THE MODERATING ROLE OF CHANGE AGENT’S VISIONARY
SKILLS ON EMPLOYEES’ ACHIEVEMENT GOAL ORIENTATION
AND READINESS FOR CHANGE
Master Thesis
MSc Human Resource Management & MSc Business Administration Specialization: Change Management
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business June 21, 2012 P.Y. BOOM Student number: 1764926 Folkingestraat 18a 9718 JW Groningen Tel: + 31 (0)6 30 79 95 42 Email: p.y.boom@student.rug.nl Supervisor: Dr. Roy Sijbom Co-assessor: Dr. Cees Reezigt
2 ABSTRACT
In organizational change efforts, employees are of crucial importance for successful change. This study examines the influence of achievement goals, as a motivational framework, on readiness to change, and specifically the moderating role of visionary skills of the change agent on this relation. Also, the direct influence of visionary skills of the change agent on change readiness was examined. Survey data, collected from 97 employees from a Dutch governmental institution, was used for testing the hypotheses related to mastery goals, performance goals, change readiness, and visionary skills of the change agent. No support was found for the direct effects of mastery goals and performance goals on change readiness. However, consistent with previous literature on the direct influence of visions on change readiness, results show that there was a positive direct effect of visionary skills on change readiness. Furthermore, when regarding visionary skills as a moderator, a striking result was found; individuals with high performance goals are more ready to change when visionary skills are low, than employees with low performance goals. In addition, supplementary analyses were performed for a more in-depth understanding of the relation between achievement goals and change readiness. The theoretical implications of the results, the limitations of this study, and avenues for future research are discussed.
3 INTRODUCTION
Due to globalization, deregulation, and more intense competition in markets, organizations are required to implement change initiatives to stay in business (Jaros, 2010). For change to be successful, the organization is dependent on creating support and eagerness among employees (Piderit, 2000), and creating readiness for change is therefore needed. Leaders who can create readiness among employees for new goals, programs, policies, and procedures are more likely of having these crucial business aspects effectively implemented (Kotter, 1996). As leaders outline the actions their organizations, and thus their employees, should take during a change effort (Oreg & Berson, 2012), they can be regarded as change agents during change initiatives. Therefore, in the present study, we will focus on how leaders’ visionary skills can enhance the readiness for change of employees.
4 Judge, Thorenson, Pucik, & Welbourne, 1999; Miller, Johnson, & Grau, 1994; Wanberg & Banas, 2000).
Academic scholars have regarded change readiness from a motivational perspective (Armenakis et al., 1993; Bouckenooghe, 2010). However, as a motivational framework, the achievement goal approach has scarcely been applied to explain change readiness. Therefore, employees’ achievement goals are identified as an important motivational framework that may clarify employee’s readiness for change. Specifically, we investigate how these motivational factors may influence how employees interpret and respond to change efforts, and how it influences either their support or resistance towards this change. As such, it provides a more deepened understanding of motivational processes in change readiness.
Based on the achievement goal approach to achievement motivation (e.g., DeShon & Gillespie, 2005; Elliot, 2005; Farr, Hofmann, & Ringenbach, 1993; Payne, Youngcourt, & Beaubien, 2007), we assumed that different achievement goals would lead to employees’ use of different perceptual-cognitive frameworks to respond to change initiatives (e.g., Janssen & Van Yperen, 2004). We investigated the differential effects of two approach forms of achievement goals. Specifically, employees with performance goals desire to demonstrate superior competence by outperforming others, whereas employees with mastery goals strive to develop and gain competence by acquiring new skills and mastering new situations (Elliot, 2005; Elliot & McGregor, 2001).
5 employee will influence his or her readiness for change, and how the visionary skills of the change agent influence this process.
THEORY AND HYPOTHESES Readiness to change
An uncertain future due to change makes individuals, in general, not motivated to change, except when there are convincing reasons to do so (Bouckenooghe, Devos, & Broeck, 2009). In having employees’ initial support for change efforts, readiness is one of the key factors (Armenakis et al., 1993; Armenakis, Harris & Field, 1999). Change readiness has been defined in various ways. For instance, Holt, Armenakis, Field, and Harris (2007) defined it as a comprehensive attitude that is influenced by the process, context, individual attributes, and content of the change. Moreover, it has been defined based on the tripartite view by Azjen (1985), as a cognitive state consisting of attitudes, beliefs, and intentions toward a change initiative (Armenakis et al., 1993). This study will use the definition provided by Armenakis et al. (1993) as well as Miller et al. (1994). Hence, change readiness is the extent to which employees have a positive examination of the urgency for or ganizational change (i.e. change acceptance), as well as the extent to which employees consider that the initiated changes are likely to have a positive impact for themselves and the organization as a whole.
6 2007). In order to achieve successful change, a process of influencing and monitoring the beliefs of employees should be executed by change leaders (Armenakis et al., 2007). Therefore, we will regard the change readiness construct as an intentional construct, which in turn may lead to actual change. Yet, we do not regard the construct as actual change.
Armenakis et al. (2007) identified the five most significant beliefs of change recipients, namely: discrepancy, appropriateness, efficacy, principal support, and valence.
Discrepancy is the belief that change is needed (Armenakis et al., 1993), and it creates a sense
of urgency (Kotter, 1995). When a sense of urgency is created, a sequent belief should be formed. This belief is appropriateness, which indicates that a certain change is needed to eliminate the discrepancy (Armenakis et al., 2007). Efficacy is the perceived ability to implement the change effort (Bandura, 1986). Principal support refers to the belief that organizational leaders are committed to the change, by investing energy, time, and resources that are needed for institutionalizing the change (Armenakis & Harris, 2002). Lastly, personal
valence was developed by Vroom (1964) in his work on motivation. It refers to “the
7 As the beliefs employees’ hold about the change initiative determine their behaviors, and the motivational aspects in some of these beliefs, it is necessary to further conceptualize motivation, especially the achievement goal approach.
Conceptualization of motivation: The achievement goal approach
The achievement goal approach to achievement motivation is a highly influential framework that focuses on motivational processes. This framework helps to understand how people classify, experience, and react to competence-relevant situations, including the workplace (Anseel, Van Yperen, Janssen & Duyk, 2011; Elliot, 2005). According to Elliot and McGregor (2001) achievement goals are the purpose or cognitive-dynamic focus of competence behavior. Competence is at the center of the achievement goal construct, and can be defined in terms of “the referent or standard that is used in performance evaluation” (Elliot & McGregor, 2001: 501).
8 The achievement goal approach has two primary goal types, as they represent different understandings of success and different reasons for addressing and engaging in achievement activities (Ames, 1992). These two main types of goals are: mastery goals and performance goals (Dweck, 1986). Each goal type can be further subdivided. Elliot and McGregor (2001) constructed a framework, representing four different goal types, with either an approach or avoidance aspect. The approach-oriented individual is pursuing beneficial outcomes, while the avoidance-oriented individual tries to avoid unfavorable outcomes (Janssen & Van Yperen, 2004). As this study focuses on creating readiness for change, which can be seen as a positive state that needs to be reached, we focus on approach goals only. Mastery-approach goals are intrapersonal focused, hence on the individual itself (Anseel et al., 2011). Thus, the focus is on the development of competence, attainting skills, and performing well, as well as mastering new situations (Janssen & Van Yperen, 2004). Performance-approach goals are interpersonal focused, hence between the individual and others (Anseel et al., 2011), whereby the focus is on gaining superiority over others by demonstrating competence to others (Elliot & McGregor, 2001; Janssen & Van Yperen, 2004). Because we focused on approach goals only in the present research, mastery-approach goals are referred to as mastery goals and performance-approach goals are referred to as performance goals.
Achievement goals and readiness for change
The manner in which employees understand the reasons for change will influence how they will react to it (Rousseau & Tijoriwala, 1999). In this paper, it is expected that both achievement goals will lead to different states of readiness for change.
9 line with previous research, in which it was shown that mastery goal individuals tend to deal with challenging circumstances by putting more energy in their work (Dweck, 1999; Farr et al., 1993). Moreover, these individuals find difficult goals interesting, as it provides them a challenging opportunity which can lead to personal growth (VandeWalle, Brown, Cron, & Slocum, 1999), and they look for challenges that offer them learning possibilities (Ames & Archer, 1988). A change initiative can be seen as challenging, as well as a difficult goal that needs to be achieved. Mastery goals have been related to positive outcomes, such as openness to new experiences and optimism (VandeWalle et al., 1999), internal locus of control (Button et al., 1996), and the willingness to work hard (VandeWalle, 1997).
10 This will lead to the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1. Mastery goals will be positively related to readiness for change. Hypothesis 2. Performance goals will be negatively related to readiness for change.
Change agent’s visionary skills and readiness for change
During a change initiative, leadership needs to help organizational members in overcoming their resistance towards change, and support them in adopting new practices (Kanter, 1983; Van de Ven, 1986). Moreover, it has been found that the change agent’s ability to create an appealing vision is a crucial skill for change to be successful (Nikolaou, Gouras, Vakila, & Bourantas, 2007; Kotter, 1995; Bass & Avolio, 1994). Therefore, it is expected that the change agent’s visionary skills will have a positive effect on change readiness.
As argued above, as the change agent can be the leader of the change initiative, these concepts will be used interchangeably. The change agent can be defined as the individual who will facilitate and plan the change process, who will enable and empower employees to take decisions, and who will take the role of consultant in coordinating and project management during the change effort (Nikolaou et al., 2007).
11 (2002), in which they argue that the message for change is the mechanism for creating readiness, as it incorporates the need for change, and the individual and collective efficacy. As a change message can be a mechanism for creating change, t his message could also contain the vision that the change agent tries to communicate to and disseminate among the employees.
This will lead to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3. The change agent’s visionary skills will enhance employee’s readiness f or
change.
Inte rplay between employees’ achievement goals and change agent’s visionary skills Both mastery goals individuals and performance goals individuals respond differently to change readiness, therefore it is expected that they will have diverging reactions towards the visionary skills of the change agent.
12 This is in line with previous studies. For instance, research has indicated that mastery goal individuals were more likely to approach and engage in a consistent manner to learning activities when they perceive meaningful reasons for doing so (Ames, 1992). Moreover, these individuals believe that they can achieve the task with reasonable effort, and they are more willing to apply this effort, when the task is defined in a specific manner, and when it includes short-term goals (Schunk, 1984). Furthermore, in creative organizational settings, employees are more likely to attend to and learn from transformational leaders’ inspirational skills, and these leaders serve as role models in proactive thinking and producing new ideas (Gong, Huang, & Farh, 2009) Also, through the leader’s compelling visionary skills, he or she can effectively persuade subordinates to be creative too (Gong et al., 2009). Thus, it is expected that the change agent’s visionary skills will have a positive effect on the readiness for change of mastery-oriented employees.
In contrast, performance goal individuals are expected to react differently to the change agent’s visionary skills. As stated above, these individuals are focused on gaining superiority over others by demonstrating competence (Ja nssen & Van Yperen, 2004). However, achieving superiority over the change agent may be difficult, as the change agent may be regarded as competent when communicating a strong and compelling vision. Hence, it is expected that employees with performance goals will be less ready to change, and a communicated vision by a competent change agent may lessen their readiness even more, as they are less open to the communicated vision.
13 individuals are confronted with their own inferiority (Janssen & Van Yperen, 2004). This could also be applied to change situations, where a change agent with good visionary skills may be perceived as very competent, and the performance goal individual may see this change agent even more as a threat. Furthermore, as was argued before, performance goal individuals prefer repeating task strategies, in such a way that they become automatic, which enables them to gain superiority over others (Fisher & Ford, 1998). A communicated vision about a new future state might involve changing predetermined routines of tasks and procedures. Hence, performance goal employees are less ready to change, and the visionary skills of the change agent makes them even less ready to change.
This will lead to the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 4a. Change agent’s visionary skills strengthen the positive relationship between
mastery goal employees and readiness for change.
Hypothesis 4b.: Change agent’s visionary skills strengthen the negative relationship between
performance goal employees and readiness for change.
14 FIGURE 1
Conceptual frame work
METHODS Sample and Procedure
15 1= 25 – 30 years (2.1 percent); 2= 30 – 35 years (4.1 percent); 3= 35 – 40 years (14.4 percent); 4= 40 – 45 years (16.5 percent); 5= 45 – 50 years 22.7 percent); 6= 50 – 55 years (22.7 percent); 7= 55 – 60 years (14.4 percent); 8= 60 years or older (3.1 percent). The categories for tenure were: 1= shorter than five years (4.1 percent); 2= 5 – 10 years (10.3 percent); 3= 10 – 15 years (27.8 years); 4= 15 – 20 years (13.4 percent); 5= 20 – 25 years (9.3 percent); 6= 25 – 30 years (25.8 percent); 7= 30 – 35 (6.2 percent); 8= longer than 35 years (3.1 percent).
Measures
Mastery goals. The scale that was used for measuring mastery goals was developed by Elliot, Murayama, and Pekrun (2011). Three items were used to cover the self-approach dimension of mastery self-approach, and the internal reliability was high (α = .81). Items used were: “My aim is to perform better in my work than I have done in the past”, “In my work I am striving to do well relative to how well I have done in the past”, and “My goal in my work is to do better than I typically do”. Responses were given on a seven-point scale, ranging from 1, “Strongly agree”, to 7, “Strongly disagree”. All questions were recoded.
Performance goals. In order to measure performance goals, the scale developed by
Elliot et al. (2011) was used. Three questions were used for measuring performance approach goals (α = .85). Items that were used: “My aim is to outperform other colleagues in my work”, “In my work I am striving to do well compared to other colleagues”, and “In my work my goal is to do better than my colleagues”. Responses were given on a seven-point scale, ranging from 1, “Strongly agree”, to 7, “Strongly disagree”. All questions were recoded.
16 future”. Responses were given on a seven-point scale, ranging from 1, “Strongly agree”, to 7, “Strongly disagree”; α = .96. All questions were recoded. Other items that were used are listed in Appendix A.
Change readiness. Holt, Armenakis, Feild and Harris (2007) developed four
factors for measuring change readiness. These four themes are: Appropriateness, Change Efficacy, Management Support, and Personally Beneficial. Each theme was covered by multiple items. Appropriateness was measured using ten items. An example item of appropriateness is: “There are legitimate reasons for us to make this change”. Eight items needed to be recoded. The internal reliability of this factor was α= .81. Change efficacy was measured using six items. An example question: “I have the skills that are needed to make this change work”. Five items needed to be recoded. The internal reliability of this factor was α= .80. The factor Personally Beneficial was measured by using three items. Items used were: “I am worried I will lose some of my status in the organization when this change is implemented”, “This change will disrupt many of the personal relationships I have developed”, and “My future in this job will be limited because of this change”. The internal reliability of this factor was α = .60. Management support was measured using six items. An exemplary question for management support was: “Our senior leaders have e ncouraged all of us to embrace this change”. The internal reliability of this factor was α= .78. Four items were recoded. Responses were given on a seven-point scale, ranging from 1, “Strongly agree”, to 7, “Strongly disagree”. Other items that were used are listed in Appendix A.
17 Statistical analyses
In order to analyze the direct relationships between the two types of achievement goals, visionary skills of the change agent, and readiness to change, as well as the moderating effect of the visionary skills of the change agent, a hierarchical linear regression was performed. Before the regression analyses were being conducted, the independent, moderator, and control variables were standardized.
RESULTS Descriptive Statistics
Table 1 represents the means, standard deviations, and the zero-order Pearson correlations. As is shown in Table 1, both mastery goals and performance goals were not significantly related to change readiness. The visionary skills of the change agent was positively related to change readiness (r = .26, p < .01). In addition, as also shown in Table 1, the control variables do have some significant correlations. For instance, age was negatively related to mastery goals (r = -.23, p < .05), and gender was negatively related to change readiness (r = -.23, p < .05).
TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics and Pearson Zero-Order Correlations Among the Study Variables
Variables Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Gender 1.44 0.49 -
2. Age 6.95 1.59 -.13 -
3. Mastery goals 4.78 1.33 -.11 -.23* - 4. Performance goals 3.61 1.35 -.07 -.12 .38** -
5. Vis ionary Skills 4.23 1.50 -.14 -.05 -.09 -.09 -
6. Change Read iness 4.74 0.61 -.23* .12 .06 .069 .26** -
7. Appropriateness 4.49 0.77 -.17 .07 .03 .11 .22* .85** -
8. Manage ment Support 4.47 0.97 -.13 .24* .00 .11 .30** .37** .37** -
18 Hypotheses Testing
Hierarchical linear regression analyses consisting of three successive steps were conducted to test Hypotheses 1-4. In the first step, the standardized control variables age and gender were entered to control for relationships with mastery goals, performance goals, visionary skills and change readiness. In the second step, mastery goals, performance goals and visionary skills were entered to test their hypothesized direct effects on change readiness. Finally, in step three, the interaction terms were entered to test for moderation. Table 2 represents the results of the regression analysis.
19 Table 2
Results of regression analysis Steps and variables Change readiness Appropriateness Management
support
Change efficacy Personally beneficial 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1. Gender -.13* -.10 -.09 -.13 -.09 -.09 -.09 -.03 -.02 -.16† -.15 -.15 -.38† -.33 -.30 Age .06 .08 .07 .07 .06 .05 .22 .27 .28 -.05 -.04 -.07 .00 .01 -.00 2. Mastery goals .05 .07 .01 .03 .03 .04 .08 .10 .13 .17 Performance goals .04 .02 .10 .08 .15 .12 -.07 -.08 -.15 -.18 Visionary skills .16* .17** .17* .19 .31** .30 -.01 .01 .13 .15 3. Mastery goals * visionary skills -.03 -.05 .15† -.14 -.10 Performance goals * visionary skills -.13* -.11 -.14 -.09 -.22* ΔR2 .06† .07† .05† .04 .08 .02 .11** .09* .03 .04 .00 .02 .03 .03 .6* Adjusted R² 0.04† 0.08* 0.12** 0.02 .07* 0.07 0.09** 0.16** 0.17** 0.01 -0.02 -0.02 0.01 0.01 0.06†
To interpret this interaction in order to determine whether the interaction effect “performance goals x visionary skills” has the direction as expected in Hypothesis 4b, a graphic plot was made based on Aiken and West (1991). This interaction plot is shown in Figure 2.
FIGURE 2
Inte raction effect of performance goals and visionary skills on change readiness
21 Suppleme ntary analyses
As the findings in the initial analysis were quite modest, further understanding of the underlying reasons is questioned for. As argued before, the readiness to change construct is an intention of behavior, and four beliefs are the fundamentals of this intention (Armenakis et al., 2007). In Table 1, the means, standard deviations, and Pearson Zero-correlations are represented. Important findings were that visionary skills were significantly related to two factors. For instance, visionary skills was positively correlated to appropriateness (r = .22, p < .05), and management support (r = .30, p < .01). Age, as a control variable, was also positively correlated to management support (r = .24, p < .05).
22 FIGURE 3
Inte raction effect of mastery goals and visionary skills on management support
Furthermore, the interaction term “performance goals x visionary skills” is negatively related to personally beneficial (β = -.22, p < .05). See Figure 4 for the visualization.
Based on Figure 4, there is a negative relationship between personally beneficial and performance goals, when visionary skills are low (β = -.19, p < .05). In contrast, when visionary skills are high, there is a positive relationship between performance goals and personally beneficial (β = .12, p = n.s.).
FIGURE 4
23 DISCUSSION
The present study developed and tested the idea that a mastery goal orientation would lead to more readiness to change, while performance goals would lead to less readiness for change. Moreover, the direct influence of visionary skills of the change agent on change readiness was examined. Subsequently, the moderating role of the visio nary skills of the change agent on the relation between the achievement goals and readiness to change was tested. Hence, visionary skills were presumed to make employees with mastery goals more ready to change than employees with performance goals. The res ults will be discussed more in-depth.
First of all, a positive relation was expected between mastery goals and change readiness, and a negative relation was expected between performance goals and change readiness. However, both proposed relationships were not supported by this study. We also predicted a positive relation between visionary skills of the change agent and readiness for change. Support was found for this direct effect.
Moreover, this study focused on how visionary skills of the change agent moderated the relationship between the different achievement goals and readiness for change. Results showed a significant moderating effect of visionary skills of the change agent on the relation between performance goals and change readiness. Analysis of t his significant effect indicated that this effect is opposite than was hypothesized. It was expected that the negative relationship between performance goals and change readiness would be more pronounced when visionary skills of the change agent were high rather than low. Yet, we found that performance goals individuals are more ready to change when visionary skills are low rather than high.
24 Harackiewicz (2001: 706) argued that “… as long as performance oriented individuals are performing well or perceive themselves as competent, adaptive behaviours should be displayed”. Thus, when visionary skills are low, a performance goal individual may perceive the change agent as less competent, which may result that the performance goal individual finds himself/herself more competent. Consequently, a more adaptive behaviour will be portrayed, resulting in more readiness to change. Another explanation for this unexpected finding could be that when visionary skills are low, the performance goal individual may be more influential in changing the situation at hand, than in comparison to a situation wherein visionary skills are high. Future research may further examine the reasons for the unexpected relation between performance goals, visionary skills and readiness to change.
25 more precisely how the achievement goals are related to these four beliefs of change readiness.
Theoretical Implications
Based on the findings of this study, there are some theoretical implications that can be extracted. First of all, this study showed that visionary skills of the change agent were positively related to change readiness. Armenakis et al. (2007) argued that employees should feel a need to change, and there should be a state of dissonance created, between the present situation and the desired situation. Communicating a vision is a mean for achieving a felt need to change (Bommer, Rich, & Rubin, 2005). With this finding, the present study espouses previous research on visionary skills that may lead to change readiness (e.g. Heifetz & Laurie, 1997; Kotter, 1995).
26 Lastly, this study has some theoretical implications for the change readiness literature. This study showed that change readiness may be created through a vision. This finding supports the study of Nikolaou et al. (2007) that change agents should possess the skills to articulate a vision for creating change readiness. Also, it was shown that performance goals were positively related to change readiness, when visionary skills were low. This finding provides further insight in the change readiness concept from a motivational perspective. Moreover, the supplementary analyses provided more insight in how the achievement goals were related to the four underlying beliefs of change readiness. However, these findings were not specifically measured for. Therefore, future research should focus on the underlying beliefs of change readiness.
Practical implications
27 Secondly, change agents should apply a different strategy for creating readiness to change among employees with a performance goal orientation, since this study showed that performance goal individuals are more ready to change when visionary skills are low. Change agents might emphasize the performance goal individual’s competence, in order to provide them with a feeling of superiority, which in turn may further enhance their readiness to change.
Lastly, the supplementary analyses also provided some practical insights. This study showed mastery goal individuals and performance goal individuals respond differently to the vision of the change agent. Although these additional analyses were not the focus of this study, one could argue that change agents should focus their vision for these individuals on these point they find important, so tailor the vision to the needs on the particular achievement goal of the individual.
Limitations
28 Bouckenooghe et al. (2009), for measuring climate of change, process of change, and readiness for change.
Secondly, the sample size of this study was limited, as only 97 participants completed the whole questionnaire. One could question whether this sample is large enough to be generalizable. Moreover, this study was executed in only one Dutch governmental organization. To further improve generalizability about change readiness in the public sector, future research should be expanded to other governmental institutions, in both the Netherlands and other countries.
Another limitation of this study is that it is based on self-report, e.g. participants had to rate their own intentions to change. Therefore, social desirability may be represented in this study. Moreover, it can be argued that measuring readiness to change raises expectations for the participants; hence, participants will expect that something will be done with the outcomes, and that their views are important (Paul, Peet & Reezigt, 2012). Future research should take this into account, and may evaluate readiness to change among employees by their direct leaders.
29 will be ready to change, as they want to avoid being incompetent to change. Future research may examine the effects of avoidance goals on the readiness to change of employees.
CONCLUSION
30 REFERENCES
Aiken, L.S., & West, S.G. 1991. Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions.
Newbury Park, CA: SAGE
Ames, C. 1992. Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 83: 261-271.
Ames, C., Archer, J. 1988. Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80: 260 –267.
Armenakis, A. A., Bernerth, J .B, Pitts, J. P., Walker, H. J. 2007. Organiza tional change recipients’ beliefs scale development of an assessment instrument. Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 43: 481-505.
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G. 2002. Crafting a change message to create transformational readiness. Journal of Organizational Change, 15: 169-183.
Armenakis, A., Harris, S. 2009. Reflections: our journey in organizational change research and practice, Journal of Change Management, 9: 127–142.
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., Feild, H. S. 1999. Making change permanent:A model for institutionalizing change interventions. Research in Organizational Change and
Development, 12, 97-128.
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., Mossholder, K. W. 1993. Creating readiness for organizational change. Human Relations, 46: 681-703.
Anseel, F., Van Yperen, N. W., Janssen, O., Duyck, W. 2011. Feedback type as a moderator of the relationship between achievement goals and feedback reactions. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84: 703-722.
31 Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50: 179-211.
Bandura, A. 1986. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Barron, K. E., Harackiewicz, J. M. 2001. Achievement goals and optimal motivation: testing multiple goal models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80: 706-722. Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J. 1994. Improving organizational effectiveness through
transformational leadership. Sage, Thousand Oaks CA.
Bommer, W. H., Rich, G. A., Rubin, R. S. 2005. Changing attitudes about change: longitudinal effects of transformational leader behavior on employee cynicism about organizational change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26: 733-753.
Bouckenooghe, D. 2010. Positioning change recipients’ attitudes toward change in the organizational change literature. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 36: 500-531. Bouckenooghe, D., Devos, G., Van den Broeck, H. 2009. Organizational change
questionnaire- Climate of change, processes, and readiness: Developmen of a new instrument. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 142: 559-599. Button, S. B., Mathieu, J. E., Zajac, D. M. 1996. Goal orientation in organizational research: A conceptual and empirical foundation. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 67: 26-48.
Chen, G., Gully, S. M., Whiteman, J. A., Kilcullen, R. N. 2000. Examination of
relationships among trait- like individual differences, state- like individual differences, and learning performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 835–847.
32 Cumming, J., Hall, C. 2004. The relationship between goal orientation and self-efficacy for exercise. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34: 747-763.
Cury, F., Elliot, A. J., Da Fonseca, D., Moller, A. C. 2006. The social-cognitive model of achievement motivation and the 2 x 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 90: 666-679.
DeShon, R. P., Gillespie, J. Z. 2005. A motivated action theory account of goal orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 1096-1127.
Dweck, C. S. 1986. Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41: 1040-1048
Dweck, C.S. 1999. Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development . Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Eby, L. T., Adams, D. M., Russel, 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: 419-442.
Elliot, A. J. 2005. A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct. In A. J Elliot & C.S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motiva tion (pp. 52–72). New York: Guilford Press.
Elliot, A. J., McGregor, H. A. 2001. A 2x2 achievement goal framework. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 80: 501-519.
Elliot, A. J., Murayama, K., Pekrun, R. 2011. A 3 x 2 Achievement goal model. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 103: 632-648.
Farr, J. L., Hofmann, D. A., Ringenbach, K. L. 1993. Goal orientation and action control theory: Implications for industrial and organizational psychology. International
33 Ferlie, E., Hartley, J., Martin, S. 2003. Changing public service organizations: current
perspectives and future prospects. British Journal of Management, 14:1–14.
Fisher, S. L., Ford, J. K. 1998. Differential effects of learner effort and goal orientation on two learning outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 51: 397-420.
Ford, J.D., Ford, L.W. 1994. Logics of identity, contradiction, and attraction in change. Academy of Management Review, 19: 756
Gong, Y., Huang, J-C., Farh,J-L. 2009. Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative
self-efficacy. The Academy of Management Journal, 52: 765-778.
Heifetz, R. A., Laurie, D. L. 1997. The work of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 75: 124-134.
Holt, D. T., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., Harris, S. G. 2007. Readiness for organizational change: The systematic development of a scale. Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 43: 232-255.
Janssen, O, Van Yperen, N. W. 2004. Employees’ goal orientation, the quality of Leader-Member Exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction. The
Academy of Management Journal, 47: 368-384.
Jaros, S. 2010. Commitment to organizational change: A critical review. Journal of Change
Management, 10: 79-108.
Jones, R. A., Jimmieson, N. L., Griffiths, A. 2005. The impact of organizational culture and reshaping capabilities on change implementation success: The mediating role of readiness for change. Journal of Management Studies, 42: 361-386.
34 Kanter, R. M. 1983. The change masters: Corporate entrepreneurs at work. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Kotter, J. P. 2007/1995. Leading change. Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business
Review, 85: 96-103.
Kotter, J.P. 1996. Leading Change (Boston: Harvard Business School Press).
Koys, D. (2001). The effects of employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, and turnover, on organizational effectiveness: A unit- level, longitudinal study. Personnel Psychology, 54, 101-114
Lee, F. K., Sheldon, K. M., Turban, D. B. 2003. Personality and the goal-striving process: The influence of achievement goal patterns, goal level, and mental focus on performance and enjoyment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 256-265.
Lewin K. 1951. Field Theory in Social Science, Harper Row, London.
Linnenbrink, E. A. 2005. The dilemma of performance-approach goals: The use of multiple goal contexts to promote students’ motivation and learning. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 97, 197–213.
Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., Middleton, M. 2001. Performance-approach goals: Good for what, for whom, under what circumstances, and at what cost? Journal of Educational
Psychology, 93: 77-86.
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.
Neves, P. 2009. Readiness for changeL Contributions for employee’s level of individual change and turnover intentions. Journal of Change Management, 9: 215-231.
35 Nikolaou, I., Gouras, A., Vakila, M., Bourantas, D. 2007. Selecting change agents: Exploring traits and skills in a simulated environment. Journal of Change Management, 7: 291-
313.
Oreg, S., Berson, Y. 2011. Leadership and employees’ reactions to change: The role of leaders’ personal attributes and transformational leadership style. Personnel Psychology, 64: 627-659.
Payne, S. C., Youngcourt, S. S., Beaubien, J. M. 2007. A meta-analytic examination of the goal orientation nomological net. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 128–150. Paul, L., Van Peet, H. P., Reezigt, C. 2012. Weerstand en bereidheid bij verandering: op het snijvlak van wetenschap en praktijk. In: M&O-congresboek Spanning in en rond organisaties, 93-112.
Piderit, S. K. 2000. Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. The Academy of Management
Review, 25: 783-794.
Rousseau, D. M., Tijoriwala, S. A. 1999. What’s a good reason to change? Motivated reasoning and social accounts in promoting organizational change. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 34: 514-528.
Ryan, A. M., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). "Should I ask for help?": Adolescent perceptions of costs and benefits of help-seeking in math class. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 329-341.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., Arthur, M. B. 1993. The motivational effect of charismatic leadership: a self-concept based theory. Organizational Science, 4: 577-594. Strebel, P. Why do employees resist change? Harvard Business Review, 74: 86-92.
Schunk, D. 1984. Self-efficacy perspective on achievement behavior. Educational
36 VandeWalle, D. 1997. Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation
instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57: 995-1015.
VandeWalle, D. 2003. A goal orientation model of feedback-seeking behaviour. Human
Resource Management Review, 13: 581–604.
VandeWalle, D., Brown, S. P., Cron, W. L., Slocum, J. W. 1999. The influence of goal orientation and self-regulation tactics on sales performance: A longitudinal field test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 249-259.
Van de Ven, A. H. 1986. Central problems in the management of innovation. Management
Science, 32: 590-607.
Van Yperen, N. W. 2006. A novel approach to assessing achievement goals in the context of the 2 x 2 framework: Identifying distinct profiles of individuals with different
dominant achievement goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32: 1432-1445.
Vera, D., Crossan, M. 2004. Strategic leadership and organizational learning. The Academy
of Management Review, 29: 222-240.
Vroom, V. 1964. Work and motivation. New York: John Wiley.
37 APPENDIX A
Codes of SPSS Appropriateness
ap_1 = I think that the organization will benefit from this change. ap_2 = It doesn’t make much sense for us to initiate this change. ap_3 = There are legitimate reasons for us to make this change.
ap _4 = This change will improve our organization’s overall effic iency. ap _5 = There are a number of rational reasons for this change to be made.
ap_ 6 = In the long run, I feel it will be worthwhile for me if the organization adopts this change.
ap_7 = This change makes my job easier
ap_8 = When this change is implemented, I don’t believe there is anything for me to gain. ap_9 = The time we are spending on this change should be spent on something else. ap_10 = This change matches the priorities of our organization.
Management Support
leader_1 = Our senior leaders have encouraged all of us to embrace this change.
leader_2 = Our organization’s top decision makers have put all their support behind this change effort.
leader_3 = Every senior manager has stressed the importance of this change.
leader_4 = This organization’s most senior leader, Rob Kerstens, is committed to this change. leader_5 = I think we are spending a lot of time on this change when the senior managers don’t even want it implemented.
Change Efficacy
chef_1 = I do not anticipate any problems adjusting to the work I will have when this change is adopted.
chef_2 = There are some tasks that will be required when we change I don’t think I can do well.
38 chef_5 = When I set my mind to it, I can learn everything that will be required when this change is adopted.
chef_6 = My past experiences make me confident that I will be able to perform successfully after this change is made.
Personal beneficial
pb_1 = I am worried I will lose some of my status in the organization when this change is implemented.
pb_2 = This change will disrupt many of the personal relationships I have developed. pb_3 = My future in this job will be limited because of this change.
Mastery approach
matery_1 = My aim is to perform better in my work than I have done in the past.
mastery_2 = In my work I am striving to do well relative to how well I have done in the past. mastery_3 = My goal in my work is to do better than I typically do.
Performance approach
performance_1 = My aim is to outperform other colleagues in my work.
performance_2 = In my work I am striving to do well compared to other colleagues. performance_3 = In my work my goal is to do better than my colleagues.
Visionary skills
vision_1 = Has vision: often brings up new ideas about possibilities for the future. vision_2 = Provides inspiring strategic and organizational goals.
vision_3 = Consistently generates new ideas for the future of the organization. vision_4 = Entrepreneurial; seizes new opportunities in order to achieve goals.
vision_5 = Readily recognizes new environmental opportunities (favourable physical and social conditions) that may facilitate achievement or organizational objectives.
