READY OR NOT?
Factors that influence change recipients’ readiness for change
ABSTRACT
The current study explores the concept of change recipients’ readiness for change in a Dutch technical installation organization that is undergoing extensive organizational change. The influence of the independent variables communication, participation, supportive leadership and organizational culture on the level of change recipients’ readiness for change are examined. Research data are collected by making use of a survey. In this study, change recipients’ participation was significantly positively associated with change readiness. Support by top management, unlike hypothesized, turned out to be significantly negative related to readiness for change. These findings are discussed in terms of their theoretical contribution to the literature on change readiness and in relation to practical implications for the management of organizational change.
Key words: organizational change, change readiness, communication, participation, supportive leadership, organizational culture
“The readiness is all” ‐ William Shakespeare, Hamlet 5.2
INTRODUCTION
Nowadays, the construction business is facing difficult times, dealing with the consequences of the financial crisis. The management of ULC Technisch Beheer BV, a national operating installation company, felt the need to reorganize to survive. Therefore, the management decided on changing the organizational structure and with that, the ways of working. The management of ULC Technisch Beheer BV realized that employees’ readiness for change is important for an effective implementation of the change, since they are the ones that have to work according to the new working processes. To get a better understanding on how to facilitate the change process in a way that improves the support of the employees, the management has requested for an examination of the factors that influence the level of change recipients’ readiness for change.
Organization
This article investigates the situation of ULC Technisch Beheer BV, a subsidiary of ULC Groep BV, located in Utrecht. ULC is founded in 1923, and started as a plumber in the area of Utrecht. In the period 1923 till 1970, the company grew and became a national operating company in the installation of mechanical systems. In 1970, the company expanded its activities with the installation of electrotechnical systems. As a result, the company became subdivided into ULC Elektra BV and ULC Verwarming BV. In 1984, ULC Groep BV was expanded with the subsidiary ULC Technisch Beheer BV, which provides the maintenance, monitoring and controlling of both mechanical and electrotechnical installation systems. During its long existence, ULC Groep BV has become a large organization with three subsidiaries, around 550 employees and a wide variety of clients and projects in mechanical and electrotechnical installation and maintenance.
in order to change the organizational structure and working processes. The reorganization is a reaction on several internal and external developments that ULC Technisch Beheer BV is facing.
During the period 2004 to 2007, the sales of ULC Technisch Beheer BV almost doubled. As a result of the wish to expand, big effort was placed on the realization of increasing sales during this period. To reach this, new projects were accepted and new employees were hired. However, according to the director at that time, this happened without a clear plan or direction and the main focus was on quantity rather than quality of employees. While the increase in workforce led to the wanted increase in sales, the management also faced negative consequences for the department’s business performance. Where the employees first were closely monitored and supported by the director, personal attention became less when the department grew. However, according to the management, some employees turned out not being sufficiently able to work independent and due to a quality problem and inefficient work processes, productivity did not reach full potential. Besides, costs increased due to errors in planning or implementation. Consequently, profit declined in the period 2008 to 2010. Next to this, project managers faced increasing customer complaints during this period, which could be a sign of declining customer satisfaction.
A second issue has to do with the external environment. In 2007, the world economy was hit by an intense financial crisis. Since 2009, the financial crisis developed into a worldwide deep recession; unemployment raised, and consumption and exports declined in almost all major economies (Østrup, Oxelheim & Wihlborg, 2009). The Dutch economy is no exception (CPB, 2009). And there are widespread fears that economic activity will remain depressed for years (Østrup et al., 2009). A report published by OTIB (Opleidings‐ en Ontwikkelingsfonds voor het Technisch Installatie Bedrijf, 2010), indicates that the construction business is more sensible for economic fluctuations than the Gross Domestic Product. In other words, the construction business grows faster than the average production in all sectors during booming times, while it declines faster than the average of all sectors in years of depression. The installation branch is for a major part dependent on the civil and utility construction and will, therefore, not be able to evade the consequences of the financial crisis (ABN Amro, 2009).
come along. Also when bidding for new contracts, the crisis is sensible. Increasing competition forces to lower the prices, what results in lower profit margins than before. Change process Several employees of ULC Technisch Beheer BV argued that they are already concerned about the current ways of working for several years. Over the years, these employees tried to influence the structures and working processes by handing over proposals for improvements to the department’s management. For a long time, no response was given and management sticked to its traditional ways of working.
In 2009, declining results due to the financial crisis and increasing internal problems ensured that the direction of ULC Groep BV felt the need to reorganize the department of ULC Technisch Beheer BV in order to improve the business results of the department. May 2009, the management of ULC Technisch Beheer BV gave a presentation to the entire workforce of the department about the need to change the organization and about a global direction for the future of ULC Technisch Beheer BV. The goal of the change process is the realization of a more efficient working department which, in turn, should increase the business results of the department and client‐ and employee satisfaction.
One of the first real steps in the change processes was hiring a new director of ULC Technisch Beheer BV. January 2010, the new director started in his function and became responsible for the change process and the improving business results that should come hand in hand with the change process. The new director started to fathom out how employees perceive their function and the organization. According to the employees, more room for input of employees was given and small adjustments in working processes were made since the new director took over the leadership. However, real action stayed out during the first half year.
In addition, three employees degraded in function and the contracts of two temporary employees were not renewed. An overview of the organizational structure and the function distribution of ULC Technisch Beheer BV, before and after the reorganization, can be found in appendix A. All changes are made intern ‘at the office’; the amount and functions of the mechanics that work ‘out in the field’ did not change. After the announcement of the new organizational structure in October 2010, the director had one‐to‐one meetings with those employees who were most affected by the reorganization. The next step of the change initiative at ULC Technisch Beheer BV was making changes in tasks, responsibilities, work processes and communication streams in order to support the new organizational structure. From October, the director conducted a research to the current work processes and its pitfalls by doing research on existing documents (description of work processes and function descriptions) and interviewing employees. Based on this research, the director started introducing at least one change in working processes each week, from November 2010 on, to create some short term wins. The proposals for these changes were weekly discussed with the department’s project managers during the weekly meeting and when agreed, directly implemented.
Besides, to optimize the design of employees’ tasks and responsibilities and work processes and communication streams, a start was made for the forming of steering groups, which should come together to discuss a specific theme and think about ways to improve functioning. In October 2010, organizational members signed up on a specific theme. The steering groups will start in the first quarter of 2011.
A big improvement in working processes and communication should be the result of the introduction of the ‘mobiele monteur’, which should improve the communication between the office employees and mechanics by making use of new technology. Besides, administrative task should be limited by replacing paperwork by electronic administration. A pilot for the ‘mobiele monteur’ is planned for the first quarter of 2011.
Research question
have to work according to the new working processes and with the new administration system. The management of ULC Technisch Beheer BV realize that change recipients’ readiness for change is important for an effective implementation of the changes; without employees’ support, changes will get stuck. Therefore, the management wanted to know what the change recipients’ level of readiness for change is. Besides, to know what actions should be taken to increase change recipients’ readiness for change, they want to know which factors influence this level of readiness. By knowing this, ULC Technisch Beheer BV gets better insights how to facilitate future change processes to increase change recipients’ readiness for change.
Besides, the results of the research could be of value in a broader context. Nowadays, organizational change is considered to be unavoidable since organizations have to respond to increasing competitive pressures (Drucker, 1999). Although the frequency and the acceleration of changes are increasing, few organizational change processes are as successful as hoped when started. Bikson and Gutek (1984) concluded that less than 10% of the unsatisfactory outcomes in the companies they investigated were due to technical problems. Instead, around 70 % of unsuccessful change processes are due to human behaviour (Cozijnsen & Vrakking, 2003). Employees’ readiness for change is important for the success of organizational change, since the level of readiness can facilitate or hinder the effectiveness of a change project (Armenakis, Harris & Mossholder, 1993).
Although initial steps have been made in the development of models that predict readiness for change, more research is needed for further validation of these instruments (Bouckenooghe, Devos & Broek, 2009). Therefore, this paper will assess the change recipients’ readiness for the change process at ULC Technisch Beheer BV and, besides, will assess which factors influence this level of readiness.
and change agents. The quality of the change communication, participation and leadership relate to how is dealt with change and cover the concept of change process (Bouckenooghe et al, 2009).
Since both process factors and the context in which the change process takes place influence the change recipients’ readiness for change, this paper is focused on the effect of communication, participation, leadership (process factors) and organizational culture (context factor) on the level of change recipients’ readiness for change. This research will investigate to what extent these process and context factors are indeed able to clarify variance in readiness to change. Therefore, the research question for this paper is formulated as follows:
To what extent do the change process and the organizational context influence the level of change recipients’ readiness for change during the reorganization process at ULC Technisch Beheer BV?
The article starts with a literature study on the process and context factors. In this theoretical part, hypotheses for the effect of communication, participation, leadership and organizational culture on readiness for change will be constructed. The literature study will be followed by the methodology, where a description of the research methods is given. Next, the results of this field study will be showed. In this part, hypotheses will be tested by a field study focused on the change process of ULC Technisch Beheer BV. Finally, the results of the field study will be compared and discussed in comparison with the outcomes of the literature study in the discussion part.
THEORY
To grasp the concept of change readiness, it is important to explore, understand, and identify the topics organizational change, change readiness and the process and context factors that seem to influence change readiness.
Organizational change
One of the most well known and much quoted models of organizational change is developed by Lewin (1951). Lewin’s change model describes organizational change as a three‐stage process with an unfreeze, change and refreeze phase. The unfreeze stage of change involves preparing the organization to accept that change is necessary. This stage involves breaking down the existing status quo before a new way of operating can be built up. The change phase is the actual implementation of the change. Finally, refreezing seeks to stabilize the group at a new quasi‐stationary equilibrium in order to ensure that the new behaviours are relatively safe from regression. Successful implementation of change requires that all three phases of the change model are being met. Creating readiness for change is particularly important in the first phase of the change model (Burnes, 2004). This is consistent with Schein (1964), who suggests that the unfreezing phase occurs through the disconfirmation of present beliefs and behaviour and confirming the belief that change is possible or psychological safe. Therefore, change agents and managers in the unfreezing phase of the change process try to increase the change recipients’ readiness for change to gain support for the actual implementation of the change (Gates, 2007).
Readiness for change
According to Holt, Armenakis, Field & Harris (2007: 236), readiness for change can be defined as ‘the extent to which an individual or individuals are cognitively and emotionally inclined to accept, embrace, and adopt a particular plan to purposefully alter the status quo’. Several empirical studies have been conducted using readiness for change. The results suggest that change readiness is a multidimensional construct, however, there is no consensus on the number of factors (Neves, 2009).
Generally, a more positive attitude leads to a stronger intention to perform the desirable behaviour. Despite that there is no clear consensus on the components, change readiness rose as a key construct in order for organizations to successfully change (Neves, 2009). According to Armenakis et al. (1993), change readiness is one of the most essential factors determining employees’ initial support for change initiatives. According to Lines (2004), a change project takes as long as those who are driving it want it to take. As change often demands extra efforts from those who are affected by the change process, it is important to improve the readiness for change of those people. By doing so, the level of effort spent by those involved in the implementation of the change increase and the benefits of the change process can be realized more quickly. Elving (2005) agrees with the relation between change recipients’ feelings of readiness for change and the effectiveness of change implementation. Armenakis et al. (1993) confirm the important influence of employees’ readiness for change on successful change implementation by arguing that the fundamental causal factor of failed change processes is employees’ perception that the organization is unready for the change, with lack of acceptance of the change as a result. In other words, readiness for change is an important factor, since employees’ initial support can influence the final result of the change initiative. For this reason, Jones, Jimmieson & Griffiths (2005) emphasize the importance of assessing the determinants of change readiness.
In this chapter, the process factors (communication, participation and organizational leadership) and the context factor organizational culture, which are subject to this research for their assumed influence on readiness for change, will be elaborated.
Communication
situation, unless they believe that the change is useful and possible. Furthermore, he states that without convincing and extensive communication, employees will never reach this state of readiness. Elving (2005) agrees with the importance of communication during the change process. According to him, change initiatives are about the disturbance of existing situations and are thereby creating uncertainty for the employees. Communication about the motives for change will help to reduce employees’ uncertainty and consequently creating readiness for change. Besides, communication should focus on the change process, so that change recipients get a realistic understanding of what is involved (Evans, 1995). Therefore, Elving (2005) argues that organizations, during the change process, should provide extensive information to its employees about the change, including the reasons for change and the worries employees initially will have. Miller and Monge (1985) takes it even further, by arguing that managers facing change should provide employees with as much information as possible, since the outcome of their study is that any information is better than no information.
Summed up, communication can make organizational members aware of the need for change and clarifies the content and goals of the change process. In this way, communication can reduce the change recipients’ uncertainty about the change process what, in turn, will positively influence the readiness for change. This leads to the following hypothesis for the research:
Hypothesis 1: A change process that is characterized by more communication will influence readiness for change more positively than a change process that is characterized by less communication.
Participation
Participation during change processes has been presumed to positively influence the successful implementation of change initiatives (Lines, 2004). One of the first experiments that explored the positive effects of participation on the outcomes of change processes was conducted by Coch and French (1948). In their study, they found that participation ‐designed by group meetings where planning for the change initiative took place‐ reduced resistance and increased the performance levels after the change implementation.
One vital underpinning for the relationship between participation and readiness for change can be found in the psychological literature on perceived control (Blumberg, 1969). Participation during a change process empowers employees and gives them a certain degree of control. And people have a generalized desire for control, which means that people prefer situations with high perceived control over situations of less control (White, 1992). Furthermore, this need for control acts as a motivational driver during organizational change (Blumberg, 1969).
important for leading change. The assumption that leadership has impact on how employees view change initiatives is anything but new (Lyons et al., 2009).
Several researchers take it one step further by acknowledging that leadership is essential for the successful implementation of any change initiative (Kotter, 1990; Bass & Bass, 2008). Hambrick & Mason (1984) and Agle, Mitchell & Sonnenfeld (1999) argue that managers could shape the way of leading, which in turn shapes the level of readiness for change. According to Devos, Vanderheyden & Van den Broeck (2002), management with a supportive leadership style during a change process enables employees to encounter new challenges.
Supportive leadership can be defined as “attitudes, communication, behaviours and actions by managers and supervisors that enable staff to feel supported thereby to work effectively, productively and appropriately” (Supportive Leadership Workshop: Participant Workbook, 2003: 3). On the other hand, if managers do not support the change initiative actively, employees will consequently not take it serious (Devos et al., 2002). Kotter & Schlesinger (2008) agree that managers have to be supportive in order to improve readiness for change. According to Seren & Baykal (2007), this accounts both for low‐level management as top management.
authors call, transformational‐ or supportive leadership, since it includes behaviours as visioning, creating a sense of urgency around the change, and showing support for the change.
Therefore, independent of the terminology, the degree to which leaders‐ both supervisors and top managers‐ personally emphasize openness to change values and support the change initiative will influence the employees’ readiness for change positively. This leads to the following hypotheses for this research:
Hypothesis 3a: A change process that is characterized by more supportive leadership behaviours of supervisors will influence readiness for change more positively than a change process that is characterized by less supportive leadership behaviours of supervisors.
Hypothesis 3b: A change process that is characterized by more supportive leadership behaviour of top managers will influence readiness for change more positively than a change process that is characterized by less supportive leadership behaviours of top managers.
Organizational culture
There is no clear consensus about a definition of organizational culture (Jones et al., 2005). However, many researchers agree with the three dimensional view of organizational culture as developed by Schein (1990) – which include assumptions, values and artefacts. Within the three dimensional view, values are considered to be central to understanding and describing an organizational culture (Smollan & Sayers, 2009). Therefore, the measurement of organizational culture has mainly focused on values (Jones et al., 2005).
training, communication and participative decision making. An organization with an open system orientation values innovation and growth by encouraging risk‐taking and creativity. Those cultures with an internal process orientation use bureaucratic control strategies in an effort to increase stability and control. Lastly, organizations with a rational goal orientation strive for efficiency and productivity attained through goal‐setting and planning, instructional communication and centralized decision making. The four types of organizational culture are not mutually exclusive. All four culture types can exist in a single organization, although some values are more dominant than others.
There are a number of ways in which organizational culture and organizational change are related. O’Reilly and Chatman (1996) state that organizational culture has a strong effect on what someone sees as important and appropriate. Furthermore, organizational culture shapes the behaviour of its members, including when change takes place (Smollan & Sayers, 2010). According to Smollan and Sayers (2010), it is found that several organizational values can play a role in facilitating change. Jones et al. (2005) found that employees report higher levels of readiness for change when they perceive stronger human relations values in their division. Burnes and James (1995) found evidence to suggest that employees’ resistance for change is lower when a supportive and participative culture is present, characteristics that are consistent with a human relations culture. Eby, Adams, Russell & Gaby (2000) also found that flexible policies and procedures, artefacts which are consistent with a human relations culture, were positively related to employees’ evaluations of their organization and the people working there as being more responsive to change. The open systems culture has several characteristics that are similar to the human relations culture. An organization with an open system culture is characterized as entrepreneurial because its ability to adapt and to take on new challenges (O’Neill and Quinn, 1993).
Overall, Zammuto and O’Connor (1992) found that organizational cultures that are characterized by flexible structures and supportive climates (human relations and open systems cultures) are better able to successfully implement organizational change than more mechanistic organizations that value inflexibility and control (internal process and rational goal cultures).
Based on the existing literature, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 4: Cultures that are characterized by more flexibility and more supportive climates will influence readiness for change more positively than cultures that are characterized by more inflexibility and more control. Conceptual model Figure 1 shows the conceptual model of this research. FIGURE 1 Conceptual model . PROCESS
METHODOLOGY
Research designBased on existing literature, the variables communication, participation, supportive leadership by supervisors and top management (change process factors) and the organizational culture (change context factor), are likely to be related to readiness for
change. This study made use of a quantitative research approach to test if there are statistically significant causal relationships between the independent variables (communication, participation, supportive leadership and organizational culture) and the dependent variable readiness for change. The quantitative research method is chosen since quantitative research, unlike qualitative research, reduces phenomena into numerical values in order to carry out statistical analysis, and therefore makes it possible to investigate causal effects (Gelo, Braakmann & Benetka, 2008). Data collection
To investigate the variables, a survey was carried out among all 53 employees and managers of ULC Technisch Beheer BV that were affected by the change process, including 27 office employees and 26 mechanics that work ‘out in the field’. The survey focused on collecting data on both the independent variables (communication, participation, supportive leadership and organizational culture) and the dependent variable readiness for change. The choice for a survey was made because a survey turned out to be an ideal tool to test suggested correlations and relationships in a time and cost efficient way (Verschuren and Doorewaard, 1999). The survey consisted of statements regarding the different variables. The survey was constructed by making use of questionnaires developed by Bouckenooghe et al. (2009) and Meyer, Heck, Gill & Toplonytsky (2010).
For measuring the variables communication, participation, leadership and readiness for change, there is made use of questionnaires developed by Bouckenooghe et al. (2009). The measures of Bouckenooghe et al. are chosen for several reasons. In the first place, they examine the factors that were under investigation in this research. Besides, the measures of Bouckenooghe et al. were based on data attained from a wide range of participants with different organizational backgrounds and focused on different types of organizational change. Therefore, their generalizability is high. Furthermore, reliability and validity is proved (Bouckenooghe et al., 2009). The survey participants of this research were asked to indicate the level to which they agree with every single statement on communication, participation, supportive leadership and readiness for change in relation to the current organizational change process at ULC Technisch Beheer BV.
Competing Values Model (CVM) culture questionnaire as developed by Cameron and Quinn (1999). The instrument measures organizational culture according to core values as reflected in several organizational attributes. The statements do reflect the organizational attributes as they would be manifest in organizations characterizing the four culture types in the CVM. The culture questionnaire of Meyer et al. (2010) is, in the first place, chosen because it measures organizational culture, which is one of the variables under investigation in this research. Besides, the questionnaire is based on the Competing Values Model, which is one of the most influential and extensively used models in organizational culture research and validated as a powerful measure of organizational culture (Yu & Wu, 2009). Survey respondents of this research were asked to indicate to what extent statements, describing various attributes of each of the four CVM culture types, are an appropriate description of the organization.
The survey statements ‐ as developed by Bouckenooghe et al. (2009) and Meyer et al. (2010) ‐ were translated into Dutch, since the organization that was subject to this research is Dutch. The translation from English to Dutch was done in person. To check the correctness of the translation, a second person translated the Dutch translation back into English. Next, the original and back‐translated versions of the questionnaire were compared. The several discrepancies that existed between the two versions were discussed and those words in the translated version that caused the discrepancies were adjusted.
organizational attributes that are indicators of the nature of an organization’s culture are: 1) the organization’s climate, 2) the ‘glue’ that binds the organizations, 3) mission/vision, 4) the organization’s leader, 5) management style, 6) reward structure and 7) recruitment and selection. To give an example of these organizational attributes, seven statements reflecting these attributes of organizational culture are listed below:
1. Climate: ‘the climate inside the organization emphasizes good employee relations. It is participative and supportive.’
2. Glue: ‘the glue that holds the organization together consists of loyalty and commitment.’
3. Mission/vision: ‘the mission and vision statements promote an image of the organization as an employee‐focused company.’
4. Leadership: ‘the organization’s general manager is generally considered to be a mentor, facilitator, and team player.’
5. Management: ‘in the organization, middle management encourages teamwork, consensus and participation.’
6. Reward structure: ‘in the organization, recognition and rewards are most often given to those who are co‐operative and team players.’
7. Recruitment and selection: ‘in the organization, recruitment and selection practices are geared to bring in employees who are courteous, friendly, supportive, and fair.’
Finally, readiness for change is measured by 13 statements. Since readiness for change is a multifaceted component, the statements are divided on emotional (5 statements), cognitive (5 statements) and intentional (3 statements) readiness for change. Examples of the survey statements that reflect those three components of readiness for change are:
1. Emotional readiness: ‘I have a good feeling about the change project.’
2. Cognitive readiness: ‘I think that most changes will have a negative effect on the clients we serve.’
Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with every single statement on a 7‐point Likert‐scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The Likert‐ scale was used because it is the most widely used scale in a survey research and it has proven its reliability (Rhodes, Matheson & Mark, 2010). Besides, the choice for a 7‐point scale is made because the research of Rhodes et al. (2010) showed that the 7‐point scale produces greater variability than the 5‐point scale and that the 7‐point Likert‐scale has the highest overall reliability.
Besides the statements on communication, participation, leadership, organizational culture and readiness for change, the survey contained several control variables. The first control variable is workplace (at the office; in the field; combination of both). Besides, age (21‐30 year; 31‐40 year; 41‐50 year; 51‐60 year; 61 year and older) and tenure (less than 1 year; 1‐5 year; 6‐10 year; 11‐15 year; 16 year and older) were asked. Moreover, the degree to which someone’s own activities will be influenced by the change process was used as control variable. All employees of ULC Technisch Beheer BV will be somehow affected by the change process, however, the degree to which they are affected could vary. And this variation, in turn, could influence the level of change readiness.
After the survey was constructed, it had to be pre‐tested to ensure that the final version of the survey was clear, unambiguous, and uniformly workable to ensure that the desired data are obtained (Dale, 1985; Synodinos, 2003). Conform the literature on pre‐testing, the first pre‐test was done in person and the final pre‐test was done by several potential respondents and with the intended survey method (i.e. online survey and paper survey) (Kinnear and Taylor, 1996; Synodinos, 2003). Based on the pre‐tests, small adjustments in the survey (mainly clarifying complicated words) were made to increase the comprehensibility. Besides, the pre‐test was used to measure the average time for filling in the survey.
who the email address was not known, got a printed version, together with a cover letter, sent to their home address. To increase the chance that the survey was filled in honestly, anonymity was guaranteed. The average time to fill in the survey was 15 minutes. The deadline to fill in the survey was set on three weeks. After one week 16 employees completed the survey. At the start of the second week a reminder by e‐mail was sent to all participants. At the closing date, 27 employees filled in the survey. To increase the response rate, a reminder was sent by the director of ULC Technisch Beheer BV and the deadline was postponed with 5 more days. This resulted in an increased number of participants, with 33 completed surveys in total; an ultimate response rate of 62,3%. The ultimate response rate of 62,3% is higher than the mean response rate ‐for organizational respondents on mailed surveys‐ of 35,7% as reported in the research of Cycyota and Harrison (2006), and an average rate of 52,3%, as found by Anseel, Lievens, Schollaert & Choragwicka (2010) by analyzing 2037 surveys. The high response rate is possible due to the repeated follow‐up contacts, which generally lead to a higher response rates (Synodinos, 2003). However, other factors could also have influenced the response rate. Respondents could have been content with the chance to give their (anonymous) opinion about how things are going in the organization or they could have been willing to help with the research.
The survey respondents can be seen as representative for the employees of ULC Technisch Beheer BV. Looking at the workplace, the survey respondents are almost evenly divided between office employees (30%), fieldworkers (43%) and the combination of both (27%), which is comparable with the real situation. Looking at the age of the respondents, all age categories are represented, however, most respondents are classified in the categories that covers ages 31 till 60 (86%). Besides, the survey respondents are almost evenly divided over the different tenure categories, only the category of ‘tenure < 1 year’ was rare. However, this was not surprising since the turnover of the company is very low.
version of the survey. Therefore, it seems that the (aforementioned) advantages of the online survey have influenced the response rate positively. However, it is also possible that there is a relationship between illiteracy and internet usage; those mechanics that do not have an email address (and therefore received the paper version of the survey) could be the ones that have problems with receptive reading and writing. Next, the workplace seems not to have influenced the response rate, since the response rate of mechanics is almost evenly to the response rate of office employees. As described above, for this research, a survey was chosen to measure the effect of the independent factors on change recipients’ readiness for change. Besides, there is made use of participant observations. Participant observation is a qualitative method where the researcher becomes a participant in the context that is observed. Data is gathered by watching the people in their natural environment, analysing personal documents that are produced within the group and (informal) conversations with some or all the participants in the group (Silva, 2004).
When conducting the research at ULC Technisch Beheer BV, I have been part of the workforce for a six months period. During the first month, 15 office employees, in different jobs, were interviewed. Besides, 5 client projects of ULC Technisch Beheer BV were visited to watch and interview several mechanics in their own working environment. These interviews were unstructured and informal and focused on getting insights in the company and its performance, the organizational structure and the change process.
combining the items that measure the same variable. Next, a factor analysis was carried out to test if the items are measuring the same factor. The factor analysis has four criteria, which should be met in order to pass the factor analysis: 1) Variance explained > 60%, 2) Eigenvalue (EV) > 1, 3) Kaiser‐Meyer‐Olking (KMO) > .500 and 4) Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity significance < .05.
A factor analysis on all independent factors combined most of the items into one single component. However, since these factors are measuring different concepts and the measures of Bouckenooghe et al. (2009) and Meyer et al. (2010) already proved their reliability, there is decided to remain the original factors as developed by Bouckenooghe et al. (2009) and Meyer et al. (2010). The outcomes of the factor analysis are probably due to the small survey group or the specific situation at ULC Technisch Beheer BV.
Next, a factor analysis on each particular concept was done. All independent concepts (communication, participation, supportive leadership by supervisors and top management and the four organizational culture types) passed the factor analysis. However, for all four culture types the item about leadership was removed, since it did not correlate with the other items on organizational culture. This could be explained by the fact that the director of ULC Technisch Beheer BV is working at the organization for less than a year. When a new organizational member enters the company, a process of socialization takes place in the years that follow; the new organizational member and the organization interact with one another, generating cycles of action and adaptation on both sides (Denis, Langley & Pineault, 2000). Since the new director entered ULC Technisch Beheer BV less than a year ago, it is likely that the socialization process did not fully take place. Besides, a high level of socialization was not preferable for the new director, since new leaders from outside the organization are more likely than insiders to initiate major change (Tushman, Virany & Romanelli, 1985; Wiersema, 1992).
Theory of Reasoned Action. In this theory, as mentioned in the theoretical part, they argue
that readiness for change consists of someone’s attitude towards the change and the intention to change, where a more positive attitude leads to a stronger intention to perform the desirable behaviour. Therefore, the concept readiness for change is subdivided into the three components as subdivided in the factor analysis. More background information on this analysis is included in appendix C.
After the factor analysis was passed, internal consistencies of the variables were tested by a reliability analysis. A Cronbach Alpha (α) of .70 or higher is considered to be acceptable (Nunnally, 1978). The Cronbach Alpha of the factor task specific attitude was a bit too low (α = 0.682), however, since the deviation from the acceptable level is very small, the Cronbach Alpha is seen as acceptable for all factors.
The next step of the data analysis is the identification of extreme values, since these can render the data non‐normal. The extreme values of all factors are examined trough a box plot. Only the factor intentional readiness for change has one respondent with an extreme value. However, since this respondent scored normal on the other factors, his scores on intentional readiness are not removed.
The last step of the data analysis was comparing the distribution of the factors under investigation with a normal distribution. To investigate if the factors are normally distributed, the Kolmogorov – Smirnov (KS) test and the Quantile‐Quantile (Q‐Q) plot were used. The null hypothesis of the KS claims that a concept is normally distributed, which should be rejected if the KS value exceeds the significance level of 5%. The KS test indicates that all factors in this research, except for task‐specific attitude towards change process, are normal distributed. In addition, the Q‐Q plots show that all factors are normally distributed. As a result of the data analysis, all remaining factors in this research are useful for the purpose of this research.
RESULTS
conclude to what extent independent variables influence change recipients’ readiness for change. The Spearman’s correlation test (one tailed) was used to investigate the correlation between the factors. Next, the multiple regression analysis is used to analyze how much influence communication, participation, support by supervisors and top management, and organizational culture have simultaneous on the three components of readiness for change. The correlation analysis (table 1) shows a significant positive relationship between communication and change recipients’ general attitude towards the change process (r = .47, p < .01). However, the multiple regression analysis (table 2) indicates that communication has no significant influence on the general attitude. Besides, both the correlation analysis and the multiple regression analysis show no significant relation between communication and task‐specific attitude towards the change process and intentional readiness for change. Therefore, no sufficient evidence is found to support a causal relationship between communication and readiness for change. As a result, hypothesis 1 is rejected. Besides, the correlation analysis (table 1) as well as the multiple regression analysis (table 2) indicate a significant positive correlation and influence of participation on general attitude towards the change process (r= .97, p < .05). This indicates that when employees are more involved in the change process, this will positively influence the general attitude towards the change process. However, both the correlation analysis and the multiple regression analysis show no significant relation between participation and task‐specific attitude towards the change process and intentional readiness for change. Taken together, there is found significant evidence for a positive effect of participation on one of the components of readiness for change. Therefore, hypothesis 2 is (partly) accepted.
TABLE 1 Correlation Analysis M SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 1. Communication 3.42 1.16 2. Participation 3.69 .97 .82*** 3. Supervisor 3.52 1.07 .49** .71*** 4. Top management 4.63 .85 .22 .24 .07 5. Human relations culture 3.58 1.07 .61*** .82*** .73*** .10 6. Open systems culture 3.72 .97 .64*** .76*** .59*** ‐.18 .80*** 7. Internal process culture 3.70 .90 .43** .50** .51** ‐.16 .70*** .70*** 8. Rational goal culture 3.34 .83 .31* .38* .38* ‐.18 .55** .60*** .74*** 9. General attitude 4.40 1.09 .47** .65*** .57*** .04 .44** .43** .42** .25 10. Task specific attitude 3.55 .67 .20 .21 .24 .07 .03 .17 .03 .03 .18 11. Intentional readiness 5.35 1.35 ‐.07 .02 ‐.13 .19 .01 ‐.06 ‐.08 .06 .16 ‐.07 * P < .05, ** P < .01, *** P < .001 TABLE 2 Multiple regression analysis Note: Step 1 = multiple regression analysis with participants’ individual attributes, Step 2 = multiple regression analysis with participants’ individual attributes and perception of process and context factors.
General attitude Task specific attitude Intentional readiness
Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2
Furthermore, the correlation analysis (table 1) shows no significant relation between support by top management and any of the components of readiness for change. Besides, the multiple regression analysis shows no significant effect on task‐specific attitude towards the change process and intentional readiness for change. However, the multiple regression analysis (table 2) shows a significant negative relation between support by management and general attitude towards the change (r= ‐.35, p < .05). Since this result is conflicting with the hypothesized positive relationship between support by top management and change readiness, hypothesis 3b is rejected.
The correlation analysis (table 1) shows a significant correlation between all the four culture types. This indicates that the organization under investigation is characterized by elements of all four Competing Value Model culture types. Consequently, it is not possible to investigate whether an organizational culture characterized by human relation and open system values has a more positive effect on readiness to change than a culture characterized by internal process and rational goal values. Therefore, hypothesis 4 is removed.
In the multiple regression analysis all four culture types are taken together, to investigate if organizational culture is in another way related to readiness for change; that is, if a strong organizational culture has a more positive effect on readiness for change than a weak organizational culture. However, the multiple regression analysis shows that there is no significant relation between organizational culture and any of the components of readiness for change.
For general attitude towards the change, the model explains 61% of the variance (R2 = .61). 18% of this variance can be explained by individual attributes (R2 = .18) and 43% of the variance is caused by the process and context factors that were subject to this research (R2 = .43). However, the model was not able to significantly clarify the variance in task specific attitude towards change and intentional readiness for change. The complete multiple regression analysis and the explained variance can be found in table 2.
DISCUSSION
management and the organizational context. This research measured both the independent variables and the three components of the dependent variable readiness for change. Besides, this research investigates the influence of the independent variables on readiness for change.
Looking at the process factors, the research provides statistical evidence for the hypothesized causal relation between participation and change readiness. The correlation analysis, however, showed that communication and support by supervisors also have a significant positive influence on change recipients’ readiness for change. These effects are no longer significant in the multiple regression analysis; apparently, the explained variance of these factors in the correlation analysis is covered by participation in the multiple regression analysis. This is plausible, since the correlation analysis shows that communication, support by supervisors and participation do correlate with each other. So, although communication and support by supervisors are important for change recipients’ readiness for change, participation turned out to be the only process factor that significantly influences change recipients’ readiness for change in this research.
Several researches confirm that communication, participation and supportive leadership are interrelated factors. Holt et al. (2007) describe participation as a factor that positively influences readiness for change, through two mechanisms. First, those who are actively involved in planning and implementing a change initiative have a better opportunity to influence the change, which make them more affectively committed to the change effort. Besides, those who participate often have greater access to change‐related information than those who do not participate. In other words, Holt et al. (2007) argue that participation includes communication, but is broader by also giving change recipients the opportunity to influence the change. Cinite, Duxbury & Higgins (2009), on the other hand, see both communication and participation as items of support by supervisors by arguing that employees perceive support from their immediate manager during the change process when they encourage their staff to participate in the change initiative and share information from upper management on the change.
is chosen to remain the factors as original constructed by Bouckenooghe et al. (2009) and Meyer et al. (2010).
Support by top management, on the other hand, has a significant negative effect on readiness for change. This is conflicting with what was hypothesized, i.e. that support by top management has a positive effect on change readiness due to the perceived social pressure of change recipients by valued others, who are performing specific behaviour themselves (Ajzen, 1991). The unexpected negative relationship could be explained by the ‘force‐field theory’ of Lewin (1951), which explains why people change. According to Lewin’s theory, there are two opposing forces that have an impact on a change process. Driving forces urging toward a behaviour that brings about change; restraining forces propelling away from a behaviour, in order to maintain a status quo. For change to be possible, the driving forces must overcome the restraining forces. But according to Lewin’s model, strengthening the driving forces will intensify the opposition at the same time. In other words, the more one side pushes for changing behaviour, the more the other side will resist, resulting in no change (Quah & Young, 2005). In this light, change recipients at ULC Technisch Beheer BV could have experienced too much pressure from the top management to change, and as a reaction, they resisting it. A more effective way to bring about change is to diminish or remove restraining forces.
Other remarkable findings
for change. This is consistent with the research of Schalk, Campbell & Freese (1998), who argued that readiness for change depends on the perceived need for change. It is not without reason that ‘create urgency for change’ is the first step in Kotter’s (1995) well known 8‐stages model for successful implementation of change initiatives.
processes should be considered by the management of ULC Technisch Beheer BV to increase readiness for change, which in turn will facilitate successful change implementation.
A first step in improving the participation of change recipients could be the start of the steering groups. It could be wisely to start with this soon, since it was already planned to start with this in October. In October, the three most important subjects for the employees were already identified and the employees already gave their first and second choice for a subject to join. The management of ULC Technisch Beheer BV should make the definitive composition of the steering groups and a planning when the group meetings will take place. Since several studies concluded that heterogeneous groups are more likely than homogeneous groups to be creative and to reach high quality decisions (Filley, House, & Kerr, 1976; Hoffman, 1979; Shaw, 1981; McGrath, 1984), the teams should be heterogeneous in, for example, functions, age and tenure. Besides, however there is no consensus on the most effective group size, the amount of group members should be limited since several studies found that the number of ideas generated per person declines as the size of the group increase (Gallupe, Dennis, Cooper, Valacich, Bastianutti & Nunamaker, 1992).
When is decided on the composition, the steering groups should come together with the management to walk together through a problem solving process. Including the management in the change process is necessary since they are the decision makers in the process. In fact, most problem solving processes can be generalized to a four stage model, including: identifying the problem, generating solutions, evaluating for an appropriate solution, and implementing the chosen solution (Friedel & Hatala, 2009). In 3 á 4 meetings of 1 to 2 hours per steering group, these stages could be passed, resulting in a plan in which is decided on actions, planning and responsibilities. Next, it is important to communicate the outcomes of the steering groups to the entire department by spreading the minutes or organizing a central meeting, to make sure that all change recipients are well informed about what is decided.
items communication and participation, an important restraining force at ULC Technisch Beheer BV could be that employees do not understand what is going to change and how this is going to happen. Participation in the form of steering groups as discussed above, and more frequent updates about the change process in the form of central department meetings or memo’s could help to diminish the restraining force ‘lack of information’.
In a broader context, for all managers and change agents that have to deal with organizational change, it could be beneficial to know which factors influence readiness for change. This research shows that process factors indeed influence the level of readiness for change. Since process factors can be influenced by managers, insights in the effects of these factors can help by designing the process in a way that enhances the successful implementation of a change initiative.
Scientific implications
The results of this research do not fully support the findings of Bouckenooghe et al. (2009), that process and context factors are the only key components in determining readiness for change. While general attitude towards the change process can, for a large amount, be explained by these factors, this is not the case for task specific attitude and intentional readiness. Therefore, it can be concluded that more factors should affect the level of readiness. In this research, several factors are determined as possible factors that, besides process and context factors, influence readiness for change.
First, awareness of the need for change seems important in determining readiness for change. When change recipients are more aware of the need for change, they would be more willing to support the change process.
Besides, change history seems to influence readiness for change. When a change recipient goes into organizational change, a schema of previous change experiences is triggered. The sentiment (i.e. positive or negative) that is linked with these experiences will thereupon determine the effort someone will put into the change.
Limitations and further research
However, other researchers shows that there are more factors that influence readiness for change, for example change content (Bernerth, 2004; Holt, 2007) and individual characteristics (Holt, 2007) as age (Morris and Venkatesh, 2000) and tenure (Hanpachern, Morgan & Griego, 1998).
The outcomes of this research make the impression that process and context factors are not the only two elements that can make or break change recipients’ readiness for change. Based on participant observations during the research period at ULC Technisch Beheer BV, I discovered change recipients’ awareness of the need for change and change history as possible determinants of readiness for change. However, since these factors were beyond the scope of the research, there is no statistical evidence for these relationships. Therefore, further research is needed to get full insight in the factors that do influence change recipients’ readiness for change.
Second, due to the high interrelations between the four culture types in the organization under investigation, it was not able to investigate whether cultures that are characterized by more flexibility and more supportive climates will influence readiness for change more positively than cultures that are characterized by more inflexibility and more control. To investigate the actual influence of the different cultural types, further research should investigate the effect of organizational culture in several organizations with different organizational cultures.
The outcomes of this research also showed that the difference between a strong or a weak perceived organizational culture does not significantly effects the level of readiness for change. However, since the research was not set up to investigate this relationship, further research on the relationship between the level of perceived organizational culture and change readiness should be done. Also in this case, it would be better to investigate this relationship in different organizations with different levels of perceived organizational culture instead of in one single organization, as done in this research.
