TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP, READINESS FOR CHANGE
AND THE MODERATING ROLE OF PERSONALITY TRAITS
Ewout Jansma Student number: 1770284 Admiraal de Ruyterlaan 46a
9726 GW Groningen tel: +316-52134326
e-mail: e.w.jansma@student.rug.nl
University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
1
Acknowledgements:
I would like to thank my supervisor dr. Hanneke Grutterink, for her inspiration and feedback on my thesis.
Furthermore, I also want to thank my friends for their support during the thesis and special thanks to my friend Emir Dzinic, for his indispensable help during the thesis, his knowledge about change subjects and his support.
2
Transformational leadership, readiness for change and the moderating role of personality traits
Abstract
The role of personality traits in the creation of employee readiness for change, has been largely neglected. The current study examined the moderating role of personality traits on the relationship between transformational leadership and employee readiness for change. This survey study collected data from 89 employees in two social service organizations in the Netherlands. As predicted, there was a significant relationship between transformational leadership and employee readiness for change. Furthermore, the personality traits extraversion and openness to experience were positively related to employee readiness for change. However, in this study no significant interaction effect was found between transformational leadership and the personality traits on employee readiness for change. Implications and future research are discussed.
3
INTRODUCTION
Organizations are constantly trying to change to remain competitive in this globalized world. Unfortunately, many of these organizational change initiatives do not result in the intended purpose (Choi, 2011). The percentage of the change initiatives that fails is up to 70% (Beer & Nohria, 2000; Washington & Hacker, 2005). This high failure percentage has different causes such as lack of strategy, trust, resources, commitment of top management, and resistance to change initiatives (Beer & Nohria, 2000; Vakola, Tsaousis & Nikolaou, 2003). Literature concerning organizational change has focused mostly on the organizational-level. On the other hand research on the individual-level of organizational change is rather limited (Judge, Thoresen, Pucik, & Welbourne, 1999). Nevertheless, it is paramount to focus on the readiness for change of individual employees, since a change will not succeed without the motivation, cooperation and support of the employees (Kotter, 1996; Vakola, 2013). Unready employees could resist the change when they become aware of it. This could lead to absenteeism and sabotage, which are common negatively charged reactions of employees regarding a change (Bouckenooghe, Devos, & Van den Broeck, 2009).
To create positive attitudes towards change, leaders should inspire and motivate employees to work towards the new future (Davidhizer & Shearer, 1997; Vera & Crossan, 2004). Research has shown that transformational leadership is an important determinant of individuals' positive attitudes towards change (Bommer, Rich & Rubin, 2005). Transformational leadership is one of the most important leadership styles since the last decade (Felfe & Schyns, 2010). I will focus in this study on transformational leadership, because transformational leaders can completely change or transform employees' values, attitudes and beliefs (Podsakoff et al., 1990). I expect that transformational leaders can change the attitudes of employees regarding an organizational change.
4
Change management literature showed positive relationships between personality traits and positive attitudes towards change (Oreg et al., 2011; Vakola et al., 2003). The personality traits extraversion, conscientiousness, and openness to experience were positive related to attitudes towards change (Vakola et al., 2003). It is worthwhile to investigate the influence of personality traits on employee readiness for change, because employees differ in their reactions towards change. Therefore it would be interesting to investigate which personality traits, would have more or less influence on employee readiness for change and could contribute to a better understanding of the personality traits. Therefore, it should be possible to report the most salient sides of personality (Judge, Heller & Mount, 2002) in relation to employee readiness for change. In this study I will use the personality dimensions of the five-factor model of personality (Costa & McCrae, 1997). The five dimensions of personality are neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness and conscientiousness (McCrae, & Costa, 1997). In this study I will focus on the three personality dimensions extraversion, conscientiousness, and openness to experience and their expected effect on their relationship between transformational leadership and readiness for change, since these personality traits are related to positive attitudes towards change (Vakola et al., 2003).
The current study contributes to the literature in several respects. Firstly, my research contributes to the demand for a systematic investigation of antecedents and moderators in change literature (Oreg, 2006).
Secondly, I examine the degree to which the three personality dimensions moderate the relationship between transformational leadership and employee readiness for change, since my research contributes to a better understanding of the personality traits in relation to attitudes towards change.
5
THEORY AND HYPOTHESES
Employee readiness for change and transformational leadership
In a situation of organizational change, employees will assess the necessity for organizational change and the beneficial implications of the change by forming impressions, expectations and assumptions (Choi, 2011). Lewin (1951) described readiness for change in his three-stage model of change: unfreezing-moving-refreezing. In the unfreezing stage, readiness for change is created. To achieve the desired outcomes, such as an organizational change, the behavior of employees must change (Armenkis & Bedeian, 1999). Motivating employees to support and thus accept a change can be very challenging (Neves, 2009), since employees differ in their reactions towards a change (Holt et al., 2007). Since major organizational change is a stressor, it is not surprising that some employees may fear change (Judge et al., 1999). Consequently, the following negative reactions in response to that change may occur: absenteeism, an increase in uncertainty, a decrease in satisfaction (Schweiger & Denisi, 1991), turnover and even a boycott of the change (Neves, 2009).
Armenakis, Harris, & Mossholder (1993:681) defined readiness as: "readiness is reflected in organizational members' beliefs, attitudes, and intentions regarding the extent to which changes are needed and the organization's capacity to successfully make those changes". The definition of Armenakis et al., (1993) is a well accepted definition (Bouckenooghe et al., 2009; Jansen, 2000).
According to Bouckenooghe et al., (2009) readiness for change is a multifaceted concept that comprises three dimensions, an emotional dimension, an intentional dimension, and a cognitive dimension. Emotional readiness for change can be described as the affective reactions towards a specific change project. Intentional readiness for change is the quantity of effort and energy employees want to spend in a change process. The last dimension; cognitive readiness for
change are the thoughts and beliefs employees hold about a change (Bouckenooghe et al., 2009). Several antecedents may increase the readiness for change, for instance, trust in peers and leaders, participation at work, policies supporting change, self-efficacy, organizational commitment, perceived personal competence, job satisfaction (Choi, 2011), climate of change and the way change is dealt with (Bouckenooghe et al., 2009). I will focus in this study on the role leaders have in the increase of readiness for change, since leaders have an essential role in facilitating the employees' acceptance of change (Oreg & Berson, 2011). To create readiness for change, a change agent needs to influence the beliefs, intentions, attitudes and the behavior of the recipients (Jansen, 2000).
6
motivates employees that go beyond the motivation by transactional leadership: rewarding employees in exchange for employee effort (Bass, 1985). Thus the theory of transformational leadership describes how leaders motivate and influence employees to perform beyond expectations (Bass, 1985; Yukl, 2013). Burns (1978) views the two concepts as extremes on a continuum. Bass (1985) on the other hand, believes that both forms of leadership can be used by a leader. I will focus in this study on the leadership style transformational leadership, since this leadership style motivates employees beyond limits (Yukl, 2013) and therefore it would be interesting to investigate the influence of transformational leadership on employee readiness for change.
Different studies investigating transformational leadership behaviors have found a positive relation between this style of leadership and employees' satisfaction (Bass, 1985), job satisfaction (Nemanich & Keller, 2007) a reduction of employee cynicism about organizational change (Bommer et al., 2005) and job performance (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer, 1996). Since a transformational leader plays a paramount role in the change process and makes employees more aware and ready for the change, it could be expected that transformational leadership could also have a positive influence on employee readiness for change.
Transformational leadership behaviors are positively related to change-oriented behavior (Bommer et al., 2005). A transformational leader completely change or transforms employees' values, attitudes and beliefs (Podsakoff et al., 1990) with the intention to make employees ready and build capacity for change (Bommer et al., 2005). In the literature six behaviors of transformational leadership have been identified (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer, 1996). First, the identification and articulation of a vision, this is where the leader inspires the employees and articulates the vision. By articulating a vision for the future the goal of the organization is displayed and the vision is also a source of commitment and inspiration (Eisenbach, Watson & Pillai, 1999).
Second, providing an appropriate model, the leader gives an example that employees must follow. The employee is supposed to be inspired by the transformational leader and able to identify with the leader and can, therefore be expected to follow the model of the leader.
Third, fostering the acceptance of group goals. Here, the leader encourages employees to cooperate with each other and to work towards the same targets. Transformational leaders stimulate employees to develop themselves (Tucker & Russell, 2004) and are capable to let employees make progress.
Fourth, high performance expectations, that is, the leader indicates with his behavior that he has high expectations of the employees.
Fifth, providing individualized support, is behavior where the leader respects employees and takes their feelings and needs into account.
7
In summary, transformational leaders can be expected to play an important role in creating positive employees' attitudes towards an organizational change. The creation of employee readiness for change is involved by the attempts of a transformational leader to affect the employees' beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and behavior (Armenakis et al., 1993). Since transformational leaders are focused on change, progress and development, transformational leaders need to provide a vision that a change is a necessity (Tucker, & Russell, 2004). The necessity of the change for employees will be inspired and motivated by the transformational leader. The six transformational leadership behaviors may help employees accept change (Oreg, & Berson, 2011). This results in the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1. Transformational leadership is positively related to employee's readiness for change.
Employee's personality and their readiness to change
Personality traits
Considering the fact that employees differ in their reactions towards change, it should be questioned if the influence of transformational leadership on employee readiness is applicable for every employee. According to Goldberg (1990) the differences between individuals are immense and can be reduced to five robust factors of personality (Digman, 1990). These five robust factors are represented in the five-factor model (FFM) and are generally classified as the "Big Five" (Digman, 1990). The concept of the “Big Five” was first mentioned by Goldberg (1981) and later validated and reconstructed by different researchers (Digman, 1990). In literature these five traits have been labeled differently (Digman, 1990; Barrick & Mount, 1991; Mount, Barrick & Perkins Strauss, 1994), but these labels do have common meanings (Barrick & Mount, 1991). The most used and accepted concepts are from Costa and McCrae (Salgado, 1997). They argue that the universality of FFM is supported by the fact that the five traits are, uniform in different cultures and languages around the world (McCrae & Costa, 1997). The five basic factors, traits or dimensions are extraversion, the tendency to be talkative and active, neuroticism, the tendency to experience irrational ideas and guilt, agreeableness, the tendency to be helpful to others and sympathetic, conscientiousness, the tendency to be punctual and reliable, and openness to
experience, the tendency to be open to new ideas (Digman, 1990; Keller, 1999; McCrae & Costa,
1997).
8
In this study I will focus on three of the five traits of personality, namely extraversion, conscientiousness and openness to experience. These personality traits are associated with positive employee characteristics, such as being assertive, responsible and broad-minded. These personality traits also have positive attitudes towards organizational change (Vakola et al., 2003). It has been demonstrated that employees scoring high on extraversion are more dynamic and, therefore cope better with organizational change. Employees scoring high on conscientiousness are dutiful and will follow principles (Vakola et al., 2003), and because of their consequent sense of responsibility these employees will be more open for organizational change. Employees scoring high on openness to experience are more open for new ideas and situations and therefore these employees will be more open for organizational change, since this is a new situation. These three attitudes will be explained more in detail in the following sections.
Extraversion
Characteristics which are associated with the personality trait "extraversion" are social, assertive, gregarious (Salgado, 1997; Judge et al., 2002), "talkative and active" (Barrick & Mount, 1991:3). Employees who score low on this dimension are introvert. Vakola et al., (2003) found that attitudes towards organizational change were positively related to the personality trait extraversion.
Employees scoring high on extraversion can be expected to be more ready to change than those who score low on extraversion. This has a number of reasons. First, as mentioned before extraverted employees are more dynamic and, therefore cope better with organizational change. Because organizational change creates often uncertainty, organizational change will probably have less negative effects on them.
Second, employees who are scoring high on extraversion may be more optimistic towards organizational change, than employees who score low on extraversion. Therefore, employees scoring high on extraversion, will most likely face change in a positive way, through their more optimistic view.
I therefore propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2a. Extraversion will have a positive relationship with employee readiness for change.
9
Furthermore, in a study of Felfe and Schyns (2006) extraversion showed a positive relationship to the acceptance and perception of transformational leadership, therefore it could be expected that these employees will react positively to the influence of transformational leadership. Keller (1999) found evidence that the personality trait extraversion of employees was positively correlated to a charismatic leadership style. According to Conger (1999) the leadership styles charismatic leadership and transformational leadership can be seen as "twins" or as equivalent (Yukl, 1999). For those reasons, I expect that extraverted employees are more likely to be willing to change.
I therefore propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3a. Extraversion has a moderating influence on the expected positive relationship between transformational leadership and the employee readiness for change, such that this relationship is stronger when extraversion is high rather than low.
Conscientiousness
Characteristics which are associated with conscientiousness are responsibility, being organized, dependable, hard-working and goal-oriented (McCrae and Costa, 1986; Mount, Barrick & Perkins Strauss; Salgado, 1997; Barrick & Mount, 1991). Employees who score high on conscientiousness can be expected to be more ready to change than those who score low on conscientiousness. This has a number of reasons. First, conscientiousness employees are ambitious (Costa & McCrae, 1992) and are likely to explore new opportunities and challenges through this organizational change.
Second, conscientiousness employees have a high degree of responsibility, therefore it may be expected that these employees do not resist the change, but follow up the principles of their leaders. And for this reason, employees will dutifully help to implement the change.
Third, conscientiousness employees are more goal-oriented, therefore organizational change will create new goals for them, I expect that these employees will be challenged in a positive way.
I therefore propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2b. Conscientiousness will have a positive relationship with employee readiness for change.
10
Furthermore, in a study of Moss and Ngu (2006) conscientiousness was positively related to attitudes towards transformational leadership and therefore it could be expected that these employees will react positively to the influence of transformational leadership. For those reasons, I expect that conscientious employees are more likely to be willing to change.
I therefore propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3b. Conscientiousness has a moderating influence on the expected positive relationship between transformational leadership and the employee readiness for change, such that this relationship is stronger when conscientiousness is high rather than low.
Openness to experience
Employees which are open to experience are often creative, curious, open to new ideas and intellectual (Salgado, 1997; Mount, Barrick & Perkins Straus; Vakola et al., 2003). According to Vakola et al., (2003), they also have a positive attitude towards organizational change. Employees who score high on openness to experience can be expected to be more ready to change than those who score low on openness to experience. First, in a study of Judge et al., (1999) evidence was found that employees who score high on the personality trait openness to experience are coping more effectively with organizational change. These employees perceive a change as less stressful than others, for example.
Second, employees with the trait openness to experience will be more willing to change, since these employees are more open to organizational change(s), new ideas and suggestions compared with employees who score lower on openness to experience. Because these employees are more open for new ideas and suggestions, they will also be less inclined to resist.
Third, employees that have an open attitude towards change, for example employees open to experience, have the tendency in a situation when confronted with challenges to exhibit flexibility.
I therefore propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2c. Openness to experience will have a positive relationship with employee readiness for change.
11
found evidence for a positive relationship between openness to experience and effective coping mechanisms, for example in how employees deal with stressful events. For those reasons, I expect that employees open to experience are more likely to be willing to change.
I therefore propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3c. Openness to experience has a moderating influence on the expected positive relationship between transformational leadership and the employee readiness for change, such that this relationship is stronger when openness to experience is high rather than low.
Figure 1 depicts the conceptual model.
FIGURE 1 Theoretical Framework H1 + H3 + + H2 Transformational leadership
Employee readiness for change
12
METHODOLOGY
Sample and procedure
I tested the hypotheses using survey data from two Dutch social service organizations that are specialized in promoting social participation of people. Both organizations faced a significant organizational change, because of new ways of funding in 2015 and are preparing a merger with each other. The change that will occur is that the funding of the AWBZ will be transferred to the municipalities. The AWBZ is a mandatory, collective health insurance in the Netherlands for not individual insurable health risks. This change is known as the "transition of 2015" in both organizations. The municipalities will be responsible for the funding of these social service organizations. This change creates uncertainty in both organizations, because they are no longer secured of funding.
For each organization a Dutch survey was designed with the software Qualtrics. Employees were informed about the study and requested to fill out the survey online via an announcement on the corporate Intranet. In the next step, a survey link was sent by mail to each employee. Respondents were informed that all data would be treated in strict confidence. After three weeks a reminder was e-mailed to the respondents and posted on the corporate Intranet with the request to fill out the survey if not completed.
Out of the 192 employees a total of 96 employees participated in this study (a response rate of 50%). Seven respondents with missing data were deleted, which resulted to a complete data set for 89 employees (46%). The age of the respondents ranged from 28 to 61 years with an average of 45 (SD = 9.01). 74 respondents were female (83%). On average respondents had 1.24 children (SD = .43). Of the respondents, 4 (4.7%) had a graduate degree, 68 (80%) had an undergraduate degree, 8 (9.5%) had a lower degree and 5 (5.9%) had a different degree. Furthermore, respondents’ mean tenure was 10.75 years (SD = 5.88), ranging from 2 to 32 years. Respondents tenure in their current function was on average 9.47 years (SD = 6.05).
Measures
A 5-point Likert scale was used for all the scales, ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). The Cronbach's alpha (α) was computed for every scale to estimate the internal consistency reliability.
Transformational leadership. Six items of Podsakoff et al., (1990) were used to asses
13
Personality traits. The "Big Five" personality traits were measured with the 44 items of a
Dutch translated and validated instrument of Denissen et al., (2008). This shortened version to measure the "Big Five" was chosen due to time constraints and its high levels of internal consistency, factorial and external validity and cross-cultural applicability (Denissen et al., 2008). In this study I only used the six highest loadings from each personality trait of a study of Denissen et al., (2008). However, after an exploratory factor analysis, 5 items from each personality trait proved suitable for this study. Due to cross loadings the items “Generates a lot of enthusiasm”, “Is ingenious, a deep thinker”, and “Does a thorough job” were excluded for extraversion, openness to experience, and conscientiousness, respectively. This resulted in the following scales. Extraversion was measured with 5 items. A sample item was "I am someone who is talkative". Cronbach's α for this scale was .67.
Conscientiousness was measured with 5 items. A sample item was "I am someone who perseveres until the task is finished". Cronbach's α for this scale was .53.
Finally, openness to experience was measured with 5 items. A sample item was "I am someone who likes to reflect, play with ideas". Cronbach's α for this scale was .82.
Readiness for change. In order to measure readiness for change, 10 items were used
from the Organizational Change Questionnaire-Climate of Change, Process and Readiness (OCQ-C,P.R) (Bouckenooghe et al., 2009). The original items of Bouckenooghe et al., (2009) were translated into Dutch and checked by another Dutch-speaker to match the meaning of the original items. Readiness for change was measured with 10 items. A sample item of readiness for change was "I want to devote myself to the process of change ". Cronbach's α for this scale was .83.
Readiness for change consisted of three theoretical sub-scales: intentional, emotional and cognitive readiness for change. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the dependent variable readiness for change. The two items “I find the change refreshing” and “The change will improve work” of the sub-scale emotional readiness for change loaded on the same factor as the items of the sub-scale intentional readiness for change. Because of this overlap, I decided to exclude the sub-scale emotional readiness for change and add these two items to the sub-scale intentional readiness for change. All used items can be found in Appendix A. Intentional
readiness for change was measured with 5 items. A sample item for intentional readiness for
change was "I want to devote myself to the process of change". Cronbach's α for this subscale was .82. Finally, cognitive readiness for change was measured with 5 items. A sample item for cognitive readiness for change was "I am somewhat resistant to change". Cronbach's α for this subscale was .77.
Control variables. A number of control variables were included in the surveys, age (in
14
Data Analysis
In order to determine the validity of the used constructs, two exploratory factor analyses with Varimax rotation were conducted. The first exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the independent variables transformational leadership, extraversion, conscientiousness, and openness to experience. The second exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the dependent variable readiness for change. The results of the exploratory factor analysis are shown in Appendix A. The exploratory factor analysis showed that extraversion and conscientiousness loaded on two different factors. The reversed coded items of the construct extraversion loaded on a separate factor, as shown in Appendix A. This was also the case for conscientiousness.
In the final step, the hypotheses were tested using a hierarchical linear regression analysis, with transformational leadership and the personality traits as independent variables and employee readiness for change as the dependent variable. In step 1, transformational leadership and the personality traits, extraversion, conscientiousness and openness to experience were entered. In step 2, the interactions between transformational leadership x extraversion, transformational leadership x conscientiousness and transformational leadership x openness to experience were added. Standardized independent variables were used to prevent problems with multicollinearity (Aiken & West, 1991).
RESULTS
Correlations and descriptive statistic
15
Test of Hypothesized Model
Hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to test the hypotheses. The results of these tests are shown in Table 2. Hypothesis 1 predicted that transformational leadership would be positively associated with employee readiness for change. Further hypotheses 2a, 2b and 2c predicted that extraversion, conscientiousness and openness to experience, respectively, are positively associated with employee readiness for change. In step 1, the main effects of transformational leadership, extraversion, conscientiousness and openness to experience were entered. This step was significant (ΔR2 = .35; ΔF = 11.09, p < .001). Table 2 shows that the four variables, accounted for 35% of the variance in readiness for change. The results indeed show a positive main effect of transformational leadership on readiness for change (b = .25, t = 4.39, p < .001). Results supported hypothesis 1. The personality traits extraversion and openness to experience were positively related to readiness for change (b = .14, t = 2.39, p < .05) and (b = .18, t = 3.06, p < .01), respectively. The personality trait conscientiousness was not a significant predictor of employee readiness for change (b = -.01, t = -.12, n.s.). Thus, hypotheses 2a and 2c were supported, but hypothesis 2b was not supported.
Tests of Moderation
Hypotheses 3a, 3b and 3c asserted that extraversion, conscientiousness and openness to experience moderated the expected positive relationship of transformational leadership and readiness for change in the sense that increased levels of extraversion, conscientiousness and openness to experience would positively strengthen this relationship. The variables transformational leadership, extraversion, conscientiousness and openness to experience and the moderators were individually multiplied with transformational leadership, to create interaction terms. In step 2, the interactions terms were added in the hierarchical linear regression to predict readiness for change. This step was non-significant (ΔR2 = .01; ΔF = .45, n.s.).
16
TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics and Pearson Correlations for all Study Variables a
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1. Age 45.35 9.01 - 2. Gender .17 .38 .05 - 3. Children 1.24 .43 -.29* -.12 - 4. Education 6.00 .80 .06 .00 .11 - 5. Tenure 10.75 5.88 .43** .25* -.02 -.08 - 6. Tenure Function 9.47 6.05 .39** .30* -.05 .12 .78** -
7.Intentional readiness forchange 2.23 .71 .03 .21 -.22* .06 -.11 -.01 - 8. Cognitive readiness for change 2.29 .75 -.00 .12 .00 .01 -.00 .10 .45** - 9. Transformational leadership 2.68 .63 .01 .11 -.31** -.15 -.06 .03 .42** .33** - 10. Extraversion 2.39 .73 .14 -.07 .10 .06 -.23 .01 .17 .32** .03 - 11. Conscientiousness 1.70 .52 .30** .26* -.14 .19 .13 .15 .00 .01 .08 .01 - 12. Openness to experience 2.05 .70 .11 .08 -.11 -.17 .09 .08 .34** .32** * .43** .15 -.07 - 13.Readiness for change 2.26 .62 .02 .19 -.11 -.03 -.06 .06 .84** .86** .44** .29** .01 .39**
a n = 89
17
TABLE 2
Results of hierarchical regression analyses for readiness for change
Variable Readiness for change cchchange Step 1 B SE Transformational leadership .25*** .06 Extraversion .14* .06 Conscientiousness -.01 .06 Openness to experience .18** .06 R2 .35*** ΔR2 .35*** Step 2 Transformational leadership .24*** .06 Extraversion .14* .06 Conscientiousness .00 .06 Openness to experience .18** .06
Transformational leadership x extraversion -.01 .05
Transformational leadership x conscientiousness .04 .06
Transformational leadership x openness to experience -.05 .06
R2 .36
ΔR2 .01
n = 89.
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
Supplementary Analyses
In order to examine, the possible differential effect of transformational leadership and the personality traits on the subscales of readiness for change, a supplementary regression analysis of the independent variables on intentional readiness for change and cognitive readiness for change was carried out. The control variable “whether the employee has children” was positively correlated with the dependent variable intentional readiness for change (r = -.22, p < .05) as shown in Table 1. This suggests that employees with children show less intentional readiness for change. Therefore, “children” was used as a control variable in further analyses. The control variables age, gender, education, tenure and tenure function were uncorrelated with the dependent variables. Therefore, these control variables were not included in the hierarchical linear regression, since this would reduce power and might produce inflated correlations (Becker, 2005).
The results of the regression analyses are shown in Table 3. In step 1, the control variable children was not significantly related to cognitive readiness for change (ΔR2 = .00; ΔF = 0.00, n.s.). On the other hand the control variable children was significantly related to intentional readiness for change (ΔR2 = .05; ΔF = 4.10, p < .05).
18
change (ΔR2 = .26; ΔF = 7.35, p < .001), and cognitive readiness for change (ΔR2 = .28; ΔF = 7.72, p < .001). The results showed a positive main effect of transformational leadership on intentional readiness for change (b = .22, t = 3.31, p < .01) and openness to experience on intentional readiness for change (b = .22, t = 3.27, p < .01). Finally, the results showed a positive main effect of transformational leadership on cognitive readiness for change (b = .27, t = 3.53, p < .01), extraversion on cognitive readiness for change (b = .20, t = 2.75, p < .01) and openness to experience on cognitive readiness for change (b = .16, t = 2.15, p < .05). So, also for the sub-scales of readiness for change and the relationship of transformational leadership, openness to experience and extraversion were positively related. However, no significant relationship was found between extraversion and intentional readiness for change.
19
TABLE 3
Results of hierarchical regression analyses for the subscales of readiness for change
Variable Intentional readiness Cognitive readiness
for change for change
Step 1 B SE B SE Children -.15* .07 .00 .08 R2 .05* .00 ΔR2 .05* .00 Step 2 Children -.06 .07 .08 .08 Transformational leadership .22** .07 .27** .08 Extraversion .08 .07 .20** .07 Conscientiousness .02 .06 -.02 .07 Openness to experience .22** .07 .16* .08 R2 .31*** .28*** ΔR2 .26*** .28*** Step 3 Children -.07 .07 .08 .08 Transformational leadership .21** .07 .27** .08 Extraversion .10 .07 .20* .08 Conscientiousness .03 .07 -.01 .08 Openness to experience .22** .07 .17* .08
Transformational leadership x extraversion -.01 .06 -.02 .07
Transformational leadership x conscientiousness .06 .06 .03 .07
Transformational leadership x openness to experience -.09 .07 .02 .08
R2 .33 .29
ΔR2 .02 .01
n = 89.
20
DISCUSSION
The objective of the present study was to examine the relations of transformational leadership, the personality traits, extraversion, conscientiousness and openness to experience on employee readiness for change. As hypothesized I found a positive relationship between transformational leadership and employee readiness for change. Furthermore a positive relationship was found between the personality traits, namely extraversion and openness to experience on employee readiness for change. However, the results did not provide evidence for the relationship between conscientiousness and employee readiness for change. I also did not find evidence for the moderating roles of extraversion, conscientiousness and openness to experience between the relationship transformational leadership and employee readiness for change.
Theoretical implications
The findings in this study have potential implications on the current literature, because the role individuals have in a change context must not be neglected. First, the current study supports the influence of transformational leadership on employees' readiness for change. This result supports the theoretical arguments that a transformational leader is playing a paramount role in the creation of positive attitudes towards an organizational change. Also this study provides empirical evidence that the more employees perceive that their direct supervisor has a transformational leadership style, the more employees seem ready to change. Therefore, to create readiness for change it is important for leaders to show transformational leadership behavior for these employees during organizational change. This result support theoretical arguments that leaders who show transformational leadership can change employees' attitudes (Podsakoff et al., 1990). Finally, transformational leadership can be seen as a paramount antecedent of readiness for change.
Furthermore, the personality traits extraversion and openness to experience are positively related to employee readiness for change. This evidence supports the theoretical arguments for a positive relationship between these personality traits and positive attitudes towards change (Vakola et al., 2003). Furthermore, the results showed that the personality trait conscientiousness was negatively related to employee readiness for change. This result contributes to the fact that some personality traits are more determinative for employee readiness for change. Therefore some personality traits should be seen as antecedents for employee readiness for change.
Managerial implications
21
for employees, leaders will have a better understanding of which employees require more attention. For example, in the current study the personality trait conscientiousness was not positively related to employee readiness for change. Through this understanding, leaders can adapt their behavior on basis of the characteristics of the specific employee (Felfe & Schyns, 2006) and thus leaders can specifically focus on these employees.
Furthermore, this study shows that it is important for human resource management to map out the personalities of employees. This allows organizations to have a better understanding which employees need more attention when confronted with organizational change and it is possible to predict employee behaviors (Viswesvaran & Ones, 2000). Thus, it becomes clear which employees need to be offered additional training to develop competencies which can contribute to the employees' readiness for organizational change.
Finally, the understanding of the personality traits could have possible implications for the selection of employees and leaders for positions that entail change or during organizational change. For example, some employees can be designate as change agent, because these employees can contribute to a positive attitude towards change of the employee body.
Limitations
This study is subject to some limitations. The first limitation of this study is the use of a cross-sectional research design, which resulted in the impossibility to investigate the reverse causality of the variables. Employee readiness for change might influence transformational leadership behavior of leaders, such that leaders will show less transformational leadership when employees are ready for change. Additional research, such as longitudinal designs are necessary to cross-validate the findings.
The second limitation of this study is the collection of data from one source, the employees. This may have resulted in inflated correlations, since I have used the data from employees for all the criterion and predictor variables. Obtaining the predictor and criterion variables from the same source, could have negative effects on the research findings (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee & Podsakoff, 2003).
The third limitation is the generalizability of the data. The current study was conducted in two social service organizations, which limits the generalizability of the findings. The possibility exist that the profession or type of organization affects the readiness for change. Moreover, about 83% of the participants were female. In order to prevent this, future research could try to collect data from different organizational sectors and look for more equalized male-female ratios.
Future research
The findings in this study suggest a number of interesting avenues for future research. Firstly, future studies could investigate the moderating role of agreeableness and neuroticism on the relationship transformational leadership and employee readiness for change.
22
change, because personality traits may have a moderating role on transformational leadership and different outcomes (Felfe and Schyns 2006).
CONCLUSION
23
REFERENCES
Aiken, L.S., & West, S.G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park: Sage.
Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G., & Mossholder, K.W. (1993). Creating readiness for organizational change. Human Relations, 46, 681-704.
Armenakis, A. A., & Fredenberger, W. B. (1997). Organizational change readiness practices of business turnaround change agents. Knowledge and Process Management, 4(3), 143-152.
Barrick, M.R., & Mount, M.K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1-26.
Becker, T. E. (2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research Methods, 8(3), 274-289.
Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000). Cracking the code of change. Harvard Business Review, 133-141.
Bommer, W.H., Rick, 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., Devos, G., & Van den Broeck, H. (2009). Organizational Change Questionnaire- Climate of Change, Process, and Readiness: Development of a New Instrument.
The Journal of Psychology, 143(6), 559-599.
Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Conger, J.A. (1999). Charismatic and transformational leadership in organizations: An insider's perspective on these developing streams of research. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 145-179.
Denissen, J.A., Geenen, R., van Aken, M.A.G., Gosling, S.D., & Potter, J. (2008). Development and Validation of a Dutch Translation of the Big Five Inventory (BFI). Journal of Personality
24
Ehrhart, M. G., & Klein, K. J. (2001). Predicting followers’ preferences for charismatic leadership: The influence of follower values and personality. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 153– 179.
Felfe, J., & Schyns, B. (2010). Followers' personality and the perception of transformational leadership: Further evidence for the similarity hypothesis. British Journal of Management, 21(2), 393-410.
Goldberg, L.R. (1990). An Alternative “Description of Personality”: The Big-Five Factor Structure. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216-1229.
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.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., Dorfman, P. W., Javidan, M., Dickson, M., & Gupta, V. (1999). Cultural influences on leadership and organizations: Project GLOBE. Advances in global leadership, 1(2), 171-233.
Jansen, K.J. (2000). The Emerging Dynamics of Change: Resistance, Readiness, and Momentum. Human Resource Planning, 23(2), 53-55.
Judge, T.A., Thoresen, C.J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T.M. (1999). Managerial Coping With Organizational Change: A Dispositional Perspective, Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(1), 107-122.
Judge, T.A., Heller, D., & Mount, M.K. (2002). Five-Factor Model of Personality and Job Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology: 87(3), 530-541.
Judge, T., & Piccolo, R. (2004). Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A Meta-Analytic Test of Their Relative Validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755-768.
Keller, T. (1999). Images of the familiar: Individual differences and implicit leadership theories.
The Leadership Quarterly, 10(4), 589-607.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper and Row.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American
25
Miller, V.D., Johnson, J.R., & Grau, J. (1994). Antecedents to willingness to participate in a planned organizational change. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22(1), 59.
Moss, S. A., & Ngu, S. (2006). The relationship between personality and leadership preferences. Current research in social psychology, 11(6), 70-91.
Mount, M.K., Barrick, M.R., & Perkins Straus, J. (1994). Validity of Observer Ratings of the Big Five Personality Factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(2), 272-280.
Nemanich, L.A., & Keller, R.T. 2007. Transformational leadership in an acquisition: A field study of employees. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 49-68.
Oreg, S. (2006). Personality, context, and resistance to organizational change. European Journal
of Work and Organzational Psychology, 15(1), 73-101.
Piccolo, R.F., & Colquitt, J.A. (2006). Transformational Leadership and Job Behaviors: The Mediating Role of Core Job Characteristics. The Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 327-340.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., & Bommer, W.H. (1996).Transformational Leader Behaviors and Substitutes for Leadership as Determinants of Employee Satisfaction, Commitment, Trust, and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Journal of Management, 22(2), 259-298.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of applied psychology, 88(5), 879.
Salgado, J.F. (1997). The Five Factor Model of Personality and Job Performance in the European Community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(1), 30-43.
Schweiger, D. M., & Denisi, A. S. (1991). Communication with employees following a merger: A longitudinal field experiment. Academy of management journal, 34(1), 110-135.
Tucker, B. A., & Russell, R.F. (2004).The Influence of the Transformational Leader. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10(4), 103-111.
Vakola, M., Tsaousis, I., & Nikolaou, I. (2004). The role of emotional intelligence and personality variables on attitudes toward organisational change. Journal of Managerial
26
Vakola, M. (2013). Multilevel Readiness to Organizational Change: A Conceptual Approach.
Journal of Change Management, 12(1), 96-109.
Van der Kam, N.A. (2012). Leader Self-enhancement: An Interpersonal Approach. Doctoral
dissertation, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Ipskamp Drukkers Enschede.
Van der Zee, K., Thijs, M., Schakel, L. (2002). The Relationship of Emotional Intelligence with Academic Intelligence and the Big Five. European Journal of Personality, 16, 103-125.
Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2004). Strategic Leadership and Organizational Learning. The
Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 222-240.
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2000). Measurement error in “Big Five Factors” personality assessment: Reliability generalization across studies and measures. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 60(2), 224-235.
Yammarino, F.J. Sprangler, W.D., & Bass, B.M. (1993). Transformational leadership and performance: A longitudinal investigation. The Leadership Quarterly, 4(1), 81-102.
Yukl, G. (1989). Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Journal of
management, 15 (2), 251-289.
Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 285-305.
Yukl, G. (2012). Effective leadership behavior: what we know and what questions need more attention. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(4), 66-85.
Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in Organizations. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
27
APPENDIX A
Exploratory factor analyses
Factors
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Transformational leadership
Inspires others with his/her plans for the future
.88
Leads by example .81
Develops a team attitude and spirit among employees
.57
Shows respect for my personal feelings
.78
Has stimulated me to rethink the way I do things
Will not settle for second best
.63 .94 Extraversion Is talkative Is outgoing, sociable .75 .80 Tends to be quiet a .72 Is reserved a .82
Is sometimes shy, inhibited a .79
Conscientiousness
Perseveres until the task is finished
Is a reliable worker Does things efficiently
.83 .80 .63 Tends to be disorganized a .85 Tends to be lazy a .80 Openness to experience
Likes to reflect, play with ideas .74
Is inventive .89
Is original, comes up with new ideas
.83
Has an active imagination .72
Is curious about many different things
.61 .41
Eigenvalue
Percentage explained variance
28
Factors
1 2
Readiness for change
I think that most changes will have a negative effect on the clients we serve a
.77
Plans for future improvement will not come too much a
.56
Most change projects that are supposed to solve problems around here will not do much good a .74 I am somewhat resistant to change a .66 I am quite reluctant to accommodate and incorporate changes into my work a I find the change refreshing The change will improve work
.61 .57
.77
I want to devote myself to the process of change
.81
I am willing to make a significant contribution to the change
.80
I am willing to put energy into the process of change
.88
Eigenvalue 4.10 1.69
Percentage explained variance 41.01 16.89 a. Items are reversed coded
