be done to determine which complementary antecedents of teams’ commitment to change can be distinguished. At this study, transformational leadership contributed for 36 per cent to the prediction of teams’ commitment to change. However, what other antecedents of teams’ commitment to change can be distinguished? Earlier research showed that several psychological aspects like trust in leadership, hope, positive emotions and optimism are positively associated with organizational commitment and behaviours (Avolio et al., 2004). To learn about the effects of these psychological aspects on teams’ commitment to change, more research is required. Furthermore, other important antecedents might be fairness in the implementation of the change, trust in management, and communication (Meyer et al., 2007). Eventually, the effects of other leadership styles, instead of transformational leadership, on teams’ commitment to change may be investigated. Secondly, it is interesting to learn more about what variables influence the linkage between teams´ commitment to change and teams´ behavioural support to change. Suggestions are coping with change or the abilities of followers (Cunningham, 2006). Besides, it would be of benefit to determine how affective commitment to change relates to other behavioural outcomes like quality of work life, health, and well
being (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002). Finally, more clarity should be provided about the linkage between transformational leadership and teams’ behavioural support to change. Situational or contextual variables can be controlled for such as followers motivation or organizational culture (Kreitner et al., 2002). Also leaders’ self-awareness and ability to change might be interesting variables (Stoker, 2005). Thus, by building on the current study results, more knowledge about the effects of (transformational) leader behaviours can be gained in the future.
REFERENCES
Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50: 179-211.
Avolio, B.J., Gardner, W.L., Walumbwa, F.O., Luthans, F., & May, D.R. 2004. Unlocking the mask: a look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviours. The Leadership Quarterly, 15: 801-823.
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. 1990. From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3): 19-31.
Bass, B.M. 1999. Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1): 9-32.
Beer, M. & Nohria, N. 2000. Breaking the code of change. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.
Bono, J.E., & Judge, T.A. 2004. Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: a meta- analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5): 901-910.
Christensen, L.J. 2006. Social influence effects on commitment to change and implementation behaviours. Academy of Management Proceedings, U1-U6
Colbert, A.E., Kristof-Brown, A.L., Bradley, B.H., & Barrick, M.R. 2008. CEO transformational leadership: the role of goal importance congruence in top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 51(1): 81-96.
Conger, J.A. 1999. Charismatic and transformational leadership in organizations: an insider’s perspective on these developing streams of research. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2): 145- 179.
Cunningham, G.B. 2006. The relations among commitment to change, coping with change, and turnover intentions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15(1):
29-45.
Fedor, D.B., Caldwell, S., & Herold, D.M. 2006. The effects of organizational changes on employee commitment: a multilevel investigation. Personnel Psychology, 59: 1-29
Herold, D.M., Fedor, D.B., Caldwell, S., & Liu, Y. 2008. The effects of transformational and change leadership on employees’ commitment to change: a multilevel study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2): 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.
Higgs, M., & Rowland, D. 2005. All changes great and small: exploring approaches to change and its leadership. Journal of Change Management, 5(2): 121-151.
Judge, T.A., & Piccolo, R.F. 2004. Transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5): 755-768.
Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. 2003. The two faces of transformational leadership: empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2): 246-255.
Kotter, J.P. 1996. Leading change. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press Books.
Kotter, J.P. 2005. Leading change. Leadership Excellence, 22(11): 5-6.
Kotter, J.P., & Schlesinger, L.A. 2008. Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business Review, 86(7/8): 130-139.
Kreitner, R., Kinicki, A., & Buelens, M. 2002. Organizational behaviour. Berkshire: McGraw-Hill Education.
Lowe, K.B., Kroeck, K.G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. 1996. Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. Leadership Quarterly, 7(3): 385-425.
Mathieu, J.E., & Zajac, D.M. 1990. A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2): 171-194.
Masood, S.A., Dani, S.S., Burns, N.D., & Backhouse, C.J. 2006. Transformational leadership and organizational culture: the situational strength perspective. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers - Part B - Engineering Manufacture, 220(6): 941-949.
Meyer, J.P., & Herscovitch, L. 2001. Commitment in the workplace. Toward a general model.
Human Resource Management Review, 11: 299-326.
Meyer, J.P., Srinivas, E.S., Lal. J.B., & Topolnytsky, L. 2007. Employee commitment and support for an organizational change: test of the three-component model in two cultures. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80: 185-211.
Myeong-Gu, S., Taylor, M.S., & Hill, N.S. 2007. The role of affect and leadership during radical organizational change. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1-6.
Neubert, M.J., & Cady, S.H. 2001. Program commitment: a multi-study longitudinal field investigation of its impact and antecedents. Personnel Psychology, 54.
Pillai, R., & Williams, E.A. 2004. Transformational leadership, self-efficacy, group cohesiveness, commitment, and performance. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17(2).
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H., & Fetter, R. 1990. Transformational leader behaviours and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviours. Leadership Quarterly, 1(2): 107-142.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., & Bommer, W.H. 1996. Transformational leader behaviours and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviours. Journal of Management, 22(2): 259-298.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., & Podsakoff, N.P. 2003. Common method biases in behavioural research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5): 879-903.
Rubin, R.S., Munz, D.C., & Bommer, W.H. 2005. Leading from within: the effects of emotion recognition and personality on transformational leadership behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5): 845-858.
Shamir, B., House, R.J., & Arthur, M.B. 1993. The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: a self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4(4):577-594.
Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E, & Popper, M. 1998. Correlates of charismatic leader behavior in military units: subordinates’ attitudes, unit characteristics, and superiors’ appraisals of leader performance. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4): 387-409.
Stoker, J.I. 2005 Leiderschap verandert. Assen: Van Gorcum.
Walumbwa, F.O., Wang, P., Lawler, J.J., & Shi, K. 2004. The role of collective efficacy in the relations between transformational leadership and work outcomes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77: 515-530.
Walumbwa, F.O., Orwa, B., Wang, P., & Lawler, J.J. 2005. Transformational leadership, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction: a comparative study of Kenyan and U.S.
financial firms. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16(2).
Westaby, J.D., & Fishbein, M. 1996. Factors underlying behavioural choice: testing a new reasons theory approach. Journal of applied Social Psychology, 26(15): 1307-1323.
TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
___________________________________________________________________________
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4
__________________________________________________________________________________
1 Leaders’ time with current team 1.29 .70
2 Team size 16.41 8.52 .08
3 Transformational leadership 3.38 .50 -.10 -.17
4 Teams’ commitment to change 4.12 .80 -.24† -.21 .64***
5 Teams’ behavioural support to change 4.88 .85 -.02 -.13 .17 .21 ___________________________________________________________________________
Note: n = 51 teams
*** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05, p, †p< .10
TABLE 2
Mediated Hierarchical Regression Analysis ______________________________________________________
Variables entered Teams’ commitment to change ___________________________________________________________
Step 1
Team size -.09
Leaders’ time with current team -.17
R² .09†
Step 2
Transformational leadership .61***
R² .46***
∆ R² .36***
___________________________________________________________
Note: n = 51 teams. Standardized regression weights are shown.
*** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05, †p < .10
TABLE 3
Mediated Hierarchical Regression Analysis _____________________________________________________________________
Variables entered Teams’ behavioural support to change _____________________________________________________________________
Step 1
Team size -.09
Leaders’ time with current team .03
R² .02
Step 2
Transformational leadership .06 Teams’ commitment to change .16
R² .05
∆ R² .04
________________________________________________________________
Note: n = 51 teams. Standardized regression weights are shown.
*** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05,†p < .10
FIGURE 1 Research Model
+ Teams’ Commitment to +
Change Teams’ Behavioural
support to change Transformational
leadership
