ARE YOU READY?
THE MODERATING EFFECT OF JOB SATISFACTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN READINESS FOR CHANGE
AND ITS ANTECEDENTS
Master Thesis MScBA, Change Management
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
1st January, 2012
ARE YOU READY?
ABSTRACT
ARE YOU READY?
INTRODUCTION
The environment for organizations has changed rapidly since the twentieth century; nowadays it is more complex and turbulent, organizations are confronted with continuous changes: economic downturns, advancements in technology, downsizing, mergers, shortages in employees, they all make ongoing change essential for organizations nowadays (Madsen, Miller & John, 2005; Wanberg & Banas, 2000). As Rowden (2001: 11) puts it “increasingly, a company’s viability is being determined by its ability to make such systemic, organization-wide change happen”. To follow the pace of the dynamic and turbulent environment, many organizations have to become more dynamic. Hanpachern, Morgan and Griego (1998: 339) state that, “in a dynamic environment, organizations must have the capacity to adapt quickly in order to survive”. In other words, organizations have to change in order to stay competitive (Susanto, 2008).
Organizational change is usually seen as a process, unfolding in several stages (Armenakis & Harris, 2002; Lewin, 1947). A well-known change management theory is Lewin’s (1947) three stage model. The first of these three stages is the ‘unfreeze’ stage; it is about getting ready to change through seeing the need for change and letting go of the old ways. The second stage is the ‘move’ stage; the transition from the old way of working to the newly introduced way of working. The third and last stage is the ‘refreeze’ stage; the new way of working is institutionalized. The concept of unfreezing is similar to the concept of readiness for change (Armenakis & Harris, 2002; Bernerth, 2004). The first stage should be realized before going to the second stage: that is, one cannot make the transition to the new way of working before the employees are ready for change (Rowden, 2001). Readiness for change is of vital importance, and it is a great contributor to the effectiveness of organizational changes (Armenakis, Harris & Mossholder, 1993).
(Madsen et al., 2006; Smith, 2005). In this study the construct of individual readiness for change will be further examined.
Individual readiness for change has received more attention over the past decade, many writers have explored and studied the concept (e.g. Armenakis & Harris, 2002; Cunningham et al., 2002; Holt, Armenakis, Feild & Harris, 2007; Madsen, Miller & John, 2005; Self, 2007; Smith, 2005; Susanto, 2008). Individual readiness for change is seen as the precursor for support for change, and support for change alters the success rate of an organizational change (Armenakis et al., 1993; Eby, Adams, Russell & Gaby, 2000; Levesque, Prochaska & Prochaska, 1999). Therefore, a deeper insight into individual readiness for change and the factors influencing this construct could be of use. After all, through acquiring new insights on individual readiness for change, an organization might be able to stimulate the individuals’ readiness for change in such a way that the probability of success of a change initiative increases.
Research by Holt et al. (2007) assumed that individual readiness for change is determined by four beliefs. The first is the belief that the change is needed and will be beneficial to the organization (appropriateness). The second belief reflects the extent to which the members of the organization feel that the senior leaders support the change (management support). The third of the beliefs is the extent to which the organizational members feel confident that they can make the change a success (change-specific efficacy). The fourth belief is the belief that the organizational member perceives the change to be personally beneficial.
In this research the relationships between these four beliefs and individual readiness for change will be studied, because these beliefs may help create or increase readiness for change. This research included readiness for change as the dependent variable, whereas the research by Holt et al. (2007) did not, therefore this research may prove with statistical evidence that the four beliefs actually influence readiness for change. The information resulting from this research can help managers and change leaders decide how to stimulate successful change.
invaluable information for organizations undergoing changes. With this information, change leaders can set up strategies and use tactics that facilitate the change process.
Furthermore, this research investigates the moderating effects that job satisfaction and organizational commitment may have on the relationships between the beliefs and readiness for change. These two concepts have both been examined in relationship to readiness for change, however research on their possible moderating role between readiness for change and its antecedents has not been found. It is interesting to find out if a moderating effect exists as job satisfaction and/or organizational commitment may make the relationships between the four beliefs and readiness for change stronger or weaker, ultimately leading to a higher or lower probability of organizational change success.
Job satisfaction is a much debated topic in recent literature; it has also been examined in relationship to the dependent variable in this research, readiness for change (e.g. Cordery, Sevastos, Mueller & Parker, 1993; Iverson, 1996; Judge, Thoresen, Pucik & Welbourne, 1999). Another variable that has been examined in relationship to readiness for change is organizational commitment (e.g. Coetsee, 1999; Conner & Patterson, 1982; Klein & Sorra, 1996; Lau & Woodman, 1995). Therefore, job satisfaction and organizational commitment seem to be important variables with regard to the concept of readiness for change. Cordery et al. (1993) state that given the impact of the beliefs on the employees’ readiness for change and the success or failure of change, the personal variables that may affect the relationship between the beliefs and readiness for change are of interest. If these personal variables, such as job satisfaction and/or organizational commitment moderate this relationship, this finding could potentially help the people planning and designing the intervention.
and change leaders will be able to influence readiness for change through stimulating these constructs.
As the above shows, this research aims at investigating whether there is a relationship between the four beliefs (appropriateness, management support, change-specific efficacy, and personal valence) and readiness for change. Next to investigating whether these relationships are present, the study aims at exploring the possible moderating effect of job satisfaction and organizational commitment on these relationships. Hence, the research question for this study becomes:
What is the influence of job satisfaction and organizational commitment on the relationships between appropriateness, management support, change-specific efficacy,
and personal valence, and an individuals’ readiness for change? ---
Insert Figure 1 about here ---
Readers guide
To find an answer to the research question literature on the topics of the four beliefs, readiness for change, job satisfaction and organizational commitment will be examined. In the theory section the variables will be defined and the study will delve deeper into the chosen concepts and their interrelations. The relationships from the conceptual model will be explained and the hypotheses will be developed. The method section describes how the data for this research has been collected and how this data has been analyzed. The results of the analysis will then be presented leading unto the discussion of the results, and the conclusions derived from this discussion.
THEORY
and personal valence. Lastly, the moderators job satisfaction and organizational commitment will be discussed.
Readiness for change
Readiness for change exists on organizational level and on individual level (Madsen et al., 2006). Without readiness for change on individual level however, an organization cannot be ready to change on organizational level (Madsen et al., 2006; Smith, 2005). Smith (2005) states that the people are the driving force behind change because they embrace or resist the change. To alter the success rate of an organizational change, the employee readiness for change should be improved (Madsen et al., 2006; Smith, 2005). Increasing the employee’s readiness for change is one of the most effective interventions an organization can undertake to stimulate the success of the change program (Cunningham et al., 2002).
Individual readiness for change is defined by Desplaces (2005: 26) as “the extent to which an individual is prepared to participate in a different organizational activity”. The definition of readiness for change by Holt et al. (2007: 235), states that “readiness collectively reflects the extent to which an individual or individuals are cognitively and emotionally inclined to accept, embrace, and adopt a particular plan to purposefully alter the status quo”. Although Desplaces’ (2005) definition of readiness for change is acceptable, the definition by Holt et al. (2007) will be used in this research as it is more precise and detailed.
Armenakis et al. (1993) explain that an individual’s readiness for change has to do with his/her beliefs, attitudes and intentions with regard to the extent that the changes are needed and the employee’s perception of the individual’s and organizational capacity to make these changes successful. Backer (1995: 22) says that employee readiness for change “is the cognitive precursor to behaviors of either resistance or support”. Although Backer (1995) mentions that change can occur under the conditions of a low individual readiness for change, the probability of a successful change is reduced because low readiness for change may lead to low motivation or active resistance.
Eby et al. (2000) state that employees’ readiness for change has been identified as an important factor that influences resistance to change or the success of an organizational change. In case of a low readiness for change, the probability of resistance to change is higher, whereas in case of high readiness for change the probability of organizational change success is higher. Finally, Weiner (2009) claims that it is more likely for organizational members to initiate change, show greater effort and persistence and show more cooperative behavior when individual readiness for change is high. It results in a more effective implementation of the change.
A failure in assessing organizational and individual readiness for change can result in managers spending a lot of time and energy on dealing with resistance to change (Smith, 2005). Creating readiness for change before attempting to change will improve the chances of an organizational change success. Armenakis et al. (1993) argue therefore that an organization that intends to change should actively be creating readiness for change.
It is interesting to find out which factors influence readiness for change as stimulating these factors might influence the success of the change project. Four possible factors are discussed next.
Appropriateness
important when implementing changes. When the need for change is not communicated enough for the employees to believe in it, the transformation process cannot succeed and in some cases this may even put the organization in jeopardy.
Management support
Management support is the second of the four beliefs that may influence an individual’s readiness for change. Management support (also referred to as principal support) describes the support for the change initiative by the change agents and opinion leaders (Armenakis et al., 2007; Bernerth, 2004; Holt et al., 2007). Perceived management support is the employee’s perception that management cares for the well-being of the organization and supports its concerns (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison and Sowa, 1986). When organizational members do not believe that their management and the change agents support the change and ‘walk the talk’, it will lead to a lower belief in management support.
Change-specific efficacy
Bernerth (2004: 42) defines self-efficacy as ‘an individual’s judgement of his or her ability to perform certain tasks’. A type of self-efficacy is change-specific efficacy, this is self-efficacy suited to change situations. To clarify, change-specific efficacy is labeled as the confidence employees have that they are capable of making the change a success (Bernerth, 2004; Holt et al., 2007). Change-specific efficacy is the employee’s perceived ability that he/she can handle change and function well in his/her job despite of the demands of the change (Wanberg & Banas, 2000). A lower confidence in an employees’ own ability to change means a lower change-specific efficacy.
Personal valence
(Armenakis et al., 2007; Bernerth, 2004). In other words, personal valence describes the personal gain for the employee. As Bernerth (2004: 44) mentions: “Organizational members can believe the organization needs to make a change, they can believe they can implement the change, they can believe there is support for the change, and they can even believe this is the right change for the organization. But if they do not see the personal benefit to them as an individual, they simply will not “buy in” to the change movement”. A lower belief in a personal gain means a lower personal valence.
Job satisfaction
Job satisfaction is a much debated topic in recent history (e.g. Weiss, 2002; Côté & Morgan, 2002; Saari & Judge, 2004). The definition of job satisfaction that has mostly been used in research is that by Locke (1976: 1304). He defines job satisfaction as “a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences”. Macdonald and MacIntyre (1997) make clear that it is important to emphasize that job satisfaction is not the same as employee morale although the two are closely related. Locke’s (1976) definition of job satisfaction has two differences from employee morale according to Macdonald and MacIntyre (1997). Firstly, where job satisfaction is about an individual and the job situation he/she is in, employee morale focuses on the relation an employee has with the sense of a common purpose in the organization. The second difference is the fact that job satisfaction is about situations in the past and present, whereas employee morale focuses on the future.
Kreitner, Kinicki and Buelens (2002) define job satisfaction as the affective or emotional response to different facets of a person’s job. Sari (2004: 293) defines job satisfaction as: “a positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job situation and is linked to the characteristics and demands of one’s work”.
definitions of job satisfaction, therefore in this research the most often used definition, by Locke (1976), will be used.
Organizational commitment
Throughout the years commitment received a lot of attention by researchers (e.g. Becker, 1992; Meyer & Allen, 1991; Porter, Steers, Mowday & Boulian, 1974). Mathews and Shepherd (2002: 369) mention that “committed employees have a strong belief in and acceptance of the organization’s goals and values, show a willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization, and have a strong desire to maintain membership with the organization”. Commitment is conceptualized mostly in terms of the attachment of the employee to the entire organization.
According to Meyer and Allen (1991), organizational commitment has been critically reviewed by many writers and an issue of great concern in these reviews was the lack of consensus in a definition of the concept. Therefore, Meyer and Allen (1991) reviewed the subject and proposed a model of organizational commitment. They found that although there are many varying definitions of organizational commitment these definitions reflect three themes: affective attachment to the organization, perceived costs associated with leaving the organization, and obligation to remain with the organization. This find resulted in a proposed model of organizational commitment that consists of these three separable components. The three components were named: affective commitment, continuance commitment, and normative commitment. Affective commitment refers to the emotional attachment an employee has to his/her organization and his/her involvement in the organization. Continuance commitment is based on recognition of the costs that are associated with leaving the organization and normative commitment is based on a feeling of obligation to continue employment.
Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) made a definition of organizational commitment based on a review of existing definitions. According to Herscovitch and Meyer (2002: 475) organizational commitment can be defined as “a force that binds an individual to a course of action of relevance to one or more targets”. Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) say that this force can take three different forms, which are the same as the three components of organizational commitment that Meyer and Allen (1991) identified: affective commitment, continuance commitment, and normative commitment. Although the definitions are very alike, this research will use the definition by Meyer and Allen (1991) as the definition clearly states that it is about the employee’s relationship with the organization.
HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT
The study will now concentrate on the relationships between the variables. The relationships between the four beliefs and readiness for change, and the moderating effects of job satisfaction and organizational commitment on these relationships will be discussed here. This discussion will lead to the development of the hypotheses.
Appropriateness
As explained earlier appropriateness consists of two parts: discrepancy and organizational valence. Discrepancy addresses the need for change and organizational valence addresses whether the chosen change initiative is believed to be a fitting one.
Armenakis and Harris (2002) mention that resistance to change is the result of a disagreement by the employees on the change initiative chosen to address the need for change. A disagreement with the proposed change means low organizational valence. When the employees do agree with the proposed change initiative, this means that organizational valence is high and this leads to a higher employee readiness for change.
When discrepancy and organizational valence are high, this means that the employees feel that the proposed change initiative is appropriate and this will lead to a higher readiness for change.
H1a: A higher sense of appropriateness leads to a higher readiness for change.
Management support
Bernerth (2004) says that individuals look at their coworkers and organizational leaders to see if there is a support for the change, their observations influence their behavior. If the individuals do not see that the managers support the change effort, this will lower their readiness for change. Several writers see a connection between the management’s support for the change and the employee readiness for change (e.g. Simons, 2002; Susanto, 2008). When an employee senses an inconsistency between what the managers say and what they do, this will result in being less willing to change. Kotter (1995) likewise mentions that a coalition, consisting of senior managers and the head of the organization, that supports the change has a positive effect on the readiness for change of an individual. As Armenakis et al. (2007) explain, every employee senses whether management supports the change or not. They say that if the employees perceive that there is low support for the change; this will have a negative effect on whether the change initiative will be embraced.
H1b: A higher perceived management support leads to a higher readiness for change.
Bandura (1986) found that people avoid tasks that they believe to be beyond their capabilities and they do take on tasks when they feel confident about the result. When an employee feels confident that he can execute the new behaviors a change initiative requires, this will result in a higher readiness for change. Employees with a high level of change-specific efficacy are unlikely to feel inadequate to deal with the changes and thus it is expected that they have a higher readiness for change (Jimmieson, Terry & Callan, 2004).
Bandura (1982) notes that individual efficacy has been shown to relate to the effort the individuals are willing to put forth to reach a particular result. When change-specific efficacy is high, the employee is willing to put more effort into the change, his/her readiness for change is probably higher as opposed to when change-specific efficacy is low. Bernerth (2004) mentions that during stressful times, e.g. when organizational changes are taking place, low self-efficacy magnifies the difficulty of the tasks/changes. In contrast, when self-efficacy is high, the employee will show more effort to work with the change.
Another argument explaining that higher change-specific efficacy will lead to higher readiness for change comes from the expectancy theory of motivation (e.g. Vroom, 1964), Armenakis and Harris (2002) explain that individuals will be motivated to change only to the extent that they feel they will succeed in the change. Lastly, based on their research, Wanberg and Banas (2000) mention that when employees have high change-specific efficacy, they will be more ready to change.
H1c: A higher change-specific efficacy leads to a higher readiness for change.
Personal valence
change of an individual. From their research on personal valence Armenakis et al. (2007) conclude that perceived extrinsic and intrinsic valence have an influence on employees’ readiness for change. Self (2007) argues that individuals want to know if the outcomes of the implementation of a change initiative are positive or negative. When they perceive the outcomes to be positive this will increase their readiness for change.
H1d: A higher perceived personal valence leads to a higher readiness for change.
Job satisfaction
As mentioned earlier, the moderating role that job satisfaction may have on the relationship between readiness for change and its antecedents, the four beliefs, has not been researched. This research will attempt to find out if such a moderating relationship exists. First of all, a general argument explaining the possible moderating effect will be put forward. Later on the moderating effect that job satisfaction may have on the relationship between specific beliefs and readiness for change will be discussed. This section will end with the hypothesis, which will incorporate all findings in this section.
Job satisfaction is a personal factor that in literature is often related to organizational changes and readiness for change (Iverson, 1996). Cordery et al. (1993) say that the employees’ attitudes toward organizational changes are possibly influenced by their degree of job satisfaction. Likewise, Yousef (2000) emphasizes the role of job satisfaction in relation to attitudes toward change. Furthermore, Wanberg and Banas (1997) found that positive attitudes toward change are related to higher job satisfaction and research by Schweiger and Denisi (1991) found that negative attitudes toward change are related to lower job satisfaction. Finding that job satisfaction is related to attitudes toward change stimulates this research’s interest in finding out whether job satisfaction has a moderating effect on the relationship between readiness for change and its antecedents.
interpretations of and expectations about the upcoming change. The perceived appropriateness, management support, change-specific efficacy, and personal valence of the change influence the individual’s change schema and this has an impact on the individual’s readiness for change. Furthermore, Lau and Woodman (1995) state that individual difference variables (such as job satisfaction) influence the change schemata, and through the change schemata may have an influence on the individuals’ readiness for change. This suggests that a moderating effect by job satisfaction may be present in the relationship between the four beliefs and readiness for change.
Aside from the general argument, specific arguments have been found to explain the expected moderating effect of job satisfaction on the relationship between the four beliefs and readiness for change.
Research shows that job dissatisfaction correlates with turnover and intention to quit (e.g. Locke, 1976; Macdonald & MacIntyre, 1997; Mobley, Griffeth, Hand, & Meglino, 1979; Saari & Judge, 2004). Employees who are satisfied with their job do not have the intention to quit. Vroom (1964) takes to mean that the findings on job satisfaction and turnover are consistent with his expectancy theory of motivation; employees with high job satisfaction are presumed to be motivated to remain in their jobs. Thus, employees who are satisfied with their job do not want to risk losing their job. When an employee perceives that there is a need for change, he knows there is a chance that when the company does not change (in an appropriate manner), the company gets in trouble and the employee might lose his job. As an employee with high job satisfaction does not want to lose his job, it is expected that his readiness for change will increase when he perceives a need for change (and when he perceives that the chosen change initiative is appropriate). In this case job satisfaction seems to moderate the relationship between appropriateness and readiness for change.
who perceives a high personal valence coming from the change will be even more ready for change. Thus, it looks like job satisfaction moderates the relationship between personal valence and readiness for change.
An employee who has low change-specific efficacy believes that he is not capable to cope with the demands of the change, leading to low readiness for change. When this employee has high job satisfaction he will be even less ready for change. The reasoning for this is that after the change his job satisfaction level could turn out to be lower because he feels he is not capable to fulfill the tasks the change asks of him.
Based on the general and specific arguments that have been put forward, the following hypothesis has been developed:
H2: Job satisfaction moderates the relationship between the four beliefs and readiness for change, such that the relationship is stronger for individuals who have a high level of job satisfaction.
Organizational commitment
This section will start with a general argument on the possible moderating effect of organizational commitment on the relationship between the four beliefs and readiness for change, followed up by arguments focusing on specific beliefs. This will result in the development of a hypothesis.
change is perceived as beneficial and these employees have higher organizational commitment they will be even more ready for change. Employees with high organizational commitment are more willing to put effort into the organization and the change, as long as the values and goals of the organization do not change, and as long as the change is seen as beneficial to the organization (Yousef, 2000). This suggests that organizational commitment moderates the relationship between the four beliefs and readiness for change.
Next to this general argument focusing on the four beliefs, an argument has also been found that suggests a moderating effect of organizational commitment on the relationship between appropriateness and readiness for change. As is the case with job satisfaction, organizational commitment correlates with turnover and intention to quit (e.g. Porter, Crampon & Smith, 1976; Porter, Steers, Mowday & Boulian, 1974; Steel & Ovalle, 1984). Employees who are committed to the organization do not have the intention to quit. When an employee is committed to the organization the employee has a stronger desire and intent to remain with the organization (Steers, 1977). The definition of organizational commitment by Mathews and Shepherd (2002: 369) showed that “committed employees […] have a strong desire to maintain membership with the organization”. Committed employees do not want to risk losing their job. The same line of reasoning that was used for the moderating effect of job satisfaction can be used in the case of organizational commitment. An employee with high organizational commitment does not want to lose his job, when he perceives a need for change (and when he perceives that the chosen change initiative is appropriate) his readiness for change will improve. In the case where the change initiative is not seen as appropriate, or even worse, is seen as harmful, a highly committed individual is likely to have a lower readiness for change (Lau & Woodman, 1995).
when the change is perceived as beneficial, the employees with high organizational commitment will show a higher readiness for the change initiative.
H3: Organizational commitment moderates the relationship between the four beliefs and readiness for change, such that the relationship is stronger for individuals who have a high level of organizational commitment.
METHOD
This study consists of a literature review and an empirical research. Literature search engines (e.g. Google Scholar, Business Source Premier) were used to find articles on the topics discussed in this paper. The literature review has been executed by using only scientific articles and books. The empirical research has been executed by means of a questionnaire that was developed using existing scales to measure the variables in this paper.
Respondents
For this study the data were collected from Rabobank Graafschap-Midden in Doetinchem, The Netherlands. Rabobank Graafschap-Midden has undergone organizational changes with a project called ‘Processen en Sturen’, with these organizational changes in mind the employees were asked to fill in the questionnaire.
Participation in this research was on a voluntary basis and participants in this study remained anonymous. To determine the employees’ interest in this study the employees were asked beforehand whether they would like to participate in this study by filling in a questionnaire. From the 185 employees in this Rabobank department, 78 employees showed their interest to participate in the research.
gender distribution of the respondents (46% male, 51% female, two missing values) shows that the sample is representative for the group.
The age of the respondents in this research is distributed as follows: 29% of the respondents has an age between 21 and 35; 34,8% has an age between 36 and 45; 27,5% has an age between 46 and 55; and 8,7% has an age between 56 and 65. The average number of years working for Rabobank Graafschap-Midden is 15.6.
Procedures
A questionnaire containing 67 items was developed to assess the employees’ readiness for change, job satisfaction, organizational commitment and the four beliefs. To test the length of the questionnaire, the questionnaire was pilot-tested on 10 students. The goal was to develop a questionnaire that would not take more than 20 minutes to complete. All of the questions from the survey were translated to Dutch by a professional English-Dutch translator following a double-blind back-translation procedure. The survey was distributed through the Rabobank Intranet. The employees received a reminder a week after the distribution of the questionnaire, following the reminder they still had three days to complete the questionnaire.
Measures
For the empirical research, questionnaires have been set up to measure the research model’s variables. In this research, readiness for change was the dependent variable. The four beliefs; appropriateness, management support, change-specific efficacy, and personal valence are the independent variables. Job satisfaction and change commitment served as the moderators. The demographic variables in this research were gender, age, organizational tenure and the employees’ highest level of education.
Four beliefs. To measure the variables appropriateness, management support,
individual’s readiness for change; this instrument has been tested thoroughly and is widely accepted. Their instrument measures readiness for change with 25 questions based on four scales: appropriateness, management support, change-specific efficacy and personal valence. According to Holt et al. (2007) the four beliefs are antecedents to readiness for change. The four beliefs are measured on a 7-point Likert scale. Sample items from this questionnaire include: ‘This change will improve our organization’s overall efficiency’; ‘Every senior manager has stressed the importance of this change’; and ‘I have the skills that are needed to make this change work’.
Readiness for change. To measure the variable individual readiness for change
four questions by Metselaar (1997) will be used. These questions will be used as together they directly measure the dependent variable readiness for change. The items are measured on a 7-point Likert scale. Sample items are: ‘I intend to make time to implement the change’; and ‘I intend to put effort into achieving the goals of the change’.
Job satisfaction. In this study job satisfaction is measured with the questionnaire by
Macdonald and MacIntyre (1997). The questionnaire they developed is called the Generic Job Satisfaction Scale and consists of 10 questions. Their general approach to measuring job satisfaction makes it possible for the questionnaire to be applied to all kinds of occupations. Furthermore, the scale is developed because there was ‘a need for a valid and reliable scale that is short and easily administered in the workplace’ (Macdonald & MacIntyre, 1997: 1). There are two main approaches to measuring job satisfaction: the facets approach and the general approach. The facets approach measures the several components of job satisfaction with multiple items, thus leading to a large questionnaire which takes a long time to fill in by the respondents. The general approach examines the job satisfaction level regardless of the components of job satisfaction, resulting in a more overall image of job satisfaction (Macdonald & MacIntyre, 1997). As it is enough to know the overall level of job satisfaction for this study, the Generic Job Satisfaction Scale was used. The items are measured on a 7-point Likert scale. Sample items from this questionnaire include: ‘I feel good about working at this company’; ‘I believe management is concerned about me’; and ‘I feel close to the people at work’.
Organizational commitment. The variable organizational commitment is measured
questions measuring three types of organizational commitment: affective, normative and continuance organizational commitment. Meyer and Allen (1991) are the key writers on organizational commitment, their questionnaire is accepted by other writers on the concept of commitment, and therefore this study uses their questionnaire. The items are measured on a 7-point Likert scale. Sample items from this questionnaire include: ‘This change is a good strategy for this organization’; ‘I would not feel badly about opposing this change’; and ‘I have no choice but to go along with this change’.
Demographics. The questionnaire’s opening section asked the participants
demographic information. The variables were the respondents age; gender; organizational tenure; and educational level.
Data-analysis
A factor analysis and a reliability analysis have been executed to test whether the questions from the questionnaire measured what they were supposed to measure. Reverse coding has been used to recode the questions that were stated negatively.
Factor analysis. A principal component analysis has been executed using Varimax
rotation and forcing the analysis to find 9 components. Using the ‘Eigen values greater than 1’ rule resulted in 16 components, which is too much as it was expected to find 9 components. Conway and Huffcutt (2003) state that the ‘Eigen values greater than 1’ rule tends to find too many factors and therefore should not be relied on.
The principal component analysis has been done to check whether the variables in this research differed sufficiently from one another. As Conway and Huffcutt (2003) put it, factor analysis helps in preparation for the purpose of this study, namely hypothesis testing. Executing a factor analysis is a very subjective process and based on the factor analysis questions from the questionnaire may be deleted.
In executing a factor analysis a number of problems may be encountered. These problems may result in deleting items from the research. Before deleting an item, the problem will be investigated to determine its cause. Based on the findings the decision is made whether the item will stay in the research or be deleted.
accepted, the research accepts main loadings of 0.4 or higher. When an item has a cross-loading higher than 0.4, a problem has been encountered. A cross-cross-loading higher than 0.4 is inappropriate because this means that according to the participants in this research, the item is similar to the items from another construct. This similarity may influence the end results in a negative way, therefore the problem is investigated further. In this research the decision is made to keep items with a higher main-loading than its cross-loading in the analysis. Investigating the problem starts with looking at the item’s content. If, when looking at the content, the item has a clear resemblance to items from the other variable the item will be deleted to avoid that the item will have a negative impact on the results. It is possible that an item with a high cross-loading does not show a clear resemblance to items from another variable, however, this still means that the participants in the research did find the item to be similar to another construct. In this case executing a reliability analysis to look at the change in Cronbach’s alpha may lead to a decision. When deleting the item from the research does not have a big impact on the variable’s Cronbach’s alpha, the decision to delete the item may be made.
Another problem that may be encountered is an item from a variable that does not load on the same component as the other items from this variable. Investigating the item may lead to the cause in this case. In this factor analysis such problems have been encountered, for example item 5 from the variable management support did not load on the same component as the other management support items. When looking at the question it was discovered that item 5 was the only reverse coded item of the variable management support, this may be the reason that item 5 did not load on the same component.
This factor analysis has been executed in 17 steps, a table (see Table 1) has been designed showing the 17 events and their explanations. See Appendix C for step-by-step explanations in further detail.
--- Insert Table 1 about here ---
The 17 steps, and the decisions made about keeping items in the research or deleting the items, resulted in the following factor analysis (see Table 2).
--- Insert Table 2 about here ---
Reliability analysis. After the factor analysis, and deleting 15 items from the
analysis, a reliability analysis was executed (see Table 3). Readiness for change, the dependent variable in this research, now has a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.88. The independent variable appropriateness has a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.9, management support has a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.81, change-specific efficacy scores 0.86, and the independent variable personal valence has a score of 0.78. The moderators job satisfaction and organizational commitment have a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.85 and 0.78 respectively.
--- Insert Table 3 about here ---
Moderated hierarchical regression analysis. To determine the influence of the
moderators on the relationships between the four beliefs and readiness for change, moderated hierarchical regression analysis have been executed (Baron & Kenny, 1986). In this analysis the dependent variable was readiness for change. As a control variable the level of education has been used in block 1, in block 2 the four beliefs and the moderators were used, these are the main effects. In block 3 an interaction term was used, the interaction between one of the beliefs and one of the moderators. Before creating the interaction term the four beliefs and the moderators were mean-centred (Aiken & West, 1991).
In this section the hypotheses will be tested, the Pearson correlation coefficients will show the correlations between the variables in this research, and by use of a moderated hierarchical regression analysis the effect of the moderators will be determined.
Correlation and regression
Table 4 presents the means, standard deviations and bivariate correlations for the research variables. An initial glance at the correlations show preliminary positive correlations for the four beliefs with readiness for change: appropriateness (r = .55, p < .01), management support (r = .39, p < .01), change-specific efficacy (r = .72, p < .01) and personal valence (r = .39, p < .01).
--- Insert Table 4 about here ---
To test the hypotheses, regression analyses were performed. Hypothesis 1a states that a higher sense of appropriateness has a positive influence on the readiness for change. A regression analysis was done, and the results (β = .5, p < .01, R2 = .3) show that this hypothesis can be accepted. If appropriateness is increased with one unit this will lead to an increase of readiness for change with 0.5 unit. Hypothesis 1b states that a higher perceived level of management support has a positive influence on readiness for change. The results of the regression analysis (β = .36, p < .01, R2 = .22) show that this hypothesis can also be accepted. Higher change-specific efficacy leads to higher readiness for change, according to hypothesis 1c. Testing this hypothesis with a regression analysis shows that hypothesis 1c can be accepted (β = .69, p < .01, R2 = .51). Hypothesis 1d states that higher perceived personal valence results in a higher level of readiness for change. Regression analysis shows that hypothesis 1d can also be accepted (β = .32, p < .05, R2 = .18).
Moderated hierarchical regression analysis
have a high level of job satisfaction. Table 5 depicts the results of the moderated hierarchical regression executed with the independent variable appropriateness and the moderator job satisfaction. Hypothesis 2 is rejected with appropriateness as the independent variable (β = .00, p = n.s.).
--- Insert Table 5 about here ---
Table 6 presents the moderated hierarchical regression results where the analysis is executed with the independent variable management support. Like in the case of appropriateness, hypothesis 2 is rejected with the variable management support as the interaction term of management support and job satisfaction shows a non-significant relationship with the dependent variable, readiness for change (β = .12, p = n.s.).
--- Insert Table 6 about here ---
The moderated hierarchical regression results using the change-specific efficacy variable can be seen in table 7. The results show that hypothesis 2 is rejected with the belief change-specific efficacy (β = .13, p = n.s.).
--- Insert Table 7 about here ---
Table 8 shows the results of the moderated hierarchical regression executed with the independent variable personal valence. The results show that hypothesis 2 is rejected all together as, like with the other beliefs, job satisfaction does not moderate the relationship between personal valence and readiness for change (β = .09, p = n.s.).
--- Insert Table 8 about here ---
9 displays the results for the moderated hierarchical regression that has been executed with the independent variable appropriateness and the moderator organizational commitment. The results indicate that the moderated hierarchical regression with appropriateness does not support hypothesis 3 (β = -.13, p = n.s.).
--- Insert Table 9 about here ---
Looking at the moderated hierarchical regression with the independent variable management support (see Table 10), it can be seen that these results indicate that hypothesis 3 cannot be supported either (β = .02, p = n.s.).
--- Insert Table 10 about here ---
Table 11 shows the results of the moderated hierarchical regression using the change-specific efficacy belief. The interaction term of change-specific efficacy and organizational commitment shows a non-significant relationship with readiness for change (β = .12, p = n.s.), therefore hypothesis 3 is not supported.
--- Insert Table 11 about here ---
Finally, table 12 shows the results of the moderated hierarchical regression executed with the variable personal valence. The results show that, like in the case of the other beliefs, hypothesis 3 has to be rejected (β = -.08, p = n.s.).
--- Insert Table 12 about here ---
DISCUSSION
Implications
The goal of this research was to examine the impact of appropriateness, management support, change-specific efficacy, and personal valence on the individual’s readiness for change and the impact of the moderators job satisfaction and organizational commitment on the relationships between the four beliefs and readiness for change.
Broadly speaking, the results of this study show that there are significant positive relationships between each of the four beliefs and readiness for change; the expectations are met. Stimulating the four beliefs will lead to higher readiness for change, and as several writers (e.g. Armenakis, Harris & Mossholder, 1993; Eby, Adams, Russell & Gaby, 2000; Levesque, Prochaska & Prochaska, 1999) argue, an organization with a higher readiness for change is more likely to produce successful change initiatives.
This research confirmed the assumption by Holt et al. (2007) that readiness for change is determined by the four beliefs. Therefore, managers in organizations that undergo many changes in today’s dynamic and turbulent environment should stimulate these four beliefs to achieve higher readiness for change, and ultimately a bigger chance to achieve a successful change.
Concerning the belief ‘appropriateness’, the managers should make clear to everyone in the organization that the organization is in need of the proposed changes and that the proposed change initiative is appropriate. Bernerth (2004) explains that organizational members may not believe in the need for change and in the specific change initiative if the change agents do not demonstrate the need for change. Likewise, Kotter (1995) argues that creating a sense of urgency is important when implementing changes, the need for change has to be communicated throughout the organization. As Self (2007) puts it, the change leader has the task to identify and show the gap between the current state and the desired state, and demonstrate that the proposed change is the right solution to eliminate this gap.
management and change leaders take toward the change. If the employee sees that management and change leaders support the change, they will be more likely to support the change as well. Kotter (1995) enforces this statement, saying that there should be a powerful guiding coalition. The coalition should actively support the change and may consist of the head of the organization, senior managers, board members and maybe even important customers or a powerful union leader. As the guiding coalition may also include members who are not part of senior management it operates outside of the organizational hierarchy, this will increase the organizational members’ readiness for change. Bernerth (2004) agrees and says that employees look at formal and informal leaders to see how to react to the change.
Giving the organizational members the feeling that they have the right skills, abilities, and knowledge to implement the change, or giving these employees the opportunity to develop these, will ensure that the employees’ confidence level and change-specific efficacy rises (Self, 2007). Bernerth (2004) mentions that change agents have the task to assure the employees that they have the skills and abilities to succeed in the change process. Building change-specific efficacy helps to reduce the employees’ fear of failure in the change and helps them build a mindset of success. Bolstering the employees’ confidence has a positive influence on their readiness for change in the end. If employees lack the confidence that the management desires, change agents may formulate realistic goals and strategies for organizational members to improve their chances of success (Bernerth, 2004).
The expectation for hypothesis 2 was to find a positive influence of higher job satisfaction on the relationship between the four beliefs and readiness for change. In fact it turned out that, based on the results of this study, job satisfaction does not have a moderating effect on these relationships.
Baron and Kenny (1986) state that it is desirable for a moderator to be uncorrelated with the predictor variables (the four beliefs) and the dependent variable (readiness for change), to be able to provide an interaction term that is clearly interpretable. In this research, the moderator job satisfaction correlates with all four beliefs and with readiness for change. This may suggest that instead of a moderating effect, job satisfaction may have a direct influence on the individual’s readiness for change. Cordery et al. (1993) mention that job satisfaction possibly influences employee’s attitudes toward changes, and Yousef (2000) and Iverson (1996) also emphasize the role of job satisfaction related to attitudes toward change.
Job satisfaction is determined amongst others by such factors as the current opportunities to develop skills on the job, promotional opportunities and reward opportunities. Cordery et al. (1993) explain that these opportunities influence the employee’s openness to change. When an employee perceives that the change will be paired with bigger opportunities for promotion, the employee will have a more positive attitude towards the change. Yousef (2000) states that employees who are satisfied with various facets of the job are likely to be more ready for change.
Instead of a moderating effect by job satisfaction on the relationship between the four beliefs and readiness for change, a direct effect by job satisfaction on readiness for change may exist. This means that increasing the employee’s level of job satisfaction will possibly help create more readiness for change.
The results for hypothesis 3 showed that higher organizational commitment does not have a moderating effect on the relationship between the four beliefs and an individual’s readiness for change.
between the beliefs and readiness for change. Several writers (e.g. Coopey & Hartley, 1991; Guest, 1987; Iverson, 1996), explain that this direct effect is present, higher organizational commitment will result in higher readiness for change.
Thus, instead of a moderating effect, a direct effect by organizational commitment on readiness for change may exist. If this is the case, increasing the employee’s level of organizational commitment will help create more readiness for change.
Limitations and further research
Although this research has some strong points (a wide variety in age, educational background and organizational tenure, and an almost equal ratio of women and men), this research has some weaknesses.
The sample size in this study is relatively small; 69 individuals completed the questionnaire. This small sample size might have had an impact on this research’s findings. Hinkin (1998) explains that the use of a larger sample size helps to attain factor loadings that reflect the population’s values. Furthermore, increasing the sample size increases the likelihood of producing significant results in the analyses. Hinkin (1998) states that a sample size of at least 200 should be used to get accurate results in the factor analysis. Schwab (1980) suggests a 1:10 item-to-response ratio, for every item in the research there should be 10 respondents. In this research, with 63 items initially, this would mean 630 respondents are needed. A sample size this big exceeded the scope of this research. For further research however, it is recommended to use a larger sample size to avoid problems with the factor analysis and to achieve more statistically significant results.
This is also the reason that the variables were measured in the same time period and that only one method was used to measure the variables. Further research could measure the variables at different points in time. As the research is about readiness for change, measuring the variables could be done before, during, and after the change’s implementation, this would increase the validity of the research and its results.
Another limitation is the number of items per variable in this research. MacCallum, Widaman, Zhang and Hong (1999) recommended including at least three to five items to represent each factor in the analysis. Initially, the variables in this research all consisted of at least three items, because of factor analysis certain items had to be removed from the research. In this research the variable personal valence consists of only two items, this leads to unsatisfactory identification of the factor and less accurate results.
Because of these limitations the conclusions drawn from this research must be interpreted with caution. The limitations might have influenced the results from the study and should get attention in future research. When repeating this research, it is very useful to look at the limitations in this study. As it increases the validity and generalizability of the results, a larger sample size is suggested for further research. This should lead to fewer problems in the factor analysis and possibly more statistically significant results.
This research has focused on how organizational members interpret and perceive changes, and if their interpretations influence individual readiness for change. Individual readiness for change may also be influenced by other personal characteristics. For further research, it might be interesting to find out if the Big Five factors of personality traits (Costa & McCrae, 1992) have any influence on an individual’s readiness for change. If this is the case, HR managers of organizations that are prone to changes might change their recruitment and selection procedure to find job applicants who match their dynamic organization.
As explained earlier, job satisfaction and organizational commitment may have a direct influence on an individual’s readiness for change. More research into this subject may lead to interesting results and useful practical implications for managers on human relations level.
CONCLUSION
The research found that the four beliefs; appropriateness, management support, change-specific efficacy, and personal valence all have a positive influence on the employee’s readiness for change. Hypothesis 1a, 1b, 1c and 1d have been accepted. Research has also been done on the concepts of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Contradictory to the expectations, job satisfaction and organizational commitment did not have a moderating effect on the relationship between the four beliefs and individual readiness for change, hypothesis 2 and 3 were rejected.
REFERENCES
Aiken, L.S., & West, S.G. 1991. Multiple Regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Armenakis, A., Bernerth, J., Pitts, J., & Walker, H. 2007. Organizational change recipients' beliefs scale: development of an assessment instrument. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 43(4):481-505.
Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G., & Mossholder, K.W. 1993. Creating readiness for organizational change. Human Relations, 46: 681-703.
Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G., & Feild, H.S. 1999. Making change permanent: A model for institutionalizing change interventions. Research in Organizational Change and
Development, 12: 97-128.
Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G. 2002. Crafting a change message to create transformational readiness. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(2): 169-183.
Backer, T.E. 1995. Assessing and enhancing readiness for change: Implications for technology transfer. In Backer, T.E., David, S.L. & Soucy, G. (Eds.). Reviewing the behavioral science knowledge base on technology transfer,: 21-41. National Institute on Drug Abuse, Rockville, MD.
Bandura, A. 1982. Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147.
Bandura, A. 1986. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Baron, R.M. & Kenny, D.A. 1986. The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6): 1173-1182.
Becker, T.E. 1992. Foci and Bases of Commitment: Are They Distinctions Worth Making? Academy of Management Journal, 35(1): 232-244.
Bernerth, J. 2004. Expanding our understanding of the change message. Human
Resource Development Review, 3(1): 36-52.
instrument. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 143(6): 559-599.
Coetsee, L. 1999. From Resistance to Commitment. Public Administration Quarterly, 23: 204-222.
Conner, D. R., & Patterson, R. W. 1982. Building Commitment to Organizational Change. Training and Development Journal, 36(4): 18-30.
Conway, J.M., & Huffcutt, A.I. 2003. A Review and Evaluation of Exploratory Factor Analysis Practices in Organizational Research. Organizational Research Methods, 6(2): 147-168.
Coopey, J. & Hartley, J. 1991. Reconsidering the Case of Organisational Commitment,
Human Resource Management Journal, 1: 18-32.
Cordery, J., Sevastos, P., Mueller, W. & Parker, S. 1993. Correlates of Employee Attitudes Toward Functional Flexibility. Human Relations, 46(6): 705-23.
Costa, P.T., Jr., & McCrae, R.R. 1992. Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R)
and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources.
Côté, S., & Morgan, L.M. 2002. A longitudinal analysis of the association between emotion regulation, job satisfaction, and intentions to quit. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 23: 947-962.
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, 75: 377-392.
Desplaces, D. 2005. A Multilevel Approach to Individual Readiness to Change. Journal
of Behavioral and Applied Management, 7(1): 25-39.
Eby, L.T., Adams, D.M., Russell, J.E.A., & Gaby, S.H. 2000. Perceptions of organizational readiness to change: Factors related to employee’s reactions to the implementation of team selling. Human Relations, 53(3): 419-442.
Guest, D. 1987. Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations. Journal of
Management Studies, 24: 503-21.
Hanpachern, C., Morgan, G.A., & Griego, O.V. 1998. An Extension of the Theory of Margin: A Framework for Assessing Readiness for Change. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 9(4): 339-350.
Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J.P. 2002. Commitment to Organizational Change: Extension of a Three-Component Model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 474-487.
Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 104-121.
Holt, D., Armenakis, A., Feild, H., & Harris, S. 2007. Readiness for organizational change: the systematic development of a scale. The Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 43(2):232-255.
Hulin, C.L., & Judge, T.A. 2003. Job attitudes. In W.C. Borman, D.R. Ilgen, & R.J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational
psychology,: 255-276. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Iverson, R.D. 1996. The Employee Acceptance of Organizational Change, the Role of Organizational Commitment. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management. 7 (1): 122-149.
Jimmieson, N., Terry, D., & Callan, V. 2004. A longitudinal study of employee adaptation to organizational change: The role of change-related information and change-related self-efficacy. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9(1): 11-27.
Judge, T.A., Thoresen, C.J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T.M. 1999. Managerial coping with organizational change: a dispositional perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(1): 107-122.
Klein, K.J., & Sorra, J.S. 1996. The challenge of innovation implementation. Academy of
Management Review, 21: 1055-1080.
Kotter, J.P. 1995. Leading change: Why Transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business
Review, 73: 59-67.
Lau, C.M., & Woodman, R. W., 1995. Understanding Organizational Change: A Schematic Perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2): 537-554.
Levesque, D.A., Prochaska, J.M., & Prochaska, J.O. 1999. Stages of Change and Integrated Service Delivery. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and
Research, 51(4): 226-241.
Lewin, K. 1947. Frontiers in group dynamics. Human Relations, 1: 5-41.
Locke, E.A. 1976. The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M.D. Dunette (Ed.),
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology,: 1297-1349. Chicago: Rand
McNally.
MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S. & Hong, S. 1999. Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4: 84-99.
Macdonald, S., & MacIntyre, P. 1997. The Generic Job Satisfaction Scale: Scale Development and Its Correlates. Employee Assistance Quarterly, l3(2): 1-16.
Madsen, S.R., John, C.R., & Miller, D. 2006. Influential Factors in Individual Readiness for Change. Journal of Business and Management, 12(2): 93-110.
Madsen, S.R., Miller, D., & John, C.R. 2005. Readiness for Organizational Change: Do Organizational Commitment and Social Relationships in the Workplace Make a Difference? Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16(2): 213-233.
Mathews, B.P., & Shepherd, J.L. 2002. Dimensionality of Cook and Wall’s (1980) British Organizational Commitment scale. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 75: 369-375.
Metselaar, E.E. 1997. Assessing the willingness to change: Construction and validation of the DINAMO. Doctoral dissertation. Amsterdam: VU-huisdrukkerij. 0-184. Meyer, J.P., & Allen, N.J. 1991. A Three-Component Conceptualization of
Organizational Commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1): 61-89. Mobley, W. H., Griffeth, R. W., Hand, H. H., & Meglino, B. M. 1979. Review and
conceptual analysis of the employee turnover process. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 493–522.
Porter, L. W., Crampon, W. J., & Smith, F. J. 1976. Organizational commitment and managerial turnover: A longitudinal study. Organizational Behavior and Human
Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. 1974. Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 59: 603-609.
Rowden, R.W. 2001. The Learning Organization and Strategic Change. S.A.M.
Advanced Management Journal, 66(3), 11-24.
Saari, L. M., & Judge, T. A. 2004. Employee attitudes and job satisfaction. Human
Resource Management, 43: 395-407.
Sari, H. 2004. An analysis of burnout and job satisfaction among Turkish special school headteachers and teachers, and the factors effecting their burnout and job satisfaction.
Educational Studies, 30(3): 291-306.
Schwab, D.P. 1980. Construct validity in organization behavior. In B.M. Staw & L.L. Cummings (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior,: 3-43. Greenwich: JAI. Schweiger, D.M., & Denisi, A.S. 1991. Communication with employees following a
merger: A longitudinal field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 34: 110-135.
Self, D.R. 2007. Organizational change-overcoming resistance by creating readiness.
Development and learning in organizations, 21: 11-13.
Simons, T. 2002. The high cost of lost trust. Harvard Business Review, 80(9):18-19. Smith, I. 2005. Achieving readiness for organizational change. Library Management, 26:
406-412.
Smith, P.C., Kendall, L.M., & Hulin, C.L. 1969. The Measurement of Satisfaction in
Work and Retirement: A Strategy for the Study of Attitudes. Chicago: Rand
McNally.
Steel, R.P., & Ovalle, N.K. 1984. A Review and Meta-Analysis of Research on the Relationship Between Behavioral Intentions and Employee Turnover. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 69(4): 673-686.
Steers, R. M. 1977. Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 22: 46-56.
Susanto, A.B. 2008. Organizational Readiness for Change: A Case Study on Change Readiness in a Manufacturing Company in Indonesia. International Journal of
Vroom, V.H. 1964. Work and Motivation, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Wanberg, C.R., & Banas, J.T. 1997. A model of the predictors and outcomes of
individual attitudes toward change. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Wanberg, C. R., & Banas, J. T. 2000. Predictors and Outcomes of Openness to Change in a Reorganizing Workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 132 – 142.
Weiner, B.J. 2009. A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation
Science, 4: 67-75.
Weiss, H.M. 2002. Deconstructing job satisfaction: separating evaluations, beliefs and affective experiences. Human Resource Management Review, 12: 173-194.
