READINESS VARIABLES AND CHANGE READINESS
TOWARDS EXPECTED EFFECTIVENESS
How gender characteristics affect communication, trust and
self-efficacy as foundation for readiness and the expectations of effective
change
Master thesis, Msc Business Administration Specialization: Change Management
University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
Mei, 2012
J.A.W. RAAIJMAKERS University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
Eendrachtskade Zuidzijde 194 9726 DD Groningen Tel: +31 (0) 648380083
E-mail: jurriaanraaijmakers@gmail.nl
Supervisor/ university
Dr. J. Rupert /Dr. K. Prins/ Frouke de Poel
Acknowledgment:
THE EFFECT OF GENDER CHARACTERISTICS ON
READINESS VARIABLES AND CHANGE READINESS
TOWARDS EXPECTED EFFECTIVENESS
How gender characteristics affect communication, trust and
self-efficacy as foundation for readiness and the expectations of effective
change
ABSTRACT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ...4
2. THEORY AND HYPOTHESIS ...5
2.1 Gender Characteristics ...8
2.2 Gender Characteristics and Readiness for Change………...……9
2.3 Mediation of Change Readiness and Underlying Strategies………...11
2.3.1 The Mediating Role of Trust (and Communication)…...……….. 13
2.3.2 The Mediating Role of Self-efficacy………...…….……….………..14
2.3.3 Change Readiness and Resistance……….……….15
2.3.4 Change Readiness as Mediator……….……….………16
3. METHODS………...17
3.1 Procedures……….….….17
3.2 Measures……….18
3.2.1 Measurements (Factor Analysis & Reliability)……….…18
3.2.2 Change Leaders’ Characteristics………..19
3.2.3 Change Readiness………..20
3.2.4 Trust………..……….21
3.2.5 Qualitative Communication……..……….22
3.2.6 Self-efficacy…...……….22
3.2.7 Expected Change Effectiveness...23
4. RESULTS………24
5. DISCUSSION……….……….27
6. CONCLUSION AND MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS……….31 APPENDIX A: SUVEREY ITEMS………...39 APPENDIX B: FACTOR ANALYSIS CHARACTERISTICS………..43 APPENDIX C: FACTOR ANALYSIS CHARACTERISTICS FINAL………….44 APPENDIX D: RELIABILITY ANALYSIS CHARACTERISTICS MALE…...45 APPENDIX E: RELIABILITY ANALYSIS CHARACTERISTICS FEMALE..45 APPENDIX F: FACTOR ANALYSIS READINESS, TRUST, QUALITATIVE COMMUNICATION, SELF-EFFICACY AND EXPECTED
EFFICACY………..……46 APPENDIX G: FINAL FACTOR ANALYSIS READINESS, TRUST,
1. INTRODUCTION
To survive in, and adapt to a fast changing environment many companies see change as inevitable. Different strategies have been developed over the years in order to navigate change processes in the right direction, but why is it that researchers still indicate that 50 to even 80 percent of all changes fail to succeed (a.o. Beer & Nohria, 2000; Burnes, 2004; Self, Armenakis, & Schraeder, 2007; Sirkin, Keenan, & Jackson, 2005)? Could it be that we still do not focus enough on the right characteristics of a change manager? Burnes (1996) mentions that there is no such thing as a single best way to manage change; but could there be ideal characteristics? This study focuses on what characteristics of a change leader might be right for the majority of change recipients. Over time, leadership characteristics preferred by companies have been changed. The change of these characteristics is among others stimulated by an increase of women in the labor market and a more contemporary view of society such as a growing appreciation within companies for relation development (Bakker, 2006). Williams & Locke (1999) indicate that qualities such as developing relations with employees, empowering employees and solving problems are becoming more important for organizations. More recent leadership styles and strategies such as transformational leadership and Appreciative Inquiry build on these qualities (Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, & van Engen, 2003; Keefe & Pesut, 2004). Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, & van Engen (2003) take it further and describe transformational leadership as a feminine leadership style due to necessity of several characteristics, for example being unselfish, that are often associated with women. Research indicates that within daily leadership of a company, employees prefer the androgynous leader (often described as the "ideal" mix of masculine and feminine characteristics) (Stoker, 2007; Vecchio & Boatwright, 2002). This shows that feminine characteristics are likely to be more appreciated in today's world, compared to fifty years ago, when masculine leaders were still the norm.
the organization can be either the key or biggest obstacle to achieving effective change. Hence, feminine characteristics seem to become more important within daily leadership. Moreover, they also emerge more clearly in certain change approaches and seem to do what Lewin (1951) described as unfreezing (creating a readiness situation in which individuals’ attitudes and beliefs regarding pending change are affected in such a way that the imminent change is considered useful). This unfreezing or influencing the perception of individuals and thereby creating readiness, is important to be able to establish an effective change in the end.
Daily leadership has been a topic of continuous study and often these studies find that in comparison to male and female styles of leadership, the androgynous leader seems to be the best (a.o. Bem & Lewis, 1975; Stoker, 2007). However, are characteristics and skills within daily leadership of a department or company the same as one might need in an organizational change process? Jones, Jimmieson & Griffiths (2005) argue that the skills necessary to achieve a successful change implementation are very different from those required for daily business performance. Capabilities to change seem to differ from daily leadership capabilities on the points of engagement, development and performance capabilities. Consequently, it is likely that a change manager also needs different characteristics, at least in certain change processes. Low levels of change efficacy give reason to continue thinking about solutions to increase the success rate of change projects. Because feminine leadership characteristics seem to influence readiness, this research focuses on which characteristics present in change managers, masculine or feminine, are preferred by change recipients. This research is based on the question: “Have feminine leadership characteristics a more positive influence on change readiness and expected change effectiveness in a change process than masculine characteristics?” The research focuses on if and how these gender characteristics influence readiness for change of the change recipients in to check eventually if a certain group of gender characteristics results in higher effectiveness levels.
2. THEORY AND HYPOTHESES
to which objectives are being achieved and targeted problems are solved (Campion, Medsker, & Higgs, 1993; Hillenga, 2009a). Effectiveness of change is probably one of the best terms to use because one examines to what extent the change objectives and targeted problems are achieved. Change effectiveness is, according to Campion, Medsker, & Higgs (1993), built up of three criteria: productivity, employee satisfaction and manager judgments of effectiveness. The focus of this research is on expected effectiveness, the reason being that this can be measured during the change process (which is important because the moment of measurement was immediately after the kick-off of the change process), whereas satisfaction with the results and judgments of effectiveness can only be provided at the end of the change process. Expected effectiveness suggests a comprehensive, though mostly subjective, judgment of change effectiveness. This means that the judgment indicates employees’ and managers’ perception about effectiveness based on previous experiences. Although it is subjective, the feeling of employees and managers about change being effective can be a good predictor for the final effectiveness of the change project. This is because to create a feeling, a situation is taken into consideration, a quick search in one’s memories is started and based on analogies one ascribes meaning to a situation (Flora, 2007). Flora recognizes that the more experience you have in a particular area the more reliable the outcome. For a change situation this means that one examines previous changes and whether they were effective, in order to compare them to the upcoming change and in this way the upcoming change predict its success or failure.
expectations of the respondents, chances of the change process failing increase due to inconsistencies. Therefore, to manage readiness for change and stimulate effective change one might have to research expectations of the change recipients and create a fit between the chosen strategy, and the target- and change agents’ qualities and characteristics.
effective (in the broadest sense) does not depend on sex, there also is research showing that it does seem to depend on certain gender characteristics (a.o. Appelbaum et al., 2003; Gilley et al., 2008; Vecchio, 2002). So being effective is not about sex but about the characteristics one possess, meaning that men can have feminine characteristics and women can have masculine characteristics. Characteristics as appreciation, good communicator, sophistication, being democratic and a low need of dominance should lead to large in-groups due to the tendency to build an environment with greater social inclusion, interaction and power sharing fostering a high readiness. A consequence of this should be that changes headed by change leaders with more feminine characteristics have, change readiness and therefore higher subordinate satisfaction and higher performance. This consequently results in greater effectiveness which is according to vecchio (2002) because several of the proposed feminine characteristics such as frequent contact and information sharing should result in a ‘webs of inclusion’, this feeling of belonging and involvement fosters greater effectiveness. This is underscored by Burns (1978), Burns mentions that in change situations charismatic or transformational leaders can flourish due to their personality to communicate and persuasion of organizational members to commit to the new vision. So, greater effectiveness is reached through more involvement from and open, qualitative communication with the change recipients. As this open environment provides the possibility to indicate potential ‘hazards’ within the change process and also provides room for ideas to improve during the process, I expect that:
Hypothesis 1. A high level of feminine characteristics within change managers leads to positive expected change effectiveness
2.1 Gender Characteristics
To recall, being an effective leader is not about gender but about gender
characteristics are described as for example building relationships, being empathic, taking perspective and use these characteristics in effective communication (Devitt & Borodzicz, 2008; Granville, 2002). Consequence of displaying characteristics that contradict to the gender stereotypes could be that one will be evaluated in a more negative way than someone with the same sex who does not (Eagly & Karau, 2002).This effect is also described as the ‘backlash to agentic women’ (Rudman, 1998). A way to possibly overcome stereotyping is looking at gender characteristics when selecting the right person for the job. This also counts for change processes. It is important to have and use specific characteristics to influence the ones who are affected by the change, in order to create readiness for it. A search throughout different academic databases shows that limited research has been done between several individual demographics of change recipients and readiness for change, none was found about change leader demographics or gender characteristics. Looking at characteristics nothing substantial has been found; when looking at gender of the recipients, some research was done exhibiting a lack of consensus. Cunningham et al.,(2002) indicate in their research that they did not find a relationship between readiness for change and gender or any of the other tested demographics like marital status. Additionally, Hanpachern (1997) also concluded that there was no significant relation between readiness, gender and several other demographics. On the other hand, research among leaders from multiple domains has shown that organizational commitment (often related to readiness) was marginally related to gender. Finally, research shows that recipients who have more job involvement, stimulated by feminine characteristics such as a low need for dominance, also show more organizational commitment (Goulet & Singh, 2002). Organizational commitment is seen here as the belief in the organization’s mission, willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization and the desire to remain with the organization. In other words involvement of employees in a change leads to willingness to put effort in the change and readiness for it. The lack of consensus in past studies encourages continuing to explore these relations. It also instigated a change of focus from focusing on sex towards a focus on gender characteristics.
2.2 Gender Characteristics and Readiness for Change
conjunction of certain strategies that influence members’ beliefs, attitudes and intentions. These strategies include, among others, the creation of a certain amount of trust, the quality of communication and the amount of confidence in one’s own capabilities. A combination of these strategies and thereby creating and maintaining readiness is almost similar to how Lewin & Rivera (1976) describe the process of unfreezing an organization. The unfreezing is achieved by managing the attitudes, beliefs and intentions of the change recipients broadening their view about the necessity and usefulness about the upcoming change process. The
creation of readiness is explained in different studies in conjunction with prescriptions for reducing resistance. Kotter & Schlessinger (1979) for example, discuss strategies to deal with resistance, such as communication & education, participation & involvement, negotiation & agreement and facilitation & support. These strategies seem to fit with feminine
characteristics as being communicative, involved, democratic and motivating, as wel as the ability to comprehend. The importance of readiness can be deducted from the case “cracking the code of change” by Beer & Nohria (2000). Beer & Nohria explain that to be effective, one must win the hearts and minds of the change recipients; and to win hearts, minds and to build & keep interpersonal trust in a change process, it is important that the trustees’ (change agents’) behavior is not guided solely by rational self-interest. The change process also has to be guided by the intention to improve the trustors’ (change recepients’) wellbeing
(Lindenberg, 2000; Nooteboom, 2002). Next to this, Beer & Nohria (2000) suggest that, to win and retain the hearts and minds (and prove that you also care about the trustors’
that resistance cannot be considered as sudden nor as direct response to a certain change occurrence. Instead resistance should be considered as part of the quality of the relationship between the trustee and the trustor (Ford, Ford, & D'amelio, 2008). The importance of the right characteristics does not only show from winning and keeping the hearts and minds of the employees; it also can be deduced from the often mentioned change readiness strategies or triggers that seem to be important in building and retaining the readiness for change. Often mentioned triggers to affect the attitudes and beliefs of the employees are: the amount of trust in management (Holt, Armenakis, Feild, & Harris, 2007b; Kotter, 2007; Lai & Ong, 2010), (the quality of) communication (Kotter, 2007; Lai & Ong, 2010) as well as believe in one’s own capabilities (change self-efficacy)(Choi & Ruona, 2011; Holt, Armenakis, Feild, & Harris, 2007a). As mentioned earlier, feminine characteristics as for example information sharing, a low need for dominance and frequent contact leads to stimulation of an open environment. Recipients know the environment, are involved and communicate about what they want to know and therefore have faith in what is happening around them. So,
involvement is an important factor to create an environment in which employees are ready, showing their commitment to the organizations’ vision and even are willing to their selves put considerable effort in the change. I expect that:
Hypothesis 2. Feminine characteristics present in the change agents lead to readiness for change
2.3 Relation and Mediation of Change Readiness and Underlying Strategies
The creation of readiness for change is complicated, as can be observed when considering theories such as Maslows’ (Maslow, 1943, 1954) theory of human motivation. Within the hierarchy of needs, the phase of love and belonging (trust) comes before esteem and self-actualization. As soon as we feel we are a part of something, we gain confidence and start to gain and give respect with as final step a higher morale, creativity and problem-solving attitude. This is why the different readiness strategies including, among others, the creation of a certain amount of trust, the quality of communication and the amount of
confidence in one’s own capabilities are so important. All of these readiness strategies have a relation and the same focus, together they build up to a feeling readiness. One of the relations is between qualitative communication and trust. To have qualitative communication in an open way one needs to trust each other, for trust one needs honesty (qualitative
To gain trust a change recipient needs support (stimulate self-efficacy and contribute to personal objectives), but when a recipient has self-efficacy because the recipient already possess skills related to the change process it also is easier to trust because the recipient is able to analyze the abilities of the change agent . Finally, to build self-efficacy the change agent has to communicate with the recipient to find out about the needs (in order to contribute to personal objectives) but without self-efficacy the change recipient might be afraid to discuss his opinion about the change (qualitative communication) or might lose trust in the change manager. This shows that these strategies are to a certain level interconnected and influence each other. Several (feminine) characteristics of a change agent seem to provide the advantage of being able to build a strong relationship with the partner (the change recipient), based on qualitative communication, fair treatment, creating trust and boosting self-efficacy. Past studies have proven the importance of stimulating trust, qualitative communication and self-efficacy resulting in readiness. Studies such as the one by Miller, Johnson & Grau (1994), prove that when employees feel they have received high-quality information, they also report high levels of readiness for change. Concerning self-efficacy, Wanberg et al., (2000) found that, together with several change specific variables, self-efficacy was predictive of readiness for change. Studies by Lewis & Weigert (1985) and McAllister (1995), discuss interpersonal trust and its importance in stimulating commitment (readiness) and satisfaction of members- as well as organizational effectiveness. To be effective, one needs to win hearts and minds (create change readiness) of the change recipients which for example is done by building and retaining trust in a change process (Beer & Nohria, 2000), which, according to Yukl (2002) is easiest with “soft” feminine characteristics because those are best used for the upkeep of warm, interpersonal relationships. Finally, a study on organizational justice mentioned by (Ford et al., 2008) shows that when people believe they have been treated fairly, they develop an attitude associated with successful change. This means that positive expectations of change recipients about results can be associated with effective change results. The attitude of
recipients also can work the other way around, meaning that when people (expect to)
experience injustice or betrayal, they report a desire for retribution and resentment (Folger & Skarlicki, 1999) resulting in less effective change or a complete failure. A feeling of injustice or betrayal could stimulate a change of perception, such as a loss of trust of, growing
together adds to a lower feeling of readiness and eventually resulting in less or even non-effective change. This is because an individual’s perception about for example readiness can facilitate or undermine the effectiveness of a change strategy (Armenakis et al., 1993) (see conceptual model, fig. 1, p. 17). That the strategies might be related and together work towards readiness for change, does not mean they cannot individually also have a mediating role, therefore the next section will discuss these strategies and change readiness in detail.
2.3.1 The Mediating Role of Trust (and Communication)
In the process of winning and keeping the hearts and minds of change recipients, one has to listen constantly, discuss what is happening and make sure change recipients retain their belief that the change agent takes care of their well-being. Allowing others to care for your feelings (create a feeling of readiness), and as such determines whether you are happy, have confidence and are able to be successful, requires among others constant communication and trust. Trust is depicted as the psychological state of the (change) recipient in which the recipient accepts to be open and therefore vulnerable to the actions of another individual (the change manager). This state of mind of the recipient (trustor) towards the change manager (trustee), is based upon the expectation that the trustee is able to perform a particular action while maintaining uprightness important to the trustor (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995; Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Cramer, 1998; Schoorman, Mayer, & Davis, 2007). This means that it is very difficult to create trust without qualitative communication because, to create and retain trust, the change recipient has to be able to continuously trust on the abilities, integrity and support for the change by the change manager. To build trust and allow for change recipients to speak up, the change manager could be the first to start communicating.
manager listens to complaints and how does he answer to them, does the change manager stick to his words and is there active involvement of the change recipients in the process.The fact that communication is important, is according to Kotter (2007) because hearts and minds of employees can never be captured without ample and reliable communication. In a study conducted by Kotter, concerning transformational efforts, executives used all the
communication channels available. On top of that, they transformed standard returning
meetings into interesting, exciting discussions about the change. Kotter also witnessed that, in one of the cases he studied, feedback from peers and subordinates was used to help the
manager to remind him about the desired behavior. Not providing enough and the necessary (specific) information also seems to be one of the reasons why many change efforts are ineffective. This is confirmed by DiFonzo & Bordia (1998) and Schweiger & DeNisi (1991), who indicate that communication is vital to the effective implementation of organizational change. Also Appelbaum et al., (2003), as mentioned earlier, mention that more feminine leaderships styles are preferred in current organizations due to for example qualities such as advanced intermediary skills, communication skills and well developed interpersonal skills. The importance of feminine characteristics in creating trust might be underscored by research of Feingold (1994), who found that females score higher than males on all measures of trust. Therefore, to create trust and have qualitative communication, a change leader has to build on feminine characteristics by creating an open environment, with ample shared time, in which the change recipient is involved, coached, information about the change is available and ideas of the recipients are heard.
Hypothesis 3a. Trust in (change) management mediates between feminine characteristics (indicated as important for a change manager to possess) and expected change effectiveness
Hypothesis 3b.Qualitative communication mediates between feminine characteristics
(indicated as important for a change manager to possess) and expected change effectiveness
2.3.2 The Mediating Role of Self-efficacy
the new situation. Other factors that seem to boost self-efficacy include physiological factors, personal experience (in similar situations), social persuasion (encouragement/
discouragement) and experience of role models (trust in skills & knowledge of the change agent) (Bandura, 1997). Finally, self-efficacy among employees can be stimulated by enriching jobs with autonomy and complexity which in turn, according to Parker, Bindl & Strauss (2010), leads to the creation of enjoyment and an optimal experience. Self-efficacy felt by change recipients seems to create a proactive ‘can do’ mentality, conveying a relation to effective outcomes across many domains (Parker et al., 2010). From this, one may
conclude that feminine characteristics such as a low need for dominance, information sharing, involvement and supporting are important to stimulate self-efficacy.
Hypothesis 3c. Self-efficacy mediates between feminine characteristics (indicated as important for a change manager to possess) and expected change effectiveness
2.3.3 Change Readiness and Resistance
To create readiness and retain low levels of resistance, it cannot be mentioned often enough that constant listening, open & appreciative talking and discussing the change and making ‘democratic’ decisions, is important before and during the change process. Together these three strategies form the base on which change readiness builds.
2.3.4 Change Readiness as Mediator
Although readiness for change has not often been taken into account as a mediating factor, more recent studies seem to give it some attention. A search through many digital databases only revealed two papers which looked at readiness as a mediating factor between the change strategy and effective change. Wanberg & Banas (2000) found a weak support for the mediating role of readiness. Particular change-specific variables (including provided information, self-efficacy and active involvement) proved to be predictors of change readiness. According to Jones et al. (2005) ” the weak support for the mediating role of change readiness, in the study of Wanberg & Banas, might be ascribed to the general nature of the employee adjustment measures which did not specifically address outcomes associated with the restructuring taking place in the organization.” In own research Jones et al (2005) found no support for the mediating role of readiness when predicting the user satisfaction (effectiveness), although some evidence was found about employees who felt positive about upcoming changes. This might indicate that there is a relation between readiness and
(expected) effectiveness because the employees who felt positive about the upcoming changes also afterwards reported higher satisfaction levels with the accuracy of the system, user-friendliness and systems formatting functions. Higher satisfaction could be an indicator of higher reported effectiveness because, as mentioned by Campion et al., (1993), effectiveness is based on satisfaction, productivity and manager judgments. Being ready does not directly solve targeted problems and neither does it ensure that objectives are achieved. As such, effectiveness has not yet been reached. Readiness does mean, as mentioned earlier, that employees are more cooperative in reaching the set goals; the present trust and
communication could give early notifications of needed training and possible ‘problems’ providing time to address these issues and to solve them. In addition, self-efficacy seems to have a strong influence on achievements as was shown by a study among students. If the students’ belief in their efficacy is stronger, they show greater interest, they are better
prefer a more feminine, way of leadership with qualitative communication, trust building and involvement. A study by Stoker (2007) shows grades of different types of leaders as preferred by employees. On a scale from 1 to 10 the masculine leader gets a 6.7 and the feminine leader a 7.1. In addition, it seems that feminine characteristics such as cooperation and qualitative communication make it more likely to reach the goals set for the change, implying that it might also contribute to higher productivity and employee satisfaction. This together contributes to management judgments of the success/ effectiveness of the change, meaning that all factors of successful or effective change as described by Campion et al., (1993) are covered. Preference for a more feminine leader, the seemingly positive influence of the
related characteristics on readiness for change as well as effectiveness and a lack of consensus in previous research provide the ground for hypothesis 3.
Hypothesis 3: Readiness for change mediates between feminine characteristics (indicated as important for a change manager to possess) and expected change effectiveness
Figure 1.
3. METHODS 3.1 Procedures
A change plan was developed in cooperation with the change guidance team, followed by a kick-off meeting in which a culture change towards a more open culture was announced. The study was launched directly after the kickoff meeting to measure the change recipients’ readiness for change. To increase the response rate, surveys were announced by e-mail and a possible reward was offered to those who returned their survey. Besides this, purpose and importance of the study were explained within the e-mail and the survey could be filled out online to allow for easy access. After 4 days a reminder was sent again, including an
explanation of the purpose and importance of the survey, requesting the change recipients to fill in the survey within five working days. After these five days, the survey was taken offline. Originally, 63 surveys were sent out within the sales department, 49 surveys were returned, resulting in a response rate of 77.77 percent. Questioned recipients have on average spent 5 years with the company and the male/female percentage among the recipients is almost 50/50 (25 male, 24 female). Participants represented different levels of education (secondary school 18.4 percent, Lower vocational education 63.2 percent, higher vocational education and university 18.4 percent).
3.2 Measures
Questions used are based on published studies, while slightly altered to match the culture change within the company. The questions were translated in Dutch by the author for a better understanding. After translating them, they were checked by two individuals of which one was an English student. The questionnaire originally consisted of 98 items, representing six variables as presented in the conceptual model (page 17). Questions per topic were selected from papers that seemed to discuss the same subject matter and therefore should measure the same. Unless otherwise indicated, questions had to be answered on the 5 point Likert scale from very unlikely to very likely. Before performing the analysis in SPSS, negatively formulated items were recoded (item: trust5, trust7, QualCom1, QualCom4, QualCom7, ExEf7). A codebook for these and following items is enclosed and can be found in appendix A
3.2.1 Measurements (Factor Analysis & Reliability)
quite some characteristics (masculine and feminine) were grouped under the same component. In addition, some of the other variables showed this same pattern. Due to the large amount of data and the fact that quite some of the gender characteristics were grouped on one component which possibly could be named characteristics in general. The decision was made to separate the questions about masculine- and feminine leadership characteristics from the other
variables (readiness, qualitative communication, self-efficacy, trust and expected
effectiveness). The separation was made because it was expected that, due to the large amount of data, the answers on the other variables had a negative influence on the statistical
outcomes. A factor analysis for both afterwards resulted again in too many components, meaning that masculine- and feminine leadership styles were forced into two components (masculine & feminine, appendix B) and the other variables were forced into five components (readiness for change, trust in management, qualitative communication, confidence in one’s own capabilities and expected efficacy, appendix F). No variables were used to check for any alternative patterns. Although the realization is there that making use of variables to check for alternative patterns like, do males have different preferences in leadership style than females do, could provide a different view it did not seem relevant for this research since the focus was on a pattern for employees in common. Correlations will be tested two tailed. The reason for this is to check for dissimilarities between masculine and feminine characteristics, this way one does not rule out one or the other, still being able to check if feminine
characteristics have indeed a more positive influence on change processes. For each variable, an explanation of why questions were removed and a possible explanation for double
loadings, when a question has been grouped under 2 or more columns, will be provided.
3.2.2 Change Leaders’ Characteristics. To measure the characteristics indicated by
change recipients as necessary for a change manager, recipients were asked to answer questions from the short BEM Gender Role Inventory (BSRI) as mentioned by Powell,
Butterfield & Parent (2002). The BSRI measurements of masculinity and femininity are based on ten items each and ten genderless questions to avoid a biased response from the
three masculine and feminine questions taken from Edwards et al. (1980) were added to both categories. A factor analysis was done to find out whether it was possible to create two independent variables. Possibly, due to the fact that the amount of respondents (N = 49) was very low for this kind of study, the outcomes were quite resulting in the characteristics having to be forced into two components. Six masculine (karakter-1, 3, 5, 10, 28, 34) and five
feminine (karakter-12, 27, 30, 33, 36) items were removed. The reason for removal was that, due to forcing them into two components, several items showed a value of below .30 or double loading on multiple components (1, 3, 5, 12, 27, 28, 33, 34). These low values or double loading could be explainedby a change over time in gender characteristics. An
example of a change in gender characteristics is the tendency to defend one’s personal beliefs, which women do as much as men in today’s world. Another example is wanting to work rationally. Furthermore, men also show more signs of democratic leadership in comparison with years ago. Another explanation might lie in interpretation; one should wonder whether loving children or being forceful really are characteristics that belong to either gender. Other than the fact that forcing them into two components caused some of these loadings, another cause might have been that questions are interpreted differently by the reader or might have been wrongly translated in the process (10, 33, 36). All the questions mentioned above were removed while constantly monitoring the Cronbach’s Alfa after removal of one of the
questions. The final factor analysis can be found in appendix C. Karakter 9 is enclosed in the result even though it loads on a different component. This choice was made because removing this item lowered the Cronbach’s Alfa. The final scale is a combination of both the short BEM Gender Role Inventory (BSRI) as mentioned by Powell, Butterfield & Parent (2002) and a few (2, 1 masculine & 1 feminine) questions taken from Edwards et al. (1980), resulting in two independent variables: a masculine α = 0.65 and a feminine α = 0.82.
3.2.3 Change Readiness. Because readiness does not only deal with trust, the quality
of communication and self-efficacy, 14 questions were added to the questionnaire to measure readiness individually. These questions are based on Hanpacherns’ original 14-item Readiness For Change (RFC) scale. In effort to improve the scale, Madsen, Miller & John (2005) made slight alterations resulting in a slightly altered 14 item change readiness scale. The scale includes items such as; “my willingness or openness to change the way I work is …” or “my willingness or openness to be part of the change program is …” with answering possibilities on a five point scale from very unlikely to very likely. After being forced into five
confidence in own capabilities & expected efficacy-, several items did not group with the mass. This part will discuss the items for change readiness, whereas following parts will discuss the other components. Over several steps of removing items from the diverse categories, three items showed high loads on change readiness as well as other components (Ready-2, 13, 15), which might be the case due to questions having been interpreted
differently or wrong. For example, ready13 “my willingness or openness to improve what we are currently doing rather than implement a major change” could be interpreted in a negative way and therefore answered differently by the respondents. Removing ready12 was necessary foremost because it was not part of the scale as altered by Madsen, Miller & John (2005). Additionally, it was asked as reversed question, which might have caused a load on a different component. Besides wrong or negative interpretation, another possible factor that might have caused loading wrong or high on multiple components can be the low N present in this study. Removal of these items results in the factor analysis as presented in appendix G. Change readiness as a dependent variable has an α of 0.91.
3.2.4 Trust. Questions about trust in management were selected from several
published papers. Within the questionnaire, questions from three different studies were combined to create a respectable amount of questions. In the end, it was decided to remove two of these sources, due to double loads and loading within different components, leaving one scale. The final scale was taken from a study by Holt (2002), used again in a study by Holt, Bartczak, Clark & Trent (2007c). The questions were based on trust in management support during the change process. The four items left (trust-6, 7, 8, 9) included questions such as “this departments’ most senior leader is committed to such changes” and “Our senior leaders have encouraged all of us to embrace changes that will improve knowledge sharing (openness)”. The factor analysis (appendix G) showed a loading of the trust items left on several components (trust-7, 8) loaded on the component linked to qualitative communication. A possible explanation could be that trust 7 “I think we are spending a lot of time on this change when the senior managers don’t even want it implemented” is formulated as a
of one of the items, in most cases, would even significantly lower the reliability. Because it is an already existing scale used in other studies, the choice has been made to enclose all items of this scale. This means that the scale consists of four items forming the dependent variable ‘trust in management’ with α of 0.72.
3.2.5 Qualitative Communication. Similar to the trust in management questions, these
questions about qualitative communication were also limited. This resulted in the final 14 questions being taken from different sources. The study by Holt et al. (2007c) provided some questions used previously in Miller, Johnson & Grau (1994), such as “the information I received was timely” and “the information I received about this change has adequately answered my questions. Questions from the other sources, such as Bordia et al (2004a) “The official information provided about the change, addressed my personal concerns regarding the change” and Bouckenooghe et al. (2009; 2007) “the information provided about the change is clear” have a strong theoretical fit and therefore were included. A deeper look showed that the initial source in most articles was the same, namely Miller et al., (1994). Despite the common source, several questions were removed. First of al QualCom 5 was removed in response to a failure in the survey. Additionally, QualCom 13 showed a double load within several factor analyses, an explanation could be that the change process was just started when the survey was taken and consequently change recipients might have had doubts about how regularly they would be informed. Finally, QualCom 1 and 14 also were removed because of double loading. An explanation for this could be the reversed way of questioning. However, the double loads also can be explained by the fact that these questions cover more of the change process than just the beginning. After removal of those four questions, nine questions from the combined sources remained and qualitative communication was created as a dependent variable with α = 0.89.
3.2.6 Self-efficacy. The questions about self-efficacy were taken from Holt et
al.,(2007a; 2007c). The study by Holt et al., (2007a; 2007c) provided a respectable amount of 10 questions about change confidence. Questions (confid-8, 9, 10) were mentioned in a different part of the paper by Holt et al., (2007b; 2007c), within the factor analysis (appendix G) they also were grouped on different components which could proof that they might measure something different. Removing them also improved the reliability and the
combined with an increase in reliability. Consequently, these questions were removed as well. The five questions left included “I do not anticipate any problems adjusting to the work I will have when this change is adopted” and “My past experiences make me confident that I will be able to perform successfully after the changes are made” and together formed “confidence in own capabilities” as a dependent variable with α = 0.74.
3.2.7 Expected Change Effectiveness. Finally, expected effectiveness of the change
was examined. This is measured by indicating the (expected) degree to which objectives are being achieved and targeted and problems are solved. To recall, effectiveness has to answer according to Campion et al. (1993) to three criteria: productivity, satisfaction and manager judgments. To gain 10 questions that answer to all these three criteria, questions were used from a master thesis (Hillenga, 2009b) as well as from two other sources. After the factor analysis, it was decided to remove questions ExEf 5 – 11. The first reason to remove these questions was the doubtfulness of the source because, as questions were not used in articles but taken from a consultancy website (TandemGroup, 2010) and formulated by the author based on literature. All questions were individually tested for understanding, adapted and retested again among 20 employees. Whenever two or more employees did not understand the question, the question was removed. Despite this method, items still showed a spread over the multiple components. A reason for this could be that they show similarities with questions asked within the other variables. For instance, “I think we will be able to manage this change within the time set” were grouped on multiple components, including the one in which
confidence in one’s own capabilities is strongly represented (Item 5, appendix E). In the end it proved that removing the items that were taken from the (TandemGroup, 2010) and the
questions as formulated by the author increased the reliability of expected change
(appendix G). A possible explanation for ExEf4 “After changes the department is likely to be more effective than it used to” to group on the component in which many questions of
qualitative communication were grouped is that, within the company where research was done, many of the employees found that this field needed the most improvement. Because the questions were used in previous studies and did not present any trouble within the test group, they are used to represent this category. Change effectiveness as a dependent variable has α = 0.71.
4. RESULTS
Table 1 provides descriptive statistics as well as correlations for all variables. To test the hypotheses, a linear regression analysis was conducted (table 2).
TABLE 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for All Variables
Variables Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 Masculine 3.51 .44 - - - - - - 2 Feminine 4.39 .47 .27 - - - - - 3 Trust 4.28 .59 -.26 .02 - - - - 4 Qualitative Communication 3.91 .53 -.29* .12 .71** - - - 5 Self-efficacy 4.23 .49 -.09 .17 .61** .40** - - 6 Readiness 4.37 .49 .08 .20 .56** .41** .62** - 7 Expected Efficacy 4.24 .58 -.21 .17 .46** .65** .52** .68**
N = 49. *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
The descriptive statistics in Table 1 show high scores and low dispersion, which might a problem in providing significant regression data. Still, some significant correlations between the independent variables are visible. A slight, yet significant, negative relation is visible between qualitative communication and masculine characteristics, giving an indication that the used as masculine indicated characteristics have a negative relation when one wants to induce qualitative communication. Therefore, the more leaders will be rated as masculine, the lower the levels of qualitative communication will be. Qualitative communication has
these variables influence each other, entailing for example that an improvement in trust will provide more self-efficacy, will help the quality of communication and together positively influence readiness for change as well. As mentioned, readiness for change does not only consist of trust, qualitative communication and self-efficacy strategies. Because readiness for change also has a positive significant relation with trust, qualitative communication and self-efficacy, one might conclude that if the other unmentioned strategies of readiness are applied well, it also has a positive reflection on the other variables. The strong correlation visible between trust, qualitative communication and self-efficacy shows, that these variables are indeed an interconnected mix of change readiness strategies. They influence each other in a positive way, influences on one of them affects all, including readiness for change. However insignificant, negative relations are also visible between masculine characteristics, trust and self-efficacy, where feminine characteristics show a slight though not significant positive relation. This indicates that, although not significant, in this study an increase of feminine characteristics has a slightly positive influence on the variables of trust, qualitative
communication and self-efficacy, where an increase of masculine characteristics will lead to a slight decrease. This also counts for the relation between masculine- and feminine
characteristics and expected efficacy. The relation between masculine and feminine characteristics shows a near to significant relation, this relation might imply that that
masculine and feminine characteristics influence each other in a positive way. If so, the ideal leader should possess both, masculine and feminine characteristics (androgynous leader) to be effective. Finally, another positive, significant relation is visible between expected change efficacy as a dependent variable & readiness for change, trust, qualitative communication and confidence in own capabilities, as independent variables. This signifies that if readiness or any of the other variables decreases, it will also influence the expected efficacy in a negative way. The relation between them is tested in table 2 (p. 26), proving that they, at least in the
TABLE 2
Linear Regression Results
DEPENDENT VARIABLES DEPENDENT VARIABLES
Gender characteristics
CE RfC Trust QC Confid
H1 H2 H3a H3b H3c Expected Efficacy
Masculine .060 .864 .053 .022* .347 Feminine .094 .209 .497 .152 .170 Readiness .001 ** Trust .000** Qualitative communication .000** Confidence in own capabilities .000** R2 .102 .040 .079 .121 .040 .571 F 2.613 .957 1.976 3.180 1.144 12.785
N = 49 *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level
Hypothesis 1 proposed that ‘a high level of feminine characteristics within change managers leads to positive expected change effectiveness’. As mentioned, the results displayed in table 1 already show that there is no correlation between the masculine &
feminine characteristics and expected efficacy. Table 2, the regression analysis, confirms that there is no significant relation between either feminine (β = 0.09, p = 0.17 ) or masculine characteristics (β = 0.06, p = -0.20) and expected change effectiveness, meaning hypothesis 1 is rejected.
Hypothesis 2 proposed that feminine characteristics present in change agents lead to readiness for change. As table 1 indicates, there is no sign of correlation between the gender characteristics and readiness for change. The regression analysis in table 2 confirms that this relation is not significant and therefore hypothesis 2 has to be rejected. (β = 0.21 , p = 0.20).
has to be present. Finally, when including the independent variable and mediator in a
regression analysis, the relationship between the independent variable and dependent variable should disappear or be suppressed and the mediator should remain significant. The fact that hypothesis 1 was rejected closed the opportunity for possible mediation of readiness, trust, qualitative communication & confidence in one’s own capabilities between the characteristics and expected effectiveness. Hypothesis 3, 3a,b and c (readiness for change mediates between feminine characteristics and expected effectiveness), 3a (within readiness for change, trust in (change) management mediates between feminine characteristics and expected effectiveness), 3b (Qualitative communication mediates between feminine characteristics (indicated as
important for a change manager to possess) and expected change effectiveness) and 3c (within readiness for change, confidence in own capabilities mediates between feminine
characteristics and expected change effectiveness) therefore have to be rejected.
5. DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to examine whether feminine characteristics are more effective than masculine characteristics within a change process. Past studies have mainly focused on gender and leadership, often neglecting the fact that everyone (male or female) has different characteristics. Results from those studies often differ enormously, as they either see males as better leaders or females. More recent studies such as the one by Stoker (2007), often point more towards the androgynous leader as most effective, acknowledging
interchangeability of characteristics. However, these studies still do not consider which individual characteristics might be important for a change leader. This study builds on the importance of creating readiness in change projects and questions whether a certain
combination of gender characteristics is more important in the process of change readiness creation. It was found that masculine- or feminine characteristics do not have a significant relation with readiness for change or expected change efficacy. An explanation for this might be that in our effort to single out certain characteristics, these characteristics were categorized as masculine or feminine characteristics. This was clearly not the right choice, as the
situations.The first hypothesis in which a relationship is expected between masculine and feminine characteristics and expected efficacy does not show any significant relation. This means that possessing more feminine or masculine characteristics does not influence the expected results of the change process. It also becomes clear from the second hypothesis, testing the relation between masculine and feminine characteristics and readiness for change, that it cannot be said that either group of characteristics, masculine or feminine, is best in a change process. An explanation for this could come from Beer & Nohria (2000), who state that it might be wise to choose different managers, type E and O, when different types of change follow on each other. Type E change is a seemingly more masculine leadership
approach, whereas type O seems to be an approach based on leadership that is more feminine. Another example might come from the case of the XYZ construction (Burnes, 2004), proving success from matching different change approaches (as for example a planned or more
emergent approach) to different types of change (such as a structural or cultural change) being undertaken. A different style of managing and a different approach usually go hand in hand with different characteristics. After all, one of the more important factors of influence for the choice of the change strategy is the change agent itself (Caluwé & Vermaak, 1999). This means that when selecting a change manager for the change process, one should not look at traditional male or female behavior. Again, testing the androgynous concept, a combination of ‘the best of both’ masculine and feminine characteristics, might be an option. The question remains: which characteristics are the right ones and do these suit any situation? A solution could be to look at the characteristics of a change leader that have been indicated as important by change recipients separately. This might be important because change recipients in
the other variables (not significant), whereas the feminine characteristics show a positive relation (again not significant). Finally, the timing of the research, just after the kick-off, could be of influence because change recipients might experience difficulties in judging for example about their trust in management. This again could have caused high averages and low dispersion within the given answers influencing on its turn the regression analysis. The fact that there is no significant relation visible between either masculine or feminine characteristics and most of the dependent variables (change readiness, trust in management, qualitative communication, confidence in own capabilities and expected change effectiveness) denotes that neither set of characteristics is superior when applied in the process of creating change readiness.
One relation however, was considered significant. The combined masculine
characteristics seem to reflect negatively on qualitative communication, meaning that when leaders are rated more masculine, the quality of communication will be rated lower. Because several characteristics are now combined into one masculine and one feminine variable, it might be a good idea to see which individual characteristics are necessary when improving communication and which characteristics might have a negative influence.
5.1 Limitations and Future Research Directions
processes such as cultural or structural change processes, so as to find characteristics that are most suitable for a specific change process. The impact of a change process on change recipients can differ greatly, small changes in procedures have a different impact and
experienced necessity might be easier to accept than a culture change or even reorganization. Employees have to feel ready, which is linked to a feeling that the organization is ready (Eby, Adams, Russell, & Gaby, 2000). This entails that the organization or change leader is able to handle the change and can provide qualitative communication, trust and confidence in one’s own capabilities, which might ask for different characteristics when changes become more complicated. Dividing data into for example characteristics necessary for a first- or second order change provides an opportunity to find the most suitable characteristics for change processes and therefore also the possibility to select a change manager who suits the project the most. Discovering the right characteristics to foster readiness is important because, as shown, creating readiness among change recipients has a strong influence on the (expected) change efficacy.
6. CONCLUSION AND MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS
References
Abele, A. 2003. The dynamics of masculine-agentic and feminine-communal traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(Vol 85(4)): 768-776.
Aldoory, L. & Toth, E. 2009. Leadership and Gender in Public Relations: Perceived Effectiveness of Transformational and Transactional Leadership Styles. Journal of Public Relations Research, 16(2): 157-183.
Appelbaum, S. H., Audet, L., & Miller, J. C. 2003. Gender and leadership? Leadership and gender? A journey through the landscape of theories. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(1): 43-51.
Armenakis, A. A. 1993. Creating Readiness for Organizational Change. Human Relations, 46(6): 681-703.
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. 1993. Creating Readiness for Organizational Change. Human Relations, 46(6): 681-703.
Bakker, M. 2006. Sekseverschillen in Leiderschap: Onderzoek naar de relatie tussen leiderschapsstijlen, self-efficacy en stereotypen en de impact van geslachtsverschillen. Universiteit Twente, Twente.
Bandura, A. 1997. Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York, N.Y.: Freeman.
Baron, R. M. & Kenny, D. A. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, Strategic and Statistical Considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6).
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Yair, B. 2003. Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2): 207-218.
Bass, B. M. A., Bruce J. 1993. Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Inc.
Beer, M. & Nohria, N. 2000. Cracking the Code of Change. Harvard Business Review, 78(3): 133-141.
Bem, S. 1974. The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 42(2): 155-162.
Bem, S. L. & Lewis, S. A. 1975. Sex role adaptability: One consequence of psychological androgyny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(4): 634-643.
Betz, N. E. & Hackett, G. 1986. Applications of Self-Efficacy Theory to Understanding Career Choice Behavior. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4(3): 279-289.
Bordia, P., Hunt, E., Paulsen, N., Tourish, D., & DiFonzo, N. 2004b. Uncertainty during organizatonal change: Is it all about control? European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 13(3): 345-365.
Bouckenooghe, D., Devos, G., & Van den Broeck, H. 2009. Organizational Change
Questionnaire-Climate of Change, Processes, and Readiness. Journal of Psychology, 143(6): 559-599.
Bouckenooghe, D. D., Geert. 2007. Psychological Change Climate as a Crucial Catalyst of Readiness for Change: A Dominance Analysis: 38. Gent: Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School.
Burnes, B. 2004. Emergent change and planned change – competitors or allies? The case of XYZ construction. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 24(9): 886-902.
Burns, J., MacGregor. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Caluwé, L. d. & Vermaak, H. 1999. Leren veranderen. Alphen aan den Rijn: Samsom.
Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. 1993. Relations between work group
characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46(4): 823-850.
Cawsey, T. & Descza, G. 2007. Toolkit for Organizational Change. CMA Management, 81(6): 6-6.
Choi, M. & Ruona, W. 2011. Individual readiness for organizational change and its implications for human resource and organization development. Human Resource Development Review, 10(1): 46-73.
Cunningham, C. E., Woodward, C. A., Shannon, H. S., MacIntosh, J., Lendrum, B.,
Rosenbloom, D., & Brown, J. 2002. Readiness for organizational change: A longitudinal study of workplace, psychological and behavioural correlates. Journal of Occupational &
Organizational Psycology, 75(4): 377-392.
Devitt, K. & Borodzicz, E. 2008. Interwoven Leadership: the Missing Link in Multi-Agency Major Incident Response. Journal of contingencies and crisis management, 16(4): 208.
Eagly, A. & Karau, S. 2002. Role Congruity Theory of Prejudice Toward Female Leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3): 57.
Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. L. 2003. Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4): 569-591.
Eby, L., Adams, D., Russell, J., & Gaby, S. 2000. Perceptions of organizational readiness for change: Factors Related to Employees' Reactions to the Implementation of Team-Based Selling Human Relations, 53(3): 419-442.
Edwards, J. R. & Williams, J. E. 1980. Sex-trait stereotypes among young children and young adults: Canadian findings and cross-national comparisons. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 12(3): 210-220.
Elving, W. J. L. 2005. The role of communication in organisational change. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 10(2): 129-138.
Feingold, A. 1994. Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis. Gender Differences in Personality, 116(3): 429-456.
Flora, C. 2007. Gut Almighty, Psychology Today: 3. New York: Sussex Publishers, LLC.
Folger, R. & Skarlicki, D. 1999. Unfairness and resistance to change: hardship as mistreatment. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(1): 35-50.
Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & D'amelio, A. 2008. Resistance to Change: The Rest of the Story. Academy of Management Review, 33(2): 362-377.
Gilley, A., Dixon, P., & Gilley, J. W. 2008. Characteristics of leadership effectiveness: Implementing change and driving innovation in organizations. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 19(2): 153-169.
Goulet, L. R. & Singh, P. 2002. Career Commitment: A Reexamination and an Extension. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61(1): 73-91.
Govindarajan, V. 1989. Implementing Competitive Strategies at the Business Unit Level: Implications of Matching Managers to Strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 10(3): 251-269.
Granville, K. 2002. Crisis Management & Team Effectiveness: A Closer Examination. Journal of Business Ethics, 41(3): 235.
Hanpachern, C. 1997. The Extension of the theory of margin: A framework for assessing readiness for change. Colorado: Colorado State University.
Heilman, M., Block, C., & Martell, R. 1995. Sex stereotypes: Do they influence perceptions of managers? Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 10(6): 237-252.
Hillenga, M. P. 2009a. Masterscriptie Strategy & Organization, Implementation & Chage Management. Open Universiteit, Amsterdam.
Hillenga, M. P. 2009b. Betekenisgeving door de middenmanager, De invloed van betekenisgeving op de effectiviteit van verandering. Open University Amsterdam.
Holt, D. T., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., & Harris, S. G. 2007a. Readiness for Organizational Change: The systematic development of a scale. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43(2): 232-255.
Holt, D. T., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., & Harris, S. G. 2007b. Readiness for Organizational Change: The Systematic Development of a Scale. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 43(2): 232-255.
Holt, D. T., Bartczak, S. E., Clark, S. W., & Trent, M. R. 2007c. The development of an instrument to measure readiness for knowledge management. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 5: 75-92.
Huy, Q. N. 1998. Emotional Capability, Emotional Intelligence and Radical Change: 46. Fontainebleau: INSEAD.
Johnson, S., Murphy, S., Zewdie, S., & Reichard, R. 2008. The strong, sensitive type: Effects of gender stereotypes and leadership prototypes on the evaluation of male and female leaders. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 106(1): 39-60.
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(2): 361-386.
Judge, T. A. & Bono, J. E. 2000. Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5): 751-765.
Keefe, M. & Pesut, D. 2004. Apreciative Inquiry and Leadership Transitions. Journal of Professional Nursing, 20(1): 103-109.
Kotter, J. & Schlesinger, L. 1979. Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business Review, 57: 106-114.
Kotter, J. P. 2007. Leading Change Why Transformation Efforts Fail. Harvard Business Review, 85(1): 96-103.
Lai, J.-Y. & Ong, C.-S. 2010. Assessing and managing employees for embracing change: A multiple-item scale to measure employee readiness for e-business. Technovation, 30(1): 76-85.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & G., H. 1994. Toward A Unifying Social Cognitive Theory of Career and Academic Interest, Choice, and Performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45(1): 79-122.
Lewin, K. 1951. Field Theory in Social Science: selected theoretical papers. New York: Harper & Bros.
Lindenberg, S. 2000. It Takes Both Trust and Lack of Mistrust: The Workings of Cooperation and Relational Signaling in Contractual Relationships. Journal of Management and
Governance, 4(1-2): 11-33.
Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, G. K., & Sivasubramaniam, N. 1996. Effectiveness Correlates of Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A Meta-Analytic Review of The MLQ Literature. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3): 385-415.
Madsen, S., Miller, D., & John, C. 2005. Readiness for organizational change: Do
organizational commitment and social relationships in the workplace make a difference? Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16(2): 213-234.
Maslow, A. H. 1943. A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4): 370-396.
Maslow, A. H. 1954. Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.
Mayer, R., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. 1995. An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3): 709-734.
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): 59-80.
Muller, D., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. 2005. When Moderation Is Mediated and Mediation Is Moderated. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 89(6): 852-863.
Neves, P. 2009. Readiness for Change: Contributions for Employee's Level of Individual Change and Turnover Intentions. Journal of Change Management, 9(2): 215-231.
Nooteboom, B. 2002. Trust: Forms, Foundations, Functions, Failures and Figures. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Nutt, P. 1998. Leverage, Resistance and the Success of Implementation Approaches. Journal of Management Studies, 35(2): 213-240.
Paassen, D. v.; Intermediair onderzoek: de Ideale baas is een macho;
http://www.intermediair.nl/artikel/leidinggeven-in-de-praktijk/199848/intermediair-onderzoek-de-ideale-baas-is-een-macho.html; 18-7-2011, 2011.
Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. 2010. Making Things Happen: A Model of Proactive Motivation. Journal of Management, 36(4): 827-856.
Peng, W. & Litteljohn, D. 2001. Organisational communication and strategy implementation – a primary inquiry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 13(7): 360 - 363.
Powell, G., Butterfield, A. D., & Parent, J. 2002. Gender and Managerial Stereotypes: Have the Times Changed? Journal of Management, 28(2): 177-193.
