How leadership styles influence subordinates’ commitment to
change: A study of the role of autonomy
Willem Evers
2
Abstract
The aim of this study is to investigate the relationship between leadership styles and employee commitment to change. The study examines the effects of transformational and the transactional leadership component of management by exception on subordinates’ commitment to change and whether these relationships can be explained trough effects on subordinates’ perceived autonomy. A sample consisting of 69 middle managers in a Dutch health care organization completed a
questionnaire containing items measuring transformational and transactional leadership behaviours, autonomy and commitment to change. Regression analysis was used to analyze the data. Findings reveal a positive association between transformational leadership and affective commitment, a negative association between transformational leadership and continuance commitment and a positive association between management by exception and continuance commitment. Autonomy was found to mediate the associations of transformational leadership with affective commitment and continuance commitment. The findings indicate that transformational leadership and
3 Inhoudsopgave Abstract ... 2 Inhoudsopgave ... 3 Introduction ... 4 Theory ... 5 Methods ... 9
Sample and Procedure ... 9
Measures ... 10
Analysis ... 11
Results ... 12
Conclusion and Discussion ... 16
Implications for theory and research... 17
Practical implications ... 18
Limitations and future research directions ... 18
Conclusion... Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. References ... 21
Appendix A: Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire... 25
Appendix B: Work Autonomy Measures ... 27
4
Introduction
Over the last few decades the subject of organizational change has become increasingly relevant. Organizations are confronted with increasing globalization, deregulation and political, social and technological changes. In order to survive in increasingly dynamic and unstable environments, organizations have to adapt to these changes. This has led to the development of a large body of theory and research into the causes and effects of organizational change. According to Conner and Patterson (1982), the most prevalent factor contributing to failed organizational change is a lack of employee commitment to the changes. However, only since the beginning of this century have researchers started to pay more attention to employee’s reactions to organizational changes. Understanding the reasons why employees support or resist change is of vital importance for the effective implementation of change (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002).
According to Yukl (2012), “Leading change is one of the most important and difficult responsibilities for managers and administrators”. Leadership styles seem to be highly important in shaping employee’s reactions to change. Recently, a vast amount of researchers have studied the effect of leadership styles on employees’ reactions to organizational changes. (Herold et al. 2008; López-Domínguez et al. 2013; Michaelis, Stegmaier & Sonntag, 2009; Nemanich & Keller, 2007; Oreg & Berson, 2011; Seo et al. 2012; Yang, 2011, 2012). This article wants to add to the literature about employees’ reactions to change by further investigating the relation between leadership styles and employees’ commitment to change. Particularly, we will investigate the effects of transformational and transactional leadership on employees’ commitment to change. We will also try to explain these effects through the impact these leadership styles have on employees’ perceived autonomy and consequently employee’s commitment to change. This leads us to the following research questions: Do transformational leadership and transactional leadership promote subordinates commitment to change?
5
Theory
Transformational leaders are able to transform the beliefs and attitudes of their followers so that they are willing to do more than might reasonably be expected of them. The most influential theory of transformational leadership is the one proposed by Bass (1985). At the core of this theory are four types of transformational leadership behaviour. Idealized influence means that the leader holds subordinates’ trust and respect, shows dedication to them, appeals to their hopes and dreams and acts as a role model to them. Inspirational motivation entails communicating an appealing vision and using symbols to help followers focus their effort. Intellectual stimulation means encouraging followers to view problems from different perspectives and stimulating them to think of creative solutions. Individualized consideration entails supporting, encouraging and coaching followers.
Transformational leadership is often linked to organizational change. Multiple proponents of transformational leadership state that it can be an especially effective leadership style in dynamic and unstable environments because of its change-oriented components (Bass, 1985; Mumford et al. 2002; Yukl, 2013). Research has found transformational leadership to be more strongly associated with organizational performance when the organization is undertaking a high level of organizational changes (Boga & Ensari, 2009). Studies into employee reactions to change have found
transformational leadership to be positively related to change-oriented organizational citizenship behaviour (López-Domínguez et al. 2012), followers change commitment (Herold et al. 2008; Michaelis, Stegmaier & Sonntag, 2009; Seo et al. 2012; Yang, 2011, 2012), acquisition acceptance (Nemanich & Keller, 2007) and negatively associated with resistance to change (Oreg & Berson, 2011). Based on theory and research this leads us to the following hypothesis:
6
Transformational leadership is often contrasted with transactional leadership. Transactional leaders try to motivate followers by appealing to their self-interest through exchange processes.
Transactional leadership consists of two components called “contingent reward” and “management by exception”. The contingent reward component entails clarifying goals and making rewards dependent on the attainment of these goals. Management by exception is characterized by monitoring performance and using corrective action in case of deviations from performance
standards. According to Bass (1985), a focus on transactional leadership can be counterproductive in a situation of organizational changes since transactional leaders often lack the capabilities to enact change successfully. Howell and Avolio (1993) state that reactive or exchange-oriented leadership behaviours may be less effective in a situation where changes occur rapidly. There is, however, a lack of research into the effect of transactional leadership behaviour on subordinates’ commitment to change. One study provides some preliminary evidence that transactional leadership has led to resistance to change (McCarthy et al. 2008). Based on theory and evidence the following hypothesis can be postulated:
H2: Transactional leadership behaviour is negatively associated with subordinates’ commitment to change.
Self-determination theory (SDT) explains human motivation through a person’s inherent growth tendencies and innate psychological needs (Gagné & Deci, 2005). According to SDT people have three basic psychological needs, namely autonomy, relatedness and competence. SDT proposes that social support can influence performance and well-being by affecting a person’s sense of autonomy, relatedness and competence. The current study will focus on perceptions of autonomy. Support from one’s leader can increase feelings of autonomy as this can involve providing choice and
7
can also engage in a directive style of supervision which can undermine an employee’s sense of job autonomy and is more in line with transactional leadership. Research found that
autonomy-supportive managerial styles like transformational leadership are related to multiple positive work outcomes (Deci et al., 2001). Supportive leadership behaviour has been found to increase employees’ perceived autonomy while unsupportive leadership behaviour was found to decrease employee’s perceived autonomy (Rooney et al., 2008).
Satisfaction of an employees’ need for autonomy could be related to leadership that provides inspiration, support, positive role modelling, and empowerment (Bass & Riggio, 2006). One
leadership style that might have a positive influence on employees’ perceptions of autonomy is transformational leadership. A key element of transformational leadership is claimed to be the ability to meet followers’ needs (Bass & Avolio, 2004). Relating to followers’ need for autonomy,
transformational leadership is said to develop, support and encourage employees (Bass, 1997). Research has revealed a positive relationship between transformational leadership and employees’ perceived autonomy (Hetland et al., 2011b) Another study has found a strong association between transformational leadership behaviour and fulfilment of employees’ need for autonomy (Hetland et al., 2011a). These studies suggest that transformational leaders support followers’ autonomy by providing their subordinates with choice and decision opportunities and control over the work environment.
8
Research on this subject has found that employees who have greater autonomy tend to be more committed to change (Dodd & Ganster, 1996; Thorsurd, 1972). Gagné, Koestner and
Zuckerman (2000) found in their research that satisfaction of the need for autonomy leads to greater acceptance of organizational change. In addition, Parish et al. (2007) find in their research that when employees have a sense of autonomy, they are more likely to commit positively to workplace change. One of their recommendations to managers is that when planning for change
implementation, it is worthwhile to consider giving employees a certain degree of decision making authority and control over the implementation of these changes.
This study will investigate whether subordinates’ perceived autonomy mediates the association between transformational leadership and subordinates’ commitment to change. Theory and research on this subject leads us to the following hypothesis:
H3: Subordinates’ perceived job autonomy explains the positive association between transformational leadership and subordinates’ commitment to change.
The management by exception component of transactional leadership can be linked to job autonomy since controlling behaviours by a leader might undermine subordinates’ feelings of autonomy. People experience pressure to think, feel, or behave in particular ways when they are controlled (Deci & Ryan, 2008) and this is clearly not in line with providing them autonomy. Therefore, active management by exception can have a negative effect on subordinates’ feelings of autonomy since it implies an active search for deviations from rules and standards by monitoring employees. These transactional behaviours are meant to anticipate problems and take corrective actions before problems arise (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Active management by exception creates a feeling that the leader is in control and focuses less on empowering and inspiring subordinates like transformational leadership does.
9
this study the relationship between transactional leadership behaviour, particularly the concept of active management by exception, and subordinates’ perceived job autonomy will be investigated. Theory and research on this subject leads us to the following hypothesis:
H4: Subordinates’ perceived job autonomy explains the negative association between transactional leadership and subordinates’ commitment to change.
Methods
Sample and Procedure
The empirical data that was used in this study was drawn from a Dutch health care institution that supplies care to people with an intellectual disability. This study has examined the effects of leadership on the autonomy and commitment to change of the middle managers. These people are hierarchically situated between senior management and the operational staff. They are responsible for leading teams that supply health care to clients and are accountable to the regional director. They work under the title of “Manager Primary Process”, which will be referred to as MPP from now on.
In 2012 the structure of the organization was changed significantly. The work units used to be organized in 25 regions. In order to cope with changes in the environment of the organization, the number of work units was reduced to 18 regions. Every work unit still has one regional director as its head. The number of MPP’s did not change and as a result the regional directors now have to supervise a larger number of MPP’s. One of the tasks of these MPP’s is the implementation of a number of organizational changes. This research investigates how certain transformational and transactional leadership behaviours of regional directors affect the feelings of autonomy and consequently commitment to change of the MPP’s.
To gather data an online questionnaire was used that was distributed by email to 136 MPP’s. These are the MPP’s from regions that were involved in a merger. MPP’s who were not part of one of the regions in the old situation were left out. Out of these 136 managers, 78 returned the
10
response rate of 51%. Out of these 69 respondents, 62% were females and 38% were males. The age of these respondents ranged from 33 to 60 and was 48 on average. They have been working for the company for 18 years on average, of which 10 years as MPP.
Measures
Transformational leadership behaviour and management by exception were measured by using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) form 5X short (Avolio, Bass & Jung, 1999). These items were scored on a scale of 1 (Never) to 5 (Often/always). Perceived autonomy was measured using the Work Autonomy Scales developed by Breaugh (1985). These items were scored on a scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Commitment to change was measured using the
Commitment to Change Model (C2C) by Herscovitch and Meyer (2002), an extension of the Three-Component Model of Commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1991). This model consists of three components called affective commitment, continuance commitment and normative commitment. Affective commitment measures the degree to which employees provide support for the change based on a belief in the benefits of this change. Continuance commitment measures the degree to which employees support the change because there are costs associated with the failure to do so.
Normative commitment measures the degree to which employees support change because they feel a sense of obligation to support the change. Each component has a corresponding scale with a higher score meaning more commitment to organizational change. The items from these scales were scored on a scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree). The items from these three instruments were translated into Dutch by the researcher (See Appendix A for the items used to measure transformational leadership and management by exception, Appendix B for the items used to measure autonomy and Appendix C for the items used to measure commitment to change).
Reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha) of the scales based on items from the MLQ was .85 for
11
from the C2C model was .90 for affective commitment, .80 for continuance commitment and .48 for normative commitment. For the normative commitment scale, items 11 and 12 (see Appendix C) were left out in order to increase the reliability of the scale to .70. To account for the effects of missing data, average scores on the scales were only calculated for respondents that answered at least half of the items of a particular scale. Autonomy scores were calculated by taking the average of the three items from the Work Autonomy Scales. The four scales used to measure transformational leadership were correlated strongly with coefficients ranging between .66 and .85, all significant at p<.01. A latent variable was constructed for transformational leadership by calculating the average score on the four scales. This score was only calculated for respondents that received a score on at least three of the four scales, in order to account for the effects of missing data. Table 1 gives a short description of the variables that will be used in the analyses.
Table 1: Description of the variables used in the analyses: mean (standard deviation), minimum and maximum values and total number of respondents
Variable Mean
(standard deviation)
Minimum Maximum N total
Transformational leadership 3.56 (0.69) 1.31 4.96 69 Management by exception 3.38 (0.70) 2 4.75 64 Autonomy 3.50 (0.63) 1.33 5 69 Affective commitment 5.09 (1.20) 1.25 7 69 Continuance commitment 3.76 (1.40) 1 7 68 Normative commitment 4.22 (1.54) 1 7 69 Analysis
12
showed that the groups did not score significantly different on Affective Commitment (F=2.20, p=.14), Continuance Commitment (F=0.00, p=.99) and Normative Commitment (F=0.15, p=0.70). On the basis of these results, no multilevel analysis but regular regression analysis was used to test the hypotheses. Hypothesized weights were tested one-sided.
Results
Table 2 shows the correlations between the variables used in the analyses. With regard to our predicted main effects, transformational leadership is positively correlated with affective
commitment (.23) and negatively correlated with continuance commitment (-.26). Management by exception is positively correlated with continuance commitment (.23). Transformational leadership is positively correlated with autonomy (.32) and management by exception is not significantly
correlated with autonomy. Autonomy is positively correlated with affective commitment (.30) and negatively correlated with continuance commitment (-.30).
In order to test the hypotheses, multiple regression analyses were performed. H1 was tested by performing three regression analyses with the commitment to change scales subsequently as dependent variable and transformational leadership as independent variable. H2 was tested by performing three regression analyses with the commitment to change scales subsequently as dependent variable and management by exception as independent variable. To test H3, first a regression analysis was performed with autonomy as the dependent variable and transformational leadership as independent variable, followed by three regression analyses in which autonomy was added as a independent variable to the models used to test H1. To test H4, first a regression analysis was performed with autonomy as the dependent variable and management by exception as
13 Table 2: Correlations between all variables included in the analyses
14 Table 3: Results of regression analyses
Affective commitment Continuance commitment Normative commitment Autonomy
Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1
β t β t β t β t β t β t β t Transformational leadership .23 1.91* .15 1.18 -.26 -2.23* -.19 -1.52 -.04 -.33 -.07 -.55 .32 2.79** Autonomy .25 2.07* -.24 -1.99* .10 .75 R2 change 0.05 3.65* 68 0.06 4.28* 68 0.07 4.97* 67 0.05 3.95** 67 0.00 0.11 68 0.01 0.10 F change 0.56 7.78** N 68 68
Affective commitment Continuance commitment Normative commitment Autonomy
Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1
15
No significant association between transformational leadership and normative commitment was found (β =-.04, p=.37).
H2 predicts a negative association between management by exception and commitment to change. The analyses provide no evidence for this hypothesis. No significant association between management by exception and affective commitment (β =-.10, p=.21) or normative commitment (β =.20, p=.054) was found. A significant positive association between management by exception and continuance commitment was found (β =.23, p<.05).
H3 predicts that autonomy mediates the positive association between transformational leadership and commitment to change. Transformational leadership was shown to have a significant positive association with autonomy (β =.32, p<.01). When both autonomy and transformational leadership are used as predictors of affective commitment, autonomy is shown to have a significant positive association with affective commitment (β =.25, p<.05) while transformational leadership is no longer significantly associated with affective commitment (β =.15, p=.12). This provides evidence that autonomy at least partially mediates the positive relationship between transformational leadership and commitment to change. The inclusion of both autonomy and transformational leadership as predictors of continuance commitment shows that autonomy also mediates the negative association between transformational leadership and continuance commitment. This analysis shows a significant negative association between autonomy and continuance commitment (β =-.24, p<.05), while the negative association between transformational leadership and
continuance commitment is no longer significant (β =-.19, p=.07).
H4 predicts that autonomy moderates the negative association between management by exception and commitment to change. No significant negative association was found between management by exception and autonomy (β =-.20, p=.06). Consequently, no evidence was found to support this hypothesis.
16
has a significant positive association with affective commitment (β=.23, p<.05). Transformational leadership also has a significant negative association with continuance commitment (β =-.26, p<.05).
Discussion
The first goal of this research was to investigate whether transformational and transactional
leadership influence subordinates’ commitment to change. The analyses show that transformational leadership is positively associated with affective commitment to change and negatively associated with continuance commitment to change. The analyses also show that the management by exception component of transactional leadership is positively associated with continuance commitment to change. Based on these results, it seems that transactional leadership might actually be a more effective leadership style when it comes to stimulating subordinates commitment to change.
17
be a more effective way to promote subordinates’ commitment to change than transformational leadership, the type of commitment it stimulates might be less effective in promoting desired change-related behaviours of subordinates.
The second goal of this research was to investigate whether subordinates’ perceived autonomy can explain the association between both leadership styles and subordinates’
commitment to change. In the case of transformational leadership, findings indicate that the effect on subordinates’ autonomy at least partially explains both the positive association with affective commitment and the negative association with continuance commitment. This means that transformational leadership has a positive effect on subordinates’ feelings of autonomy, which subsequently makes them more likely to believe in the value of organizational changes and less likely to feel that resisting these changes might be too costly for them. Although no significant association between management by exception and autonomy was found, the association was almost
significant. This indicates that there is a trend in the data. Therefore, the conclusion that autonomy does not explain the relationship between management by exception and subordinates’
commitment to change cannot be drawn.
Implications for theory and research
This research adds to the literature about leadership and organizational change by further investigating the relation between transformational leadership and employees’ commitment to change. The finding that autonomy at least partially explains the relationship between
transformational leadership and subordinates’ commitment to change contributes to the
understanding of how the change-oriented components of transformational leadership work. Further research into the relationship of transformational leadership and subordinates’ commitment to change will have to take this mediating effect of autonomy into account.
18
leadership styles on employees’ commitment to change needs to take into account that each leadership style might lead to different kinds of commitment to change which might subsequently lead to more or less effective change-related behaviours of subordinates.
Practical implications
The finding that transformational leadership and transactional leadership can have different effects on various kinds of commitment to change also has some practical implications. Practitioners might have to reconsider which leadership styles might be appropriate based on which kind of commitment they want to stimulate in a certain situation of organizational changes. When, for example,
employees are committed to change but this commitment does not result in the necessary change-oriented behaviour like championing and cooperation, a more transformational leadership style of supervisors might be able to stimulate these behaviours.
Limitations and future research directions
The first limitation of this research pertains to the generalizability of the results. Data was gathered at a single organization among middle-managers only. The sample size of 69 is also relatively small. And even though an ANOVA-analysis showed that the results did not differ significantly among groups of MPP’s that share the same leader, data for the MLQ was collected for only 10 leaders. These factors lead to a limited generalizability of the results of this study. Future research into the effects that were investigated in this research will need to use a larger sample of employees from different organizations in different sectors.
19
negative behaviours. This could lead to overestimation or underestimation of the effects in the analyses.
The third limitation of this research is the rather low reliability of the scale that is used to measure normative commitment. When all four items were included in the scale the reliability was unacceptable. Therefore two items were left out in order to create a scale with acceptable reliability. The resulting scale for normative commitment included only two items. This is likely to be the main reason why no significant associations between normative commitment and predictive variables was found in the regression analyses. The reason for this limited reliability could be the translation of these scales; therefore future research using a translation of this scale will have to make sure these items are translated carefully in order to prevent the loss of meaning of these items.
Beside these basic recommendations based on the limitations of this study, there are some other issues that might be addressed in future research. Bass (1985) asserted that effective leaders will use a combination of both transformational and transactional leadership behaviours. Therefore, it might be interesting for researchers to investigate how leaders who demonstrate both high levels of transformational and transactional behaviours influence subordinates’ commitment to change. By using a combination of leadership behaviours from different leadership styles, leaders might be able to stimulate subordinates’ commitment to change most effectively. Another possibly interesting research avenue would be to investigate whether theory on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation can shed more light on the working of the different types of commitment to change. Affective
commitment seems to be related to intrinsic motivation, whereas continuance commitment seems to be more in line with extrinsic motivation. Finally, it would be useful to examine how the different types of commitment to change relate to other employee-level outcomes such as job performance, job satisfaction and quality of work life.
Conclusion
20
positively associated with affective commitment to change and negatively associated with continuance commitment to change. The management by exception component of transactional leadership is found to be positively associated with continuance commitment to change. The findings also show that autonomy at least partially mediates both the positive association of transformational leadership with affective commitment and the negative association of transformational leadership with continuance commitment.
21 References
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Journal Of
Occupational And Organizational Psychology, 72(4), 441-462. doi:10.1348/096317999166789 Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectation. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1997). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. In R. P. Vecchio (Ed.), Leadership: Understanding the dynamics of power and influence in
organizations (pp. 318-333). Notre Dame, IN US: University of Notre Dame Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA US: Sage Publications.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Boga, I., & Ensari, N. (2009). The role of transformational leadership and organizational change on perceived organizational success. Psychologist-Manager Journal, 12(4), 235-251.
Breaugh, J. A. (1985). The measurement of work autonomy. Human Relations, 38(6), 551-570. Conner, D. R., & Patterson, R. W. (1982). Building commitment to organizational change. Training
And Development Journal, 36(4), 18-26,28-30.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology, 49(3), 182-185. doi:10.1037/a0012801 Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagné, M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J., & Kornazheva, B. P. (2001). Need
satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of a former Eastern bloc country: A cross-cultural study of self-determination. Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(8), 930-942. doi:10.1177/0146167201278002
22
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal Of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331-362. doi:10.1002/job.322
Gagné, M., Koestner, R., & Zuckerman, M. (2000). Facilitating acceptance of organizational change: The importance of self-determination. Journal Of Applied Social Psychology, 30(9), 1843-1852. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02471.x
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Herold, D. M., Fedor, D. B., Caldwell, S., & Liu, Y. (2008). The effects of transformational and change leadership on employees' commitment to a change: A multilevel study. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 346-357. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.346
Hetland, H., Hetland, J., Andreassen, C., Pallesen, S., & Notelaers, G. (2011a). Leadership and
fulfillment of the three basic psychological needs at work. Career Development International, 16(5), 507-523.
Hetland, H., Skogstad, A., Hetland, J., & Mikkelsen, A. (2011b). Leadership and learning climate in a work setting. European Psychologist, 16(3), 163-173. doi:10.1027/1016-9040/a00003 Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J. P. (2002). Commitment to organizational change: Extension of a
three-component model. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 474-487. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.873.3.474
Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-business-unit
performance. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 78(6), 891-902.
Judge, T. A., & Klinger, R. (2008). Job satisfaction: Subjective well-being at work. In M. Eid, R. J. Larsen (Eds.) , The science of subjective well-being (pp. 393-413). New York, NY US: Guilford Press. López-Domínguez, M., Enache, M., Sallan, J. M., & Simo, P. (2013). Transformational leadership as an
23
McCarthy, D. J., Puffer, S. M., May, R. C., Ledgerwood, D. E., & Stewart, W. R. (2008). Overcoming resistance to change in Russian organizations: The legacy of transactional leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 37(3), 221-235. doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2008.04.002
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61.
Michaelis, B., Stegmaier, R., & Sonntag, K. (2009). Affective commitment to change and innovation implementation behavior: The role of charismatic leadership and employees' trust in top management. Journal Of Change Management, 9(4), 399-417.
doi:10.1080/14697010903360608
Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. (2002). Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships. Leadership Quarterly, 13(6), 705.
Nemanich, L. A., & Keller, R. T. (2007). Transformational leadership in an acquisition: A field study of employees. Leadership Quarterly, 18(1), 49-68.
Oreg, S., & Berson, Y. (2011). Leadership and employees’ reactions to change: The role of leaders’ personal attributes and transformational leadership style. Personnel Psychology, 64(3), 627-659.
Parish, J., Cadwallader, S., & Busch, P. (2008). Want to, need to, ought to: Employee commitment to organizational change. Journal Of Organizational Change Management, 21(1), 32-52. doi:10.1108/09534810810847020
Rooney, J. A., Gottlieb, B. H., & Newby-Clark, I. R. (2009). How support-related managerial behaviors influence employees: An integrated model. Journal Of Managerial Psychology, 24(5), 410-427. doi:10.1108/02683940910959744
Seo, M., Taylor, M., Hill, N., Zhang, X., Tesluk, P. E., & Lorinkova, N. M. (2012). The role of affect and leadership during organizational change. Personnel Psychology, 65(1), 121-165.
24
Yang, Y. (2011). Leadership and satisfaction in change commitment. Psychological Reports, 108(3), 717-736.
Yang, Y. (2012). Studies of transformational leadership in the consumer service workgroup: Cooperative conflict resolution and the mediating roles of job satisfaction and change commitment. Psychological Reports, 111(2), 545-564.
25
Appendix A: Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
De volgende 24 uitspraken hebben betrekking op de wijze waarop uw leidinggevende zijn/haar taken vervult. Geef aan hoe vaak deze uitspraken volgens u op uw leidinggevende van toepassing zijn. Als een item niet relevant is of u weet het antwoord niet, dan hoeft u niet te antwoorden. Met
“anderen” kan onder meer bedoeld worden medewerkers, cliënten, collega’s, leidinggevenden en/of al deze individuen.
Geef aan hoe vaak iedere uitspraak op uw leidinggevende van toepassing is door steeds het best passende cijfer te kiezen
nooit zelden soms regel matig
vaak / altijd
1 Checkt kritische aannames meestal twee keer om te zien of ze juist zijn
1 2 3 4 5
2 Focust zich op onregelmatigheden, fouten, uitzonderingen en afwijkingen van de normen/standaarden
1 2 3 4 5
3 Praat over zijn/haar belangrijkste waarden en overtuigingen
1 2 3 4 5
4 Zoekt naar verschillende perspectieven voor het oplossen van problemen
1 2 3 4 5
5 Spreekt optimistisch over de toekomst 1 2 3 4 5
6 Zorgt ervoor dat anderen trots zijn om met hem/haar geassocieerd te worden
1 2 3 4 5
7 Spreekt enthousiast over wat bereikt moet worden
1 2 3 4 5
8 Legt het belang van een sterke doelgerichtheid uit
1 2 3 4 5
9 Stopt tijd in het coachen en onderwijzen van anderen.
1 2 3 4 5
10 Schuift eigenbelang opzij voor het belang van de groep
1 2 3 4 5
11 Behandelt anderen als individuen in plaats van zomaar een lid van de groep
1 2 3 4 5
12 Handelt op een manier die respect doet groeien voor hem/haar bij anderen
1 2 3 4 5
13 Concentreert zijn/haar volledige aandacht op het oplossen van fouten, klachten en
mislukkingen
1 2 3 4 5
14 Overweegt de morele en ethische consequenties van beslissingen
1 2 3 4 5
15 Volgt elke fout op de voet 1 2 3 4 5
16 Straalt een gevoel van kracht en vertrouwen uit
1 2 3 4 5
17 Draagt een meeslepende toekomstvisie uit 1 2 3 4 5
18 Vestigt zijn/haar aandacht op het niet halen van de normen
1 2 3 4 5
19 Beschouwt een individu als iemand die verschillende behoeften, mogelijkheden en
26 ambities heeft dan anderen
20 Brengt anderen er toe om vanuit verschillende invalshoeken naar problemen te kijken
1 2 3 4 5
21 Helpt anderen om hun sterke kanten te ontwikkelen
1 2 3 4 5
22 Suggereert nieuwe manieren om een opdracht te volbrengen
1 2 3 4 5
23 Benadrukt het belang van het hebben van een gemeenschappelijke missie
1 2 3 4 5
24 Laat zien erop te vertrouwen dat de doelen behaald zullen worden
1 2 3 4 5
27
Appendix B: Work Autonomy Measures
Work method autonomy
1. In mijn baan kan ik zelf kiezen op welke manier ik mijn taken uitvoer. 1- Sterk mee oneens
2- 3- 4-
5- Sterk mee eens
Work scheduling autonomy
2. In mijn baan kan ik zelf kiezen wanneer ik mijn taken uitvoer. 1- Sterk mee oneens
2- 3- 4-
5- Sterk mee eens Work criteria autonomy
3. In mijn baan heb ik inspraak in de criteria waarop mijn prestaties beoordeeld worden. 1- Sterk mee oneens
2- 3- 4-
28
Appendix C: Commitment to Change Scales
De volgende uitspraken gaan over het samenvoegen van de regio’s en de daarmee samenhangende veranderingen. Geef aan in hoeverre u het eens of oneens bent met deze uitspraken.
Sterk mee oneens Mee eens Lichtelijk mee oneens Neutraal Lichtelijk mee eens Mee eens Sterk mee eens
1 Deze veranderingen zijn een goede strategische keuze voor de organisatie
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2 Ik denk dat het management een fout maakt door deze veranderingen te
introduceren*
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3 Deze veranderingen dienen een belangrijk doel
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4 Deze veranderingen zijn onnodig*
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5 Ik heb geen andere keuze dan meegaan met de veranderingen
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6 Ik voel druk om mee te gaan met deze veranderingen
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7 Er staat voor mij te veel op het spel om weerstand te bieden tegen deze veranderingen
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 Weerstand bieden tegen deze veranderingen is geen haalbare optie voor mij
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9 Ik voel een bepaald plichtsbesef om mee te werken aan deze veranderingen
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10 Ik denk niet dat het juist zou zijn van mij om weerstand te bieden tegen deze
veranderingen
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11 Ik zou er geen slecht gevoel aan over houden om weerstand te bieden tegen de veranderingen*
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12 Ik voel geen enkele verplichting om deze verandering te ondersteunen*
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
*Items were reverse coded
