The Impact of Influential Change Related Factors on Employees’ Perceived Implementability of an HR Tool: The Moderating Role of Change Context
Dorien Ikink 1856804
June 2016
Master Thesis Business Administration Change Management University of Groningen
Faculty of Economics and Business
Business Administration – Change Management
Table of contents
Abstract ... 4
The Impact of Influential Change Related Factors on Employees’ Perceived Implementability of an HR Tool: The Moderating Role of Change Context ... 5
The HRM gap ...6
Line managers as change implementers ...7
HR professionals as change agents ...8
Explanation of influential change content-, process- and context related factors ...10
Change content related factors ... 10
Change process related factors ... 11
Change context related factors ... 13
Hypotheses ...17
Method... 18
Research site...18
Materials ...19
Change content related factors ... 20
Change process related factors ... 21
Change context related factors ... 22
Implementability ... 22
Procedure ...22
Participants ...23
Results ... 24
Assumptions and descriptive analysis ...24
Regression analyses ...24
Moderator analysis – HRM support ... 25
Discussion ... 27
The impact of change related factors on implementability ...28
Change content related factors ... 29
Change process related factors ... 30
Change context related factors ... 31
Conclusion. ... 31
The moderating role of change context related factors ...33
The moderating role of HRM support ... 33
The moderating role of PSS ... 35
Theoretical implications and suggestions for future research ...36
Limitations ...37
Practical implications and conclusions ...38
References ... 41
Appendix A – factor analyses ... 61
Abstract
This study examined the influence of several change content-, process- and context related factors on employees’ perceived implementability of a specific HR tool, that is, a performance management cycle. It was hypothesized that the change content related factors, improvability, simplicity and embeddedness, and the change process related factors, planning, participation and change information, would enhance employees’ perceived implementability of the HR tool. Supplementary, I expected two change context related factors, perceived HRM support and perceived supervisor support (PSS), to moderate (i.e. strengthen) the above mentioned relationships. An online questionnaire was conducted among employees who worked for a company in the North of the Netherlands (N = 225) and who were affected by the
organizational change in 2014. The results showed that improvability, embeddedness, planning, change information and PSS are crucial factors when designing and implementing an HR-initiated change, because they all seem to have a direct positive impact on employees’ perceived implementability. The outcomes furthermore revealed that both perceived HRM support and PSS may moderate the positive effect of change content- and change process related factors on employees’ perceived implementability of the HR tool, at least in a certain degree. These findings could suggest that both HR professionals and line managers can optimize the implementability of HR tools by taking influencing change related factors into account and support employees during HR-initiated change processes. Future research could further examine the role of change content-, process- and context related factors during HR-initiated change processes and assess their impact on employees’ implementability.
The Impact of Influential Change Related Factors on Employees’ Perceived Implementability of an HR Tool: The Moderating Role of Change Context
Over the last century, the roles and key responsibilities of HR professionals have changed substantially. Less administrative and paperwork enabled HR professionals to focus on strategic, value added activities and allowed them to develop more strategic functions of their profession (Ulrich, 1998). This shift from traditional to more modern HR practices, such as e-HR, gave rise to several effects on the role of HRM. One of these effects entails the increased involvement of line managers in HR practices. Today, nearly all line managers are involved in HR activities such as career planning, promotion decisions and conducting performance appraisals (McGovern, Gratton, Hope-Hailey, Stiles & Truss, 1997). This situation stems from the principle of devolution (e.g., Holt Larsen & Brewster, 2003; Perry & Kulik, 2008), which implies that line managers are predominantly made responsible for the execution of HR tasks and duties. The success of the implementation of HR practices
consequently also relies on line managers’ actions and support to a great extent (e.g., Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007). The devolvement of some functions to line managers poses a challenge for HR professionals, since it requires significant adjustments in the way the HR department operates (Panayotopoulou, Vakola & Galanaki, 2007). Instead of implementing and executing HR practices themselves, HR professionals have to provide other organization members (i.e. supervising line managers and employees) with instructions and well-developed tools for carrying out HR activities and provide support during the implementation of these tools, in order to ensure that these organization members are able to utilize the tools effectively (Emans, Postema, Weering, Peelen & Boeve, 2011).
other words, HRM includes the task of taking care of the implementability of HR programmes (Emans et al., 2011), which concerns the effectiveness of HR tools as they are employed in the organization. It involves the degree to which a tool has been implemented in such a way that all involved organization members do actually participate in its realization. This duty specifically belongs to the job of the HR professional, since other organization members are not likely to be equipped for this task (Nehles, Terhalle, Van Riemsdijk & Looise, 2009). The focal point of this paper is the crucial role that both HR professionals and supervising line managers play during the implementation of a specific HR tool, that is, a performance
management cycle. More specifically, the present study addresses the question what they can do in order to ease the implementability of such a new HR tool. To investigate this matter, the study primarily revolves around the implementation lever model of Emans et al. (2011).
The paper is organized as follows. The next section outlines the research questions and presents the main hypotheses, which will be tested using quantitative analyses. Second, I will describe the research method and specify the measures used to investigate the research questions. Third, results from the statistical analyses will be defined. Lastly, I will present the main findings of this research, develop a discussion of major issues and offer some
suggestions for future research. This final section will conclude by highlighting several limitations and implications of the present study.
The HRM gap
As illustrated in the previous subsection, supervising line managers nowadays act as implementers or deliverers of HR practices that bring HR policies to life (Purcell &
and perceived HR practices (as experienced by employees), that eventually shape employee attitudes and affect (firm) performance (e.g., Khilji & Wang, 2006; Legge, 1995; Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007; Wright & Boswell, 2002). That is, HR practices as designed and
formulated by the HR department (i.e. intended) often differ from HR practices as implemented by supervising line managers (i.e. enacted), and HR practices as being implemented may differ from the day-to-day experiences of employees with these HR practices (i.e. perceived). In the end, employees may thus receive the new HR tool in a different manner than it was originally intended in the eyes of the HR professionals. This raises the question what HR professionals can do to initiate HR practices that are being experienced as it was originally intended. In other words, how can they close the gap between intended, enacted and perceived HR practices and thereby secure a sound implementation of their proposed change programmes? According to Caldwell (2004), the answer may lie in the conceptualization and examination of implementation issues, which will be pointed out in the following subsection.
Line managers as change implementers
In light of existing evidence of gaps between intended, enacted and perceived HRM and consistent with Caldwell’s (2004) argument, Khilji and Wang (2006) found that employee satisfaction with HR practices largely depends upon the implementation of these practices. In fact, they stated: “Even with the best of intentions but without an effective management of the transformation process, it is difficult to transmit effects of good HR practices throughout the organization” (p. 1186). In consonance with this argumentation, Purcell and Hutchinson (2007) affirmed: “Poorly designed or inadequate policies can be ‘rescued’ by good
All in all, it thus seems important to focus on enacted HRM in addition to intended HRM, since the way HR practices are actually implemented by line managers have a more concrete and direct impact on employees’ behaviour, motivation and satisfaction than intended HR practices do. This line of reasoning led to my interest in the role of supervising line managers during the implementation of HR practices. Surprisingly, however, little research exists about the way in which those line managers actually affect the relationship between an organization’s HR practices and how these practices are perceived by employees (Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007; Kuvaas & Dysvik, 2010; Kuvaas, Dysvik & Buch, 2014). The current study will therefore focus on this untraveled matter of contention, and the essential role of both the supervising line manager and the HR professional during the implementation of HR practices will be the central topic of the forthcoming paragraphs.
HR professionals as change agents
In the previous paragraphs, it became apparent that HR professionals strive to ease the implementability of HR tools. They want to ensure that HR tools are employed effectively throughout the organization, but are clearly in search of a way to improve this implementation effectiveness. From change management literature it is known that change leaders or change agents often do not pay close enough attention to the variables that are essential when
implementing organizational changes (Self, Armenakis & Schraeder, 2007). The HRM gap as referred to in the previous subsections, could accordingly be resolved if HR professionals take care of the many factors that may ease or hinder programme implementability (Emans et al., 2011). Although Emans et al. (2011) expect the management of these so called
A promising framework for categorizing organizational change factors is one in which a threefold distinction is made with regard to determinants that may have a positive influence on the implementation of organizational changes, namely change content-, change process- and change context related factors (e.g., Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999; Pettigrew, 1987; Self et al., 2007). As reported by Self et al. (2007), it is of vital importance to systematically assess all three factors simultaneously in organizational change efforts. Building on these arguments, HR professionals should thus consider and subsequently optimize the whole of content-, process- and contextual factors when paying attention to the implementability of an HR tool. Nonetheless, no conclusive evidence yet exists concerning the factors that contribute to the implementability of HR programmes and the specific way in which they do so. The current study is set up to improve this understanding by investigating the interplay between change content-, change process- and change context related factors on the one hand, and employees’ perceived implementability on the other hand. I will attempt to find out to what degree and in what way change content-, change process- and change context related factors have an impact on employees’ perceived implementability of an HR tool.
Explanation of influential change content-, process- and context related factors
Change content related factors have to do with what is being changed and thus refer to the specifics of the change being implemented. There are a lot of change content related factors that may influence the implementability of a new HR tool. Key determinants regarding change content related factors are, amongst others, improvability, simplicity and
embeddedness (Emans et al., 2011).
Improvability refers to the degree to which involved organization members have room to make continuous improvements of the new tool by adapting and modifying it. A tool can be made more or less adjustable for a certain period, that is, more or less fixed. When a new tool is developed by HR professionals, they can decide to prescribe the way the tool has to be handled with in detail or, in contrast, to provide room for adaptations and modifications and thus let managers free therewith. The latter alternative is likely to be best from an
implementability point of view, since detailed prescriptions and tools that are bound by strict rules and procedures can have an opposite effect, as they may fail to entirely fit the specific situation each involved manager may find him or herself in (Emans et al., 2011).
Improvability is therefore considered to have a positive impact on employees’ perceived implementability of the HR tool.
(Emans et al., 2011). The simplicity of the HR tool is therefore likely to have a positive impact on employees’ perceptions about the implementability of the tool.
Embeddedness refers to the degree to which an HR practice fits in with, and is connected to, existing processes in the organization. A new HR tool does, in most cases, not directly form part of existing routines and procedures in the organization, since it is supposed to add something essentially new to those routines and procedures. HR professionals and other policy makers can nevertheless choose to design the new tool as such that discrepancies with existing routines and procedures are diminished. Because minimization of discrepancies with existing processes diminishes the newness of a tool for the employees involved and thus reduces the efforts they have to invest in applying and using the new tool, it will probably have a positive effect on their perceived implementability of the tool (Emans et al., 2011).
All things considered, I hypothesize that the change content related factors, improvability, simplicity and embeddedness, will enhance employees’ perceived implementability of the HR tool.
Planning refers to the degree to which a tool is introduced according to a sound planning (Emans et al., 2011). Change is a process that goes through a series of phases (i.e. steps) and requires a considerable length of time (Kotter, 1995). The planning of activities related to these various phases should be adequately set up in order to produce a satisfying result and to make sure all involved organization members actually participate in its realization. It is therefore assumed that a new HR tool is perceived more implementable, the more it is developed in a well-planned way.
Participation is defined as the degree to which the organization members who have to enact an HR tool are enabled to contribute to its development (Emans et al., 2011).
Participation belongs to one of the most advocated change management strategies, the so-called participative change strategy, which is also so-called organizational development, OD, in short (cf. Stace & Dunphy, 1991). The key characteristic of this approach is the co-decision making of involved organization members, both low and high in the hierarchy. This may optimize the quality of decisions and create a positive mindset towards the intended change among the participating organization members. It thus allows many organization members to exert influence on change related decisions and courses of action. Co-decision making by the involved supervising line managers and other employees may help to promote the
acceptability as well as the operability of the tool and consequently may enhance the perceived implementability thereof (Emans et al., 2011).
manner by which information about the change is conveyed. Messages of change seen as timely, useful, answering questions and communicated by an appropriate medium, favourably affect employees’ attitudes about the change. A change is more likely to be resisted, on the other hand, if information is disseminated late or in an inappropriate matter. If organizations want members to cooperate with a change, they should carefully plan the content and work out how the initial message of the change will be dispersed (Miller et al., 1994). In line with these arguments, Wanberg and Banas (2000) found that an increase in the dissemination of information was associated with greater change acceptance. Elaborating on the findings above, it is assumed that the higher the quality and usefulness of the information employees receive about the HR tool, the more likely it is that employees’ perceived implementability of the tool is high.
Altogether, I hypothesize that the change process related factors, planning, participation and change information, will positively contribute to employees’ perceived implementability of the HR tool.
relationship between the impact of the change (i.e. a change content related factor), organizational communications media (i.e. a change process related factor) and perceived justification of the change (i.e. employees’ interpretation of the change) was moderated by perceived organizational support (i.e. a change context related factor). Employees interpreted the change as less justified when the impact of the change became more severe, yet when they perceived organizational support to be high, this negative relationship did not apply. When the amount of support was perceived high, they indicated a positive relationship between the impact of the change and justification of the change.
In consonance with the aforestated arguments, I will introduce change context as moderator variable in this study. More specifically, I will focus on perceived HRM support (Emans et al., 2011) and perceived supervisor support (PSS) (Kottke & Sharafinski, 1988), which are some of the many internal change context related factors that may influence change implementation success. This study will investigate if these two change context related factors moderate (i.e. strengthen) the relationship between change content- and change process
related factors, and employees’ perceived implementability of the HR tool. The moderating role of these contextual variables will be explained in detail in the coming subsections.
the relationship between the change content- and change process related factors, and
employees’ perceived implementability of the HR tool, will be more positive. Accordingly, I hypothesize a moderating role of perceived HRM support on the positive effect of change content- and change process related factors on employees’ perceived implementability of the HR tool. In the next subsection, the moderating role of PSS will be discussed.
Perceived supervisor support refers to employees’ views concerning the degree to which their immediate supervisor values their contributions and cares about their well-being (e.g., Kottke & Sharafinski, 1988; Shanock & Eisenberger, 2006). The importance of being perceived as a supportive or relation-oriented manager during HR implementation is well documented in prior research (e.g., Buller & McEvoy, 1989; Dysvik & Kuvaas, 2012; Gilbert, De Winne & Sels, 2011). Incorporation of this factor in this study is based on the ideas of Purcell and Hutchinson (2007), Purcell, Kinnie, Swart, Rayton and Hutchinson (2009) and Kuvaas and Dysvik (2010), whose research hints at the highly interactive and dynamic relationship between the supervisor’s behaviour and employees’ perceptions of HR practices. That is, the immediate supervising line manager may affect the degree to which the change content- and change process related factors influence employees’ perceptions of HR practices, by providing support during the change process. Findings of the study of Kuvaas and Dysvik (2010), for instance, revealed that PSS moderated the relationship between perceived
Beyond supporting effective implementation and according to social exchange theory and leader–member exchange (LMX) research (cf. Wayne, Shore & Liden, 1997), a high level of PSS should also create an employee obligation to reciprocate their supervising line
manager for their support, by way of positive attitudes and behaviour toward both the supervising manager and the organization (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison & Sowa, 1986; Kuvaas & Dysvik, 2010). The perception of supervisor support is likely to trigger feelings of affect towards the supervising line manager and consequently should make the employee more susceptible of organizational goals and objectives. If this is the case, these positive feelings about the supervising line manager could influence employees’ receptivity towards the change initiative (Self et al., 2007).
Based on the above theorising and findings, I suggest that the effectiveness of HR practices as it is employed in the organization, as perceived by employees, will be indirectly affected by the degree in which they perceive support from their immediate supervisor. More specifically, I propose that the relationship between the change content- and change process related factors, and employees’ perceived implementability, will be moderated by PSS, in such a way that PSS accentuates this relationship. That is, perceived support of the supervisor during the implementation of HR practices may determine the influence of the change
content- and change process related factors on the perceptions of employees regarding the perceived effectiveness of HR practices as it is used in their organization. PSS may thus act as a contingency factor in this relationship. To that end, I hypothesize that PSS will moderate (i.e. strengthen) the positive effect of change content- and change process related factors on employees’ perceived implementability of the HR tool. The higher the PSS, the more positive the relationship between the change content- and change process related factors and
Hypotheses
In sum, I hypothesize that:
H1: The change content related factors, improvability, simplicity and embeddedness, will enhance employees' perceived implementability of the HR tool.
H2: The change process related factors, planning, participation and change information, will positively contribute to employees’ perceived implementability of the HR tool.
Supplementary, I hypothesize:
H3: The change context related factor perceived HRM support will moderate
(i.e. strengthen) the positive effect of change content- and change process related factors on employees’ perceived implementability of the HR tool.
The higher the perceived HRM support, the stronger the positive relationship between the change content- and change process related factors, and employees’ perceived
implementability of the HR tool.
Finally, I hypothesize that:
H4: The change context related factor PSS will moderate (i.e. strengthen) the positive effect of change content- and change process related factors on employees’ perceived implementability of the HR tool.
The higher the PSS, the stronger the positive relationship between the change content- and change process related factors and employees’ perceived implementability of the HR tool.
Method
In order to examine and test the research hypotheses constructed, a quantitative study has been conducted, based on data that were collected through a multi-item online
questionnaire. This questionnaire was filled out by employees of a Dutch company and results were processed by means of regression analyses.
Research site
The specific field of study in which the quantitative analysis has been conducted concerned a globally operating company in the North of the Netherlands that delivers products based on potato starch and protein for food, paper, building materials, textile, adhesives and animal feed applications. In October 2014, the HR department of this
organization introduced a performance management cycle among nearly thousand employees the organization employed at that moment. Together with the implementation of some other HR practices (such as an HR portal), they intended to increase the efficiency of several HR processes, by giving further access to these processes to employees and managers within the organization. The specific purpose of the performance management cycle was to facilitate conversations between employees and managers about personal development and career goals. The performance management cycle consists of three meetings per year, being the plan-, development- and assessment meetings. During these meetings, each employee discusses his or her personal goals with his or her direct supervisor. This way, the
Materials
The questionnaire that was used for the current study formed part of a more
comprehensive questionnaire that has been constructed in Qualtrics (a web-enabled survey tool) and contained 104 items in total, of which 47 were relevant for this study. The scales of measurement that have been relevant for this study were improvability, simplicity,
embeddedness, planning, participation, change information, perceived HRM support, PSS and implementability. Some of these scales (i.e. embeddedness, HRM support and
implementability) contained several reverse coded items to check if the respondents had given consistent answers. The questionnaire moreover included some general demographic
questions (e.g., gender, year of birth and level of education) and questions about the job (e.g., organizational tenure and length of employment in the current position). This background information was gathered to allow to check for covariates in the analysis.
To ensure discriminant validity of the variables and to check for underlying
also performed a principal component analysis with respectively three, two and one factor(s), using varimax and orthogonal design. As evidenced by Tables 5 to 10 in Appendix A, these analyses resulted in factor structures that very adequately represented the original variables.
A couple of measures (i.e. change information and PSS) were originally developed in English and were translated to Dutch for the purpose of this study. To establish equivalence in measurement (Beaton, Bombardier, Guillemin & Ferraz, 2000; Warwick & Osherson, 1973), I, as native speaker of the target language and with knowledge of the concepts, translated the items from English to Dutch and made a final forward translation to Dutch together with my fellow researcher, whose native language is Dutch as well. All translated items were checked and finalized by the joint consultative committee of the organization under study. Finally, a pilot study among those people who would complete the questionnaire was conducted to ensure conceptual equivalence. In addition, all items were adapted to the specific situation of this research setting and made suitable for the set of participants that cooperated in this research. For example, I systematically replaced ‘the programme’ with ‘the HR cycle’ and eased the phrasing of the items to make sure the questionnaire would be workable across the sites covered. These adjustments were verified by some managers and the joint consultative committee of the organization under study and can be found in Appendix B (both the original and used items). The various scales that were of interest for this study will be described in detail below and the procedure and the sample of this study will be explained thereafter.
Change content related factors. In this subsection, the scales used to measure the change content related factors, improvability, simplicity and embeddedness, will be defined. These constructs have all been measured using subscales of the questionnaire about
Improvability was measured using two items (α = .68). An example statement from this subscale is: “The HR-cycle is continuously being improved based on practical
experiences of users”.
Simplicity was examined with two items. An example of an item that is associated with this construct is: “The HR-cycle is understandable”. The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .90.
Embeddedness was measured with three items (α =.80). An example item of this scale is: “For me, the execution of the HR-cycle goes well with my daily activities”.
Change process related factors. In the following subsection, the scales used to measure the change process related factors, planning, participation and change information, will be described. Both planning and participation have been measured using subscales of the questionnaire of Emans et al. (2011). The items used to measure change information have been adapted from the questionnaire of Miller et al. (1994). The participants completed the various items using a 7-point Likert scale, with 1 being “fully disagree” and 7 being “fully agree”. The most essential features of the change process related factors will be defined next.
Planning was measured using three items (α = .91). An example statement from this subscale is: “Implementation of the HR-cycle was managed well”.
Participation was examined with three items. An example of an item that is associated with this construct is: “I was being involved in the development of the HR-cycle”. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .85.
Change information was assessed with four items (α = .88) based on an existing scale used by Miller et al. (1994). This English scale was translated to Dutch for the purpose of this study and adjusted for the specific situation of the research site. An example change
Change context related factors. The scales used to measure the change context related factors, HRM support and PSS, will be construed next. The participants answered the various items by means of a Likert scale, which ranged from 1 (“fully disagree”) to 7 (“fully agree”).
Perceived HRM support was examined with a subscale of the questionnaire about implementation levers of Emans et al. (2011). In total, seven items were used which were combined to form one scale for perceived HRM support. An example statement from this subscale is: “The contribution of the HRM department is such that they make the use of the HR-cycle easier”. Cronbach’s alpha for this subscale was .94.
Perceived supervisor support was measured with a four item scale (α = .87) adapted from Eisenberger et al. (1986) and translated to Dutch for the purpose of this study. An example item that is associated with this construct is: “My supervisor cares about my opinions”.
Implementability. The scale to measure this dependent variable has been adapted from the questionnaire of Emans et al. (2011) and contained six items (α = .72). The
participants responded to the statements through a 7-point scale, with 1 being “fully disagree” and 7 being “fully agree”. An example item of this scale is: “The HR-cycle totally meets my expectations”.
Procedure
confidentially and that participation was entirely voluntary. Besides, it was pointed out to the participants that they could stop filling in the questionnaire any time. After reading the introduction, the participants could give consent to participating in this study and start answering the questions anonymously. At the end of each block of questions, a text box was added that could be used to write down some extra remarks or feedback on the subjects that were addressed in the previous block. Completion of the questionnaire took about fifteen minutes. After a couple of days, a message was posted on Intranet again, reminding the employees of the survey. Later on, after about one week, this procedure was repeated to increase response.
Participants
Results Assumptions and descriptive analysis
Prior to testing the expected effects by means of various multiple regression analyses, I checked for violations of the corresponding assumptions, i.e. statistical independence, linearity, homoscedasticity and normality. Graphs and the results of several tests showed that all of the assumptions for the given model were met, so the analyses were carried out as intended. Means, standard deviations and inter-correlations are provided in Table 1. Although the predictor variables seem to highly correlate, collinearity diagnostics indicated
multicollinearity was not a concern (improvability, Tolerance = .53, VIF = 1.88; simplicity, Tolerance = .48, VIF = 2.09; embeddedness, Tolerance = .37, VIF = 2.67; planning,
Tolerance = .35, VIF = 2.89; participation, Tolerance = .64, VIF = 1.56; change information, Tolerance = .33, VIF = 3.07; HRM support, Tolerance = .52, VIF = 1.92; PSS, Tolerance = .69, VIF = 1.45).
Regression analyses
A multiple regression analysis has been conducted to test the hypothesized positive relationships between the various change content- and change process related factors and perceived implementability (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). Sex, age and level of education were first added as control variables in this analysis. Since none of the control variables appeared to have a significant effect on the dependent variable, they were not incorporated in further analyses (see Table 2, in which all p values presented are for a two-tailed test). The model containing all factors (i.e. model 2) tested significant, F = 29.85, p < .001, and explained 59% of the variance of the degree of perceived implementability among the participants.
implementability, on the other hand, was not significant (B = -.02, t = -0.54, p =.59). These results are therefore partially consistent with the first hypothesis that the change content related factors, improvability, simplicity and embeddedness, enhance employees’ perceived implementability of the HR tool.
With regard to the change process related factors, the regression analysis showed a significant positive main effect of both planning and change information (B = .20, t = 4.12, p < .001; B = .12, t = 2.07, p =.04, respectively). Participation, on the contrary, had no significant positive relationship with implementability (B = .01, t = 0.24, p = .81). Hence, the second hypothesis, that the change process related factors, planning, participation and change information, positively contribute to employees’ perceived implementability of the HR tool, was only supported to a certain degree.
The regression analysis furthermore revealed that PSS was positively related to implementability (B = .07, t = 2.09, p = .04) and that there was no direct significant positive relationship between HRM support and implementability (B = -.04, t = -0.81, p = .42), set aside from an indirect relationship through the connectedness of HRM support with factors such as improvability and simplicity, which will be explained in the next subsection.
t = 2.07, p = .04, see Table 4) and change information and HRM support (B = .09, t = 2.40, p = .02, see Table 8). To examine the pattern of the interaction-effects, I conducted three separate simple slopes analyses (Aiken & West, 1991). It appeared that both improvability, simplicity and change information were positively related to implementability when HRM support was low (B = .28, t = 4.26, p < .001; B = .24, t = 3.62, p < .001; B = .42, t = 6.83, p < .001, respectively), but even more positively related to implementability when HRM support was high (B = .52, t = 7.77, p < .001; B = .42, t = 5.38, p < .001; B = .59, t = 8.47, p < .001, respectively). This is illustrated in Figures 1, 2 and 3. As shown in Tables 5 to 7, the interaction between embeddedness and HRM support, planning and HRM support and
participation and HRM support was not significant (B = .04, t = 0.91, p = .36; B = .04, t = 1.03, p = .30; B = .06, t = 1.29, p = .20, respectively). The third hypothesis, that HRM support enhances the positive effect of change content- and change process related factors on employees’ perceived implementability of the HR tool, is therefore only supported with reference to the levers improvability, simplicity and change information. The moderating role of HRM support is, by contrast, not supported for the relationship between embeddedness, planning, and participation on the one hand and employees’ perceived implementability on the other.
information and PSS (B = .12, t = 2.87, p = .01). Again, separate simple slopes analyses were conducted to examine the pattern of the significant interaction-effects. As depicted in Figures 4-7, the effect of both improvability, simplicity, embeddedness and change information on perceived implementability was significant positive when PSS was low (B = .34, t = 5.40, p < .001; B = .23, t = 3.58, p < .001; B = .37, t = 5.28, p < .001; B = .38, t = 6.01, p < .001, respectively), yet even more positive when PSS was high (B = .50, t = 7.33, p < .001; B = .49, t = 6.47, p < .001; B = .59, t = 8.92, p < .001; B = .62, t = 9.18, p < .001, respectively). These results are in consonance with the last hypothesis that PSS moderates the positive effect of change content- and change process related factors on employees’ perceived implementability of the HR tool. Nonetheless, the regression analysis showed no significant positive interaction between planning and PSS (B = .05, t = 1.26, p = .21, see Table 12), and participation and PSS (B = .04, t = 0.84, p = .40, see Table 13). The last hypothesis is thence supported with reference to the change content related factors and in part for the change process related factors (i.e. only for change information).
The next section will answer the research questions and discuss the findings of this study in depth. In the last part of this final section, the theoretical as well as the practical implications will be described, and limitations and suggestions for future research are pointed out.
Discussion
The aim of this paper was to investigate the influence of several implementation levers on employees’ perceived implementability of a specific HR tool, that is, a performance
HR programmes did not yet exist, the current study specifically examined to what degree and in what way change content-, change process- and change context related factors have an impact on employees’ perceived implementability of the HR tool. I hypothesized that the change content related factors, improvability, simplicity and embeddedness (Emans et al., 2011), and the change process related factors, planning, participation (Emans et al., 2011) and change information (Miller et al., 1994), would enhance employees’ perceived
implementability of the HR tool. Supplementary, and in consonance with the arguments of Johns (2001) and Self et al. (2007), I introduced change context as a moderator variable in this study. I expected two specific change context related factors, i.e. perceived HRM support (Emans et al., 2011) and perceived supervisor support (PSS) (Kottke & Sharafinski, 1988), to moderate (i.e. strengthen) the relationship between the change content- and change process related factors on the one hand, and employees’ perceived implementability of the HR tool on the other hand. That is, the higher the perceived HRM- or supervisor support, the more
positive the relationship between the change content- and change process related factors and employees’ perceived implementability of the HR tool. The results with respect to these hypotheses will be successively discussed in the forthcoming paragraphs.
The impact of change related factors on implementability
under study (i.e. content related factors), the process of implementing it (i.e. process related factors) and the situational conditions (i.e. context related factors). Accordingly, the findings regarding the performed tests of the hypotheses are interpreted below in terms of
unidirectional impacts of the change related factors on employees’ perceived
implementability. The next three subsections will discuss the findings concerning the impact of the specific change content-, change process- and change context related factors on employees’ perceived implementability of the HR tool.
Change content related factors. As regards the change content related factors, both improvability and embeddedness of the tool positively contribute to employees’ perceived implementability. These results are in line with previous research of Emans et al. (2011) and hence confirm their theory about the impact of these levers on the extent to which a new HR tool is perceived implementable, with an additional note that both levers also seem to be relevant in the specific event of a performance management cycle.
The simplicity of the tool, however, does not appear to enhance employees’ perceived implementability and therefore contrast earlier findings of Emans et al. (2011). The absence of this main effect for simplicity can be caused by non-substantive matters, such as a lack of dispersion of this predictor or the unreliability thereof. Nonetheless, it appeared that the quality of the statistics concerning simplicity (e.g., alpha, standard deviation) did not differ from the quality of the statistics concerning improvability and embeddedness. Accordingly, the non-significant result for simplicity indicates the absence of a direct link with perceived implementability. The strong positive correlation between simplicity and implementability (see Table 1), however, implies that simplicity does relate to employees’ perceived
does not directly contribute to employees’ perceived implementability. Even though the use, acceptance and effectiveness of a change programme were clearly related to simplicity in previous studies (Emans et al., 2011; Davis, 1989; Rogers, 1983), it is conceivable that embeddedness (Emans et al., 2011), change information (Miller et al., 1994) or other factors, such as positive experiences with former changes (Devos, Vanderheyden & Van den Broeck, 2001), more strongly determined employees’ beliefs about the effectiveness of the tool as it was used in the organization. Future research could focus on the effect of simplicity, and address other change content related factors as well.
Change process related factors. Regarding the change process related factors, planning as well as change information seem to increase employees’ perceived
implementability, yet no effect exists for participation. The findings with regard to the positive relationship between planning and employees’ perceived implementability confirm the theory of Emans et al. (2011) and thus support the notion that an HR tool is more implementable if it is introduced in a well-planned manner. As regards the factor change information, the results are consistent with the findings of, for instance, Miller et al. (1994) and Wanberg and Banas (2000). As follows, the effectiveness of the tool as it is employed in the organization may be increased when the organization provides qualitative and useful information about the change.
The lack of a main effect for participation, however, contrasts previous research of Emans et al. (2011), who identified an increase in implementability if participating
relationship between participation and perceived implementability is truly absent. A possible explanation for this diverging result lies within the extent to which employees’ perceive the HR tool to be advantageous. Although participation generally proved to enhance
implementability in the qualitative study of Emans et al. (2011), this was not the case in one specific organization in which they conducted their research. In this organization, the benefits of the new HR tool were so evident that the involved organization members felt no need to participate in the change and to give their opinion, and therefore confidently left all decision making to the organization. Along these lines, it is possible that the degree to which an HR tool is perceived advantageous, weakens the direct positive influence of participation on implementability. This could also explain why participation did not significantly enhance employees’ perceived implementability directly in this study, but future research should further investigate the relationship between participation and implementability, and test the moderating impact of the advantageousness of the HR tool on this relationship.
Change context related factors. Although it was not hypothesized initially, the results of this study showed that PSS also directly enhances employees’ perceived
implementability of the HR tool. This finding is consistent with previous research about the impact of PSS on employees’ reactions and opinions to (HR) change (Dysvik & Kuvaas, 2012; Gilbert et al., 2011; Kuvaas & Dysvik, 2010; Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007). One explanation for this direct effect of supervisor support on employees’ perceptions might have something to do with reciprocation (Self et al., 2007). It is conceivable that those who perceive a lot of support from their supervisor, feel inclined and obliged to reciprocate their supervisor for the amount of support, by advocating the change and participate in its
Conclusion. To conclude on this first part regarding the direct impact of several change related factors on employees’ perceived implementability, the findings of this study indicate that improvability, embeddedness, planning, change information and PSS are crucial factors when designing and implementing an HR-initiated change, because they all seem to have a direct positive impact on employees’ perceived implementability. For this reason, it seems more likely that a new HR tool will be implementable if these specific factors are taken into account. The situation regarding the impact of the levers simplicity and participation is different. From the current study it appeared that simplicity is highly correlated with other levers, yet it does not have a direct positive impact on employees’ perceptions regarding the perceived effectiveness of the tool as it is employed in their organization. The reason for this might be that the other levers under study, or alternative factors, influenced employees’ perceived implementability to a greater extent. As regards the explanation for the lack of a main effect for participation, it is conceivable that the degree to which an HR tool is perceived to be advantageous weakens the direct positive impact of participation on employees’
perceived implementability. However, more research is needed to unravel the complex and direct role of content-, process- and context related factors in change situations and to
understand their impact on the implementability of HR tools. For future research it might also be interesting to take other influential factors into account and focus on their impact on employees’ perceived implementability.
The next subsections contain a discussion of the findings with respect to the
The moderating role of change context related factors
In general, the outcomes of the analysis regarding the moderating role of perceived HRM- and supervisor support revealed that both perceived HRM support and PSS may enhance the positive effect of change content- and change process related factors on employees’ perceived implementability of the HR tool, at least in a certain degree. This means that the degree to which employees perceive support from either the HR department or their immediate supervisor may strengthen the positive effect of some influential change factors on employees’ perceptions about the effectiveness of the tool as it is employed in the organization. Although these two specific change context related factors do not have a strengthening effect among all change content- and change process related factors, it seems there is an effect. This finding is in consonance with the results of the study of Self et al. (2007), in which they found internal context to moderate the relationship between change content- and change process related factors, and employees’ interpretations of the change. It is important to incorporate the moderating role of both HRM support and PSS in future studies and to explore their impact more extensively. A discussion of the findings regarding the specific role of perceived HRM support and PSS will be provided in the next two subsections.
The moderating role of HRM support. From this study, it appeared that improvability, simplicity and change information increase employees’ perceived
implementability to a greater extent when HRM support is high, than when HRM support is low. These results therefore confirm the line of reasoning of Self et al. (2007) and support the notion that internal context factors may moderate the relationship between change content- and change process related factors, and employees’ perceptions of the change, also in the particular case of a performance management cycle.
employees’ perceived implementability of the HR tool on the other. The reason why this moderating role of perceived HRM support is not true for the relationship between these three specific factors and employees’ perceived implementability is not directly clear, but it might have something to do with the classification of the type of this moderator and can be
explained as follows.
According to Howell and Dorfman (1986), situational moderators, such as HRM support, can be classified into four different types of moderators, namely substitutes, neutralizers, enhancers and supplements. A moderator which is classified as a substitute replaces the independent variable (which, in this study, would be one of the implementation levers) and makes it redundant. If a moderator is classified as a neutralizer, it makes the independent variable impossible, while a moderator which is classified as an enhancer
strengthens the effect of the independent variable. If a moderator is classified as a supplement, it means the moderator has an effect on the dependent variable on its own, but does not
interact with the independent variable. In the present study, both HRM support and PSS were exclusively classified and treated as enhancers. Following Howell and Dorfman’s (1986) typology, however, these situational moderators could (and may be should) also have been classified as a substitute of or a supplement for (some of) the independent variables. This possibly explains why perceived HRM support does not enhance the positive relationship between embeddedness, planning and participation, and employees’ perceived
implementability of the HR tool. Future research could examine if perceived HRM support (and PSS) should also be categorized as one of these alternative types of moderators, rather than solely being classified an treated as an enhancer. After all, additional research is needed to clear up the complex role of HRM support in change processes and its effect on the
The moderating role of PSS. With regard to the moderating role of PSS, the results showed that PSS strengthens the positive effect of all change content related factors under study on employees’ perceived implementability. Likewise, the change process related factor change information enhances employees’ perceived implementability of the HR tool,
especially when PSS is high. This suggests that improvability, simplicity, embeddedness and change information all might enhance employees’ perceived implementability to a greater extent when PSS is high compared to when PSS is low. The fact that PSS moderates (i.e. strengthens) the positive impact of all three change content related factors, and the change process factor change information, on employees’ perceived implementability of the HR tool is in keeping with results of the study of Kuvaas and Dysvik (2010) and Purcell et al. (2009). The consistency of the moderating effect of PSS in this and the above mentioned studies may indicate generalizability to other situations and participants.
The relationship between planning and employees’ perceived implementability, and participation and employees’ perceived implementability is, by contrast, not moderated by the level of PSS. A possible, more general, explanation lies in the effect that other situational factors may have had on the relations between change content-, process- and context related factors, and employees’ perceived implementability. The substitutes for leadership theory (e.g., Kerr & Jermier, 1978) for instance, posits that certain variables (e.g., experience of employees or spatial distance between superior and subordinate) can make leadership actions, like providing support, unnecessary or even impossible. In other words, these variables may be seen as substitutes for leadership behaviors. It is feasible that certain substitutes, such as need for leadership (De Vries, 1995; De Vries, Roe & Taillieu, 2002), affected the impact of PSS on the relation between some change related factors (for example, planning and
Still, the result that PSS can enhance employees’ perceived implementability by accentuating the relationship between (content related) implementation levers and employees’ perceived implementability is worth mentioning, because it assumes that the degree to which supervisors provide support to their employees helps the implementation success of HR-initiated changes. For future studies it might be of interest to further explore the influence of supervisor support during (HR) change processes and assess its impact on the relationship between various levers and employees’ perceived implementability. The next paragraph will discuss the theoretical implications and presents a number of suggestions for future research. Theoretical implications and suggestions for future research
The findings of this study complement previous work about factors that may ease or hinder implementation success of (HR) change programmes (e.g., Emans et al., 2011; Self et al., 2007), by incorporating various implementation levers and treat HRM- and supervisor support as moderator variables. Moreover, this study further validated the findings of Emans et al. (2011) by testing their implementation lever model and specifying it to the field of performance management types of programmes. Although not all implementation levers that were incorporated in this study increase employees’ perceived implementability, the results suggest that certain change content-, change process- and change context related factors may either directly or indirectly increase the effectiveness of a tool as it is employed in the
Still and all, the success of organizational changes does not solely depend on the actions of either HR professionals or supervising line managers alone. For future studies it might also be interesting to look at the characteristics of the organization that play a role in the change process, such as the organizational culture (Schneider, 1975; 1990). The
subsequent paragraph will explicate some limitations of the current study. Limitations
available. Finally, the validity of the instrument used here to measure the implementation levers and the implementability of the HR tool needs more empirical confirmation. The final subsection of this paper will spell out some important implications for practice.
Practical implications and conclusions
In order to be able to say something about the use of the obtained results in practice, future research should be conducted to reassess the hypotheses of this study. Despite its limitations, the findings of the present study provide some implications for practice, which could potentially be of value for scientific and organizational sectors. It offers various insights into the effects of implementations levers on employees’ perceived implementability and the essential role played by HR professionals and supervisors in HR-initiated change processes.
Especially for HR professionals, this study provides some points of reference in the form of influential change content-, change process- and change context related factors that may affect employees’ perceived implementability. HR managers should take these factors into account when designing and implementing a new HR tool, so that all involved
organization members do participate in its realization and are able to use the tool effectively throughout the organization. This is in keeping with research of Armenakis and Bedeian (1999) and Self et al. (2007), who also advice HR professionals to assess the whole of
determinants that may have an influence on the implementation of organizational changes and optimize them subsequently. This research thereby also benefits line managers, whose role as a change manager is becoming increasingly important due to the principle of devolution (e.g., Holt Larsen & Brewster, 2003). They can use the insights gained from this study to improve their efforts to manage the implementation of an HR-initiated change. As such, HR
Besides paying attention to influential change factors, HR professionals and
supervisors need to provide support during the implementation of the HR tool. This is for the reason that the degree to which employees perceive support from the HR department and/or their own supervisor may enhance the positive effect of some change content- and change process related factors on employees’ perceptions about the effectiveness of the tool as it is employed in the organization. Especially support from the direct supervisor may boost the impact of implementation levers on the development of employees’ perceived
implementability. As demonstrated by the results of this study and in line with research of, amongst others, Dysvik and Kuvaas (2012), Gilbert et al. (2011) and Kuvaas and Dysvik (2010), line managers may either directly or indirectly positively affect employees’ perceptions of HR practices, by providing support to them. In other words, positive
experiences with them (i.e. high levels of PSS) may positively influence the degree to which an organization’s HR practices are being perceived to be employed effectively by employees, either directly or by strengthening the positive contribution of change content- and change process related factors on employees’ perceived implementability. These remarks once again highlight the vital role of supervising line managers when implementing HR practices and the importance for them to value employees’ contributions and care about their well-being. In this way, the supervising line manager is able to assist the HR professional in taking care of the implementability of HR programmes.
might prevent supervising line managers from executing their HR responsibilities effectively. These constraints are, for instance, inadequate training, a lack of support from HR specialists and high workloads. Due to these barriers, it might be difficult for supervising line managers to be perceived as supportive among their employees. Organizations should therefore try to design and implement the HR practices in a more convenient and manageable way (Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007).
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Armenakis, A. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (1999). Organizational change: A review of theory and research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25(3), 293-315.
doi:10.1177/014920639902500303
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Field, H. S. (1999). Making change permanent: A model for institutionalizing change interventions. In W. A. Passmore & R. W. Woodman (Ed.), Research in organizational development and change (pp. 97-128). Stamford, CA: JAI Press.
Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25(24), 3186-3191. doi:10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014
Bos-Nehles, A. C. (2010). The line makes the difference: Line managers as effective HR partners (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Twente, Twente. Buller, P. F., & McEvoy, G. M. (1989). Determinants of the institutionalization of planned
organizational change. Group & Organization Management, 14(1), 33-50. doi:10.1177/105960118901400105
Caldwell, R. (2004). Rhetoric, facts and self-fulfilling prophecies: Exploring practitioners’ perceptions of progress in implementing HRM. Industrial Relations Journal, 35(3), 196-215. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2338.2004.00309.x
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: L. NJ Erlbaum.
De Vries, R. E. (1995). Measuring substitutes for leadership using the concepts need for leadership: A cross-sectional research. Tilburg University, Tilburg.
De Vries, R. E., Roe, R. A., & Taillieu, T. C. . (2002). Need for leadership as a moderator of the relationships between leadership and individual outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(2), 121–137. doi:10.1016/s1048-9843(02)00097-8
Devos, G., Vanderheyden, K., & Van den Broeck, H. (2001). A framework for assessing commitment to change: Process and context variables of organizational change. Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Washington, DC.
Dysvik, A., & Kuvaas, B. (2012). Perceived supervisor support climate, perceived investment in employee development climate, and business-unit performance. Human Resource Management, 51(5), 651-664. doi:10.1002/hrm.21494
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500-507.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500
Emans, B. J. M., Postema, M.W., Weering, G., Peelen, A., & Boeve, A. J. (2011). HRM implementation levers: a two-fold study about the implementability of HRM tools. Paper presented at the Dutch HRM Network conference, Groningen.
Gilbert, C., De Winne, S., & Sels, L. (2011). The influence of line managers and HR department on employees' affective commitment. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(8), 1618-1637. doi:10.1080/09585192.2011.565646 Howell, J. P., & Dorfman, P. W. (1986). Leadership and substitutes for leadership among
professional and nonprofessional workers. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 22(1), 29-46. doi:10.1177/002188638602200106
Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22(3), 375–403.
doi:10.1016/0030-5073(78)90023-5
Khilji, S. E., & Wang, X. (2006). 'Intended' and 'implemented' HRM: The missing linchpin in strategic human resource management research. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(7), 1171-1189. doi:10.1080/09585190600756384 Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business
Review, 73(2), 59-67.
Kottke, J. L., & Sharafinski, C. E. (1988). Measuring perceived supervisory and
organizational support. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48(4), 1075-1079. doi:10.1177/0013164488484024
Kuvaas, B., & Dysvik, A. (2010). Exploring alternative relationships between perceived investment in employee development, perceived supervisor support and employee outcomes. Human Resource Management Journal, 20(2), 138-156.
doi:10.1111/j.1748-8583.2009.00120.x
Kuvaas, B., Dysvik, A., & Buch, R. (2014). Antecedents and employee outcomes of line managers' perceptions of enabling HR practices. Journal of Management Studies, 51(6), 845-868. doi:10.1111/joms.12085
Larsen, H. H., & Brewster, C. (2003). Line management responsibility for HRM: What is happening in Europe? Employee Relations, 25(3), 228-244.
doi:10.1108/01425450310475838
Legge, K. (1995). HRM: Rhetorics and Realities. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social science; social equilibria and social change. Human Relations, 1(1), 5–41.
McGovern, P., Gratton, L., Hope-Hailey, V., Stiles, P., & Truss, C. (1997). Human resource management on the line? Human Resource Management Journal, 7(4), 12-29. doi:10.1111/j.1748-8583.1997.tb00286.x
Miller, K. I., & Monge, P. R. (1985). Social information and employee anxiety about organizational change. Human Communication Research, 11(3), 365-386. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1985.tb00052.x
Miller, V. D., Johnson, J. R., & Grau, J. (1994). Antecedents to willingness to participate in a planned organizational change. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22(1), 59-80. doi:10.1080/00909889409365387
Milliken, F. J. (1987). Three types of perceived uncertainty about the environment: State, effect, and response uncertainty. The Academy of Management Review, 12(1), 133-143. doi:10.2307/257999
Nehles, A. C., Terhalle, A. M., Van Riemsdijk, M. J. & Looise, J. K. (2009). Line managers as implementers of HRM: are they effective? Paper presented at the Dutch HRM network conference, Amsterdam.
Panayotopoulou, L., Vakola, M., & Galanaki, E. (2007). E-HR adoption and the role of HRM: Evidence from Greece. Personnel Review, 36(2), 277-294.
doi:10.1108/00483480710726145
Perry, E. L., & Kulik, C. T. (2008). The devolution of HR to the line: Implications for perceptions of people management effectiveness. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(2), 262-273. doi:10.1080/09585190701799838
Purcell, J., & Hutchinson, S. (2007). Front-line managers as agents in the HRM-performance causal chain: Theory, analysis and evidence. Human Resource Management Journal, 17(1), 3-20. doi:10.1111/j.1748-8583.2007.00022.x
Purcell, J., Kinnie, N., Swart, J., Rayton, B. & Hutchinson, S. (2009). People Management and Performance. London, UK: Routledge.
Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. New York, NY: The Free Press. Self, D. R., Armenakis, A. A., & Schraeder, M. (2007). Organizational change content,
process, and context: A simultaneous analysis of employee reactions. Journal of Change Management, 7(2), 211-229. doi:10.1080/14697010701461129
Shanock, L. R., & Eisenberger, R. (2006). When supervisors feel supported: Relationships with subordinates' perceived supervisor support, perceived organizational support, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 689-695.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.689
Stace, D. A., & Dunphy, D. C. (1991). Beyond traditional paternalistic and developmental approaches to organizational change and human resource strategies. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2(3), 263-283.
doi:10.1080/09585199100000068
Ulrich, D. (1998). A new mandate for human resources. Harvard Business Review, 76(1), 124-134.
Wanberg, C. R., & Banas, J. T. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of openness to changes in a reorganizing workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 132-142.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.132
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader- member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 82-111. doi:10.2307/257021
Whittaker, S., & Marchington, M. (2003). Devolving HR responsibility to the line: Threat, opportunity or partnership? Employee Relations, 25(3), 245-261.
doi:10.1108/01425450310475847
Table 1
Means, standard deviations and correlations between sex, age, level of education, improvability, simplicity, embeddedness, planning, participation, change information, HRM support, perceived supervisor support (PSS) and implementability (N = 225)
Table 2
Regression of implementability on sex, age, level of education, improvability, simplicity, embeddedness, planning, participation, change information, HRM support and perceived supervisor support (PSS) (N = 225)
B SE B t p Adj. R2 R2 change Model F Model p
Table 3
Regression of implementability on improvability and HRM support (N = 225)
B SE B t p Adj. R2 R2 change Model F Model p
Model .40 .02 51.65 .00
Constant 75.52 .00
Improvability .40 .05 7.45 .00
HRM support .30 .06 5.37 .00
Improvability * HRM support .12 .04 3.03 .00
Figure 1. Implementability as a function of improvability and HRM support. 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5
Improvability low Improvability high
Table 4
Regression of implementability on simplicity and HRM support (N = 225)
B SE B t p Adj. R2 R2 change Model F Model p
Model .33 .01 38.27 .00
Constant 70.98 .00
Simplicity .33 .06 5.71 .00
HRM support .32 .06 5.48 .00
Simplicity * HRM support .09 .04 2.07 .04
Figure 2. Implementability as a function of simplicity and HRM support. 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5
Simplicity low Simplicity high
Table 5
Regression of implementability on embeddedness and HRM support (N = 225)
B SE B t p Adj. R2 R2 change Model F Model p
Table 6
Regression of implementability on planning and HRM support (N = 225)
B SE B t p Adj. R2 R2 change Model F Model p
Model .47 .00 68.29 .00
Constant 79.37 .00
Planning .53 .05 9.92 .00
HRM support .18 .05 3.25 .00
Table 7
Regression of implementability on participation and HRM support (N = 225)
B SE B t p Adj. R2 R2 change Model F Model p
Model .32 .01 34.17 .00
Constant 72.15 .00
Participation .24 .06 4.14 .00
HRM support .37 .06 6.31 .00
