HOW TRUST IN A SUPERVISOR INFLUENCES THE CHANGE READINESS OF SUBORDINATES

(1)

HOW TRUST IN A SUPERVISOR INFLUENCES

THE CHANGE READINESS OF SUBORDINATES

Master Thesis

MSc BA Change Management Faculty of Economic and Business

University of Groningen 21-06-2019 Student Simone Thalen S3490793 s.thalen.1@student.rug.nl Assessors Supervisor: Dr. K. Zoethout Co-assessor: Dr. J.F.J. Vos

(2)

ABSTRACT

How does one ensure change readiness when change is everywhere, and the rate of change is accelerating? Previous research has established the importance of trust in a supervisor for change readiness (Matthysen & Harris, 2018). Of particular concern is the lack of understanding of how this relationship is established. This study uses a qualitative case study approach to examine how trust in a supervisor influences the change readiness of subordinates. Data for this study were collected by conducting 16 semi-structured interviews in two municipalities. The results imply that affective trust in a supervisor’s support, benevolence, and respect promotes change readiness. A supervisor’s openness in communication, ability, honesty, openness to participation, goal clarity, and accountability are components of cognitive trust, which encourages change readiness. It is concluded that affective and cognitive trust are equally important. While affective trust in particular stimulates affective change readiness, cognitive trust influences affective, cognitive, and behavioral responses to change. In the short term, cognitive trust can be adequate to achieve change readiness. Compared with cognitive trust, gaining affective trust takes considerably longer, making it more influential in achieving change readiness of subordinates with longer tenure. Regarding its scientific contribution, this study extends the existing literature by concluding that cognitive trust fosters affective trust. In addition, although benevolence is considered a component of cognitive trust in the literature, this study finds that benevolence is a component of affective trust that becomes evident through cognitive trust. Furthermore, this study demonstrates that the trust components of value congruence, integrity, justice, and keeping promises have no considerable influence on change readiness.

(3)

INTRODUCTION

A new software update on a phone may alter its features, a shop may change its physical location, or new legislation may force one to act a certain way. Although these types of changes have become part of people’s daily lives, change is a phenomenon that not everybody likes. Change leads to the unknown, which can be intimidating. People often deny and defend against the need to change, leading to resistance and rejection (Burnes, 2017). Over time people realize that they have to change. They discard the old and adapt to the new situation until the change is fully internalized (Burnes, 2017). It then becomes the standard until a new change arises; this is true both in people’s personal lives and in the workplace.

In terms of daily business practices, 70% of change initiatives fail to realize their goals (Vakola, 2013). The most common cause of change failure is resistance to change (Vakola, 2013). Lizar, Mangundjaya and Rachmawan (2015) have found that a lack of change readiness is one of the causes of increased resistance. Hemme, Bowes and Todd (2018) have also emphasized the importance of achieving change readiness: “The likelihood of an organization to implement and manage change successfully without being change ready is arguably like a toddler trying to walk before being able to crawl: possible for some, impossible for most” (p. 159).

Throughout this paper, the term “change readiness” is defined as: “a mindset that exists among employees prior to the implementation of organizational changes. It comprises beliefs, attitudes and intentions of change target members regarding the need for and capability of implementing organizational change” (Armenakis & Fredenberger, 1997, p. 144). Discussions regarding how organizations prepare for, implement, and react to changes have dominated research in recent years (Oreg, Vakola & Armenakis, 2011). However, with regard to change readiness, it is more interesting to focus on how subordinates prepare for changes. Specifically, how do supervisors influence this process? Gelaidan, Al-Swidi and Mabkhot (2018) have demonstrated that whenever subordinates appraise their supervisor as trustworthy, they are inclined to support change. Moreover, the research of Matthysen and Harris (2018) has indicated that subordinates’ change readiness is moderated by their perceived trust in their supervisor. However, the authors have concluded that further research is needed to clarify this relationship. Burke, Sims, Lazzara and Salas (2007) have defined trust as: “a psychological state comprising of the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behaviors of another” (p. 6.10), the definition adopted in this study a well. Here, a distinction is made between affective and cognitive trust. The literature review will discuss this difference in more detail.

(6)

practical relevance, the findings of this study provide insights to managers on how to facilitate change success by gaining the trust of their subordinates. Based on the above background, the following research question is posed:

How does trust in a supervisor influence the change readiness of subordinates?

LITERATURE REVIEW

In order to comprehend the concepts of change readiness and trust, this chapter aims to explore these core concepts in greater depth. The first section defines change readiness, after which different dimensions of change readiness are described, followed by the different levels of change readiness. Second, the concept of trust is elaborated on by defining trust and describing its dimensions. Third, the relationship between the concepts of change readiness and trust is explained. Finally, the research framework is described, which occupies a central position in this study.

Change readiness

Defining change readiness

In order to provide an in-depth understanding of the concept of “change readiness”, both aspects of the term must be addressed separately. “Change” is defined as “the planned alternation of organizational components to improve the effectiveness of the organization” (Cawsey, 2015, p. 31). “Readiness” has been defined by Armenakis, Harris and Mossholder (1993) as “the cognitive precursor to the behavior of either resistance to, or support for, a change effort” (p. 683). In addition, Holt and Vardaman (2013) have defined “readiness” as “the degree to which those involved are individually and collectively primed, motivated and technically capable of executing the change” (p. 9). These definitions indicate that both change, and readiness involve a focus on conditions prior to a transformation.

(7)

a change consists of three consecutive steps: readiness, adoption, and institutionalization. Similarly, Lewin’s change model has three stages, namely unfreezing, moving, and refreezing a new state (Burns, 2017), and stipulates that subordinates must first unfreeze old patterns and behaviors before proceeding to the desired state. Therefore, the focus should be on creating mindsets that support change prior to the beginning of a change journey. Adjusted by this limitation but inspired by, and building on, the definition of Armenakis and Fredenberger (1997), the definition of “change readiness” used in this study is “a mindset that exists among employees prior to an organizational change. It comprises beliefs, attitudes, and intentions of change recipients regarding the need for and capability of implementing organizational change.”

Dimensions of change readiness

Change readiness is considered to be a multi-dimensional construct, with reactions to change comprising three dimensions: what people feel (affection), what people think (cognition), and what people intend to do and actually do (behavior) in response to the change (Bouckenooghe, Devos & Van den Broeck, 2009; Oreg et al., 2011; Matthysen & Harris, 2018). Affective reactions to change relate to potential positive or negative emotions regarding the change, such as perceived pleasure or stress. Second, cognitive responses relate to beliefs and thoughts about the value that the change will have. Third, behavioral responses to change indicate the effort and energy that subordinates are willing to invest in a change, which relates to both their implicit intentions and explicit behaviors. Positive behavioral reactions are reflected in change acceptance and involvement, while negative behavioral reactions include withdrawal reactions such as the intention to resign. Although such reactions may occur during every phase of change, in terms of Lewin’s stages of change (Burns, 2017), favorable expressions of change readiness are seen as particularly important in the unfreezing stage. Positive feelings, cognition, and behaviors to change are necessary to unfreeze old patterns and behaviors, which in turn is a necessary condition for change to happen (Vakola, 2013; Galaidan et al., 2018).

Levels of change readiness

(8)

organizational structure, culture, and leadership. Creating organizational change readiness is important, since this fosters organizational flexibility and adaptability for change by ensuring that the organization is capable of undertaking changes successfully (Vakola, 2013).

Micro- and macro-level change readiness are interrelated. Oreg et al. (2011) have concluded that supervisors should ensure a trusting organizational culture in order to create favorable mindsets to change among their subordinates. Moreover, Lizar et al. (2015) have demonstrated that individual change readiness is influenced by the content, process, and context of a change. Given that trust is a contextual feature of an organization (Bouckenooghe et al., 2009; Lizar et al., 2015), the interrelatedness of micro- and macro-level change readiness is important in this study. The next section examines the concept of trust as a contextual factor that impacts individual change readiness as the dependent variable.

Trust

Defining trust

“Trust”, a central concept to this study, can be defined as “a psychological state comprising of the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behaviors of another” (Burke et al., 2007, p. 6.10). Vulnerability is key in such intentions and involves the risk of losing things of value as a result of betrayal (Zayim & Kondakci, 2016). Swift and Hwang (2013) have distinguished between initial trust and longitudinal trust; initial trust is based on cues and occurs early in a relationship, whereas longitudinal trust is based on actual experiences and interactions. Therefore, trust can be strengthened, but also weakened, over time (Burke et al., 2007). Trust is determined by the psychological contract established between supervisors and subordinates (Weber & Weber, 2005). A “psychological contract” is defined as “employees’ perceptions of the mutual obligations between the employee and the organization” (Korsgaard, Sapienza & Schweiger, 2002, p. 499). Such a psychological contract is based on the expectations that supervisors communicate to their subordinates and subordinates’ perceptions of the desirability of managerial actions. In these contracts, being trustworthy is one of the obligations subordinates have towards their supervisors (Korsgaard et al., 2002).

Dimensions of trust

(9)

Affective trust is referred to as “trust from the heart,” reflecting the emotional attachment that subordinates have to their supervisors (McAllister, 1995; Johnson & Grayson, 2005). According to Swift and Hwang (2013), affective trust results from one’s personality and relies on emotional ties. It is seen as something that is present in all relationships, but which is stronger in closer interpersonal relationships, and which is altered by experience (Lewis & Weigert, 1985; Johnson & Grayson, 2005). As affective trust is based on emotional ties, it is less transparent and thus less suitable for an objective assessment of trust (Johnson & Grayson, 2005). However, trustworthy supervisors are perceived to demonstrate care and concern for their subordinates’ welfare (McAllister, 1995). In line with this, Johnson and Grayson (2005) have found that affective trust is closely related to the intrinsic motivation of supervisors to care about their subordinates by having a relationship orientation. Subordinates’ feelings about whether their supervisors care about their welfare influence their trusting intentions: “one’s willingness to depend on the other person in a given situation” (Burke et al., 2007, p. 608). Based on the above, this study labels the trusting components of respect, support, and value congruence as affective trust (Burke et al., 2007). Definitions of these components are provided in Appendix A.

Cognitive trust refers to “trust from the head” and is task-orientated. McAllister (1995) has found that the basis of cognitive trust is cognitive reasoning, which is the process whereby subordinates undertake a rational assessment of how trustworthy their supervisor is. The outcome of such an assessment can lead to a trusting belief: “one’s expectations that the other person is benevolent, competent, honest, or predictable to guide a change” (Burke et al., 2007, p. 607). When such expectations are positively evaluated by a subordinate, a supervisor is perceived as trustworthy. Having connections such as a shared background and experience increases cognitive trust (Swift & Hwang, 2013), because such connections provide certain knowledge, thus reducing uncertainty while increasing predictability (Johnson & Grayson, 2005). In accordance with the above, the trusting components of ability, accountability, benevolence, goal clarity, honesty, integrity, justice, keeping promises, openness in communication, and openness to participation are labeled as cognitive trust (Burke et al., 2007). The definitions of these components are also provided in Appendix A.

Relation between trust and change readiness

(10)

the supervisor, the likelihood of unexpected interactions is decreased (Weber & Weber, 2001; Johnson & Grayson, 2005; Klijn et al., 2010). Furthermore, cognitive trust fosters change readiness, as it increases the predictability of a situation by knowing what to expect (Klijn et al., 2010). Without trust, subordinates are more likely to resist attempts at change (Galaidan et al., 2018), thus increasing the likelihood of change failure (Burke et al., 2007). Therefore, in times of change, the success of a change partly depends on whether a supervisor has succeeded in building sufficient affective and/or cognitive trust (Weber & Weber, 2001). However, it remains unclear how trust influences change readiness as measured by qualitative means.

Research framework

To summarize the current state of knowledge regarding the concepts central to this study, a research framework was developed (Figure 1). In the framework, trust is divided into the dimensions of affective and cognitive trust, as independent variables. For both variables, the corresponding components serve as indicators to address the dimension of trust. Meanwhile, change readiness is the dependent variable. Change readiness is approached as an all-encompassing variable which includes the indicators of affective, cognitive, and behavioral readiness. Based on the aforementioned literature, it is clear that trust influences change readiness. However, from the literature it is still unclear how this relationship is established. This unfamiliarity is indicated by the dotted line in Figure 1. The aim of this research is to explore this unfamiliarity and fill in the blanks of the dotted line by examining how trust in a supervisor influences the change readiness of subordinates.

Figure 1: Research framework

(11)

METHODOLOGY

This chapter provides detailed insight into the steps of the research methodology. The methodology of Pratt (2009) is followed as a guideline. The first section of this chapter addresses the nature of the research and describes the research approach. The second section outlines the case selection, including the research site and the cases central to data collection. In the third section, the data collection approach is described by providing insights into the respondents and the interview protocol. The fourth section discusses the analytical strategy of this study to proceed from the data to the findings. Finally, the reliability, validity, and controllability of this study are discussed.

Nature of the research

An interpretive research design utilizing a qualitative research method was applied to pursue the aim of this study. The interpretive nature of the research enhanced the understanding of the relationship between trust and change readiness by exploring highly contextualized individual judgements. This was done by addressing respondents’ experiences and perceptions, which underlie this relationship from an empirical perspective. This suited the explanatory nature of the research question (Rynes & Gephart, 2004). Furthermore, the qualitative nature of this study complements prior research, which has already established the importance of trust in leadership for change readiness by quantitative means. Hence, the methodological approach taken in this study builds theory by clarifying how the relationship between trust and change readiness unfolds. Moreover, a case study approach was selected, as this is an appropriate strategy for addressing “how” questions, as well as for theory building (Eisenhardt, 1989). Figure 2 presents an overview of the steps undertaken for data collection. First, two municipalities were selected as the research site. Within both organizations, two cases were selected. From each case, one supervisor and three subordinates were selected as respondents for data collection. In the following sections this is explained in more detail.

Figure 2: Overview of the data collection process

(12)

Case selection

The sample of this study includes two Dutch municipalities which are responsible for the same types of services in their respective geographical locations. Municipality G is located in the north of the Netherlands, and municipality A is located in the west. Municipalities were selected, as they are facing much uncertainty and complexity and are highly susceptible to change. This is due to continuously changing circumstances, for instance regarding stakeholders and legislation, which is more often the case for municipalities than for corporations (Klijn et al., 2010). Therefore, trust in supervisors is an important concept to examine. These two municipalities were selected as the research sites as they considered the research question to be worth investigating. Their motivation for participating was that the research question was highly applicable to their situation, given the large number of changes that occur within both municipalities; this is in line with the argument for selecting municipalities as the research sites. Including multiple similar organizations in the sample enabled comparisons to be made within and between the municipalities.

Multiple cases were selected in order to create literal replication. According to Yin (2003), three to four cases have to be studied to create literal replication logic to a satisfactory degree, while six to eight cases are appropriate for theoretical replication. Due to practical reasons, in this research four cases are studied, two from each municipality. As this research aims to build theory, these cases were selected using theoretical sampling, as it increases the likelihood that the cases are prototypical (Eisenhardt, 1989; Pratt, 2009). Within each municipality, both cases were affected by the same structural change, yet they are different as they were managed by different supervisors with different management styles. Appendix B provides descriptions of the changes that had taken place within the municipalities.

Data collection

The study included 16 respondents, who were theoretically sampled based on two requirements. The first requirement was that, for each case, respondents consisted of one supervisor at managerial level and three supervisors at operational level. In this study, supervisors from a managerial level were approached as change agents, as they were engaged in initiating, designing, and implementing the change. Subordinates from the operational level were approached as change recipients, as they were affected by the change (Cawsey et al., 2015).

(13)

readiness. The applied categories of job tenure were: (1) one year, (2) one to five years, and (3) five years or more. Respondents’ backgrounds and their participation ID are presented in Appendix C.

Data were collected by conducting semi-structured, face-to-face interviews. The goal of the interviews was to collect experiences and perspectives about respondents’ affective, cognitive, and behavioral responses to change, and whether and how these responses were influenced by their trust in the supervisor (Emans, 2002). Semi-structured interviews were used as the data collection method because of three primary considerations. First, the structured part of the interview enabled theory-based questions to be developed based on the existing literature. This also ensured that all respondents were asked the same questions, which helps to control researcher bias. Second, the non-structured part of the interview provided freedom to explore and elaborate on experiences and perspectives that were not covered by the interview protocol, but which were regarded by the researcher as relevant to the subjects of the study (Emans, 2002). This method is suitable for the interpretive nature of this research. Third, the use of semi-structured interviews enabled interviews to be compared (Patton, 1987).

Prior to the interviews, interview protocols were developed based on the literature framework. The interview protocols differed for the respondents from managerial and operational levels, given their different roles in the respective changes. For example, the interview protocol for supervisors included a question about how they had experienced the change initiative. However, supervisors were also asked how they had experienced subordinates’ change readiness to the change. During the interviews, the interview protocols provided guidelines to facilitate detailed exploration of the relevant issues (Hanim, Sunn & Corner, 2015). The interview protocols are included in Appendix D.

The respondents participated in the interviews on a voluntary basis. Prior to each interview, respondents were informed about the content of the research and its purpose, and were assured confidentiality and anonymity. Permission was asked to audio record the interview, which enabled it to be transcribed afterwards. To prevent language barrier issues, interviews were conducted and transcribed in Dutch, after which the results were translated into English. The data were gathered in April 2019.

Analytical strategy

(14)

Wolfswinkel, 2013). For instance, it appeared that showing interest in a subordinate’s well-being was perceived as a signal for the deductive code of a supervisor’s support. In the codebook, these elements are incorporated into the description of each component, in order to create a comprehensive description of the content of the deductive codes. Appendix E contains the final codebook.

The final codebook offered the structural base for writing the results section. Three analyses are conducted for each component of trust included in the codebook. First, a “within-case” analysis. According to Eisenhardt (1989), there are different approaches for such an analysis. Derived from research by Ayres, Kavanaugh and Knafl (2003), this study starts with a “within-all-cases” analysis. This analysis consists of general results common to all respondents, independent of the various cases. The aim of this analysis was to find patterns and perspectives of how respondents experienced each component of trust to influence change readiness. In this analysis, data collected from supervisors and subordinates were approached as all-embracing. This is because data retrieved from both supervisors and subordinates is focused on whether components of trust are perceived as important for subordinates’ change readiness. The only difference is the perspective from which data were collected; supervisors experienced a component of trust as important because they observed positive effects on their subordinates change readiness, and subordinates experienced it as important for their own affections, cognitions, and behaviors to change. Furthermore, conducting a “within-all-cases” analysis stimulated the generalizability of the findings across similar contexts (Ayres, Kavanaugh & Knafl, 2003).

Second, an “cross-municipalities” analysis was conducted. As this study includes a research site over two municipalities, this analysis had the purpose of identifying differences in the data between the two municipalities, which could be derived from organizational characteristics such as structure, strategy, or culture. Even though this “cross-municipalities” analysis is not essential in answering the main research question, it assists in establishing context which has the ability to skew results. This is of relevance as these contextual characteristics impact supervisors’ daily actions, and to a certain extent determine their capability to guide change (Lizar et al., 2015). Therefore, it compares the data between cases A and B with cases C and D.

Third, a “within-and-cross-cases” analysis was conducted. The aim of this analysis was to search for striking results within a single case, and for unique patterns in the data across the cases. As such, it was analyzed whether these differences were derived from specific management styles and/or supervisors’ actions. In both the “cross-municipalities” and “within-and-cross-cases” analyses only differences and unique patterns are described in the results.

Reliability, validity, and controllability

(15)

demonstrated by the previous research of Weber and Weber (2005), who found that subjective individual assessments of the same change may differ between those who planned the change and those who were affected by it. Therefore, collecting data from multiple perspectives created data source triangulation and ensured that the response bias was controlled, thus increasing the reliability of this study (Eisenhardt, 1989; Van Aken et al., 2012; Rusly, Sun & Corner, 2014). All the respondents had different backgrounds, ages, tenures, and levels of education (Golafshani, 2003). Furthermore, the data were collected by a single researcher, who had full control over the data quality and maintained consistency, minimizing researcher bias and enhancing reliability (Emans, 2002; Schultz, Sjøvold & Andre, 2017). In addition, the cross-cases analysis enabled generalized patterns to be identified in the data through the multiple lenses offered by the cases, thus enhancing the accuracy and reliability of the study (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2007). Finally, reliability was enhanced as the researcher maintained a neutral position in the study by being impartial, as there were no predisposed findings, and by having no relationship with any of the respondents (Pratt, 2009).

By conducting a case study, the research design enabled replication logic over multiple cases, enhancing external validity (Yin, 2007). In the data analysis, the case study approach enhanced internal validity, as similar patterns between the cases were identified and explanations for dissimilarities between cases were determined (Yin, 2007). To enhance the construct validity, the four steps of interview protocol refinement were followed (Ismail, Ismail & Hamzah, 2018). First, the content of the interview protocol guaranteed alignment with the research question by only asking questions related to the central topics. Second, an inquiry-based conversation was ensured by including a variety of questions related to and focused on the research question. Third, an expert was requested to provide feedback on the interview protocol. Two third parties were also asked for feedback on the clarity of the final questions. Fourth, respondents were asked for feedback. During the interviews, the researcher controlled whether answers were interpreted and understood in the way intended by the respondents by checking the completeness and accuracy of the answers (Emans, 2002). After each interview, feedback was requested from respondents in order to improve the clarity, content, and approach of the interview. Controllability was ensured by thoroughly describing all the methodological steps taken (Van Aken et al., 2012). Furthermore, interview transcripts are available on request to enhance the controllability.

RESULTS

(16)

with a graphical summary of the overall results. A benefit of the “within-and-cross-cases” analysis is revealed as CR-GA2 recently shifted between departments, and both departments are included in this research as separate cases. Therefore, CR-GA2 was able to share his experiences of management styles under both his previous (CA-GB) and his current supervisor (CA-GA).

Affective trust

Support

Within-all-cases analysis: Support is perceived as a key component of trust that influences change readiness, as was emphasized by all respondents. Support was referred to as a supervisor who shows interest in subordinates’ well-being, offers a listening ear, keeps personal information to himself, and offers assistance. CR-AD2 and CR-GB1 argued that support fosters affective change readiness through the improvement of personal relationships. It was explained that better relationships resulted in fewer negative emotions regarding change. In line, CR-GB1 emphasized that the trustworthiness of a supervisor’s support creates a feeling of security due to feeling connected to one another and being able discuss sensitive topics in confidence. Similarly, CA-AD had the feeling that by offering support he and his subordinates are more able to connect with each other, and that things can be better discussed in a good relationship.

Cross-municipalities analysis: Data did not reveal clear differences between the two municipalities.

(17)

a higher level of change readiness, given that GA-AD is very accessible, which is perceived as a sign of support. Correspondingly, CA-AD described how he fosters his accessibility by working among his subordinates and by taking time to discuss both work-related and private concerns.

Benevolence

Within-all-cases analysis: Benevolence was believed by 14 respondents to influence change readiness. A benevolent supervisor is a key requirement for change readiness: “If I trust that my supervisor considers me as a human being, then I am willing to follow my supervisor’s path” (CR-GA1). It was argued that a supervisor should demonstrate that he is working for the individual subordinates, rather than for the organization. This view was echoed by CR-GA3. Furthermore, CR-AC1 said that he trusts a supervisor when he is benevolent, as it indicates that he takes subordinates seriously by standing up for what is best for the team. This created the feeling that in times of change, personal considerations would be taken into account, thereby increasing affective change readiness, as it reduces feelings of stress regarding change (CR-GA1).

Cross-municipalities analysis: In municipality G, respondents experienced that supervisors are restricted in their ability to act on their benevolence. For instance, CR-GA3 argued that while he believed that CA-GA wants to do good for him, he doubts whether CA-GA can act on his conviction. Both, CR-GA3 and CR-GB2 blamed this on the organizational structure. Their shared experience is that the supervisor is positioned between the interests of subordinates and the management, resulting in a negative trust relationship: “I must rely on my supervisor’s benevolence as to whether he advocates my interest, while I know he is controlled from the other side of the hierarchy” (CR-GB2). This lack of trust decreased commitment to working on organizational changes for both CR-GA3 and CR-GB2. In fact, CR-GB2 indicated that if this feeling were to grow, he would look for a new job. Compared to municipality A, respondents from municipality A always felt taken seriously and represented by their supervisor. The only exemption relates to CR-AD3, yet this is the result of a perceived distrust in CA-AD’s level of justice. Indeed, these respondents experienced less stress regarding change due to the perceived trust in the benevolence of their supervisors.

(18)

CR-AD1 experienced a project manager as having a strong result focus, with the result that he is not willing to rely on that person in times of change. However, CR-AD1 is willing to rely on GA-AD because he had such a strong human focus.

Respect

Within-all-cases analysis: The influence of respect on change readiness was referred to by half of the respondents. Trust in a supervisor’s respectfulness influences affective change readiness, as this creates work motivation and self-confidence in the respondent’s own abilities. This confidence was needed to move beyond what is known by trying new things (CR-GA1 and CR-AC3). According to CR-AC1 and CR-AC3, supervisors’ expressions of good performance indicates respect. In addition, CR-AC1 experienced an indication of respect when a supervisor asked for the opinions of subordinates when facing something new. This created the feeling that the supervisor appreciated the subordinates’ knowledge and expertise. In turn, this created trust in the supervisor. CR-GB3 also indicated the importance of mutual trust. However, he regarded self-confidence as paramount for achieving change readiness: “It is self-confidence that you need to find your way in making that movement into the unknown.”

Cross-municipalities analysis: Between the municipalities, a difference was observed in the number of respondents who referred to respect as a component of trust influencing change readiness. Two respondents from municipality G reported this relationship, as did six respondents from municipality A. However, four of them acknowledged that they perceived respect as influential only when the interviewer asked a direct question in this regard. These respondents experienced the respectfulness of a supervisor as being self-evident for increasing change readiness (CR-AC1, CA-AD, CR-AD1, and CR-AD2).

(19)

Cognitive trust

Openness in communication

Within-all-cases analysis: The majority of 13 respondents indicated that openness in communication influences cognitive change readiness. CR-GA2 explained that when a supervisor is structured in his provision of information, this helps to anticipate change and to understand the need for change initiatives. Having these insights is perceived to stimulate affective change readiness as it prevents unexpected occurrences. Similarly, CR-AC1 embraces change as long as it does not come as a surprise: “I do not like sudden changes. I have to be prepared for it, otherwise I will be stressed.” When supervisors justify the usefulness and need for the change, this enhances subordinates’ understanding of the value that the change will have (CR-GA2, CR-GA3, CR-AC1, and CR-AD2). These same respondents argued that seeing the logic of a change is necessary for accepting the change. Otherwise, they might resist the change. Furthermore, both CR-GA3 and CR-GB3 stated that understanding why certain changes are pursued is more important for their cognitive change readiness than knowledge of the goals alone. Finally, CR-GB1 highlighted, focusing of his short tenure with his supervisor, that he would be willing to accept change if his supervisor would demonstrate high levels of cognitive trust through openness in communication. It was explained that such openness in communication provides certain knowledge, which makes the situation more predictable as you know better what to expect. CR-GB1 even indicated that, without a strong relational attachment with this supervisor, trust in his openness in communication would be sufficient for his change readiness.

(20)

Ability

Within-all-cases analysis: A supervisor’s ability was mentioned as influencing affective change readiness by 12 respondents. A supervisor’s ability indicates whether the supervisor has sufficient knowledge and expertise to guide change, but, more importantly, it reflects whether he is able to advocate the interests of subordinates, and therefore to represent their stakes in the change (CR-GA1, CR-GA3, and CR-AD2). Similarly, CR-AC1 argued that the supervisor’s ability reflects his capacity to be benevolent: “A supervisor must possess the ability to take a stance in favor of the team by not backing down.” According to CR-GA1, a positive evaluation of a supervisor’s ability to advocate your interest provides a certain comfort as you know your interests will be considered at all times, increasing feelings of security.

Cross-municipalities analysis: Between the municipalities, a difference can be observed in the trust that respondents have in their supervisors’ ability to guide change. In municipality A, only CR-AD3 mentioned that he distrusts CA-AD, as a result of perceived injustice. Other than that, the respondent perceived CA-AD as being competent and knowledgeable to guide change. This view was supported by the other subordinates from municipality A, which relates to trust in both AC and CA-AD. This trust resulted in behavioral change readiness, as the respondents were willing to rely on their supervisors to guide change (CR-AC1, CR-AC2, CR-AD1). In contrast to municipality A, in municipality G the majority of the respondents acknowledged that they doubt the ability of their supervisors in times of change. Although CA-GA and CA-GB are perceived as competent, respondents experienced that the organizational structure limits supervisors’ ability to act (GA2, GA3, CR-GB2, and CR-GB3). For instance, CR-GA3 and CR-GB2 indicated that a supervisor is positioned between the interests of subordinates and management. CR-GA3 explicitly emphasized that this distrust is due to the organizational structure: “This has absolutely nothing to do with my supervisor. I have already had many supervisors and my current supervisor is certainly not the worst.” CR-GB3 explained that supervisors in the municipality will face issues in the current structure if the hierarchy is stricter. This is because the function of a supervisor is positioned outside the hierarchy, thus causing a lack of power. As a result, CR-GA3, CR-GB2, and CR-GB3 experienced distrust, and as a result less affective change readiness. This was explained as the supervisor not being able to do anything for them, making them dependent on the situation, which increases anxiety. Expanding the above results by adding the perspectives of the supervisors, a difference can be observed in the extent to which supervisors can interfere in change. In municipality A, the management encouraged CA-AC and CA-AD to experiment with change by trial and error, so that they felt empowered to act (CA-AC). In municipality G, supervisors were allowed to think about and offer advice regarding change plans, but the management took the lead in the change (CA-GB).

(21)

Honesty

Within-all-cases analysis: A total of 11 respondents referred to the importance of honesty in regard to change readiness. It was found that honesty relates to being truthful about change goals and about a supervisor’s role in the change (CR-GA2 and CR-GB2). CR-GB2 indicated that when supervisors are honest about a situation, he has much more sympathy for it, even if it affects him negatively. Similarly, CR-GB1 indicated the following: “When a change direction is unclear, it is essential just to be honest about it.” This was essential for the respondent’s behavioral change readiness as he indicated to be willing to support the change as long as the supervisors is honest. CR-GA1 mentioned that trust also involves knowing that interests are considered in an open and honest way. This was said to positively encourage affective change readiness, as subordinates know how matters actually stand, which offers feelings security.

Cross-municipalities analysis: While in municipality A no respondent is found to distrust their supervisors’ honesty, two respondents from municipality G did. For both CR-GA2 and CR-GB2, this was evident in the change which introduced flexible working: “In optimizing the matrix structure, the management stated that the goal of flexible working was to accommodate more staff, but the impression given was that the goal was to cut cost” (CR-GA2). It was elaborated that when there is a low degree of honesty, this impacts feelings and cognitions which otherwise might have been interpreted as supportive. As a consequence, the opposite effect is achieved by increasing resentment. Likewise, CR-GB2 emphasized that if the management had been honest and transparent about this underlying goal, he would have had much more understanding for the change. In municipality A, no respondent complained about a lack of honesty on the part of their supervisors or the management.

Within-and-cross-cases analysis: In case B, perceptions of whether CA-GB is honest differed among the respondents. CA-GB emphasized his efforts to always reflect on his own behavior, for instance by being honest in admitting his own shortcomings. CR-GB3 highlighted that he values the honesty of his supervisor, as they can talk about these shortcomings. Such honest conversations cannot overcome the disadvantages the shortcomings present in the first place. In contrast to the perception of CR-GB3, CR-GB2 does not perceive CA-GB as honest. For instance, the respondent indicated that GA-GB should be honest about his role within the organization: “As long as you are just the conduit and you are not honest about it with your subordinates, you are damaging my trust” (CR-GB2).

Openness to participation

(22)

on comforting through creating a work environment suited to an individual’s ability, opinion and experiences, and in which the individual feels valued for their expertise. In line with this, CR-AD1 indicated that a supervisor’s openness to participation increases affective change readiness; opportunities for participation create a more pleasant working environment, as subordinates feel heard as individuals, fostering a sense of contribution. Furthermore, CR-AD2 argued that, especially when a change directly influences an individual’s job, it would beneficial for him to participate in the process and the outcome of said change, as it encourages cognitive change readiness by revealing the true motivation for this change: “Being able to participate in designing change ensures a better understanding why certain things happen.”

Cross-municipalities analysis: Between the two municipalities, there is found to be a difference in regard to the perceived opportunities for participating. In municipality G, both supervisors and subordinates acknowledged that there are sufficient project groups that subordinates can join in order to contribute to designing change (CR-GA3, CR-GB3, CA-GA, and CA-GB). CR-GA3 and CR-GB2 stated that they no longer participate in these project groups, as the effectiveness of such groups have proven to be minimal in the past: “Although we were encouraged to think along, my input was not taken into account” (CR-GB2). By contrast to the above, in municipality A, four subordinates emphasized that they regard it as important to have a say in change, but at the same time they acknowledged that they have no idea how they could participate (AC1, AC2, AD1 and AD2). In line, CR-AC1, CR-AC2, and CR-AD2 did not perceive any opportunity to participate in designing change: “Sharing opinions is one thing, but whether the management will take it into account is another” (CR-AD2). Furthermore, these respondents saw it as usual that supervisors impose what and how to change, which, according to them, did not affect their change readiness: “When the management has developed a path, the function of ‘project employee’ is not sufficient to influence that path. You just have to make the best of it” (CR-AD2). In contrast to the perceptions of the aforementioned subordinates, CA-AC and CA-AD indicated that the said change was initiated based on input derived from subordinates, which had been expressed in an employee satisfaction survey. CR-AD1 only remembered that this survey was the trigger for the change halfway during the interview.

(23)

Goal clarity

Within-all-cases analysis: Goal clarity was suggested by nine respondents as having an influence on change readiness. Respondents reported trust in a supervisor’s goal clarity when he shared the change plan in a timely manner and explained the change content (CR-GB1, CR-AC1, and CR-AD1). CR-GB1 argued that the value of goal clarity is knowing where changes will lead and what their impact will be. This was said to increase affective change readiness as it increases feelings of security. How a lack of goal clarity influenced affective change readiness was explained by CR-AC1, CR-AC2, and CR-AD1, who indicated that unfamiliarity with the change direction caused uncertainty and fears. Once clarification was given about the purpose and the content of the change, those negative feelings disappeared. CR-AC1 even indicated that this created energy for the change: “After the session, I thought, let’s try it.” Furthermore, CR-GD2 explained that before he is willing to change, he needs to know what the exact goals of the change are. He emphasized that if he believed the change goals made sense, then he was willing to invest in the change.

Cross-municipalities analysis: Comparing the municipalities, there is an observable difference in the perceived importance of goal clarity for change readiness. In municipality G, only one subordinate mentioned the importance of goal clarity for change readiness, while in municipality A, four subordinates did. In addition, while no respondent in municipality G indicated that they had experienced uncertainty to change, in municipality A three respondents had experienced this.

Within-and-cross-cases analysis: Within each case, it was observed that no single respondent with a tenure of more than five years mentioned goal clarity as a component of trust that influences change readiness. CR-GB3 reported experiencing a shift in the need for communication regarding change over the years. While clarifying the what and how of a change used to be important, today explaining the why of a change is crucial for this respondent to understand the value of the change: “In the old days, supervisors had to be directive by enforcing subordinates to do things. These days, explaining why change is needed is much more important.”

Accountability

(24)

justification of why my input is not included in the result, then my trust remains and my willingness to deliver input is unaltered.”

Cross-municipalities analysis: In municipality G, five respondents mentioned the importance of a supervisor’s accountability for change readiness. By comparison, in municipality A it is remarkable that only both supervisors mentioned the influence of accountability for change readiness.

Within-and-cross-cases analysis: In case A, all three subordinates mentioned the importance of the supervisor’s accountability. While CR-GA1 did not stated whether he trust CA-GA in his accountability, both CR-GA1 and CR-GA2 indicated to trust CA-GA to be accountable. For instance, CA-GA2 stated the following: “At least his provision of information is structured.” CR-GA2 continued by arguing that the weekly team briefings organized by CA-GA encourage the exchange of feedback on managerial decisions. In contrast to this positive experience of CR-GA2 regarding to the accountability of CA-GA, CR-GA2 experienced distrust in CA-GB’s accountability during the period he worked under the supervision of CA-GB. This was due to insufficient feedback being given to the respondent’s recommendations for change improvements. The same was true for CR-GB2. Due to the absence of feedback provided by CA-GB as to why input from the respondents was not included in the change, both CR-GA2 and CR-GB2 experienced less behavioral change readiness; they indicated to be less willing to invest energy in optimizing future changes by providing their input.

Keeping promises

Within-all-cases analysis: Keeping promises was mentioned by CA-GA and CA-AD as a component of trust influencing change readiness. Both emphasized that they are not always able to keep promises. By being honest about this, they have never received complaints from subordinates or experienced lower levels of change readiness on the part of subordinates. CR-AC3 and CR-AD2 only acknowledged to perceive keeping promises as being influential for change readiness when asked about this by the interviewer.

Cross-municipalities analysis

:

Based on the limited data obtained about keeping promises, no analysis was conducted between the municipalities.

Within-and-cross-cases analysis: Based on the limited data obtained about keeping promises, no analysis was conducted within-and-across the cases.

Justice

(25)

Cross-municipalities analysis: Given that both of the above incidents happened on an incidental basis, this could not be attributed to the municipality.

Within-and-cross-cases analysis: At the case level, CR-AC3 reported injustice in a former supervisor, because the supervisor claimed to have made an agreement with CR-AC3 and did not treat the respondent fairly. As a consequence, he felt uncertain as he was afraid that it would happen again, which affected their entire working relationship. Hence, he decided to leave that department. CR-AC3 claimed that this experience did not have any negative effect on his current relationships, nor will it have on his future relationships, because it happened a long time ago and the respondent is no longer attached to the former supervisor. At the same time, CR-AD3 reported distrust in CA-AD’s justice but decided to remain in the department. This was because the working relationship between CR-AD3 and CA-AD has a long history, during which a considerable level of affective trust had been built. However, there is a dark cloud hovering over this relationship. The respondent expressed fear that this would happen again, which caused decreased trust in the supervisor’s support, benevolence, ability, and justice. As a result, CR-AD3 indicated that he would likely resist change in relation to this supervisor.

Summary of the results

(26)

(27)

CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

This chapter describes how the dimensions of affective and cognitive trust influence change readiness. On the basis of these descriptions, the research question is answered. Next, several theoretical implications derived from this study are addressed, followed by practical implications. This chapter ends with the limitations of this study and suggestions for future research.

Conclusion

How affective trust influences change readiness

Based on the literature, support, respect, and value congruence emerged as components of affective trust. This study conclude that value congruence has no considerable influence on change readiness, since no respondent mentioned this component during the interviews.

Support appears to be the most valued component of affective trust, as it was mentioned by all respondents. Trust in a supervisor’s support enhances a secure context, as stronger personal relationships provide feelings of being together and having somebody to fall back on. Based on the “within-and-cross-cases” analysis, two management tactics appear to be successful for creating support, namely regular bilateral meetings and working among subordinates, as this stimulates accessibility. These tactics differ with respect to the level of formality, but no difference is found in their effectiveness.

Respect transpires to have a considerable influence on change readiness, yet this relationship is considered to be self-evident. Trusting a supervisor because he is respectful influences affective change readiness, because this reduces insecurities about one’s own ability to adopt change. This was explained in terms of experiences in which respect created the confidence to move beyond routines. Based on the “within-and-cross-cases” analysis, this study finds that trust in a supervisor’s respect was reinforced by focusing on one’s strengths, providing compliments, approaching mistakes as part of the learning process, and being patient during the transition stage of change. Furthermore, a supervisor requesting subordinates’ opinions is seen as a sign of respect, as it indicates recognition, validation, and appreciation of one’s knowledge and expertise. In addition, a supervisor having the confidence of the upper-management encourages the passing on of that confidence to subordinates.

(28)

How cognitive trust influences change readiness

Based on the literature, ability, accountability, benevolence, goal clarity, honesty, integrity, justice, keeping promises, openness in communication, and openness to participation are established as components of cognitive trust. As discussed, in this study benevolence appears to be a component of affective trust. Integrity did not emerge as a component of trust influencing change readiness as no respondent mentioned this. Furthermore, justice and keeping promises were only mentioned incidentally. This indicates that in this study these components of trust were found to have no considerable influence on change readiness.

Trust in a supervisor’s openness in communication reinforces cognitive change readiness, as it enhances subordinates’ understanding of the need for the change. As a result, subordinates are in a better position to evaluate the change. Furthermore, it stimulates affective change readiness, as the awareness of actualities prevents unexpected events from occurring. The “within-and-cross-cases” analysis, conducted for the trust component goal clarity, indicates that the need for such justifications appears to differ at different levels of tenure: over the years of employment, it becomes more important to understand why changes are pursued, rather than the change goals themselves. Furthermore, it revealed that weekly team briefings organized by supervisors encourage their subordinates’ awareness of actualities within the organization, department, and team.

Trust in a supervisor’s ability to guide change appeared to have a moderating influence on subordinates’ affective change readiness, opposed to the theorized direct effect. It moderates subordinates change readiness via the affective trust component of benevolence. Trust in a supervisor’s ability encourages affective change readiness through the supervisor’s capacity to act on his benevolence. This demonstrates to subordinates that their interests can be advocated successfully, increasing security. The “cross-municipalities” analysis indicates that a distinguishing factor for trust in a supervisor’s ability is derived from the organizational structure, which must empower supervisors to act on their benevolence.

Honesty as well appears to have a strong moderating effect on change readiness. It moderates the influence trust in a supervisor’s ability, goal clarity, and openness in communication has on change readiness. As such, the role of the supervisor, the change goals, and justification of the decisions regarding the change need to be communicated honestly at all times. When supervisors are honest about this, it increases affective change readiness; it offers feelings of security as subordinates know how matters actually stand. Furthermore, it stimulates behavioral change readiness as subordinates have sympathy for the situation.

(29)

process of designing change, they are better informed about possible changes. Hence, it stimulates cognitive change readiness, as subordinates have a better understanding of why certain changes are required. Behavioral change readiness is already evident when subordinates participate in designing change. However, the “cross-municipalities” analysis indicated that offering opportunities for participation does not offer any guarantee of fostering change readiness. Success depends on proper leadership, for instance by being accountable.

Goal clarity stimulates affective change readiness as the awareness of change goals offers security. Cognitive change readiness is positively affected when subordinates make a positive value assessment of the change direction. In line, the extent to which subordinates’ cognitions are aligned with the change direction determines their behavioral change readiness. The “cross-municipalities” analysis indicated that subordinates’ level of education influences the need for goal clarity. This notion is built on the complexity which can be assigned to respondents’ job profiles. The job profiles of respondents from municipality G are considered to be of greater complexity, and those respondents experience less need for goal clarity. In municipality A, respondents attach greater value to goal clarity, while their job profiles suggest a lower required level of education. Moreover, the “within-and-cross-cases” analysis indicated that tenure has a moderating influence on the strength of the relationship between goal clarity and change readiness. Subordinates with a short and medium length of tenure perceive goal clarity as more influential for their change readiness than subordinates with a longer tenure. Therefore, it can be concluded that the importance of goal clarity for change readiness is dependent on subordinates’ length of tenure and level of education.

Trust in a supervisor’s accountability maintains, rather than increases, change readiness. A supervisor is perceived as accountable when he provides sufficient feedback on what is done with subordinates’ suggestions for change improvement. This maintains subordinates’ feelings of being valued for their contribution. Furthermore, feedback can help subordinates to recognize the value of alternatives, indicating its influence on cognitive change readiness. However, providing feedback on an individual’s input is considered the norm rather than something above and beyond. A lack of accountability causes a reduction in behavioral change readiness, as it reduces subordinates’ motivation for providing input in the future. Moreover, trust in a supervisor’s accountability is closely related to a supervisor’s benevolence, as this reveals what a supervisor has done to advocate the interests of subordinates.

How trust influences change readiness

(30)

supervisor and subordinate. Such attachments increase subordinates’ feelings of security for three primary reasons. First, trusting that a supervisor is concerned with one’s well-being creates the feeling that subordinates can fall back on their supervisor in uncertain situations. Second, a human focus evokes the feeling that personal considerations will be advocated. This feeling of affective trust is cognitively enhanced by the subordinate’s trust in the supervisor’s ability to act on his benevolence. Yet, to a certain extent this is dependent on whether the supervisor is empowered. Moreover, a supervisor’s accountability reveals how he advocate subordinates’ interests. Third, respect increases subordinates’ self-confidence, which is needed to go beyond routines. Feelings of respect are reinforced by cognitive trust when a supervisor appeals to subordinates’ knowledge and expertise by inviting them to participate in designing change.

In addition to the aforementioned components of trust, three primary components of cognitive trust can reinforce affective change readiness. Trust in a supervisor’s openness in communication, openness to participation, and goal clarity enhance subordinates’ awareness of the situation and knowledge about the change, thus increasing predictability. This results in subordinates feeling less stressed regarding change. Furthermore, this increases subordinates’ recognition and understanding of the need and usefulness of change, thus stimulating cognitive change readiness. The same is true for trust in a supervisor’s accountability, yet this maintains rather than increases affective and cognitive change readiness, because accountability is seen as the norm. In addition, supervisors must be honest at all times, as this moderates subordinates’ change readiness in general.

Subordinates’ affective and cognitive change readiness in turn encourages their behavioral change readiness. In terms of affective change readiness, the less stress subordinates experience regarding change, the more willing they are to invest energy in said change. Regarding cognitive change readiness, the better subordinates understand the value of said change, the more supportive they are with regard to realizing change goals.

At different stages of tenure, affective and cognitive trust have a different influence on achieving change readiness. For subordinates with short tenure, cognitive trust can be adequate to achieve cognitive and behavioral change readiness. This is because the components of cognitive trust provide clarity about what will happen, and hence make the situation more predictable and certain. For subordinates with longer tenure, affective trust is better suited to achieve change readiness, and can even compensate for a lack of cognitive trust, given the strong emotional attachment that has developed.

Theoretical implications

(31)

appears to have a mutual effect, this also increases subordinates’ trust in their supervisor’s respect. These higher levels of respect foster the emotional attachment between a supervisor and subordinates. In other words, a high level of cognitive trust reduces the time it takes to build affective trust.

Second, this research is built on the distinction between affective and cognitive trust, similar to prior studies (Erdem & Ozen, 2003; Johnson & Grayson, 2005; Atkinson, 2007). Johnson and Grayson (2005) have found that the dimensions of affective and cognitive trust are highly interrelated. The findings of this study appear to be in line with previous findings. Whereas Burke et al. (2007) have found that perceiving a supervisor as benevolent indicates cognitive trust, this research found that benevolence is a key component of affective trust. Trust in a supervisor’s intentions to advocate a subordinate’s interests demonstrates the affective relationship between these parties. However, regardless of the outcome, intentions become evident through a supervisor’s accountability, indicating cognitive trust.

Third, in the literature three components of trust are identified which are related to the affective dimension of trust, including value congruence (Burke et al., 2007). By contrast, in this study value congruence appears to have no significant influence on change readiness. Ten components of cognitive trust that do influence change readiness were addressed, including integrity, justice and keeping promises (Burke et al., 2007; Bouckenooghe et al., 2009; Sharkie, 2009). Even though a perceived lack of justice decreases trust, it seems to have no generally applicable influence on change readiness as it was only mentioned incidentally. Therefore, the findings of this study suggest that value congruence, integrity, justice, and keeping promises are components of trust which have no considerable influence on change readiness. In general, it seems that the current literature on components of trust is not fully applicable to change readiness.

Practical implications

The first practical contribution of this study is the awareness of the different components of trust and their effects on change readiness. This awareness reveals that a supervisor’s own (in)actions can have a direct influence on the change readiness of subordinates. As CA-GA said when reflecting on the different aspects of trust that a supervisor should consider, “you reap what you sow.” Insights into the impact of supervisors’ former actions may serve as a guide to assess to what extent subordinates have affective and/or cognitive trust in them. This should be considered as a starting point to adjust the change approach at the individual level.

(32)

care and concern for subordinates. In addition, increasing accessibility by working among subordinates is perceived to encourage affective trust, as it decreases subordinates’ threshold to address a supervisor. Even providing compliments encourages affective trust, as this increases the self-confidence needed to adopt change. The respondents indicated that receiving trust from a supervisor increases their trust in the supervisor, thus demonstrating the importance of mutual trust. To foster change readiness by relying on cognitive trust, it is recommended to conduct weekly team briefings. Such briefings increase subordinates’ awareness of actualities within the team, department, and organization, thus preventing unexpected events. However, the more impact a change has, the more personal communication should be. In addition, supervisors should always be accountable for providing feedback on why certain managerial decisions are made, rather than relying on input supplied by subordinates. Finally, they should be honest at all times, as this creates sympathy for the situation.

Limitations and further research

A limitation of this study is the generalizability of the findings. Due to limited resources, the scope of this study was restricted to two municipalities and four cases. This met the criteria to create a satisfactory level for literal replication (Yin, 2003). Nevertheless, especially in the case of theory building, any further corroboration of generalizability would improve the research findings (Eisenhardt, 1989).

The second limitation of this study relates to the restricted number of stakeholders taken into account. Future research with a larger sample of respondents per case would enhance the reliability of the outcomes. In addition, conducting research with additional hierarchical levels of respondents would complement the understanding of how trust influences change readiness. This study has provided insights into the trusting relationship between supervisors and subordinates. However, the results of this study indicated that the trust of upper-level management is likely to positively influence supervisors’ change readiness, which in turn will encourage the change readiness of subordinates. It was beyond the scope of this study to conduct such a multilevel study, so further research could assess the multilevel influence of trust on change readiness.

(33)

differences in the experiences and perceptions of respondents provided a more comprehensive overview of the situation.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Armenakis, A.A., & Bedeian, A.G. (1999) Organizational change: a review of theory and research in the 1990s, Journal of Management, 25(3), pp. 293–315.

Armenakis, A. A., & Fredenberger, W. B. (1997). Organizational change readiness practices of business turn- around change agents. Knowledge and Process Management, 4, 143–152.

Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating readiness for organizational change. Human Relations, 46, 681–704.

Atkinson, C. (2007). Trust and the psychological contract. Employee Relations, 29(3), 227–246.

Ayres, L., Kavanaugh, K., & Knafl, K.A. (2003). Within-Case and Across-Case Approaches to Qualitative Data Analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 13(6).

Bouckenooghe, D., Devos, G., & Van Den Broeck, H. (2009). Organizational Change Questionnaire-Climate of Change, Processes, and Readiness: Development of a New Instrument. Journal of Psychology Interdisciplinary and Applied, 143(6), 559–599.

Burke, C. S., Sims, D. E., Lazzara, E. H., & Salas, E. (2007). Trust in leadership: A multi-level review and integration. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 606–632.

Burnes, B. (2017). Managing Change. Harlow: Pearson.

Bryman, A. (2001). Social Research Methods. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Cawsey, T., Deszca, G., & Ingols, A, C. (2015). Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit. SAGE Publications.

Currall, S. C., & Judge, T. A. (1995). Measuring trust between organizational boundary role persons. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64, 151−170.

HOW TRUST IN A SUPERVISOR INFLUENCES THE CHANGE READINESS OF SUBORDINATES