1
AGE, TENURE AND OPENNESS TO CHANGE: THE MODERATING
ROLE OF AUTONOMY AND SKILL VARIETY
Master thesis Msc Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
August 10, 2012
Albert-Jan van Olst Studentnumber: 1785583 Berkenweg 3 8085 RT Doornspijk tel.: 06-22020441 e-mail : ajvanolst@live.nl Supervisor University D.B. Veltrop
Supervisor field of study R. Schrotenboer Gemeente Assen
2
ABSTRACT
The present study investigated the relationship between age, tenure and openness to change and the moderating role of autonomy and skill variety on this relationship. Results only supported a negative relationship between job tenure and openness to change, meaning that age and organizational tenure were found to not have a significant impact on openness to change. The moderating role of autonomy and skill variety was also not confirmed, but rather a moderating role of job complexity and equipment use was suggested. Outcomes of this study suggest that organizations, in their process of organizational change, should focus on
employees who are highly tenured in their jobs, because they are the ones that will oppose change the most. This paper also contributes to the start of a new discussion about the effect of age on openness to change. It argues that age may not have the negative effect on
openness to change as was proposed in earlier research, so the debate about age stereotypes with regard to change should be reopened.
INTRODUCTION
Organizations must adapt to increasingly complex and uncertain technological, economic, political and cultural changes (Martin, 2012). Three major trends are shaping change in organizations (Cummings & Worley, 1993). The first one, globalization, is changing the markets and environments in which organizations operate as well as the way they job. The second, information technology, is redefining the traditional business model by changing how work is performed, knowledge is used and costs of business are calculated. The third and last one, managerial innovation, has responded to the two aforementioned trends, which had its impact on organizations. New organizational forms and structures, for example networks or virtual organizations, introduce new ways of thinking about how to manufacture goods and deliver services (Cummings & Worley, 1993). Therefore, it can be concluded that
3
process (Armenakis et al., 1993; George & Jones, 2001; Greenhalgh et al., 2004; Hall & Hord, 1987; Isabella, 1990; Lau & Woodman, 1995). A lack of attention to employees’ psychological responses to organizational change is the most important cause in the failure of change programs in almost all cultures (Devos & Buelens, 2003). Others conclude that to realize intended changes, organizations must rely on the cooperation of their employees (Porras & Robertson, 1992). Resistance to change can severely hamper the change process (Miller, Johnson & Grau, 1994; Piderit, 2000) and has been associated with negative outcomes such as decreased satisfaction, productivity, psychological well-being, increased theft, absenteeism, and turnover (Bordia et al, 2004; Miller et al., 1994).
Openness to change is an important factor in this respect, which is considered as a ‘necessary initial condition for successful planned change’ (Miller et al, 1994). Employee openness is one of the most important key elements in many types of change (Ertürk, 2008). Others confirm this, stating that ‘'the ability and drive of an organization to change depends heavily on the openness, commitment, and motivation to change of the employees of its workforce’ (Armenakis et al., 1993; Backer, 1995; Bernerth, 2004; Eby et al., 2000).
Workforces are ageing, both in Dutch society as worldwide (OECD, 2005). It is estimated that by 2050, the population of older workers (55-64) in Europe will grow up to 60% (Carone & Costello, 2006). These shifts in age composition increase the importance of understanding the role of age in the workplace. Especially this ageing, but also tenure, plays a particular important role in the sector where this study was conducted, the government
administration. Municipality’s, for example, often have a relatively old workforce, comprising of people who have been working in the same job for a long time. This can cause potential problems, of which inflexibility and a bias towards new working methods are two examples related to the focus of this study, openness to change.
4
is this really the case? Because there is a lot of prejudice about the change capacity of older workers, this study can give more insight in the different viewpoints regarding the older workers’ stereotype with regard to change. Establishing the relationship between age and openness to change and tenure and openness to change is the first aim of this study.
Van Dam et al. (2008) note that future research should expand the context
characteristics that influence openness to change studied and consider additional contextual variables that could further explain employees’ reactions to organizational change. The present paper tries to fill this gap, going beyond previous work on reactions to change by focusing on the immediate context within which people work. This is the second aim of this study, to examine whether autonomy and skill variety, as reflected in the Work Design
Questionnaire (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006), moderate the relationship between age, tenure and openness to change. This could mean that employers can tailor the job content for
different age or tenure groups in order to make them more receptive for changes. By doing this, organizations can potentially prevent or circumvent their employees’ resistance to
changes (Van Dam et al, 2008). Having established the importance of employee’s openness to change, outcomes of this study can help organizations to create the right context for
successful organizational change.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
The openness to organizational change concept is analogous to Lewin’s (1951) classical state of unfreezing, or creating motivation and readiness for change, and is reflected in attitudes of organizational members (Devos et al., 2007). Miller et al., (1994) and Wanberg and Banas (2000) conceptualized openness to organizational change as ‘the willingness to accommodate and accept change’. Open individuals are more willing to engage in the type of
self-monitoring and assessment that is necessary for learning in changing task contexts (Blickle, 1996; Busato et al., 2000). Because organizations nowadays are ‘no longer stable, but are continuously adapting to shifting environments’ (Truex et al., 1999), companies need employees who are open for changes and can facilitate this adapting.
5
change are likely to show a preference for more stable environments and task patterns
(Liberman et al., 1999). Although the term trait may suggest that openness to change is fixed, literature suggest that openness to change also has a component that can be influenced. Choi (2011) states that employees’ attitudes toward organizational change are for a large part attributed to the situational variables particular to a change initiative.
Van Dam et al. (2003) shows that openness to job changes was a strong predictor of individuals’ willingness to participate in required job transitions. The level of enthusiasm for changes varies from person to person and from hierarchical level to hierarchical level
(Reichers et al, 1997). Whereas some employees may not be bothered by organizational change and may look at change as a chance to grow and learn, other employees may react negatively to even the smallest of changes (Wanberg & Banas, 2000).
Literature has identified age and tenure as two factors that influence a person’s
openness to changes. Age has been found to have a negative impact on change (Cordery et al, 1991; Cordery et al, 1993; Ellis and Child, 1973). This means that younger employees are more likely to accept change than older employees. Younger employees are less resistant to change, because they tend not to be as 'set in their ways' as older employees (Cordery et al, 1991). Kanfer & Ackerman (2004) argue that older workers have a lowered motivation when it comes to performing non-routine tasks, from which one can conclude that they are less open to work related changes. Kirton & Mulligan (1973) concluded that older individuals tend to be less positive about change, e.g. older groups tend to be more conservative. Several studies indicate that as people age, they become less open to change (Erikson, 1997; Smith and Schwartz, 1997; Stevens-Long, 1990). Tyler & Schuller (1991) confirmed this, suggesting that a relatively great openness to change exists among the young, typically in adolescence and early adulthood, and that this susceptibility drops off significantly and remains low. This results were also found by Bergeman et al. (1993), who found that younger individuals scored higher on openness than the older age groups, who face a equivalent decrease in openness to change (Roberts & Mroczek, 2008). Based on these findings, we hypothesize that age has a negative effect on openness to change.
Hypothesis 1: Age will have a negative effect on employees’ openness to change.
6
(Berkovic & Stern, 1991). We will start by discussing organizational tenure and then turn to job tenure.
Van Dam et al. (2008) found a negative relationship between organizational tenure and resistance to change, meaning that when employees stay longer with an organization they become less open to changes. Iverson (1996) also found that employees with low
organizational tenure are more open for change. There are several possible explanations for this. First, research on employee retention has shown that employees stay with the
organization when they are satisfied or when they perceive few job alternatives (e.g., Griffeth, et al., 2000). Since organizational change is usually associated with changes in the
individual’s work situation, employees who are more satisfied with their current work situation and those who perceive less job alternatives will be less positive towards changing their situation and may therefore exhibit greater resistance to the organizational change. Second, as employees gain tenure in the organization, their investments in the work situation, such as retirement programs, acquisition of specific skills and home ownership, increase (Rusbult & Farrell, 1983). Because organizational change may endanger these investments, high-tenured employees may resist the change more than low-tenured employees. Broadwell (1985) argues that the less time employees have spent within an organization, the more likely they are to accept change. This is because when organizational tenure is low, employees have relatively few 'preconceived notions' about how the organization should do things. These employees also have less established routines than employees with longer tenure. Based on this evidence, we predict that employees with higher organizational tenure will be less open for changes.
Hypothesis 2a: Organizational tenure will have a negative effect on employees’ openness to change
7
Hypothesis 2b: Job tenure will have a negative effect on employees’ openness to change
In conclusion, we argue that both age and tenure affect openness to change in a negative way. Following Datta & Rajagopalan (1998; see also Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1996; Wiersema & Bantel, 1992), we argue that higher openness to change will be associated with lower age and low organization tenure. In general, high levels of tenure and higher age have been linked to low levels of propensity for change, greater levels of risk aversion and use of limited
information sources (e.g. Datta & Rajagopalan, 1998; Wiersema & Bantel, 1992).
Work characteristics
Employees’ attitudes toward organizational change are not a personality based predisposition, but are ‘shaped by experiences in the work context’ (Johnson & O’Leary-Kelly, 2003) and therefore, are likely to change as individuals’ experiences change. The daily context may be crucial for the success of change efforts, because this is ultimately where the implementation of change programs takes place and where leaders, as change agents, face their followers (Bommer et al., 2005). Others confirm this, stating that employees’ attitudes toward
organizational change are shaped by situational variables (Choi, 2011). Some research already investigated these work context variables, and for example found that creativity, innovative behavior (Amabile & Conti, 1999) and aspects related to justice perceptions (Colquitt et al., 2001) may be relevant for change situations. Many researchers have emphasized the strength of situational variables (Choi, 2011). The variables include an organizational culture and climate characterized by employee involvement and information sharing, organizational capabilities to accommodate change, effective leadership practices, a successful history of change, participation and involvement in the decision making process or change projects, and information sharing about change implementation (Choi, 2011). As stated earlier, Van Dam et al. (2008) concludes that research should expand the context characteristics that influence openness to change.
From both theoretical and practical viewpoints, it is important to understand how characteristics of the daily work context impact employees’ reactions to change. We will limit our focus and study the influence of autonomy and skill variety on openness to change. These factors are studied because there is already some evidence that these work design components play a role in employees’ perceptions towards change.
8
characteristics in relation to workforce agility. Workforce agility is a broader concept than openness to change, and is defined by Plonka (1997) as being comfortable with change, new ideas, and new technologies. Workforce agility consists of the following attributes (Plonka, 1997): 1) attitude toward learning and self-development; 2) problem-solving ability; 3) being comfortable with change, new ideas, and new technologies; 4) the ability to generate
innovative ideas, and 5) accepting new responsibilities. Especially being comfortable with change and accepting new responsibilities can be translated to our concept of openness to change. Therefore, we will extend the evidence on workforce agility to our study.
Sumukadas & Sawhney (2004) found that employee involvement management
practices can promote workforce agility, for example through job enrichment. Job enrichment redesigns jobs to increase, among other things, autonomy and skill variety. This literature can be translated into our study, stating that when the work of employees possesses more
autonomy and/or skill variety, they will be more agile to changes. This evidence suggests a possible moderating role of autonomy and skill variety on the relationship between age, tenure and openness to change. This moderating role will be elaborated and discussed further.
Task characteristics
Autonomy (or job control) reflects the extent to which a job allows freedom, independence, and discretion to schedule work, make decisions, and choose the methods used to perform tasks (Breaugh, 1985; Wall et al., 1992; Wall et al., 1995). Thus, autonomy includes three interrelated aspects centered on freedom in (a) work scheduling, (b) decision making, and (c) work methods, something that is reflected in the later to be discussed Work Design
Questionnaire construct. Autonomy is one of the most widely studied work characteristics (Campion, 1988; Hackman & Oldham, 1976), and prompts employee feelings of personal responsibility for the work outcomes (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). Autonomy is an important predictor of workforce agility (Sherehiy, 2008), because workforce agility requires
9
flexible and adaptable (Kohn & Schooler, 1978). Job control has a positive effect on the personal initiative and proactive behavior (Frese et al, 1996; Parker et al. 1997). It leads to the feeling of responsibility for work performance and solving problems, raises intrinsic
motivation and interest in performed activities. Concluding, in a study under nurses,
Wittenstein (2008) found a correlation between autonomy and control over nursing practice and individual readiness for change. We believe that workers who have a high level of autonomy in their work will be more open for changes compared to their co-workers who do not. Because evidence states that autonomy makes workers more flexible and agile, we hypothesize that autonomy will positively moderate the relationship between age, tenure and openness to change. This implies that the negatively effects of age and tenure on openness to change are diminished as older, more tenured workers have a high level of autonomy in their job.
Hypothesis 3: Autonomy will moderate the relationship between age and employees’ openness to change, such that the relationship will be weaker for high levels of autonomy.
Hypothesis 3a: Autonomy will moderate the relationship between tenure and employees’ openness to change, such that the relationship will be weaker for high levels of autonomy.
Knowledge characteristics
Skill variety has been defined as ‘the extent to which a job requires an individual to use a variety of different skills to complete the work (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Skill variety is a distinct concept from task variety because using different skills is something different than the performance of multiple tasks (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006). Task variety can be the
10
more open for changes, meaning that skill variety will positively moderate the relationship between age, tenure and openness to change.
Hypothesis 4. Skill variety will moderate the relationship between age and employees’ openness to change, such that the relationship will be weaker for high levels of skill variety. Hypothesis 4a. Skill variety will moderate the relationship between tenure and employees’ openness to change, such that the relationship will be weaker for high levels of skill variety.
METHOD
Work Design Questionnaire
The daily work situation is analyzed using the Work Design Questionnaire, or WDQ, developed by Morgeson & Humphrey (2006). This integrative work design measure was needed as reaction on foregoing models like the Job Diagnostic Survey (Hackman & Oldham, 1980) and the Multimethod Job Design Questionnaire (Campion, 1988; Idaszak & Drasgow, 1987) for three reasons (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006). First, a middle ground between focus on task and attribute measures is needed. Second, the limited range of job characteristics restricts the types of design decisions that can be made. Considering a more comprehensive set of work characteristics, makes it possible to consider more ‘fine-grained’ changes to work. Third, because research in the work design area has slowed down and failed to integrate various theoretical models, the WDQ incorporates ideas from all work design perspectives (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006). They found evidence for a three-component structure of work, including motivational (consisting of a task and knowledge component), social and contextual characteristics. Task characteristics are concerned with how the work itself is accomplished and the range and nature of tasks associated with a particular job. Knowledge characteristics reflect the kinds of knowledge, skill and ability demands that are placed on an individual as a job of what is done on the job. Social work characteristics reflect the fact that work is performed within a broader social environment. The last component, contextual work characteristics reflect the context within which work is performed, including the physical and environmental contexts. A complete overview of the WDQ is presented in the appendix, here we will focus on the two constructs that are central in this study, autonomy and skill variety.
11
Skill variety, part of the knowledge characteristics, is the extent to which a job requires an individual to use a variety of different skills to complete the work (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). As mentioned , of the Work Design Questionnaire , focus will lie on the autonomy and task variety construct. Combined with the discussed theory, this leads to the conceptual model of our study as presented in figure 1.
Sample and data collection
The conducted study was set within a municipality in the northern part of the Netherlands. The municipality has over 700 employees in a diversity of roles. The study was related to the implementation of the ‘sustainable employability policy’, that required employees to change jobs within 7 years. The aim of the policy was to enable the employee to generate added value, now and in the future. The policy entails not only job-related changes, but can also mean that employees move to another department, with the ultimate goal to make employees flexible and versatile. The policy was first introduced using a test-period, in which employees could voluntarily apply for the mobility center to search for alternative jobs. Goal of this study is to predict the openness for change of these employees for the effects of this policy.
Data were collected through questionnaires targeting all the employees, excluding temporary employees and trainees, of the municipality, around 600 participants. No
distinction was made between questionnaires for employees and supervisors. Distinction was made however in the distribution method of the survey. Employees of the department
‘Uitvoering’, who have little access to a computer in their daily work, received a
questionnaire on paper. They received a cover letter explaining the study, a questionnaire, and a return envelope. These employees also had the possibility to fill in the online questionnaire.
Out of the 600 questionnaires, we only included respondents who filled in 75% or more of every construct. Participants with missing scores on independent and control
variables were also excluded. This led to 153 usable returned questionnaires, with a response rate of 25,50%. Our explanation for the fact that there were many participants who failed to meet the 75% standard (about 80) is twofold. On the one hand, our questionnaire was rather long because we included the whole Work Design Questionnaire and not just the autonomy and skill variety constructs. On the other hand, situational factors like organizational changes and prior experience with questionnaires made potential participants not very eager to
12
could be classified as secondary school (2,00%), MBO (26,80%), HBO (52,30%) and University (19,00%). The mean age was 44.44 years old, with average tenure in the organization 12 years and in job 7 years and 3 months.
Measures
A complete overview of the questionnaire can be found in the appendix. For all variables, an existing scale (or more than one) was used. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated as an estimate of the internal consistency reliability for each scale. Unless otherwise indicated, a seven-point response scale was used for all items, with 1= totally disagree and 7= totally agree.
Openness to change.
Openness to change was assessed using multiple existing scales regarding change. Employees’ openness to job changes was assessed with a scale developed by Van Dam (2005), measuring employees’ attitudes towards changing job content, departments and relocation. Job content items are “I would like to have a change in work activities soon”, ‘‘I do not like performing the same tasks every day’’, ‘’I am not willing to change my job content’’ and ‘’I would like to stay in my present job in the years to come’’. Changing department items are ‘’I am interested in working at another department’’, ‘’I would prefer not to work at a different department’’, ‘’I am not willing to change departments’’ and ‘’If it is necessary, I am prepared to move to another department’’. Relocation items are ‘’ I would be happy to perform my work activities at one of the partners of the municipality’’, ‘’I am prepared to move with my colleagues to one of the partners of the municipality’’, ‘’I object to performing my job at one of the partners of the municipality’’ and ‘’I would consider it a problem if my department moved to one of the partners of the municipality’’.
The second scale used to assess openness to change was adapted from Miller et al. (1994) that asked participants to report how they generally described themselves. Items are “I am somewhat resistant when work changes are proposed”, ‘’I would consider myself open to the changes’’, ‘’I am somewhat resistant to changes’’ and ‘’I am quite reluctant to
accommodate and incorporate changes into my work’’.
13
together is 0,87. This allowed us to compute these constructs into one openness to change variable. Some items needed to be reverse-coded.
Age
Age was self-reported in calendar years.
Tenure
Tenure was split into organizational and job tenure. This was self-reported in years and in months.
Autonomy
This construct was measured using the items on the Work Design Questionnaire. Example items for the autonomy construct are ‘’the job allows me to make my own decisions about how to schedule my work’’ and ‘’the job gives me considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do the work’’. Cronbach’s alpha is 0,90.
Skill Variety
For the skill variety construct example items are ‘’the job requires me to utilize a variety of different skills in order to complete the work’’ and ‘’the job requires me to use a number of complex or high-level skills’’. Cronbach’s alpha is 0,93.
Control variables
14
FIGURE 1
Research Framework
-
+
Translation of Questionnaire items
The questionnaire items were originally in English and were translated into Dutch. Back-translation (Brislin et al., 1973) from an academic was used to ensure that the English and Dutch versions of the items were comparable at a high degree of accuracy.
RESULTS
Descriptives and Controls
Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations for the variables, as well as the correlation coefficients. From the Pearson correlations one can see that age is negatively related to
openness to change. This is in line with the evidence found regarding the relationship between age and organizational change. Tenure however is more significantly negatively related to openness to change. This effect is stronger for job rather than organization tenure.
From the table one can also conclude that higher-educated people are more open for changes. Other significant relationships exist between age and tenure, which is in line with earlier discussed evidence about their relatedness. Also organizational and job tenure are correlated, because employees who gain tenure in their job automatically gain tenure in the organization. The relationship between education and autonomy and skill variety suggest that people with a higher education level have higher levels of these characteristics in their work.
Correlation between autonomy and skill variety suggest that workers who have high autonomy in their job also have high skill variety and vice versa. A remarkable indication from table 1 is the correlation between education and tenure, meaning that people with a lower education have a higher tenure and vice versa. This implies that the higher educated personnel of the municipality leave the organization faster than their less educated colleagues, who retain their position longer.
15
TABLE 1
Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlations of the variables
Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Openness to 4.91 0.77 Change 2. Age 44.44 9.45 -.17* 3. Organizational 12.03 8.58 -.21** .48** Tenure 4. Job Tenure 7.26 6.12 -.40** .29** .51** 5. Autonomy 5.30 0.91 .04 .07 .03 .04 6. Skill Variety 5.80 0.86 .05 .06 .06 .08 .38** 7. Gender 1.48 0.50 .09 -.20* -.12 -.19* .04 .00 8. Education 2.88 0.73 .37** -.10 -.22** -.26** .28** .46** -.01 *p< 0.05 **p< 0.01 Test of hypotheses
We used linear regression to test our hypothesis, with the results shown in table 2. After regressing openness to change on the control variables we entered our independent variables age, organizational tenure and job tenure in step 2. In sum, the control variables predicted openness to change (R²=0.144), education having a significant influence on openness to change (ß=0.29, t=4.98, p < 0.05).
No significant relationship was found between age and openness to change, lending no support for hypothesis 1. Hypothesis 2a also had to be rejected, because organizational tenure also has no significant influence. Job tenure, however, showed a significant negative
16
TABLE 2
Results of regression analysis for openness to change
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Variables ß t ß t ß t ß t Control Gender 0.08 1.28 0.03 0.53 0.04 0.61 0.03 0.54 Education 0.29 4.98* 0.23 3.75* 0.26 3.71* 0.26 3.57* Independent Age -0.01 -0.71 -0.04 -0.65 -0.04 -0.50 Organizational Tenure 0.01 0.61 0.05 0.69 0.05 0.69 Job Tenure -0.04 -3.70* -0.24 -3.50* -0.27 -3.24* Moderator Autonomy -0.02 -0.24 -0.01 -0.15 Skill Variety -0.06 -0.89 -0.0 5 -0.63 Interaction Age*Autonomy 0.07 1.00
Age* Skill Variety -0.04 -0.45
Organizational Tenure* -0.04 -0.39
Autonomy
Organizational Tenure* 0.09 1.12
Skill Variety
Job Tenure*Autonomy 0.01 0.05
Job Tenure*Skill Variety -0.01 -0.12
R² 0.14 0.24 0.24 0.26 ∆R² 0.14** 0.09* 0.01 0.02 *p< 0.05
17
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to examine if there is a negative relationship between age, tenure and openness to change and whether the work characteristics autonomy and skill variety have a moderating role on this relationship. The results did not support all our hypotheses.
Age did not show a significant relationship with openness to change. This lends support for the evidence that Mirvis & Hall (1996) found in their study that focused on the openness to change of older workers. They argued, based on a summary of recent studies, that there is no physiological and psychological evidence that aging is in any way related to
personal adaptability and resistance to change (see also Sterns & McDaniel, 1994). This evidence was supported by Gibson & Barron (2003), stating that older workers do not lack the ability to adapt to changes and continue to have developmental needs. In our opinion there is another explanation why no negative relationship between age and openness to change was found.
Truxillo & Fraccaroli (2012) argue that more research is beginning to extent evidence on ageing in the workplace, especially with respect to age stereotypes. We believe that older workers’ resistance to change is such a stereotype and that more research must indicate whether this is well-grounded. While such beliefs might have some basis in reality, they are frequently exaggerated, or even downright wrong (Redman & Snape, 2002). The results of our study in any case thus do not lend support for this believe that openness to change depends on one’s age. Results of stereotypes like this one, can have profound effect on the careers of older employees. Hassell & Perrewe (1995) state that many studies indicate that negative beliefs about older workers are prevalent. If this is the case and these beliefs are shared in organizations, attitudes towards older workers can become negative. This can lead to forms of discrimination, based on the notion that for the organization the best outcomes are realized when they invest in the training and promotion of younger workers (Hassell & Perrewe, 1995). When future research will also fail to support this openness to change stereotype, discrimination based on this notion may diminish. Taylor & Walker (1998) namely found evidence that of negative treatment of older workers based on negative
stereotypes held by managers. Taking away these stereotypes will have positive effects on the careers of older workers.
18
a relatively broad range of jobs. Therefore, organizational tenure does not necessary mean that employees perform the same (or comparable) work. Hence, workers can easily change jobs within the same organization. This way, the factors identified by Rusbult & Farrell (1983) for a negative relationship between organizational tenure and openness to change are avoided. More specifically, a change in work situation is made without changing organizations, plus made investments like retirements-plans or home-ownership are not endangered, explaining why no relationship was found.
Although organizational tenure has no significant influence, the outcomes of our study supported the notion that job tenure is negatively related to openness to change (hypothesis 2b). This indicates that workers who gain tenure in their current job become significantly less open to changes. This can be explained using the same arguments as for organizational tenure, only in this situation the investment in current work circumstances is still continuing, making employees less willing to change their current position. One can thus conclude that having long established work patterns may make employees resist changes in these pattern more (Katz, 1982).
The hypothesized moderating role of autonomy and skill variety was not supported by our findings. This means that having these work characteristics does not moderate the
relationship between age, tenure and openness to change. The necessity of studying additional context characteristics that influence openness to change (van Dam, 2008), thus did not lead to any results in this direction.
Implications
This study contributes to existing theory in a number of ways. First, outcomes provide a counterargument to the general notion that older employees are inflexible and resistant to change (Chiu et al., 2001; Redman & Snape, 2002). Although found evidence was already somewhat mixed, we want to argue that we believe more future research will fail to find a negative relationship between age and openness to change. This way, the older workers’ stereotype about being resistant to change can be counter argued, possibly leading to less age discrimination in the work place. As said, Redman & Snape (2002) already argued that these beliefs are often exaggerated or downward wrong.
19
openness to change, as stated by Rusbult & Farrell (1983), can be taken away without having to let go employees. For small firms, who cannot internally transfer employees to different jobs, a regular turn-over thus seems inevitable to remain flexible and adaptable.
This strategy of turnover is one of the six basic perspectives for interpreting organizational action towards change, called regeneration (March, 1981). Turnover in organization introduces new members with different attitudes, goals and abilities. The regeneration process implies changing conditions or deliberate strategies in the organization by changing the mix of participants in the change process, often the employees (Stinchcombe et al., 1968; White, 1970; McNeil & Thompson, 1971).
Practical Implications
The results of our study suggest that managers should pay particular attention to those employees that are high in job tenure, because they are the ones that will oppose changes the most. This implies that organizations who want their employees to remain flexible and receptive for change should make sure employees change jobs on a regular basis. We thus argue that the proposition by Vianen et al. (2004), who hypothesized that openness to experience is predictive for mobility, is reciprocal so that internal mobility can also predict openness to experience. For the larger organizations, who can offer a wide range of jobs, internal mobility could be as simple as the promotion to a higher-level job or transfer of employees to another department or establishment. Biggest costs here are associated with retraining and cost of succession of the vacancy. For smaller organizations at least this transferring can be very problematic, since those organizations often vacant a much smaller range of jobs. Here, only promotion or transfer that leads to other work characteristics is an internal option. As mentioned, in these situations a regular turn-over seems to be necessary in order to remain flexible, the so-called regeneration process (March, 1981). Relevant literature may help managers who adopt this process in dealing with potential problems, like increasing administrative load (McNeil & Thompson, 1971).
20
Additional Analyses
Although focus of this study was on aforementioned variables, we also included other
constructs of the WDQ in our questionnaire. Regression analysis of these constructs revealed that, regarding the relationship between age and openness to change, job complexity (B=-0.162, t=-2.292, p < 0.05) is a moderator. Job complexity is defined as ‘the extent to which the tasks on a job are complex and difficult to perform’ (Campion, 1988). This might be explained using the arguments of Rusbult & Farrell (1983). As workers are ageing, they have more investments in certain work practices, especially when their jobs require complex skills. Changes may endanger these investments, which explains why job complexity is identified as a moderator, making older workers with complex jobs less open for changes.
Job complexity also serves as a moderator in the relationship between organizational tenure and openness to change (B=-0.137, t=-1.997, p < 0.05). As can be seen, job complexity thus negatively moderates discussed relationships. A possible explanation for this finding can be given by reviewing the aforementioned arguments by Rusbult & Farrell (1983). They stated that as employees gain tenure in the organization, their investments in the work situation, such as retirement programs, acquisition of specific skills and home ownership, increase (Rusbult & Farrell, 1983). Because organizational change may endanger these investments, high-tenured employees may resist the change more than low-tenured
employees. One can infer that the more complex jobs are, the more investments necessary to acquire the skills for these jobs. Job complexity thus increases the already large investments of tenured employees, making the negative relationship between organizational tenure and openness to changes even more negative for higher levels of job complexity.
For job tenure in relation to openness to change this moderator was not found. Rather, equipment use serves here as a moderator (B=-0.141, t=-1.999, p < 0.05). Equipment use is defined as the variety and complexity of the technology and equipment used in a job
(Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006). Equipment use thus also implies some degree of complexity, which is the reason why the same arguments as aforementioned can also be used here. It is plausible that more investments are needed to work with this complex equipment, investments that are endangered when changes are implemented. This could be an explanation for
equipment use as a moderator.
21
Limitations
A first limitation is the low response rate, leading to a relatively small sample size.
Explanations for this are already mentioned, and of these reasons the length of the survey is one that can be controlled. We believe that future research should include only certain aspects of the WDQ, thereby significantly shortening the questionnaire. Next, because our data were exclusively collected at the non-profit sector one might question whether these findings are extendible to the profit sector. Studies that address multiple sectors should be conclusive about this. The government sector is characterized by its relatively old workforce and high tenure (e.g. Mirvis & Hackett, 1983; Saunders, 2004), as reflected in the data of this study. This may have impeded an equal distribution. Organizational variables, like past experience with change or opinions about current organizational developments might have biased participants’ answers.
Because respondents who completed the scales for both dependent as independent variables came from a single source, common source bias may have led to the finding of non-existent relationships in some situations. Another limitation is that because the data are collected at one point in time, with no concern for differences over time, we cannot be
conclusive about causality. Last limitation is that we cannot show with certainty the direction of our model. Although in this paper we tried to argue the validity of our conceptual model, we cannot statistically prove that it is for example not the other way around.
In spite of these limitations, we believe that our results gained new insights into the relationship between age, tenure and openness to change.
Further research
Besides the further investigation of possible moderating roles that less discussed work characteristics (as presented in the WDQ) can have on the relationship between age, tenure and openness to change, our study can be extended in two ways. First, we already mentioned our view on age-related research in relation with openness to change. We believe that societal developments make ageing in the workplace a very relevant research topic. Truxillo &
22
investments that are necessary to acquire the skills needed for performing a complex job or a job with complex equipment. These investments come on top of the already increased
investments that are a result of gaining tenure in both organization and job, explaining why job complexity and equipment use are identified as moderators. Further research should be conclusive about the validity of this argument and identify whether there are other possible explanations for these findings.
REFERENCES
Amabile, T. M., & Conti, H. 1999. Changes in the work environment for creativity during downsizing. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 630–640.
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K.W. 1993. Creating readiness for organizational change. Human Relations, 46(6): 681–703.
Axtell, C., Wall, T., Stride, C., Pepper, K., Clegg, C., Gardner, P., & Bolden, R. 2002. Familiarity breeds content: The impact of exposure to change on employee openness and well-being. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 75(2): 217– 231.
Backer, T. E. 1995. Assessing and enhancing readiness for change: Implications for
technology transfer. In: T. E. Backer, S. L. David, & G. Soucy (Eds.), Reviewing the
behavioral science knowledge base on technology transfer (pp. 21–41). Rockville,
MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Bergeman, C. S., Chipuer, H., Plomin, R., Pedersen, N. L., McClearn, G. E., Nesselroade, J. R., Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. 1993. Genetic and environmental effects on openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness: An adoption/twin study. Journal of Personality, 61: 159-180.
Berkovec, J. & Stern, S. 1991. Job exit behavior of older men. Econometrica, 59:189–210. Bernerth, J. 2004. Expanding our understanding of the change message. Human Resource
Development Review, 3 (1): 36–52.
Blickle, G. 1996. Personality traits, learning strategies, and performance. European Journal
of Personality, 10: 337–352.
Bommer, W. H., Rich, G. A., & Rubin, R. S. 2005. Changing attitudes about change:
23
Bordia, P., Hunt, E., Paulsen, N., Tourish, D., & DiFonzo, N. 2004. Uncertainty during organizational change: Is it all about control? European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 13: 345–365.
Breaugh, J. A. 1985. The measurement of work autonomy. Human Relations, 38: 551–570. Bridges, W. 1994. Job shift: How to prosper in a workplace without jobs. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Brislin, R. 1970. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Cross-cultural research
methods, 1: 185-216
Broadwell, M.M. 1985. Supervisory Handbook. New York: Wiley
Busato, V. V., Prins, F. J., Elshout, J. J., & Hamaker, C. 2000. Intellectual ability, learning style, achievement motivation and academic success of psychology students in higher education. Personality and Individual Differences, 29: 1057–1068. Campion, M. A., & Thayer, P. W. 1985. Development and field evaluation of an
interdisciplinary measure of job design. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70: 29–43. Campion, M. A. 1988. Interdisciplinary approaches to job design: A constructive replication
with extensions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73: 467–481.
Carone, G., D., Costello, N.D, Guardia, G. M, Przywara, B. & Salomäki, A.. 2006.
Looming Demographic Ageing: A Constraint to Economic Growth and Living Standard Increases in the EU25.
Choi, M. 2011. Employees’ Attitudes towards Organizational Change: A literature Review. Human Resource Management, 50(4):479-500.
Chiu, W.C.K., Chan, A.W, Snape, E. & Redman, T. 2001. Age stereotypes and
discriminatory attitudes towards older workers: an east-west comparison. Human
Relations, 54: 5, 629-661.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C., & Ng, K. Y. 2001. Justice at the millennium: A meta- analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 425–445.
Cordery, J.L., Barton, K., Mueller, W. & Parker, S. 1991. Multiskilling: The Views of Public Sector Human Resource Manager. Asia Pacific HRM, 29(3): 79-89. Cordery, J., Sevastos, P., Mueller, W. & Parker, S. 1993. Correlates of Employee
Attitudes Toward Jobal Flexibility. Human Relations, 46(6): 705-23. Cummings, T.G., & Worley, C.G. 1993. Organization development and change.
24
Datta, D. K. & N. Rajagopalan. 1998. Industry structure and CEO Characteristics: An empirical study of succession events. Strategic Management Journal, 19: 833–852. Devos, G. & Buelens, M. 2003. Openness to organizational change: the contribution of
content, context and processes. Working Paper Series No. 2003/6, Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School, Leuven/Gent.
Devos, G., Buelens, M., & Bouckenooghe, D. 2007. Contribution of content, context, and process to understanding openness to organizational change: Two experimental simulation studies. The Journal of Social Psychology, 147(6): 607–29.
Eby, L. T., Adams, D. M., Russell, J.E.A., & Gaby, S. H. 2000. Perceptions of organizational readiness for change: Factors related to employees’ reactions to the implementation of team-based selling. Human Relations, 53 (3): 419–442.
Edwards ,J.E. & Morrison R.F. 1994. Selecting and classifying future naval officers: The paradox of greater specialization in broader areas. In M.G. Rumsey , C.B. Walker & J.H. Harris (Eds.), Personnel selection and classification (pp. 69-84). Hillsdale, NJ; Erlbaum.
Edwards, J. R., Scully, J. A., & Brtek, M. D. 1999. The measurement of work: Hierarchical representation of the multi method job design questionnaire. Personnel Psychology, 52: 305–334.
Ellis, T. & Child, J. 1973. Placing Stereotypes of the Manager in Perspective. Journal of
Management Studies, 10: 233-55
Erikson, E.H. 1997. The Life Cycle Completed. W.W. Norton, New York.
Ertürk, A. 2008. A trust based approach to promote employees’ openness to organizational change in Turkey. International Journal of Manpower, 29: 462- 483.
Finkelstein, S. & Hambrick D.C. 1996. Strategic Leadership: Top Executives and their
Effects on Organization. St. Paul, MN, West.
Fried, Y. & Ferris, G.R. 1987. The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40: 287-322.
Frese, M., Kring, W., Soose, A., & Zempel, J. 1996. Personal initiative at work: Differences between East and West Germany. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 37–63. Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P., & Kyriakidou, O. 2004. Diffusion of
innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations.
Milbank Quarterly, 82(4): 581–629.
25
Gibson, D.E., & Barron, L.A. 2003. Exploring the impact of role models on older employees.
Career Development International, 8(4): 198-209.
Goldman, S. L., Nagel, R. N., & Preiss, K. 1995. Agile Competitors and Virtual
Organizations: Strategies for enriching the customer. New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold.
Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. 2000. A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium. Journal of Management, 26: 463–488.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. 1975. Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal
of AppliedPsychology, 60: 159–170.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. 1976. Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16: 250–279.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. 1980. Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. 1987. Change in schools: Facilitating the process. New York,
NY: State University of New York Press.
Hassell, B.L. & Perrewe, P.L. 1995. An examination of beliefs about older workers: Do stereotypes still exist? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16: 457–68.
Howard, A. 1995. A framework for work change. In Howard A (Ed.), The changing nature
of work (pp. 3-44). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Idaszak, J. R., & Drasgow, F. 1987. A revision of the Job Diagnostic Survey: Elimination of a measurement artifact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72: 69–74.
Isabella, L. A. 1990. Evolving interpretations as a change unfolds: How managers construe key organizational events. Academy of Management Journal, 33(1): 7–41.
Iverson, R.D. 1996. Employee acceptance of organizational change: the role of organizational commitment. The international journal of Human Resource Management, 7: 49 -122.
Jackson, P. R., Wall, T. D., Martin, R., & Davids, K. 1993. New measures of job control, cognitive demand, and production responsibility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 753–762.
Johnson, J.L. & O’Leary-Kelly, A.M. 2003. The effects of psychological contract breach and organizational cynicism: Not all social exchange violations are created equal. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 24(5): 627–47.
26
Lewin, K. 1951. Field Theory in Social Science. New York: Harper & Row.
Liberman, N., Idson, L. C., Camacho, C. J., & Higgins, E. T. 1999. Promotion and prevention choices between stability and change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77: 1135–1145.
Loretto, W. & White, P. Employers’ attitudes, practices and policies towards older workers.
Human Resource Management Journal, 2006, 16(3): 313–30.
Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. 2004. Aging, adult development, and work motivation.
Academy of Management Review, 29: 440-458.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. 1978. The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley
Katz.,R. 1982. The effects of Group longevity on project communication and performance.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 27: 81-104.
Kidd, P. T. 1994. Agile manufacturing: forging new frontiers. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Kirton, M. J., & Mulligan, G. 1973. Correlates of managers’ attitudes toward change. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 58(1): 101-107.
Kohn, M. L., & Schooler, C. 1978. The reciprocal effects of the substantive complexity of work on intellectual complexity: A longitudinal assessment. American Journal of
Sociology, 84: 24-52.
Krosnick, J. A., & Alwin, D. F. 1989. Aging and susceptibility to attitude change. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 57: 416-425.
March, J. G. 1981. Footnotes to organizational change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26:563-77.
Martin, D.L. 2012. The emerging paradigm of 21st century leaders: a perspective on leading successful change through high engagement. Benedictine University, Illinois.
Martin, L. E., Brock, M. E., Buckley, M. R., & Ketchen, D. J. 2010. Time banditry:
Examining the purloining of time in organizations. Human Resource Management
Review, 20: 26–34.
McCartt, A. T., & Rohrbaugh, J. 1995. Managerial openness to change and the introduction of GDSS: Explaining initial success and failure in decision conferencing. Organization
Science, 6(5): 569–584.
McNeil, K. & Thompson, J.D. 1971. The regeneration of social organizations. American
27
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: 59–80.
Mirvis, P.H., and Hackett, E.J. 1983. Work and work force characteristics in the nonprofit sector. Monthly Labor Review. 106(2):3–12.
Mirvis, P.H. and Hall, D.T. 1996. Career development for the older worker. In Hall, D.T. (Ed.), The Career is Dead: Long Live the Career, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 278-96.
Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. 2006. The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 1321–1339.
OECD. 2005. Ageing and employment policies Netherlands. OECD.
Ojha, A.K., Brown, J.L. & Nelson, P. 1997. Change and revolutionary change: formalizing and extending the punctuated equilibrium paradigm. Computational & Mathematical
organization theory, 3(2): 91-111.
Offermann, L.R, Gowing, M.K. 1990. Organizations of the future. American Psychologist, 45: 95-108.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. 1996. Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607–634.
Parker, S. K., Wall, T. D., & Jackson, P. R. 1997. “That’s not my job”: Developing flexible employee work orientations. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 899–929. Parker, S. K., & Wall, T. D. 1998. Job and work design: Organizing work to promote
well-being and effectiveness. London: Sage.
Parker, S. K., Williams, H., M., & Turner, N. 2006. Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 636–652.
Pettigrew, A. M., & Whipp, R. 1991. Managing change for competitive success. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Piderit, S.K. 2000. Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 10: 783–794.
Plonka, F. S. 1997. Developing a Lean and Agile Work Force. Human Factors and
Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 7(1): 11-20.
28
organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 719–822). Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Reichers, A. E., Wanous, J. P., & Austin, J. T. 1997. Understanding and managing cynicism about organizational change. Academy of Management Executive, 11: 48-59. Roberts, B.W., & Mroczek, D. 2008. Personality trait change in adulthood. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 17: 31–35.
Rusbult, C.E., & Farrell, D. 1983. A longitudinal test of the investment model: The impact on job satisfaction, job commitment, and turnover of variations in rewards, costs,
alternatives, and investments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68: 429–438. Sagie, A., Elizur, D., & Greenbaum, C.W. 1985. Job experience, persuasion strategy and
resistance to change: An experimental study. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 6: 157–162.
Saunders, R. 2004. Passion and Commitment under Stress: Human Resource Issues in
Canada’s Non-Profit Sector – A Synthesis Report. Research Series on Human
Resources in the Non-Profit Sector No|5. Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Networks.
Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. 1990. Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values: Extensions and cross-cultural replications. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 58: 878-891.
Sherehiy, B. 2008. Relationships between agility strategy, work organization and workforce
agility. Dissertation, Louisville.
Sims, H. P., Szilagyi, A. D., & Keller, R. T. 1976. The measurement of job characteristics.
Academy of Management Journal, 19: 195–212.
Smith, P.B. & S.H. Schwartz 1997. Values. C. Kagitcibasi, M.H. Segall, eds. Handbook of
Cross-Cultural Psychology. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.
Redman, T. & Snape, E. 2003. Too old or too young? The impact of perceived age discrimination. Human Resource Management journal, 13(1): 78-89.
Sterns, H.L. & McDaniel, M.A. 1994. Job performance and the older worker. In Rix, S.E. (Ed.), Older Workers: How Do They Measure Up? American Association of Retired Persons, Washington, DC.
29
Stinchcombe, A.L., McDill, M.S. & Walker, D.R.. 1968. Demography of organizations
American Journal of Sociology, 74: 221 -229.
Sumukadas, R. & Sawhney, R. 2004. Workforce agility through employee involvement. IIE
Transactions, 36: 1011-1021.
Taylor, P. & Walker, A. 1998.'Employers and older workers: attitudes and employment practices. Ageing and Society, 18: 6, 641-658.
Tetenbaum, T. J. 1998. Shifting paradigms: From Newton to chaos. Organizational
Dynamics, 26(4): 21–32.
Tiegs, R.B., Tetrick, L.E. & Fried, Y. 1992. "Growth need strength and context satisfaction and moderators of the relations of the Job Characteristics Model." Journal of
Management, 18:575-593.
Tolbize, A. 2008. Generational Differences in the Workplace. Research and Training
Centre on Community Living, Minnesota.
Truex, D.P., 1999. Growing systems in emergent organizations. Communications of the
ACM, 42: 117-123.
Truxillo, D.M. & Fraccaroli, F. 2012. Ageing in the workplace : challenges and opportunities.
European Journal of work and organizational psychology.
Tyler, T.R., & Schuller, R.A. 1991. Aging and attitude change. Journal of personality and
social Psychology, 61: 689-697.
Van Dam, K. 2003. Understanding experts’ attitudes toward jobal flexibility.
International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management, 3:138–
154.
Van Dam, K. 2005. Employee attitudes toward job changes: An application and extension of Rusbult and Farrell’s investment model. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 78(2): 253-272.
Van Dam, K., Oreg, S., & Schyns, B. 2008. Daily work contexts and resistance to
organizational change: The role of leader–member exchange, development climate, and change process characteristics. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57: 313–334.
30
Wall, T. D., Jackson, P. R., & Davids, K. 1992. Operator work design and robotics system performance: A serendipitous field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77: 353– 362.
Wall, T. D., Jackson, P. R., & Mullarkey, S. 1995. Further evidence on some new measures of job control, cognitive demand and production responsibility. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 16: 431–455.
Wall, T. D., & Jackson, P. R. 1995. New manufacturing initiatives and shop floor job design. In A. Howard (Ed.), The changing nature of work (139–174). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wanberg, C. R., & Banas, J. T. 2000. Predictors and outcomes of openness to change in a reorganizing workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 132-142.
White, H.C. 1970. Chains of Opportunity: System models of mobility in organizations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wiersema, M. F. & K. A. Bantel. 1992. Top management team demography and corporate strategic change. Academy of Management Journal, 35: 91–121.
Wittenstein, R. D. 2008. Factor influencing individual readiness for change in a health care environment. Unpublished PhD Thesis, The George Washington University, Washington.
APPENDIX
APPENDIX A: DEFINITIONS OF THE WORK DESIGN QUESTIONNAIRE CONSTRUCTS
Motivational Work Characteristics Task characteristics
- Autonomy: The degree to which a job allows freedom, independence and discretion to schedule work, make decisions and choose the methods used to perform tasks
(Breaugh, 1985; Wall, Jackson & Davids, 1992; Wall, Jackson & Mullarkey, 1995). - Task variety: The degree to which a job requires employees to perform a wide range of
tasks on a job (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006).
- Task significance: The degree to which a job influences the lives or work of others, whether inside or outside the organization (Hackman & Oldham, 1975).
31
- Feedback from job: The degree to which the job provides direct and clear information about the effectiveness of task performance (Hackman & Oldham, 1976).
Knowledge characteristics
Knowledge characteristics reflect the kinds of knowledge, skill and ability demands that are placed on an individual as a job of what is done on the job. It consists of these elements:
- Job complexity: The extent to which the tasks on a job are complex and difficult to perform (Campion, 1988).
- Information processing: The degree to which a job requires attending to and processing data or other information (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006).
- Problem solving: The degree to which a job requires unique ideas or solutions and reflects the more active cognitive processing requirements of a job (Jackson et al., 1993; Wall et al., 1995).
- Skill variety: The extent to which a job requires an individual to use a variety of different skills to complete the work (Hackman & Oldham, 1980).
- Specialization: The extent to which a job involves performing specialized tasks or possessing specialized knowledge and skill (Campion, 1988; Edwards et al., 1999).
Social Work Characteristics
Social work characteristics reflect the fact that work is performed within a broader social environment. It consists of the following elements:
- Social support: The degree to which a job provides opportunities for advice and assistance from others (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006).
- Interdependence: The degree to which the job depends on others and others depend on it to complete the work (Kiggundu, 1981).
- Interaction outside the organization: The extent to which the job requires employees to interact and communicate with individuals external to the organization (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006).
32
Contextual Work Characteristics
Contextual work characteristics reflect the context within which work is performed, including the physical and environmental contexts. It comprises the following factors:
- Ergonomics: The degree to which a job allows correct or appropriate posture and movement (Campion & Thayer, 1985; Edwards et al., 1999).
- Physical demands: The level of physical activity or effort required in the job (Edwards et al., 1999).
- Work conditions: The environment within which a job is performed (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006).
33
APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRE
Vragenlijst voor onderzoek naar houding ten opzichte van veranderingen
34 Geachte werknemer van de Gemeente Assen,
Zoals bekend zal binnen de gemeente Assen gewerkt worden volgens het beleid Duurzame Inzetbaarheid, wat een zekere mate van flexibiliteit vraagt van medewerkers. Het succes van dit beleid is afhankelijk van u. Wij doen daarom in samenwerking met de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen onderzoek naar de houding van werknemers van de Gemeente Assen ten opzichte van veranderingen in het werk.
Voor u ligt de vragenlijst die is bedoeld om inzichtelijk te maken wat u van de komende veranderingen vindt. De antwoorden die u geeft vallen onder het privacy reglement van de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Uw antwoorden worden vertrouwelijk behandeld en blijven volledig anoniem, voor zowel directe collega’s als leidinggevenden. De resultaten van het onderzoek zullen worden gepresenteerd op zodanige wijze dat de uitkomsten niet zijn te herleiden tot individuele personen of afdelingen.
We zijn geïnteresseerd in uw persoonlijke opvattingen. Er zijn geen foute antwoorden. De resultaten van dit onderzoek zullen ons helpen bij het ontwikkelen van beleid om voor u als medewerker een optimale ondersteuning en begeleiding te bieden bij veranderingen.
De vragen in deze vragenlijst gaan in op verschillende onderdelen van uw werk en u houding ten opzichte van verandering op verschillende onderdelen.
Sommige vragen lijken op elkaar, wij verzoeken u echter om alle vragen te beantwoorden. U kunt het antwoord selecteren dat het meest voor u van toepassing is. In het geval van twijfel kunt u het beste afgaan op het eerste antwoord dat bij u opkomt. Bij elke vraag wordt duidelijk aangegeven welke antwoordmogelijkheden u heeft.
Het invullen van de vragenlijst zal ongeveer 15 minuten van uw tijd in beslag nemen.
35
Houding tegenover veranderingen in uw werk
De onderstaande vragen hebben betrekking op uw houding tegenover veranderingen in uw werk. Omcirkel per vraag één antwoord. Sommige vragen lijken op elkaar, u wordt
vriendelijk verzocht alle vragen te beantwoorden.
Houding tegenover functieverandering
Volledig mee oneens Mee oneens Enigszins mee oneens Niet eens, niet oneens Enigszins
mee eens Mee eens
Volledig mee eens Ik wil graag op korte termijn
een verandering in mijn werkzaamheden
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Ik heb geen zin elke dag dezelfde werkzaamheden uit te voeren
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Ik wil de inhoud van mijn werk
niet veranderen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Ik wil de komende jaren mijn huidige werkzaamheden behouden
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Houding tegenover afdeling verandering Volledig mee oneens Mee oneens Enigszins mee oneens Niet eens, niet oneens Enigszins
mee eens Mee eens
Volledig mee eens Ik ben geïnteresseerd in het
werken op een andere afdeling 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Ik werk liever niet op een
andere afdeling 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Ik ben niet bereid om van
afdeling te veranderen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Als het noodzakelijk is, ben ik bereid om van afdeling te wisselen
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Houding tegenover werkgeververandering Volledig mee oneens Mee oneens Enigszins mee oneens Niet eens, niet oneens Enigszins
mee eens Mee eens
Volledig mee eens Ik zou graag mijn
werkzaamheden uitvoeren bij één van de partners* van de gemeente
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Ik ben bereid om met mijn afdeling de werkzaamheden te verplaatsen naar één van de partners* van de gemeente
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Ik heb bezwaar om mijn werk te doen bij één van de
partners* van de gemeente 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Ik zou het een probleem vinden als mijn afdeling werd verplaatst naar één van de partners* van de gemeente
