ANTECEDENTS OF COMMITMENT
AND RESISTANCE TO CHANGE:
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND
VOLUNTEERS IN A NONPROFIT SPORTS ORGANIZATION
ABSTRACTTABLE OF CONTENT
1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 4 2.1 VOLUNTEERS 4 2.2 COMMITMENT TO CHANGE 5 2.3 RESISTANCE TO CHANGE 7
2.4 LINKING COMMITMENT TO CHANGE AND RESISTANCE TO CHANGE TO COMMUNICATION, PARTICIPATION AND
LEADERSHIP 9
2.5 COMMUNICATION: MEDIUM RICHNESS 10
2.5.1 Volunteers versus employees 13 2.6 PARTICIPATION 13 2.6.1 Volunteers versus employees 15 2.7 LEADERSHIP 15 2.7.1 Volunteers versus employees 18 3. METHOD 20 3.1 ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT 20 3.2 DATA COLLECTION 21 3.3 MEASURES 22 3.4 DATA ANALYSIS 29 4. RESULTS 31
4.1 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS AND CORRELATIONS 31
1. INTRODUCTION
Effective organizational changes are rare (Gilmore, Schea & Useem, 1997). A global survey of businesses by McKinsey consultants revealed that only one‐third of organizational change efforts were considered successful by their leaders (Meaney & Pung, 2008). Coetsee (1999: 205) states that without managing resistance and gaining acceptance and support, even every well‐planned and executed change intervention runs the risk of failure. Just mentioning the word ‘change’ can create feelings of uneasiness and tension among organizational members. As the change begins to take shape, these members may feel a sense of uncertainty and confusion (Bernerth, 2004). This is not surprising, as organizational change disrupts organizational life in terms of interpersonal relationships, reporting lines, group boundaries, employee and work unit status and the social identities associated with group memberships (Jones, Watson, Hobman, Bordia, Gallois & Callan, 2008; Paulsen et al., 2005). Proactive steps prior to the actual adoption of the change are proposed to lead to a successful change program (Armenakis, Harris & Mossholder, 1993; Bernerth, 2004).
The Nevobo is the Dutch Volleyball Federation and it is the research object of this study. The Nevobo is in the middle of a big reorganization. This reorganization is about restructuring roles, power and responsibilities. Hoye & Stewart (2002) state that achieving change in sport organizations is a complex process and that restructuring issues are some of the most difficult facing sport organizations. The reorganization, which is being implemented under the title ‘Service to Volley’, affects not only the employees, it affects the volunteers that work for the Nevobo as well. The Nevobo is what Van Vuuren, De Jong & Seydel (2008) call a hybrid organization: where both paid and unpaid members work together towards achieving the organization’s goals. The role of volunteers in sport organizations has undergone significant and sustained change in recent years as the organizations in which they volunteer have adopted more professional management systems and structures (Hoye, Cuskelly, Taylor & Darcy, 2008; Taylor 2004). Sport organizations have sought to become more businesslike in the way they manage staff, volunteers and other organizational issues, and have developed more sophisticated and complex management systems (Sharpe 2003). The Nevobo can not exist without substantial voluntary labor, and the act of volunteering is therefore essential to the Nevobo’s success. Maintaining a steady source of volunteer labor is critical to keep the Nevobo running and therefore it wants to assure that the volunteers adjust and commit to the reorganization.
While many researchers have analyzed and reviewed the theoretical bases for commitment to change (Coetsee, 1999), the empirical evidence on commitment to change
(Jaros, 2010), and the motivational processes that underlie employee reactions to change initiatives more generally (Armenakis & Harris, 2009), no study has specifically focused on commitment to change among volunteers. The same applies to the research on resistance to change: a lot is written in literature about resistance to change among employees, both theoretical bases (Agócs, 1997; Coetsee, 1999) and empirical evidence (Foster, 2010; Van Dijk & Van Dick, 2009), yet no studies have been conducted on resistance to change among volunteers. Jones, Watson, Gardner & Gallois (2004) confirm this and state that researchers have failed to take adequate account of the perceptions and responses to organizational change by members of different groups. In 2008, a study of Jones et al. showed again that change agents should consider the needs of different organizational groups in order to achieve effective and successful organizational change. Volunteering is any activity in which time is given freely to benefit another person, group or cause (Wilson, 2000). Pearce (1983) postulates that job attitudes are substantially different between volunteers and paid employees. Gidron (1983) states that employees and volunteers are committed in different ways to an organization, given the free will nature of volunteerism, which is confirmed by Van Vuuren et al. (2008), who found out that volunteers report higher levels of affective commitment and normative commitment than do paid workers. All these findings suggest that the reactions of volunteers to a reorganization may be different from those of paid employees.
The purpose of this study is to gain a better understanding of the influence of communication, participation, and leadership on commitment and resistance to change among volunteers. This study will test whether the established relationships that apply to commitment and resistance to change among employees, apply to commitment and resistance to change among volunteers as well. Both employees and volunteers are investigated, to get a clear view on the (potential) differences between these two groups. 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). Resistance to change is defined as a form of organizational dissent to a change process (or practices) that the individual considers unpleasant or disagreeable or inconvenient on the basis of personal and/or group evaluations (Giangreco, 2002). Determinants that affect commitment and resistance to change are communication (Armenakis & Harris, 2002; Conway & Monks, 2008), participation (Armenakis & Harris, 2009; Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002) and leadership (Conway & Monks, 2008; Herold, Fedor, Caldwell & Liu, 2008). Do these have the same effect on volunteers? The research question
central in this study is: How do communication, participation and leadership affect the
commitment and resistance to change of volunteers and employees, and what is the moderating effect of employment status on these relationships?
The current study is useful for both practitioners and researchers because it highlights the importance of developing efforts in communication, participation and leadership when it comes to a reorganization in which, next to employees, also volunteers are involved. This is not only of practical significance to the Nevobo, it contributes to the existing theoretical knowledge on the topic of reorganization and volunteers too, which is very scarce. The mentioned concepts are said to influence commitment and resistance to change, which in turn affect behavior (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Fedor, Caldwell & Herold, 2006; Michaelis, Stegmaier & Sonntag, 2009). The behaviors of individuals subsequently influence the organizational change success (Robertson, Roberts & Porras, 1993).
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
This section explores previous research that is done on the concepts that are subject of this study: commitment and resistance to change, communication, participation and leadership. It aims to give the reader a thorough insight into these concepts. The concepts are described in relation to employees. The found theories will be tested among employees and volunteers in the actual research of this study. This section is structured in seven paragraphs, and it starts with a paragraph on volunteers, as they are the main research object of this study. The following paragraphs focus on commitment to change and resistance to change, the link between these two dependent variables and the independent variables, communication, participation and leadership. The research hypotheses are stated and the conceptual framework is presented at the end of this section.
2.1 Volunteers
Volunteering is any activity in which time is given freely to benefit another person, group or cause (Wilson, 2000). Key dimensions of volunteerism are free choice, no reward or financial interest, within a formal organization, and with no connection to those benefiting from the volunteer activity (Cnaan, Handy & Wadsworth, 1996). Three general motives or incentives are indicated for volunteering: normative (altruism), utilitarian (self‐interest), and affective (Knoke & Prensky, 1984). Factors that influence volunteer satisfaction include the opportunity to expand one’s social network, be part of an event, and achieve job competence (Elstad, 1997).
Volunteers’ motivations are dynamic. Over time, as the volunteer gains experience with the work, his motivation is likely to change (Hibbert, Piacentini & Al Dajani, 2003). Initial involvement is often driven by altruistic and personal benefits that are consistent with the volunteer’s values. Enduring involvement is motivated by the volunteer’s experience of personal benefits, including social, service, self‐confidence, and self‐esteem (Laverie & McDonald, 2007). Omoto, Snyder & Martino (2000) demonstrate that older people are motivated to volunteer because of their wish to fulfil an obligation or commitment to society, while younger volunteers are primarily in search of satisfying interpersonal relationships. In their literature review on older adult volunteering in sport, Misener, Doherty & Hamm‐Kerwin (2010) state that volunteering among older adults indicates that these individuals merit psychological benefits such as increased confidence and self‐esteem, lower depression levels, and a more defined sense of purpose in life.
Pearce (1983) postulates that job attitudes are substantially different between volunteers and paid employees. Volunteers are more likely to report that they work for the rewards of social interaction and service to others, that their work is more praiseworthy, and that they are more satisfied and less likely to leave their organization. Gidron (1983) states that employees and volunteers are committed in different ways to an organization, given the free will nature of volunteerism. In 1985, Moore & Anderson indicated that, using Maslow’s hierarchy, volunteers appeared to have more higher order needs met in the performance of their roles than did their paid counterparts. Van Vuuren et al. (2008) found out that volunteers report higher levels of affective commitment and normative commitment than do paid workers. All these findings suggest that the reactions of volunteers to a reorganization may be different from those of paid employees.
2.2 Commitment to Change
For a change initiative to be successfully implemented, it is important that a change agent can get his subordinates to commit to the new goals, programs, policies, and/or procedures (Kotter, 1996). Armenakis & Bedeian (1999) and Judge, Thoresen, Pucik & Welbourne (1999) confirm this statement as they argue that individual commitment to change is a necessary component in garnering support for planned organizational change efforts. Because commitment to change is a precursor to the behavior a person shows in respect of the change (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002), it is important for managers to pay close attention to this phenomenon.
Many researchers have studied the concept of commitment to change in the recent past (Chen & Wang, 2007; Conway & Monks, 2008; Fedor et al., 2006; Herold et al., 2008; Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Jaros, 2010; Neubert & Cady, 2001), yet still there is no consensus on its definition. According to Neubert & Wu (2009), commitment to change is the level of an employee’s attachment to the implementation of new work rules, policies, programs, budgets, technology, and so forth. Coetsee (1999) states that commitment to change reflects a state in which employees are made aware of a change, have the skills needed to implement it, are empowered to implement it, are motivated to do so by adequate rewards, and share the vision exemplified by the change. In 2002, Herscovitch & Meyer defined commitment to change as a force (mind‐set) that binds an individual to a course of action deemed necessary for the successful implementation of a change initiative. What these definitions share, is the notion that commitment to change reflects some kind of attachment to and involvement in the change initiative (Jaros, 2010). It is this attachment
and involvement that makes commitment to change different from readiness to change. Readiness to change has been subject of many studies (Armenakis & Harris, 2009; Armenakis et al., 1993; Bernerth, 2004; Harris & Cole, 2007; Holt, Armenakis, Feild & Harris, 2007) and it is defined by Armenakis et al. (1993: 681‐682) as the cognitive precursor of the behaviors of resistance to or support for organizational change. Readiness occurs when the members of an organization are receptive to a forth coming change (Armenakis et al., 1993). Readiness to change indicates the extent to which change recipients are ready to change, which can range from not ready (manifested in resistance) to ready (manifested in support). It does not say anything though about the extent to which change recipients are committed to the change. Since readiness is a cognitive concept, it can be said this is a rational and
extrinsic phenomenon, while commitment goes a step further than just a cognitive concept
as it is about attachment and involvement, and therefore is more emotional and intrinsic. As Seijts & O’Farrell (2003:1) state: ‘Reason and logic may be fine, but when it comes to winning commitment to organizational change, the facts alone won't win people over. Employees also need to be fired up by leaders who recognize that both the heart and the mind matter.’ They also state that commitment to change can only be obtained if an individual’s feelings and emotions are engaged. The link between emotion and commitment has also been demonstrated by Huy (2002).
In the present study, the commitment to change definition of Herscovitch & Meyer (2002) is used. Along with their definition, Herscovitch & Meyer propose a multidimensional view of the commitment to change‐construct, instead of a unidimensional view (used by Conway & Monks, 2008; Fedor et al., 2006; Herold et al., 2008; Lau & Woodman, 1995; Neubert & Cady, 2001). This multidimensional construct is based on the ideas of Meyer & Allen (1991). To differentiate among commitments characterized by different mind‐sets, Meyer & Allen (1991) use the label affective commitment for the desire to provide support for the change based on a belief in its inherent benefits, continuance commitment for the recognition that there are costs associated with failure to provide support for the change, and normative commitment for the sense of obligation to provide support for the change. Meyer & Allen argue that employees can experience varying combinations of all three mind‐ sets simultaneously, which is confirmed by several studies (Chen & Wang 2007; Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Parish, Cadwallader & Busch, 2008). Herscovitch & Meyer (2002) found that all three forms of commitment correlate positively with compliance with the change. In addition they found that affective and normative commitment to a change are associated with higher levels of support for the change than continuance commitment. Neves &
Caetano (2009) found that especially affective commitment leads to higher commitment and willingness to change, as it binds people and change goals by helping employees understand the purpose of the change.
The advantage of using a multidimensional model of commitment to change is that it improves the ability to predict employees’ change related behavior by considering additive and interactive effects of the three components of commitment (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002). Jaros (2010) argues though that further research is necessary to compare the predictive power of the multidimensional construct and the unidimensional construct, as he questions whether the additional aspects of the multidimensional construct provide additional predictive power. Because at this point in time this research has not yet been done, this study uses the multidimensional construct. Not all forms of employee commitment to change are equal and by measuring commitment along three dimensions, a more precise assessment of commitment can be made. This enables organizations to adapt their approach to the acquired insights, in order to increase the commitment, which is ultimately intended to lead to a successful organizational change.
2.3 Resistance to Change
The failure of many large‐scale corporate change programs can be traced directly to employee resistance (Atkinson, 2005; Martin, 1975; Maurer, 1997; Regar, Mullane, Gustafson & DeMarie, 1994; Spiker & Lesser, 1995). Managing employee resistance is therefore a major challenge for the initiators of change. O’Connor (1993) even states it outweighs any other aspect of the change process.
In the organizational behaviour literature, resistance to change is typically regarded as an obstacle or barrier to change (Dent & Goldberg, 1999; Klein, 1984; Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979). Coghlan (1993) and Steinburg (1992) argue that it is a natural part of the change process and that it is to be expected, as change involves going from the known to the unknown. Lewin (1951) defined resistance as a restraining force moving in the direction of maintaining the status quo. Dent & Goldberg (1999) argued though that people do not resist change itself, but rather the anticipated consequences or expected effects that may be associated with change. Possible consequences or effects of change, and therefore also reasons to resist change, include the loss of status, loss of pay, loss of comfort, loss of control, threats to the individual’s self‐interest, and the fear of poor outcomes. Oreg (2003) summarizes the reasons to resist change as follows: the benefits of the organization are not necessarily consonant with the interests of the organizational members. He even states that the organization’s benefits are often antithetical to the organization member’s benefits.
Giangreco (2002) refers to resistance to change as a form of organizational dissent to a change process (or practices) that the individual considers unpleasant or disagreeable or inconvenient on the basis of personal and/or group evaluations. This definition is used in the present study.
Even though resistance to change and commitment to change may seem two poles of one continuum (like Coetsee (1999) argues), this is not the case. Foster (2010) demonstrates that these two concepts are not related and nondichotomous. Resistance is related though to readiness to change. Armenakis et al. (1993) argue that readiness is a precursor to resistance. Readiness may act to pre‐empt the likelihood of resistance to change, increasing the potential for change efforts to be more effective (Armenakis et al., 1993: 682). In 2009, Armenakis & Harris chose to study readiness to change instead of resistance to change, as the former fits better with a positive approach to framing change. Elving (2005) states that the concept of readiness for change consists of both resistance to change and support for change as a continuum with on one end resistance to change and on the other end readiness for change. Resistance to change and readiness for change are therefore two opposites on one continuum, while commitment to change is a different dimension of organizational change.
Resistance to change can be revealed in several ways. Netting, Nelson, Borders & Huber (2004) describe overt and covert resistance, the former being openly expressive behavior and the latter being concealed behaviour. Bovey & Hede (2001) indicate the difference between active resistance (originate action) and passive resistance (no action, inert). Giangreco (2002) states that resistance to change manifests itself in individual or collective actions, and that it might take the form of non‐violent, indifferent, passive or active behavior.
Change agents often perceive resistance negatively (Watson, 1982). They neglect the fact that potentially positive intentions may motivate the negative responses to change (Piderit, 2000). Resistance might be motivated by individuals’ desires to act in accordance with their ethical principles (Modigliani & Rochat, 1995). In addition, employees might try to get top management to pay attention to issues that employees believe must be addressed in order for the organization to maintain high performance. Ullrich, Wieseke & Van Dick (2005) called this 'principle‐oriented resistance', which is task‐focused and generated by a concern for the achievement of organizational goals and objectives. Piderit (2000) argues that it is worth taking those good intentions more seriously by stop labelling all the responses to change ‘resistant’.
Piderit (2000) reveals in her review of past empirical research, that there are three different emphases in conceptualizations of resistance: resistance as a cognitive state, as an emotional (affective) state, and as a behavior (intentional). She argues that different reactions along the different dimensions are possible and that ambivalence within one dimension is also possible. Giangreco (2002) further classified behavior into four key classes of behaviors towards a change process: a) well‐disposed behaviors revealing personal conformity to the change, b) approving behaviors directed at promoting and facilitating the change with other people, c) critical behaviors displaying personal dissatisfaction with the change, and d) behaviors aiming to sustain other people’s actions in disagreement with the change. Behaviors a and b are so called pro‐change behaviors, while the behaviors of c and d are anti‐change behaviors. Giangreco (2002) developed a scale to measure the individual level of resistance to change, based on these behaviors. This resistance to change‐scale is further explained in the method section, as it is used in this study. It studies resistance to change from the perspective of the employee. Van Dijk & Van Dick (2009) argue that even though in past research resistance is largely considered from the perspective of the change agent, it is a socially constructed phenomenon which is identified, defined and continually redefined through the interaction of all parties involved in the change. By investigating resistance from the point of the employee (in this study: the employee and volunteer) and asking their opinion about the change agent’s approach (in communication, participation and the change agent’s leadership), the present study attempts to soundly measure this socially constructed phenomenon.
2.4 Linking Commitment to Change and Resistance to Change to Communication,
Participation and Leadership
In the study of Armenakis & Harris (2009) the main question is what change recipients consider when making their decision to embrace and support a change effort or to reject and resist it. Armenakis & Harris argue that five key change beliefs underlie the change recipients’ motives to support change efforts, and thus increase the likelihood of successful sustainable organizational change. The five beliefs are a) discrepancy, b) appropriateness, c) efficacy, d) principal support, and e) valence. Discrepancy reflects the belief that a change is needed (gap between status quo and desired state of affairs).
Appropriateness is the belief that a specific change designed to address the discrepancy is
the correct one for the situation. Efficacy refers to the belief that the change recipient and the organization can successfully implement a change. Principal support is the belief that
both the formal and the opinion leaders are committed to the success of a change. Valence is the belief that the change is beneficial to the change recipient.
The change agent’s task is to anticipate, consider, and plan to influence and shape these beliefs in pursuit of minimizing resistance to change (which is the same as pursuing readiness for change), and maximizing commitment to change (Armenakis & Harris, 2009). Among the influence strategies that change agents could use to shape the five beliefs – and that therefore determine commitment and resistance to change – are participation, persuasive communication, human resource management practices, and rites and ceremonies (Armenakis & Harris, 2009). In his review, Jaros (2010) mentions some additional determinants, like the type of leadership, the perceived change self‐efficacy and job‐level impact of the change.
This study investigates the relationship between three antecedents, being communication (Armenakis & Harris, 2002; Armenakis & Harris, 2009; Conway & Monks, 2008; Goodman & Truss, 2004; Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979), participation (Armenakis & Harris, 2009; Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979; Parys, 2003; Schwochau, Delaney, Jarley & Fiorito, 1997) and leadership (Conway & Monks, 2008; Ford, Wessbein & Plamandon, 2003; Herold et al., 2008; Jones et al., 2008), and the two dependent variables commitment and resistance to change. Communication, participation and leadership are chosen as it is believed that it is relatively easy for a manager to influence these concepts, which is not the case for example for perceived change self‐efficacy, job‐ level impact of the change, and rites and ceremonies.
2.5 Communication: Medium Richness
The first determinant in this study is communication. It is recognized that effective communication processes are a vital element in successful change initiatives (Armenakis & Harris, 2002; Armenakis & Harris, 2009; Conway & Monks, 2008; Goodman & Truss, 2004; Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979). Communication is not only promoted as a tool for managing resistance to change (Armenakis & Harris, 2002; Bernerth, 2004; DiFonzo, Bordia & Rosnow, 1994) it is also seen as a tool to create commitment to change (Conway & Monks, 2008; Goodman & Truss, 2004).
Daft (1997) defines communication in organizations as the process by which information is exchanged and understood by two or more people, usually with the intent to motivate or influence behavior.
Robertson et al. (1993) demonstrate why communication is important during organizational change. They state that the change effort is dependent on the ability of the
organization to change the individual behavior of individual employees. Communication about the change and information to these individual employees is very essential. Robertson et al. therefore argue that communication with these employees should be an important and integrative part of the change efforts and strategies.
Organizational communication commonly has two goals: to provide information and to create a community spirit (De Ridder, 2003). In line with this division, within organizational change a distinction can be made between the information given about the change, and the sense of a community within the organization before, during and after the change (Elving, 2005). Information about the change should address the reasons to change, and the personal effects of the proposed change. Information to create a community fits within the social identity theory (Postmes, Tanis & De Wit, 2001). Social identity is ‘that part of an individual’s self‐concept which derives from his knowledge of his or her membership of a social group together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership’ (Tajfel, 1978: 63). Elving (2005) and Postmes et al. (2001) state that communication creates the conditions for this community spirit.
Communication is a very complex and comprehensive concept (Johansson & Heide, 2008; Stein, 2006). Even though it is generally accepted that communication is of great importance during organizational change, there is no effective instrument to measure communication (Harkness, 2000). Neither is there any concrete or practical advice or strategy to practitioners in organizational change, the only thing told is that the way in which management communicates with the employees during a change initiative largely influences the outcomes (Johansson & Heide, 2008). This study has no illusions that it can fill this gap of knowledge, but it strives to make a start by selecting a small, specific aspect of communication and investigating its impact on the commitment and resistance to change.
Johansson & Heide (2008) argue that there are several approaches to communication in organizational change, and that it can be viewed as a tool, as a socially constructed process, or as social transformation. In this study, communication is approached as a tool for declaration and explanation of the change. It is recognized to be critical to inform, create understanding and change people’s attitudes and behavior (Johansson & Heide, 2008: 293).
Like Goodman & Truss (2004) state, a distinction can be made between communication content (what) and communication process (how). Many authors study the content of communication in organizational change (Armenakis, Harris & Field, 1999; Armenakis, Harris & Mossholder, 1993; Elving, 2005), the present research though focuses
on a different aspect of communication that more fits the communication process. Medium richness is investigated to determine what kinds of media are most appropriate in communicating with volunteers and with employees in organizational change. Medium richness is chosen, as it is believed that it is relatively easy for a manager to influence this particular aspect of communication.
In literature there is some confusion about Daft & Lengel’s (1984; 1986) concepts of medium richness and information richness. Often they are used interchangeably (Huang & Yen, 2003; Lo & Lie, 2008; Stein, 2006), but Otondo, Van Scotter, Allen & Palvia (2008) provide clarity in stating that medium richness is a medium’s capacity to process rich information, and that information richness is the ability of a message to change understanding within a certain time interval.
Media differ greatly in their capacity to process information; ‘just as the physical characteristics of a pipeline limit the kind and amount of liquid that can be pumped through, the physical characteristics of a medium limit the kind and amount of information that can be conveyed’ (Lengel & Daft, 1988: 226). Many factors may affect the ability of a medium to transmit information. Daft & Lengel’s (1986) media richness theory suggests that a medium capable of providing immediate feedback is richer than a medium that provides only unidirectional communication, and that a medium that carries more cues (e.g. facial expressions, tones, body language and gestures) is a richer choice than one that carries fewer cues. In addition, Daft & Lengel argue that the more a communication medium can establish personal focus, the richer the medium is. Face‐to‐face communication is the richest form of communication, numeric documents are the least rich (Daft & Lengel, 1986). Daft & Lengel state that a medium gets richer as it reduces uncertainty and ambiguity. Balogun & Hope‐Hailey (2003) pose that the choice of media should fit the significance and complexity of the message, as well as the stage in the change process. Lengel & Daft (1988) suggest that nonroutine, difficult information should be sent through rich media. Moreover they argue that rich media better convey personal interest, caring and trust, which are important factors in organizational change (Holt et al., 2007; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman & Fetter, 1990), and that rich media can be used to generate powerful images that will change behavior.
The present study will measure the extent to which employees and volunteers assess the used media to be rich, and the way this influences their commitment and resistance to change.
Hypothesis 1a: The medium richness will have a significant positive influence on commitment to change. Hypothesis 1b: The medium richness will have a significant negative influence on resistance to change. 2.5.1 Volunteers versus employees As stated in the paragraph above, rich media are required when the information that is being transmitted is complex and non‐routine. For both the employees and the volunteers, a reorganization can be considered complex and non‐routine. Yet as most volunteers work part‐time, and because most volunteers at the Nevobo do not work at one of the Nevobo offices but at home, they have less contact with the organization, both quantitatively and qualitatively (Jäger, Kreutzer & Beyes., 2009; Pearce, 1993). Employees are thus more in contact with the organization and it can be assumed that they are more frequently confronted with information about the reorganization. Because volunteers get informed less frequently than employees, it is important that at the times they do get information, this is communicated through a rich medium. So this study assumes that because there is less communication to volunteers, it is more important that this communication takes place through rich media. Communication to employees takes place on a more frequent basis, and as frequency is higher it is not as necessary that all these communication moments occur through a rich medium. Hypothesis 1c: The influence of medium richness on commitment and resistance to change is stronger for volunteers than for employees.
2.6 Participation
The second determinant in this study is participation. Change recipient participation in organizational change is a fundamental aspect of change efforts (Armenakis & Harris, 2009: 130). Already in 1948, Coch & French demonstrated the value of allowing organization members to participate in change efforts. Change requires the participation of people who must themselves change first for organizational change to succeed (Evans, 1994: 10).Schwochau et al. (1997) state that there is a negative relationship between employee participation and resistance to change. In addition, they state that participation in the change process increases employees’ commitment to change and breaks down barriers to change.
Participation is defined as the degree to which a person participates or continually engages in organizational activities (Allen, Lucero & Van Norman, 1997; Wagner, Leana, Locke & Schweiger, 1997). Beehr, Walsh & Taber (1976) state that participation is about being consulted about work‐related happenings. Participative management is a management style in which the subordinates share a significant degree of decision‐making power with their superiors (Ford & Randolph, 1992). Bouma & Emans (2005) state that participation in organizational change is about management involving the staff in decision making about content and form of the organizational change. This definition of Bouma & Emans is used for participation in the present study, as it is the only definition that links participation explicitly to an organizational change situation.
The levels of participation may vary from one context to another (Locke & Schweiger, 1979). For example, participation can be formal (based on a system of rules and agreements that is imposed by the organization) or informal (based on a consensus emerging among interacting individuals or social units), direct (immediate personal involvement) or indirect (mediated involvement through some form of representation), and compulsory or voluntary (Dachler & Wilpert, 1978; (Locke & Schweiger, 1979). These differences suggest that the effects of participation may depend upon the degree of participation (Ganster & Fusilier, 1989).
In their literature review, Bouma & Emans (2005) sum up four positive effects of participation and three negative effects. Improving the substantive quality of decision making, creating understanding among employees, strengthening the acceptation of the taken decisions which makes employees feel responsible for it, and making employees feel respected are positive effects of participation. Negative effects of participation might be the additional workload, extra conflicts, and stress. In their empirical study though, Bouma & Emans (2005) only found evidence for the positive effects, the negative effects appeared to be nonexistent.
2.6.1 Volunteers versus employees
That participation is an important factor in organizational change for employees, is clearly stated in literature (Bouma & Emans, 2005; Schwochau et al., 1997). For volunteers as well it can be argued that it is very important. Knoke (1981) proves that participation exerts significant effects on commitment among volunteers. Even though the type of commitment that Knoke writes about is organizational commitment and not commitment to change, it does show that participation is an important concept, also to volunteers. Misener et al. (2010) state that it is important that volunteers feel they have control over their involvement in their activity.
Although literature gives no clue about a possible difference in importance of participation in relation to the employment status of the change recipient (employee or volunteer), this study presupposes that the relationship between participation and commitment and resistance to change is stronger for employees than for volunteers. As employees stand closer to the organization, spend more time to it and are more involved with the organization and its daily affairs, this study assumes that employees place a greater value on being able to participate in the change process than volunteers do. Because volunteers are in less contact with the organization and as they are less involved in daily affairs, the need for participation in the change process is assumed to be less for this group.
Hypothesis 2c: The relationships between participation and commitment and resistance to change are stronger for employees than for volunteers.
2.7 Leadership
Leadership is the third determinant in the present study. Schermerhorn (1996) defines leadership as the process of inspiring others to work hard in order to accomplish important tasks. Leader behavior is crucial during organizational change, because leaders provide a vision of the change, give direct support to employees and model appropriate behavior (Covin & Kilmann, 1990; Kiffen‐Peterson & Cordery, 2003; Schweiger, Ivancevich & Power, 1987). Specific leadership activities and behaviors like these, can be clustered together to form a ‘style’ of leadership (Sims, Faraj & Yun, 2009). It is generally recognized in literature that leadership is a determinant of both commitment to change (Conway & Monks, 2008; Herold et al., 2008; Michaelis et al., 2009) and resistance to change
(Armenakis et al., 1999; Bennebroek Gravenhorst, Werkman & Boonstra, 2003; Bernerth, 2004).
Sims et al. (2009) argue that a specific style of leadership is likely to be more effective in a specific kind of situation. Leadership should be contingent upon the factors within the specific situation. The question is what kind of leadership is appropriate for organizational change when dealing with volunteers.
In literature, many desirable behaviors and attitudes of change agents are mentioned. Bernerth (2004) mentions that employees will look to change agents for cues during times of uncertainty and change. If the change agent, who guides and monitors the change process, is not behind the change effort, change will elicit greater resentment and resistance. Bennebroek Gravenhorst et al. (2003) argue that an open attitude of change agents towards ideas and experiences of employees stimulates active support. In addition, such an attitude makes it possible to use available knowledge in the organization for improving the change process. Burke (1987) states that professionalism of the change agent, credibility and trust in his skills by all parties involved positively contribute to the organizational change. Furthermore, change agents need good communicative skills to discuss topics such as goals, decisions, the design of the process, and achieved results. Moreover, sensitivity for obstacles, problems and political behavior of groups and individuals is desirable (Bennebroek Gravenhorst et al., 2003). Bennebroek Gravenhorst et al. (2003) propose that coaching and facilitating leadership styles are important aspects with respect to the course of the change process.
The leadership style that might be adopted during times of organizational change varies considerably (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Podsakoff & Lee, 2003). Authors used many ways to categorize leadership, for example in task oriented vs. relation oriented leadership (Lindell & Rosenqvist, 1992), employee oriented vs. production oriented leadership (Pheng & May, 1997), and aversive/directive/empowering/transformational/transactional leadership (Sims et al., 2009). Another ‐ widely used ‐ way of differentiating between leadership styles is to distinguish between transactional and transformational leadership (Bass, 1985; Podsakoff et al., 1990; Podsakoff et al., 2003). Transactional leadership is associated with followers accepting or complying with the leader in exchange for praise, rewards or the avoidance of disciplinary action (Conway & Monks, 2008). Burns (1978) states that transactional behaviors are based on an exchange process in which the leader provides rewards in return for the subordinate’s effort. Antonakis et al. (2003) confirm this as they state that it is an exchange process based on the fulfillment of contractual obligations and
that it is typically represented as setting objectives and monitoring and controlling outcomes. Close monitoring of performance and taking appropriate action as soon as deviant behaviors occur are actions that belong to this type of leadership (Bass, Avolio, Jung & Berson, 2003). Transactional leadership is theorized to comprise the following three factors (Antonakis et al., 2003: 265): a) contingent reward leadership, b) management‐by‐ exception active, and c) management‐by‐exception passive. Contingent reward leadership refers to leader behaviors focused on clarifying role and task requirements and providing followers with material or psychological rewards contingent on the fulfillment of contractual obligations. Management‐by‐exception active refers to the active vigilance of a leader whose goal is to ensure that standards are met. Management‐by‐exception passive leaders only intervene after noncompliance has occurred or when mistakes have already happened.
Transformational leadership is about creating and communicating a vision for the company that brings employees together to accomplish important goals (Conway & Monks, 2008). A transformational leader is proactive, raises follower awareness for collective interests, and helps followers to achieve extraordinary goals (Antonakis, Avolio & Sivusabramaniam, 2003). This leader is characterized as a charismatic individual with whom employees identify emotionally (Yukl, 1999), and who makes followers more aware of the importance and values of task outcomes, activates their higher‐order needs, and induces them to transcend self‐interests for the sake of the organization (Yukl, 1989). These transformational behaviors augment or supplement the impact of transactional leader behaviors on employee outcome variables, e.g. employee satisfaction and job performance (Bass, 1985; Podsakoff et al., 1990). This means that transformational and transactional leadership are nondichotomous, yet they are two different dimensions of leadership. Transformational leadership is multidimensional in nature (Antonakis et al., 2003; Podsakoff et al., 1990), and Podsakoff et al. (1990) suggest that there are six key behaviors associated with transformational leaders: a) identifying and articulating a vision, b) providing an appropriate model, c) fostering the acceptance of group goals, d) high performance expectations, e) providing individualized support, and f) intellectual stimulation. Identifying
and articulating a vision is behavior that is aimed at identifying new opportunities and
developing, articulating and inspiring others with the leader’s vision of the future. Providing
an appropriate model is behavior on part of the leader that sets an example for employees
to follow, that is consistent with the values the leader espouses. Fostering the acceptance of
group goals is aimed at promoting cooperation among employees and getting them to work
together to a common goal. High performance expectations are about behavior that
demonstrates the leader’s expectations for excellence, quality, and high performance on part of the followers. Providing individualized support refers to behavior of the leader that indicates that he respects followers and is concerned about their personal feelings and needs. At last, intellectual stimulation is behavior that challenges followers to re‐examine some of their assumptions about their work and rethink how it can be performed.
Herold et al. (2008) found out that transformational leadership has a positive impact on commitment to change, and Conway & Monks (2008) found out that transactional leadership negatively predicted commitment to change. McCarthy, Puffer, May, Ledgerwood & Stewart Jr. (2008) also state that transformational leadership in general is the better leadership style when it comes to overcoming resistance to change, yet they advocate to take into account the environment and culture. This study measures the extent to which both transactional and transformational leadership are used and its effects on commitment and resistance to change. It presupposes that as more transformational leadership is used, commitment to change will increase and resistance to change will decrease. Hypothesis 3a: The level of transformational leadership will have a significant positive influence on commitment to change. Hypothesis 3b: The level of transformational leadership will have a significant negative influence on resistance to change. 2.7.1 Volunteers versus employees
Since volunteers have no contractual obligation to the Nevobo, leadership in this situation can be described as ‘leading without formal power’. Milofsky (1988) clarifies that executives lack the conventional instruments of authority in order to ‘make’ others follow their suggestions or orders. Although there are some popular management writings about best practice recommendations for volunteer management, there is a lack of studies that empirically tackle the question of leading volunteers (Jäger, Kreutzer & Beyes, 2009).
Because most volunteers work part‐time and not at an office of the Nevobo, they have less contact with their co‐workers and their leaders, both quantitatively and qualitatively (Jäger et al., 2009; Pearce, 1993). Therefore in this study the assumption is made that, as employees are more in contact with their leaders and leadership in their daily work, the influence of leadership – both transactional and transformational – is stronger when it comes to employees than when it concerns volunteers.
Hypothesis 3c: The relationships between transformational leadership and commitment and resistance to change are stronger for employees than for volunteers. H3c H2c H1c H3b H3a H2b H2a H1b H1a Commitment to Change Resistance to Change Medium richness Participation Transformational Leadership Employment Status
Behavior
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework Figure 1 shows a conceptual framework for the present study. At the left the three independent variables are indicated, which are connected by arrows to the dependent variables commitment and resistance to change. The far right shows that commitment and resistance are determinants of (employee/volunteer) behavior (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Fedor et al., 2006), yet these relationships go beyond the scope of this study.3. METHOD
The following section presents the organizational context, data collection, measures, and data analysis for this study.
3.1 Organizational Context
As stated in the introduction, the Dutch Volleyball Federation, the Nevobo, is the organization that is the research object of this study. The core business of the Nevobo consists of organizing the regional as well as the national volleyball competition, the beach volleyball competition and the sitting volleyball competition. The headquarter of the Nevobo is situated in Nieuwegein (The Netherlands) and there are five regional offices. More than 127.000 Dutch citizens are member of the Nevobo and hundreds of volleyball associations are affiliated to the Nevobo. The Nevobo employs around 90 employees. On top of that, hundreds of volunteers are working for the Nevobo. These volunteers can be referees, board members, advisory members, committee members, volunteers at an event, volunteers supporting the regional competition and so on.
The reorganization that is taking place, is about reviewing the organizational structure. The new organizational structure should enable the Nevobo to work further on its ambitions to grow, to professionalize, to have a faster decision making process, to deliver better service, and to act as a firm federation (in stead of fragmented regions). Next to these internal ambitions, the changing environment requires some adjustments. The NOC*NSF (the Dutch branch of the International Olympic Committee) came with new requirements for the Nevobo to meet the so called three‐star status for sports federations. In addition, restructuring is necessary to comply with the rules of the accountant.
Nevobo
Supervisors Executives Volunteers
Figure 2. The Three Components of the Nevobo
The core of the restructuring consists of implementing a sound organizational structure in which the division between supervisors, executives and volunteers is clear (see Figure 2). A shift in tasks, power, and responsibilities takes place in order to take away the
responsibilities from the volunteers and to place these responsibilities with the executives in the work organization. In practice this means that volunteers mostly keep the same tasks, but in the new situation they are accountable to an employee of the work organization (one of the executives, see Figure 3). In general, this leads to a decrease in autonomy of the volunteers. Manager Competition Affairs Coordinator Arbitration
The bold functions will be executed by paid employees (executives). The other functions, depending on the available amount of budget and knowhow, can be executed by paid employees or volunteers.
Figure 3. Chart of the Department of Competition Affairs
3.2 Data Collection
The questionnaire was pre‐tested by four volunteers and four employees. Based on the extracted information changes were made to improve the clarity of the questionnaire. Management of the Nevobo approved the questionnaire.
The data were collected with the use of a web‐based self‐administrated questionnaire. The questionnaire was distributed shortly after the official implementation date of the new structure. The questionnaires were distributed with an accompanying letter, which explained the aim of the study, gave the estimated time to finish the questionnaire and guaranteed confidentiality. This letter can be found as an appendix to this paper.
Herscovitch & Meyer (2002) stress the need for a person‐oriented focus in studies of change. More attention should be given to various employee reactions (in this study, various volunteer and employee reactions), and it is important to consider how they are similar, different, and related to one another. The potential respondents for this study hold a variety of volunteer and employee roles, the volunteer roles including members of the regulations committee, the working group on arbitration, the protest committee, competition managers and so on. Only volunteers that actually get to deal with the reorganization (the ones that notice the change), are involved in this study. The questionnaire was sent to 357 volunteers and 68 employees. 173 questionnaires were returned: 124 by volunteers and 49 by employees; a response rate of 34,7% for volunteers and 72,1% for employees.
3.3 Measures
This study measures five variables. The two dependent variables are commitment and resistance to change. Medium richness, participation and leadership are the independent variables.
As the respondents in this study are all Dutch, the measurement scales that originally are written in English, are translated to Dutch through a translation and back‐ translation. This is done by two individuals who are fluent in both Dutch and English, to assure that the essence of the concepts is retained in the translation. In the appendix, the entire questionnaire (in Dutch) can be found.
To establish the reliability of the items measured in this study, Cronbach’s alpha values are calculated for each of the scales used. Cronbach’s alpha is a measure of internal consistency: it measures the extent to which a respondent answers items in a consistent manner (Gall, Gall & Borg, 2003). A scale has a high reliability when an individual’s responses to the items within a particular scale are highly correlated. Because all measurement scales in this study are adapted from their original scale, only the Cronbach’s alpha of the present
study is given. When the alpha of a scale is .70 or higher, it is considered as sufficient (Nunnally, 1978), see Table 1 and 2 (sufficient alpha scores are printed in bold). Low reliability scores indicate low inter‐correlations between the items and that the items do not measure the same underlying construct.
Herscovitch & Meyer’s (2002) scale (which is based on Meyer & Allen, 1991) is used to measure commitment to change. Commitment to change is measured as a multidimensional construct, consisting of affective commitment, continuance commitment, and normative commitment. Herscovitch & Meyer use six items for each dimension. In order to make sure that the questionnaire will not be too long, which would decrease the likelihood that employees and volunteers will fill it out, in the present study only two items are used for each dimension: the items with the highest loading at Herscovitch & Meyer’s (2002: 477) factor analysis (e.g. ‘I believe in the value of this change’). The items are measured on a 5 point Likert scale, ranging from (1) Strongly Disagree to (5) Strongly Agree. The reliability score of the complete commitment to change‐construct is .58. This low score is explained by the reliability score of the continuance commitment‐dimension (CC), that has an extremely low Cronbach's alpha of .15. Affective commitment (AC) has a Cronbach's alpha of .84 and normative commitment (NC) scores a Cronbach's alpha of .66. Removing one item (CC2: 'Resisting this change is not a viable option for me'), increases the overall reliability of commitment to change to .69. Measuring the dimension continuance commitment by only one item is far from ideal, but since only two items were presented to the respondents, there is no other option than to use the only one item that is left.
To measure resistance to change, the measurement scale of Giangreco (2002) is used. He created 13 items to tap different actions related to the way individuals respond to organizational change, from which 12 items loaded sufficiently in his factor analysis. The items that are irrelevant for the current study (questions about subordinates: volunteers do not have subordinates) are deleted, which leads to a measurement scale of 10 items (e.g. ‘I am critical about the change in public discussions’). Seven items are related to pro‐change behaviors, three items are related to anti‐change behaviors. All items are measured on a 5 point Likert scale (1= Strongly Disagree, 5= Strongly Agree). In the current study, reliability is .77, which would increase to .84 if item R1R were deleted.
In order to measure the medium richness, which is used as a small part of communication, this study uses the measurement scale of Stoter (1997). Stoter’s scale consists of four items, which are all used in the current study (e.g. ‘I usually get important information from my team leader’). This scale is originally written in Dutch and just like the
former scales, it uses a 5 point Likert scale (1= Strongly Disagree, 5= Strongly Agree). In the present study, scale reliability is .41. This Cronbach's alpha can be improved to .55 by deleting item MR1, yet still this is far below the acceptable level of .70. Because there is no way to increase the reliability of the medium richness scale, this variable will be left out from the rest of this study, as its results would be very unreliable. Participation measurement is done by use of the measurement scale formulated by Bouma & Emans (2005). Their scale was originally developed to measure participation in a change program in which a Customer Relationship Management system was introduced. For the purpose of this research, the scale has been modified and the word CRM is changed into
reorganization. Questions that are irrelevant for the reorganization at the Nevobo are left
out. This leads to a measurement scale of participation consisting of five items (e.g. ‘Regarding the goal of the reorganization, I was…’). The items of this scale are measured on a 5 point Likert scale: (1) not heard, (2) informed, (3) asked my opinion, (4) involved, and (5) asked to make the decision. The Cronbach's alpha in the current study is .89.
Variable Items Cronbach's α
Commitment to Change ‐ Affective Commitment ‐ Normative Commitment ‐ Continuance Commitment 6 2 2 2 .58 .84 .66 .15 Resistance to Change 10 .77 Medium Richness 4 .41 Participation 5 .89 Leadership ‐ Transformational leadership ‐ Transactional leadership 8 6 2 .88 .82 .85 Table 1. Original Reliability Scores
Variable Items Cronbach's α
Commitment to Change ‐ Affective Commitment ‐ Normative Commitment ‐ Continuance Commitment 5 2 2 1 .69 .84 .66 ‐ Resistance to Change 10 .77 Medium Richness 4 .41 Participation 5 .89 Leadership ‐ Transformational leadership ‐ Transactional leadership 8 6 2 .88 .82 .85 Table 2. Adapted Reliability Scores To determine the validity of the variables a factor analysis is performed. The factor analysis checks whether the items actually measure what they claim to measure. As all variables are measured by the use of already existing scales, it would be logical to conduct a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). CFA is used to determine the factor and factor loading of measured variables, and it is used to confirm what is expected on the basic or pre‐ established theory. CFA assumes that each factor is associated with a specified subset of measured variables (Bryant & Yarnold, 1995). Despite of this, in the present study an explanatory factor analysis (EFA) is conducted. In EFA, the partitioning of variables into
