Time will tell the change
Time norm effects on employee willingness to change and
change method preference when a central schedule system is
introduced
Master thesis, MscBA, specialization Change Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Management and Organization
June 25, 2009
Time will tell the change
Time norm effects on employee willingness to change and
change method preference when a central schedule system is
introduced
ABSTRACT
Time and change are related concepts. Studying the affects of how individuals deal with time on organizational change can give new insights onto how employees react in time related change situations like, for instance changed work-schedules of employees. This research is concerned with the affect of time norms held by employees on the willingness to change within a time related change and the employee change method preferences. Questionnaires were handed out to 60 employees of an organization active in the Dutch mental health care sector. Within this organization a new central schedule system was introduced to control the work-related agenda’s of the employees by management. The results show that the employees that held the time norm high autonomy of time use preference were less willing to change in comparison to employees with a lower autonomy of time use preference. Furthermore, employees with a high autonomy of time use preference prefer a negotiation change method used by management in comparison to employees with a lower autonomy of time use preference. Employees that prefer to carry out more than one task at a time (polychronicity) prefer a coercive change method used by management in comparison to employees that prefer to carry out one task at a time (monochronicity).
2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Although this thesis is written in English, I will write this acknowledgement section in Dutch to thank my relatives and supervisors for their support and advises.
In de eerste plaats wil ik mijn begeleider Ben Emans bedanken voor zijn constructieve begeleiding in het schrijven van deze scriptie. “Ik heb veel van u kunnen leren de afgelopen periode en ik heb genoten van ons gesprek over de Nederlandse politiek”. Ook wil ik aanstippen dat ik het leerzaam vond om u te helpen als student-assistent voor het vak Gedrag in Organisaties. Daarnaast wil ik de tweede begeleider Cees Reezigt bedanken voor zijn feedback. Tegen beide begeleiders wil ik zeggen dat de Master Change Management een machtig mooie opleiding is geweest met leuke docenten, interessante lessen en studiestof. Wat me nog lang bij zal blijven zijn de discussies met Janka Stoker en Cees Reezigt voor het vak Field Course Change Management. Ik heb veel geleerd van deze interactieve colleges.
Verder wil ik de collega’s van de F.P.C. Dr. S van Mesdag bedanken voor de leuke tijd die ik heb gehad in een bijzondere organisatie en dat ze mee hebben willen werken aan het onderzoek. In het bijzonder wil Akkie Nijboer bedanken, een super collega en kantoorgenoot. Daarnaast wil ik Gerard Bootsman bedanken die het mogelijk heeft gemaakt dat ik mijn onderzoek mocht verrichten in de Mesdag.
In mijn persoonlijke kring wil ik in de eerste plaats mijn ouders Leo en Ella en mijn zus Iris bedanken omdat ze altijd door dik en dun achter mij hebben gestaan. Toen ik 14 jaar geleden begon met de Mavo had ik nooit gedacht dat ik zo ver zou komen in het Nederlandse onderwijssysteem. Toen ik op de basisschool zat had ik grote moeite met lezen en schrijven. Ik kan me nog goed herinneren dat mijn moeder elke avond een uur lang met mij ging lezen om toch de Nederlandse taal op schrift onder de knie te krijgen. Ik ben je hier altijd dankbaar voor, Ella. Voor jou dit Friese gezegde die ik voor mezelf toepassend vind. “By âlds wie it in
CONTENT
1. Introduction……… 5
1.1 Thesis topics……….………..… 6
1.2 The study organization………... 7
1.3 Change implications………... 8
2. Theory……….. 10
2.1 Willingness and resistance to change………. 10
2.2 Preferences in change methods of change ………. 11
2.3 Empirical-rational………... 12 2.3.1 Communication………. 12 2.3.2 Facilitation……… 12 2.4 Power-coercive………... 13 2.4.1 Coercion………... 13 2.4.2 Manipulation………. 13 2.5 Normative-reeducative... 14 2.5.1 Participation... 14 2.5.2 Negotiation……… 14 2.6 Time norms ... 15 2.6.1 Polychronicity... 17
2.6.2 Preference autonomy of time use... 18
2.7 Confronting time norms and change... 19
2.7.1 Time norms and willingness to change... 19
2.7.2 Time norms and preference change methods... 20
3. Methodology………. 23
3.1 Subjects……… 23
3.2 Instruments... 23
3.2.1 Willingness to change... 23
3.2.2 Employee’s preference change method used by the management... 24
3.2.3. Polychronicity measure... 26
3.2.4 Autonomy of time use measure... 26
3.2.5 Additional measures... 27
4
4. Results... 28
4.1 Descriptive statistics and reliability analysis……….. 28
4.2 Time norms and the willingness to change………. 29
4.3 Time norms and employee’s change method preferences……….. 30
4.3.1 Negotiation change method preference………... 31
4.3.2 Coercion change method preference……… 32
4.3.3 Participation change method preference………. 33
5. Discussion ... 35
5.1 Research topics and hypotheses…... 35
5.2 Limitations... 39
5.3 Conclusions... 40
1. INTRODUCTION
Change is a phenomenon that happens over time and is fundamental for organizations to stay on track with the ever changing world (Van de Ven & Poole, 2005). When studying organizational change, time is an important factor since change is measured as a “transformation between two points in time” (Barnett and Carroll, 1995). When comparing the organization before and after the change on a time continuum one can define the content of change. Moreover, the content together with the process of a change affects how individuals deal with time (Barnett and Carroll, 1995). Within change projects alterations take place in how organizational members have to use and schedule their work-related time. How will employees react when they need to change how they schedule work? Are some employees more resistant towards time related changes? These are important questions to consider when exploring the content of change. Within this thesis the content of change is a change project concerning the introduction of a new schedule system by management with the intention to alter how their employees will use and schedule their work-related time.
The process of change is also concerned with time issues and explains how the content of change is implemented (Barnett & Carroll, 1995), i.e. the process can occur in a limited amount of time or take more time. This will depend on the content of the change and the choices made by the manager about how to implement it. Implementing change in which employees participate in the change project will take relatively longer than a change project directed solely by management (Burnes, 2004). At what speed should we implement the change and how should the change project activities be sequenced? These are important questions to consider when studying the process of change (Barnett & Carroll, 1995).
6 Lee, 2008, Huy, 2001). Furthermore, It is expected that time norms held by employees will affect their preference toward change methods that change managers can use within the change process. Different personalities will prefer different change methods and strategies (Harigopal, 2006).
The aim of this study is to explore the relationships between norms held about time by employees in organizations and their preference towards a particular change method applied by change managers. Additionally, the relationship will be explored between employee time norms and the employee’s willingness to change when confronted with the introduction of a new schedule system. This study was conducted within an organization active in the Dutch mental healthcare sector. The following section will describe the topics of this thesis followed by a section describing the study organization.
1.1 Thesis topics
Three main topics were presented in this introduction section: employee time norms, employee preferences towards change methods used by management and employee’s willingness to change when a central schedule system is implemented. These three main topics can be categorized in two themes that will be explored within this thesis. These themes are presented by the two arrows as presented in figure 1.
FIGURE 1 Thesis topics
exploring the relationships between the time norms of employees and the employee’s preference towards change methods that can be used by the management, i.e. the process of change.
1.2 The study organization
The Dutch public sector is under constant pressure by the society and thus the government to become more effective, efficient, and transparent. To achieve that, many organizations in the Dutch public sector are being corporatized (Dievenbach, 2007; Verbeeten, 2008). Due to corporatization managers are forced to search for means to control their employees and processes within a bureaucratic straight jacket (Verbeeten, 2008). Control over the workforce and the organizational processes must then result in more effective and efficient organizations (Tat Wai Yu, 2008). The Dutch mental health care industry is an industry that is confronted and coping with corporatization. This has in turn led to various organizational changes within this industry.
This study was conducted within an organization operating in the Dutch mental healthcare industry, a forensic psychiatric centre located in the North of the Netherlands. The accessibility of information about the mental health care industry together with its never ending changing environment makes this organization an ideal study organization to explore organizational change management.
The research was conducted within the largest department of this organization, called the Treatment house department with 125 employees. The organization was corporatized in January 2008 and as a reaction to become more cost conscious the manager of this department decided to create an atmosphere among the employees in which efficiency, effectiveness and transparency are valued more. Regarding the transparency, the manager needed to get insight in the agenda of his subordinates. Moreover, the manager decided to implement a central schedule system in the form of a one-man schedule department that would control and manage the planning and scheduling of the agendas of 60 employees working within one of the several disciplines of the Treatment house department.
8 time norms by the organization. Within this change project it is reasonable to assume that employee’s time norms are a factor that affects the willingness to change of employees.
1.3 Change implications
From an anterior interview with the manager of the Treatment house department it became clear that he tried to find realignment within the changed external and internal organizational environment. The implementation of the central schedule system can be described in terms of adoption mechanisms (Demers, 2007; Barnett & Carroll, 1995). The Adoption mechanisms hypothesis implies that changes in the organizations are the result of adaptive responses to the changes in the environment of those organizations (Barnett & Carroll, 1995). In the case of the organization studied in this research the changes in the environment can be attributed to the Dutch Government (Campbell 2008). Within this reasoning, the rational adoption approach assumes that organizations are able to change to pursue organizational goals or align to fit within the environment (Demers, 2007). “There is a
misalignment due to environmental changes, the organization (or parts of it) needs to adjust to adapt to those environmental changes. Finally, when alignment is achieved the organization can return to stability” (Demers, 2007). This is also to be expected by the management of the study organization, i.e. there is a misalignment due to the lack of efficiency, effectiveness and transparency and the new schedule system is an adoption to find realignment with the goal to become more effective, efficient and transparent.
However, change management would not be change management if it was as clear as this approach implies. When implementing a new system there is not only a change in technology, it will most likely also have a big impact on the employees (Jones and Jimmieson, 2005). It is to be expected that this impact will result in resistance from the employees, since their formerly self-owned agendas are now being controlled by an implemented system. As emphasized by Raelin in 1983: “nothing is more controversial than trying to control
someone’s time”.
tasks in one timeframe might be less willing to change in a change project that results in predetermined schedules emphasising sequencing their tasks.
In respect to the change process, this study focuses on which change methods used by management are preferred by employees in respect of the time norms held by those employees. Implementing change in which employees need to participate might be preferred by employees who prefer to control their own work-related time because they can try to make the changes fit their own agendas. However, implementing change in which management directs the change process without participation of employees might be not preferred by employees who sequence their work-related tasks. This thesis will try to give answers to these questions mentioned above.
10
2. THEORY
2.1 Willingness and resistance to change
Organizational change can lead to resistance among employees (Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008; Cummings & Worley, 2005). This resistance can be defined as a “protection
mechanism by which individuals that are influenced by change try to create room for the needed adoptions” (Meyer, 1994). Several factors can lead to employee resistance to change. Neck (1996) emphasized that individual perceptions are an important factor that constitute resistance. Furthermore, he stated that perceptions of employees can result in thoughts of “fears of the unknown, fear of job loss, a decrease in security feeling and destroying current
habits”. Although, changes may not be threatening, employees can still perceive change as a threat (Neck, 1996).
When taking a first glance at the concept of resistance to change it is not hard to image the effect of the discrepancy between the organization’s goals of change and the interests of the individual organizational member (Oreg, 2003). Cause of resistance to change can be prescribed to the content of change, the way change is implemented and the force within individuals to oppose change (Metselaar & Cozijnsen, 1997; Kets de Vries & Balazs, 1998). Even in technical and/or structural organizational change, it is important to make sure that individuals affected by it are willing to change (Burnes, 2004, Harigopal, 2006). Also within organizational cultures in which employees are quite willing to change, employee resistance will always be present more or less (Paton & McCalman, 2000). Moreover, some individuals seem to resist change more than others. Oreg (2003) described this as the individual
resistance characteristic. Individuals will balance between change and stability (Metselaar & Cozijnsen, 2005). Some individuals are more willing to change than others who have more preference towards stability. Preference towards change or stability is a consequence of “past
experiences and personal characteristics” (Metselaar & Cozijnsen, 2005). Moreover, the degree in which someone is willing to change also depends on the so called “deference effect”; “the degree in which individuals need to question their routines and norms when confronted
with change” (Kanter, 1985).
defines willingness to change as: The positive behavioral intentions towards the
implementation or modifications in an organization’s structure and work and administrative processes, resulting in efforts from the organization member’s side to support or enhance the change process” (1997). This definition will be used within this study and the variable presented in table 1 is derived from it.
TABLE 1
Employee’s willingness to change defined
Degree willingness to change Definition
High willingness to change: Positive behavioural intentions towards the change Low willingness to change: No positive behavioural intentions towards the change
2.2 Preferences in change methods of change
Employees can have preferences towards certain change strategies and methods above others, mediated by personality characteristics (Jessup, 2002). How individuals prefer and perceive change methods applied by management will depend on someone’s cognition and emotional state (Szabla, 2007; Piderit, 2000).
It is important that managers find and pursue methods that cope with employee resistance (Haffer, 1986). Multiple methods for dealing with resistance and implementing organizational change can be identified which might work in a certain context and for certain individuals. In 1969 Chin and Benne developed one of the best know categorization for change strategies management can use within change projects (Quinn, Spreitzer & Brown, 2000; Haffer, 1986; Daniels & Dewine, 1991). These strategies are labeled as empirical-rational, power-coercive and normative-reeducative. The first two strategies are directive in which the change manager is in control over the project. In contrast, the normative-reeducative strategy is a strategy stressing participation of the employees in the change process (Quinn, Spreitzer & Brown, 2000). Several methods to implement change can be placed in one of these three change strategies, of which the most popular ones are “communication, participation, facilitation,
12 coercion can be categorized as a negative model of resistance to change. The change strategies and the six change methods will be further described in the following three sections.
2.3 Empirical-rational
The empirical-rational strategy assumes that through reasoning individuals will determine if the change is in their best interest (Quinn, Spreitzer & Brown, 2000). Moreover, it assumes that if individuals understand the change and see the gains of the change they will become more willing to change. On the other hand, resistance to change is the result of unawareness and fallacy (Quinn, Spreitzer & Brown, 2000). Within this strategy communication and facilitation are suitable methods. When there is resistance to change, managers must communicate and facilitate the change to make individuals understand the change (Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008; Quinn, Spreitzer & Brown, 2000).
In general, employees preferring communication and facilitation are those that will seek information but will not necessarily take action upon that information (Jessup, 2002). Moreover, Jessup (2002) mentioned that individuals with this kind of preference often delay decisions they have to make.
2.3.1 Communication
Communication within a change endeavor is an important method that management can use as a change method. Miller and Johnson (1994) state that communication can reduce resistance and increase the willingness to change among employees. Communicating information can help persuade and influence employee when it is “adequate and timely given” (Miller & Johnson, 1994). Moreover, Miller and Johnson (1985) state that communicating information is better than withholding information even when the information is negative (Miller & Johnson, 1994). It is important though, to communicate to employees before implementing change (Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008).
2.3.2 Facilitation
employees have adjustment problems caused by the change. However, a facilitation method can be time consuming (Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008).
2.4 Power-coercive
In a power-coercive change strategy management uses power as the main tool to implement change. Additionally, the employees that need to change can be manipulated and forced to change within this strategy. When management thinks that employees are unable to make decisions about the change themselves this strategy is often used (Haffer, 1986). In addition, when change must be timely implemented this strategy is often suitable (Haffer, 1986). This strategy uses “change trough external sanctions” (Quinn, Spreitzer and Brown, 2000) in which everybody who resists change is more or less being forced to change.
2.4.1 Coercion
The coercion change method can be used when the change must be implemented rapidly (Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008; Dunphy & Stace, 1988). Kotter and Schlesinger state
“when the change is unpopular, speed is essential; coercion may be the only option” (2008). Dunphy and Stace define coercive change as: “force use between management and employees,
with an autocratic process of decision making” (1988). They also labeled another from of coercion; a directive change method. Within this change method, management uses “legitimate autonomy to effect organizational change” (Dunphy & Stace, 1988).
2.4.2 Manipulation
14
2.5 Normative-reeducative
This strategy is concerned with participation between management and the employees within a change project. Within this strategy “employees need to be involved in the change
process” (Daniels & Dewine, 1991). Change is not seen as a one-man show of management but an endeavor in which employees are seen as equals to management (Quinn, Spreitzer & Brown, 2000). Within this strategy employees are involved in the decision making process and assist in implementing the change. Of the three change strategies mentioned in this thesis, this one will take the most time to implement change (Haffer, 1986). Two change methods are often used to pursue this strategy: participation and negotiation.
2.5.1 Participation
Employee participation is one of the methods that can be used by management when implementing change (Miller, 1994; Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008; Kotter, 1995). This method is useful when a change manager wants employees to be more devoted to the change project and become more willing to change. Employees will sooner accept the change because participation can lead to a sense of ownership felt by the employees (Bouma & Emans). Dunphy and Stace (1988) mention that the goal of employee participation within organizational change is to create shared values among the employees and management. Participation helps employees who participate in the change project to understand the reasons and goals for the change (Bouma & Emans, 2005). Moreover, participation can help overcome the resistance to change in a planned change approach (Dunphy & Stace, 1988). However, participation does not always lead to the best possible decisions. Employees do need a certain level of expertise to participate within the decision making process and the change project (Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008). Nevertheless, decisions can still be effective when employees are motivated to change (Dunphy & Stace, 1988).
2.5.2 Negotiation
Schlesinger, 2008). Table 2 shows the definitions of the six change methods used within this research.
TABLE 2
Employee change method preferences defined
Preference Definition
Communication preference: Preference of being informed about the change by management Facilitation preference: Preference of getting support within the change from management Coercion preference: Preference of a change method in which management uses
coercion to implement the change
Manipulation preference: Preference of a change method in which management uses manipulation to implement the change
Participation preference: Preference of a change method in which management asks for participation from employees to implement the change
Negotiation preference: Preference of a change method in which management negotiates with employees to implement the change
2.6 Time norms
Norms together with artefacts, basic assumptions and values are important aspects of the organizational culture. Norms are antecedents of how individuals and groups react to change and how willing or resistant they are towards change (Harigopal, 2006). Norms are derived from values held by individuals and among individuals and regulate the behaviour of groups and individuals (Harigopal, 2006). How individuals deal with time aspects can be described as time norms (Schreiber & Gutek, 1987). Time norms can be aggregated on multiple levels; the time norms shown by individuals within the organizations, time norms on group level within the organization and the time norms promoted by the management of the organization. How time is used by employees has impact on the entire organization (Schreiber & Gutek, 1987).
16 Two of the thirteen time norms identified by Benabou (1999) are polychronicity and preference towards autonomy of time use as norms that can be held by individuals, groups and the entire organization. Taken together, polychronicity and autonomy of time use preference are part of the time personality of an individual, group or organization (Schriber & Gutek, 1987).
Alteration in one’s time norms is realized through socialization when an individual starts working for an organization. Individuals can change their time norms when confronted with a certain organizational form or when their time norms are inconsistent with their environment. These environments have certain time norms and values which in turn shape the time norms of individuals (Doorewaard & Benschop, 2003).
Altogether, time norms can be classified as someone’s time personality (Schriber & Gutek, 1987). The term time personality was coined by Kaufman, Lane and Lindquist (1991) as “certain style of using time to cope with time-related situations” (Francis-Smythe & Robertson, 1999; Kaufman, Lane & Lindquist, 1991). Someone’s time personality is shaped by learning. It is not something someone is born with but is learned when growing up, at home, at school and especially when working for an organization (Hazard in Clegg, 1996). When individuals start working for an organization it is likely that an overlap will grow between the espoused time norms of the organization and the enacted time norms of the individual. This is due to the learning process of the employee vis-à-vis being exposed to the way organizations and the department of the organization deal with time (Hazard in Clegg, 1996).
The time management literature suggests that when employee’s time norms are similar to the espoused organizational time norms, the employee will be more emotionally attached to the organization (Rice, Mcfarlin, Hunt & Near, 1985).
other hand, the emergent change approach seems more suitable for people that prefer to do as many activities as possible simultaneously, do not plan too many events in advance and do not have a preference for punctuality (Francis-Smythe & Robertson, 1999).
In the next two sections polychronicity and autonomy of time use preference will be described in more detail.
2.6.1 Polychronicity
The concept of polychronicity was created by the anthropologist E. Hall (Bluedorn, Kaufman & Lane, 1992). It can be defined as an individual preference to carry out several tasks at once. On the one hand there are individuals who prefer to do one task at a time before starting another; those individuals are considered to be monochronically orientated. On the other hand there are individuals who prefer to do more tasks at once; those are considered to be polychronically orientated (Slocombe & Bluedorn, 1999; Benabou, 1998; Bluedorn, Kaufman & Lane, 1992; Bluedorn & Standifer, 2006).
The degree of someone’s polychronicity is not a matter of better or worse. Someone who is relative monochronic is not better or worse than a relative polychronic counterpart (Bluedorn, Kaufman & Lane, 1992). However, there is a difference in the conception of time and a certain level of polychronicity might work better in particular situations (Benabou, 1999).
Polychronicity is foremost a cultural phenomenon. For example, individuals living in a western culture like North America tend to be more monochronic by nature compared to someone from South-America (Schriber & Gutek, 1987). Even so, the degree of polychronicity can differ between organizations and between departments (Benabou, 1998).
Polychronicity seems more suitable for small and new organizations. In addition, polychronicity is more aligned with handling and dealing with difficult problems and interactions that demand high levels of communications between organizational members. On the other hand, monochronicity is more appropriate for relative large, mature and established organizations. The main reason for this is that large organizations have more highly co-coordinated activities (Bluedorn & Kalliath, 1999).
18
TABLE 3
Polychronicity characteristics
Polychronicity Monochronicity
Unplanned activities are a normal way of living Unplanned activities are seen as interruptions
Change plans often Hold on to plans
Emphasizing long-term relationships Preferring short-term relationships Handling difficult problems and situations better Stress punctuality
(Sources: Hall in Bluedorn, Kaufman & Lane, 1992; Slocombe & Bluedorn, 1999)
2.6.2 Preference autonomy of time use
Autonomy of time use preference can be defined as the preference towards “a degree
of freedom an individual has for scheduling his/her tasks, duties and activities over a certain amount of time” (Schreiber & Gutek, 1989). Autonomy of time use will give someone the freedom to control his/her own schedule on the job (Schriber & Gutek, 1987). Experiencing control over work-related time is positively correlated with job satisfaction (Macan in Claessens, Rutte & Roe, 2007; Hackman & Oldham, 1975). Autonomy of time use can be seen as an employee’s owned resource which will give someone a feeling of control over situations (Kanter, 1985). When the autonomy over one’s work-related time use is taken away it can be described as a shift in power; the employee’s power of time use is taken away by a change. This, in turn can increase resistance towards the change by employees (Fineman & Sturdy, 1999; Doorewaard & Benschop, 2003). As mentioned by Kotter & Schlesinger (2008),
“a key reason why people resist change is that they think they will lose something of value”. More specific, employees that have a high autonomy of time use preference will be more pleased with a change that will increase their autonomy than a change which results in losing autonomy over time use (Miller, 1994). The characteristics of autonomy of time use preference are presented in table 4.
TABLE 4
Autonomy of time use preference characteristics
High autonomy of time use preference Low autonomy of time use preference
Preference controlling one’s time Low preference controlling one’s time
Resistance when loosing control over time use Low resistance when loosing control over time use
2.7 Confronting time norms and change
2.7.1 Time norms and willingness to change
How willing someone is to change will depend on how much someone needs to question his/her norms and routines caused by the change (Kanter, 1985). Within the case study presented in this thesis there has been a shift in the espoused organizational time norms. Introducing the central schedule system has led to increasingly espoused monochronicity in the organization. Moreover, there is a shift towards sequencing tasks and activities and a decrease in the employee’s autonomy of time use. It is expected that the employees who need to question their time norms will be less willing to change. First of all, it is expected that relative monochronic employees and employees that have no high preference towards autonomy of time use are more willing to change within this change project. Moreover, relative polychronic employees and employees that have a high preference towards autonomy of time use are less willing to change within this change project. The following hypotheses are postulated:
H1: Employees with a polychronic mindset are less willing to change when implementing a new central schedule system in comparison to their monochronic counterparts.
20
2.7.2 Time norms and change method preference
It is expected that time norms held by employees and the employee’s preference toward the change methods coercion, negotiation and participation are related to each other. All three change methods show traits similar with the time norms autonomy of time use preference or polychronicity. Firstly, the coercion change method implies that change will be implemented quickly, with an autocratic nature in which management will decide the way to implement change and when the change will be implemented (Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008; Dunphy & Stace, 1988). Secondly, the negotiation change method implies that employees need to make time to negotiate, have the chance to modify the change to their preferences, how to plan the change and have a degree of autonomy in the decision making process. Thirdly, a participation change method is a time consuming process because employees will need to be actively involved (Dunphy & Stace. 1988). Moreover, within the change process and decision making process employees will have autonomy over scheduling the change process.
It is expected not to find a relationship between the time norms and the preference towards a communication and facilitation change method since it is likely that any employee prefers a change method in which management will facilitate and communicate the intentions of the change (Miller & Johnson, 1994). It is also not expected to find a relationship between employee time norms and a manipulation change method preference since individuals do not prefer to be manipulated by management (Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008).
Polychronicity
Because relatively monochronic individuals do not like to change plans and lose control over the situation it is expected that they will prefer a negotiation change method used by management. Within this change method monochronic employees can try not to lose control over situations and stick with their own plans. For the same reason, it is expected that relatively monochronic employees will dislike a coercive change method because they get the feeling of losing control over the situation. Relatively polychronic individuals do not mind if change happens by coercion because they do not mind to lose control over situations and that change occurs within plans and schedules.
control over the situation which relates to a participation change method. However, participation will require a change in the daily routine which will not allow monochronic employees to stick to their one plan and schedule. The following hypotheses will be postulated:
H3: Individuals with a monochronic mindset prefer a negotiation change method used by management in a change project in comparison to their polychronic counterparts.
H4: Individuals with a polychronic mindset prefer a coercive change method used by management in a change project in comparison to their monochronic counterparts.
Autonomy of time use preference
It is expected to find positive relationships between employee’s autonomy of time use preference and the change methods participation and negotiation. Employees with a high preference towards autonomy of time use want a feeling of being in control over the situation (Kanter, 1985). The change methods participation and negotiation fit this description. For the same reason it is expected to find a negative relationship between autonomy of time use and the employee preference towards a coercion change method. This change method will give employees with a high autonomy of time use preference a feeling of losing control. The following hypotheses will be postulated:
H5: Employees with a high autonomy of time use preference more strongly prefer a participation change method used by management in a change project in comparison to employees with a lower autonomy of time use preference.
H6: Employees with a high autonomy of time use preference more strongly prefer a negotiation change method used by management in a change project in comparison to employees with a lower autonomy of time use preference.
22 The variables that will be explored within this research to answer the research questions and to test the hypotheses are presented in the theoretical model, figure 2.
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Subjects
Questionnaires were handed out to 60 employees of the study organization. The 60 subjects are all affected by the new central schedule system and as a result need to open their work-related agenda’s for the management. Furthermore, they all work for the Treatment house department and have jobs in the field of psychology, psychiatry, social work or work as administrative staff-members. The manager of the department informed his employees about the content of this study and the questionnaire. Subsequently, the 60 subjects were approached by going to their offices and they were asked if they would fill in the questionnaire. The response of the questionnaire was 39, which is a 65% response.
3.2 Instruments
The questionnaire consists of 35 questions about the change project, the employee’s willingness to change, employees time norms (polychronicity and autonomy of time use preference) and the employee’s preference about change methods used by managers. The manipulation change method preference was excluded as a change method because it was not expected to find an employee preference towards being manipulated in a change project. Questions about the other 5 change method preference were included in the questionnaire The answers to the questions and statements in the questionnaire were scaled on a 5 point Likert scale with the options: 1) disagree; 2) moderate disagree; 3) neutral; 4) moderate agree; 5) agree. Employee’s willingness to change was scaled on a 3 point Likert scale.
3.2.1 Willingness to change
Four items measured the employee’s willingness to change. The items were adopted from Metselaar & Cozijnsen (1997). Metselaar and Cozijnsen (1997, 2005) developed a method to measure the willingness to change when implementing a change. This method is called DINAMO which is an acronym for Diagnostic Iventory for the Assessment of
24 DINAMO method the willingness to change in a change project is measured on a 4 item scale. A 3 point likert scale is used in which the scale is: 3) yes; 2) maybe; 1). The same 3 point likert scale was used in this research to make the measurement consistent with the DINAMO. The items that measure the employee’s willingness to change are presented in table 5.
TABLE 5
Items for measuring employee’s willingness to change
1. Are you prepared to persuade other colleagues about the usefulness of the central schedule system? 2. Are you prepared to put effort into the new schedule
system?
3. Are you prepared to overcome resistance against the new central schedule system?
4. Are you prepared to make time available to get to know the central schedule system?
(Source: Metselaar & Cozijnsen, 1997)
3.2.2 Employee’s preference change method used by the management
The employee’s change method preferences were derived from Kotter’s categorization of change methods to cope with resistance to change (Metselaar, 1997). The items that measure the employee’s preference for a change method are presented in table 6.
Communication preference: A 1 item measure was used to assess employee communication method preference. The item is derived from questions created by Metselaar (1997) about the use of communication methods by management. The item is about the employee preference to get information about a change project (Metselaar, 1997).
Participation preference: This method is being measured by a 1 item measure. The question is derived from Metselaar (1997). The item is about the preference of participation in the form of employee involvement in the decision making process in a change project.
Coercion preference: A 2 item measure was used to assess the coercion method preference of employees. First of all, 1 item is about forcing a change upon employees even if employees are against the change. The second question is concerned with the employee’s opinion about if manager can force a change upon the employees due to his/her legitimate position as manager.
Facilitation preference: A 1 item measure was used to assess the facilitation method preference. Within this measure the respondent is asked if they prefer a method in which management must use persuasion to facilitate change.
TABLE 6
Items employee’s change method preference
Change method preference Items employee’s change method preference
Communication preference 1. Management must give information about the change to individuals who will be affected by the change
Facilitation preference 1. Management must use persuasion within a change project to gain commitment from the employees Participation preference 1. Management must involve employees in the
decision making process if the change will affect those employees
Negotiation preference 1. Management must negotiate with employees in a change project
Coercion preference 1. Management must be able to force a change upon employees from their legitimate position
26
3.2.3. Polychronicity measure
The so-called Polychronicity Attitude Index (PAI) was applied to measure employee’s polychronicity. PAI was created by Kaufman, Lane and Linquist (Bluedorn, Kaufman & Lane, 1992). The PAI consists of a 4 item instrument, measured on a 5 point Likert scale. To calculate someone’s polychronicity the total score of the answers of the 4 questions must be added and that result is divided by 4. This outcome will indicate someone’s polychronicity on a scale from 1 which indicates a high monochronic mindset, to 5 which indicates a high polychronic mindset. As suggested by Bluedorn, Kaufman and Lane (1992), individuals that score above 3 can be classified as relatively polychronic and individuals score below 3 as relatively monochronic. The polychronicity items are presented in table 7.
TABLE 7
Items for measuring polychronicity
1. I do not like to juggle several activities at the same time
2. People should not try to do many things at once 3. When I sit down at my desk, I work on one project at a
time
4. I am comfortable doing several things at the same time
(Source: Bluedorn, Kaufman & Lane 1992)
3.2.4 Autonomy of time use preference measure
TABLE 8
Item for measuring autonomy of time use preference
1. I do not mind if someone else schedules and controls my work related agenda.
3.2.5 Additional measures
Several other measures were used to get an overview about the subjects in this study. Within the questionnaire questions were asked to the subjects about the age, number of years working for the organization, education level, job category and gender. These variables will be used as control variables within this study.
3.3 Data analysis
28
4. RESULTS
4.1 Descriptive statistics and reliability analysis
Table 9 shows the Cronbach’s alpha (α) and the descriptive statistics for the dependent and independent variables. The reliability score of the polychronicity measure resulted in a Cronbach’s alpha of 0,76. Individuals with a mean score above 3 can be categorized as relatively polychronic (Bluedorn, Kaufman & Lane, 1992). This is also true for the employees of the study organization who are relatively polychronic with a mean score of 3,21. Moreover, the subjects have a mean score of 4,21 on autonomy of time use preference with a standard deviation of 0,98. This indicates that the employees have a high preference for autonomy of time use.
The willingness to change scale produced a reliability score of 0,87. The results show that the employees are quite willing to change within the change project with an average score of 2,35 on a scale raging from 1 (low) to 3 (high) and a standard deviation of 0,69. Communication, facilitation and participation change method preferences show similar relatively high mean scores with relatively low standard deviations. The mean scores of the negotiation and coercion change method preferences are relatively lower than the other change method preferences with higher standard deviations. The coercion change method preference measure produced a reliability score of 0,88.
TABLE 9
Reliability analysis and descriptive statistics
Variables # items α Minimum Maximum Mean Std.
preference Facilitation preference 1 - 1,00 5,00 4,09 0,79 Negotiation preference 1 - 1,00 5,00 3,54 1,19 Coercion preference 2 0,88 1,00 5,00 3,18 1,22 Willingness to change 4 0,87 1,00 3,00 2,35 0,69
Table 10 shows the Pearson correlation coefficients between the employee willingness to change, the change method preference and the employee time norms. As can be seen, significant relationships have been found between several variables.
TABLE 10
Inter-correlation coefficients
I II III IV V VI VII VIII
I. Polychronicity - ,26* 0,37 ,24 ,12 ,05 -,19* ,37** II. Autonomy of
time use preference
- -,37** ,03 ,25* ,09 ,33* -,22 III. Willingness to change - ,06 -,16 -,23* -,42** -,03
IV. Information preference - -,08 ,02 -,20 ,16
V. Participation preference - ,17 ,,33* -,37**
VI. Facilitation preference - -,14 ,16
VII. Negotiation preference - -,45**
VIII. Coercion preference -
One tailed test with p<0.01 = **; p<0.05 = *
4.2 Time norms and the willingness to change
A significant relationship was found between the willingness to change and the employee’s preference for autonomy of time use. This suggests that employees that do not prefer autonomy of time use were more willing to change in this change project. No significant correlation was found between the polychronicity and the willingness to change.
30 autonomy of time use preference were entered. In step 1, no significant relationship was found between the control variables and willingness to change. In the second step, hypothesis H1 and H2 were tested.
H1: Employees with a polychronic mindset are less willing to change when implementing a new central schedule system in comparison to their monochronic counterparts.
No significant effect was found in the regression analysis between polychronicity and willingness to change within the case study change project. Therefore, no support was found for hypothesis H1.
H2: Employees with a high preference towards autonomy of time use will be less willing to change when implementing a new central schedule system in comparison to employees with a lower preference towards autonomy of time use.
A negative effect was found between the independent variable autonomy of time use preference and the willingness to change within the case study change project (β= -0,30; p < 0,5). These outcomes are in accordance with hypothesis H2.
TABLE 11
Willingness to change regressed on time norms
Dependent: Willingness to change Variables
Β R² R²∆
Step 1 (control variables) 0,10 0,10
Age 0,02
Gender 0,22
Education level 0,00
Working years 0,03
Step 2 (main predictors) 0,29* 0,18
Polychronicity 0,01
Autonomy of time use preference -0,30*
p<0.01 = **; p<0.05 = *
4.3 Time norms and employee’s change method preferences
that have a high preference towards autonomy of time use prefer negotiation used by management as a change method in a change project. Autonomy of time use preference also shows a positive significant relationship with the participation change method preference.
Polychronicity shows a positive significant relationship with the coercion change method. This suggests that relative monochronic employees do not prefer coercion used by the manager in a change project. Autonomy of time use preference shows a positive significant relationship with employee’s preference towards a negotiation change method. This indicates that employees with a high autonomy of time use preference prefer a negotiation change method used by management in comparison with their low autonomy of time use preference counterparts. No significant relationships were found between the time norms and the communication and a facilitation change method preference.
A hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to explore the hypotheses. The regression analysis was performed in two steps. In the first step, the control variables age, gender, working years and education level were entered. In the second step the independent variables polychronicity, autonomy of time use preference and actual autonomy of time use were entered.
4.3.1 Negotiation change method preference
Table 12 shows the regression analysis for the negotiation change method preference and the independent variables. In the first step, no significant relationship was found between the control variables and the negotiation change method preference. In the second step, hypothesis H3 and H6 were tested.
H3: Individuals with a monochronic mindset prefer a negotiation change method used by management in a change project in comparison to their polychronic counterparts.
32
H6: Employees with a high autonomy of time use preference more strongly prefer a negotiation change method used by management in a change project in comparison to employees with a lower autonomy of time use preference.
The regression analysis shows a positive significant effect between the independent variable autonomy of time use preference and the negotiation change method preference (β= 0,47; p < 0,1). This outcome is in accordance with hypothesis H6.
TABLE 12
Negotiation change method preference regressed on time norms
Dependent: Negotiation preference Variables
Β R² R²∆
Step 1 (control variables) 0,78 0,08
Age -0,13
Gender 0,25
Education level -0,13
Working years 0,18
Step 2 (main predictors) 0,28* 0,20
Polychronicity -0,35*
Autonomy of time use preference 0,47**
p<0.01 = **; p<0.05 = *
4.3.2 Coercion change method preference
In the first step, no significant relationship was found between the control variables and the coercion preference. In the second step, hypothesis H4 and H7 were tested.
H4: Individuals with a polychronic mindset prefer a coercive change method used by management in a change project in comparison to their monochronic counterparts.
The regression analysis shows a positive significant effect between the polychronicity and the dependent variables coercion change method preference. (β= 0,45, p < 0,01). This outcome is in accordance with hypothesis H4.
A negative significant effect was found between the independent variable autonomy of time use preference and the coercion change method preference. This outcome is in accordance with hypothesis H7.
TABLE 13
Coercion change method preference regressed on time norms
Dependent: Coercion preference Variables
Β R² R²∆
Step 1 (control variables) 0,16 0.16
Age 0,07
Gender -0,30
Education level 0,04
Working years 0,03
Step 2 (main predictors) 0,41* 0,25
Polychronicity 0,48**
Autonomy of time use preference -0,38*
p<0.01 = **; p<0.05 = *
4.3.3 Participation change method preference
In the first step, a significant effect was found between the control variable gender and the participation preference. In the second step, hypothesis H5 was tested.
H5: Employees with a high autonomy of time use preference more strongly prefer a
participation change method used by management in a change project.
Even though, there was a positive significant correlation coefficient between autonomy of time use preference and participation preference no significant effect was found between the two variables. No support was found for Hypothesis H5.
TABLE 14
Participation change method preference regressed on time norms
Dependent: Participation preference Variables
Β R² R²∆
Step 1 (control variables) 0,21* 0,21
Age -0,08
Gender 0,44*
Education level -0,07
Working years 0,45
Step 2 (main predictors) 0,26 0,05
Polychronicity 0,07
5. DISCUSSION
The aim of this study was to explore how employees deal with time issues within an organization and how this affects their perceptions towards organizational change. More specific, this research deals with the relationship between employee time norms and employee willingness to change and change method preference. As was described in the introduction section, the norms an individual holds about time will affect how willing this individual is to change in a time related change. Furthermore, time norms held by individuals will affect their preferences towards particular change methods that are available to the management. The change project in the organization under observation in this study is the introduction of a new central schedule system. The topics addressed in this thesis and the postulated hypotheses will be elaborated in the next section. Furthermore, the findings of this thesis will be discussed.
5.1 Research topics and hypotheses
36 particular change project on the other hand. It is expected that polychronic employees in general are still more willing to change in other change projects that will not endanger their polychronic time norm in comparison to monochronic employees. For future research it would be interesting to study the effect of polychronicity on employee willingness to change using several organizations that implement different changes.
Since the introduction of the new central schedule system is causing a loss in the autonomy of time use for the employees, it was to be expected that employees with a high preference towards autonomy of time use are less willing to except the change in comparison to employees with a lower preference towards autonomy of time use (H2). As was confirmed by the results, autonomy of time use preference of the employee has a moderate negative effect on the willingness to change of that employee (table 11). This result is also supported by Fineman and Sturdy (1999) and Doorewaard and Benschop (2003) who state that when autonomy over one’s work-related time use is taken away it can be described as a shift in power. This in turn increases the resistance toward the change by employees who experience the shift in power.
When considering how the two time norms of the employees under consideration in this study and their willingness to change relate to one another, it can be concluded that the employee will be willing to change as long as his or her time norms will not be endangered by the introduction of the change.
relationships between the time norms polychronicity and autonomy of time use preference and these change methods have not been found. However, it could be that time norms other than polychronicity or autonomy of time use preference held by employees have relationships with these change methods. These should be investigated in future research.
The third hypothesis of this thesis suggests that individuals with a monochronic mindset prefer a negotiation change method used by management in a change project in comparison to their polychronic counterparts (H3). This was confirmed by the results which show that polychronicity has a negative effect on a negotiation change method preference (table 12). Monochronic employees in general prefer stability over change (Hall in Bluedorn, Kaufman & Lane, 1992). When management will use a negotiation change method to implement change, monochronic employees can use this bargaining approach to plead for stability and not for the change. Polychronic employees will not prefer negotiation in general since they will adapt to the change and deal with it rather than trying to bargain for the change. This same reasoning can be held for preference towards a change method that involves coercion. In this case however, individuals with a polychronic mindset prefer a coercive change method used by management in a change project in comparison to their monochronic counterparts (H4). Coercion prevents employees from negotiating with management about the change that is implemented, which is not likely to be preferred by monochronic employees. Since polychronic employees in general will adapt to change anyway, they would not feel that same resistance towards this change method. The results indeed suggest this is the case. Polychronic employees have a preference towards coercive change methods opposed to their monochronic counterparts (table 13).
38 opportunity to be involved in the change project but does not necessarily give someone autonomy of time use. Employees need to participate in the change project, consequently leaving less space for working on one’s own work-related time use. It is a reasonable assumption that since employees with a high autonomy of time use preference like to be involved in the change project, but not lose their autonomy of time use while doing this, they will prefer a negotiation change method over a participation change project. In this way they can still offer advice to management and somewhat have control over the situation without losing to much work-related time. This assumption is supported by the results found in this study (table 12) and by Kotter & Schlesinger (2008) who state that when the change leads to power loss among employees and when the resistance is considerably high among those employees, management often uses negotiation as a change method. However, the results might be slightly biased since employees which have a high autonomy of time use preference often have powerful positions in organizations allowing them to actual use autonomy of time. Management is forced to negotiate with these more powerful employees to implement the change, otherwise it will not succeed. Taking this into account the result stays inconclusive since the cause-consequence relation is unknown in this case.
Taking the previous paragraph into account it can be speculated that employees with a high autonomy of time use preference more strongly dislike a coercion change methods used by management in a change project in comparison to employees with a lower autonomy of time use preference (H7). Coercive use is forcing employees to accept the change. Individuals in general dislike forced change (Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008), but the resentment is even higher for employees who like to be in control over the situation, a characteristic similar to employees with a high autonomy of time use preference. This is confirmed by the results of this study (table 13).
some control over the situation and still manage to keep their work-related time use in comparison to the participation change method. Preference for a high autonomy of time use makes employees highly reluctant towards a coercive change approach.
However, there seems to be a moderate positive correlation between polychronicity of employees and their preference towards high autonomy of time use. As described in the previous paragraph, polychronic employees prefer a coercive change method, while employees with a high autonomy of time use preference prefer a negotiation change method and are highly reluctant towards a coercive change method. This is counterintuitive, since both time norms, i.e. high autonomy of time use preference and polychronically orientated, are mostly hold by the same employee in this particular organization. This result is somewhat surprising because it implies that these employees are never satisfied with the chosen change method.
5.2 Research Limitations
40
5.3 Conclusion
6. REFERENCE LIST
• Barnett, W.P., & Carroll, G.R. 1995. Modeling internal organizational change. Annual Reviews Sociology, 21: 217-236.
• Benabou, C. 1999. Polychronicity and temporal dimensions of work in learning organizations. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14 (¾): 257-268.
• Bluedorn, A.C., Kaufman, C. F., & Lane, P.M. 1992. How many things do you like to do at once? An introduction to monochronic and polychronic time. Academy of management Executive, 6(4): 17-26.
• Bluedorn, A.C., & kalliath, T.J. 1999. Polychronicity and the inventory of polychronic values (IPV) The development of an instrument to measure a fundamental dimension of organizational culture. Journal of managerial Psychology, 14 (¾):205-230.
• Bluedorn, A.C., & Standifer, R.L. 2006. Time and the Temporal Imagination. Academy of management Learning and Education, 5 (2): 196-206.
• Bouma, J.T., & Emans, B. J. M. 2005. Participatief leidinggeven aan organisatieverandering ; een onderzoek rond de implementatie van Customer Relationship Management. Gedrag en Organisatie, 18 (2): 122-138.
• Burnes, B. 2004. Managing change (4th ed.). Harlow: Prentice Hall.
• Butler, R. 1995. Time in organizations: its experience explanations and effects. Organization studies, 16 (6): 925-950.
42 • Cummings T.G., & Worley C.G. 2005. Organizational development and change (8th
ed.). St Paul: West Publishing Co.
• Daniels, T.D., & Dewine, S. 1991. Communcation process as Target and Tool for Consultancy Intervention: Rethinking a Hackneyed Theme. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 2(4): 303-322.
• Demers, C. 2007. Organizational Change Theories – A Synthesis. California: Sage Publications Inc.
• Diefenbach, T. 2007. Managerialistic ideology of organizational change management. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20 (1): 126-144.
• Doorewaard, H., & Benschop, Y. 2003. HRM and organizational change: an emotional endeavor. Journal of organizational Change, 16 (3): 272-286.
• Dunphy, D.C., & Stace, D.A. 1988. Transformational and coercive strategies for planned organizational change: Beyond the O.D. model. Organization Studies, 9 (3): 317-334.
• Fineman, S., & Sturdy, A. 1999. The Emotions of Control: A Qualitative Exploration of Environmental Regulation. Human Relations, 52 (5): 631-663.
• Francis-Smythe, J., & Robertson, I. 1999. Time-related individual differences. Time and Society, 8 (2): 273-291.
• Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. 1975. Development of the job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60 (2): 159-170.
• Haffer, A. 1986. Facilitating change: choosing the appropriate strategy. Journal of Nursing Administration, 16 (4): 18-22.
• Have, Ten, S., & Have, Ten, W. 2004. Het Boek Verandering over het doordacht werken aan de organisatie. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Nieuwezijds.
• Hassard in Clegg R. S., & Hardy, C. 1999. Studying Organization- Theory & Method. London: Sage Publications.
• Harigopal, K. 2006. Managing Of Organizational Change, Leveraging
Transformation (2nd ed). New Delhi: Sage publications.
• Huy, Q.N. 2001. Time, Temporal capability and planned change. Academy of management review, 26(4): 601-623.
• Jessup, C.M. 2002. Applying psychological type and “gifts differing” to organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change, 15 (5): 502-511.
• Jones, R.A., & Jimmieson, L. 2005. The Impact of Organizational Culture and Reshaping Capabilities on the Change Implementation Success: The Mediating Role of Readiness for Change. Journal of management Studies, 42 (2): 361-386.
• Kaufman, C.F., Lane, P.M., & Lindquist, J.D. 1991. Exploring More than 24 Hours a Day: A Preliminary Investigation of Polychronic Time Use. Joural of Consumer Research, 18 (3): 392-401.
