The effects of change leadership, quality of communication and
participation in decision making on readiness for change
Master Thesis, MscBA, specialization Change Management
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
August 28, 2011
Chris ten Have Student number: 1714295 De Brink 20 8101 DB Raalte Phone number: (06) 53677968 E-mail: C.J.ten.have@student.rug.nl Supervisors University: Cees Reezigt/ Hans van der Bij Faculty of Economics & Business
Supervisor field of study: Freek Debie
Abstract
The aim of this study is to acquire a deeper insight in how employees’ readiness for change can be created. The following research question is formulated: To what extent do leadership, communication and participation efforts during change affect employees’ readiness for change?
Table of content
1 Introduction ... 4
2 Theory ... 6
2.1 Readiness for change ... 6
2.2 Leadership ... 7 2.3 Communication ... 12 2.4 Participation ... 13 2.5 Conceptual model ... 15 3 Methodology ... 16 3.1 Organizational context ... 16 3.2 Preliminary investigation ... 16 3.3 Data collection ... 17 3.4 Data Analysis ... 18 4 Results ... 22 4.1 Population description ... 22 4.2 Correlation analysis ... 23 4.3 Regression Analysis ... 24 4.4 Hypotheses ... 29
4.4.1 The influence of change leadership behavior ... 29
4.4.2 The influence of quality of communication ... 30
4.4.3 The influence of participation in decision making ... 30
5 Discussion ... 31
5.1 Implications for managers ... 33
5.2 Limitations and future research ... 34
5.3 Conclusion ... 35
References ... 36
1 Introduction
Unfortunately, effective organizational changes are rare (Gilmore et al., 1997; By, 2005; Meaney and Pung,2008). Recent statistics reveal that only one- third of organizational change efforts were considered successful by their leaders (Meaney and Pung, 2008). So what are the reasons for consistent failure and what leads to success? Several studies observed that management usually focuses on technical elements of change with a tendency to neglect the equally important human element (George and Jones, 2001). Self (2007) argues that one plausible explanation for the spurious results in organizational change efforts, may be that change leaders/agents and researchers are inattentive to human variables that are important during organizational change efforts. In addition, many researchers (Miller, Johnson, & Grau, 1994; Piderit, 2000, Oreg 2006) emphasize that the main obstacle to organizational change achievement is human resistance.
The terms resistance to change and readiness for change are frequently used in the research and practitioner literature on organizational change, usually as an explanation for why efforts to introduce large-scale changes in technology, production methods, management practices, or compensation systems fall short of expectations, or fail altogether (Oreg, 2006). Resistance to change refers to an employees’ negative attitude towards change. On the other hand, readiness for change refers to an employees’ positive attitude towards change. This study is focused on strategies which can be used by change agents to create readiness for change. Readiness is focused on breaking through the status quo while resistance to change is focused on maintaining the status quo (Maurer, 1996).The term readiness is preferred in this study because it has a better fit with the organizational perspective of ProRail to be proactive and to break through the status quo. Readiness is arguably one of the most important factors involved in employees’ initial support for change initiatives (Armenakis et al., 1993; Armenakis, Harris, & Feild, 1999). The choice to investigate readiness for change is further elaborated in the theoretical section (see 2.1).
An important strategy to create readiness for change may be leadership. Many researchers claim that the critical factor in enabling and driving change efforts is leadership within the organization (Gilley, Quatro, Hoekstra, Whittle, & Maycunich, 2001; Pfeffer, 2005; Gilley, 2005). Leaders may function as change agents, those individuals responsible for change strategy and implementation by creating a vision, identifying the need for change, and implementing the change itself (Kanter, Stein, & Jick, 1992). According to Cummings & Worley (2005) it is essential that leaders understand how to create readiness for change to assist employees in being motivated and prepared for change.
al., (1993) state that the change effort is dependent of the ability of the organization to change the individual behavior of individual employees. If organizational change is about how to change the individual tasks of individual employees, communication about the change, and information to these employees is vital. Communication with these employees should be an important and integrative part of the change efforts and strategies. Since communication is important in change processes, the relation with specific communicative efforts with readiness for change seems worthwhile to study.
Another strategy that may influence readiness for change is participation. Several studies have indicated that employee participation is central to increasing employees’ acceptance to change. (Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979; Kotter, 1995; Wanberg & Banas, 2000; Msweli-Mbanga & Potwana, 2006). One of the earlier works that links participation to change is that of Lewin (1948), who put forward a contention that participation is useful in changing conduct during a process of change in organizations. Lewin (1948) argued that a person’s conduct, perception and sentiment can change to the degree to which the individual becomes actively involved in the problem. Lewin’s theory essentially emphasizes that it is through participation under suitable conditions, that an individual can willingly change his conduct. According to Lines (2004) participation of those affected by the change will reduce organizational resistance and create a higher level of psychological commitment towards the proposed change.
The purpose of this study is to empirically investigate to what extent leadership, communication and participation efforts affect readiness for change. The study has to contribute to a deeper understanding about how to create readiness for change. It leads to the following formulated research question:
To what extent do leadership, communication and participation efforts during change affect employees’ readiness for change?
2 Theory
The purpose of the theoretical section is to present the main drivers that affect employee’s attitudes regarding organizational change. Firstly, two attitudes regarding change namely readiness and resistance to change are elaborated in 2.1. Subsequently in 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 is elaborated how leadership, communication and participation efforts affect readiness for change. Finally, the hypotheses and conceptual model are presented in 2.5.
2.1 Readiness for change
Researchers make a distinction between positive and negative attitudes regarding change. Some scholars focused on employees’ negative attitudes or reactions regarding change in terms of cynicism and resistance (Coch and French, 1948; Stanley at all.,2005; Oreg, 2006) while other focused on employees’ positive attitudes or reactions regarding change in terms of commitment to change, acceptance towards change or readiness for change (Armenakis, Harris & Mossholder, 1993; Eby et all., 2000; Cunnigham et all., 2002). Framing a change project in terms of readiness seems more congruent with the image of proactive managers who play the roles of coaches and champions of change, rather than those whose role is to reactively monitor the workplace for signs of resistance (Armenakis & Harris, 2009). The term readiness is preferred because it fits better with the organizational perspective of ProRail to be proactive and to break through the status quo. Therefore, the term readiness for change is used as outcome variable of this study.
The genesis of readiness lies in Lewin’s (1951) concept of unfreezing or getting organizational members to let go, both physically and psychologically, of the current way of doing things within the organization. Lewin’s work (1951) conceptualized change as involving three general phases: unfreezing, moving and refreezing (see figure 1). The unfreezing phase focuses on activities that break down the status quo and develop a rational why the change is necessary. Moving occurs when individuals engage in the change process. During the refreezing phase employees institutionalize new ways and behaviors into the daily routine and culture of the firm.
FIGURE 1
Several researchers like Schein (1987), Klein (1996), Kotter (1996) and Armenakis et al., (1999), have used and refined Lewin’s three-step model to develop a basic model for practitioners to use as framework for implementing organizational changes. These models reinforce that an effective change is dependent on the way in which change agents manage change. For example, Armenakis et al. (1999) describe the three phases as readiness, adoption and institutionalization. In the first phase, readiness, organizational members become prepared for the change and ideally become its supporters. In the second phase, adoption, the change is implemented and employees adopt the new ways of operating. During institutionalization, the change becomes internalized and is seen as the norm. Readiness is arguably one of the most important factors involved in employees’ initial support for change initiatives.
Readiness to change has been defined and conceptualized in a number of different ways (Holt, Armenakis, Harris, & Feild, 2002). According to Armenakis and colleagues (1993) readiness for change is involved with people’s beliefs, attitudes, and intentions regarding the extent to which changes are needed and their perception of individual and organizational capacity to successfully make those changes. According to Holt (2007) readiness collectively reflects the extent to which an individual or individuals are cognitively, intentionally and emotionally inclined to accept, embrace and adopt a particular plan to purposefully alter the status quo. In this study readiness for change is conceptualized as three-dimensional construct to capture the complexity of readiness for change appropriately. These are cognitive, emotional and intentional readiness for change (Piderit, 2000). Cognitive readiness for change are the beliefs and thoughts people hold about the change, intentional readiness is the extent to which employees are prepared to put their energy into the change process and emotional readiness for change is the affective reaction towards change.
Organizational psychologists agree that change readiness is an important element for successful organizational change (Sokol, 1997; Levesque et al., 1999, 2001; Pellettiere, 2006; By, 2007; By et al., 2008; Mastrangelo et al., 2008). Individual’s change readiness will be related to their actual adoption or acceptance of the change initiatives at hand (Cunningham et al., 2002). In the next sections leadership, communication and participation are elaborated as potential antecedents to change readiness.
2.2 Leadership
leadership and motivate followers to identify with the leader’s vision and sacrifice their self-interest for that of the group or the organization. Transformational leaders are thought to be innovative, focused on change, and on the implementation of new ideas (Bass, 1985). The visioning, empowering, and individual consideration elements of change leadership overlap with those of transformational leadership, while monitoring and providing feedback are typically associated with transactional leadership behaviors alone.
However, some important distinctions can be made between change leadership and transformational/transactional leadership. Whereas change leadership behaviors target at the specific change, transformational and transactional leadership behaviors are general and trans-situational influences to followers’ attitudes behaviors and often have no clear boundaries or timeframes (House and Anita, 1997). For example, whereas transformational leadership theory talks of being able to articulate a compelling future vision for the entire organization, change leadership talks of articulating a vision for the change at hand. The purpose of change leadership is to obtain readiness for change. Its influence is not expected to go beyond the specific change situation. According to Yukl et al., (2002) theories of transformational leadership include some change-oriented behaviors but they are not specific enough to allow for a complete understanding of the specific types of change behaviors for broader organizational change. Moreover, Yukl (2002) stated that a high level confounding exist among the dimensions of transformational leadership that make it difficult to understand which behaviors are the most important in a particular change situation. Liu (2010) concluded that overall change leadership and transformational leadership are empirically independent constructs. Change leadership and transformational leadership were not significantly correlated at the group level. This suggested that transformational leaders are not automatically seen as being good change leaders. Herold et al., (2008) found that good leaders do not have to be transformational in order to positively influence organizationally committed employees. This study is focused on leadership behavior during a specific change. Therefore, the influence of change-specific leadership behavior on employees’ readiness for change is examined.
Higgs and Rowland (2005) studied leadership behaviors within some seventy stories and the impact of these behaviors on change success in differing contexts. Three broad sets of leadership behavior, mindsets and practices are distinguished resulted from their study. These are categorized as shaping, framing change and creating capacity (see table 1).
TABLE 1
Three sets of leadership behavior, mindsets and practices
Shaping
Framing
Creating capacity
• Leader likes to be the ‘mover and the shaker
• Leader works with others to create a vision and direction
• Leader develops people’s skills in implementing change
• Leader sets the pace for others to follow
• Leader helps subordinates to see why things need changing and why there is no going back
• Leader lets subordinates know how they are doing
• Leader expects others to do what they do
• Leader shares overall plan of what has to be done
• Leader coaches subordinates to improve
• Leader is personally expressive and persuasive
• Leader gives people the space to do what is needed to make the change happen, within the scope of business goals
• Leaders works towards getting people to work across boundaries and along key processes
• Leader holds others accountable for delivering tasks, personal control
• Leader seeks to ensure that change is made to how things get done, not just what gets done
• Leaders ensures that organization’s processes and systems support the change Note: sources Higgs and Rowland (2005), Higgs and Rowland (2010)
Gilley, Gilley and McMillan (2009) also examined leadership from a behavioral construct, with the understanding that behaviors are based on traits and skills (Lewin, Lippert & White,1939). They examined six skills sets based on the finding that these skills have positive influence on organizational success rates and have been incorporated into numerous change models (Kotter,1996; Ulrich, 1998; Gilley, 2005). These are:
The ability to coach: Coaching has been defined as a process of improving performance by developing synergistic relationships with employees trough training, counseling, confronting and mentoring (Gilley & Boughton,1996). Hudson (1999) suggest that coaching skills enable leaders to question the status quo, approach situations from new perspectives and allow others to make and learn from mistakes.
Ability to reward: LeBoeuf (1985) suggested that leaders secure desired results through a compensation and reward philosophy that recognizes employees for the right performance. Compensation research indicates that an integrated reward philosophy supports each step of the organization’s change initiative. Recipients of change react positively to rewards for incremental change, celebrations of milestones, and leaders who create win-win situations related to the change (Lussier,2006).
Ability to communicate: Leading change requires the use of a diverse set of communication techniques to deliver appropriate messages, solicit feedback, create a sense of urgency and motivate recipients to act (Gilley, Gilley and McMillian, 2009). In this chapter communication is seen from leadership’s view, which includes abilities and skills to communicate the change initiative effective. In chapter 2.3 there is a focus on the quality of the communication provision about the change initiative.
Ability to motivate: Motivation is the influence or drive that causes us to behave in a specific manner and has been described as consisting of energy, direction and sustainability (Kroth, 2007). A leader’s ability to persuade and influence others to work in a common direction reflects his or her talent to motivate.
Ability to involve and support others: Sims’ research (2002) reveals that employee involvement and support prove critical to successfully implementing change. Successfully driving change requires a facilitative management style ensuring that communication (including coaching, information sharing and appropriate feedback) mechanisms are in place, worker involvement flourishes and social networks (teams and collaboration) are supported (Denning, 2005; Drucker, 1999; Williams, 2001).
assignments, value diverse styles and maintain a sense informality promote effectiveness in teamwork and collaboration (Parker, 1990).
Herold (2008) developed a change leadership behavior construct based on organizational leadership literature, describing what leaders need to do to effectively implement a given change. It is focused on leaders’ effort to sell the change to participants during the ‘‘ unfreeze’’ stage and included actions such as creating a vision of the change; enlisting, empowering and monitoring employee participation in the change; helping with individual adaptation to the change; and providing feedback. However, Liu et al., (2010) criticized the construct because several aspects of change leadership behavior were not included such as fairness (Caldwell et al.,2009) and change support behavior (Caldwell et al., 2004) which have both been found to be critical to effective change implementation. Based on the construct of Herold (2008) and the critics of Liu (2010) change leadership behavior is conceptualized as: The extent in which leaders take effort and are able to create and communicate a change-related vision, promote the change in a fair and supportive manner and inspire participants to contribute to the change.
According to my observation few empirical studies were performed to examine the influence of change-specific leadership on employees’ readiness for change. The core argument of extensive change leadership is that by engaging change-specific behaviors, change leaders are able to engender employees ‘support for the change at hand, which will then lead to successful change implementation (Kotter, 1996; Burke,2002; Herold et al.2008). In other words, by creating and communicating a change-related vision, involving employees in the specific decision-making, helping people deal with the challenges associated with the change, and providing regular feedback on the change process, change leadership is able to reduce change-related uncertainty and create valence of the change among employees. Results of the study of Higgs and Rowland (2005) demonstrated that change leadership behavior is an unique predictor of change readiness. They conclude that senior change oriented leadership behaviors influence individuals’ change readiness positively. A study of Lyons (2010) examined the relationship between change leadership from senior leaders and immediate supervisors and change readiness within the US military organization. Lyons (2010) demonstrated the importance of different leadership behaviors for improving the change readiness. Liu et al., (2010) found that successful change-selling behavior was able to significantly increase employees’ commitment to change. In contrast, Herold et al., (2008) found no support for the predicted positive relationship between change-specific leadership behaviors and commitment to change. Based on these literature findings, it is assumed that change leadership behavior will positive affect readiness for change. The following hypothesis is formulated:
2.3 Communication
Many researchers highlighted the importance of communication during change (Armenakis, 1999, Elving, 2005, Lewis 2006). Understanding how to communicate an intended organizational change is one of the challenges for the new century (Jones et al., 2004), because communication is also mentioned as a main reason for the failure of organizational change (Elving, 2004). There are many definitions for communication. Keyton (2005) defined communication as “a complex and continuous process through which organizational members create, maintain, and change the organization’’. Daft (1997) defined communication as ‘’ the process by which information is exchanged and understood by two or more people, usually with the intent to motivate or influence behavior’’.
Trombetta and Rogers (1988) found that information adequacy or quantity is positively related to work attitudes. In contrast, Zhu, May & Rosenfeld (2004) found that information adequacy is not always positively related to work attitudes and information should be carefully designed and purposefully delivered to employees. Researchers realized that it is perceived quality of information instead of the quantity that directly influenced influences work attitudes (Miller et al., 1994). Therefore quality of communication is investigated in this research. Perceived high quality of information could reduce anxiety and uncertainty of employees about the change, and thereby making the change more acceptable emotionally (Qian, 2007). Cognitively, perceived high quality of information might provide the rationale for change and persuasive messages to encourage cooperation with the change.
In contrast, poor quality of information is likely to enhance the uncertainty of employees and distrust towards the change agents. According to DiFonzo and Bordia (1998), many organizations fail to provide employees with adequate information during change. Employees are often left seeking information through other sources in a quest to resolve the uncertainty they are experiencing during change. The timely and accurate provision of information has been noted as potential alleviator of employees’ resistance to change (Bordia et al.,2004; Oreg, 2006). A major aim of providing information about the change is to keep employees knowledgeable of anticipated events, such as the specific change that will occur, the consequences of the change, and employees‘new work roles (Oreg, 2006). Providing information can ultimately contribute to creating increased openness towards the change (Wanberg & Banas, 2000; Stanley et al., 2005). It is important to identify how employees perceive the quality of acquired information during change and how this is related to employee’s readiness. Therefore, the construct of Oreg (2006) is used to conceptualize quality of communication. Quality of communication is defined as: ‘The extent to which timely, qualitative, useful, appropriate, adequate and favorable information is provided about the specific change that will occur’.
organizational change. In addition, poorly managed change communication may result in widespread rumors (DiFonzo, Bordia & Rosnow, 1994), increased cynicism and resistance to change (Stanley et al., 2005). Wanberg & Banas (2000) found that employees that reported receiving timely, informative and useful information about an organizational change presented a more positive evaluation of the change and increased willingness to cooperate with it. Elving (2004) conclude that readiness for change is predicted by information given by the change and by communication climate. Jimmieson (2008) found that employees who felt that they had received timely and accurate communication about the change process indicated higher levels of intentions to engage in change. In contrast, Oreg et al., (2006) found a significant relationship between the provision of information and resistance to change, however the direction of the relationship was opposite than expected. Less information about the change was associated with less behavioral and cognitive resistance. Qian (2007) found that perceived quality of information predict change-specific cynicism, which leads to intention to resist change. Based on these literature findings between quality of information and readiness for change which are mainly positive, it is assumed that employees are more ready to change when high quality of information is provided about the change. The following hypothesis is formulated:
Hypotheses 2: High quality of communication about the change will positively affect employee’s readiness for change
2.4 Participation
Allowing individuals to participate in the change process is recognized as one of the most popular strategies undertaken to combat resistance (Chirico and Salvato, 2008). Participation has been defined in several ways. Glew (1995) defined participation as ‘’a conscious and intended effort by individuals at a higher level in an organization to provide visible extra role of role-expanding opportunities for individuals or groups at a lower level in the organization to have a greater voice in one or more areas of organizational performance’’. Other researchers developed theoretically distinctions between forms of participation. Dachler and Wilpert (1978) distinguished formal and informal participation, direct and indirect participation and a continuum focusing on how much influence organization members have in making decisions. This continuum consists of the following levels:
• No information is given to employees about a decision • Employees are informed in advance
• Employees can give their opinion about the decision to be made • Employees opinions are taken into account
• Employees can negatively or positively influence veto a decision • The decision is completely in the hands of employees
suggested to lower the level of uncertainty by increasing the employee’s level of knowledge about decisions (Bordia et al., 2004). This study focused on the extent of employee participation in decision-making process. The construct of Lines (2004) is used to conceptualize participation. Participation in decision making is defined as: the extent to which staff members are involved in and consulted about decisions that affect the change initiative directly.
Research exploring the beneficial effects of change participation has a long history in the social sciences (Coch & French, 1948; Lewin, 1951). Coch and French (1948) found that a total participation condition, where management communicated the need for change and conducted group meetings where planning for change occurred, reduced resistance to job transfer as determined by performance levels after change implementation. According to Kurt Lewin’s work (1951), active participation has been seen as an ideal in consulting work within the field of organizational development (OD) consulting (Beckhard 1969; French & Bell, 1995; Marshak, 2005). Armenakis et al., (1999) identify three forms of active participation namely; enactive mastery which includes gradually building skills, knowledge and efficacy through successful involvement and practice; vicarious learning which includes learning and observing from others and participation in decision making. The aspect of self-discovery combined with the confidence organizational leader’s show in the wisdom of their employees through participation, can produce a genuine sense of control and a feeling of partnership and therefore create increased readiness for change.
Eby et al., (2000) found that when employees participate in change activities, they are more likely to have higher readiness levels. This finding is consistent to Armenakis et al.,(1993) who state that participation offers a variety of potential benefits, such as an increased understanding of the circumstances that make change necessary, a sense of ownership and control over the change process, and increased readiness for change. McNabb and Sepic (1995) noted that lack of participation was a major cause of disappointing results with organizational renewal. Employees must believe that their opinions have been heard and given respect and careful consideration (Reichers, Wanous, & Austin, 1997). Furthermore, Weber and Weber (2001) concluded that employee involvement in the organization and in the change effort is related to organizational readiness for change. They found the greater the extent of participation, the more satisfied employees were and the quicker they met new production goals. A study of Vithessonthi (2007) found empirical evidence that participation in making decisions reduces resistance. Utilizing the strategy of employee involvement not only enhances two-way communication within the organization, but sends an implicit message to employees that they are valued and that the organization trusts them enough to be included in the decision-making process. Based on these literature findings, it is assumed that employees who participate in decisions about the change are more ready to change. The following hypothesis is formulated:
2.5 Conceptual model
The objective of this study is to acquire a deeper insight about how employees’ readiness for change can be created. The following research question is formulated:
To what extent do leadership, communication and participation efforts during change affect employees’ readiness for change?
Ten interviews and a literature study support the choice to investigate how change leadership behaviour, quality of communication and participation in decision making during change affect readiness for change under employees of ProRail Projecten. The following hypotheses are formulated:
Hypotheses 1: A high extent of change-specific leadership behavior will positively affect employee’s readiness for change
Hypotheses 2: High quality of communication about the change will positively affect employee’s readiness for change
Hypotheses 3: A high degree of employee’s participation in decisions about the change initiative will positively affect employee’s readiness for change
This leads to the construct of the following conceptual model:
3 Methodology
The methodology section discusses the steps that have been taken during the study. In 3.1 the organizational context of this study is described. Then, in 3.2 the preliminary investigation of this study is explained. Subsequently, the method to collect data is elaborated in 3.3. Finally, in 3.4 is explained which steps have been taken to analyze data and to examine the formulated hypotheses.
3.1 Organizational context
The Dutch railway company ProRail is the organization that is the research object of this study. ProRail is a relatively young organization. A reorganization between Railinfrabeheer, Railned and Railverkeersleiding formed the start in January 2003. ProRail is responsible for the railway network in the Netherlands. The head office of ProRail is established in Utrecht. ProRail has a clear focus on the construction, maintenance, control and security of the railway. The organization has approximately 4000 employees. These employees take care that 1,2 million passengers and 100.000 ton goods reach their desired destination every day. Furthermore, ProRail cooperates with railway operators and governments (especially the Ministry of ‘Verkeer en Waterstaat’) to improve the accessibility in the Netherlands. Many changes have taken place within ProRail such as a physical migration, the implementation of the documentation program EDMS, the implementation of the software program Primavera (Project planning tool) and the implementation of lean six sigma (process efficiency tool). However, employees of ProRail argue that the majority of previous changes are not completely or unsuccessfully implemented. They state that the quality of the developed products are generally of a high standard, however soft factors such as attitude, behaviour and leadership style in the organization are cause of many change failures. The implementation of Kernproces projecten at the department ProRail Projecten is used as case for this study. The implementation of Kernproces projecten has been started around June 2010 and is a change in the area of total quality management. Kernproces projecten has to deliver a clear structure. The implementation of Kernproces projecten has to generate five advantages, namely: making projects more reliable and manageable, create uniformity and a structured approach of working for projects, make working of projects easier and more understandable for employees, acquire an improvement concerning monitoring the project portfolio and create a basic for continuous improvement.
3.2 Preliminary investigation
supports my choice to investigate to what extent leadership, communication and participation affect readiness for change during this study.
3.3 Data collection
Kernproces projecten has been implemented in the business unit ProRail Projecten. The total population of ProRail Projecten consists of 1287 employees. It is the total population for ProRail Projecten. However, this research is focused on staff members of ProRail Projecten who are directly affected by the implementation of Kernproces projecten. Staff members are defined as employees at operational level. The operational population consists of 752 employees. There are many different functions within the operational population. Therefore, a stratified random sample is used to acquire a representative view (Appendix D). In total 253 questionnaires are sent. Three colleagues examined the questionnaire before the distribution to the 253 pre-selected employees. It took approximately ten minutes for respondents to complete and return the in Excel developed questionnaire. An accompanying text (Appendix E) is added to inform respondents about the purpose of this research, how the questionnaire contributes to reach this purpose and how to complete the questionnaire correctly. Respondents have acquired two weeks to return the questionnaire. Two reminders are sent to the respondents to increase the response. After two weeks 155 employees have returned the questionnaire completely. It is 61 percent of the pre-selected employees.
The quantitative method of data gathering is used to test the hypotheses. An advantage of the quantitative method is the extent of reliability, because questionnaires are adapted from tested and proven measurement instruments developed by other researchers. Moreover, within a short period of time many employees can be reached. Finally, change may be a sensitive issue. Answers may be more reliable because respondents are guaranteed to fill in the questionnaires anonymously. A 5- point Likert scale is used ranging from 1 (totally agree) to 5 (totally disagree). The following items are measured:
Readiness for Change: This outcome construct is measured by a 19-item scale. Items are adapted
from Bouckenhooghe (2009) and Szabla (2007) to acquire a complete view of readiness. There is chosen for these questionnaires because they distinguish multiple dimensions of readiness. These are cognitive, intentional and emotional readiness for change. The Cronbach’s alpha’s for the intention-, cognitive-, and emotional readiness for change are respectively 0.89, 0.69 and 0.7 in the paper of Bouckenooghe (2009) and 0.89, 0.85 and 0.94 in the paper of Szabla (2007).
Change leadership: This construct is measured by 10-items scale. Items are adapted from Herold et
Quality of communication: This construct is measured by a 10-item scale. Items are adapted from
Qian (2007) and Bouckenooghe (2009), who both have used the construct of Miller et al., (1994) to examine the quality of communication during change which includes several dimensions of information such as quality, timeliness, usefulness, appropriateness, adequacy and favorableness. The Cronbach Alpha for quality of communication is 0.93 in the paper of Qian (2007) and 0.83 in the paper of Bouckenooghe (2009).
Participation in decision-making: This construct is measured by a 10-items scale. Items are
adapted from Lines (2004) and Bouckenooghe (2009). Lines (2004) asked for participation in distinct activities commonly believed to be parts of the change process such as initial situation assessment, development of solution of change and development for implementation of change (Wooldridge and Floyd, 1990). The Cronbach Alpha is 0.83 in the paper of Lines (2004) and 0.78 in the paper of Bouckenooghe (2009).
Control variables: Age, gender, tenure and function are included as control variables to analyze
whether they affect the hypothesized relationships.
3.4 Data Analysis
underlying dimensions. These are cognitive, intentional and emotional readiness. Based on the factor analysis items 2 and 3 of cognitive readiness are eliminated (see table 2).
TABLE 2
Factor analysis dependent variable readiness for change
Component 1 2 3 cognitive readiness01 ,523 cognitive readiness04 ,909 cognitive readiness05 ,907 intentional readiness06 ,732 intentional readiness07 ,837 intentional readiness08 ,772 intentional readiness09 ,790 intentional readiness10 ,631 intentional readiness11 ,519 intentional readiness12 ,601 emotional readiness13 ,543 emotional readiness14 ,564 emotional readiness15 ,715 emotional readiness16 ,862 emotional readiness17 ,826 emotional readiness18 ,878 emotional readiness19 ,869
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. a. Rotation converged in 4 iterations.
Subsequently, an Exploratory Factor Analysis (table 3) is performed to determine the nature of the constructs of the antecedents change leadership, communication and participation. Based on the results of the factor analysis question 38 of the construct communication and question 48 and 49 of the construct participation are eliminated.
TABLE 3
Factor analysis antecedents change leadership, communication and participation
Component 1 2 3 change leadership20 ,793 change leadership21 ,651 change leadership22 ,606 change leadership23 ,808 change leadership24 ,618 change leadership25 ,763 change leadership26 ,780 change leadership27 ,577 change leadership28 ,573 change leadership29 ,694 communication30 ,568 communication31 ,775 communication32 ,693 communication33 ,770 communication34 ,612 communication35 ,644 communication36 ,699 communication37 ,505 communication39 ,633 participation40 ,685 participation41 ,767 participation42 ,803 participation43 ,624 participation44 ,692 participation45 ,585 participation46 ,691 participation47 ,698
A reliability analysis is performed to determine the Cronbach Alpha’s for each construct. Purpose of the reliability analysis is to increase the homogeneity and internal consistency of the constructs. Based on the reliability analysis question 1 of cognitive readiness for change has been eliminated because the Cronbach Alpha rises from 0.79 to 0.93. Furthermore, the Cronbach Alpha of change leadership rises from 0.92 to 0.93 when items 27 and 28 are eliminated. However, these questions are not eliminated because the construct is already above 0.8. Removal of these items would show a minimal increase. The results of the reliability analysis are presented in table 4. The reliability analyses show that the measurements of the constructs are reliable, because all score above 0.8.
TABLE 4 Reliability analysis
Variable Items Original Cronbach Alpha’s
Readiness for change 16 0,91
- Cognitive readiness for change 2 0.93 - Intentional readiness for change 7 0.87 - Emotional readiness for change 7 0.91 Change Leadership 10 0.93
Communication 9 0.90
Participation 8 0.92
Furthermore, the values of the antecedents change leadership, communication and participation and the dependent variable readiness for change are standardized during multiple regression to make parameters comparable (de Vocht 2010). The advantage of standardized scores is that they result in a score that is directly comparable within and between different groups of cases. In addition, a Z-score is useful in comparing variables with very different observed units of measures (Ritchey, 2000). The control variables remain original.
4 Results
The results section shows the findings of this study. Firstly, the population description is given in 4.1. After that the results of the correlation analysis are shown to determine the correlations between variables. Finally, in paragraph 4.4 the results of the regression analysis are presented to investigate the causal relationships between the dependent variable and its antecedents.
4.1 Population description
Based on the 155 returned questionnaires the general characteristics of the respondent’s population are described by gender, age, tenure and function. The respondents are mostly men. The average age and tenure of the respondent’s population are respectively 41.8 and 10.7 years. A remarkable finding is that almost 50 percent of the respondents are working less than two years for ProRail. On the other hand almost 40 percent are working more than 10 years for ProRail. The functions of the respondents are diverse. There are many different functions within Prorail Projecten at operational level. A description of the respondents is presented in table 5.
TABLE 5 Respondent’s descriptives Percentage Gender: Men woman 70,3 29,7 Age: 16-29 30-44 >45 15,9 44,4 39,7
Tenure (in years)
0-2 3-5 6-10 11-20 >20 47,7 8,5 3,9 20,9 19,0
Functions (ProRail Projecten)
Projectcoordinator Projectmanager Rail system engineer
4.2 Correlation analysis
The next step in the data analysis is to determine the correlations between variables. In table 6 the means, standard deviations, Cronbach Alpha’s and correlations are presented. The mean of emotional readiness scores lower compared with cognitive and intentional readiness for change. It means that employees have cognitively and intentionally a moderate positive and emotionally a more neutral response regarding change readiness. Furthermore, results show that employees have a mainly neutral response regarding the constructs change leadership, quality of communication and participation in decision making.
TABLE 6
Correlation analysis: Means, standard deviations, Cronbach Alpha’s and intercorrelations
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 Cognitive Readiness 3,63 0,92 (0,93) 2 Intentional Readiness 3,56 0,56 ,22** (0,87) 3 Emotional readiness 2,98 0,71 ,26** ,57** (0,91) 4 Change leadership 3,01 0,75 ,28** ,20** ,33** (0,93) 5 Quality of Communication 2,99 0,71 ,37** ,32** ,53** ,62** (0,90) 6 Participation in decision making 2,78 0,66 ,38 ** ,14* ,37** ,61** ,71** (0,91) 7 Gender 1,30 0,46 ,06 ,04 ,03 -,04 -,01 ,00 8 Age 2,24 0,71 -,15* -,17* -,17* ,00 -,01 -,11 -,16* 9 Tenure 2,55 1,67 -,07 -,04 -,01 ,02 -,02 -,07 -,09 ,58** 10 Function 15,26 5,65 ,11 ,17* -,01 ,08 ,07 ,02 -,12 -,22** -,36** note: Cronbach Alpha’s diagonal between brackets
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed).
Based on table 6 all correlations between the antecedents change leadership, quality of communication, participation in decision making and the three dimensions of readiness for change show significant values. A rather strong correlation is found between quality of communication and emotional readiness for change (0.53, p < 0.01). A weaker correlation is found between participation in decision making and intentional readiness for change (0.14, p < 0.05).
Furthermore, there are strong correlations between the antecedents change leadership, quality of communication and participation in decision making (.61 - .71, p < 0.01). The strong correlations between these antecedents may suggest that the relationship between antecedents and readiness for change are mediated or moderated. This is examined in the regression analysis in chapter 4.3.
4.3 Regression Analysis
The next step in the data analysis is the regression analysis. The purpose of the regression analysis is to determine whether a causal relationship exists between the dependent variable readiness for change and their antecedents change leadership, communication and participation. Readiness for change is in this study conceptualized as a three-dimensional construct to capture the complexity of the construct appropriately. The dimensions cognitive, intentional and emotional readiness for change are distinguished. Therefore, regression analysis’s are also performed between the three dimensions of readiness for change and the antecedents change leadership, communication and participation.
First, a single regression analyses is performed to examine whether there is a causal relationship between each antecedent separated and the dependent variable readiness for change controlled by age, gender, tenure and function. The main results of the single regression analysis are shown in table 7. The complete single regression analyses including the R squares are presented in appendix H.
TABLE 7
Single regression analysis
Readiness for change
Cognitive readiness for change
Intentional Readiness for change
Emotional readiness for change
Change leadership .34** .29** .26* .34**
Quality of Communication .49** .35** .29** .51**
Participation in decision making .33** .38** .12 .35**
Note: **p<0.01 * p<0.05
Results of the single regression analysis show a significant causal relationship between each antecedent and readiness for change. Quality of communication is the antecedent which shows a rather strong significant causal relationship with readiness for change (.49, p < 0.01) mainly at the emotional dimension (.51, p < 0.01). In contrast, weaker significant causal relationships are found between change-specific leadership behavior and readiness for change (.34 p < 0.01) and between participation in decision making and readiness for change (.33, p <0.01). Moreover, no significant causal relationship is found between participation in decision making and intentional dimension of readiness for change (.10, p >0.05).
TABLE 8
Multiple Regression analyses
Readiness for change
Cognitive readiness for
change
Intentional readiness for change
Emotional readiness for change Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2
Age -.29** -.24* -.18 -.13 -.22* -.21* -.24* -.19* Gender .07 .04 .09 .08 .09 .06 .03 .00 Tenure .02 .10 .10 .08 .16 .12 .08 .04 Function .07 .05 .13 .13 .17 .15 -.05 -.07 Change leadership .08 .04 .12 .03 Quality of Communication .51** .18 .37** .52**
Participation in decision making -.08 .23 -.22 -.03
R² .07 .31** .05 .20** .06 .16** .04 .29**
∆ R² .04 .27** .02 .16** .03 .11** .01 .25**
* p < .05 ** p < .01
Quality of communication has a rather strong significant positive effect on readiness for change (.51, p < 0.01) and it account for 31 percent of the variance of readiness for change. In this study a trend is found that readiness for change increases when employees at operational level perceive a high quality of communication about the change. Quality of communication shows a significant effect on the intentional dimension (.37, p < 0.01) and emotional dimension (.52, p < 0.01). In contrast, change leadership and participation in decision making have no significant affect on the readiness for change. Furthermore, it is remarkable that the age of employees shows a significant negative effect on readiness for change (-0.24, p < 0.05). In this study a trend is found that readiness for change decreases when an employee becomes older.
In the correlation analysis (table 6) strong intercorrelations are found between the antecedents change -specific leadership behavior, quality of communication and participation in decision making. It suggests that relationships between antecedents and the dependent variable readiness for change may be mediated by another antecedent. However, in which direction antecedents affect each other and what it means for the relationship between the antecedents and readiness for change is unclear. Therefore, the next step is to analyze whether there are mediation effects.
TABLE 9 Mediation analysis
Change leadership (X), readiness for change (Y) and quality of communication (Z)
Baron & Kenny Independent variable Dependent variable B
Step 1 Change leadership (X) Quality of communication (M) .62** Step 2 Change leadership (X) Readiness for change (Y) .34** Step 3 Change leadership (X)
Quality of communication (M)
Readiness for change (Y) .05 .47** Note: X= independent variable, Y= dependent variable and Z= mediator
** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05
Results of the mediation analysis (table 9) show that change leadership affects readiness for change significantly (.34, p < 0.01). However, change leadership has no significant effect on readiness for change when the mediator quality of communication is controlled (.05, p > 0.05). Therefore, the relationship between change leadership and readiness for change is perfectly mediated by the quality of communication which is presented in figure 3.
Figure 3
Relationship change leadership and readiness for change perfect mediated by quality of communication
Change leadership Quality of Communication Readiness for change .62,p < 0.01 .47, p < 0.01
Participation in decision making may contribute to the employees understanding and acceptance why leaders start a change initiative. It may result in employees who are more ready to change. Moreover, the distance between leaders and followers may be diminished when employees are actively involved during the change initiative (Bouma & Emans, 2005). Therefore, participation may affect the relationship between change leadership and readiness for change. It is examined whether the relationship between change leadership and readiness for change is mediated by participation in decision making. The results are presented in table 10.
TABLE 10 Mediation analysis
Change leadership (X), readiness for change (Y) and participation in decision making (Z)
Baron & Kenny Independent variable Dependent variable B
Step 1 Change leadership (X) Participation in decision making (M)
.63** Step 2 Change leadership (X) Readiness for change (Y) .34** Step 3 Change leadership (X)
Participation in decision making (M)
Readiness for change (Y) .22* .20* Note: X= independent variable, Y= dependent variable and Z= mediator
Results of the mediation analysis (table 10) show that change leadership affects readiness for change significantly (.34, p < 0.01). Change leadership still has a significant effect on readiness for change when mediated by participation in decision making, however the effect is less strong (0.22, p < 0.05). Therefore, the relationship between change leadership and readiness for change is partial mediated by participation in decision making which is presented in figure 4.
FIGURE 4
Relationship change leadership and readiness for change partial mediated by participation
Change leadership Participation in decision making Readiness for change .34, p < 0.01 .63, p <0.01 .20, p < 0.05
TABLE 11 Mediation analysis
Participation in decision making (X), readiness for change (Y) and change leadership (Z)
Baron & Kenny Independent variable Dependent variable B
Step 1 Participation in decision making (X) Change leadership (M) .59** Step 2 Participation in decision making (X) Readiness for change (Y) .33** Step 3 Participation in decision making (X)
Change leadership (M)
Readiness for change (Y) .20* .22* Note: X= independent variable, Y= dependent variable and Z= mediator
** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05
Results of the mediation analysis (table 11) show that participation in decision making affects readiness for change significantly (.33, p < 0.01). Participation still has a significant effect on readiness for change when mediated by change leadership, however the effect is less strong (.20, p < 0.05). Therefore the relationship between participation and readiness for change is partial mediated by change leadership which is presented in figure 5.
FIGURE 5
Relationship participation in decision making and readiness for change partial mediated by change leadership
Change leadership Readiness for change .59, p <0.01 .22, p < 0.05 Participation in decision making .20, p < 0.05
TABLE 12 Mediation analysis
Participation in decision making (X), readiness for change (Y) and quality of communication (Z)
Baron & Kenny Independent variable Dependent variable B
Step 1 Participation in decision making (X) Quality of communication (M) .70** Step 2 Participation in decision making (X) Readiness for change (Y) .33** Step 3 Participation in decision making (X)
Quality of communication (M)
Readiness for change (Y) -.05 .54** Note: X= independent variable, Y= dependent variable and Z= mediator
** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05
Results of the mediation analysis (table 12) show that participation in decision making effects readiness for change significantly (.33, p < 0.01), however participation in decision making has no significant effect with readiness for change when the quality of communication is mediated (-.05, p > 0.05). Therefore the relationship between participation in decision making and readiness for change is perfect mediated by the quality of communication which is presented in figure 6.
FIGURE 6
Relationship participation in decision making and readiness for change perfect mediated by quality of communication
Qualtiy of communication Readiness for change Participation in decision making .70, p < 0.01 .54, p < 0.01 4.4 Hypotheses
The hypotheses formulated in chapter 2.5 are examined by means of a single regression analysis, multiple regression analysis and mediation analysis. In this paragraph the main findings are summarized.
4.4.1 The influence of change leadership behavior
4.4.2 The influence of quality of communication
Hypothesis 2 states that high quality of communication positively affects employees’ readiness for change. Results of the single analysis (table 7) show that quality of communication alone has a rather strong significant positive effect (.49, p < 0.01) and account for 30 percent of the variance of readiness for change. The multiple regression analysis (table 14) still shows a rather strong significant positive effect with readiness for change (.51, p > 0.01) and account for 31 percent of the variance of readiness for change. Based on these results hypotheses 2 is supported.
4.4.3 The influence of participation in decision making
Hypothesis 3 states that a high degree of employee participation in decision making positively effects employees’ readiness for change. Results of the single regression analysis (table 7) show that employees’ participation in decision making about the change initiative alone has a significant positive effect (.33, p < 0.01) and account for 30 percent of the variance of readiness for change. However, multiple regression analysis (table 14) shows that participation in decision making has an insignificant negative effect with readiness for change (-.08, p > 0.05). Mediation results show that the relationship between participation in decision making and readiness for change is perfectly mediated by the quality of communication. It means that participation in decision making has a rather strong effect with quality of communication (.70, p < 0.01) and quality of communication has a rather strong positive effect with readiness for change. Based on these results hypotheses 3 is rejected. However, participation in decision making has a strong indirect influence with readiness for change.
5 Discussion
The study is designed to obtain a deeper understanding of the influence of change leadership behaviour, quality of change communication and participation in change-related decision making on employees’ readiness for change. The first important finding is that high quality of communication about the change positively affects employees’ readiness for change. When employees perceive that timely, useful, accurate, appropriate, adequate and favourable information is provided about the change, they are more ready to change. An explanation may be that providing qualitative information about the change can help to reduce uncertainty and anxiety with regard to the change, which ultimately contributes to create increased readiness for change (Stanley et al., 2005). Many previous studies (Miller et al, 1994, Wanberg & Banas, 2000; Oreg, 2006; van Dam et al. 2007) found a relationship between the provision of information and reactions to the change. Van Dam et al. (2007) demonstrated that employees who received timely and accurate information about the change subsequently reported less resistance to change.
Furthermore, the positive influence of quality of communication with readiness for change found in this study supports the assumption that it is not the quantity but the quality of communication which affects attitudes regarding change. Oreg (2006) states that not enough information, as well too much information, may be unfavourable and thus can decrease employee’s readiness. Therefore, moderate amounts of quality information about the change could be optimal to create readiness when introducing change. In this study quality of communication about the change has the strongest effect on the emotional dimension of readiness for change. An explanation can be that information about change can take away cynical feelings, caused by a negative change history. Qian (2007) states that perceived high quality of information could reduce employee uncertainty about the change and thereby making the change more acceptable emotionally. A study conducted by Rafferty (2010) supports this view, he found that an employee’s perception that he or she had a poor change history was negatively associated with affective commitment to change. In addition, Rafferty (2010) found that high quality of change information is positively related to affective commitment to change.
management communication about objective and consequences of organizational change. Loup and Koller (2005) argue that change leaders must execute basic communication tasks such as educating, informing and persuading with regard to the change initiative to overcome resistance to change. They state that communication efforts are focused on creating positive perceptions of the change initiative. The change leadership construct is mainly focused on the ability to communicate, the ability to motivate and the ability to involve others. However, a deeper insight about which leadership abilities and skills are effective to create readiness for change during change is desirable. Gilley (2009) demonstrated that leaders change effectiveness is predicted by talent in motivating others and the ability to communicate effectively and involve others. However, Gilley (2009) also found that other leader’s skills, such as the ability to coach, lead to change effectiveness. Arrata, Despierre & Kumra (2007) argue that interpersonal skills are critical to lead others successful through change. They state that strong communication skills and empathy are important traits for potential change agents.
Moreover, it may be interesting to acquire a deeper insight to what extent leaders can train or improve these abilities and skills. According to Barling, Weber & Kelloway (1996) at least some of the traits of transformational leadership behavior, which correspondents with change leadership behavior, are possible to learn through a leadership development program. For example, the work of Awamleh and Gardner (1999) illustrates that by training idealized influence, leaders are able to improve their ability to articulate a vision and to become more effective role models. Future research should examine more deeply which leadership skills and abilities increase employees’ readiness for change.
Besides that, change leadership behavior targets a specific change. The construct is based on the perspective that a change is episodic. Many researchers have argued that organizational changes are discrete events with clear start and end points. For example Lewin (1951), Kotter (1996) and Higgs and Rowland (2003) developed step by step change models which should be a guideline to use during a specific planned change. However, other researchers such as Weick and Quinn (1999) claim that employees may develop a perception of ‘’ a flow of change’’ that is more continuous and cumulative in nature. Therefore, it is debatable whether change leadership behavior must focus on a particular change or more on continuous change efforts.
might enhance the effectiveness of change. Armenakis and Harris (2002) state that “self-discovered” information is more influential than information obtained indirectly from others, and it gives individuals a sense of partnership (Armenakis & Harris, 2001). Through active participation, individuals gain first-hand information about the change. Qian (2007) demonstrated that participation in decision making leads to an enhanced understanding of the reasons for change and change decisions which facilitates change acceptance.
Fourth, results of this study show that the age of employees has a significant negative effect on readiness for change. It means that when employees become older, they are less ready to change. An explanation can be given by Super’s (1980) life stage theory supports, in which is suggested that older employees may be more in a maintenance stage of their career and be focused on stability and job security, as opposed to younger employees, who are more in a growth and exploration stage and hence have a longer focus and are more flexible to changes in their work environment. In contrast, a study of Kunze (2009) demonstrates a negative linkage between age and individual resistance to change, implying that younger employees resist more to change than their older colleagues.
Finally, all dimensions of readiness for change are significantly correlated with each other. Although research has demonstrated that cognition, intention and emotion are distinct dimensions of readiness for change (Szabla, 2007), theory and research also argue for strong interrelationships among these three processes. Many appraisal theorists claim that thinking (reason) and feeling (passion) are inextricably interrelated (Ellworth & Scherer, 2003).
5.1 Implications for managers
approaches should be used to reach the employees effectively. Secondly, knowledge about which leader’s abilities and skills are appropriate to create readiness for change can help leaders at all levels to lead change efforts more effectively. This study found that change leadership behavior, which is mainly focused on the ability to communicate, ability to motivate and the ability to involve employees, has an indirect positive effect on employee’s readiness to change. The result suggests that companies should invest in leadership training on these abilities to increase successful change efforts. Finally, a representative selection of staff members, which are directly affected by the change initiative, need to be actively engaged from the beginning of the change process. Through active employee participation, communication barriers may be removed which based on this research has a positive impact on the quality of information and indirectly on employees readiness for change.
5.2 Limitations and future research
Several limitations of this study must be noted. First, this study is focused on the influence of process factors on readiness for change. Context factors such as organizational culture and change history are due to time limitations for this study not included. However, these factors may also affect employees’ readiness to change. Second, this study is based on an organizational change in the area of total quality management which might have another impact on employees compared with organizational changes such as mergers or downsizing. Third, there are concerns about the approach used to test mediation. Various scholars have recently identified shortcomings in the usual approach suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986) to test for mediation (MacKinnon et al., 2002; Cole et al., 2008), particularly, regarding its causal interpretation (Stone-Romero and Rosopa, 2008). Fourth, employees perceptions regarding the quality of communication, change leadership behavior, participation in decision making and its effect on employee’s readiness for change is taken at one single point in time. Pre-and post change collection of data may allow more causal conclusions about how antecedents affect readiness for change. Future research should be conducted in which longitudinal methods are utilized to ascertain the influence of quality of communication, change leadership behavior and participation in decision making on readiness for change over time.
5.3 Conclusion
References
Adedokun, M.O., Adeyemo. C.W. & Olorunsola. E.O. 2010. The impact of communication on community development. Journal of communication, 1(2): 101-105
Alamgir M, 1989. Participatory Development: The IFAD Experience. In: WP Lineberry (Ed.): Assessing
Participatory Development: Rhetoric versus Reality. Boulder: West View Press, 115-125.
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S.G. & Mossholder, K. W.1993. Creating readiness for change. Human Relations, 46: 681–703.
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S.G., & Feild, H. 1999. Paradigms in organizational change: Change agent and change target perspectives. In R. Golembiewski (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Behavior. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Armenakis, A. A., & Bedeian, A.G. 1999. Organizational change: A review of theory and research in the 1990’s.
Journal of Management, 25: 293-315.
Armenakis, A.A., & Harris, S.G. 2002. Crafting a change message to create transformational readiness. Journal
of Organizational Change Management, 15(2): 169-183.
Armenakis, A.A., & Harris S.G. 2009. Reflections: Our journey in organizational change research and practice.
Journal of Change Management, 2: 127-142
Arrata, P., Despierre, A. & Kumra, G. 2007. Building an effective change agent team. Mc Kinsey Quarterly, 4: 1-4
Awamleh, R., & Gardner, W. L. 1999. Perceptions of leader charisma and effectiveness: the effects of vision content, delivery, and organizational performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(3): 345–373.
Balogun, J. and Johnson, G. 2004. “Organizational restructuring and middle manager sensemaking”, Academy
of Management Journal, 47 (4): 523-49.
Barling. J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. 1996. Effects of transformational leadership training on attitudinal and financial outcomes: a field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6): 827–832.
Baron R.M. & Kenny D.A. 1986. The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6): 1173-1182.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond Expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. 1990. The implications of transactional and transformational leadership for individual, team, and organizational development. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 4: 231-272. Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. J., & Berson, Y. 2003. Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 207-218.
Bommer, W. H., Rubin, R. S., & Baldwin, T. T. 2004. Setting the stage for effective leadership: Antecedents of transformational leadership behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 15: 195–210.
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.
Bordia, P., Hunt. E., Paulsen, N., Tourish, D. & DiFonzo, N. 2004, “Uncertainty during organizational change: is it all about control?”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13 (3): 345-365.
Bouckenooghe, H., Devos. G & van den Broeck, H. 2009. Organizational Change Questionnaire–Climate of Change, Processes, and Readiness: Development of a New Instrument. The Journal of Psychology, 143(6): 559–599
Bouma J.T.& Emans B.J.M. 2005. Participative change management: a case study of the implementation of Customer Relationship Management, Gedrag & Organisatie 18(2): 122-138.
