A CULTURE FOR CHANGE
THE INFLUENCE OF PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT AND PROCESS VARIABLES ON
COMMITMENT TO CHANGE IN THE HEALTHCARE SECTOR
Master thesis, MscBA, specialization Change Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Management and Organization
September, 7th, 2012 GELSKE BOSMA Student number: 1912739 Europaplein 25 – 2 1078 GT Amsterdam tel.: +31 (0)6 – 12 96 16 05 e-mail: g.bosma87@gmail.com 1st Supervisor/ university Dr. K.S. Prins 2nd Supervisor/university Dr. B.J.M. Emans
Supervisor/ field of study R. Colard
Linxx, Utrecht
2
ABSTRACT
3
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION _______________________________________________________________ 5 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK _____________________________________________________ 8 2.1. Commitment to change _____________________________________________________ 8 2.2. Perceived context variables _________________________________________________ 9
2.2.1. Perceived bureaucratic job features _______________________________________ 9
2.2.2. Perceived organizational culture _________________________________________ 11
2.3. Process variables _________________________________________________________ 13 2.3.1. Quality of communication ______________________________________________ 13 2.3.2. Support by supervisors_________________________________________________ 14 2.3.3. Participation ________________________________________________________ 15 2.4. Conceptual Model ________________________________________________________ 17 3. METHODOLOGY ______________________________________________________________ 18 3.1 Field of study ____________________________________________________________ 18 3.2 Participants and data collection procedures ____________________________________ 18 3.3 Measures _______________________________________________________________ 19
3.3.1 Commitment to change ________________________________________________ 19
3.3.2 Perceived bureaucratic job features ______________________________________ 20
3.3.3 Perceived organizational culture _________________________________________ 20
3.3.4 Quality of communication ______________________________________________ 20
3.3.5 Support by supervisors_________________________________________________ 20
3.3.6 Participation ________________________________________________________ 21
3.3.7 Control variables _____________________________________________________ 21
3.3.8 Other information regarding the measures ________________________________ 21
5
1. INTRODUCTION
Generally, people are not motivated for change unless incentives for changes are deemed more beneficial. Thus, when managing and planning organizational change effectively, it is key to create a work atmosphere supportive for change (Bouckenooghe, Devos & Broek, 2009). This research is conducted in the healthcare sector, a fast moving sector that can be characterized as turbulent (McKee & Healy, 2002). Nowadays, there is in general a preference for anti-Taylorism in the healthcare sector: more decentralization, lesser control, and lesser bureaucracy within organizations (Almekinders, 2005). Within the healthcare sector, a management preference for anti-Taylorism causes the institutions to change and move towards the esteemed model (Cunningham et al., 2002).
While the failure of organizational change may be due to many factors, few are as critical as employee attitude towards the process of change (Jones, Jimmieson, & Griffiths, 2005). One of the commonly cited causes for failing change projects is the lack of commitment amongst followers (Palmer, Dunford & Akin, 2009). In this research, the variable employee commitment to organizational change has been embedded.
There appears to be causality between how employees perceive the organizational context and their commitment to change (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999). Context factors are aspects of the organizational environment within which employees function and where the initiative is implemented (Bouckenooghe et al., 2009; Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999; Holt, Armenakis, Feild & Harris, 2007). The organizational context is the perceived organizational context, since employees actively perceive environments and are influenced by their perceptions rather than by an objective reality. Therefore, even within the same organization, experiencing a similar objective reality, employees may hold very different perceptions (Eby, Adams, Russell & Gaby, 2000). In this research the perceived organizational context entails the perceived bureaucratic job features - specifically job characteristics of Tayloristic designed jobs - and the perceived organizational culture.
6
Cunningham et al., 2002). Other job characteristics of Tayloristic designed jobs are a low skill variety, a low level of autonomy and a low level of task identity. From this, it is examined, if a high division of labor and low levels of skill variety, task identity, and autonomy will ultimately decrease commitment to change.
‘Bureaucratic job features’ are part of organizational structure. Since organizational structure and organizational culture are interrelated, the influence of perceived organizational culture is examined as well (Zammuto & O’Connor, 1992). This interrelatedness can be explained as follows: the building blocks of an organizational culture are the shared values and beliefs of its employees. Organizational culture shows itself in the ends the organization seeks and the means it uses to achieve them. One important ‘means’ is the organizational structure, which results from a history of design choices like job design and bureaucratic job features (Zammuto & O’Connor, 1992). The perceived organizational culture influences how emotions are experienced and expressed when change occurs (Smollan & Sayers, 2009). Therefore, the perceived type of organizational culture and its impact on commitment to change is examined.
Besides the perceived context variables, there appears to be a theoretical relationship between the process variables and commitment to change (Devos, Vanderheyden, & van den Broeck, 2002). Process factors refer to the approach of how the change process is dealt with and can be influenced by for example change agents and managers (Bouckenooghe et al., 2009; Self, Armenakis & Schraeder, 2007). The selected process variables are based on a study of Bouckenooghe et al. (2009). Bouckenooghe states that process variables that influence readiness for change are: a) quality of change communication; c) support by supervisors; d) attitude of top management; and e) participation. Current research takes ‘quality of communication’, support by supervisors’ and ‘participation’ as independent variables.
The importance of communication during a change process is often mentioned in literature (Kotter, 1995; Burnes, 2009; Palmer et al., 2009). The establishment of a consistent and effective communication process can significantly reduce people’s levels of uncertainty (Burnes, 2009). In turn, this eliminates one of the major obstacles to people’s willingness to get involved in the change process, and thus increases the commitment to change.
7
The third and last process variable included in this study is participation, meaning participation of the employees within the change process (e.g. decision-making and change activities) (Burnes, 2009). Managers should listen to ideas and suggestions regarding change in order to increase the level of commitment to change among employees (Wanberg & Banas, 2000). Many authors state that participation increases the level of commitment (Lines, 2004; Torka, Schyns & Looise, 2010; Bouckenooghe et al., 2009; Whelan-Berry & Somerville, 2010; Wanberg & Banas, 2000).
The five described variables are subject of the research conducted. This research is comprehensive, though it is not intended to be exhaustive, as there may be more context and process variables that influence commitment to change. This research focuses on how employees interpret and perceive organizational change, and if their perceptions regarding context and process variables influence individual commitment to change. The research objective is twofold. The theoretical research objective is to contribute to the organizational change literature in the framework of commitment to organizational change from both a process and contextual perspective at perceived individual level. A more practical objective is to contribute to the knowledge of organizations regarding variables that influence employees’ commitment to change. As described, it is clear that context and process variables are decisive for commitment to change. However, previous research has not specifically studied the perceived organizational culture and perceived (Tayloristic) bureaucratic job features. In the current study, I will make an attempt to demonstrate the interrelatedness.
All the information above leads to the following research question:
How do perceived context variables and process variables influence the level of employees’ commitment to change during a change process?
8
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The perceived internal circumstances under which change occurs (climate of change, i.e. change context) and the process of how change is dealt with (Bouckenooghe et al., 2009) play a salient role in organizational change. Below the embedded variables of this study are defined, as well as explanations of their effects on commitment to change. In section 2.1 is commitment to change examined. The perceived context variables are described in section 2.2 and the process variables in section 2.3. In section 2.4 the conceptual model of this study is visualized.
2.1. Commitment to change
Definitions According to Neves (2011), commitment to change has only recently been the focus of literature studies. Research has shown that commitment to change is theoretically and empirically dissimilar from organizational commitment. Also, commitment to change is a better predictor of support for change than organizational commitment (Herold et al., 2008; Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002). Meyer and Allen (1991) distinguish in their model between three forms of organizational commitment: affective commitment, continuance commitment and normative commitment. In 2002, Hercovitch and Meyer used these three forms of organizational commitment for their definitions of commitment to change. Employees can feel bound to support change because they (1) desire to provide support for change based on a belief in its inherent benefits (affective commitment to change), (2) recognize that there are costs associated with failure to provide support for the change (continuance commitment to change), and (3) are ought to provide support for the change (normative commitment to change). This research will emphasize affective commitment to change.
When employees are affective committed to change, employees are emotional attached to, are able to identify with, and feel involved in the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Thus employees want to become part of the organization and want to be involved in matters concerning the organization, such as a change process. In this study the definition of Herscovitch and Meyer is used to define commitment to change: “….a mind-set that binds an individual to a course of action which is necessary for the successful implementation of a change initiative” (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002: 475). An addition in this respect is the intention to support it as well as the willingness to work on behalf of its successful implementation (Herold et al., 2008).
9
objectives for change (Neves, 2011). According to Herscovitch and Meyer (2002), commitment to change is one of the most essential aspects in employee support for change initiatives. Neves (2011) adds that even the best-developed change initiatives would fall short without such support. Therefore, change needs commitment to see it through institutionalization (Armenakis & Harris, 2002).
In the next sections the relation is examined between commitment to change and the perceived organizational context (e.g. bureaucratic job features and organizational culture) and the process variables (e.g. quality of communication, support by supervisors and participation).
2.2. Perceived context variables
A description of the perceived context variables ‘bureaucratic job features’ and ‘organizational culture’ are given in the next two subsections and their relations with commitment to change are examined. The context variables are at all times about the perception of employees regarding these variables, since employees may perceive the variables in different ways and individuals may differ in their personal needs regarding the embedded variables.
2.2.1. Perceived bureaucratic job features
Definitions Research has shown that employees’ reactions to an employee’s job are important components of the perceived context (Eby et al., 2000). Perceived bureaucratic job features can directly affect employees’ attitudes and behavior at work (Hackman & Oldham, 1976) and thus commitment to change as well. The embedded bureaucratic job features in this study are related to Tayloristic designed jobs, since many organizations are still Tayloristic designed organizations (Vos et al., 2011) (see the introduction of this study). Hackman and Oldham (1976) created a job characteristics model. This model explains among others the process by which positive perceptions regarding change may be fostered (Eby et al., 2000). Furthermore, the model can serve as a framework for assessment and interpretation of the effects of changes within an organization (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). The job characteristics model includes the following job dimensions: skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). In the context of this research (Tayloristic designed jobs) the relevant and embedded job dimensions are skill variety, task identity and autonomy. Low perceived scores on these dimensions characterize Tayloristic designed jobs.
10
the person.” (Hackman & Oldham, 1976: 257). Task identity is about result-oriented working: level to which the work requires completion of a whole and identifiable piece of work (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). Autonomy is about employees’ freedom in scheduling work, freedom and independence, in making work related decisions, freedom to choose and initiate their actions, and high levels of control (Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Parish, Cadwallader & Busch, 2008). Another embedded job characteristic in the context of Tayloristic designed jobs is the high division of labor. Each individual is assigned a specialized and repetitive activity when division of labor is applied (Boonstra, Steensma & Demenint, 2007). A strong focus on control and the reliance of organizations on routines, which make it comfortable for employees to handle daily tasks (Cohen et al., 2004; Werkman et al., 2005).
In relation to commitment to change The above mentioned bureaucratic job features do have a relationship to commitment to change. A job that is characterized by low skill variety and a low task significance may reduce perceptions that an employee’s job is important and meaningful (Eby et al., 2000). This may decrease the likelihood that employees will support organizational change, since a high level of meaningfulness is believed to result in a higher commitment to change (Eby et al., 2000; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). On the other hand, employees with no responsibilities, no active approach to problem-solving and with lesser control over challenging tasks are less likely to participate in organizational change, are less likely to contribute to organizational innovation, and show lower levels of commitment to change (Cunningham et al., 2002; Spreitzer, 1995; Parish et al., 2008). If employees are assigned specialized and repetitive activities, it reduces change capacity within teams because not all the appropriate information is available for troubleshooting (Boonstra et al., 2007; Beer & Eisenstat, 1996). As a result, the advantages of implementing change cannot be understood. Hence, this does not contribute to the commitment to change. Finally, routines may make it comfortable handling daily tasks, but routines can cause practices to become rigid, resulting in a decrease in employees’ adaptability to rapid changes of the turbulent environment (Cohen et al., 2004). This leads to the following hypothesis:
Hypotheses 1: A lower perceived skill variety, task identity and autonomy and a higher perceived division of labor leads to lower levels of commitment to change.
11
2.2.2. Perceived organizational culture
Definitions There are many definitions of organizational culture (Burnes, 2009). The most widely accepted definition is “…the unique configuration of norms, values, beliefs, and ways of behaving and so on, that characterize the manner in which groups and individuals combine to get things done.” (Burnes, 2009: 200). Organizational culture is according to Smollan and Sayers (2009) substantially about values. Values determine for members what is important within the organization and what they need to pay attention to (Burnes, 2009). The Competing Values Model of Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) offers a structure to describe different cultures according to their cultural values as perceived by employees. The values vary along two dimensions: control versus flexibility and internal versus external focus. From this, four types of culture are deducted: human relations (flexible, internal), open systems (flexible, external), internal process (control, internal) and rational goal (control, external) (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983). The characteristics of the different types of organizational culture are visualized in figure 1.
FIGURE 1
Four types of organizational culture and their characteristics
Source: Zammuto and O’Connor, 1992
12
serves as a basis of interpreting the situation and acts as a source of influence for shaping behavior (e.g. show commitment or resistance to organizational change) (Burnes & James, 1995).
In relation to commitment to change A characteristic of the human relations culture is training and development of its employees. Consequently, the confidence level and capability level increase to undertake new challenges (e.g. organizational change) (Jones et al., 2005). Burnes and James (1995) state also that when employees perceive trust in the organization, employees are already more receptive to change.
Characteristics of the open systems culture are ‘dynamism’ and ‘innovativeness’, whereby change is emphasized (Zammuto and O’Connor, 1992). This would suggest that employees who perceive their organizational culture to be an open system are more likely to be committed to organizational change (Jones et al., 2005; Zammuto and O’Connor, 1992). In organizations where employees perceive change to be the norm and where employees expect positive outcomes regarding the change, employees are already more receptive to change (Burnes & James, 1995). As visualized in figure 1, these are characteristics of the open systems culture.
Perceived organizational support refers to an employee’s perception that the organization is supportive of his or her concerns and takes care for the employees’ well-being (Zammuto & O’Connor, 1992). When employees perceive the organization as supportive, changes may be perceived less threatening, therefore commitment to change increases (Eby et al., 2000; Burnes & James, 1995; Jones et al., 2005). Perceived supportive cultures are likely to exist in organizations with cultures emphasizing flexibility (human relations culture and open systems culture). Thus, employees report higher levels of commitment to change when they perceive stronger human relations values and open systems values at their department (Jones et al., 2005; Eby et al., 2000; Cooper, 1994). From this, the following hypotheses may be deducted:
Hypothesis 2a: A higher perceived human relations culture leads to higher levels of commitment to change.
Hypothesis 2b: A higher perceived open systems culture leads to higher levels of commitment to change.
13
‘Central decision making’ is a characteristic of the rational goal culture (Jones et al., 2005). Since employees have the feeling they are not involved in decision making, the feeling of importance in the organization decreases. Involvement of employees during decision making (decentralized decision making) could extend the employees’ understanding of the changes and what the change initiative means for their job. This increases their commitment to change (Whelan-Berry & Somerville, 2010; Meyer & Allen, 1991).
Employees who perceive their organizational culture as internal process culture or rational goal culture tend to have lower levels of cohesion and morale (Jones et al., 2005). It is expected that this will not lead to higher levels of commitment. Besides, in the research of Zammuto and O’Connor (1992) the perceived organizational cultures, internal process culture and rational goal culture were negatively correlated with leader credibility, trust and morale, but they were positively correlated with conflict and resistance to change. From this, the following hypotheses may be formulated:
Hypothesis 2c: A higher perceived internal process culture leads to lower levels of commitment to change.
Hypothesis 2d: A higher perceived rational goal culture leads to lower levels of commitment to change.
As described, both the perceived bureaucratic job features and perceived organizational culture appears to be related to commitment to change. According to Armenakis and Bedeian (1999), responses to changes also depend on process variables, which are described in the following section.
2.3. Process variables
Compared to context variables, process variables can be influenced by change agents and managers and refer to the approaches of how to deal with change processes (Bouckenooghe et al., 2009; Self et al., 2007). In the following subsections: quality of change communication, support by supervisors and participation are described and their relationship to commitment to change is examined.
2.3.1. Quality of communication
14
communication is to create mutual understanding and trusting relationships (Van Vuuren & Elving, 2008). The way in which change is communicated is crucial to its success (Palmer et al., 2009). According to Yazici (2002), effective communication is the combination of how well information is delivered (delivery rate and delivery time), accessed, shared, and used. Employees that reported receiving timely, informative, and useful information about an organizational change presented a more positive evaluation of the change and increased willingness to cooperate (Oreg, 2006). From this, the quality of communication can be defined as ‘the extent to which information is provided timely, informative, and useful about the change’.
In relation to commitment to change Kotter (1995) states that employees will not make sacrifices, even if they are unhappy with the status quo, unless they believe that useful change is possible. Communication can contribute in this belief. Thus without plausible communication, employees will never feel committed to change (Van Vuuren & Elving, 2008; Jones et al., 2005). Besides, without adequate information employees may be uncertain on how to react to change and on how the change will affect their current job (Wanberg & Banas, 2000). Some of the negative responses to organizational changes are caused by managers’ negligence of the importance of communicating a consistent change message (Armenakis & Harris, 2002). Consequently, the establishment of a consistent and effective communication process can considerably reduce employees’ levels of uncertainty (Burnes, 2009). In turn, this removes one of the major obstacles to employees’ willingness to get involved in the change process, and thus increases the commitment to change (Armenakis & Harris, 2002). From this, the following hypothesis may be deduced:
Hypotheses 3: A higher perceived quality of communication leads to higher levels of commitment to change.
Quality of communication is one of the variables based on an article of Bouckenooghe et al. (2009) which state that several process variables influence readiness for change. The next described variable ‘support by supervisors’ is also based on this article. In the next section an explanation of the variable is given and its relation to commitment to change is examined.
2.3.2. Support by supervisors
15
extent of support to which one feels that the organization’s leadership and management are or are not committed to change. And the feeling whether the management is supportive or not for the actual implementation of change. This definition is an important addition since this research is about change and the variables influencing commitment to change.
Supervisors have greater influence on personally modeling behavior of the employees and providing support on a more regular and personal basis compared to senior leaders. Their position in the organizational structure makes them key players between the demands of top management and the consequences of change on the employees of their respective department (Metselaar, 1997; Coyle-Shapiro, 1999). It is therefore not unexpected that the support of (first-line) supervisors is critical to effecting change at the level of employees (Coyle-Shapiro, 1999). Therefore, within the boundaries of this study, leadership is about support of supervisors instead of leadership of senior leaders.
In relation to commitment to change When employees receive personal support from their supervisors, employees are more likely to accept the change initiative (Bommer et al., 2005; Lyons, Swindler & Offner, 2009; Holt et al., 2007). Armenakis and Harris (2002) emphasize that employees have already experienced many failures in relation to change efforts due to a lack of support from supervisors. From this, employees become skeptical and unwilling to actively engage in the proposed change until a clear demonstration of support is made by their supervisors. The actions on the part of a supervisor, as described above, are expected to promote employees’ feelings of self-determination and personal initiative at work, which should then boost levels of interest in work activities (Oldham & Cummings, 1996) and thereby increases commitment to change. Nutt (in Armenakis and Harris, 2002) did research at 91 hospitals and found that the most successful change processes were those in which employees’ perceived timely and continuing support from their supervisors. This leads to the following hypothesis:
Hypotheses 4: A higher perceived supportive behavior by supervisors leads to higher levels of commitment to change.
Like quality of communication and support by supervisors, the final described variable ‘participation’ is also based on the article of Bouckenooghe et al. (2009). In the following subsection participation is described and it’s relation to commitment to change is examined.
2.3.3. Participation
16
about organizational change (Bouckenooghe et al., 2009; Lines, 2004; Whelan-Berry & Somerville, 2010; Burnes, 2009). Participation is more concerned with bottom-up rather than top-down approaches. Furthermore, participation is a process where influence is shared among employees with differing positions in the organizational hierarchy (Rafferty & Simons, 2006; Lines, 2004). In the existing literature participation and involvement are used interchangeably (Coyle-Shapiro, 1999; Lines, 2004).
There are many forms of participation. Some authors make a distinction between direct and indirect participation (Torka et al., 2010; Cox, Zagelmeyer & Marchington, 2006). Direct participation is when employees have personal influence in the decision making process without the mediation of representatives. Direct participation allows employees to exercise influence over their work and over their working conditions. Representative participation, through unions, workplace committees and works councils for example, is defined as indirect participation (Torka et al., 2010; Cox et al. 2006). In this research the focus lays on direct participation in decision making.
In relation to commitment to change Participation will reduce resistance and creates higher levels of commitment (Lines, 2004; Torka et al, 2010; Rafferty & Simons, 2006). Eby et al. (2000) state that employees who perceive a participative work environment would be more receptive to changes and are more committed to organizational change. This may be explained by the fact that when participation is possible in a given organization, the feeling of meaningfulness of the organization increases. Participation can extend the employees’ understanding of the changes and what the change initiative means for their job (Whelan-Berry & Somerville, 2010). In order to increase acceptance of change and a positive view of the change amongst employees, managers need to listen to employees’ input regarding change (Wanberg & Banas, 2000). Research has shown that direct participation influences commitment to change more strongly than indirect participation. This leads to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 5: A higher perceived possible participation leads to higher levels of commitment to change.
17
2.4. Conceptual Model
In this research the influence of perceived context variables (perceived bureaucratic job features and perceived organizational culture) and process variables (quality of communication, support by supervisors and participation) on commitment to change are examined. One could draw a conceptual model as shown in figure 2, taking all five variables together and demonstrate their relationships to commitment to change.
FIGURE 2 Conceptual Model
18
3. METHODOLOGY
The previous chapter elaborates the theoretical framework for this study, including eight hypotheses. In order to test if there were statistically significant causal relationships between the independent variables and the dependent variable, a quantitative research approach was used. In the first section, the field of study is described. In section 3.2 the participants' involvement and procedure of data collection are explained. The measures of the variables are described in section 3.3 and the data analysis which describes the used analyzes can be found in section 3.4.
3.1 Field of study
As described in the introduction of this study, the context of this research is the healthcare sector which is a moving sector. Performance requirements, competition, efforts to improve cost-efficiency and re-engineering of work processes are placing enormous demands on healthcare institutions and their employees (Cunningham et al., 2002). Consequently, healthcare institutions are undergoing unavoidable changes (Cunningham et al., 2002). Company X is the research object to this study. The changes at Company X also applicable to other healthcare organizations. Therefore, the case study was generalizable to other organizations in the healthcare sector and thus appropriate for this study.
Company X is established in Alkmaar. Company X is a clinical training/education hospital with a full medical specialist package. The implementation of the changes ‘Aandachtsvelders’, ‘Ligduurverkorting’ and ‘Sterdienst’ this year (2012) at the department’s Internal Medical Science (Interne Geneeskunde) and Stomach, Intestine and Liver Diseases (Maag-, Darm- en Leverziekten) were used as cases for this study. These two departments have a close cooperation and may be seen as a functional unit divided into two teams (team 1 and team 2). In total 80 employees work at these departments. Since 2009 many changes were implemented at these departments in an often viciously way. In July 2011 the management of team 1 and team 2 were dismissed, which had much impact on the two departments. Therefore, it can be stated that 2011 was a dynamic year for the two teams.
3.2 Participants and data collection procedures
19
Questionnaires were distributed in hard copy, since the involved employees do not generally work with computers. Participation in the survey was voluntary and anonymous. Employees were given a deadline of two weeks to return the questionnaire. Reminders were posted in the department’s newsletter, e-mailed, and posted on bulletin boards in the canteen. After a disappointing response the deadline was postponed by four weeks. In total 39 (56%) responded.
Table 1 shows the background information of the respondents. The respondents can be seen as representative for the employees of team 1 and team 2, all numbers in table 1 were comparable with the real situation at Company X.
TABLE 1
Background Information Respondents Company X
Population (N) 70 Age (Mean) 38.19
Respondents (n) 39 Age (St. Deviation) 12.06
Team 1 – number of respondents 16 Sex: Female 100%
Team 2 – number of respondents 21 Working years (Mean) 12.14 Employees working at both team 1 and 2 2 Working years (St. deviation) 12.76
Function: Nurse 34
Function: Other 4
Function: Missing value 1
3.3 Measures
The measures of the variables were all acquired from previous literature studies. In the following subsections the measures are described.
3.3.1 Commitment to change
20
3.3.2 Perceived bureaucratic job features
The perceived bureaucratic job features were measured based on a questionnaire developed by Karasek et al., (1998). Seven questions were selected from the two core scales (job control and job demands) of their extensive Job Content Questionnaire. The items were: “I have many responsibilities”, “my job allows me to make a lot of decisions on my own”, “on my job, I am given a lot of freedom to decide how I do my work”, “I get to do a variety of things on my job”, “I have a lot to say about what happens on my job”, “my job involves a lot of repetitive work” and “my job requires that I learn new things”. Based on a reliability analysis the item “my job requires that I lean new things” had been eliminated because the Cronbach alpha rises from .68 to .75. All responses were made on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), with an option to answer ‘neutral’.
3.3.3 Perceived organizational culture
The organizational culture was measured based on an instrument developed by Meyer, Hecht, Gill and Toplonytsky (2010). The employees were asked to indicate the extent to which the organization possesses characteristics associated with each of the four culture types of the Competing Values Framework of Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) along seven dimensions. Examples of the items were: “The glue that holds the organization together consists of loyalty and commitment” and “the atmosphere inside the organization emphasizes dynamism, growth and readiness to meet new challenges”. The item “the glue that holds the organization together are formal procedures, rules and regulations” was eliminated since the Cronbach alpha of organizational culture rises from .59 to .63. All responses were made on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), with an option to answer ‘neutral’.
3.3.4 Quality of communication
The quality of communication regarding changes was measured by the ‘quality of information scale’ developed by Miller, Johnson and Grau (1994). Examples of the items were: “The information I have received concerning the implementation of work teams has been timely” and “the information I have received about the implementation of work teams has been useful”. All responses were made on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), with an option to answer ‘neutral’.
3.3.5 Support by supervisors
21
coach us very well about implementing the change“ and “our department’s senior managers pay sufficient attention to the personal consequences that the changes could have for their staff members.” All responses were made on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), with an option to answer ‘neutral’.
3.3.6 Participation
Participation was measured based on the questionnaire developed by Bouckenooghe et al. (2009). Three questions were removed from this eleven-item scale in consultation with the management of Company X, since these questions were not relevant to the particular case. The involved items were: “Changes are always discussed with all people concerned”, “decisions concerning work are taken in consultation with the staff who are affected”, “my department’s management team takes account of the staff’s remarks”, “staff members were consulted about the reasons for change”, “front line staff and office workers can raise topics for discussion”, “our department provide sufficient time for consultation”, “the way change is implemented leaves little room for personal input” and “staff members are sufficiently involved in the implementation of the changes by our department’s senior managers.” According to Pasmore and Fagans (1992) the validity of participation measures is dependent on the level of specificity in the questions. Therefore, three questions of Lines (2004) were added about participation in different activities of the change process: “Affected persons became actively involved in the development of the change content”, “affected persons were actively involved in the development of solutions to identified problems” and “suggestions from affected persons were considered seriously”. All items responses were made on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), with an option to answer ‘neutral’.
3.3.7 Control variables
Meyer and Allen (1991) gave a ‘laundry list’ of authors which have been linked to demographic characteristics such as age, organizational tenure, sex, and education to commitment to change. In this research these demographic characteristics functioned as control variables. In addition, the employees’ team and their work position were included in the questionnaire. The questions were open as to have the respondent write an answer or select between the possible answers when provided (e.g. “which team do you work for? Option 1: team 1 and option 2: team 2).
3.3.8 Other information regarding the measures
22
vocational education (in Dutch, Middelbaar Beroepsonderwijs) as their highest education, because many of the respondents involved do have such a level of language skills. Consequently, in order to make the questions understandable for all employees, many of the questions were translated in standard simple formulated Dutch.
3.4 Data analysis
The first step of the data analysis was recoding the items into positively formulated items. The second step was checking for errors and outliers, since scores that fall outside the possible range can distort the statistical analysis. No errors were found. Given the fact that all the values of the outliers were not too different to the remaining distribution and the questionnaires were filled in seriously, all cases were retained in the data file. The next step was a reliability analysis in order to increase homogeneity and internal consistency of the constructs. After the scales had been validated, two sets of research were performed to analyze the stated hypothesis. The first set of analysis was the correlation analysis (specifically Pearson product-moment correlation test). The second set of analysis used single and multiple regression analyses. During the statistical analysis the option ‘exclude cases pairwise’ was used in this research, in accordance with Pallant (2005) who strongly recommends this option when not all questionnaires are completed.
23
4 RESULTS
In this chapter the findings of this study are shown. Firstly, the results of the correlation analysis are presented to determine the correlations between the variables. After that, the results of the single and hierarchical multiple regression are shown in section 4.2 in order to investigate the causal relationships between the dependent variable and its antecedents.
4.1 Correlation analysis
The correlation between variables is determined by the correlation analysis. In table 2 the means, standard deviations, correlation coefficients (r) and the Cronbach alphas are shown.
Commitment to change scores relatively high (M = 3.77). The perceived bureaucratic job features scores relatively high as well (M = 3.75). Results demonstrate that employees have a mainly moderate positive response regarding the constructs: quality of communication (M = 3.51), support by supervisors (M = 3.62) and participation (M = 3.47) during change processes. Furthermore, the mean of human relations culture (M = 3.68) and open systems culture (M = 3.67) scores higher compared to internal process culture (M = 3.41) and rational goal culture (M = 3.21).
Based on table 2, not all correlations between the independent variables perceived bureaucratic job features, perceived organizational culture, quality of communication, support by supervisors, participation and the dependent variable commitment to change show significant values. A moderately strong correlation is found between open systems culture and commitment to change (.47, p < .01). Open systems culture helps to explain 22 per cent of the variance in respondents’ scores on commitment to change. A weaker correlation is found between internal process culture and commitment to change (.35, p < .05).
24 TABLE 2
Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities and Correlations of Context and Process Variables with Commitment to Change
Notes:Cronbach alpha’s are presented diagonal between brackets **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1. Age 38.19 12.06 2. Education 3.34 .82 -.04 3. Tenure 12.14 12.76 .75** -.01 4. Team 1.64 .58 .37* .25 .52** 5. Function 1.21 .62 .27 -.04 .44** .20 6. Commitment 3.77 .74 .08 .42* .17 .47** .12 (.94)
7. Bureaucratic job features 4.11 .35 -.14 -.27 -.24 -.24 .21 -.07 (.75)
8. Human relations culture 3.68 .48 .23 -.05 .16 .20 .05 .39* .03 (.79)
9. Open systems culture 3.67 .48 .12 -.01 .11 .17 .20 .47** .25 .78** (.79)
10. Internal process culture 3.41 .37 -,15 .20 -.17 .21 -.09 .35* -.01 .34* .26 (.63)
11. Rational goal culture 3.21 .57 .00 .20 .20 .12 .30 -.03 .01 .19 .37* .41* (.85)
12. Quality of communication 3.51 .51 .34 .03 .24 .19 .02 .26 .12 .61** .49** .19 .00 (.87)
13. Support by supervisors 3.62 .45 .21 .13 .13 .23 .05 .28 .05 .75** .63** .39* .22 .65** (.81)
25
4.2 Regression analysis
The eight hypothesis in this study are tested by means of the single regression analysis and the hierarchical multiple regression analysis. The main results of the single regression analysis are presented in table 3.
TABLE 3
Single Regression Analysis Including Control Variables Predicting Commitment to Change Beta Bu reau cratic jo b f eat u res H u m an re lati o n s cul ture Open sy ste m s cul ture In te rn al p ro cess cul ture Ratio n al g o al cul ture Qua lity o f c o m m u n icatio n Su p p o rt b y sup erv is o rs P articip ati o n Independent variables .10 .35* .43** .24 -.06 .21 .16 .23 Education .35 .36* .34* .30 .31 .32 .31 .37* Tenure -.04 -.10 -.05 .01 -.07 -.13 -.08 -.11 Team .41* .34 .33 .32 .41* .39* .38 .34 Function .04 .09 .00 .08 .10 .10 .08 .07 R2 .33 .44* .49** .37 .32 .36 .35 .36 R2 change .01 .12* .17** .05 .00 .04 .03 .04
Notes: Step 1 = Single regression analysis with respondents’ individual attributes, step 2 – single regression with individual attributes and per analysis one independent variable * p <.05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001
26 TABLE 4
Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Commitment to Change Beta Beta Step 1 Step 2 Education .23 Tenure .15 Team .22 Function .08
Bureaucratic job features .11
Human relations culture -.05
Open systems culture .69*
Internal process culture .44*
Rational goal culture -.44*
Quality of communication -.09
Support by supervisors -.27
Participation .02
R2 .66
R2 change .34
Notes: the values (b) are standardized regression coefficients * p <.05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001
4.2.1 Hypothesis 1
Hypotheses 1 suggested that a lower perceived skill variety, task identity and autonomy and a higher perceived division of labor leads to lower levels commitment to change. In the single regression analysis no significant causal relationship has been found between perceived bureaucratic job features and commitment to change (.10, p n.s.). Also in the multiple regression analysis no significant effect has been found on commitment to change (.11, p n.s.).
4.2.2 Hypothesis 2a
27
4.2.3 Hypothesis 2b
Hypothesis 2b predicts that a higher perceived open systems culture leads to higher levels of commitment to change. In the single regression analysis a significant causal relationship is found on commitment to change (.43, p < .01). In the multiple regression analysis a strong significant positive effect on commitment to change has been found as well (.69, p < .05). This means that this variable makes the strongest unique contribution to explaining the dependent variable commitment to change, when the variance explained by all other variables in the model is controlled for.
4.2.4 Hypothesis 2c
Hypothesis 2c suggested that a higher perceived internal process culture leads to lower levels of commitment to change. No significant causal relationship is found between internal process culture and commitment to change in the single regression analysis (.24, p n.s.). In the multiple regression there is a significant causal relationship between internal process culture and commitment to change (.44, p < .05).
4.2.5 Hypothesis 2d
Hypothesis 2d predicts that a higher perceived rational goal culture leads to lower levels of commitment to change. The single regression shows there is no relationship between rational goal culture and commitment to change. However, in the multiple regression analysis a significant negative effect is found between rational goal culture on commitment to change (-.44, p < .05).
4.2.6 Hypothesis 3
Hypothesis 3 suggested that a perceived higher quality of communication leads to higher levels of commitment to change. In the single regression (.21, p n.s.) and multiple regression analysis (-.09, p n.s.) are no significant effects found between quality of communication and commitment to change.
4.2.7 Hypothesis 4
Hypothesis 4 predicts that a perceived supportive behavior by supervisors during change process leads to higher levels of commitment to change. In the single regression there is no significant effect found between supportive supervisors and commitment to change (.16, p n.s.). This also applies to the multiple regression analysis (-.27, p n.s.).
4.2.8 Hypothesis 5
28
found between participation and commitment to change (.23, p n.s.). This also applies to the multiple regression analysis (.02, p n.s.).
4.2.9 Control variables
The control variable education is significant at the variables human relations culture (.36, p < .05), open systems culture (.34, p < .05), and participation (.37, p < .05) in the single regression analysis. Thus, employees who are better educated have higher scores on commitment to change compared to employees who are lower educated on these variables. Furthermore, the single regression in table 3 shows that the control variable team is significant at the variable perceived bureaucratic job features (.41, p < .05) and the variable rational goal culture (.41, p < .05). This indicates that employees in team 2 score higher on commitment to change compared to employees of team 1 on these variables.
29
5 DISCUSSION
Central to this research was the supposed theoretical relationship between perceived context variables (bureaucratic job features and organizational culture) and process variables (quality of communication, support by supervisors and the level of participation) on the level of commitment for change amongst employees in the healthcare sector.
Commitment to change has been understood as fundamental to change initiatives (Cunningham, 2006; Neves, 2011; Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Armenakis and Harris, 2002). Following from this theory, the amount of willingness to accept change depends on the perceived organizational context and the process variables (Bouckenooghe et al., 2009; Holt et al., 2007; Devos et al., 2002; Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999). Eight hypotheses have been deduced from the existing literature on organizational change. However, not all of these propositions have been confirmed, which is in contrast to the current understanding of commitment to change (Cunningham et al., 2002; Jones et al., 2005; Van Vuuren & Elving, 2008; Lyons et al., 2009; Lines, 2004).
5.1 Theory versus results
From the results of the case study, no significant effects were measured between perceived bureaucratic job features and commitment to change (hypothesis 1). This would mean that the general preference for Tayloristic designed jobs (higher skill variety, higher task identity, higher autonomy and a lower division of labor) could be rendered meaningless in relationship to increasing commitment to change (Almekinders, 2005).
In this study, organizational culture has been the most significant variable which influences employees’ commitment to change. However, the results regarding perceived organizational culture turned out somewhat unexpected.
One of such is the human relations culture, which the literature understands as an orientation which mobilizes the forces and energies needed for an employee to feel confident and able to undertake challenges and changes at the workplace (Bouckenooghe et al., 2009; Jones et al., 2005; Zammuto & O’Connor, 1992). However, the proposed positive relation with commitment to change was not confirmed by the results in this study (hypothesis 2a). The hypothetical relationship between employees’ perceptions of an open systems culture and their commitment to change was supported by the data (hypothesis 2b).
30
Another unexpected result was the significant positive causal relationship between the perceived internal process culture and commitment to change. Unexpected because many studies indicate that a perceived internal process culture does not encourage organizational change (hypothesis 2c) (Zammuto & O’Connor, 1992; Werkman et al., 2005; Boonstra et al., 2007; Jones et al., 2005). One of the characteristics of the internal process culture is the use of rules and regulations (Zammuto and O’Connor, 1992). Meyer and Allen (1991) state there is some evidence for affective commitment in relation to formalization of policy and procedures. Possibly, this could be an explanation for the positive relationship in the current research. However, it should be taken into account that Meyer and Allen's research (1991) takes focus on organizational commitment and not specifically on commitment to organizational change.
The results regarding perceived rational goal culture were more extreme than anticipated. A significant negative effect is found of rational goal culture on commitment to change, since only lower levels of commitment to change were anticipated (hypothesis 2d). According to Zammuto and O’Connor (1992), perceived rational goal structure will increase conflict and resistance to change. This could explain the negative causality, since resistance correlates with employees’ commitment to organizational change (Oreg, 2006).
31
investigate more closely the link between these variables since there is no single agreement in the way these are linked together.
5.2 Limitations
When conducting this study some limitations were upheld. Firstly, the study took place within a single organization: Company X. As described in the methodology, this was appropriate within the context of this research. However, the research could have been more generally applicable if more case studies would have been involved. Secondly, the sample size was small. This might have increased a Type I error. Since the sample size is small, the results obtained probably do not generalize with other samples. 39 respondents are unlikely to have provided the statistical significance needed to notice the full extent of the complex relationships suggested in the present research. Therefore, the results are of little scientific value. According to Tabachnick and Fidell (2001) the number of independent variables needs to be taken into account when calculating sample size requirements. They formulated the following formula: N > 50 +8m (where m = number of independent variables). In the current research five independent variables are used, therefore a sample size of 90 should be appropriate. A third limitation is that the results of the hierarchical multiple regression analysis are mainly biased since the high level of correlations between many variables. This should be taken into account when interpreting the results of the hierarchical multiple regression analysis. A fourth limitation is that all hypotheses in this study are formulated as unidirectional causalities: e.g. a higher perceived quality of communication leads to higher levels of commitment to change. The statistical analyses used in order to test these causal relationships are a correlation analysis, a single regression analysis and multiple regression analysis. However, the results of these statistical analyses only give a useful answer to the question whether or not there is a relationship between the dependent and independent variable under ceteris paribus. The longitudinal study provides a more effective basis for valid answers about the degree of causality and whether the results are actually the supposed causalities, and not a reverse causality, or if there exists a determining role of a third variable. The data limited the possibility to conduct such an analysis, because the time dimension could not be included in the model. Moreover, one could argue that this research suffers from endogeneity problems. Endogeneity refers to the possibility of reverse causality. For instance, a higher perceived quality of communication could lead to higher levels of commitment to change, but higher levels of commitment to change might lead to higher levels of perceived quality of communication as well. In case of endogeneity, analysis estimations of regression analyses would be biased and inconsistent.
32
and process perspective. Articles in literature regarding employees’ perceptions of the organizational context in raising commitment to organizational change are scarce (Jones et al., 2005; Meyer & Allen, 1991). Even though, change literature has suggested that investigation of organizational context is necessary for understanding the processes which lead to successful changes (Detert, Schroeder & Maurial, 2000). This study confirms that organizational context is important to consider in change processes. Furthermore, in addition to many studies, this research measures the independent variables regarding context and process factors to the dependent variable commitment to change instead of for example only context variables to commitment to change (Devos et al., 2002). Besides, previous research has not specifically studied the perceived (Tayloristic) bureaucratic job features and the perceived organizational culture and its influence on commitment to change. According to Smollan and Sayers (2009), little research is conducted which integrates employees’ reactions to change with an analysis of the perceived organizational culture. Finally, with the exception of a limited amount of studies, there is a lack of empirical research in the healthcare sector (Morgan & Ogbonna, 2008). This lack of research creates a major restriction in the current knowledge and theorizing, particularly in the context of current developments within the healthcare sector and the increasing number of such organizations which are undergoing major changes. This study is another step forward to close the gap in empirical research in the healthcare sector.
5.3 Future research
Some proposals are formulated for future research. The control variables regarding age and tenure were presented in the questionnaire as open questions. Some employees did not complete these questions, since they feared anonymity. For future research it is more appropriate to present the answer possibilities in the questionnaire into groups (e.g. age between 30 – 35; 36 – 40; etc.) as to ensure anonymity.
33
Bouckenooghe et al. (2009) state that future researchers should first measure the change context and the process variables of change and about two weeks later, researchers should assess the commitment to change scales. In such a manner the scales are collected independently, which increases concurrent validation.
Morgan and Ogbonna (2008) suggest that an organization’s culture is a blend of many subcultures which interact within a single organization and that these perceived subcultures should be studied. Organizational subcultures had markedly different perspectives and attitudes and responses to the implementation of change and thus commitment to change (Morgan & Ogbonna, 2008; Bloor & Dawson, 1994). Thus, in future research perceived organizational subcultures should be studied when examining its impact on commitment to change instead of perceived organizational culture as a whole.
Past research has identified many forms of participation (Torka et al., 2010; Cox et al. 2006; Armenakis & Harris, 2002) and according to Lines (2004) it has been proven that outcomes differ across forms. Inclusion of a very specific form of participation in future research could give more insight into the effects of that specific form of participation on commitment to change. A theory which could be used in future research is the participation ladder, developed by Arnstein (1969). The levels of participation are arranged in the form of a ladder composed of 8 rungs (see for the 8 rungs page 217 in Arnstein, 1969). When conducting research, researchers would be able to define the level of participation and therefore studies regarding participation could be made more precisely.
The independent variables in this research could function as moderators and mediators. Since n is relatively low in this research, investigating moderators and mediators was difficult. Other studies investigated for example that quality of communication could function as a moderator and as a mediator of organizational culture (Garnett, Marlowe & Pandey, 2008). For future research it could be interesting to elaborate on this subject.
34
5.4 Practical implications
On a practical side, the findings of this research could have significant value for managers as they prepare for the implementation for future changes. A better understanding of the relationships among perceived bureaucratic job features, perceived organizational culture, quality of communication, support by supervisors and participation may increase the capacity of organizations to make appropriate choices regarding how to use available resources in times of change.
In the current study, organizational culture is the single most significant variable which influences employees’ commitment to change. Therefore, organizational culture must be understood as a possibly significant aspect to the manner in which employees respond to change. An important addition to this is that organizational culture should be considered at the level of work groups/teams and departments, since it is likely that there does exist significant differences between teams and the perceived organizational cultures (Smolland & Sayers, 2009; Morgan & Ogbonna, 2008). Besides, Morgan and Ogbonna (2008) stress that the loyalties of present subcultures might be stronger than loyalty to the organization as a whole and that, as such, these factors might hamper managers’ authority to conduct organizational changes.
An important characteristic of the human relations culture is the training and development of employees. Locating expertise and information access at lower levels in the organization creates chances for continuous organizational learning and consequently increases flexibility and rapidity with which an organization can notice and respond to unexpected difficulties and chances (Zummuto and O’Connor, 1992; Joo and Lim, 2009; Jones et al., 2005). Organizations can adjust quite easily to this implication, although such a culture does have significant costs compared to the more control-oriented cultures (internal process and rational goal structure) (Zammuto and O’Connor, 1992). Examples of involved costs are training costs, higher wages, and higher implementation costs associated with redesigning the organization into a more flexible structure and culture. Such costs should be taken into account by organizations considering increasing training and development of employees.
35
Decentralized decision making improves an organization’s ability to respond quickly to the changing requirements and market conditions (Zammuto and O’Connor, 1992) and increases commitment to change. The team leaders should consider this in the future.
36
REFERENCES
Allen, R. & Delahunty, A. 2007. Oxford student’s dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Almekinders, M. 2005. Teams more appropriate in homecare? Improved results in homecare with the help of socio-technical organizational renewal. Scientific thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen.
Armenakis, A.A., & Bedeian, A.G. 1999. Organizational change: A review of theory and research in the 1990s. Journal of management, 25(3): 293-315.
Armenakis, A.A. & Harris, S.G. 2002. Crafting a change message to create transformational readiness. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(2): 169-183.
Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G. & Mossholder, K.W. 1993. Creating readiness for organizational change. Human Relations, 46(6): 681-703.
Arnstein, S.R. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4): 216-224.
Beer, M. & Eisenstat, R.A. 1996. Developing an organization capable of implementing strategy and learning. Human Relations, 49(5): 597-619.
Bloor, G. & Dawson, P. 1994. Understanding professional culture in organizational context. Organization Studies, 15(2): 275–295.
Bommer, W.H., Rich, G.A. & Rubin, R.S. 2005. Changing attitudes about change: Longitudinal effects of transformational leader behavior on employee cynicism about organizational change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(7): 733-753.
37
Bouckenooghe, D., Devos, G. & Broek, H. van den, 2009. Organizational change questionnaire – climate of change, processes, and readiness: Development of a new instrument. The Journal of Psychology, 143(6): 559-599.
Burnes, B. 2009. Managing Change: A strategic approach to organisational dynamics. (5th ed.) Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Burnes, B. & James, H. 1995. Culture, cognitive dissonance, and the management of change. International Journal of Operations and Productions Management, 15(8): 14-33.
Cinite, I., Duxbury, L. E. & Higgins, C. 2009. Measurement of perceived organizational readiness for change in the public sector. British Journal of Management, 20(2): 265‐277.
Cohen, D., McDaniel, R.R Jr., Crabtree, B.F., Ruhe, M.C., Weyer, S.M., Tallia, A., Miller, W.L., Goodwin, M.A., Nutting, P., Solberg, L.I., Zyzanski, S.J., Jaen, C.R., Gilchrist, V. & Stange, K.C. 2004. A practice change model for quality improvement in primary care practice. Journal of Healthcare Management, 49(3): 155-168
Cooper, R.B. 1994. The inertial impact of culture on IT implementation. Information & Management, 27(1): 17-31.
Cox, A., Zagelmeyer, S. & Marchington, M. 2006. Embedding employee involvement and participation at work. Human Resource Management Journal, 16(3): 250-267.
Coyle-Shapiro, J.A.-M. 1999. Employee participation and assessment of an organizational change intervention: A three-wave study of total quality management. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35(4): 439-456.
Cunningham, C.E., Woodward, C.A., Shannon, H.S., MacIntosh, J., Lendrum, B., Rosenbloom, D. & Brown, J. 2002. Readiness for organizational change: A longitudinal study of workplace, psychological and behavioural correlates. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(4): 377-392.
38
Chullen, C.L., Dunford, B.B., Angermeier, I., Boss, R.W. & Boss, A.D. 2010. Minimizing deviant behavior in healthcare organizations: the effects of supportive leadership and job design. Journal of Healthcare Management, 55(6): 381-397
Detert, J.R., Schroeder, R.G. & Mauriel, J.J. 2000. A framework for linking culture and improvement initiatives in organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 25(4): 850-863.
Devos, G., Vanderheyden, K., & Broeck, van den, H. 2002. A framework for assessing commitment to change: Process and context variables of organizational change. Vlerick Working Paper Series, Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School.
Eby, L.T., Adams, D.M., Russell, J.E.A. & Gaby, S.H. 2000. Perceptions of organizational readiness for change: factors related to employees’ reactions to the implementation of team-based selling. Human Relations, 53(3): 419-442.
Garnett, J.L., Marlowe, J. & Pandey, S.K. 2008. Penetrating the performance predicament: Communication as a mediator or moderator of organizational culture’s impact on public organizational performance. Public Administration Review, 68(2): 266-281.
Hackman, J.R. & Oldham G.R. 1976. Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2): 250-278.
Herold, D.M., Fedor, D.B., Caldwell, S.D. & Yi, L. 2008. The effects of transformational and change leadership on employees’ commitment to a change: a multilevel study. Journal of Applied Psycology, 93(2): 346-357.
Herscovitch, L. & Meyer, J.P. 2002. Commitment to organizational change: extension of a three-component model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3): 474-487.
