Master thesis
Msc. Business Administration, Change management Msc. Human Resource Management
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
Rick Deddens s2046288 Ceramstraat 71b9715 JM Groningen 06-12927522 a.t.a.h.deddens@student.rug.nl Supervisor:
Prof. Dr. O. (Onne) Janssen
Date: June 20th, 2013
Word count: 9001
Rick Deddens Page 2 ABSTRACT
As hypothesized, data from 106 technicians at a train maintenance companyshowed that cynicism about organizational change (CAOC) and self-efficacy for change mediate the positive relationship between transformational leadership and change readiness. Specifically, transformational leadershipwas found tobe negatively related to CAOC. Furthermore, in its turn, CAOC was negatively related to change readiness and operated as a mediator in the indirect relationship between transformational leadership and change readiness.Also, as hypothesized transformational leadership was positively related to self-efficacy, while efficacy was positively related to change readiness. Moreover, self-efficacywas found to operate as a positive mediator between transformational leadership and change readiness. The findings of this study explain the effect of two underlying processes in achieving change readiness through transformational leadership.
Rick Deddens Page 3
Introduction
Organizational changes often cause unrest, insecurity, and disorder in an organization at all levels. Whether the change is necessary or not, employees often perceive that they might be worse off after the change (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999; Reichers,Wanous, & Austin, 1997). It is the task of the leader or change agent to guide the change in the right direction and to take away this unrest and insecurity of the subordinates who are undergoing the change (Reichers et al. 1997). In ample research on the role of leadership in change processes, it has been shown that transformational leadership (i.e., charismatic, visionary, and inspirational leadership; Bass, 1985)is a powerful determinant of individuals‟ reactions to organizational changes (Herold, Fedor, Caldwell,& Liu, 2008). Managers who make use of transformational leadership are better able to create readiness for change (Oreg & Berson, 2011).As proposed by Armenakis, Harris, and Field (1999) and Nordin (2012), leaders need to communicate and educate the change targets and the underlying vision and reasons for change. Through this communication, readiness for change is created and will positively affect the success of organizational change efforts.Therefore transformational leadership is seen as an important factor that can create change readiness among subordinates (Oreg & Berson, 2011; Nordin, 2012).Although transformational leadership has been proposed and found to be positively related to change readiness, there are gaps in the literature regarding the understandingof the underlying processes that can clarify the effects of transformational leadership.
Rick Deddens Page 4 No research has yet explored CAOC as a mediating mechanism in the relationship between transformational leadership and change readiness. In doing so, we answer Bommer et al.‟s (2005) call to examine how CAOC acts as a mediating variable between transformational leadership and change-related attitudes and behaviors.
Self-efficacy for change refers to an individual‟s belief about his or her ability to successfully cope with a change (Bandura, 1986). This self-efficacy concept has not been widely studied yet in the context of change. However in the existing leadership literature it is proposed that employee self-efficacy can be promoted through transformational leadership. It was found by Kark et al. (2003) that transformational leaders‟ compelling vision, inspirational motivation, and individual consideration increase a subordinate self-efficacy for change.I propose that self-efficacy for change may operate as a positive mediator between transformational leadership and change readiness. The relationship between self-efficacy for change and readiness for changewasfound to be positive because people with high self-efficacy are more confident about their abilities to cope with a change, and therefore positively influences change readiness (Armekanis, Harris,& Mossholder 1993; Bandura, 1986). In sum, the model of this study proposes that through transformational leadership CAOC can be reduced while self-efficacy for change can be increased, resulting in a higher level of subordinate change readiness.
Rick Deddens Page 5
Theoretical framework
Cynicism about organizational changeas a mediator between transformational leadership and change readiness
Transformational leadership is a widely studied subject and many definitions have been proposed (Avey et al., 2008). These definitions share the common perspective that effective leaders „‟transform or change the basic values, beliefs and attitude of followers‟‟ (Bommer et al., 2005:734). It is also proposed that through transformational leadership individual employees‟ attitudes can be transformed to make them more capable of dealing with organizational change (Bommer et al., 2005). Transformational leadership consists of four behavioral dimensions also called the 4 I‟s. Idealized influence is behavior that increases follower identification by setting an example and making self-sacrifices to benefit followers. Intellectual stimulation influences followers to search for creative solutions and view problems from a different perspective.Individualized consideration includes providing followers with support, encouragement, and coaching.Inspirational motivationrefers tocommunicating an appealing and compelling vision and using symbols to focus subordinate effort (Yukl, 2013; Kark et al., 2003).
Cynicism about organizational change is a complex attitude that consists of cognitive and behavioral aspects. This includes beliefs of unfairness, feelings of distrust and acts against the organization executing the change (Bommer et al., 2005; Stanley, Meyer & Topolnytsky, 2005). Cynicism about organizational change is considered harmful to a change, the organization, and thework behavior of employees. Therefore, CAOC requires considerable attention and it is important to reduce it for the sake of the change (Reicher et al., 1997). Numerous studies have been conducted on the subject of CAOC, andWanous et al. (2004) proposed a definition of CAOC consisting of two elements: 1)Pessimism about future organizational change being successful, and 2) a combination of attribution of change failure to responsible leaders(e.g.the motivation and competence of the leader) and the situational factors which lie beyond the leaders‟ control. CAOCoften arises after, or is strengthened by,failed attempts to change the organization (Reicher et al., 1997).
Rick Deddens Page 6 commitment to the change, less motivation to perform, absenteeism, and eventually quitting the organization.CAOC can become a self-fulfilling prophecy ifleaders do not notice cynicism about organizational change in time andif cynical employees do not support the organizational change. Through the lack of support the change would then result in failure or limited success. This failure strengthens the cynical beliefs and attitudes which limits the willingness tochange further(Reicher et al., 1997).
Reichers et al. (1997) found multiple ways for managing and reducing CAOC: keeping people informed, providing the opportunity for an employee to express feelings,receiving validation and reassurance, explaining why the change is needed, and dealing with failed changes from the past (i.e., defending or acknowledging mistakes and apologizing for them).It is claimed byBommer et al. (2005) that transformational leadership behavior provides a coherent template for enacting the aforementionedtypes of strategies suggested by Reicher et al. (1997). Specifically,it wasfound that transformational leaders have the ability to persuasively defend prior changes that were valued as failures bypositively reframing these changes. Additionally, transformational leaders stimulate subordinates to transcend their individual goals for the sake of the collective (e.g., team or organization) (Bass, 1985; Yukl, 2013). Leaders achieve this by bonding individual and collective interests and transforming the needs, values, preferences, and aspirations of the subordinates from self-interests to collective self-interests (Wu, Neubert & Yi, 2007).Lastly, it is claimed by Bommer et al. (2005) and Reicher et al. (1997) that leaders or others who are introducing the change will be more believable if they are liked, acquired knowledge about the subject, possess a certain amount of power and status in the organization, and are trustworthy.
Rick Deddens Page 7 Subsequently, transformational leaders have the ability to let employees understand why change is needed in the organization through enhancing their understanding that existing strategies, approaches, practices, and procedures can and should be improved. Transformational leadersuse intellectual stimulation by challenging employees to challenge the status quo and initiate and accept innovative solutions to problems. Hereby employees are more stimulated to participate during change efforts and are more open for exploring new directions.Then, employees are able to see that change is necessary to their work rather than nonsensical (DeCelles et al., 2013).
In order to manage CAOC, defensive strategies must be addressed by giving people the opportunity to express their feelings publicly, receive validation about their feelings, and receive reassurance that actions will be taken (or already have been taken) to ease their concerns (Reicher et al., 1997). This requires two-way communication whereby the leader is critical to change success andaware of employee perceptions and feelings about the change. Two-way communication requires face-to-face communicationin an open and honest way. Employees, who suffer from CAOC are likely to respond positively to these defensive coaching actions of the leader (Reicher et al., 1997).
To make organizational change successful, employees must be able and ready to change. In basic terms, the creation of readiness for change is about changing individual cognitions and behavioral intentions(Armenakis et al., 1993).A leader has an important role in creating change readiness by influencing the beliefs, intentions, attitudes and eventually the behavior of the change targets(Armenakis et al., 1993). Also for change readiness many definitions were proposed throughout the years of research(Choi, 2009). In a study by Choi (2009:482) a definition was made based on several studies on change readiness. Change readiness was defined as „„Organizational members‟ beliefs, feelings, and intentions regarding the extent to which changes are needed and the organization‟s capacity to successfully make those changes.”This definition is supported by Jones, Jimmieson, and Griffiths (2005) and
Rick Deddens Page 8 elements:the need for change, why it is appropriate for the organization, and also the expression of confidence in the individuals‟ and organizational ability tochange. Lastly, the message should also address the already existing support and the associated success with the change (Rafferty & Simons, 2006).
According to a study by Reicherset al. (1997) employees who are not cynical about organizational change are more willing to engage in future change than people who are cynical about the change. Their cynicism leads to less support, and participation, which in turn leads to failure or less successful changes, plus that their pessimistic behavior and feelings are reaffirmed. Experiences of unsuccessful changes from the past create a feeling that results in less support to future change initiatives. Moreover, through failures of changes cynical attitudes arise at employee level and inhibit pro-change behavior for future changes (Wanous et al. 2000). Thus, CAOC becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and creates less engaged employees via a lack of motivation to support current and future change efforts (Barton and Ambrosini, 2008; Wanous et al., 2000). Finally, it was found by Stanley et al. (2005) that CAOC is strongly correlated with the intention to resist change and therefore negatively influences readiness for change.
Asmentioned before, CAOC can be reduced through the 4 dimensions of transformational leadership(i.e., idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration). Transformational leaders have the ability to defend failed changes against criticism and let subordinates transcend their personal interests for the sake of the collective. In doing so, transformational leaders make use of their inspirational motivation qualities. By providing a clear and inspirational vision, transformational leaders help subordinates understand the overarching goal of the change(DeCelles et al., 2013; Yukl,2013). With regard to managing CAOC, an organization must give these cynical subordinates the space to express themselves about the change. Transformational leaders use individual consideration to give these cynical employees validation and use coaching actions to listen and help these employees (Reicher et al., 1997).Thus, transformational leadership reduces CAOC; this has implications for the relationship between CAOC and change readiness. The negative effect on readiness for change also diminishes through the reduction of CAOC. Therefore, it is proposed that CAOC serves as a mediator between the relationship of transformational leadership and subordinate readiness for change. Based on existing evidence the following hypotheses will be tested.
Rick Deddens Page 9 H1B: Subordinate cynicism about organizational change is negatively related to subordinate change readiness
H1C: Subordinate cynicism about organizational change mediates the relation between transformational leadership and subordinate change readiness
Self-efficacy for change as a mediator between transformational leadership and change readiness
The other underlying process that influences the relation between transformational leadership and change readiness is self-efficacy for change. Self-efficacy for change can be defined as: ‟‟An individual's perceived ability to handle change in a given situation and to function well on the job despite demands of the change‟‟ (Wanberg et al., 2004:134). Neves (2009) supports this definition by arguing that it refers to the emotions of the employees undergoing the change and their confidence in their own ability to cope with change effectively.Furthermore, it is presumed by Vardaman, Amis, Dyson, Wright, and Van de Graaf Randolph (2011) that people with high levels of self-efficacy are more active and persistent in handling threatening or dynamic situations, such as during organizational change. Also, efficacious individuals view situations more as learning experiences rather than traps and use the opportunity to demonstrate their skills (Ashford, 1988; Vardaman et al., 2011).
Shamir, House, and Arthur (1993) found that when leaders have high expectations of their subordinates and express their beliefs in the subordinates‟ abilities, leaders can influence subordinates‟ self-esteem. I have strong reasons to suggest that transformational leadership behavior promotes subordinate self-efficacy for change through the concept of idealized influence.For example, it was proposed by Liu, Siu, and Shi (2010) and Walumbwa and Hartnell (2011) that a transformational leader enhances subordinate self-efficacy for change through role modeling the appropriate behaviors. According to Kark et al. (2003), this process of role modeling is called personal identification. Personal identification can be defined as followers adapting their beliefs, feelings, and behavior according to those of the leader. Through personal identification the leader is better able to stimulate the followers‟ ability to cope with a change (Kark et al., 2003).
Rick Deddens Page 10 important.Employees also come to feel more personally efficacious in their roles and identify with their organization.‟‟
Moreover, it is argued by Kark et al. (2003) that through a leaders‟ positive and confidence actions the subordinates‟ self-efficacy for change increases. With positive and confidence actions Kark et al. (2003) are referring to leaders who are expressing their belief in their subordinates and showing how the mission reflects on the subordinates.Transformational leaders enhance individuals‟ feelings of competence, autonomy, and self-determination (DeCelles et al., 2013). Also, by giving clear explanations about the change, coaching, and through expressing confidence in the ability of the subordinate, self-efficacy for change can be increased (Yukl, 2013).Although there is not much existing literature on the relationship of transformational leadership influencing self-efficacy for change, it is sufficiently enough to hypothesize that transformational leadership positively influences self-efficacy for change.
Rick Deddens Page 11 resulted into greater change acceptance. Furthermore, Cunningham et al. (2002) found that confident employees in active positions with more sense of control over challenging jobs showed higher readiness for organizational change and were more likely to participate. They also found that there is a relation between higher job change self-efficacy and readiness for change and that these employees contributed more to the change.
Asmentioned before, transformational leadership consists of four dimensions (i.e.,idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration). Transformational leadership enhances self-efficacy for change through these four dimensions. An important part of idealized influence is role-modeling, namely a leader has an exemplary role in showing subordinates how to cope with the change (Kark et al., 2003). Furthermore, transformational leaders use positive and confidence actions in order to stimulate self-efficacy for change. These positive actions express confidence andincorporate inspirational motivation, which makes employees feel more committed and capable to achieve the change goals. Furthermore, transformational leaders utilizeindividualized consideration (i.e., support, encouragement, and coaching)(Kark et al.,2003; Yukl, 2013). Intellectual stimulation also contributes to self-efficacy for change. Transformational leaders possess the quality to convince employees to see problems from another perspective and let them search for innovative solutions to cope with these problems. From this point it can be considered that each dimension of transformational leadership contributes to the enhancement of self-efficacy for change. This contribution has positive implications for the creation of readiness for change because more confident employeeshave a better ability to cope with change (Neves, 2009). Therefore, it is proposed that self-efficacy serves as mediator between the relation of transformational leadership and change readiness. In conclusion, this study investigates the effect of transformational leadership on subordinate readiness for change, via subordinate self-efficacy for change. Based on the existing evidence and personal assumption the following hypotheses will be tested.
H2A. Transformational leadership is positively related to subordinate self-efficacy for change
H2B: Subordinate self-efficacy for change is positively related tosubordinate change readiness
Rick Deddens Page 12 Research model
Taken together, the research model proposes that two complementary processes, the decrease of subordinate CAOC and the increase of subordinate self-efficacy for change, explain the positive relationship between transformational leadership behavior and subordinate change readiness. That is, I propose that transformational leadership negatively relates to subordinate CAOC and positively relates to self-efficacy for change. Furthermore, I propose that subordinate CAOC negatively relates to subordinate readiness for change, and subordinate self-efficacy for change positively relates to subordinate readiness for change
Figure 1.1. Research Model
Method
Research setting and participantsRick Deddens Page 13 leadership (22 items), CAOC (8 items), self-efficacy for change (4 items), and change readiness (7 items)
From the sample of 116 people, 106 were willing to participate in the study. Therefore, the response rate of this study was 91%. Of the participants 100% were male technicians between the 19 and 62 years old. More specific, 14.2% was younger than 25 years old, 23.5% was between 25 and 34 years old, 20.8% between 35 and 44 years old, 30.2% between 45 and 54 years old and 11.3% were 55 years old or older.
In terms of tenure at the organization,34.9% worked their less than 5 years, 18.9% worked their between 5 and 9.99 years, 18.8% worked their between 10 and 14.99 years, 1% worked their between 15 and 19.99 years, 6.6% worked their between 20 and 25.99 years, 14.1% worked their between 25 and 29.99 years, and 5.7% worked more than 30 years at the company.
Also, tenure under current leader was measured, 10.3% worked under current leader for a period of 0 to 1.49 years, most people worked under their current leader for a period of 1.5 to 2.99 years namely 42%, 29% worked under their current leader for period of 3 to 4.49 years, 12.2% worked under their current leader for period of 4.5 to 5.99 years, and 6.5% worked under their current leader for a period of 6 years or more.
Measures
Multi-item scales were usedto ensure adequate measurement of each variable. Previously established scales were used because they were found to be reliable and validate measures. For each measure a7-point Likert-type scale response format ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree) was used.
Transformational leadershipwas measured with a 22-item scale developed by Herold et al. (2008).All questions about transformational leadership startedwith the phrase “I believe my leader…‟‟; two example items are:1. ...seeks new opportunities for our organization, and 2. ….paints an interesting picture of the future for our work. Cronbach‟s alpha for transformational leadership was .94.
Rick Deddens Page 14 Subordinate self–efficacy for changewas measured with a 4-item scale developed by Wanberg et al. (2000). Two example items are:1. Wherever the restructuring takes me, I'm sure I can handle it.2. I get nervous that I may not be able to do all that is demanded of me by the restructuring, (reversed). Cronbach‟s alpha for subordinate self-efficacy for change was .76.
Subordinatechange readiness was measured through a 7-item scale developed by Drzensky et al.(2005).Two example items are:1. Most of my colleagues are positive about the change. 2. In the long run, the change brings to me more advantages than disadvantages. Cronbach‟s alpha for subordinate change readiness was .90.
Control variables. To measure possible relationships by social demographically differences the following control variables were used, sex, age, tenure, tenure under leader and involvement with the change. For the variables age, tenure, and tenure under leader, participants were asked to fill in a number. The variable involvement with the change was added as control variable in order to see if it relates to the study variables. This last variable was measured through the following item: To what extent did you have an active role in changing the current working system? For this measure a 7-point Likert scale response format, ranging from 1 (Not at all) to 7 (A very great extent).
Procedure and data analysis
Rick Deddens Page 15 directly addresses mediation. Moreover, within the aforementioned SPSS macro it is possible to calculate the indirect effect between the independent variable and the outcome variable. This SPSS macro uses bootstrapping in order to calculate the confidence intervals in which the indirect effect can be tested. Preacher and Hayes (2008) have shown in their study that the bootstrapping method was reliable for small and moderate sample sizes and therefore suitable for this study.
Results
Descriptive statistics and correlations
Table 1 displays the means, standard deviations, and correlations of the variables of this study. Scores on the questions about transformational leadership and about to what extent their superiors possessed transformational leadership skills and abilities were found to be marginally above neutral (M = 4.88, SD = .84, [4.04 – 5.72]; 7-point disagree/agree scale). The scores on the amount of subordinate self-efficacy for change fell between the following ranges and cannot be considered as high or low (M = 4.82, SD = 1.13, [3.69 – 5.59]; 7-point disagree/agree scale). This conceptindicatesthatparticipants feel confident about their abilities to work with the new working system, however in this case it cannot be considered as high. Furthermore, the participants‟ scores on subordinate readiness for change were distributed around the neutral answer category(M = 4.67, SD = 1.02 [3.65 – 5.69]; 7-point disagree/agree scale). However, participants generally gave a low score on involvement (M= 1.77 SD= 1.11 [0.66 – 2.88]; 7-point scale not at all/very great extent) this entails that that participants were not much involved in the change process or they had the feeling that were not involved enough.
No significant correlations were found between the socio-demographical factors and the study variables.However, strong significant correlations were found between the study variables. As predicted, results show strong significant negative correlations for transformational leadership and CAOC(r = -.33, p< .01) and for CAOC and change readiness (r= -.54, p< .01). Moreover, positive correlations were found for transformational leadership and self-efficacy for change(r = .28, p< .01), self-efficacy for change and change readiness(r = .50, p< .01), and lastly between transformational leadership and change readiness (r = .29, p< .01)
Hypotheses testing
Rick Deddens Page 16 Bootstrap methods are especially useful to calculate multiple mediation models for small till moderate samples. This method is now more preferred than the old method because then multiple mediation must be tested separately for each mediator, while with this method both mediators are tested simultaneously. Preacher and Hayes‟ (2008) SPSS macro is used to test the direct and indirect effects of the research model. The bootstrap sample size for this model was set at 5000 and a 95% confidence interval was used to test the hypotheses.
Hypothesis 1A predicts that transformational leadership is negatively related to cynicism about organizational change.None of the control variablesdid significantly contribute to the prediction of cynicism about organizational change. However, results show that, transformational leadership is negatively related to cynicism about organizational change (Table 2; R² =.12, t =-3.45, p<.001). Therefore, hypothesis 1A is supported.
Hypothesis 1B predicts that cynicism about organizational change is negatively related to change readiness. None of the control variables did significantly contribute to change readiness. But, cynicism about organizational change is found to be negatively related to change readiness (Table 2; R² =.41, t =-4.25, p<.001). Hence, hypothesis 1B is confirmed.
Hypothesis 2A predicts that transformational leadership is positively related to self-efficacy for change. The results indeed show that transformational leadership is positively related to self-efficacy for change (Table 2; R² =.41, t = -4.25, p<.001). Thus, hypothesis 2A is supported.
Hypothesis 2B predicts that self-efficacy for change is positively related to change readiness. A positive relation between self-efficacy for change and change readiness is indeed found (Table 2; R² =.41, t = 3.54, p<.001). Therefore, hypothesis 2B is supported.
Rick Deddens Page 17 TABLE 1
Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Age 39.79 11.58 2. Tenure 11.91 10.38 .68** 3. Tenure leader 3.13 1.81 .13 .30** 4. Involvement 1.77 1.11 -.16 -.01 .02 5. Transformational leadership 4.88 .84 -.05 .07 -.05 -.03 6. CAOC 3.83 1.04 .01 -.07 -.05 -.07 -.33**
7. Self-efficacy for change 4.82 1.13 -.12 -.05 -.04 .19 .28** -.42**
8. Change Readiness 4.67 1.02 -.04 .11 .11 .12 .29** -.54** .50**
Note: N = 106
Rick Deddens Page 18 TABLE 2
Results of Regression Analysis
Mediator variable model: Cynicism about organizational change
(CAOC)
Mediator variable model: Self-efficacy for change
Model B SE t R2 B SE t R2
0.12* 0.13*
Constant 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00
Age 0.02 0.13 0.16 -0.07 0.13 -0.53
Tenure -0.04 0.14 -0.32 -0.01 0.14 -0.09
Tenure under leader -0.06 0.09 -0.57 -0.02 0.10 -0.18
Involvement -0.06 0.10 -0.77 0.19 0.10 1.96†
Transformational
leadership -0.33 0.10 -3.45
***
0.28 0.10 3.00**
Dependent variable model: Change readiness
B SE t R2
0.41***
Constant 0.00 0.08 0.00
Age -0.10 0.11 -0.89
Tenure 0.14 0.11 1.23
Tenure under leader 0.06 0.08 0.94
Involvement 0.08 0.08 0.23
Transformational
leadership 0.07 0.08 0.80
CAOC -0.38 0.09 -4.25***
Self-efficacy for change 0.31 0.09 3.54***
Indirect effects Bootstrap indirect effect Bootstrap SE Bootstrap LLCI Bootstrap ULCI CAOC 0.12 0.05 0.050 0.240
Self-efficacy for change 0.09 0.06 0.009 0.239 N = 106. Bootstrap sample size = 5000.
Rick Deddens Page 19
Discussion
The goal of this study was to extend current research on the underlying processesof the relationshipbetween transformational leadership and change readiness.By combining literature and previous research on transformational leadership, cynicism about organizational change, and self-efficacy for change I proposed and tested a research model that specifies and clarifies why transformational leadership promotes readiness for change among employees. Specifically, this research model suggests that transformational leadership promotes readiness for change among employees because it decreases their cynicism about organizational change and increases their self-efficacy for change.
Findings
One of the key findings of this study is that cynicism about organizational change mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and change readiness.Based on the existing research, it was expected that transformational leadership reduces CAOC which, in its turn, reduces change readiness. In this study, the relation between transformational leadership and CAOC is confirmed as well as the relation between CAOC and change readiness. Moreover, additional mediation analyses showed that transformational leadership has an indirect and positive effect onchange readiness through the reductionof CAOC. Previous research has already shown that transformational leadership reduces CAOC (Bommer et al., 2005).I contribute to this line of research in the leadership and change domain by identifying themediating effect of subordinate CAOC that links transformational leadership to change readiness.
Rick Deddens Page 20 analyses revealed that self-efficacy for change serves as a mediator between transformational leadership and change readiness.
Surprisingly, no correlationsor relationships were found between the control variables and study variables. This is surprising, because a new, and in some way complex technology, has been implemented at the train maintenance company. According to Eliasa, Smith and Barneya(2012) agemayinfluence employees‟work attitudes towards technology in the workplace. These researchers found that older employees have stronger contra attitudes towards technology.It is therefore surprising that I did not find any significant relationships of the control variables of age, organizational tenure, and tenure with the leader with the change-relevant variables - cynicism about organizational change, self-efficacy for change, and readiness for change - included in the present study.
Limitations
Although this study showed some compelling findings, there are also some limitations Firstly, data was gathered at one organization where one specific change was implemented for one specific group. Therefore, it is possible that the team characteristics and organizational culture could have influenced their opinion about the change. For example,organizations that change often and have an adaptive culture, the employees in these organizations would likely be less cynical about change (Burnes, 2009).Furthermore, by gathering data among a group of technicians it is possible that this group developed the same perception about change. This limitation could have been overcome if data was gathered at different organizations.To generalize and extend the current theory, future research should use this research model and test itin different organizations.
The second limitation of this study is that the participant group only consisted of men. Therefore no concluding statements can be made over a group of women. There could be a difference in results between men and woman. However, due to the choice of organization I was not able to study potential differences. Therefore, future research could focus on possible differences between men and women in a similar kind of study.
Rick Deddens Page 21 are actively involved in the change,andifemployees havea sufficient amount of autonomy (Reicher et al., 1997; DeCelles et al., 2013; Burnes, 2009; Hornung& Rousseau, 2007). At the same time, there could be also other conditions that may have implications on this research model.The results of this study have shown that transformational leadership negatively relates to CAOC and positively to self-efficacy for change. Therefore, it would be especially interesting to study the effect of leader CAOC on subordinate CAOC and self-efficacy for change. This would then be studied in a multilevel research design and could provide interesting insight in line with previous studies(Rubin, Dierdorff, Bommer,& Baldwin, 2009).
Another limitation of this study is that the data was gathered at one moment. This provides more of a ‟‟snapshot‟‟ view of the results. A longitudinal study would have been better because by measuring at several points in time results could differ from eachother and may show some developments. Wanous et al. (2000) already found in a longitudinal study that transformational leadership reduces CAOC. Therefore, it would be interesting to study if the other relationships differ over time or show developments. For example, CAOC could develop over time, because as time passes people could develop different visions on the change and differently estimate the value of the change. The same goes for self-efficacy for change as subordinates could develop more skills, abilities and knowledge necessary for the change. Thus, the more a change develops over time, the more individuals could develop themselves to cope with the change and that could influence concepts like CAOC and self-efficacy for change.Also, data was gathered in an early stage of the change. Therefore, results could differ from data when gathered ina moreadvancedstage.
Lastly, the data was gathered merely through self-reports which has certain limitations. Moreover, several biases that arise from self-reports may influence the results of this study. Biases as; the emotional state of a participant, social desirability, may result into an inflation of correlations of this study.
Theoretical implications
Rick Deddens Page 22 transformational leadership and change readiness has never been studied before and was found significant and positive.Thus, the present results show that transformational leadership reduces CAOC and, therefore, promotes change readiness. This mediation effect of CAOC in the relationship between transformational leadership and readiness for change has not been studied before and therefore can be seen as avaluable contribution to the current literature.
Furthermore, self-efficacy was already a well-established and studied concept in the literature. However, self-efficacy for change is relatively new concept in the literature.Therefore, I took the opportunity to study this concept in order to extend the current literature on the subject of self-efficacy for change.As such, this study extends the current literature on the subject of self-efficacy for change. Previous research found that transformational leadership increases self-efficacy for change; the results of this study confirm this relationship. This study contributes to the current body of literature by identifying self-efficacy for change as a mediator in the relationship between transformational leadership and subordinate readiness for change. Moreover,this contribution enhances leaders and change agents‟ understanding of how self-efficacy for change can act as an underlying process in the stimulation of subordinate readiness for change.
Additionally, this study identifiestwo underlying processes that clarify why transformational leadership enhances subordinate readiness for change. Transformational leadership has an important role in decreasing CAOC and increasing self-efficacy for change, which in turnenhancessubordinate readiness for change.No prior research has been conducted on how these complementary processesexplain the relationship between transformational leadership and subordinate readiness for change. In conclusion, the identification of the complementary processes can be considered as a valuable contribution to the literature.
Practical implications
Rick Deddens Page 23 transformational leadership show that there are developmental possibilities for company X in improving this form of leadership, in order to decrease CAOCand increase self-efficacy for change in the future.My findings and previous research support the negative relationship between transformational leadership and CAOC. This implicates that a leader who possesses transformational leadership qualities can play an important role in reducing CAOC. Therefore, it is important to invest in the transformational qualities of the superiors in the organization.Moreover, results show that company X should invest more in these transformational qualities.
Rubin et al. (2009) argue that CAOC is toxic for the organizational health and detrimental for change. Based on the evidence in this study, the reduction of CAOC is found to be positive for the factor change readiness. However, this research does not suggest that cynicism should be eliminated or ignored in the organization. It is important for an organization to inquire into the underlying reasons behind the cynical attitude of certain employees. Moreover, research about cynicism suggest that cynics could also be employees who care very much about their organization and are careful with changes which,according to their perception, could change the organization in a negative way (McClough, Rogelberg, Fisher, & Bachiochi, 1998). This could provide opportunities for an organization to improve the change or the process with a bottom-up approach. The current study alsosuggests that transformational leaders may have an important role in the enhancement of subordinate self-efficacy for change. These leaders explain subordinates the underlying thoughts of the change and why it is necessary for the organization. This in turn enhances subordinate self-efficacy for change.Besides the existing evidence that transformational leadership reduces CAOC and increases self-efficacy for change, these leaders should utilize their specific leadership qualities tolisten to and debate with these cynical and low-efficacious subordinates in an open and honest way.Cynics in the organization could have a certain value to keep management alert for flaws in the change process. In contrast, low-efficacious subordinates do not add value to the change process and it is therefore important to increase their self-efficacy for change. In order to make use of the value of cynics and increase self-efficacy for change, certain steps have to be taken.
Rick Deddens Page 24 giving them validation about their concerns (Reicher et al., 1997). Cynics in the organization could also provide the leader valuable feedback about the change; leaders can then decide whether to use this feedback or not. An underlying reason of CAOC could be that individuals are afraid that they do not have the ability to cope with the change. Therefore, leaders can provide coaching in order to prepare the subordinates for the change and help them participating in the change(process)(Reicher et al., 1997).
In addition to the inquiry into theunderlying reasons for cynicism and low self-efficacy, a leader canuse intellectual stimulation to enhance understanding of the necessity for change and how to cope with it. Transformational leaders have the ability to let subordinate perceive problems from different perspectives, and to challenge the status quo in order to develop innovative solutions to the problems (Kark et al., 2003; Yukl, 2013). Leaders stimulate subordinates to actively think and participate in how to find new solutions for a certain problems (e.g. flaws in the change process). To make intellectual stimulation possible, it is necessary that leaders act as a role model and use inspirational motivation to let individuals transcend their personal goals for the sake of the organization and thus the change. Leaders cannot lead a change without act in accordance with the change. That is, if leaders do not act in line with the change it would be detrimental to theircredibility and would only increase cynicism (Bommer et al., 2005). Furthermore, transformational leaders have the ability to link individual goals of the subordinates to the change goals, and through this develop an inspirational vision that challenges the status quo. In doing so, leaders create further understanding about the change and persuade subordinates to cope with and participate in the change.This stimulatessubordinates‟ ability to participate. In addition, cynics are now more willing to use their cynical perception for the good of the change (e.g. give some critical notes on where the change can be improved).
Rick Deddens Page 25 In conclusion,transformational leadership has a prominent role in enhancing subordinates‟ readiness for change. This study provides change agents and leaders an enhanced understanding of employees‟ reactions about a change. Specifically, how they can use transformational leadership behavior to reduce employees‟ cynicism and stimulate the employees‟ ability to deal effectively with organizational changes and perform accordingly on the job during the change. My research suggests that two complementary processes, the decrease of CAOC and increase of subordinate self-efficacy to change, enhance change readiness. Therefore, it is important for leaders and change agents to take these factors into account. This research alsoelaborated on the value of CAOC.Despite the existing evidence that the reduction of CAOC is desirable, management should never ignore or overlook the cynic‟s opinion, because these people can be valuable in improving the change process (Reicher et al., 1997; Bommer et al. 2005).In line with existing evidence on self-efficacy for change this research endorses the value of participating subordinates who are confident about their abilities to cope with the change.
Future directions
Rick Deddens Page 26 effects. By studying which conditions are favorable for changing an organization, can be valued as a contribution to the theory as to the practical world.
Although some research already have been done about the relationship between leader CAOC and subordinate CAOC, it would be valuable to combine it with the research modelof this study(Rubin et al., 2009). Results from the study of Rubin et al. (2009) showed that leader CAOC affects employee CAOC and is mediated through transformational leadership behavior. Therefore, it would be interesting to combine these two studies to examinehow leader CAOC affects employee change readiness through the proposed variables stated in figure 1.
Previous and current research confirmed that CAOC may be detrimental to a positive outcome of the change. However, no further research investigated the effect of CAOC on organizational performance. Most researchers studied the effects of CAOC on the outcomes of the change, but not about the performance of the organization itself. Thus, it would be interesting to measure how, and how much CAOC affects the organizational performance. Also, very little research has been done about how CAOC spreads through the organization. Does it come from other cynical employees who spread the word or is it because individuals form their own opinion about the management motives behind the change?Research about how CAOC spreads around the organization may cast new light on the current literature about CAOC andits relations with other concepts, but also how it can be solved or used in an organization.
Rick Deddens Page 27
References
Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G.,& Field, H.S. (1999) Making change permanent: a model for institutionalizing change interventions, in: W. Pasmore and R. Woodman (eds) Research in Organizational Change and Development, vol. 12, pp. 97–128.
Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G.,& Mossholder, K.W. (1993), Creating readiness for organisational change, Human Relations, 46(6), pp. 681–703.
Ashford, S. J. (1988). Individual strategies for coping with stress during organizational transitions. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 24, 19-36.
Avey, J. B., Hughes, L. W., Norman, S. M., & Luthans, K. W. (2008). Using positivity, transformational leadership and empowerment to combat employee negativity. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 29, 110-126.
Bandura, A. 1986.Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
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, 1173–1182.
Barton, L., & Ambrosini, V. (2013). The moderating effect of organizational change cynicism on middle manager strategy commitment. International Journal Of Human Resource Management, 24(4), 721-746.
Bass, B. M. 1985. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bernerth, J., (2004)Expanding Our Understanding of the Change Message,Human Resource Development Review, 36(3).
Bommer, W. H., Rich, G. A., & Rubin, R. S. (2005). Changing attitudes about change: longitudinal effects of transformational leader behavior on employee cynicism about organizational change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 733-753.
Bommer, W. H., Rubin, R. S., & Baldwin, T. T. (2004). Setting the stage for effective leadership: Antecedents of transformational leadership behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 15.
Rick Deddens Page 28 Burnes, B. (2009),Managing Change, Harlow: Prentice Hall.
Brown, M.,& Cregan C., (2008) Organizational change cynicism: The role of employee involvement. Human Resource Management, 47(4), 667-686.
Choi, M, (2011), Employees‟ attitudes toward organizational change; A literature review Human Resource Management, 50 (4), 479 – 500.
Cole, M. S., Walter, F., & Bruch, H. (2008). Affective mechanisms linking dysfunctional behavior to performance in work teams: A moderated mediation study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 945-958.
Conner, D.R. 1992.Managing at the Speed of Change: How Resilient Managers Succeed and Prosper WhereOthers Fail. New York: Villard Books.
Cunningham, C.E., Woodward, C.A., Shannon, H.S., MacIntosh, J., Lendrum, B., Rosenbloom, D. and Brown, J. (2002) Readiness for organizational change: a longitudinal study of workplace, psychological and behavioural correlates, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75(4), 377–392.
DeCelles, K. A., Tesluk, P. E., & Taxman, F. S. (2013). A Field Investigation of Multilevel Cynicism Toward Change. Organization Science, 24(1), 154-171.
Drzensky, F., Egold, N., & van Dick, R. (2012). Ready for a Change? A Longitudinal Study of Antecedents, Consequences and Contingencies of Readiness for Change. Journal Of Change Management, 12(1), 95-111.
Eliasa, S. M., Smith, W. L., & Barneya, C. E. (2012). Age as a moderator of attitude towards technology in the workplace: work motivation and overall job satisfaction. Behaviour & Information Technology, 31(5), 453-467.
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.
Hornung, S., & Rousseau, D. M. (2007). Active on the Job--Proactive in Change. Journal Of Applied Behavioral Science, 43(4), 401-426.
Rick Deddens Page 29 Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 246–255.
Kwahk, K., & Lee, J. (2008). The role of readiness for change in ERP implementation: Theoretical bases and empirical validation. Information & Management, 45(7), 474-481. Liu, J., Siu, O., & Shi, K. (2010). Transformational Leadership and Employee Well-Being: The Mediating Role of Trust in the Leader and Self-Efficacy. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 59(3), 454-479.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of the methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects.
Psychological Methods, 7, 83–104.
McClough, A. C., Rogelberg, S. G., Fisher, G. G., & Bachiochi, P. D. (1998). Cynicism and the quality of an individual‟s contribution to an organizational diagnostic survey. Organization Development Journal, 16, 31–41.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly,107-142.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 22, 259–298.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 717–731.
Oreg, S., & Berson, Y. (2011). Leadership and employees' reactions to change: The role of leaders' personal attributes and transformational leadership style. Personnel Psychology, 64. Rubin, R. S., Dierdorff, E. C., Bommer, W. H., & Baldwin, T. T. (2009). Do leaders reap what they sow? Leader and employee outcomes of leader organizational cynicism about change. Leadership Quarterly, 20(5), 680-688.
Reichers, A. E., Wanous, J. P., & Austin, J. T. (1997). Understanding and managing cynicism about organizational change.Academy of Management Executive, 11, 48-59.
Rick Deddens Page 30 Sobel, M. E. 1982. Asymptonic intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models. In S.Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology: 290-312. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Stanley, D. J., Meyer, J. P., & Topolnytsky, L. (2005). Employee cynicism and resistance to organizational change. Journal of Business & Psychology, 19, 429-459.
Vardaman, J., Amis, J., Dyson, B., Wright, P., & Van de Graaff Randolph, R. (2012). Interpreting change as controllable: The role of network centrality and self-efficacy. Human Relations, 65(7), 835-859.
Walumbwa, F. O., & Hartnell, C. A. (2011). Understanding transformational leadership-employee performance links: The role of relational identification and self-efficacy. Journal Of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 84(1).
Wanberg, C.R., & Banas, J.T. (2000) Predictors and outcomes of openness to change in a reorganizing workplace, Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 132–142.
Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Austin, J. T. (1994). Organizational cynicism: An initial study. Academy of Management: Best Papers Proceedings of the Fifty-Fourth Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management,269–273.
Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Austin J. T. (2000). Cynicism about organizational change: Measurement, antecedents, and correlates. Group & Organization Management, 25, 132-153.
Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Austin J. T. (2004). Cynicism about organizational change: An attribution process perspective. Psychological Reports, 94, 1421-1434.
Wu, C., Neubert, M.J., & Yi, X. 2007,Transformational Leadership, Cohesion Perceptions, and Employee Cynicism About Organizational Change,the Mediating Role of Justice Perceptions, The Journal of Behavioral Science, 43(3), 327-351.
