THE INFLUENCE OF COMMITMENT

THE INFLUENCE OF COMMITMENT

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL

COMMITMENT AND COMMITMENT TO CHANGE

PETER POSTMA

University of Groningen

Faculty of Economics and Business

MSc Business Administration, Change Management &

MSc Human Resource Management

1 THE INFLUENCE OF COMMITMENT

ABSTRACT

Organizational commitment and commitment to change are widely studied subjects. However, the relationship between them continues to show irregularities because organizational commitment can lead individuals either toward or away from commitment to change. The purpose of this paper is to discover and explain the relationship between organizational commitment and commitment to change per dimension of organizational commitment, and to find moderators that influence this relationship. A qualitative exploratory study was performed at a large company that is specialized in traffic support. Fourteen employees from various departments were interviewed to acquire the data for this study. The findings indicate a positive relationship between continuance and normative organizational commitment with commitment to change that results in compliance with or active participation in a change process. An addition to theory is the novel idea that affective organizational commitment can lead employees either toward or away from commitment to change. Findings continue with moderators that were found to affect the relationship between organizational and change commitment in either a positive or negative direction. Theoretical and practical implications are mentioned, limitations of this research are identified, and suggestions for future research are also offered.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Safety Group and all interviewees for their participation in this study. Thanks to Jan Roeland for his assistance. In addition, thanks to my parents, family, and friends for all helpful comments and what they have done to motivate me and to keep me committed.

2 TABLE OF CONTENT

1. INTRODUCTION 03

 Problem statement

 Purpose and significance

 Research question

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 06

 Organizational commitment

 Multi-dimensionality of commitment

 Commitment to change

 Relationship between organizational and change commitment

3. METHOD 12  Research approach  Organizational background  Data collection  Data Analysis 4. RESULTS 17

 The relationship between organizational and change commitment

 Moderators affecting the relationship

5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 23

 The relationship between organizational and change commitment

 Moderators affecting the relationship

 The influence of commitment

 Limitations and directions for future research

 Conclusions

REFERENCES 30

APPENDIX A: Interview protocol 36

APPENDIX B: Code tree 37

3 1. INTRODUCTION

Problem statement

A variety of changes such as mergers, reorganizations, new strategies and business formulas are news on a day to day basis. As organizations struggle through economic downturns, technical advancements, stiffer competition, and general instability, commitment from employees is becoming a necessity for shaping positive outcomes for organizations (Armenakis & Harris, 2009; Bouckenooghe, Schwarz & Minbahian, 2015; Jaros, 2010; Jiao & Zhao, 2014).

In recent decades, commitment in general has been described as the relative strength of someone’s identification, attachment or enjoyment with, or involvement in a certain cause, and the willingness to persist in a certain course of action (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Coetsee, 1999; Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001; Mowday, Steers & Porter, 1979). As can be expected from such a general definition, there are several contexts in which commitment is of interest to researchers (Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran, 2005; Ford, Weissbein & Plamondon, 2003). In the context of changing organizations, commitment to the organization and commitment to change are of interest. Both are seen as critical determinants of positive or negative outcomes of organizational change (Armenakis, Harris, & Field, as cited in Jiao & Zhao, 2014). Organizational commitment is a central concept in the study of work attitudes and behavior (Allen & Meyer, 1996; Meyer & Allen 1991; Morrow, 1993), and commitment to change is considered one of the most important factors for the successful implementation of change initiatives (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002).

Organizational commitment has received a great deal of research attention. It has been found that organizations benefit from having highly committed employees. Employees who are committed to their organization show higher work effectiveness, organizational support, organizational citizenship, and lower absence and turnover (Herold, Fedor, Caldwell & Liu, 2008; Powell & Meyer, 2004). Organizational commitment thus boosts organizational effectiveness.

4 change initiative, change commitment includes the willingness to work for it (Coetsee, 1999; Herold et al., 2008).

Literature on organizational commitment and commitment to change is elaborated, but literature on the relationship between these two forms of commitment is scarce. Currently, it is not clear what one could expect when considering the relationship between organizational commitment and commitment to change. This is because organizational commitment can lead individuals toward or away from commitment to change (Oreg, Vakola & Armenakis, 2011). A highly committed employee may become committed to change because he or she feels committed to the management or to the goals of the organization. Neubert and Cady (2001), and Herold et al. (2008) both found organizational commitment to be a significant, positive predictor of commitment to change. A highly committed employee may just as well have a low commitment towards change because of a desire to preserve things as they are. This negative relationship is considered by Lau and Woodman (1995), and Van Dam (2005). Nevertheless, to be more certain of change outcomes, organizations prefer high levels of commitment to change. Therefore, a better understanding of the relationship between organizational commitment and commitment to change will be beneficial.

Purpose and significance

As presented in the problem statement above, irregularities exist in the relationship between organizational commitment and commitment to change. Although there is literature on organizational commitment and commitment to change, the relationship and the irregularities between them deserve further exploration (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999; Jaros, 2010; Oreg et al., 2011). The purpose of this paper is to discover and explain the relationship between organizational commitment and commitment to change.

This study adds to and refines existing knowledge about organizational commitment and commitment to change. It explicates situations in which the relation between them is positive or negative. Variables that moderate the relationship between the two types of commitment are also explored here. A conceptual model of the relationship considered here is shown in Figure 1.

5 not desirable to have employees who are committed to the organization if this could diminish commitment to change.

Before employees can commit to change, it may be necessary to reduce the strength of the commitment to the current state of the organization. According to the model of Lewin (1951) in which the three phases of change are presented, this is the unfreezing process. With a better understanding of the relationship between organizational commitment and commitment to change, the abilities of an organization to control the unfreezing process may be improved, and with it, the change process as a whole.

Figure 1: Conceptual model.

Research question

The research question that will be answered in this paper is the following:

What is the relationship between organizational commitment and commitment to change, and what variables moderate this relationship in which direction?

In addition, with this research question the following management question will be answered.

When might organizations actively encourage individuals to lessen their organizational commitment to improve their commitment to change?

6 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

In this chapter, organizational and change commitment will be explained more thoroughly. Different dimensions of commitment, and antecedents and effects of organizational and change commitment will be discussed in more detail. To get a better understanding of this study, further justification of the research question that will be answered in this paper, further elaboration on the existing literature about the relationship between organizational commitment and commitment to change, and sub-questions to the research question will be presented.

Organizational commitment

Organizational commitment reflects a bond that links organizations to employees emotionally (Iverson, 1996; Moreland & Levine, 2006). Many researchers believe that commitment provides the basis for success in a competitive marketplace and that it is therefore of high value to organizations (Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran, 2005). “Organizational commitment can generally be defined as a psychological link between an employee and his or her organization that makes it less likely that the employee will voluntarily leave the organization” (Allen & Meyer, 1996, p. 252). Organizational commitment is often associated with the question, ‘how happy or satisfied am I with my organization?’ It can therefore also be defined as an employee’s overall feelings and level of attachment towards an organization (Ashforth, Harrison & Corley, 2008; Bartlett, 2001).

Organizational commitment is created through an overall perceived consideration of support as well as other antecedents (Meyer et al., 2007; Ford et al., 2003). Organizational commitment improves when employees see significant efforts being made to improve their work circumstances and when they receive support from their leaders for their contributions (Fedor, Caldwell & Herold, 2006). In addition, the amount of years worked for the organization, feelings of justice and being treated fairly results in higher levels of organizational commitment (Iverson, 1996; Meyer et al., 2007). Demographic variables have been found to play a minor role as an antecedent for organizational commitment (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990).

7 relationship, including expectations employees have for themselves and expectations they have about their organizations, including organizational norms, rights, rewards, and obligations (Cawsey et al., 2012). One must realize that organizational commitment changes in important ways over time (Westerberg & Tafvelin, 2015), and employees constantly evaluate their situations within their organization (Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2000). The extent of perceived employer contract fulfilment has a significant effect on employees’ perceived organizational support, organizational commitment, and organizational cit izenship. Employees will reduce their organizational commitment when they feel they are treated unfairly or when they believe that the terms in their contracts have not been met at a justifiable level (Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2000). The employer and the organization must therefore put their efforts in good contract behavior. This benefits the creation of a trustworthy, and supportive relationship between the organization and the employees.

Perceived violations of the psychological contract are related to strong feelings of employee unrest and employee intentions to leave the organization (Schein, 1988). Changes that threaten security and control will produce fear, resentment, anger, and a loss of trust. Even changes that will have a positive impact on employees may be resisted because of suspicion about the ‘real agenda’ and concerns about reduced control or capacity to perform. Thus can be concluded that the psychological contract has a strong impact on organizational commitment, and needs to be controlled in a just manner by the organization to prevent negative outcomes of change processes.

When organizations are able to create high levels of organizational commitment within their employees, their effectiveness is enhanced (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). Organizational commitment is an asset for organizations because it is beneficial to realizing desirable outcomes such as higher levels of motivation, job satisfaction, professional behavior, and organizational citizenship (Allen & Meyer, 1996; Ford et al., 2003). The general conclusion that can be made from these paragraphs is that organizations benefit from having employees who feel highly committed to their organization.

Multi-dimensionality of commitment

8 which one feels part of a family and sees the problems of the organization as their own problems. Employees with a high level of affective commitment want to remain with organizations (Allen & Meyer, 1996). Normative organizational commitment refers to a connection that is based on morality and obligation (Meyer & Allen, 1997). Employees get the feeling that they ought to stay with an organization because they signed a contract and receive benefits that induce the need to reciprocate (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002). Continuance organizational commitment refers to commitment where employees recognize that leaving the organization will result in costs or loss of benefits (Allen & Meyer, 1996). It is a calculative form of attachment in which an employee ‘needs’ to stay with an organization because benefits may otherwise be lost.

Commitment to change

Commitment to change can be defined as the likelihood of an individual engaging in behavior that is necessary for change. It is one of the most important factors in employees’ support for change initiatives (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999). Fedor et al. (2006) and Neubert and Cady (2001) defined it as a willingness to exert effort on behalf of change. It is an action commitment. It is more focused on action and more focused on a specific change than the more general organizational commitment. What these conceptualizations share is the notion that commitment to change reflects some kind of attachment to and involvement in the change initiative which results from awareness of the change and some combination of motivating factors: e.g., goal congruence, affective affinity, self-interest, and/or the mental and physical ability to work on behalf of the change initiative (Coetsee, 1999; Jaros, 2010).

9 different impact that is based on the outcomes of the earlier change projects (Ford et al., 2003; Lau & Woodman, 1995).

High levels of change commitment can motivate individuals to put in the effort that is required to successfully implement change. It leads to higher participation and performance, and to an increased ability to predict these in change projects (Jaros, 2010; Meyer et al., 2007; Neubert & Cady, 2001). Commitment to change is needed if an organization is to realize benefits from change initiatives (Jaros, 2010).

According to Herscovitch and Meyer (2002), the multi-dimensionality of commitment can be recognized in commitment to change. Affective commitment relates to a desire to support the change project. Normative commitment relates to a feeling of obligation to support the change. Continuance commitment relates to a need to support the change project for fear of the consequences should the project fail. The combination of feelings, thoughts, and reactions to change, and the perceived outcomes of change will lead to development of commitment to change that can be appointed to one or more of these three dimensions (Coetsee, 1999). Organizations should be cautious when creating their strategies to develop change commitment based on the multi-dimensionality theory, as it is the first attempt to apply the multi-dimensionality theory of commitment to commitment to change (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002).

Relationship between organizational and change commitment

10 Several moderators are presented by researchers in order to explain the differences in their findings on the relationship between organizational commitment and commitment to change. Open mindedness of change recipients is an important positive influence on the relationship between organizational commitment and commitment to change (Lau & Woodman, 1995). Committed employees who are open minded are more willing to give changes a chance and thus commit to change. Iverson (1996) argues that, during an economic recession, it is more likely that employees who are committed to their organization will also be committed to change. This is because of the job security they feel as a result of their organizational commitment. An economic recession therefore strengthens the relationship between organizational commitment and commitment to change.

However, employees who feel they have fewer job alternatives also mentioned that they feel obligated to participate in change (Van Dam, 2005). This shows that an economic recession is a time to introduce change but that forcing changes upon employees may not be beneficial. In addition, Lau & Woodman (1995) found a situation in which the proposed change was perceived as contrary to organizational values. As a result, those who were highly committed to the organization refused to commit to change. This shows that the relationship between organizational commitment and commitment to change can also turn out to be negative when the organizational values where an employee is committed to are about to be changed.

The responsibilities of an organization reach further than merely caring for its employees. Difficult decisions have to made when an organization faces challenges that it must overcome to ensure its continuity. These decisions are preferably made with the commitment of employees to the organization and to the intended changes. It is through organizational commitment that appropriate HR policies may be used to create a work-force that is receptive to change (Iverson, 1996).

11 What is the relationship between organizational commitment and commitment to change, and what variables moderate this relationship in which direction?

In order to answer this research question and to incorporate the information that is presented in this chapter, the following sub-questions will be answered:

1. What is the relationship between organizational commitment and commitment to change per dimension of organizational commitment?

12 3. METHOD

To ensure the quality of this paper, measures need to be taken to make it controllable, reliable and valid (Swanborn 1996; Yin, 2014). This chapter presents how data for the research was collected and how it was processed after collection. The chapter will first explain why a qualitative method was chosen, and background information about the research location will be given. Next, the procedure used for the data collection and analysis will be discussed. These methods enhance the controllability and the potential for the replication of this study.

Research approach

This research follows the process of theory-development based on case studies as described by Eisenhardt (1989). Eisenhardt explains how a theory development process results in novel theory and creative new insights. The emergent theory is likely to be testable with hypotheses and measurable constructs, and thus forms a starting point for other researchers. Qualitative research allows for the gathering and analysis of detailed data about ideas, feelings, and attitudes that cannot easily be presented in numbers. Qualitative theory-development studies can provide rich, detailed, and context-specific information that can help understand the factors that link organizational commitment and commitment to change together (Fedor et al., 2006). Choosing this approach can be useful when a topic is relatively unexplored (Cooper & Schindler, 2006), in this case the relationships between organizational and change commitment. In addition, it can give some indication for the occurrence of things (Baarda, de Goede & Teunissen, 2005), in this case it is useful for the identification of moderators affecting the relationship between organizational and change commitment. Thus, a qualitative theory-development research approach is suitable for this study.

Organizational background

13 upon itself to manage these flows as well, and did a great job with it. In a short matter of time, they were hired to help with the infrastructure at a variety of great events.

In the years that followed, the company kept developing. In 2009, a division for education in traffic and safety was added to the company for the sake of both their employees and for others who use the company’s expertise. In 2011, a ticket service related to parking was added to the company’s services. Finally, after specializing in almost everything related to parking, the management of crowds was added to the company’s specializations in 2013.

This company has grown from a few employees to more than a thousand in just 20 years. It has grown from managing a few projects, to managing hundreds at the same t ime. A merger in January of this year is supposed to bring more control in the management of all the different divisions of the company. As a consequence, employees from different departments are involved in a variety of change processes to streamline and further professionalize the organization. Thus it makes a suitable location to conduct this research.

Data collection

In order to collect the data necessary for this research, interviews were held with employees until no new information was added and responses became repetitive. A total of fourteen employees from the organization were interviewed before this saturation point presented itself. The selection of respondents was based on a stratified random sample (Baarda et al., 2005) from a large group of employees all of whom were involved in the change processes. A very heterogenic group of individuals was interviewed for this study in order to get an overall representation of the organization and allow for research findings that are applicable to the organization as a whole. The respondents are all change recipients and represent the different roles, groups, and departments of the organization. The interviews were held at the organization’s headquarters. A small office room was used with a seating arrangement in which researcher and respondent faced each other at a 45-degree angle to allow for eye contact and a friendly and open atmosphere. The respondents were selected from different departments. They vary in age from 23 to 61, work part time and full time, and vary in seniority. Information about the respondents is shown in Table 1.

14 Respondents were asked if they agreed that the interviews were recorded. Respondents were assured that only the researcher would listen to the recordings, that these recordings would be treated confidentially, and that they would be erased afterwards. Further confidentiality was ensured by explaining that only relevant quotes from the transcripts of these interviews would be presented anonymously in this paper but that the whole interview would not appear in it. In addition, respondents were assured that their names and the people they talked about in the interviews would not be presented in this paper. None of the respondents had objections to recording the interviews.

Literature studied beforehand provided the base for the interviews. Open questions were asked based on the commitment scales presented in the work of Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) to determine the dimension of organizational commitment and the commitment to change. Several questions were asked to discover possible moderators that influence the relationship between organizational commitment and commitment to change. Follow-up questions were asked on the basis of the answers that were given by the respondents to gain an in-depth understanding of respondents perspectives. Each interview lasted for an average of about 35 minutes.

15 Respondent Age Employment Role Seniority Dimension of org.

commitment 1 Non disclosed Full time Coordinator Events Yes Normative org.

commitment

2 58 Full time Special investigating

officer

Yes Normative org. commitment

3 24 Full time Receptionist No Normative org.

commitment

4 Non disclosed Full time Emp. Event Travel Yes Affective org. commitment

5 23 Full time Emp. Planning No Normative org.

commitment

6 32 Part time Emp. Planning Yes Continuance org.

commitment

7 32 Part time Emp. Desk Support Yes Normative org.

commitment

8 32 Part time Emp. Desk Support Yes Continuance org.

commitment

9 25 Full time Emp. Projects No Normative org.

commitment

10 38 Full time Emp.

Location Support

Yes Affective org. commitment

11 39 Full time Team leader /

Emp. HRM

Yes Affective org. commitment

12 61 Full time Emp. Travel Projects

the Netherlands

No Affective org.

commitment

13 25 Full time Emp. Recruitment No Normative org.

commitment

14 30 Full time Administrative officer No Normative org.

16 Data analysis

17 4. RESULTS

In the theoretical framework, the sub-questions of this paper were presented. In this chapter the findings that will be used to answer these questions will be presented. First the findings on the direct relationship between organizational commitment and commitment to change per dimension of organizational commitment will be presented. Next, the moderators that are found to influence the relationship between organizational commitment and commitment to change per dimension of organizational commitment will be listed. With this information, interpretations can be made and an answer on the research question can be given in the following ‘discussion and conclusions’ chapter.

The relationship between organizational and change commitment

Analysis of the data showed that the employees are, in general, committed to their organization. Respondents gave a variety of reasons for this commitment that are in line with the antecedents for organizational commitment that are presented in the theoretical framework. An employee feels that he or she wants to, should, or must work for the organization. In addition, employees made statements about their commitment to change. This made it possible to find a relationship between organizational commitment and commitment to change per dimension of organizational commitment based on these various statements.

18 Continuance organizational commitment and commitment to change.

(1) “It was a setback that bothered me greatly. For a few months I wanted to leave. But then again, it is your job, you can’t give that up so easily. I think that because you have this commitment for your organization [you must go to work], you can more easily accept and commit to a change.”

From this statement (1) can be seen that the employee shows characteristics of continuance organizational commitment because he or she has to work for the organization. In addition this leads to compliance with change because this as well, must be done and is seen as just another part of the job. Although the commitment to change could be stronger, continuance organizational commitment has a positive relationship with commitment to change.

Normative organizational commitment and commitment to change.

(2) “First and foremost, it is my job, I get payed for this. In addition, it important that you are committed to your organization and that you are willing to make your efforts to make it grow. That is your job as an employee, you have to keep your organization in business and help to make changes succeed.”

Respondents who made statements characterizing normative organizational commitment also made statements characterizing commitment to change that results in compliance and active participation in change. Normative organizational commitment is shown in this example statement (2) where the respondent replies that he or she is obligated to put effort into the organization because that is a part of the job. Because he or she gets payed for this job, this respondents feels the obligation to make an effort to help change projects succeed. This signifies a positive relationship between normative organizational commitment and commitment to change.

Affective organizational commitment and commitment to change.

19 you stand still, you go backwards, that is not an option. You just have to go along with changes.”

(4) “I am very committed, because when I take a day off and someone else has to do my job, it does bother me. I find it difficult to let someone else do my job because I want to know what is going on. I also want to work towards change, but I do have my opinion on things and let my opinion be heard by others. Change does have its limits. If these limits are reached I will protest against it. And I will say that they can hire someone else… because I will simply refuse it.”

As can be seen from the statements made by respondents that show characteristics of affective organizational commitment, the effects of the relationship between affective organizational commitment and commitment to change can be either positive or negative. In the first example statement (3), affective organizational commitment comes forth from the bond between the employee and the organization, he or she has seen this organization grow and the respondent sees this as special. The respondent believes that you have to go along with change and that staying the same will be harmful for the organization. This results in active participation in change and points to a positive relationship between affective organizational commitment and commitment to change. Affective organizational commitment has also been found to have a negative influence on commitment to change that leads to negative change outcomes. In the second example statement (4) the employee mentions that he or she is concerned about the job when he or she takes a day off. Affective organizational commitment is thus shown through the affective connection with the job. The employee also states that he or she wants to work towards change but that change also has its limits and will simply refuse it when he or she feels that these limits are reached. From this statement can be found that affective organizational commitment leads towards, but also away from commitment to change in certain situations.

20 organizational commitment and commitment to change per dimension of organizational commitment.

Moderators influencing the relationship

Found was that several moderators influence the relationship between organizational commitment and commitment to change per dimension of organizational commitment. For continuance organizational commitment and normative organizational commitment this influence results in levels of commitment to change which lead to compliance with, or active participation in change. For affective organizational commitment the influence of moderators on the relationship with commitment to change is stronger and can result in active participation in change or strong resistance against change.

Analysis of the data shows that the following moderators influence the relationship between continuance and normative organizational commitment and commitment to change. Short descriptions accompanied by statements made by respondents and notable findings of the effects of these moderators will be presented.

Open mindedness. Having an open mind and willingness to see what change will bring has a positive effect on the relationship between organizational commitment and commitment to change. This was mentioned by respondents who show characteristics of continuance and normative organizational commitment. Continuance and normative organizational commitment has been found to have a positive influence on commitment to change. With the positive influence of open mindedness on this relationship, commitment to change will result in active participation in change projects. A respondent states the following (5): “You do have to have commitment I believe. To do this work you have to feel a connection with the job. Then you can commit to change as well.... I am open to anything. Changes are not a big deal for me. I can adapt well when it comes to change. I’m not a difficult person.”

21 organizational commitment with commitment to change. One respondent stated the following (6): “If you have no commitment at all you can always tell them to just go ahead and that you don’t care, but then you might be looking for another job which is difficult as well. So you don’t do that and just go along with the changes.”

Analysis of the data revealed moderators that influence the relationship between affective organizational commitment and commitment to change. These moderators were not found in the relationship of the other dimensions of organizational commitment with commitment to change. Short descriptions accompanied by statements made by respondents and notable findings of the effects of these moderators will be presented.

Ambition. Employees who made more statements relating to affective organizational commitment also mentioned the effect that ambition has in their job. The influence of an employee’s ambition on the relationship between affective organizational commitment and commitment to change may result in high levels of commitment to change which leads to active participation in change. An affective committed employee wants to work for the organization and may for this reason be committed to change. This effect was found to be positively influenced when the employee is ambitious, because he or she then wants to show the organization his or her value when this opportunity presents itself. A respondent explains as follows (7): “It is important to keep developing. That is the ambition that I feel for making this product. If you think that orders will come in automatically you are doing something wrong. If you’re committed to the organization than I think it is only right to put your effort into it.”

23 5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

In this final chapter, the results of the previous chapter will be interpreted and an answer to the sub-questions and the following research question will be given: What is the relationship between organizational commitment and commitment to change, and what variables moderate this relationship in which direction? In addition, the main contribution of the study, its implications and connections with other research, and the managerial importance will be discussed. Ideas for future research, and the strengths and limitations of this study will be considered.

The relationship between organizational and change commitment

The research question in this paper pertains to the relationship between organizational commitment and commitment to change and the effects of possible moderating variables. The first sub-question is the following: What is the relationship between organizational commitment and commitment to change per dimension of organizational commitment?

A positive relationship is found where employees who show characteristics of continuance and normative organizational commitment comply or actively participate in change. Explanations for this positive relationship are presented in the theoretical framework. The findings of this study are in line with and further expand on these explanations. Employees who are committed to their organization are likely to also be committed to change because their organizational commitment gives them the feeling that they have to reciprocate (Conway & Monks, 2008; Grimmer & Oddy, 2007; Guest, 2004; Prusak & Cohen, 2001). Employees feel trusted by management and they trust management in their decisions. They are therefore willing to comply or to actively participate in change. In addition, Neubert and Cady (2001), and Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) argue that employees want to be congruent with themselves. An employee who is committed to the organization will therefore be committed to change as well.

24 when change is initiated (Ford, Ford & D’Amelio, 2008). Ford et al. (2008) and Maitlis and Christianson (2014) argue that this new order might not be found, because employees lack a satisfying explanation for the changes in the organizational environment. In addition, employees may feel that they have been treated unfairly, or they experience injustice when they assess their new organizational environment (Bartlett, 2001; Brockner, Tyler & Cooper-Schneider, 1992; Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2000; Grimmer & Oddy, 2007; Turnley & Feldman, 1999). This effects the organizational commitment of employees. The stronger family like bond of affective organizational commitment then causes an effect where the employee might turn away from change whilst the weaker bond of continuance and normative organizational commitment will still result in compliance with organizational change. From these results and interpretations the following propositions can be derived:

Proposition 1:

Continuance and normative organizational commitment have a positive relation with commitment to change that will result in compliance or active participation with organizational change.

Proposition 2:

Affective organizational commitment has a strong relation with commitment to change that can be either positive or negative and that results in active participation in organizational change or strong resistance to organizational change.

Several inconsistencies have been found in regards to previous literature and to what is found in this study. In researching commitment to change at the organization, no multidimensionality was found as mentioned by Herscovitch and Meyer (2002). Reactions that lead to compliance, active participation or strong resistance to change were found. These reactions do offer the possibility to measure the outcomes of the commitment to change but differ from the dimensions presented by Herscovitch and Meyer. This was to be expected when realizing that this research, as shown in the sub-questions, is more focused on the dimensions of organizational commitment as antecedents in the relationship with commitment to change.

25 therefore more willing to accept change. In addition, many other researchers found a positive relation between organizational commitment and commitment to change as is presented in the reviews of Oreg et al. (2011) and Jaros (2010). The results of this study however, show that employees high in affective organizational commitment may resist change more fiercely than other employees. An explanation why this was not found in previous literature might be that this previous literature did not focus on the importance of the multidimensionality of organizational commitment when describing the relationship with commitment to change. The possibility that affective organizational commitment has a negative influence was discussed in literature concerning organizational commitment in direct relationship with organizational changes (Brockner et al., 1992; Jetten, O’Brien & Trindall, 2002; Narine & Persaud, 2003). The finding that affective organizational commitment can negatively influence commitment to change is new in this study but not unthinkable when realizing that it has negatively influenced other relationships as well.

Moderators affecting the relationship

The second part of the research question that will be answered in this paper pertains to the moderators affecting the relationship between organizational commitment and commitment to change. This study has identified several possible moderators of the relationship between organizational and change commitment which will be discussed to answer the following sub-question: Which moderators influence the relationship between organizational commitment and commitment to change per dimension of organizational commitment, and in which direction?

Possible moderators that were found in this study as well as in previous literature are open mindedness, and the difficulty of switching jobs. Found here was that employees who show characteristics of continuance and normative organizational commitment, and who were open minded, showed more willingness to give change a chance. This is a confirmation of previous literature where the beneficial effect of open mindedness on the relationship between organizational and change commitment is mentioned (Brockner et al., 1992; Lau & Woodman, 1995). In addition, this study found that the general difficulty of switching jobs causes a positive moderating effect. This is in line with other literature that describes the willingness of employees to commit to changes when there is fear of job loss, or a difficulty in finding another job (Iverson, 1996; Van Dam, 2005).

26 consulted on change. Employee ambition is found to have a positive effect on the relationship between affective organizational commitment and commitment to change. This finding is new to this relationship, but the beneficial effects of ambition have been found in other literature concerning organizational effectiveness (Gundry & Welsch, 2001; Hunter & Thatcher, 2007). Not being consulted has a negative effect on the relationship between affective organizational commitment and commitment to change. Being consulted on change is important to experienced employees, and whilst job experience is credited to lead to better performance (Quinones, Ford & Teachout, 1995; Sturman, 2003), it has been a new finding in this study that job experience causes know-it-all behavior in employees who show more characteristics of affective organizational commitment which leads to negative change outcomes when these experienced employees feel that they are not being consulted on change. From these results and interpretations the following propositions can be derived:

Proposition 3:

The positive relationship between continuance and normative organizational commitment with commitment to change is positively influenced by open mindedness of the employee and the difficulty of switching to another job which results in a higher likelihood of compliance and active participation in change.

Proposition 4:

The relationship between affective organizational commitment and commitment to change is positively influenced by employee ambition which results in a higher likelihood of active participation in change.

Proposition 5:

The relationship between affective organizational commitment and commitment to change is negatively influenced when experienced employees are not consulted on change which results in a higher likelihood of strong resistance to change.

27 influences in a direct relationship with commitment to change, but no moderating influence on the relationship between the multiple dimensions of organizational commitment with commitment to change was found.

The influence of commitment

This paper has attempted to expand and clarify the knowledge about the relationship between organizational commitment and commitment to change with the propositions presented in this chapter. Organizational commitment and commitment to change are important subjects because of the strong influence that both organizational and change commitment have on individuals and organizational outcomes (Fedor et al., 2006). Researchers have mentioned the importance and different influences of the multidimensionality of organizational commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Gellatly, Meyer & Luchak, 2006; Meyer & Allen, 1997; Meyer & Maltin, 2010; Meyer & Parfyonova, 2010). This research expands on this, and connects the different dimensions of organizational commitment with commitment to change. Found was that all dimensions have a different relationship with commitment to change. This confirms earlier findings in literature on the relationship of continuance and normative organizational commitment with commitment to change as was mentioned in this chapter. In addition, a novel theory on the relationship of affective organizational commitment with commitment to change is added to the theoretical framework.

Information is further added to the theoretical framework by the exploration of moderators that influence the relationship between the multiple dimensions of organizational commitment with commitment to change. Open mindedness and the difficulty of finding another job were mentioned in this chapter to confirm earlier research on continuance and normative organizational commitment in the relationship with commitment to change. A novel addition to theory is the idea that employees who show high levels of affective organizational commitment and who are ambitious and experienced, but who are not consulted on change tend to have a low commitment to change. Although these employees argue to strive for the organization’s best interests, the outcomes often lead to an opposite situation. It has been found that when employees with high levels of affective organizational commitment feel that their experience is neglected, and they are not consulted on change, they will resist change.

28 When might organizations actively encourage individuals to lessen their organizational commitment to improve their commitment to change?

One would expect that an organization would want to lower organizational commitment when it has a bad influence on commitment to change, but when does this situation present itself? Employee resistance against change is a natural occurrence when a change situation presents itself (Narine & Persaud, 2003). For this reason, organizations benefit from high levels of commitment to change. Positive effects of organizational commitment in relationship with commitment to change have been mentioned throughout this paper. There are great benefits for having a workforce of affective organizational committed employees, but an organization needs to understand that affective organizational commitment comes with risks as well (Brockner et al., 1992; Jetten et al., 2002). Situations were described where employees with high levels of affective organizational commitment have little commitment to change and are resisting change. Organizations would benefit from a deeper understanding of the multidimensionality of organizational commitment in relationship with commitment to change, and in particular, the relationship between affective organizational commitment and commitment to change.

Limitations and directions for future research

Although the findings add theoretical and practical knowledge concerning the management of organizational commitment, a number of limitations should be noted. Hoped was that a more conclusive explanation on the relationship between organizational commitment and commitment to change could be presented in this paper. However the relationship, considering the multidimensionality of organizational commitment, turns out to be more complex than earlier expected. The novel finding that affective organizational commitment can negatively influence commitment to change cannot be solely explained by the influence of moderators. Other explanations might be just as possible where affective organizational commitment is still of an influence in this relationship (Conway & Monks, 2008; Gardner, Wright & Moynihan, 2011; Ford et al., 2003; Iverson, 1996; Peccei, Giangreco & Sebastiano, 2011). A suggestion for future research is to study the influence of affective organizational commitment in different research settings as well as to study the other antecedents of commitment to change with the possibility that affective organizational commitment is a moderator in this relationship.

29 of the findings will be generalizable, the question remains whether this is also true for all moderators, as they are based specifically on the organization’s culture and way of operating.

A third limitation is the broad scope of the research. Although the choice was made to present a study that is simple and concise, this constitutes in a certain limitation and a chance of missing data. The perspective of this research is from change recipients only. In addition, the different dimensions of commitment to change were not found in this study. With a larger sample of respondents that includes employees who initiate change, a more complete contribution can be made to this field of research. An opportunity for future research is to elaborate on what is found in this study, but to narrow down on a specific dimension of organizational commitment and its relationship with commitment to change and to present different perspectives of this relationship to further the understanding of this topic.

A fourth limitation of this study is that it was conducted by only one researcher. Research results should be independent of the researcher who conducted the study; however, a study based on interviews depends more upon the personal characteristics of the interviewer than other types of study do, which later may have an effect on the analysis of the collected data (Hennink, Hutter & Bailey, 2010). Measures were taken to prevent personal bias, nonetheless, this limitation should still be taken into account.

Conclusions

30 REFERENCES

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506.x

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1996). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 252-276. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1996.0043

Armenakis, A. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (1999). Organizational change: A review of theory and research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25, 293-315. doi:10.1177/014920639902500303

Armenakis, A. A., & Harris, S. G., (2009). Reflections: Our journey in organizational change research and practice. Journal of Change Management, 9, 127-142. doi:10.1080/14697010902879079

Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2008). Identification in organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34, 325-374. doi:10.117/0149206308316059

Baarda, D. B., De Goede, M. P. M., & Teunissen, J. (2005). Basisboek kwalitatief onderzoek. Handleiding voor het opzetten en uitvoeren van kwalitatief onderzoek (2nd ed.). Groningen, The Netherlands: Noordhoff.

Bartlett, K. R. (2001). The relationship between training and organizational commitment: A study in health care field. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12, 335-352. doi:10.1002/hrdq.1001

Bouckenooghe, D., Schwarz, G. M., & Minbashian, A. (2015). Herscovitch and Meyer’s three-component model of commitment to change: Meta-analytic findings. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24, 578-595. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2014.963059

Brockner, J., Tyler, T. R., & Cooper-Schneider, R. (1992). The influence of prior commitment to an institution on reactions to perceived unfairness: The higher they are, the harder they fall. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 241-261. doi:10.2307/2393223

Burnes, B. (2009). Managing change (5th ed.). Harlow, England: Pearson Education.

31 Coetsee, L. (1999). From resistance to commitment. Public Administration Quarterly, 23, 204-222. doi:10.2307/40861780 Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40861780 Chen, J., & Wang, L. (2007). Locus of control and the three components of commitment to

change. Personality an Individual Differences, 42, 503-512. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.07.025

Conway, E., & Monks, K. (2008). HR practices and commitment to change: An employee-level analysis. Human Resource Management Journal, 18, 72-89. doi:10.1111/j.1748 -8583.2007.00059.x

Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2006) Business research methods (9th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Cooper-Hakim, A., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). The construct of work commitment: Testing an integrative framework. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 241-259. doi:10.1037/0033 -2909.131.2.241

Coyle-Shapiro, J., & Kessler, I. (2000). Consequences of the psychological contract for the employment relationship: A large scale survey. Journal of Management Studies, 37, 903-930. doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00210

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Acadamy of Management Review, 14, 532-550. doi:10.5465/AMR.1989.4308385

Fedor, D. B., Caldwell, S., & Herold, D. M. (2006). The effects of organizational changes on employee commitment: A multilevel investigation. Personnel Psychology, 59, 1-29. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.22852.x

Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & D’Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change: The rest of the story. Academy of Management Review, 33, 362-377. doi:10.5465/AMR.2008.31193235 Ford, J. K., Weissbein, D. A., & Plamondon, K. E. (2003). Distinguishing organizational from

strategy commitment: Linking officers’ commitment to community policing to job behaviors and satisfaction. Justice Quarterly, 20, 159-185. doi:10.1080/07418820300095491

Gardner, T. M., Wright, P. M., & Moynihan, L. M. (2011). The impact of motivation, empowerment, and skill-enhancing practices on aggregate voluntary turnover: The mediating effect of collective affective commitment. Personnel Psychology, 64, 315-350. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01212.x

32 Herscovitch’s propositions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 331-345. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2005.12.005

Grimmer, M., & Oddy, M. (2007). Violation of the psychological contract: The mediating effect of relational versus transactional beliefs. Australian Journal of Management, 32, 153-174. doi:10.1177/031289620703200109

Guest, D. E. (1992). Employee commitment and control. In J. F. Hartley, & G. M. Stephenson (Eds.), Employment relations (pp. 111-136). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Guest, D. (2004). The psychology of the employment relationship: An analysis based on the psychological contract. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53, 541-555. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00187.x

Gundry, L. K., & Welsch, H. P. (2001). The ambitions entrepreneur: High growth strategies of women-owned enterprises. Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 453-470. doi:10.1016/S0883-9026(99)00059-2

Hennink, M., Hutter, L., & Bailey, A. (2010). Qualitative research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Herold, D. M., Fedor, D. B., Caldwell, S., & Liu, Y. (2008). The effects of transformational and change leadership on employees’ commitment to a change: A multilevel study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 346-357. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.346

Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J. P. (2002). Commitment to organizational change: Extension of a three-component model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 474-487. doi:101.1037//0021-9010.87.3.474

Hunter, L. W., & Thatcher, S. M. B. (2007). Feeling the heat: Effects of stress, commitment, and job experience on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 953-968. doi:10.2307/20159899

Iverson, R. D. (1996). Employee acceptance of organizational change: The role of organizational commitment. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 7, 122-149. doi:10.1080/09585199600000121

Iverson, R. D., & Buttigieg, D. M., (1999). Affective, normative and continuance commitment: Can the ‘right kind’ of commitment be managed? Jornal of Management Studies, 36, 307-333. doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00138

33 Jetten, J., O’Brien, A., & Trindall, N. (2002). Changing identity: Predicting adjustment to organizational restructure as a function of subgroup and superordinate identification. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 281-297. doi:10.1348/014466602760060147 Jiao, H., & Zhao, G. (2014). When will employees embrace managers’ technological innovations? The mediating effects of employees’ perceptions of fairness on their willingness to accept change and legitimacy. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31 780-798. doi:10.1111/jpim.12123

Lau, C.-M., & Woodman, R. W. (1995) Understanding organizational change: A schematic perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 537-554. doi:10.2307/256692 Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. New York, NY:

Harper and Row.

Maitlis, S., & Christianson, M. (2014). Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward. The Academy of Management Annals, 8, 57-125. doi:10.1080/19416520.2014.873177

Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 175-183. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.2.171

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61-89. doi:10.1016/1053 -4822(91)90011-Z

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general

model. Human Resource Management Review, 11, 299-326. doi:10.1016/S1053 -4822(00)00053-X

Meyer, J. P., & Maltin, E. R. (2010). Employee commitment and well-being: A critical review, theoretical framework and research agenda. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77, 323-337. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2010.04.007

Meyer, J. P., & Parfyonova, N. M. (2010), Normative commitment in the workplace: A theoretical analysis and re-conceptualization. Human Resource Management Review, 20, 283-294. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.09.001

34 Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (2006). Socialization in organizations and work groups. In M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Theory and research (pp. 69-112). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Morrow, P. C. (1993). The theory and measurement of work commitment. Greenwich, England: JAI Press.

Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247. doi:10.1016/0001 -8791(79)90072-1

Narine, L., & Persaud, D. D. (2003). Gaining and maintaining commitment to large-scale change in healthcare organizations. Health Services Management Research, 16, 179-187. doi:10.1258/095148403322167933

Neubert, M. J. & Cady, S. H. 2001. Program commitment: A multi-study longitudinal field investigation of its impact and antecedents. Personnel Psychology, 54, 421-448. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00098.x

Oreg, S., Vakola, M., & Armenakis, A. A. (2011). Change recipients’ reactions to organizational change: A 60-year review of quantitative studies. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47, 461-524. doi:10.1177/0021886310396550

Peccei, R., Giangreco, A., & Sebastiano, A. (2011). The role of organisational commitment in the analysis of resistance to change: Co-predictor and moderator effects. Personnel Review, 40, 185-204. doi:10.1108/00483481111106075

Plochg, T., & Van Zwieten, M. C. B. (2007). Kwalitatief onderzoek. In T. Plochg, & R. E. Juttmann (Eds.), Nederlands handboek voor onderzoek (77-93). Houten, The Netherlands: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum.

Powell, D. M., & Meyer, J. P. (2004). Side-bet theory and the three-component model of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 157-177. doi:10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00050-2

Prusak, L., & Cohen, D. (2001). How to invest in social capital. Harvard Business Review, 79, 86-93. doi:10.1225/R0106E

Quinones, M. A., Ford, J. K., & Teachout, M. S. (1995). The relationship between work experience and job performance: A conceptual and meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 48, 887-910. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01785.x

35 Sturman, M. C. (2003). Searching for the inverted u0shaped relationship between time and performance: Meta-analyses of the experience/performance, tenure/performance, and age/performance relationships. Jounal of Management, 29, 609-640. doi:10.1016/S0149-2063(03)00028-X

Swanborn, P. G. (1996). Case-study’s: Wat, wanneer en hoe? Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Boom.

Turnley, W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (1999). The impact of psychological contract violations on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect. Human Relations, 52, 895-922. doi:10.1177/001872679905200703

Van Dam, K. (2005). Employee attitudes toward job changes: An application and extension of Rusbult and Farrell’s investment model. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 253-272. doi:10.1348/096317904X23745

Westerberg, K., & Tafvelin, S. (2015). Vhanges in commitment to change among leaders in home help services. Leadership in Health Services, 28, 216-227. doi:10.1108/LHS-04 -2014-0038

36 APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Ik ben Peter Postma, student bedrijfskunde aan de RUG en ik studeer af in de richtingen ‘Change Management’ en ‘Human Resource Management.’ Hiervoor ben ik nu bezig met mijn afstudeeronderzoek waarin ik de relatie tussen ‘commitment’ voor de organisatie en ‘commitment’ naar verandering onderzoek.

Tijdens dit interview wil ik u vragen naar hoe u veranderingen in de organisatie beleefd. Om dit later beter te kunnen analyseren wil ik dit gesprek ook opnemen. Uw antwoorden zullen op een vertrouwelijke wijze gepresenteerd worden zodat ze niet herleidbaar zijn tot u. Namen van u, uw collega’s en specifieke afdelingen binnen de organisatie zullen niet genoemd worden in het onderzoek. Daarnaast za ik de opname verwijderen nadat ik hier een transcript van gemaakt heb.

Gaat u er mee akkoord dat ik dit gesprek opneem?

Zoals aangegeven gaat dit onderzoek over de relatie tussen organisatie commitment en commitment naar verandering. Commitment voor de organisatie is de band die iemand voelt met zijn organisatie. De mate waarin iemand zich kan identificeren met zijn organisatie en de verbondenheid die hij voelt zijn maatstaven voor organisatie commitment.

Commitment naar verandering is de waarschijnlijkheid dat iemand zich actief wil inzetten en betrokken wil zijn bij een verandering, maar ook het mee willen denken om de organisatie te verbeteren.

Veranderingen tot slot kunnen in verschillende variëteiten optreden. Dit kunnen zowel grote projecten als kleine procesverbeteringen zijn. Dit kan op korte of lange termijn plaatsvinden, continu of is fases, met veel of weinig betrokkenen.

37 APPENDIX B: CODE TREE

 Organizational commitment

o Affective organizational commitment o Normative organizational commitment o Continuance organizational commitment

 Commitment to change

o Resulting in active participation in change o Resulting in compliance with change o Resulting in strong resistance to change

 The relationship between organizational commitment and commitment to change o The psychological contract

 Trust in management

 Received trust from management  Reciprocation

 Reneging on agreements

 Clear communication and change message o Possible moderating variables

 Positive moderating effect

 Open mindedness

 Difficulty of switching jobs

 Favorable job reward-cost ratio

 Ambition of employee  Negative moderating effect

 Change is not in line with organization values and mission

 Being forced into change

 Job experience of employee

38 APPENDIX C: ORIGINAL DUTCH QUOTATIONS

(1) “Nu viel het me echt wel even heel erg tegen, dat ik een paar maanden dacht ik wil weg hier. Maar ja, het is wel je vaste baan, die geef je ook niet zomaar op. Ik denk dat juist doordat je deze commitment voor je bedrijf hebt je makkelijker een verandering kunt accepteren.”

(2) “In principe is het gewoon mijn werk, ik word daar voor betaald. Het is wel belangrijk dat je betrokkenheid en gevoel bij het bedrijf hebt en dat je het een stapje verder brengt. Dat is je taak als werknemer, je moet het bedrijf draaiende houden en het goed door een verandering zien te brengen.”

(3) “Ik heb het natuurlijk helemaal zien groeien, dat is voor mij wel zoiets, dat vind ik super knap en super gaaf. Dat is wel een hele mooie ontwikkeling, het is goed om te zien. Voor mij persoonlijk zeg ik ook gewoon dat ik hier wil blijven. En veranderingen die plaatsvinden, daar ga je gewoon in mee. Meegaan met wat de markt biedt. Stilstaan is achteruit gaan. Nee je moet gewoon lekker meedoen met vooruit gaan.”

(4) “Ik ben wel zeer committed, want als ik een dag vrij heb en iemand anders neemt mijn taak over, dan merk ik dat ik moeite heb om dat uit handen te geven. Ik wil ook meewerken aan verandering, maar ben wel iemand die zijn mening geeft. Ik laat me wel horen. Maar er zijn ook grenzen. Als deze grenzen bereikt worden dan kan ik er best tegenaan schoppen. Dan zeg ik van, huur maar iemand anders in… want ik ga dit gewoon niet doen.”

(5) “Je moet wel commitment hebben denk ik. Om dit werk te kunnen doen moet je je verbonden voelen. Je doet het deels voor jezelf maar ook voor de organisatie. Ik sta ook heel open in verandering. Ik vind alles wel best.... Veranderingen, het zou mij een biet wezen, daar lik ik niet wakker van. Ik ben goed in omschakelen als het op verandering aankomt. Daarin ben ik denk ik wel een makkelijk persoon.”

39 (7) “Daar liggen een heleboel mogelijkheden, maar daarvoor moet je jezelf wel proberen te onderscheiden van andere bedrijven die dat ook proberen te verkopen. Daar wil ik mij voor inzetten en die ambitie heb ik ook. Het is een belangrijke zaak om je te blijven ontwikkelen, als je daar gaat denken dat die opdrachten wel binnenkomen, dan ben je wel verkeerd bezig. Ik vind het dan alleen maar goed om me daarvoor in te zetten.”

(8) “Het moet wel voldoende onderbouwd worden omdat ik wel de nodige ervaring heb, dan weet ik wel of bepaalde veranderingen een kans hebben of totaal nutteloos zijn. Het is niet dat ik mij niet wil inzetten voor mijn bedrijf want dat doe ik. Ik wil ook meewerken aan

verandering, maar ik weet dan van te voren wel wat de uitkomst zal zijn. Dan is het toch handig om dat eerst langs de ervaren medewerkers te spelen.”