EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN READINESS FOR CHANGE & RESISTANCE AND THEIR DETERMINANTS

(1)

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

READINESS FOR CHANGE & RESISTANCE AND THEIR

DETERMINANTS

Master thesis, MscBA, specialization Change Management

University of Groningen, Faculty of Management and Organization

July 9, 2010

ELINE DE WAGT

Student number: 1738062

Oosterbadstraat 15

9726 CJ Groningen

Phone: +31 (0)653188461

Email: elinedewagt@hotmail.com

Supervisor/university Dr. C. Reezigt Co-supervisor/university Dr. J.F.J. Vos

(2)

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

READINESS FOR CHANGE & RESISTANCE AND THEIR

DETERMINANTS

ABSTRACT

An important determinant of successful change is that people are ready for change (Smith, 2005). This research therefore examines the change readiness at “NDC|VBK de uitgevers”. Furthermore, the influence of the independent variables; self efficacy, principal support, personal valence & appropriateness on change readiness and resistance is examined. Some researchers (Metselaar, 1997; Armenakis & Harris, 2002) argue that readiness for change and resistance are opposites, but there are different opinions concerning this link. This research also investigates if change readiness and resistance are indeed opposites. The research data are, by means of a survey, collected by “NDC|VBK de uitgevers”, a firm of publishers in the Netherlands. The results show a causal relationship between every independent variable and change readiness. In addition, this research provides statistical evidence that shows that readiness and resistance are far from opposites.

Key words: change readiness; resistance; self efficacy; principal support; personal valence; appropriateness

(3)

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Management problem

This research is primarily carried out in the interest of “NDC mediagroep”, as well as for “NDC|VBK de uitgevers” of which “NDC mediagroep” is a part. “NDC mediagroep” is a firm of publishers in the provinces Groningen, Friesland, Drenthe and Flevoland. “NDC mediagroep” publishes, amongst other things, the two newspapers “Dagblad van het Noorden” and the “Leeuwarder Courant”. In the current economy the newspaper market is under pressure. The circulations of the newspapers are decreasing and the advertisement volume is not as high as expected. This is not a temporary development but a structural problem. Due to this problem the output of “NDC mediagroep” diminishes and the continuity of the venture is threatened. The paid newspapers also wrestle with function loss owing to the free news available on the internet. Adjustments are necessary to structurally reduce costs and to remain a healthy venture. Major changes have already been made. Since February 2010 both newspapers are printed in Leeuwarden and some of the personnel (+/- 200 fte/ 20%) had to leave the “NDC mediagroep”. Before, “Dagblad van het Noorden” was printed in Groningen and “Leeuwarder Courant” in Leeuwarden. A consequence of the changes is that both locations, Groningen and Leeuwarden, are over spaced.

1.1.2 Proposed change

Due to the empty spaces in both Leeuwarden and Groningen the accommodation on the Lubeckweg in Groningen is, early April 2010, sold to Geo Thermie. Approximately 350 employees are active in Groningen in April 2010. The first floor and a part of the ground floor (4000m2) have been leased back from the new owner, Geo Thermie. So, 273 employees can stay in Groningen. For 77 employees the work location will change, they have to move to Leeuwarden. This concerns mainly employees from departments that are not tied to the region (Holding activities). This change can have a big impact on the personal lives of the employees. For some the travel time will increase enormously. When the new travel time (single trip) exceeds 1,5 hour, employees can become supernumerary (Sociaal Plan NDC, 2009- 2010). This is probably not the case; all employees live within a radius of 1,5 hour.

1.3 Research objectives & questions

(6)

change of “NDC|VBK de uitgevers” and to give advice how “NDC|VBK de uitgevers” can potentially optimize the readiness for the change. Subsequently, when creating readiness among the employees is properly done, the employees will be more willingly to support and ultimately adopt the proposed change (Self & Schraeder, 2009). Then the theoretical

objective, this research will explore if readiness and resistance are really two opposites, like

the following authors put it forward. Armenakis & Harris (2002) state that a change message shapes an individual’s motivation either in a positive way (readiness and support) or in a negative way (resistance). In addition, Armenakis, Bernerth, Pitts & Walker (2007) claim that “in any organizational transformation, change recipients make sense of what they hear, see and experience. Change recipients formulate precursors (e.g., cognitions, emotions and intentions), which become part of their decision making process that result in resistance or supportive behaviors” (Armenakis et al. 2007, p.482). The two objectives of this research lead to the following research questions:

1. To what extent are the employees of “NDC|VBK de uitgevers” ready for the proposed change?

2. How do self efficacy, principal support, discrepancy, personal valence and appropriateness influence change readiness and resistance?

(7)

THEORY AND CONCEPTUAL MODEL

2.1 Change

Metselaar (1997) defines organizational change as “the planned modification of an organization’s structure or work and administrative processes, initiated by the organization’s top management, and which is aimed at improving the organization’s functioning” (Metselaar, 1997, p. 5). Organizational change is one of the most important issues that organizations face in a fast moving and unpredictable world (Burnes, 2004). While the importance of organizational change increases, one should not underestimate the difficulty of accomplishing successful change. Beer and Nohria (2000) state that about 70% of all change initiatives fail. Kurt Lewin, founder of the planned approach to change, has contributed to the understanding of individual and group behaviour. He states that a successful change project should involve three steps: unfreezing, moving and refreezing (Burnes, 2004). So, one should destabilize the quasi-stationary equilibrium that persists of driving and restraining forces implement the change and finally institutionalize the change. In addition, research on planned change and diffusion theories show that an important condition for success is the full acceptance of change by the members of an organization (Metselaar, 1997). A worker’s response to a change varies in intensity and can either have a positive or negative effect on the change process.

2.2 Change readiness – willingness

(8)

2.3 Resistance

In organization development literature resistance and change readiness are treated as separate, unrelated phenomena (Coetsee, 1999). However, some researchers (Coetsee, 1999; Metselaar, 1997; Armenakis & Harris, 2002) argue that both phenomena are closely linked. Metselaar (1997) defines resistance as “a negative behavioural intention towards the implementation of modifications in organization’s structure, or work and administrative processes, resulting in efforts from the organization member’s side to hinder or impede the change process” (Metselaar, 1997, p 34). So, resistance “a negative behavioural intention” is according this definition the exact opposite of willingness to change “a positive behavioural intention”. Also Armenakis & Harris (2002) present resistance as the opposite of readiness. They state that a change message shapes an individual’s motivation either in a positive way (readiness and support) or in a negative way (resistance). Resistance can lead to adverse consequences like high turnover of staff and reduced organizational commitment (Metselaar, 2007). However, it is important to note that Armenakis, Harris & Mossholder (1993) are not always consistent about the relationship between change readiness and resistance. They state for example that readiness for change may act to preempt the likelihood of resistance to change. So, here readiness is presented as an attitude instead of a behavior. But in general, they present change readiness as the opposite of resistance. This leads to the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Change readiness is the exact opposite of resistance to change

2.4 Model of Armenakis

Armenakis & Harris (2002) state that a change message and its communication can provide a framework for creating readiness and the motivation to adopt and institutionalize a change. According to Armenakis & Harris (2002) a change message must address five domains. First

self-efficacy, this component refers to the confidence of members that they have the ability to

(9)

Figure 1. Model of Armenakis

Figure 1: Model of Armenakis

2.5 DINAMO- Model of Metselaar

DINAMO: Diagnostics Inventory for the Assessment of the willingness to change among Management in Organizations. This model is based on the model planned behaviour of Ajzen (in Metselaar, 1997), see figure 2.

Figure 2: DINAMO model of Metselaar based on the model of planned behaviour of Ajzen

(10)

The willingness to change depends according to this model on three motivational factors. First

attitude, this is based on cognitive and affective responses of a person. The reaction of a

person depends on how he or she judges the situation and what the expected consequences of the change are for the person him- or herself and the organization. The reaction also depends on whether people consider the change as a challenge or as a threat. Secondly the subjective

norm, this is about the thoughts of people in the direct environment of a person towards a

change. This dimension is about pressure of a group and it concerns the need for change. Finally perceived behavioural control, this dimension refers to the capacity of a person to change. Self control factors (knowledge & experience) and external control factors (information & uncertainty) influence this dimension as well as the complexity and timing of the change.

2.6 Similarities between the models

Figure 3: The models combined

2.6.1 Self efficacy

Self efficacy may be viewed as the perceived capability to overcome the discrepancy, the difference between the current and desired end state (Armenakis et al., 1993). “Individuals will only be motivated to attempt a change to the extent that they have the confidence that they can succeed” (Armenakis et al, 2002 p.170). In addition, Metselaar (1997) uses the term

self control factors this term is related to the concept of self efficacy. He states that the

Readiness for /Willingness

to change

Personal valence

(11)

knowledge, experience and skills (self control factors) that a person possesses to deal with a proposed change, influence the willingness to change. Furthermore, the complexity of the

change is linked to the concepts of self efficacy and willingness to change. Complex changes

draw more heavily on skills than simple changes do; consequently the perceived complexity is negatively related to willingness to change (Metselaar, 1997). So, several writers emphasize the importance of self efficacy and state that the higher the self efficacy, the more likely it is that employees feel ready for change.

Hypothesis 2a: A higher level of perceived self efficacy will lead to higher levels of readiness

Hypothesis 2b: A higher level of perceived self efficacy will lead to lower levels of resistance

2.6.2 Principal support

Kotter & Schlesinger (2008) state that to overcome resistance for change managers have to be supportive. Also Armenakis & Harris (2002) stress the importance of principal support, without a clear demonstration of support through the principal, employees will become sceptical an unwilling to actively support the change. In the planned behaviour model of Ajzen (in Metselaar, 1997) the process of social influence/principal support is captured by the

subjective norm. The subjective norm is defined as “the likelihood that important referent

individuals or groups approve or disapprove of performing a given behaviour” (Metselaar, 1997, p.47). Applying this to a change scenario; if important referent individuals or groups approve a proposed change, this will positively influence an individual’s readiness for change. So, principal support will probably positively influence the readiness for change.

Hypothesis 3a: A higher level of perceived principal support will lead to higher levels of readiness

Hypothesis 3b: A higher level of perceived principal support will lead to lower levels of resistance

2.6.3 Discrepancy

(12)

importance of “felt- need” by changes. ““Felt-need” is an individual’s inner realization that change is necessary” (Burnes, 2004 p. 983-984). In addition Smith (2005) claims that there is a connection between creating a sense of need and change readiness. He states that creating a sense of need is a key step to accomplish change readiness. Also the models of Armenakis and Metselaar (see figure 1 & 2) underpin this connection.

Hypothesis 4a: A higher inner realization of need for change will lead to higher levels of readiness

Hypothesis 4b: A higher inner realization of need for change will lead to lower levels of resistance

2.6.4 Personal valence

“Vroom (1964) defined this concept as all possible affective orientations toward outcomes, and it is interpreted as the importance, attractiveness, desirability, or anticipated satisfaction with outcomes” (Van Eerde & Thierry, 1996 p. 576). So, it is about positive as well as negative affective orientations. According to Self (2007) individuals rarely reject change that has obvious personal benefits. He also states that people who are faced with a proposed change evaluate the nature of change and the possible impact. Consequently people adopt or resist the change. The models of Armenakis and Metselaar (see figure 1 & 2) both connect personal valence to readiness for change. Metselaar (1997) assumes that when people expect that the proposed change has positive work related outcomes (positive personal valence) this will positively influence the willingness to change. In addition, when employees hold a positive affective orientation (feelings of excitement) towards a proposed change, the willingness to change will increase (Metselaar, 1997). So, as people view the impact more positive the readiness for change will increase.

Hypothesis 5a: The more positive the personal valence the higher the level of readiness

Hypothesis 5b: The more positive the personal valence the lower the level of resistance

2.7 Appropriateness

(13)

important to convince people that the proposed change is appropriate. When people feel that the proposed change is appropriate the readiness for change will increase.

Hypothesis 6a: The more people view the proposed change as appropriate the higher the level of readiness

Hypothesis 6b: The more people view the proposed change as appropriate the lower the level of resistance

2.8 Conceptual model

In this research the model of Armenakis will be used to measure change readiness. The model of Armenakis is chosen for several reasons; in the first place the model of Armenakis is an extensive model and in the second place this model is in contrast to the DINAMO model of Metselaar, internationally known. Finally Holt et al. (2007) recently developed a scale to measure change readiness, the accompanying questionnaire is widely accepted and valid. Figure 4 shows the conceptual model of this research.

Figure 4: Conceptual model

(14)

METHOD

3.1 Choice of methodology

To determine the readiness for the proposed change at “NDC|VBK de uitgevers” the model of Armenakis is used. This model measures change readiness at the individual level. The scale, to measure change readiness, developed by Holt et al. (2007) does not directly measure the dependent variable readiness for change, it only measures the independent variables. An exception is the independent variable “need for change”. Research by Holt et al. (2007) indicates that people tend to view the ideas of need for change and appropriateness as a unitary construct. The questions that measure the need for change are therefore included in the concept of appropriateness. By measuring the independent variables, Holt et al (2007) determine the readiness for change. In this research, questions are added to the questionnaire of Holt et al. (2007) to directly measure the dependent variables; readiness for change and resistance. Four items of Metselaar (1997) are used to measure readiness for change and six items of Giangreco (2002) are added to measure resistance.

3.2 Data collection

A survey, consisting of questions with a 7-point Likert-scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree, was conducted two weeks prior to the implementation of the proposed change. The questionnaire developed by Holt et al. (2007) and the additional items of Metselaar (1997) and Giangreco (2002) were all translated into Dutch. The program “Qualtrics Survey Software” was used to produce and distribute the questionnaire. Before the questionnaire was distributed several people tested the questionnaire on duration, formulation and understandability. Afterwards a few adjustments were made in the formulation of the questions. The questionnaire (see appendix 1) was first sent to all the managers, because employees often turn to their managers with questions. Managers were now given the opportunity to fill in the questionnaire first to be able to answer any possible questions. They were also asked to encourage their employees to fill in the survey. To prevent socially accepted answers anonymity was guaranteed. In the survey invitation-email it was clearly stated that taking part in the research was entirely anonymous. Six days after the questionnaire was first distributed, employees received a reminder. The average time to complete the questionnaire was approximately 10 minutes.

3.2.1 Sample size

(15)

employees received a digital invitation to fill in the survey. In total 47 employees (a response rate of 61%) completed the questionnaire. Table 1 shows the gender and the age category of the respondents. The non-response group counts 13 women and 17 men, the age category of the non-response is unknown. A comparison between the gender of all 77 employees (40,3% women, 59,7% men) and the gender of the respondents (38,3% women, 61,7% men) shows that the response is representative for the whole group.

Man Women Total

21 – 35 year 2 2 4

36 – 45 year 13 8 21

46 – 55 year 11 7 18

56 – 65 year 3 1 4

Total 29 (61,7%) 18 (38,3%) 47 Table 1: Gender and age category of respondents

3.3 Data analysis

To investigate if there is enough statistical evidence to support the before mentioned hypotheses the statistical program SPSS version 16 is used. An alpha level of 0,05 is used to test the hypotheses. The collected data have no missing values; it was not possible to finish the questionnaire before all questions were answered.

3.3.1 Validity and reliability

(16)

Total Variance % Cronbach’s Alpha

Self efficacy 58,155* 0,835

Principal support 64,817 0,726

Personal valence 63,742 0,707

Appropriateness 56,738* 0,840

Readiness for change 65,571 0,809

Resistance based on action 83,318 0,893

Resistance based on attitude 57,562** 0,625

Table 2: Outcomes of factor and reliability analyses

* The total variance is a bit too low; however the cronbach´s alpha and the scree plot are good, so the indicators are still combined.

** The total variance and the cronbach’s alpha are a bit too low; however the scree plot is good, so the indicators are still combined.

3.3.2 Extreme values

The extreme values of each concept are examined through a box plot (see appendix 3). Extreme values can make an incorrect drawing of the results. Self efficacy, support and appropriateness have a few outliers, but no extreme values. The other concepts have no outliers and no extreme values. So, there are no extreme values that can make an incorrect drawing of the results.

3.3.3 Normal distribution

The Kolmogorov – Smirnov test (see table 3) and the q-q plot are used to compare the distribution of the collected data with a normal distribution. The null hypothesis of the

Kolmogorov – Smirnov test claims that a concept is normal distributed. The values in table 3

show that there is no reason to reject the null hypothesis (all values > 0,05). In addition all the

q-q plots show that the concepts are approximately normal distributed.

P-value

Self efficacy 0,243

Principal support 0,598

Personal valence 0,453

Appropriateness 0,454

Readiness for change 0,338 Resistance based on action 0,391 Resistance based on attitude 0,518

(17)

The q-q plots and the extensive tables of the Kolmogorov – Smirnov test are included in appendix 4.

3.4 Consequences for the research

As already mentioned in paragraph 3.1 the questions that measure the need for change are included in the concept of appropriateness. Due to this fact, there is no concept for need for change anymore, so it is not possible to test hypothesis 4a and b. Therefore these hypotheses are removed.

As a result of the factor analysis the concept resistance is subdivided into two concepts; resistance based on action and resistance based on attitude. This distinction should also be made in the hypotheses. The revised hypotheses are as follows:

Hypothesis 1a: Change readiness is the exact opposite of resistance based on action Hypothesis 1b: Change readiness is the exact opposite of resistance based on attitude

Hypothesis 2b: A higher level of perceived self efficacy will lead to lower levels of resistance based on action

Hypothesis 2c: A higher level of perceived self efficacy will lead to lower levels of resistance based on attitude

Hypothesis 3b: A higher level of perceived principal support will lead to lower levels of resistance based on action

Hypothesis 3c: A higher level of perceived principal support will lead to lower levels of resistance based on attitude

Hypothesis 5b: The more positive the personal valence the lower the level of resistance based on action

Hypothesis 5c: The more positive the personal valence the lower the level of resistance based on attitude

Hypothesis 6b: The more people view the proposed change as appropriate the lower the level of resistance based on action

(18)

RESULTS

4.1 Change readiness at “NDC|VBK de uitgevers”

Descriptive statistics (see graph 1) show that 74,5% of the respondents at “NDC|VBK de uitgevers” answered (moderate) positive on the change readiness questions, 19,1 % answered neutral and 6,4% (moderate) negative. So, the majority of the employees, that completed the questionnaire, tend to be ready for the proposed change.

Graph 1: Percentages of readiness answers

The questions had a 7-point Likert-scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. Table 4 shows the mean scores and the standard deviation for each concept. Self efficacy and personal valence score moderate positive, principal support neutral and appropriateness slightly negative.

Mean Standard deviation Self efficacy 5,29 1,14

Principal support 4,43 1,09

Personal valence 5,03 1,29

Appropriateness 3,90 1,26

Table 4: Mean and standard deviation of independent variables

4.2 Empirical research 4.2.1 Correlation

(19)

Correlation coefficient

P-value

Self efficacy – Readiness 0,274 0,031

Principal support – Readiness 0,321 0,014

Personal valence – Readiness 0,199 0,090*

Appropriateness – Readiness 0,480 0,000

Self efficacy – Resistance based on action -0,221 0,068**

Appropriateness – Resistance based on action -0,248 0,047

Self efficacy – Resistance based on attitude -0,250 0,045

Readiness – Resistance based on action -0,309 0,017

Table 5: Significant correlations

*Correlation is significant when the alpha level > 0,09 (1-tailed) ** Correlation is significant when the alpha level > 0,068 (1-tailed)

4.2.2 Simple regression

The simple regression test is used to examine if there is a causal relationship between an independent and a dependent variable. The green arrows between the concepts in figure 5 indicate significant causal relationships; the red arrows indicate the insignificant relationships. Table 6 shows the significant causal connections with the accompanied ANOVA’s and regression coefficients. Extensive tables of the simple regression tests are included in appendix 6.

Figure 5: Significant and insignificant relations

(20)

Connection ANOVA Regression coefficient 1 0,0075 0,328 2 0,028 0,272 3 0,0055 0,301 4 0,000 0,495 5 0,033 -0,359 6 0,0115 -0,384

Table 6: Results of the simple regression

4.2.1 Multiple regression

(21)

CONCLUSION

5.1 Acceptation of hypotheses

The results show that there is statistical evidence for accepting hypotheses 2a, 3a, 5a, 6a & b.

5.1.1 Self efficacy and change readiness (H2a)

The results show a positive correlation between self efficacy and readiness. In addition regression analysis demonstrates that there is a causal relationship between the concepts. When self efficacy increases with one unit, readiness increases with 0,328. Hypothesis 2a: a

higher level of perceived self efficacy will lead to higher levels of readiness is therefore

accepted.

5.1.2 Principal support and change readiness (H3a)

The results show a positive correlation between principal support and readiness. In addition regression analysis demonstrates that there is a causal relationship between the concepts. When principal support increases with one unit, readiness increases with 0,272. Hypothesis

3a: a higher level of perceived principal support will lead to higher levels of readiness is

therefore accepted.

5.1.3 Personal valence and change readiness (H5a)

The results show a positive correlation (note: with an alpha level > 0,09) between personal valence and readiness. In addition regression analysis demonstrates that there is a causal relationship between the concepts. When personal valence increases with one unit, readiness increases with 0,301. Hypothesis 5a: the more positive the personal valence the higher the

level of readiness is therefore accepted

5.1.4 Appropriateness and change readiness (H6a)

The results show a positive correlation between appropriateness and readiness. In addition regression analysis demonstrates that there is a causal relationship between the concepts. When appropriateness increases with one unit, readiness increases with 0,495. Hypothesis 6a:

the more people view the proposed change as appropriate the higher the level of readiness is

therefore accepted.

5.1.5 Appropriateness and resistance based on action (H6b)

(22)

Hypothesis 6b: the more people view the proposed change as appropriate the lower the level of resistance based on action is therefore accepted.

5.2 Rejection of hypotheses

The results show no statistical evidence for hypotheses 1a, 1b, 2b, 2c, 3b, 3c, 5b, 5c en 6c therefore these hypotheses are rejected. The following hypotheses are rejected because no significant correlations are found between the concepts:

Hypothesis 1b: Change readiness is the exact opposite of resistance based on attitude

Hypothesis 3b: A higher level of perceived principal support will lead to lower levels of resistance based on action

Hypothesis 3c: A higher level of perceived principal support will lead to lower levels of resistance based on attitude

Hypothesis 5b: The more positive the personal valence the lower the level of resistance based on action

Hypothesis 5c: The more positive the personal valence the lower the level of resistance based on attitude

Hypothesis 6c: the more people view the proposed change as appropriate the lower the level of resistance based on attitude

5.2.1 Change readiness and resistance based on action (H1a)

The results show a negative correlation between readiness and resistance based on action. However the correlation coefficient (-0,309) shows that the concepts are far from opposites.

Hypothesis 1a: change readiness is the exact opposite of resistance based on action is

therefore rejected.

5.2.2 Self efficacy and resistance based on action (H2b)

The results show a negative correlation (note: with an alpha level > 0,068) between self efficacy and resistance based on action. However regression analysis demonstrates that there is no causal relationship between these concepts. Hypothesis 2b: a higher level of perceived

self efficacy will lead to lower levels of resistance based on action is therefore rejected.

5.2.3 Self efficacy and resistance based on attitude (H2c)

The results show a negative correlation between self efficacy and resistance based on attitude. However regression analysis demonstrates that there is no causal relationship between these concepts. Hypothesis 2c: A higher level of perceived self efficacy will lead to lower levels of

(23)

DISCUSSION

Several researchers (Coetsee, 1999; Metselaar, 1997; Armenakis & Harris, 2002) argue that change readiness and resistance are closely linked. In addition some researchers (Metselaar, 1997; Armenakis & Harris, 2002) even state that the two concepts are exact opposites of each other. However, according to this research change readiness has no significant correlation or causal relationship with resistance based on attitude. So, if people have the intention to be critical about a change by superiors, in public discussions or to report complaints about the change by their superiors this will not (significantly) influence change readiness. In addition, analysis of the data of Garcha (2010), which is collected at a Dutch financial institution, also shows that resistance based on attitude has no significant correlation (see appendix 7) or causal relationship with change readiness.

An explanation for the lack of correlation can be, that being critical is not necessarily a negative intention. According to Ford, Ford & D’Amelio (2008) complaining and criticizing can be functional because it keeps the change alive and it brings attention to the change. In addition, thoughtful critics can be considered as an indicator for engagement and a valuable source of feedback (Ford, Ford & D’Amelio, 2008).

Although resistance based on attitude has no significant relation with change readiness, resistance based on action does have a significant relation. This research shows that resistance based on action is negatively correlated to change readiness. Analysis of the data of Garcha (2010) underpins this negative correlation. However, if change readiness and resistance are actually opposite concepts, the correlation coefficient should be -1.00; this is far from the case. Spearman’s Rang Correlation test gives a correlation coefficient of -0,309. In addition, analysis of the data of Garcha (2010) shows a correlation coefficient of – 0,305 (see appendix 7). So, the relationship between resistance and change readiness is negative but according to this research resistance and change readiness are far from opposites.

(24)

attitude and action. The results show that only appropriateness has a significant negative correlation and causal relationship with resistance based on action. The other independent variables have no causal relationship with the dependent variables.

6.1 Implications for the organization

An important determinant of successful organisational change is that people are ready for the change (Smith, 2005). The majority (74,5%) of the employees at “NDC|VBK de uitgevers”, that completed the questionnaire, tend to be ready for the proposed change. Results show that self efficacy, principal support, personal valence, and appropriateness influence change readiness. The mean scores of these concepts are examined and show that only appropriateness scores slightly negative, the other concepts all score neutral or (slightly) positive. According to this research it is especially important that an organization convinces its employees of the appropriateness of a proposed change, because appropriateness has an influence on change readiness as well as resistance based on action. Analysis of the data of Garcha (2010) shows, that participation has a positive correlation and a causal relationship with appropriateness. When participation increases with one unit, appropriateness increases with 0,295 (see appendix 7). Possible reasons for the slightly negative scores on appropriateness at “NDC|VBK de uitgevers” can therefore be; the low involvement of employees in the decision making process of the change and that the change is initiated top down. More involvement by employees in the decision making process of future changes should therefore be considered by “NDC|VBK de uitgevers”. In addition, “NDC|VBK de uitgevers” should consider taking more effort to convince employees of the appropriateness of the proposed change.

6.2 Other findings

Research shows that the impact of the proposed change (the travel distance) negatively correlates with readiness for change (note: at an alpha level of > 0,059). In addition, a causal relationship is found, when the impact increases with one unit, the readiness decreases with 0,169 (see appendix 8). The impact of a change therefore negatively influences the readiness for change.

6.2 Limitations and further research

(25)

therefore be interpreted cautiously. Multiple measurement times for example before, during and after the change implementation are preferred. However, due to time constraints this was impossible. To increase the generalizability of the results, further research should include multiple organizations and multiple measurement points in time.

(26)

REFERENCES

Armenakis, A.A., Bernerth, J.B., Pitts, J.P. & H.J. Walker. 2007. Organizational Change Recipients Beliefs scale: Development of an Assessment instrument. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 43: 481-505.

Armenakis, A.A. & S.G. Harris. 2002. Crafting a change message to create transformational readiness. Journal of Organizational Change. 15: 169-183.

Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G. & K.W. Mossholder. 1993. Creating Readiness for Organizational Change. Human Relations. 46: 681- 703.

Beer, M. & N. Nohria, 2000. Cracking the code of change. Harvard Business Review. 78:133-141.

Burnes B. 2004. Kurt Lewin and the Planned Approach to Change: A Re-appraisal. Journal of Management studies. 41: 977-1002.

Burnes B. 2004. Emergent changes and planned change – competitors or allies? The case of XYZ Construction. International Journal of Operations & Production Management. 24: 886-902.

Coetsee, L. 1999. From resistance to commitment. Public Administration Quarterly. 23: 204- 222.

Eerde, van W. & H. Thierry. 1996. Vroom’s Expectancy Models and Work-Related Criteria: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology. 81:575-586.

Ford, J.D., Ford, L.W. & A. D’Amelio. 2008. Resistance to Change: the rest of the story. Academy of Management Review. 33: 362-377.

(27)

Giangreco, A. 2002. Conceptualisation and operationalisation of resistance to change. Liuc Papers. 103: 1-28.

Holt, D.T., Armenakis, A.A., Feild, H.S. & S.G. Harris. 2007. Readiness for Organizational Change, The systematic Development of a Scale. Journal of applied behavioural science. 43: 232-255.

Judge, W. & T. Douglas. 2009. Organizational change capacity: the systematic development of a scale. Journal of Organizational Change Management. 22: 635 – 649.

Kotter, J.P. 1995. Leading change: Why Transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review. 73: 59-67.

Kotter, J.P. & L.A. Schlesinger. 2008/1979. Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business Review. 86:130-139.

Metselaar, E.E. 1997. Assessing the willingness to change: Construction and validation of the DINAMO. Doctoral dissertation. Amsterdam: VU-huisdrukkerij. 0-184

Roos, de J., Swagerman, D., Brouwers, E. & B. Rotsaert. 2009. Sociaal Plan NDC 2009-2010. NDC|VBK de uitgevers.

Self, D.R. 2007. Organizational change-overcoming resistance by creating readiness. Development and learning in organizations. 21: 11-13.

Self, D.R. & M. Schraeder. 2009. Enhancing the success of organizational change; Matching readiness strategies with sources of resistance. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 30: 167-182.

(28)

APPENDIX 1: QUESTIONNAIRE

Geachte medewerker,

Hierbij ontvangt u een vragenlijst die is ontwikkeld in het kader van mijn

afstudeeronderzoek. Ik zit in het laatste jaar van de opleiding Bedrijfskunde en volg momenteel de specialisatie Verandermanagement aan de Rijksuniversiteit in Groningen.

Door de verkoop van het pand aan de Lübeckweg in Groningen, zal voor 77 medewerkers de standplaats wijzigen. Door middel van dit onderzoek, wil NDC|VBK kijken welke factoren invloed hebben op de veranderbereidheid van medewerkers binnen ons concern bij dit soort organisatieveranderingen. Tevens zullen aandachtspunten, waarmee bij volgende

organisatieveranderingen rekening kan worden gehouden, worden gedestilleerd.

Om betekenisvolle resultaten te verkrijgen en het onderzoek te laten slagen, is uw

medewerking van groot belang. Daarom willen wij u vragen deze elektronische vragenlijst in te vullen. Het invullen van de vragenlijst is eenvoudig en zal circa 15 minuten duren.

De meeste vragen in de vragenlijst zijn geformuleerd als stellingen. Hierbij is het de

bedoeling dat u aangeeft in hoeverre u het eens of oneens bent met de stelling. Houd hierbij in gedachten dat er geen goede of foute antwoorden zijn; wij zijn juist geïnteresseerd in uw

mening. Denkt u niet te lang over iedere stelling na; de eerste indruk is vaak de beste. Het

kan ook zijn dat u sommige stellingen op elkaar vindt lijken. Het is belangrijk dat u deze vragen toch allemaal invult.

Belangrijk om te weten is dat deelname aan dit onderzoek geheel anoniem is. Uw gegevens worden alleen voor onderzoeksdoeleinden gebruikt en strikt vertrouwelijk en anoniem verwerkt. In de eindrapportage aan uw organisatie worden geen namen genoemd en het zal niet duidelijk zijn welke antwoorden u hebt gegeven.

Mocht u vragen hebben over het invullen van de vragenlijst of over het onderzoek, dan kunt u contact opnemen met Eline de Wagt, op telefoonnummer 06-53188461 of via het e-mailadres eline.de.wagt@ndcvbk.nl.

Alvast hartelijk dank voor uw medewerking.

Met vriendelijke groet,

Eline de Wagt

Onder begeleiding van dr. C. Reezigt

Frans Kools

(29)

ALGEMENE VRAGEN Wat is uw geslacht? O Man O Vrouw

Ik ben werkzaam bij:

O NDC Mediagroep

O De Holding

In welke leeftijdscategorie valt u? O 20 jaar of jonger O 21 - 35 jaar O 36 - 45 jaar O 46 - 55 jaar O 56 - 65 jaar O 66 jaar en ouder

De reisafstand tussen mijn woonadres en mijn standplaats:

O Neemt af

O Blijft gelijk

O Neemt toe met minder dan 25 km

O Neemt toe met 26 - 50 km

O Neemt toe met 51 - 100 km

(30)

De volgende stellingen hebben betrekking op de verhuizing naar Leeuwarden

volledig mee oneens mee oneens enigszins mee oneens neutraal enigszins

mee eens mee eens

volledig mee eens Ik denk dat de organisatie

zal profiteren van deze verandering O O O O O O O Het is niet logisch dat het

initiatief is genomen voor deze verandering O O O O O O O Er zijn legitieme redenen

om deze verandering in te voeren O O O O O O O Deze verandering zal de

totale prestatie van onze organisatie verbeteren O O O O O O O Er zijn een aantal rationele

redenen voor deze verandering O O O O O O O Het is voor mij, op de lange

termijn, de moeite waard dat de organisatie deze verandering invoert O O O O O O O

Deze verandering maakt mijn werk makkelijker

O O O O O O O Wanneer deze verandering

is ingevoerd, denk ik dat ik er niks aan heb

O O O O O O O De tijd die we aan deze

verandering besteden, zouden we voor iets anders moeten gebruiken O O O O O O O

Deze verandering komt overeen met de prioriteiten van onze organisatie

(31)

mee eens mee eens

volledig mee eens Onze leidinggevende

stimuleert ons allemaal om deze verandering te aanvaarden O O O O O O O

De directie van onze organisatie steunt deze verandering volledig O O O O O O O Elke leidinggevende

benadrukt het belang van deze verandering O O O O O O O De leidinggevenden in onze

organisatie zijn toegewijd aan deze verandering O O O O O O O Ik denk dat er veel tijd wordt

besteed aan deze verandering terwijl de leidinggevenden het niet eens willen invoeren

O O O O O O O

Het management heeft een duidelijk signaal afgegeven dat de organisatie gaat veranderen O O O O O O O volledig mee oneens mee oneens enigszins mee oneens neutraal enigszins

mee eens mee eens

volledig mee eens Ik verwacht geen problemen

ten aanzien van mijn werk wanneer deze verandering is ingevoerd O O O O O O O

Er zijn bepaalde taken die vereist zijn voor deze

verandering waarvan ik denk dat ik ze niet goed kan uitvoeren O O O O O O O

Wanneer deze verandering wordt ingevoerd, denk ik dat ik het gemakkelijk aankan

O O O O O O O Ik heb de vaardigheden die

nodig zijn om deze

verandering te laten slagen

O O O O O O O Wanneer ik mij ergens toe zet,

kan ik alles leren wat vereist is voor deze verandering

(32)

mee eens mee eens

volledig mee eens Ervaringen uit het verleden

maken mij zelfverzekerd dat ik in staat ben om succesvol te presteren nadat deze verandering is ingevoerd O O O O O O O volledig mee oneens mee oneens enigszins mee oneens neutraal enigszins

mee eens mee eens

volledig mee eens Ik ben bezorgd dat ik mijn

status (enigszins) zal verliezen in de organisatie wanneer deze verandering wordt ingevoerd O O O O O O O

Deze verandering zal veel persoonlijke relaties die ik heb opgebouwd verstoren O O O O O O O Mijn toekomst in dit werk

wordt beperkt vanwege deze verandering O O O O O O O volledig mee oneens mee oneens enigszins mee oneens neutraal enigszins

mee eens mee eens

volledig mee eens Ik ben bereid collega's te

overtuigen van het nut van deze verandering O O O O O O O

Ik ben bereid mij in te zetten zodat deze verandering slaagt

O O O O O O O Ik ben bereid om eventuele

weerstand tegen deze verandering te overwinnen O O O O O O O Ik ben bereid om tijd vrij te

maken voor de invoering van deze verandering O O O O O O O volledig mee oneens mee oneens enigszins mee oneens neutraal enigszins

mee eens mee eens

volledig mee eens Ik ben van plan kritisch te zijn

(33)

mee eens mee eens

volledig mee eens Ik ben van plan mijn kritiek

tegen deze verandering bij mijn leidinggevende te uiten

O O O O O O O Ik zou vakbondsactiviteiten

tegen deze verandering steunen O O O O O O O Acties van mijn

ondergeschikten tegen deze verandering ben ik van plan te steunen O O O O O O O

Acties van mijn collega’s tegen deze verandering ben ik van plan te steunen O O O O O O O Ik ben van plan om klachten

over deze verandering bij mijn leidinggevende te melden O O O O O O O

Dit is het einde van het onderzoek. Wij danken u hartelijk voor uw medewerking aan dit onderzoek!

Indien u de algemene onderzoeksresultaten wilt ontvangen, kunt u uw e-mailadres hieronder invullen.

* Het e-mailadres wordt niet gekoppeld aan de zojuist ingevulde vragenlijst.

* Het e-mailadres wordt alleen gebruikt om u de onderzoeksresultaten toe te sturen.

(34)

APPENDIX 2: FACTOR & RELIABILITY ANALYSES

When all questions were imputed in a factor analysis, 11 components were distinguished. To reduce the number of components the option to extract a number of factors was used. SPSS was forced to divide the questions into 6 factors. The rotated component matrix showed that self efficacy questions were grouped together into one component. This was also the case for personal valence and readiness for change questions. Factor, screeplot and reliability analyses were conducted for the three concepts. The results showed that it was possible to combine the questions. It was not possible to combine all resistance questions into one factor. This was also the case for principal support and appropriateness questions. The following three paragraphs describe the establishment of the factors resistance, principal support and appropriateness. The screeplots for all the concepts are included in paragraph 2.4.

2.1 Factor & reliability analyses of resistance

The results of the factor analysis of resistance showed that it was not possible to combine the 6 questions into one component. The rotated matrix divided the questions into two components.

Rotated Component Matrixa

Component 1 2 Resistance_1 ,657 Resistance_2 ,814 Resistance_3 ,879 Resistance_4 ,920 Resistance_5 ,895 Resistance_6 ,744

The way the questions were divides was logic: Question 3, 4 and 5 are all about taking action:

I intend to support union activities against the change;

I intend to support the actions of my subordinates against the change; I intend to support the actions of my colleagues against the change.

(35)

I intend to be critical about the change by my superiors;

I intend to report complaints about the change to my superiors.

So, the questions will be divided into two components resistance based on action and resistance based on action.

2.2 Factor & reliability analyses of principal support

The results of de factor analysis of principal support showed that it was not possible to combine the 6 questions into one component. The rotated component matrix divided the questions across two components.

Rotated Component Matrixa

Component 1 2 Principal Support_1 ,704 Principal Support_2 ,447 Principal Support_3 ,798 Principal Support_4 ,844 Principal Support_5 ,827 Principal Support_6 ,827

Question 1, 3 & 4 were all about support of the senior leader/manager (s): Our senior leaders have encouraged all of us to embrace this change; Every senior manager has stressed the importance of this change; All senior leaders in our organization are committed to this change.

Question 2 and 6 on the other hand were respectively about the organization’s top decision makers and management;

Our organization’s top decision makers have put all their support behind this change effort;

Management has sent a clear signal this organization is going to change.

(36)

combine this question with question 1, 3 & 4. The total variance (53,492) and the cronbach’s alpha (0,685) were too low. Question 1, 3 & 4 of principal support were therefore combined. Although 3 questions (2, 5 & 6) were deleted from the original set, the remaining questions did still represent “principal support”.

2.3 Factor & reliability analyses of appropriateness

The results of the factor analysis showed that it was not possible to combine the 10 questions into one component. Correlation analysis showed that question 2 and 10 did not correlate with the other questions, so these questions were removed. A factor analysis with the remaining 8 questions showed, that it was still not possible to combine the questions into one component. Several factor analyses with the remaining questions were made to find a good set of questions that represent appropriateness. When question 1, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 were combined, the total variance was a little bit too low. However the scree plot and the cronbach’s alpha were good.

2.4 Screeplots

Self efficacy Principal support

(37)

Readiness for change Resistance based on action

(38)

APPENDIX 3: EXTREME VALUES – BOXPLOTS

The extreme values of each concept are examined through a box plot. Extreme values can make an incorrect drawing of the results.

Self efficacy: a few outliers but no extreme values Principal support: one outlier, no extreme values

Personal valence: no outliers, no extreme values Appropriateness: a few outliers but no extreme values

Readiness for change: no outliers, no extreme values Resistance based on action: no outliers, no extreme values

Resistance based on attitude: no outliers, no extreme values

(39)

APPENDIX 4: NORMAL DISTRIBUTION

The Kolmogorov – Smirnov test and the q-q plot are used to compare the distribution of the collected data with the normal distribution.

4.1 Kolmogorov-Smirnov test

The null hypothesis of this test assumes that the distribution is normal.

Kolmogorov – Smirnov test Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)

Self efficacy 1,027 0,243

Principal support 0,768 0,598

Personal valence 0,858 0,453

Appropriateness 0,857 0,454

Readiness 0,942 0,338

Resistance based on action 0,902 0,391

Resistance based on attitude 0,816 0,518

All the concepts are significant normal distributed; there are no reasons to reject the null hypotheses.

4.2 Q-Q Plots

Self efficacy Principal support

(40)

Readiness for change Resistance based on action

(41)

APPENDIX 5: CORRELATION

Spearman’s rho Readiness Resistance

based on action

Resistance based on attitude

Self efficacy Correlation

Coefficient Sig. (1-tailed) N 0,274** 0,031 47 -0,221*** 0,068 47 -0,250** 0,045 47

Principal support Correlation

Coefficient Sig. (1-tailed) N 0,321** 0,014 47 -0,167 0,130 47 -0,109 0,233 47

Personal valence Correlation

Coefficient Sig. (1-tailed) N 0,199*** 0,090 47 -0,067 0,328 47 -0,032 0,415 47 Appropriateness Correlation Coefficient Sig. (1-tailed) N 0,480* 0,000 47 -0,248** 0,047 47 -0,170 0,127 47

*Correlation is significant at the 0,01 level (1-tailed) **Correlation is significant at the 0,05 level (1-tailed) ***Correlation is significant at the 0,10 level (1-tailed)

Spearman’s rho Resistance based on

action

Resistance based on attitude

Readiness Correlation Coefficient

Sig. (1-tailed) N -0,309** 0,017 47 0,074 0,310 47

(42)

APPENDIX 6: REGRESSION

6.1 Simple regression

Simple regression Readiness

(dependent variable) Self efficacy (Predictor) ANOVA Regression coefficient Sig. 0,0075 0,328 0,0075* Principal support (Predictor) ANOVA Regression coefficient Sig. 0,028 0,272 0,028** Personal valence (Predictor) ANOVA Regression coefficient Sig. 0,0055 0,301 0,0055* Appropriateness (Predictor) ANOVA Regression coefficient Sig. 0,000 0,495 0,000*

*Regression is significant at the 0,01 level (1-tailed) **Regression is significant at the 0,05 level (1-tailed)

Simple regression Resistance based on

action (dependent variable) Self efficacy (Predictor) ANOVA Regression coefficient Sig. 0,117 -0,225 0,117 Principal support (Predictor) ANOVA Regression coefficient Sig. 0,033 -0,359 0,033** Personal valence (Predictor) ANOVA Regression coefficient Sig. 0,272 -0,102 0,272 Appropriateness (Predictor) ANOVA Regression coefficient Sig. 0,012 -0,384 0,012*

*Regression is significant at the 0,01 level (1-tailed) **Regression is significant at the 0,05 level (1-tailed)

Simple regression Resistance based on

attitude (dependent variable) Self efficacy (Predictor) ANOVA Regression coefficient Sig. 0,099 -0,178 0,099*** Principal support (Predictor) ANOVA Regression coefficient Sig. 0,155 -0,147 0,155 Personal valence (Predictor) ANOVA Regression coefficient Sig. 0,409 -0,029 0,409 Appropriateness (Predictor) ANOVA Regression coefficient Sig. 0,166 -0,123 0,166

(43)

6.2 Multiple regression

Multiple regression Readiness

(dependent variable) Predictors: ANOVA 0,000

Self efficacy Regression coefficient

Sig. (1-tailed)

-0,071 0,325

Principal support Regression coefficient

Sig. (1-tailed)

-0,003 0,492

Personal valence Regression coefficient

Sig. (1-tailed)

0,157 0,084***

Appropriateness Regression coefficient

Sig. (1-tailed)

0,477 0,002**

**Regression is significant at the 0,05 level (1-tailed) ***Regression is significant at the 0,10 level (1-tailed)

Multiple regression Resistance based on action

(dependent variable) Predictors: ANOVA 0,106

Sig. (1-tailed)

-0,014 0,479

Sig. (1-tailed)

-0,191 0,203

Sig. (1-tailed)

0,030 0,434

Sig. (1-tailed)

-0,308 0,114

Multiple regression Resistance based on attitude

(dependent variable) Predictors: ANOVA 0,311

Sig. (1-tailed)

-0,219 0,129

Sig. (1-tailed)

-0,156 0,187

Sig. (1-tailed)

0,052 0,353

Sig. (1-tailed)

(44)

APPENDIX 7: ANALYSIS OF THE DATA OF GARCHA (2010)

attitude

Sig. (1-tailed) N

-0,157 0,104 66

action

Sig. (1-tailed) N

-0,305 0,006* 66

*Correlation is significant at the 0,01 level (1-tailed)

Spearman’s rho Appropriateness

Participation Correlation Coefficient Sig. (1-tailed)

N

0,283 0,011** 66

**Correlation is significant at the 0,05 level (1-tailed)

Simple regression Appropriateness

(dependent variable) Participation (Predictor) ANOVA Regression coefficient Sig. (1-tailed) 0,0105 0,295 0,0105**

(45)

APPENDIX 8: CHANGE READINESS AT “NDC|VBK de uitgevers”

Spearman’s rho Self

efficacy

Principal support

Personal valence Appropriateness Readiness Resistance

based on action Resistance based on attitude Travel distance Correlation Coefficient Sig. (1-tailed) N -0,527 0,000* 47 -0,151 0,155 47 -0,527 0,000* 47 -0,553 0,000* 47 -0,231 0,059*** 47 0,098 0,257 47 0,109 0,233 47

*Correlation is significant at the 0,01 level (1-tailed) ***Correlation is significant at the 0,10 level (1-tailed)

Simple regression Readiness

(dependent variable) Travel distance (Predictor) ANOVA Regression coefficient Sig. (1-tailed) 0,049 -0,169 0,049**

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN READINESS FOR CHANGE & RESISTANCE AND THEIR DETERMINANTS

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

READINESS FOR CHANGE & RESISTANCE AND THEIR

DETERMINANTS

Master thesis, MscBA, specialization Change Management

University of Groningen, Faculty of Management and Organization

July 9, 2010

ELINE DE WAGT

Student number: 1738062

Oosterbadstraat 15

9726 CJ Groningen

Phone: +31 (0)653188461

Email: elinedewagt@hotmail.com

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

READINESS FOR CHANGE & RESISTANCE AND THEIR

DETERMINANTS

ABSTRACT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

THEORY AND CONCEPTUAL MODEL

METHOD

RESULTS

CONCLUSION

DISCUSSION

REFERENCES

APPENDIX 1: QUESTIONNAIRE

De volgende stellingen hebben betrekking op de verhuizing naar Leeuwarden

APPENDIX 2: FACTOR & RELIABILITY ANALYSES

APPENDIX 3: EXTREME VALUES – BOXPLOTS

APPENDIX 4: NORMAL DISTRIBUTION

APPENDIX 5: CORRELATION

APPENDIX 6: REGRESSION

APPENDIX 7: ANALYSIS OF THE DATA OF GARCHA (2010)

APPENDIX 8: CHANGE READINESS AT “NDC|VBK de uitgevers”