• No results found

The Capacity for Change: A Case Study at ABN AMRO

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "The Capacity for Change: A Case Study at ABN AMRO"

Copied!
44
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

1

The Capacity for Change:

A Case Study at ABN AMRO

Assessing the influence of critical success

factors on the capacity for change.

By

Menko Remmelts

University of Groningen

Faculty of Economics and Business

(2)

2

Abstract

This research examines the influence of critical success factors on the capacity for change. Understanding the capacity for change concept is becoming increasingly relevant for organizations. Because of the changing operating environment, organizations are forced to change at a far greater density than ever before. In this study, I hypothesize that critical success factors on the micro- and macro- level of an organization influence the capacity for change. To study this influence, seven independent variables are measured, namely the perceived; understanding of the change approach, willingness and ability to change, change-supportive organizational structure, openness of communication, participation, organizational culture an organizational strategy. These hypotheses are tested in a survey among 63 employees who are involved in implementing change in an organization in the financial sector. Outcome of the correlation analyses of data from the survey revealed that the critical success factors are highly correlated. The multiple linear regression showed that the critical success factors significantly relate to the capacity for change. The most important finding is that the change approach and openness of communication have the most significant influence on the capacity for change.

(3)

3

Inhoud

1 Introduction ... 4

2 Theory ... 6

2.1 Capacity for change ... 6

2.2 Critical success factors ... 6

2.2.1 Micro-level of the organization ... 7

2.2.2 Meso-level of the organization ... 9

2.3 Conceptual model ... 13 3 Research Methods ... 14 3.1 Data collection ... 14 3.1.1 Quantitative research ... 14 3.1.2 Qualitative research ... 15 3.2 Data analysis ... 16 3.2.1 Quantitative data ... 16 3.2.2 Qualitative data ... 18 4 Results ... 19 4.1 Descriptive statistics ... 19

4.2 Multiple regression analysis ... 19

4.3 Critical success factors ... 20

4.3.1 Employees’ understanding of the change approach ... 20

4.3.2 Employees’ willingness and ability for change ... 21

4.3.3 Perceived change-supportive organizational structure ... 22

4.3.4 Perceived communication openness for change ... 23

4.3.5 Perceived participation for change ... 24

4.3.6 Perceived organizational culture for change ... 24

4.3.7 Perceived organizational strategy for change ... 25

5 Conclusion and Discussion ... 27

5.1 Theoretical implication ... 28

5.1.1 Recommendations ... 29

5.2 Limitations and suggestions for further research ... 29

(4)

4

1 Introduction

All around the world, the banking sector is passing through a process of change (Insan & Warne, 2011). The banking industry is not the first industry to grapple with a profound changed operating environment; however, at the same time, stakeholders are not convinced that banking, particular in the US and Europe, can cope with the challenges on the horizon (McKinsey & Company, 2011). The challenge for the industry is how to cope with this change facing them; this challenge of a changing environment affects every bank and therefore this is also the case for the ABN AMRO Bank N.V. This organization has gone through an exceptional turbulent period of separation and integration, resulting in second- and first-order organizational change. Besides this change, it is now confronted with change passing through the financial industry.

Now that the integration with Fortis Netherlands and the ABN AMRO is complete, the bank is going into a new period. In the former ABN AMRO, the organization was not able to deliver long lasting and within budget change that met requirements. One of the main goals of the new board of directors is to focus on costs and placing client needs central in the day-to-day business. These initiatives, combined with the shift of the external environment, demands from the organization a ability to cope with change and the successful implementation of change in order to continue and improve the organizational performance. For the bank, and the Chief Operating Officer (COO) as executive for change especial, one of the most crucial goals is to make change; (1) more long lasting and (2) cost efficient, and to be sure, that it (3) meets its requirements. The organizational budget for change is downsized every year; because of this budget decrease, it is of great necessity for the COO that methods to make change more effective are developed/explored. In order to fulfill the role as successful change agent, the COO for Commercial & Merchant Banking (C&MB) has stated four key values to achieve this, namely (1) craftsmanship, (2) directing, (3) alternative solutions, and (4) sustainable change. Because of the changing banking environment, sustainable change is the key value management has the highest interested in.

(5)

5

The COO organization started in 2012 and is therefore a young organization, and one that needs to prove itself. If the COO is not capable of fulfilling its role, the roles and responsibilities will be transferred to other departments. Because of this high sense of urgency, management is anxious to know how the organization can improve its performance focusing on sustainable change. Management wants to know what the influence is of critical success factors on the capacity for change. From this point of view, the following research question was formulated:

What influence do critical success factors have on the capacity for change of an organization?

In the theory section will be further elaborated on the critical success factors at the organizational levels. The purpose of this study is to empirical assess the relationship between the critical success factors and the organizational capacity for change. This research is comprehensive on the knowledge, which independent variables influence the capacity for change. However, this research is not intended to be exhaustive it is possible that there are other variables influencing the capacity for change.

(6)

6

2 Theory

In this chapter, the supposed relationship between the critical success factors and the capacity for change are introduced and explained. Additionally, the conceptual model of this research is provided.

2.1 Capacity for change

The dependent variable of this research is the capacity for change. Pettigrew (1985) and White and Linden (2002) defined it as the ability of an organization to develop and implement appropriate organizational changes and to adapt constant to its environment. Organizations that have a capacity for change must not only have the ability (resources and capabilities) to change the organization successfully, they also must have the capability to maintain daily operations and implement subsequent change processes. Only by continuous change and adaptation, organizations will be able to keep up with their environment and thus survive (Burnes, 2009). However, what defines the capacity for change? According to Bennebroek et al. (2003), the change capacity relates to the degree to which aspects of an organization and aspects of a change process contribute to or hinder change. Buono and Kerber (2010) state that the capacity for change is the ability of an organization to change not just once, but as a normal course of events, in response to and in anticipation of internal and external shifts. In this research, the capacity for change is the ability of an

organization to change not just once but as a normal response to change in its environment. In order

to build a capacity for change, Buono and Kerber (2010) describe a number of required steps and conditions for and how to realize the desired result, a capacity for change. From their experience, suggest that in order to build a capacity for change, it is necessary to focus on critical success factors on the micro-, meso-, and macro-level of the organization.

In the next paragraphs, the relation between the capacity for change and the critical success factors on the micro-, meso- and macro level of an organization are examined.

2.2 Critical success factors

For this research, seven critical success factors on a micro-, meso- and macro organizational level are identified. The micro-level is the level of the individual in the organization; the meso-level is the level of the organization; and the macro-level is the level of institutions, market, government, and culture traditions. For this research, only the manageable critical success factors on the micro- and meso-level were selected.

(7)

7

2.2.1 Micro-level of the organization

Two independent variables are indentified on the micro-level of the organization for influencing the capacity for change. These are; the employees’ understanding of the change

approach and the employees’ willingness and ability to change. The next section will explain how the

employees’ understanding of the change approach has an influence on the capacity for change.

2.2.1.1 Employees’ understanding of the change approach

The process of change is changing; it is becoming more frequent, radical, and complex (Miller, 2004). Therefore, an organization needs to create a common framework for thinking and communicating about this topic. The complexity of change requires a deep, systematic, consistent, and integrated approach for change; this change approach is a core competency for a successful organization. Developments during change projects influence the effectiveness of that change (Burnes, 2009). Bridges (2003) identifies three key processes describing the human dimension to successful change implementation: (1) articulating the reason for change and the advantage of adopting it; (2) providing an environment that is conductive to change, promoting attitudes and behaviors that enable change, and valuing and supporting creativity and innovation; and (3) involving staff at all levels. Researchers conclude that focusing on facilitating a constant readiness for change is more effective than focusing on a specific change effort (Diefenbach & Klarner 2008). According to Armenakis, Harris, and Mossholder (1993:681), change readiness is “[R]eflected in organizational members’ beliefs, attitudes, and intensions regarding the extent to which changes are needed, and the organization’s capacity to successfully make changes.” From this, understanding of the change approach can be defined as; the extent to which various viewpoints, knowledge and awareness for

the change approach of an organization are shared in the organization. In order to stimulate and

support the attitude and beliefs of employees, it is necessary to provide coaching and consulting for handling change with a focus on creating expertise on implementing change. Research of Highs and Rowland (2005) has demonstrated the importance of the interaction between the understanding of the change approach and the change context. It is vital that all organizational members are aware of the different approaches for change as well as the advantage and limitations of different change approaches. If employees have a better understanding of a change approach of an organization, they are better able to handle the context of constant need for change (Buono & Kerber, 2010). The understanding of employees about the change approach will lead to superior implementation of change. This leads to the following hypothesis;

(8)

8

In the next section, the relation between the employees’ willingness and ability to change and the capacity for change is introduced.

2.2.1.2 Employees’ willingness and ability to change

According to Metselaar and Cozijnsen (2005), the intention of a person to support an initiated change depends on the willingness to change. Metselaar (1997) formulated a definition of willingness to change based on the model of Ajzen (1991): “A positive behavioral intention towards the implementation of modifications in an organization’s structure, work, or administrative processes, resulting in employee efforts [from the organization member’s side] to support or enhance the change process.” If an employee is willing to change, it will eventually result in the ability to change. The definition of Metselaar (1997) states that the willingness to change results in a positive attitude towards a change. The employees’ willingness towards change results in a behavior that will influence the capacity for change of an organization. Ajzen (1991) describes that the willingness towards change results in motivational factors towards change, namely, the acceptance of change, requisite to change, and the ability to change. Metselaar and Cozijnsen (2005) define the person’s behavioral intentions in a change setting as the willingness to change. If employees not accept change, commit to change, or have the ability to change, their acceptance of change is unlikely. The ability to change depends on the degree of control an employee’s perceptive over the unfolding change (Metselaar & Cozijnsen, 2005). Metselaar (1997) defined willingness and ability to change as: The positive behavioral intentions towards the implementation or modifications in an

organization’s structure and work and administrative processes, resulting in efforts from the organization member’s side to support or enhance the change process”. The definition from

Metselaar will be used in this study. It is essential for companies to create a climate of trust, honesty, and transparency in order to increase the employees’ willingness and ability to change. When organizational members do not trust the change implementer or the message, the goal of acceptance of change is unlikely achieved what will result in a lower level of willingness and ability to change. If employees do not accept change, do not commit to change, or do not have the ability to change, their acceptance of change is unlike resulting in a limited capacity for change. This has been hypothesized as follows:

(9)

9

In the next section, the independent variables on the meso-level of the organization are described, and their relation on the capacity for change explained.

2.2.2 Meso-level of the organization

In literature three organizational levels are distinguished, the second level of the organization is the meso-level of an organization. On this organizational level, five critical success factors are identified and researched for their perceived influence on the capacity for change. The critical success factors are observed on a meso-level, however the level of perception by the respondents is on a micro organizational level. This is because, in reality, for each individual the meso-level of the organization can be different. In the next section, will be elaborated on the five critical success factors.

2.2.2.1 Perceived change-supportive organizational structure

Structure refers to the organization of work and the relationship between different units in an organization (Kerber & Buono, 2010). Mintzberg (1983) defined organizational structure as “the set of all the ways in which the work is divided into different tasks, achieving coordination”. In order to have an organizational capacity for change, it is necessary that the organizational structure is created in such a way that it supports change. The structure reflects the formal scheme of relationships, communications, decision processes, procedures and systems (Zerilli, 1978), which allows an organization to develop its functions and achieve its objectives. An organizational structure also reflects the ways in which information and knowledge are distributed within the organization, which affects the efficiency of their utilization (Monk & Teare, 2006). A change supportive organizational structure is defined as; the way an organization is able to support change in the

informal and formal structure of the organization. In order to support this, there must be an

open-minded approach, and knowledge and information must be distributed within the organization in order to create a change-supportive organizational structure (Buono & Kerber, 2010). From this, the following hypothesis was derived.

Hypothesis 3: A high-perceived change supportive organizational structure will lead to a higher capacity for change.

(10)

10

2.2.2.2 Perceived communication openness for change

Palmer et al (2009) stated that the success of change is based on communication and therefore this is crucial for success. The primary goal of communication is to provide information about the nature of change (Armenakis & Harris, 2009 Elving & Bennebroek Gravenhorst, 2005). As stated by Edgelow (2011), communication is one of the four dimensions that are required for a successful change. Ford (1999) emphasized that communication, rather than the reverse, drives organizational change. Organizational capacity for change is influenced by effective communication, i.e., the ability of the organization to communicate vertical, horizontal and with customers (Oshrt, 1996). Change is accompanied by the disturbance of the existing situation; communication openness can help to reduce uncertainty with respect to the continuance or loss of job, status, power, or skills and knowledge needed (Elving & Bennebroek Gravenhorst, 2005). Communication is essential in gaining employees involvement for change. Communication is a critical factor in creating psychological ownership with the employees involved in change (Beer, 1980). It is vital to provide information about the goals, the content, and the planning of change, specific changes and the consequences these changes will have for the employee (Elving & Bennebroek Gravenhorst, 2005). A literature review on open communication targets two related components. First, organizations must provide information on their own initiative. Otherwise, employees will suspect something is hidden for them (Arpan and Pompper 2003). Second, to reduce the risk of false rumors, information should be complete (Coombs 1999) because “what you do not say can hurt you” (Kaufmann, Kesner, and Hazen 1994). Consequently, communication openness is defined as the extent to which an

organization inform organizational members about the nature of change proactive, prompt, and complete to modify the behavior of organizational members. Various studies have shown that

effective open communication about change influences the effectiveness of the change and the employees’ handling change. This affirms the idea that transparent and open communication before and during a change initiative, increases the acceptance for change and lowers the resistance among employees. This result in the following hypothesis;

Hypothesis 4: A high-perceived level of communication openness will lead to a higher capacity for

change.

In the next section, the perceived level of participation in change by employees is introduced.

2.2.2.3 The perceived level of participation in change

(11)

11

make the change successful. In order to effectively implement change by influencing the capacity for change, it is essential that employees are involved and participate. Burnes (2009) defines it as the

process of involving people in decision making and change activities within the organization. The

definition from Burnes will be used in this study. Active participation is one of the most effective means to realize change because it capitalizes on self-discovery (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). When organizational members participate in change, it enables the organization to create a change-supportive structure. As stated by Buono and Kerber (2010), building a change capacity involves a systematic approach to tap into people’s natural capacity to change by supporting change and making it a basic part of organizational life. As stated by Meyer and Stensaker (2003), participation in either formulation or implementation of change, or both, can contribute to a greater understanding of therefore commitment to change. Through participation, change becomes a basic part of organizational life. When employees are encouraged to participate in the change process and their input is enlisted, this participation is expected to increase employees’ commitment, performance, enhance acceptance of (even unfavorable) decisions and reduce resistance, according to Chawla and Kelloway (2004). Through participation, organizational members are able to understand the reason, rationale, and expected outcome of change and this will have a positive effect on the capacity for change. This has been hypothesized as follows:

Hypothesis 5: A high-perceived level of participation on change will lead to a higher capacity for change.

Besides participation, organizational culture is identified as a critical success factor. The next section will describe and introduce the concept of organizational culture.

2.2.2.4 Perceived organizational culture for change

Culture has an influence on behavior and actions within organizations (Bennebroek et al, 2003). Organizational culture is a key determinant for organizational performance. For effective and efficient operations of an organization a culture is needed, that is aligned with the organizational structure and practices, as argued by Allaire and Firsirotu (1984). Deal and Kennedy (1983:14) define organizational culture as; an informal understanding of the way an organization does things and

what motivates organizational members. The definition from Deal and Kennedy will be used in this

(12)

12

an organization focuses on, and embraces fluid, openness, and learning (Lawler & Worley, 2006). A change-facilitative culture also embraces different approaches to change, from the traditional approaches to change and new approaches to change. In addition, the organization needs to realize a shared purpose supported by a common language about change (Buono & Kerber, 2010). Employees need to think and talk frequent about change of the organization. In order to stimulate this process, managers should encourage learning and information sharing. An organization culture needs to be able to share information and to support a common language about change and the different change approaches. Furthermore, Hirschhorn (2000) has argued that change must gain legitimacy by belief systems, norms, and values. In order to make employees more able to improve the success for change it is vital that the culture of the organization supports and enables learning within the organization. In line with this reasoning, this led to the question: “How is the organizational culture perceived by the employees?” This results in the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 6: A high-perceived level of organizational culture for change will lead to a higher capacity for change.

In the next section, the critical success factor; perceived organizational strategy, is introduced.

2.2.2.5 Perceived organizational strategy

(13)

13

business (Buono & Kerber, 2010). How do the employees perceive this organizational strategy? This results in the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 7: A high-perceived organizational strategy for change will lead to a higher capacity for change.

2.3 Conceptual model

In the previous sections, the concept of capacity for change is elaborated on, and the critical success factors on the micro and meso-level organizational level influencing the capacity for change were introduced. The relation of these different independent variables can be seen in figure 1.

Figure 1: (Conceptual model)

Micro-level of the organization

Macro-level of the organization

Employees’ understanding of the change approach

Employees’ willingness and ability to change

Change-supportive organizational structure

Communication openness for change

Level of participation in change

Organizational culture for change

Organizational strategy for change

(14)

14

3 Research Methods

In this chapter, the type of research used for the study will be introduced and described. This section will clarify how the hypotheses have been tested. Data for this study was collected through an online questionnaire, and additional interviews were conducted. This section will describe the method of research, the procedures and participants for this study.

3.1 Data collection

Two research methods were selected: a quantitative survey and a qualitative open interview. The integration of quantitative and qualitative approaches helps to address limitations of each approach by providing both statistical objectivity and a deeper understanding of contexts (Kaplan & Duchon, 1988; Lee, 1991; Trauth & Jessup, 2000).

3.1.1 Quantitative research

The quantitative research was performed through an online questionnaire, sent to all employees working within the COO C&MB organization. The survey consisted out of 39 items, measuring eight components. Items for the questionnaires were extracted from well-known multi-item scales that have been proven to be valid. All multi-items employed statements, and employees were asked to indicate the degree they agreed on it on a seven point likert scale (1=completely disagree; 5=completely agree).

Statements refer to; (1) the capacity for change, (2) change approach, (3) willingness and ability to change, (4) change-supportive organizational structure, (5) organizational culture and (6) organizational strategy, (7) communication and (8) participation.

(15)

15

number of respondents increased to a total number of 63. This resulted in a response rate of 35%. All 63 responses were filled in completely, and the results were used in the dataset.

3.1.2 Qualitative research

The qualitative research consisted of a semi-open interview lasting between 30 and 45 minutes, where the conceptual model was used to gain some structure during the interview. The goal of these interviews was to gain insight knowledge about the influence of the critical success factors on the capacity for change. The interviewees were free to react to the conceptual model that was presented to them. They were asked (1) to confirm if, to their knowledge, the selected variables have a relation with the capacity for change, (2) how they perceived the influence of these variables on the dependent variable. Unlike the questionnaire, the interviews were conducted in Dutch because this enabled the employees to express themselves in their native language. The interviewee received a copy of the interview to review the notes for accuracy and to verify if they wanted to modify their responses.

The interviewees were selected for (1) their influence on change initiatives, (2) the key roles they had within teams or departments for change, and (3) because they were involved in several change trajectories within the organization. In total, six people who were matched to the selected profile were interviewed. The role of each participant and his or her official function is displayed in table 1. The average age of the interviewees is 40.8 years old. The group of interviewees consisted of two female and four male participants.

Table 1. Overview of interview participants

Function Department Role Age Code

Business process officer Corporate clients Department manager 37 Respondent 1 Business process manager Corporate clients Team manager 35 Respondent 2 Project manager Project management Project and program manager 42 Respondent 3 Business advisory Business advisory Team manager 44 Respondent 4

(16)

16

3.2 Data analysis

Data analysis was performed in order to disclose the value of the collected data. Descriptive statistics were performed on data from the quantitative research using IBM® SPSS® Statistics 17.0. The

qualitative data is examined and interpreted by the observers’ impression.

3.2.1 Quantitative data

The quantitative data analysis consisted out a sequence of analysis. First, factor analysis and Cronbach’s alpha tests were performed in order to test the reliability and the validity of the questionnaire. Secondly, the correlation analysis was performed, and thirdly a multiple regression analysis was conducted to identify the relation between the independent variables mutually and the dependent variable.

The first step was to examine the intercorrelation between items. Items from the questionnaire should measure the same underlying component and therefore must correlate with each other. Items not correlating with each other were eliminated. Next, an explorative factor analysis with variamx rotation was performed to test if the items measured the same factor. The factor analysis had four criteria to be met in order to pass the factor analysis. A factor analysis on all factors divided most of the items into nine different components. However, the measures of Buono and Kerber (2010) and Giangreco (2002) already proven their reliability the decision is made to remain the original eight factors. Next, a factor analysis with a fixed number of factors was performed and had four criteria. First, items must load high >.50 on a variable. Items beneath this >.50 threshold were excluded. Secondly, for the items loading high >.50 on multiple components the decision was made to include them in the component sharing a conceptual meaning and with the highest loading on the component. (3) Thirdly, items loading on a different factor were examined for measuring a different constructs. If the construct of the component was in line with the item, it was included. After the components have been established by factor analysis, items of the questionnaire have been analyzed on internal reliability.

This next part describes the results of the factor analysis for the total data set and the reliability test (Cronbach’s alpha) for every variable. Nunally (1967) stated that, the minimal acceptable reliability lies in the range of .60 for a Cronbach’s alpha analysis, and Churchill (1979), Peterson (1997), and Peterson (1994) support this hypothesis. This scale of reliability is used in the underlying section.

(17)

17

Employees’ understanding of the change approach: The employees understanding of the change approach is also measured based on the questionnaire developed by Buono and Kerber (2010). Items are for example: “A common, organization-wide framework is used for thinking and communicating about change” and “Change coaching and consulting services are provided for handling change”. The four items loading on two other factors were excluded for measuring the factor change approach. The three items selected for measuring the change approach have a Cronbach’s alpha of .82.

Employees’ willingness and ability to change: The employees’ willingness and ability to change is measured based on the questionnaire developed by Buono & Kerber (2010). Examples of the items are; “I am evaluated and rewarded based, in part, on my ability to thrive on change”, “the organization stimulates and creates a climate of trust, honesty, and transparency”. The three items selected for measuring the willingness and ability to change have a Cronbach’s alpha of .78.

Perceived change-supportive organizational structure: The perceived change-supportive organizational structure is measured based on the questionnaire developed by Buono & Kerber (2010). For example, items are; “The organization is a fluid structure that allows the quick formation of new groups as needed” and “In the organization systems and processes for sharing knowledge, information, and learning across boundaries are created”. The two items selected for measuring the change-supportive organizational structure have a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.583.

Perceived communication openness for change: The perceived communication openness for change is measured based on the questionnaire developed by Giangreco (2002) Examples of the items are; “Information about the progress of change is provided regularly” and “Benefits of a change are communicated extensively in the organization when it is initiated”. The two items selected for measuring the communication have a Cronbach’s alpha of .67

Perceived level of participation: The perceived level of participation is measured based on the questionnaire developed by Giangreco (2002) Items are for example; “I am encouraged to participate in change initiatives” and “I am encouraged to think about and give input for ideas to change”. The two items selected for measuring the participation have a Cronbach’s alpha of .80.

Perceived organizational culture for change: The organizational culture for change is measured based on the questionnaire developed by Buono & Kerber (2010). Examples for the items are; “There is a strong emphasis on learning and information sharing” and “I am encouraged to empathize with and value alternative viewpoints”. The three items selected for measuring the organizational culture have a Cronbach’s alpha of .60.

(18)

18

factor in today’s decisions”. The Buono and Kerber (2010) questionnaire was used to measure this factor and the item on the usage of future scenarios could be used.

As a result of the factor analysis and cronbach’s alpha, 18 items (table 2) were used in further research.

Table 2; Scale items

Scale Item

Capacity for change The organization has a capacity for change in its daily business.

Understanding of the change approach

A common, organization-wide framework is used for thinking and communicating about change.

The organization focuses on developing deep expertise about how to implement change.

Change coaching and consulting services are provided for handling change.

Willingness and ability to change

The organization stimulates and creates a climate of trust, honesty, and transparency. Information provided on change is clear.

The goal for a change is clear and communicated sufficiently within the organization.

Communication openness

Information about the progress of change is provided regularly.

Executive management for a change keeps all employees involved / informed about its decisions.

Change-supportive organizational structure

The organization is a fluid structure that allows the quick formation of new groups as needed.

In the organization systems and processes for sharing knowledge, information, and learning across boundaries are created.

Participation I am encouraged to think about and give input for ideas to change. I am encouraged to participate in change initiatives.

Organizational culture Management is known for confronting tough decisions and sticks to the difficult course of action.

Conflicts are valued and used to achieve understanding and creativity.

When a change project is completed, it is assessed on the degree of its intended benefit.

Strategy Future scenarios are a factor in today’s decisions.

3.2.2 Qualitative data

The output of the six interviews was analyzed per variable. The focus was to provide additional insights on the results of the quantitative data and to see how the influence of critical factors is perceived.

(19)

19

4 Results

In this section, the results of the quantitative and qualitative research are presented. First, results of the statistical, correlation and regression analysis are presented. Second, the results of the qualitative research are presented.

4.1 Descriptive statistics

The correlation between the variables is displayed in tables 4. To investigate the correlation between the factors, the Spearman correlation test (one-tailed) was conducted. The variable change approach (.66) and communication (.72) correlate the strongest. The results further showed that all variables influence the capacity for change. A summary of the characteristics of scale and correlations can be found in table 3. The strongest relation is between change approach and participation (.85) and communication and change approach (.85). Finally, the strongest correlation is between the capacity for change and the change approach and communication.

Table 3: Characteristics of scales used and inter variables

Variable It. α mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Participation for change 2 .80 5.08 3.97 1 ,624** ,479** ,847** ,792** ,707** ,723** ,529**

2. Willingness and ability to change 3 .78 4.06 1.14 .624** 1 ,324** ,625** ,590** ,547** ,541** ,429** 3. Change supportive organizational structure 2 .58 3.97 1.24 .479** .324** 1 ,573** ,624** ,324** ,630** ,372** 4. Understanding of the change approach 3 .82 3.86 1.30 .847** .625** .573** 1 ,854** ,707** ,784** ,657** 5. Communication openness 2 .67 4.21 1.08 .792** .590** .624** .854** 1 ,679** ,835** ,719** 6. Organizational culture 3 .60 3.84 1.14 .707** .547** .324** .707** .679** 1 ,659** ,638** 7. Strategy 1 - 4.68 1.14 .723** 541** .630** .784** .835** .659** 1 ,635**

8. Capacity for change 2 - 3.46 1.25 .529** .429** .372** .657** .719** .638** .635** 1

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed) * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed) It. = number of items included in scale, α = Cronbach’s alpha, SD = standard deviation 4.2 Multiple regression analysis

(20)

20

variance of in a dependent variable at a significance level (through a significance test of R2). The multiple regression analysis was carried out in a linear, standard method; all independent variables were entered directly into the model to test the relation.

The results of the multiple regression analysis are presented in table 4. The SPSS output for the multiple regression analysis shows a R-square of .601, in conclusion 60% of the variance of the capacity for change is explained by the independent variables,⟦ ⟧.

Table 4; Multiple regression Analysis Predicting the Capacity for change

Critical factors Beta

Understanding of the change approach ,055* Willingness and ability to change -,017* Change supportive organizational structure -,079* Communication openness for change ,098***

Participation -,074**

Organizational culture ,124**

Strategy ,033*

R2 .601

Sig. .000

Note; the values (b) are standardized regression coefficients; N=63 *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

4.3 Critical success factors

In this section the result of the analysis are presented. In line with the research, first the quantitative results are presented and second the qualitative results.

4.3.1 Employees’ understanding of the change approach

(21)

21

Interview results

From the interviews, it became clear that there is a common framework about change. All respondents agree that it is very important to have uniform communication about the method of change applied in the organization, and that this will result in a greater capacity for change. Respondent 2 states, “There is one uniform change approach in the organization, namely prince two.” Other respondents also mention this specific change approach; however, it is also said “Not everybody is familiar with this change approach, as there is still a lack of knowledge in the entire organization” (Respondent 1). The educative measures to learn about these principles and to improve the knowledge are provided, but “due to time constraints, just a portion of employees is real familiar with it,” as stated by Respondent 6. The organization should focus on reflection and intensify learning in this way instead of investing in training programs, according to Respondents 4 and 6. “It is better to learn on the job,” according to Respondent 3. “They (employees) have gone through so much change, this is the time for reflection and selection,” according to Respondent 1. All respondents agree that there is a time constraint that disables the possibility for proper reflection and creating expertise. When there is no time available, people are not able to perform during several changes, implemented at the same time. Employees are busy getting their work done, and in that process forget to invest in their knowledge about change and how it is performed. As Respondent 3 formulates it, “Pressure for change is higher than creating knowledge by reflection.” All respondents confirmed the relation between the understanding of the change approach and the capacity for change. One respondent perceives the relation as positive, two respondents see the relation as neutral, and the other three respondents regard the relation as negative. As above mentioned the relation is seen as positive.

4.3.2 Employees’ willingness and ability for change

Hypothesis 2 suggested that the employees’ willingness and ability for change lead to higher capacity for change. After calculating the factor (three items) with reliability tests, a mean value of 4.06 and a standard deviation of 1.14 are extracted. The single regression for the variable willingness and ability to change showed that the relation is significant (.001). Additionally, the R square of .430 showed that the relation has a declared variance of 43.0%. The multiple regression shows a relation of -.017 and is not significant (b=.761, <p.05).The scale for this variable has a mean of 4.06.

Interviews results

(22)

22

climate that enables the willingness and ability to change for its employees. According to Respondent 6, “Employees are not willing, they are used to change; this can create a dangerous situation. Instead of embracing change, they just let it pass.” All respondents agree that there is a relation between this independent variable and the capacity for change. If employees are not willing and/or able, individual change cannot become a success. This will not be the case if there is constant pressure for change. “The employees perform change,” stated Respondent 5. When asked about the relation between the willingness and ability for change and the capacity for change, four respondents confirm that there is a positive relation between. In addition, the organization possesses a strong level of willingness and ability to change. “It is there, but it is necessary to invest in it, otherwise it will disappear,” Respondent 2 states. The remaining two respondents view a neutral relation between the willingness and ability to change and the capacity for change. As above mentioned the willingness and ability has a positive relation on the capacity for change.

4.3.3 Perceived change-supportive organizational structure

The third hypothesis suggested that a change-supportive organizational structure lead to higher capacity for change. After calculating the critical success factor (two items) with a reliability test, it shows that the mean is 3.97 and the standard deviation is 1.24. The single regression for the variable change-supportive organizational structure showed that the relation is significant (.021). Additionally, the R square of .320 showed that the relation has a declared variance of 32,0%. For the changesupportive organizational structure, the multiple regression analysis shows a relation of -.079, and is not significant (b= .316, p<05). The scale for this variable has a mean of 3.97.

Interview results

(23)

23

and to have a creative and open-minded attitude. One manager sees this as part of the job for people working in the COO; it is one of the four key competences. “If we, as COO, do not posses

them, how is the rest of the organization able to think out of the box? An open-minded approach is not something we are good at,” Respondent 2 says. The organization is very bureaucratic, according

to four respondents, and this is illustrated by the fact that a change implementation has a very long timeline. Three respondents think that this critical success factor has a neutral influence. One respondent sees a positive influence, and two respondents see a negative influence on the capacity for change. As above mentioned the change-supportive organizational structure has a strong positive relation on the capacity for change.

4.3.4 Perceived communication openness for change

Hypothesis 4 suggested that communication openness for change lead to a higher capacity for change. The single regression for the variable communication showed that the relation is significant (.001). Additionally, the R square of .183 showed that the relation has a declared variance of 18,3%. The relation is between the independent and dependent variable is positive. In the multiple regression, communication has a relation of 0.98 and is (b=.003, p<.05). After calculating the factor communication (two items) with a reliability test, a mean of 4.21 with a standard deviation of 1.08 are extracted.

Interview results

(24)

24

communication on the capacity for change. The four other respondents do not identify a relation between this factor and the independent variable. In the interviews, it became clear that communication is not a critical success factor that has an influence on the capacity for change; it is seen as a method to support the other critical success factors influencing the capacity for change.

4.3.5 Perceived participation for change

The fifth hypothesis suggested that participation for change leads to a higher capacity for change. Calculating the factor participation (two items) with a reliability test showed that the mean is 5.08 and the standard deviation is 1.15. The single regression for the variable participation showed that the relation is significant (.003). Additionally, the R square of .139 showed that the relation has a declared variance of 13.9%. In the multiple regression understanding participation has a relation of -.074 and is significant (b=.036, p<.05). The scale for this variable has a mean of 5.08.

Interview results

The respondents regard participation as the most important factor in enhancing the capacity for change in the organization. By participating, employees are able to perform and to cope with change on a very regular base. It is the way to familiarize them with change and enhance their knowledge and abilities. Both Respondents 1 and 5 try to encourage people in their department to attend meetings where the topic change is discussed. Respondent one says, “Employees are encouraged to participate, and this is also my responsibility within my department.” In order to make people voluntarily participate, you need some pre-conditions, according to Respondent 4: “Employees must have the idea that they are free to give input and share their ideas. A safe environment is needed to make this happen.” According to all respondents, the COO C&MB is active in encouraging employees to participate. When asked what the influence is of participation on the capacity for change, three respondents acknowledge that there is a positive relation within the organization and three respondents agree that it will influence the capacity. However, for the moment, they perceive as a neutral factor because not all the pre-conditions are fulfilled. From the results of the qualitative research, it can be concluded that there is a positive relation between participation and capacity for change.

4.3.6 Perceived organizational culture for change

(25)

25

regression organizational culture has a relation of .124 and is significant (b=.025, p<05). The scale for this variable has a mean of 3.84.

Interview results

The culture of an organization is, according to two respondents, a strong factor that influences the capacity for change. The other four respondents agree that it has an influence on the capacity for change, but see this factor as less relevant. They base this assumption on the fact that two different cultures are coming together, the former ABN AMRO and the Fortis, and that over time this factor will increase in importance. When asked what characterizes the organizational culture of this organization, most respondents find this quite difficult to answer. Employees of the former ABN AMRO describe the old organizational culture as a constant pressure to improve performances. Respondent 2 remarks that, “Since 2000, the former ABN was constantly changing in order to decrease cost and increase performance. In addition, every new manager means change as mentioned by respondent 3; they all want to leave their own mark on the organization.” There was a culture that had a negative influence; it resulted in survival behavior.

This combined with the belief that every new manager will change the former way of working, makes the former ABN AMRO employees very resistant towards change. There is a strong idea that every change will be changed or even reversed. When asked about the balance between businesses as usual and change, all respondents replied that the balance is improving and that this will only increase. This is because the majority of large integration and separation initiatives are completed. As mentioned by Respondent 1, “People have gone through a turbulent period with high uncertainty.” This has influenced the culture within the organization. One respondent thinks that because this turbulent period, there is a strong organizational culture for change. “People working in this organization are familiar with change, and this is a part of their normal work” (Respondent 6). According to five respondents, there is a neutral relation between the organizational culture and the capacity for change, while one respondent thinks that a positive relation exists. In conclusion, the findings of the interview indicate a positive relation.

4.3.7 Perceived organizational strategy for change

(26)

26

Interview results

Four respondents perceive the strategy as an obstacle for a capacity for change. Strategic decisions are constantly challenged, and every change initiative is based on business cases to decrease costs or is mandatory due to legislation. Respondent 1 says, “The vision for the organization is not clear, and there is no shared purpose at the moment.” This can be explained by the fact that the investment budget for the entire organization is decreasing every year. Respondent 1 states that, “This shortage is good for the organization; we need to make choices and we cannot do everything anymore.” This shortage will set boundaries and will force the higher management to make choices and set a direction for the organization. All respondents see the organization reacting in a reactive way, instead of a proactive way. As Respondent 3 remarks, “We are all very inflexible and too much focused on protecting all our own initiatives, instead of seeing the larger picture.” All respondents mention TOPS 2020, when asked about whether employees are encouraged to think about possible opportunities. This an organization-wide program to define what the strategy of the organization must become in the future. The relation between the strategy of the organization and the capacity for change is not clear to all respondents. After giving more detailed information about this factor, they agree that this will influence the capacity for change. They also state that, for the moment, the strategy is negatively influencing the capacity for change. “We are very inflexible in our strategy” (Respondent 3). “There is no clear strategy, there is so much uncertainty” (Respondent 4). Four respondents perceived the relation between the strategy and capacity as a negative relation. Of the remaining two respondents, one considers there is a positive relation and according to the other, there is a neutral relation. In conclusion, the findings from the interviews indicate that there is a positive relation between organizational strategy and capacity for change.

(27)

27

5 Conclusion and Discussion

As was described in the introduction the COO organization is facing a changing environment, there is a constant pressure for change and therefore the organization needs to possess a capacity for change. Hence, it is vital to know what influences the capacity for change. The aim of this study was to explore how the critical success factors on the micro- level (change approach, willingness and ability) and meso-level (change supportive-organizational structure, communication, participation, organizational culture and organizational strategy) of an organization influence the capacity for change. Although the influence of these critical success factors have been emphasized in literature and the first study’s regarding this topic are published, this research is, to my knowledge, the first that investigates the influence of critical success factors on the micro- and meso-level of an organization. This study points out a number interesting findings and new findings contributing to the theory and current research for the capacity for change.

Taking the results of the critical success factors in consideration, an interesting view has emerged. The results of the correlation test show that the variables positive correlate. Because of this is a higher level of one variable direct positive influence the level of the other variables. Through a strong correlation of the critical success factors, not one factor seems to have a unique contribution to the change capacity. I found that the change approach and the communication are the strongest critical success factors. The multiple regression analysis viewed that these factors have a strong influence on the other critical success factors that it negatively influence the results.

This study made a distinction between critical success factors on different organizational levels. On a micro-level, two independent variables were identified for their influence on the capacity for change. The change approach was supposed to influence the capacity for change. From the results, it became evident that this factor also influences the other critical success factors. This strong correlation was not predicted. For the willingness and ability to change, a positive influence was predicted. This research followed the reasoning from Metselaar (1997) that the willingness to change results in a positive attitude towards a change. According to Azjen (1991) the positive attitude or willingness to change results in motivational factors towards change.

(28)

28

communication relate to distrust against a change. As can be concluded from this study, communication positively influences the capacity for change and has a strong correlation with other critical success factors. Further research should clarify if this communication is a critical success factor or mediating variable. Participation is of positive influence on the capacity for change; however, it is of minor importance as critical success factor, contradicting the core philosophy of Organizational Development. This can be explained following Dunphy and Stace, (1998) emphasizing that participation is only effective considering minor change and when complete consensus exists among the parties involved with an unlimited time for consultation. Nevertheless, participation is required in almost all changes. Employees can often decide how change is taking place; this can be the result of their commitment to change. Korunka et al. (1993) argue, “[P]articipation leads to a higher level of acceptance.” This is in accordance with research that indicates the positive effect of participation on commitment to change (Ertürk, 2008; Wanberg & Banas, 2000). Further research must be conducted to clarify the precise role of this critical success factor.

As was expected, the organizational culture has a positive effect; however, the results of the interviews gave a different view. In order to stimulate this process, managers need to encourage learning and sharing of information. Besides this, the organization needs to value and support reflection of realized change in the organization (Edmondson, 2008). For the critical success, organizational strategy the results of the questionnaire and interviews are again contradicting. Further statistical research needs to be conducted to see what the valid relation is. This is of major importance because, as argued by Kotter and Schelsinger (2008), the strategy can seriously harm the change process.

In conclusion, it can be stated that the critical success factors on the micro- and meso-level of the organization positive influence the capacity for change. With understanding of change approach and communication openness for change of the strongest influence.

5.1 Theoretical implication

(29)

29

Gravenhorst et al. (2003). Further research must clarify if communication is a true critical success factor or a mediating variable on the critical factors for the capacity for change.

5.1.1 Recommendations

The management of the organization can decide to focus on certain factors in order to create a stronger capacity for change within the organization. Based on the results of this study, they should  Focus on creating deep expertise on change, and make additional resources and time available in

order to realize this. Increase coaching and consulting for handling change for employees within the organization. Focus in the selecting, hiring, and rewarding process on the ability of employees to deal with change.

 Reserve more time and resources for the evaluation of organizational change in order to learn structural from the process. This can be achieved by building evaluation moments into the timelines of projects, and after a change is completed. Shorten timelines for the implementation of ideas into organizational changes. Improve communication about change and focus on communication as an independent factor influencing the capacity for change. Change agents can communicate change information in formal group meetings, by memo, in one-on-one meetings, and through electronic means (Jones, 2007). Additionally, management should focus on methods for communication. Management must reduce the bureaucracy within the organization and shorten timelines for implementing change. The organization should be more flexible and less static in its structure, making the organizational structure more flexible and enable the quick formation of teams. This can be realized by creating employee resources pools.

 Increase combine change initiatives. Management should create a shared vision and communicate this in the organization. Make sure that this vision is clear; everybody in the organization should know what it means, so it does not create any confusion. Management should also encourage employees to participate and think about possible changes for the organization. Create an atmosphere where employees feel free to ventilate their ideas and thoughts.

5.2 Limitations and suggestions for further research

(30)

30

Third limitation is the number of items used for the scales in this study. Normally, at least three items are necessary for a scale. It became clear that the relation between the dependent variable and the independent variables could not be tested on a strong level. The number of items that were used for measuring the capacity for change was limited, making the results somewhat questionable.Fourthly, the number of interviewees; it is possible that a larger number of interviews would lead to different results. For this research, only six managers and employees were interviewed, due to time and participation constraints. The size of the sample used was relatively small and it necessary to interpret the conclusions with caution. Their willingness to participate in this research and therefore possible specific view on the influence of the independent variables might create a selection bias. Last limitation of this research is that it is performed in a professional organization. The educational level of this organization is higher than a normal organization, and this can have a positive influence on the ability of employees to deal with change and increased capacity for change.

(31)

31

References

Abrahamson, E. 2000. Change without pain. Harvard Business Review, July – August, pp. 75–79.

Allaire, Y and Firsirotu, M.E.1984. Theories of Organizational culture. Organizational studies. Vol.3, no. 3, pp.193 – 226.

Andrews, K. R. 1971. The concept of corporate strategy. Homewood: Irwin.

Andrews, J., Cameron, H., and Harris, M. 2008. All change? Managers’ experience of organizational change in theory and practice. Journal of Organizational Change Management, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 300–314.

Ansoff, H. I. 1987. Corporate strategy (rev. ed.). Penguin Books.

Arduin, F., and Morabito, V. 2010. Business continuity and the banking industry. Communication of

the ACM, vol 53, no. 3, pp. 121–125.

Armenakis, A., Harris, S., and Mossholder, K. 1993. Creating readiness for organizational change. Human Relations, vol 46, no. 6, p. 681.

Armenakis, A., and Harris, S. 2009. Reflections: Our journey in organizational change research and practice. Journal of Change Management, vol. 9, no. 2, 127–142.

Arogyaswamy, B., and Byles, C. H. 1987. Organizational culture: Internal and external fits. Journal of Management, 13, pp. 647–658.

Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, pp. 179–211.

Baarda, D., de Goede, M., & van Dijkum, C. 2003. Basisboek Statistiek met SPSS. The Netherlands: Wolters-Noordhoff bv Groningen/Houten.

(32)

32

Beer, M., and Nohria, N. 2000. Breaking the code of change. Boston: Harvard Business

School Press.

Beer, M. 1980. Organizational change and development; a systems view. Santa Monica CA; Goodyear.

Bennebroek Gravenhorst, K. M., Werkman, R. A., and Boonstra, J. J. 2003. The change capacity of organizations: General assessment and five configurations. Applied Psychology: An International review, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 83–105.

Bhushan Indravadan Jangla. Book review of Modern Organisations by Amitai Etzioni. HR Folks International.

Bouma, J., and Emans, B. J. M. 2005. Participatiefleidinggevenaanorganisatieverandering; een onderzoek rond de invoering van Customer Relationship Management.

Gedrag & Organisatie, 18, 122–138.

Bridges, W. 2003. Managing Transitions: Making the Most of Change.

Buono, A. F., and Kerber, K. W. 2005. Rethinking organizational change; Reframing the challenge of change management. Organizational Development Journal, vol. 23, no. 3., pp. 23–38.

Buono, A. F., and Kerber, K. W. 2010. Creating the sustainable approach to change: Building organizational change capacity. SAM Advanced Management Journal, pp. 4–21.

Burcher, R., and Stelling, J. 1969. Characteristics of professional organizations. Journal of Health and Social Behaviour, vol. 10, no.1, pp. 3–15.

Burnes, B. 2004. Emergent change and planned change – competitors or allies? The case of XYZ construction. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, vol.24, no.9, pp. 886– 902.

(33)

33

Burnes, B., and Jackson, P. 2011. Success and failure in organizational change: Exploration of the role of values. Journal of Change Management, vol. 11, no. 2, 133–162.

Burns, T., and Stalker, G. M. 1961. The management of innovation. London: Tavistock Publications.

Chawla, A., and Kelloway, E. (2004). Predicting openness and commitment to change. The Leadership & Organization Development Journal, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 485–498.

Child, J. 1972. Organizational structure, environment, and performance: The role of strategic choice.

Sociology, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–22.

Churchill, G. A. 1984. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, pp. 360–375.

Cummings, T. G., and Worley, C.G. 2001. Organization Development and Change (7th ed.). Mason: South-Western College Publishing.

Dervitsiotis, K. 1998. The challenge of managing organizational change: Exploring the relationship of reengineering, developing learning organizations and total quality management. Total Quality Management, vol. 9, no. 1.

Diefenbach, T., By, R. T., and Klarner, P. 2009. A multi-dimensional analysis of managers power - functional, socio-politcal, interpretive-discursive, and socio-cultural approaches, management revue. Management Revue. The International Review of Management Studies, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 413–431.

Deal, T. and Kennedy, A. 1983. Culture: a new look through old lenses. Journal of Applied Behavioural

Science19(4):497-507.

Diefenbach, T. and By, R.T. and Klarner, P. (2009) A multi-dimensional analysis of managers's power - functional, socio-politcal, interpretive-discursive, and socio-cultural approaches, management revue. Management Revue. The International Review of Management Studies, 20 (4). pp. 413-431. ISSN 0935-9915

(34)

34

Drew, S. A. W., and Smith, P.A.C. 1995. The learning organization: Change proofing and strategy. The Learning Organization, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 4–14.

Dunhpy, D.C., & Stace, D.A. 1988. Transformational and coercive strategies for planned organizational change: Beyond the O.D. model. Organization Studies, 9: 317– 334.

Edgelow, C. 2012. Who’s in charge of change? Industrial and Commercial Training, vol. 44, no.1, pp. 3–8.

Edmondson, A. C. 2008. The competitive imperative of learning. HBS Centennial Issue. Harvard Business Review, vol. 86, nos. 7/8, pp. 60–67.

Elving, W. J. L. 2005. The role of communication in organisational change. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 129–138.

Elving, & Bennebroek Gravenhorst. 2005. Communicatie en veranderingsbereidheid. Tijdschriftvoorcommunicatiewetenschappen, vol. 33, no. 4., pp. 317–329.

Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I. 1975. Belief, attitude, intention, and behaviour: An introduction to theory and research. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley

Ford, J. D. 1999. Organizational change as shifting conversations. Journal of Organizational Change Management, vol. 12, no. 6, 480–500.

Giangreco, A. 2002. Conceptualisation and operationalisation of resistance to change. Liuc Papers, no. 103, pp. 1–28.

Haugh, H. M., and Talwar, A. 2010. How do corporates embed sustainability across the organization? Academy of Management Learning and Education, vol. 9, no.3, pp. 384–396.

(35)

35

Holloway, M. 2009. How tangible is your strategy? How design thinking can turn your strategy into reality. Journal of Business Strategy, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 50–56.

IBM. 2008. Making change work. IBM Global Making Change Work study.

Insan, P., and Warne, D. P. 2011. An empirical financial analysis. The Journal of Sri Krishna Research & Educational Consortium, vol. 2, no. 8.

Jabri, M., Adrian, A. D., and Boje, D. 2008. Reconsidering the role of conversations in change communication. Journal of Organizational Change Management, vol. 21, no. 6, 667–685.

Jones, G. R. 2007. Organizational theory, design, and change. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Judge, Q. W., and Blocker, P. C. 2008. Organizational capacity for change and strategic

ambidexterity: Flying the plane while rewiring it. European Journal of Marketing, vol. 42, no. 9, pp. 915–926.

Judge, W., and Douglas, T. 2009. Organizational change capacity: The systematic development of a scale. Journal of Organizational Change Management, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 635–649.

Kanter, R. M. 1985. Managing the human side of change. Management Review, April, pp. 52–56. (Reprinted in Readings in Management, edited by P. DuBose.)

Kanter, R. M., and Barnevik, P. 1994. Global strategy. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Kaplan, B., and Duchon, D. 1988. Combining qualitative and quantitative methods in information systems research: A case study. MIS Quarterly, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 571–586.

King, N. 2004. Using interviews in qualitative research. C. Cassell and G. Symon, (eds.) Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research: 11-22. London: Sage Publications, Inc.

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

In order to collect as much data as possible on the issue of the mutual influence of individual and collective attitudes to change and the influence of a change agent on this

An inquiry into the level of analysis in both corpora indicates that popular management books, which discuss resistance from either both the individual and organizational

In this study, it was found that a bottom-up approach know for its high level of participation of the employees during a change process will lead to significantly lower levels

Keywords: Appreciative Inquiry; Generative Change Process; Alteration of Social Reality; Participation; Collective Experience and Action; Cognitive and Affective Readiness

The research question of this study is: What is the influence of leadership and training on the commitment to change of operational employees and how does commitment influence

included in this research that are expected to influence readiness for change in this particular change setting: communication, participation, leadership, perceived

Therefore, this study wants to enrich the theory of transformational government by analyzing the influence of the critical change factors, level of governmental

Having seen that the three motivational factors influence the willingness to change and sometimes also directly the change related behaviour, one can understand that the attitude of