INTERNAL TRANSITIONS: A TOOL TO INCREASE EMPLOYEES’ ADAPTABILITY?

(1)

INTERNAL TRANSITIONS: A TOOL TO

INCREASE EMPLOYEES’ ADAPTABILITY?

The role of transition experience and voluntariness.

Master Thesis, MscBA, specialization Human Resource Management

University of Groningen, Faculty of Management & Organization

February 19, 2012

PHILIP VAN DER KOLK S1755005 Van Ostadestraat 348-2 1073 TZ Amsterdam

Email: p.h.van.der.kolk@student.rug.nl

Supervisor/university: Drs. H. Grutterink Second assessor: Prof. Dr. O. Janssen Supervisor/field of study J.D.C. Soares AirFrance/KLM

(2)

ABSTRACT

In order to be able to change as an organization, it is important that employees can quickly adapt to these changes. Therefore, in this study, we examined antecedents of employees’ adaptability – defined as an individual’s ability, skill, disposition, willingness, and/or motivation to change or fit different task, social and environmental features. More specifically, the focus was on two components of individual adaptability: interpersonal and uncertainty adaptability.

This survey study among 256 employees at AirFrance/ KLM showed that transition experience – that is, the familiarity that employees have with changes in position, team composition and work procedures – was positively related to interpersonal adaptability when the voluntariness of these transitions was low, but not when the voluntariness was high. For uncertainty adaptability on the other hand, there was no relationship with transition. However, openness to experience was an important predictor of uncertainty adaptability.

These results suggest that the interpersonal component of individual adaptability may be enhanced by external factors, such as involuntary transition experience, and should not be regarded as a fixed personality trait. This implies that there are tools that organizations can use to increase the interpersonal adaptability of an employee. In addition to this, these results show that different components of adaptability are related to different antecedents, and suggest that a one-size-fits-all approach to increase the various components of adaptability will not work.

(3)

1. INTRODUCTION SECTION

Today’s organizations are characterized by changing, dynamic environments in which the need for adaptive workers has become increasingly important (Edwards & Morrison, 1994; Hollenbeck, LePine, & Ilgen, 1996; Ilgen & Pulakos, 1999; Smith, Ford, & Kozlowski, 1997). The turbulence of the new economy has changed the way organizations are structured and managed (Arthur, Inkson, & Pringle, 1999), modified the psychological contract between employer and employee (Rousseau, 1995), and affected the way in which careers develop over time (Greenhaus, 2002). New, changing technologies alter the nature of work tasks (Patrickson, 1987; Thach & Woodman, 1994), and require employees to learn new styles of working in order to perform their jobs. In global companies, many jobs require individuals to learn to operate effectively in various countries, with individuals from different backgrounds and with different values (Black, 1990; Noe & Ford, 1992). The turbulence and change inherent in the present work environment (Arthur et al., 1999; Hall, 2002) requires employees to learn continuously, to self-manage their careers, and to adapt to frequent job changes (Hulin & Glomb, 1999). Success at work often depends on an employee’s adaptability and flexibility in the face of an uncertain future (Lord & Hartley, 1998). As a result, it has become increasingly important for organizations to have people working for them who are good adaptors to the changes in such a dynamic work environment, and, where needed, to be able to increase this adaptability.

So how can employees’ adaptability be increased? This question has led to a debate in the literature between those who see adaptability as a relatively inflexible disposition and as a personality trait (e.g., Metz, 2004), and those who argue that adaptability is malleable (e.g., Heslin, 2005). Mirvis & Hall (1996) examined the antecedents and consequences of personal adaptability (see also Morrison & Hall, 2001; Hall, Zhu, & Yan, 2001), and concluded that adaptability is not only shaped by personality traits and other internal individual characteristics, but also by external factors. As Karaevli & Hall (2006) pointed out in their theoretical model, one of the most important external factors is transition experience. This study focuses on transition experience as an antecedent of individual adaptability because it can be relatively easily influenced by organizations, thus providing a possible tool for organizations to increase their employees’ adaptability.

(5)

centre of attention is the internal transition of employees, that is, changes regarding someone’s work within an organization. The reasons underlying this focus are threefold. First, due to the world-wide aging of the workforce (Gobeski & Beehr, 2009; Waite, 2004) organizations have to rely on an increasing number of older employees. Morisson and Hall (2001) note that especially for those older employees, whose skills may become outdated, adaptation may be necessary but difficult. Because the changing environment requires a quick adaptation of new skills and capabilities, organizations should consider ways to increase the adaptability of these employees. Second, since the working environment has become more competitive and the recruitment of new employees is expensive and time-consuming, organizations should try to maximize the value of their present employees. And finally, because internal transitions can be influenced by the organization itself, it is interesting and rewarding to find out whether internal transition is a tool that organizations can use internally to increase the adaptability of their employees.

(6)

and where employees have to be capable to face this uncertainty, which emphasize the importance of uncertainty adaptability.

(7)

2. THEORY SECTION

In the following paragraphs we will discuss the study variables, and the expected relationships between them.

2.1 Adaptability

In the literature, adaptability is defined by various names and definitions like ‘adaptive performance’ (Hesketh & Neal, 1999; Pulakos, Arad, Donovan & Plamondon, 2000), ‘role flexibility’ (Murphy & Jackson, 1999); ‘a competence to manage new learning experiences’ (London & Mone, 1999; Savickas, 2005); ‘a personal quality that is important in handling ambiguity, dealing with uncertainty and stress and in working outside traditional temporal and geographic boundaries’ (Pearlman & Barney, 2000); ‘modifying behaviour to meet the demands of a new situation’ (Pulakos et al, 2000); ‘a competency that enables a person to master many more specific skills when she masters this metacompetency’ (Hall, 2002) and ‘the capacity to change, including both the competence and the motivation to do so’ (Hall & Chandler, 2005). In spite of these different labels and definitions, there is a clear common denominator in these definitions of adaptability: they are all concerned with how people deal with new circumstances. Therefore we will adhere to Ployhart and Bliese (2005) who have defined individual adaptability as follows: ‘Individual adaptability represents an individual’s ability, skill, disposition, willingness, and/or motivation, to change or fit different task, social and environmental features’.

(8)

workplace diversity and globalization, whereas the latter is concerned with the fact that employees are expected to make various job changes during their career (Lord & Smith, 1999). The increased importance of teamwork and the increasing diversity of these teams emphasize the importance of interpersonal adaptability. The various job changes result in a new type of career where lifelong employment is rare and where employees have to be capable to face this uncertainty. This is explained in more detail below.

2.1.1 Interpersonal adaptability

Pulakos (2000) defined interpersonal adaptability as the capacity to adjust to new teams, co-workers or customers. Harmful interpersonal behavior degrades coworkers’ attitudes, performance, and mental and physical health (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008; Lim, Cortina & Magley, 2008) and may have a negative impact on the effectiveness of work teams and organizations (Pearson & Porath, 2005). Black (1990) and Noe & Ford (1992) already suggested the importance of interpersonal adaptability based on the increased importance to cooperate effectively with people from different backgrounds and other values than themselves. This emphasizes the importance of interpersonal adaptability in the present fast changing environment.

2.1.2 Uncertainty adaptability

Uncertainty adaptability is defined as adjusting and dealing with unpredictable situations, by shifting focus and taking reasonable action (Pulakos, 2000). Careers become de-standardized and individualized, and thus less predictable for the individual (Beck, 2009; Mach, 2003; Mills & Blossfeld, 2003). As stated by Heinz (2003, p. 186), ‘continuous careers and stable employment are less certain’, which can result in increased career uncertainty. Research has shown that these uncertainties can reduce psychological well-being (De Witte, 1999; Grumer & Pinquart, 2011). For this reason, and because of the proposition of stress theory (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), and the empirical support for this from Tomasik & Silbereisen (2009), about the influence of environmental factors on the well-being of the individual, it is supposed that an uncertain environment may function as a threat to the individual. Hence, it is crucial that employees should find ways to adapt to this increasing uncertainty.

(9)

2.2 Transition experience

Previous research on internal transitions has mainly focused on job changes (e.g., Hall, 1996; Sullivan, 1999), sometimes specified into lateral and upward mobility (Ng, 2007). However, recent studies have shown that organizational changes such as revising tasks and new technologies have an impact on the workplace of an individual and on the day-to-day work routines as well (Herold, Fedor & Caldwell, 2007; Judge, Thoresen, Pucik & Welbourne, 1999). So transition experience is a broader concept than just job changes or mobility steps. Therefore, in this study, transition experience is defined as ‘the experience that employees have with changes in position, team composition and work procedures’.

2.3 Voluntariness

Transitions may be either voluntary or involuntary (Eby & DeMatteo, 2000).

The first one means a desire of the individual to change, and the latter means that an individual is forced to change. Voluntary transitions can be conceived as transitions that are ‘desired’ and/or perceived as beneficial for individual’s careers (Van Vianen, 2003). Voluntariness involves an exercise of free will and choice, or with intent and deliberateness, and one that is free from coercion and undue influence (Nelson & Merz, 2002). Involuntary transitions, on the other hand, are forced changes that are often a result of mergers, reorganizations and involuntary job loss (Kinicki & Latack, 1990). Contrary to the literature that states that voluntariness of choice is needed to achieve positive outcomes like intrinsic motivation and good performance (Morgeson & Hymphrey, 2008), there are arguments to suppose that voluntariness in itself is not needed to achieve positive outcomes in adaptability. This is discussed in more detail in section 2.3, where the argumentation and hypotheses will be made clear.

2.3.1 Voluntariness of transition experience and interpersonal adaptability

We argue that it can be expected that transition with low voluntariness will increase interpersonal adaptability. This is mainly based on two arguments.

(10)

the unlearning of old work procedures, the accomplishment of tasks and duties in light of the change and the reassessment of fit perceptions (LePine et al., 2000; Caldwell et al., 2004). By forcing an employee to make a transition, this new situation cannot be avoided and the employee is forced to meet these new requirements. In order to do so, he has to practice and, as a result, will increase his adaptability skills.

Second, a forced change will increase an employee’s self-efficacy, that is, an individual’s belief that he is capable of succeeding a specific situation (Bandura, 1994). Research has shown that the most effective way to develop self-efficacy is through mastery experiences (Bandura, 1994). So, by mastering the experience of a forced transition the self-efficacy of en employee will increase. Research has shown that employees who become increasingly confident that they are capable to master specific skills will act accordingly (Bandura,1994). Ultimately, these experiences can become a self-fulfilling prophecy (Maddux, 1995). That is, the employee develops a belief that he or she is capable to master transitions and changes in environment. As a consequence, he becomes less anxious, reduce his resistance towards transitions and other, environmental changes and finally will become more adaptable. This will be an unfolding process in the future, since people with good interpersonal skills have more access to career-related information and resources (Seibert, Kraimer & Liden, 2001). By this the adaptability of an employee will be further increased, since he will face new, other changes and transitions. Therefore, we expect that the more an employee has experienced forced internal transitions, the more these employees will have developed skills and the more adaptable these employees will become compared to employees who have experienced less forced transitions.

(11)

of interpersonal adaptability. They already possess a higher level of interpersonal adaptability an do not need a forced transition to increase their adaptability skills and their self-efficacy.

These considerations suggest the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Voluntariness moderates the relationship between transition experience and interpersonal adaptability, in the sense that there will be a positive relationship when voluntariness is low, but no significant relationship when voluntariness is high.

2.3.2 Voluntariness of transition experience and uncertainty adaptability

We expect the same interaction hypothesis for uncertainty adaptability. We propose two reasons for this expectation.

First, Rajagopalan & Datta (1996) found that the experience of CEO‘s in different functional areas is positively associated with the extent of their knowledge, skills, and perspectives. Moreover, experience in a variety of functional domains has been positively associated with perceptions of skill acquisition (Campion, Cheraskin & Stevens, 1994), which is expected to decrease the feeling of someone’s uncertainty when confronted with change. In line with this, following the work of Hall (1986) and Bandura (1994), a new level of routine results in a higher level of adaptability and an increase in confidence. So, by a forced transition an employee is expected to acquire new skills and by this to experience a decrease in uncertainty.

Second, experience with different work-environments is associated with an overall positive affect (Campion, Cheraskin & Stevens, 1994). That is, the feeling and confidence that the individual can accomplish new tasks successfully. This is in line with Bandura’s work (1994) about self-efficacy, and will lead to a decrease in uncertainty. The effects of an increase in positive affect and self-efficacy will continue during next transitions. As for the interpersonal component, this will result in a self-fulfilling prophecy: the employee believes he has the capacity to adapt to transitions, this will lead to an increase in self-confidence, the employee will become less anxious and will be more open-minded towards new transitions. These new transitions will lead to another increase in self-confidence.

(12)

experience the same learning curve. They do not experience a variety of functional domains nor a new level of routine results. As a consequence, they will not experience the positive affect and self-fulfilling prophecy an employee who was forced to make a transition experiences.

People making transitions voluntarily are expected to already have high self-efficacy and see themselves as capable to deal with unpredictable situations. These employees are accustomed to make transitions. Hogg and his colleagues (e.g. Hogg, 2000; Hogg & Abrams, 1993; Hogg & Mullim, 1999) argued that affiliation and identifying with social groups, institutions and organizations is a way to reduce uncertainty. Employees making transitions voluntarily are expected to have experience with affiliation and identifying with several groups. A forced transition will not result in an significant increase in uncertainty adaptability.

In sum, the above suggests the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Voluntariness moderates the relationship between transition experience and uncertainty adaptability, in the sense that there will be a positive relationship when voluntariness is low, but no significant relationship when voluntariness is high.

These two hypotheses are graphically depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Conceptual model

Transition experience

Voluntariness

(13)

3. METHOD SECTION

3.1 Sample and procedure

The hypotheses were tested in the commercial division of AirFrance/KLM through the use of questionnaires. The language of the questionnaire was Dutch, which is the common language at the commercial division of AirFrance/KLM. The workforce of AirFrance/KLM is divided into different levels, ranging from employees with administrative tasks to the higher management. In order to obtain a representative sample, the questionnaire had to be completed by employees from both these levels. All employees were requested by the higher management to participate in this research. In order to make sure that the statements and questions were understandable for each employee, the questionnaire was tested by several employees of various levels and backgrounds. The feedback was used to adapt the questionnaire when needed. Among the respondents ten books were raffled in order to stimulate participation.

This survey study was set out among the 700 employees working at the commercial division. In total, 256 employees filled out the questionnaire, that is, a response rate of 37%. Of the respondents 43% were male and 57% were female. Respondents ranged in age from 19 to 60 years with an average age of 41.62 years (SD = 8.94). Average tenure was 14.88 years (SD = 10.57), and 57% held a Bachelor degree or higher.

3.2 Measures

The scales described below were originally developed using various response formats. For example, one measure was developed with a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), another measure used a 6-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) with no middle anchor. In order to avoid confusion among the respondents, the items in this study all used a 5-point answering scale. According to the content of the item, the anchors of the answering scale were 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) or 1 (never) to 5 (very often). Research has suggested that these sorts of relatively minor alterations to questionnaire respondent formats do not affect their validity (Matell & Jacoby, 1971).

(14)

knowledge in interactions’. Cronbach’s alpha of this scale was .87. Uncertainty adaptability was measured with nine items. An example statement was ‘I tend to perform best in stable situations and environments’. Cronbach’s alpha was .75. The items on both components could be answered on a five points scale, ranging from strongly disagree (=1) to strongly agree (=5).

Transition experience was measured with six items from Niessen (2010). An example item was: ‘How often have you experienced different supervisors’. We added the item ‘How often have you changed position within the organization’, since change of position as part of transition was lacking in this scale. However, according to us, change of position is a vital component of transition experience in organizations. The items were scored on a five-point scale, ranging from never (=1) to very often (=5). Cronbach’s alpha of this variable was .86.

Due to the lack of scales that focus on the voluntariness of transition within organizations, a more general scale of voluntariness was used, derived from the MacArthur Admission Experience Survey of Gardner (1993). The six items were adapted to the specific content of this study. An example item was ‘I had a lot of control over whether I went into which position’. Respondents had to score on a five point scale, ranging from completely disagree (=1) to completely agree (=5). Cronbach’s alpha was .79.

3.2.1 Control variables

(15)

change-positively influence adaptability and thus is controlled for openness as well. Openness to experience was measure with two items. An example item was ‘I see myself as open to new experiences’. Intercorrelation coefficient was .62.

The items were measured in accordance with the measurement of Gosling (2003). He developed a 10-item measure for the Big-Five dimensions. The majority of scales measuring the Big Five components make use of 30- or 40- item measurements, what takes a lot of time and effort of the respondents. The findings of Gosling suggest that the very brief instruments used in his questionnaire can stand as reasonable proxies for longer Big Five – instruments. All these items were measured on a five point scale, ranging from completely disagree (=1) to completely agree (=5).

3.3 Analysis

In order to examine the expected interactive effects of transition experience and voluntariness on the two types of adaptability, two hierarchical multiple regression analyses with three steps were conducted.

In the first step the control variables were entered. In the second step the main effects of transition experience and voluntariness were entered. In the third and last step the product of transition experience and voluntariness was entered to test the two-way interaction. To avoid possible problems of conflicting relationships between the predictors and the output, this multiple regression analysis made use of standardized variables. This means that the independent variables were first standardized before the interaction term was calculated (Aiken and West, 1991). Before standardizing the variables, the gathered data were tested for normality of distribution. This was done by calculating the thee Skewness and Kurtosis of the variables lie between -1 and 1, and these values are generally accepted as normally distributed.

(16)

4. RESULTS SECTION

4.1 Correlation analysis

Table 1 displays the means, the standard deviations (SD), and the Pearson correlations of the variables outlined in the previous section. In spite of positive trends, transition experience did not significantly correlate with interpersonal adaptability (r=.08, p= n.s.) and with uncertainty adaptability (r=.11, n.s.), nor did voluntariness with interpersonal adaptability (r=.03, n.s) and uncertainty adaptability (r=.06, n.s.).

As can be expected, the interpersonal and uncertainty adaptability were positively correlated (r=.45, p<,01). Furthermore, both components of adaptability correlated positively with extraversion (r=.26, p<.01 and r=.20, p<.01) and openness to experience (r=.23, p<.01 and r=.36, p<.01). Agreeableness correlated positively with interpersonal adaptability (r=.19, p<.01) but was not related to uncertainty adaptability (r=-.09, n.s.).

4.2 Regression analysis

(17)

The first step, in which extraversion and agreeableness were controlled for, added significantly to the prediction of interpersonal adaptability (Δ R²=.12, Δ F=10.05, p<.001). Inspection of the b-coefficients showed that this could be attributed to the positive relationships of interpersonal adaptability with extraversion and agreeableness, (B=.12, t=3.41, p<.01) and (B=.09, t=2.91 p<.01), respectively.

The second step with transition experience and voluntariness did not significantly contribute to the prediction of interpersonal adaptability (Δ R²=.02, Δ F=1.55, n.s.).

(18)

Table 3 displays the results of the regression analysis for uncertainty adaptability.

The first step, in which openness was controlled for, added significantly to the prediction of interpersonal adaptability (Δ R²=.12, Δ F=19.97, p<.001). This was due to the positive relationship between openness to experience and uncertainty adaptability (B=.15, t=4.47, p<.001).

(19)

F=1.32, n.s.). In contrast with the expectations, the third step with the interaction between transition experience and voluntariness did not significantly predict uncertainty adaptability (Δ R²=.00, Δ F=.46, n.s.). This means that hypothesis 2 was not supported. It is worth noting that even when we did not control for openness, no significant interaction effect was found.

5. DISCUSSION

5.1 Findings

This study focused on the two components of adaptability that seemed particularly important in today’s fast changing world: interpersonal adaptability and uncertainty adaptability. Up till now, the literature regarding individual adaptability has not provided an unambiguous answer to the question whether adaptability should be seen as a fixed personality trait or rather as a capability that can be developed (e.g. Heslin, 2005; Metz, 2004). This study has shed new light on this issue by providing some initial support for the proposition that certain components of adaptability are malleable.

Our findings suggest that individuals who are forced by their organization to make an internal transition experience a significant increase in interpersonal adaptability. It seems that with forcing an employee to make a transition, the individual learns and gains new capacities and he experiences a significant increase in interpersonal adaptability. So, these individuals particularly benefit from a forced transition. These insights provide organizations with a tool to increase someone’s interpersonal adaptability, which is of high value facing the increased importance of teamwork and the diversity of these teams. Important to notice however is that the level of interpersonal adaptability for individuals making transitions voluntarily on the whole is higher than for individuals making transitions involuntarily, so the influence is still limited. It seems that people who make transitions voluntarily possess a higher level of interpersonal adaptability compared to individuals who are forced to make a transition. The slope of individuals making transitions voluntarily lies above the slope of individuals making transition involuntarily. That makes the influence of transition experience for these individuals weak, and for the aim of increasing the interpersonal component of adaptability redundant. For these individuals there is no considerable potential by forcing them to make a transition.

(20)

be a tool for organizations to prepare the individual for the new type of career where lifelong employment is rare and where employees have to be capable to face this uncertainty. For uncertainty adaptability openness seemed to be an important antecedent.

One possible explanation for the differential effects on our two dependent variables may be found in the difference between the skills that are necessary for both these components. Interpersonal adaptability is related to interpersonal skills that may be improved with training (Karaevli & Hall, 2006), but uncertainty adaptability is a concept that possibly has more to do with someone’s personality and thus is more difficult to influence (Metz, 2004).

Although this study only revealed the malleability of the interpersonal component of individual adaptability, the findings confirm the expectation that individual adaptability can be influenced by external factors. In other words, individual adaptability is not just a personality trait that must be taken for granted. Rather, there are tools that organizations can use to positively influence the adaptability of their employees.

5.2 Theoretical implications

The outcome of this study produces new information for the existing theory about the malleability of individual adaptability, and reveals new antecedents that can influence individual adaptability. Some studies already raised the presumption that individual adaptability should not be seen as a fixed personality trait (Heslin, 2005; Mirvis & Hall, 1996; Karaevli & Hall, 2006). The results of this study confirm this presumption, and reveal one factor that influences interpersonal adaptability: transition experience. While controlling for extraversion and agreeableness, this study makes clear that organizations can use transitions in team composition, work procedures, or positions as a tool to positively stimulate someone’s interpersonal adaptability.

(21)

adaptability. That is, change in team composition possibly counts for a stronger increase in interpersonal adaptability than change in work procedure. Future research should focus on these different transitions and measure the influence of each of them independently. By this, it could be measured which type of transition has influence on which component of adaptability and to what extent.

Although literature suggests that experiences with transitions lead to reduced uncertainty (Campion, Cheraskin & Stevens, 1994; Bandaru, 1994), this study did not show a significant relationship between transition experience and uncertainty adaptability. Only, openness to experience proved to be a positive predictor of uncertainty adaptability. It appears that there must be other factors that are essential for an increase in uncertainty adaptability, as mere transition experience proved to be insufficient. This is compatible with the work of Karaevli and Hall (2006), who suggested, apart from transition experience, several other factors as possible antecedents of adaptability, such as learning and career orientation. In order to get a more comprehensive view about the antecedents of adaptability, antecedents as learning and career orientation should be the focus of future research.

This study showed that making transitions involuntarily positively influences interpersonal adaptability. This seems to be contrary with present literature, where is stated that autonomy of job-related decisions is crucial for intrinsic work motivation and performance (e.g. Morgeson & Hymphrey, 2008). However, our findings suggest that forcing an employee to make a transition does not negatively influence the intrinsic motivation to improve his interpersonal adaptability. Future research should focus on this apparent contradiction.

5.3 Strengths and limitations

Like every research, this study also has some limitations. In order to interpret the findings of this study correctly, these limitations need to be mentioned.

(22)

organizations – e.g. from a different scale, another industry, or another cultural background – transition experience and interpersonal adaptability is not moderated by voluntariness. Also, job tenure is expected to have influence on flexibility in general (Morrison & Hall, 2001) and therefore on someone’s adaptability as well. In this study, the greater part of the respondents had occupied the same position for several years. Future research is needed take this factor into account.

A second drawback of the study is that self-report questionnaires were used in order to collect the data, by which ‘common methods variance’ possibly occurs (Doty & Glick, 1998) According to Podsakoff etc al. (2003), individuals tend to present themselves in a favourable way and try to maintain consistent and rational, without showing their ‘true colours’. For instance, because it is known that employee’s adaptability is highly appreciated in the organization the research was executed, respondents could have rated themselves more positively on adaptability. This can produce results that would otherwise not have existed. This is especially plausible since the respondents scored themselves remarkably high on interpersonal and uncertainty adaptability. All this is in line with Cascio and Aguinis (2005) who state that self-report measures are prone to common method bias which means that the observed variance is not related to the study variables – transition experience, adaptability and voluntariness – but is rather due to the method chosen for measurement, an antecedent of which systematic error variance can be the consequent. But, since we found only an interaction effect, the results are not expected to be influenced to a big extent by common method bias. Despite to the fact that we emphasized the confidentiality of the results, due to the questions about personal characteristics, preferences and working-environment employees could have been afraid that certain answers would lead back to specific people and compromise their position. In the future, this social desirability bias can be reduced by collecting data from multiple sources such as self-report questionnaires accompanied by additional supervisor or independent rater ratings for adaptability. Despite all the efforts to reduce such biases, the possibility remains that the results, because of the abovementioned reasons, are distorted to some extent.

(23)

2006). However, it is conceivable that this relationship is just the other way around. That is, that a higher adaptability leads to more voluntary transition experience and that a lower level of adaptability leads to more involuntary transitions. A longitudinal study of transitions and the specific effect of this on the increase of adaptability might be particularly fruitful in this respect.

5.4 Practical implications

The outcomes of this study also have some practical implications. The results suggest that organizations can use transitions as a tool to improve the interpersonal adaptability of employees. By creating a forced change in position, work procedure or team composition the interpersonal adaptability of an individual may be increased. This is useful for organizations, since the fast changing world requires individuals to cooperate with an increased diversity of people and teamwork becomes an even more important part of someone’s job. Moreover, by this the employability of the employee enhances since he acquires new capacities after a forced transition. So, forcing an employee to make transitions regularly is a tool for organization to prepare individuals for the increased importance of teamwork, improve the ability to work with people from different backgrounds and to enhance the employability of the individual. Although, not all employees need to be forced to make a transitions. Individuals moving voluntarily already possess a higher level of adaptability and forcing them to make a transition will not have significant positive influence.

(24)

REFERENCES

Abrams, D. & M. A. Hogg (Eds), Social Identity Theory: Constructive and

Critical Advances, New York: Springer-Vedag.

Aiken, L.S. & West, S.G. 1991. Multiple regression: testing and

interpreting interactions. London: Sage.

Arthur, M.B., Inkson, K. & Pringle, J. 1999. The new careers: Individual

action and economic change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press. (Reprinted in H. Friedman [Ed.], Encyclopedia of mental health. San Diego: Academic Press, 1998).

Beck, U. 2009. World at risk. Cambridge, UK/Malden, MA: Polity Press.

Becker, T.E. 2005. Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations.

Organizational Research Methods, 8: 274-289.

Black, J. S. 1990. Locus of control, social support, stress, and adjustment in international transfers. Asia-Pacific Journal of Management, 7: 1-29.

Caldwell, S.D., Herold, D.M. & Fedor, D.B. 2004. Toward an understanding of the relationship among organizational change, individual differences, and changes in person-environment fit: A cross-level study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89: 868-882.

(25)

Cascio, W. F. & Aguinis, H. 2005. Applied Psychology in Human Resource

Management. London: Pearson Education Ltd.

Chan, D. & Schmitt, N. 2000. Interindividual differences in intrainindividual changes in proactivity during organizational entry: A latent growth modeling approach to understanding newcomer adaptation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 190–210.

Cheung, F.Y. Millissa., Wong, Chi-Sum. 2011. Transformational leadership, leader support, and employee creativity. Leadership & Organization

Development Journal, 32: 656–672.

Chiaburu, D. S., & Harrison, D. A. 2008. Do peers make the place? Conceptual synthesis and meta-analysis of coworker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 1082– 1103.

Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. 1998. Common methods bias: Does common methods variance really bias results? Organizational Research Methods, 1: 374-406.

Eby, L. T., & DeMatteo, J. S. 2000. When the type of move matters: Examining employee outcomes under various relocation situations. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 21: 677-687.

Edwards, J. E., & Morrison, R. F. 1994. Selecting and classifying future naval officers: The paradox of greater specialization in broader areas. In M. G. Rumsey, C. B. Walker, & Harris, J. H. (Eds.). Personnel selection and classification. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Fedor, D.B., Caldwell. S.D. & Herold, D.M. 2006. The effect of organizational changes on employee commitment: a multilevel investigation. Personnel

(26)

Gardner, W., Hoge, S., & Bennett, N., et al. 1993. Two scales for measuring patients’ perceptions of coercion during mental hospital admission. Behavioral

Sciences and the Law, 11: 307–321.

Gobeski, K.T., & Beehr, T.A. 2009. How retirees work: predictors of different types of bridge employment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30: 401-425

Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P.J., & Swann Jr. W.B. 2003. A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37: 504– 528.

Greco, V., & Roger, D. 2001. Coping with uncertainty: the construction and validation of a new measure. Personality and Individual Differences, 31: 519– 534.

Greco, V., & Roger, D. 2003. Uncertainty, stress, and health. Personality

and Individual Differences, 34: 1057–1068.

Greenhaus, J. H. 2002. Career dynamics. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Comprehensive Handbook of Psychology, Vol. 12: Industrial and Organizational Psychology. New York: Wiley. 519 – 540

Griffin, B., & Hesketh, B. 2003. Adaptable behaviors for successful work and career adjustment. Australian Journal of Psychology, 55: 65-73.

Gruman, A.J., & Saks, A.M. 2011. Socialization preferences and intentions: Does one size fit all? Journal of vocational behavior, 79: 419–427

Grümer, S., & Pinquart, M. 2011. Perceived change in personal circumstances related to social change. European Psychologist, 16: 68–78.

(27)

Hall, D.T. 1996. Protean careers in the 21st century. Academy of

Management Executive, 10: 8-16.

Hall, D.T. 2002. Careers in and out of organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 236.

Hall, D.T., & Chandler, D.E. 2005. Psychological success: When the career is calling. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26: 155-176.

Hall, D.T, Zhu, G. & Yan, A. 2001. Career creativity as personal

transformation: How protean employees can be adaptive and not lose their identities. Technical report, Boston University School of Management.

Heinz, W. R. 2003. From work trajectories to negotiating careers: The

contingent work life course. In J. T. Mortimer, & M. J. Shanahan (Eds.),

Handbook of the life course (185–204). New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Herold, D.M., Fedor, D.B & Caldwell, S.D. 2007. Beyond change management: a multilevel investigation of contextual and personal influences on employees’ commitment to change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 942–951.

Hesketh, B., & Neal, A. 1999. Technology and performance. In D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, and development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 21-55

Heslin, P.A. 2005. Experiencing career success. Organizational Dynamics, 34: 376–390.

Hogg, M. A. 2000. Self-categorization and subjective uncertainty

resolutions: Cognitive and motivational facets of social identity and group membership. In: J. E Forgas, K. D. Williams & L. Wheeler (Eds), The Social Mind."

(28)

Hogg, M. A. 2000. Subjective uncertainty reduction through

self-categorization: A motivational theory of social identity processes. European Review

of Social Psychology, 11: 223-255.

Hollenbeck, J. R., LePine, J. A., & Ilgen, D. R. 1996. Adapting to roles in

decision-making teams. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual Differences and

Behavior in Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hulin, C. L. & Glomb, T. M. 1999. Contingent employees: individual and

organizational considerations. In Ilgen, D.R., & Pulakos, E.D. (Eds). The changing

nature of performance: implications for staffing, motivation, and development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Ilgen, D. R., & Pulakos, E. D. 1999. Employee performance in today’s

organizations. In D. R. Ilgen and E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of work

performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, and development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Janssen, O. 2001. Fairness perceptions as a moderator in the curvilinear relationships between job demands, and job performance and job satisfaction,

Academy of Management Journal, 44: 1039–1050.

John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. 1999. The Big Five taxonomy: History,

measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.),

Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 102–138). New York: The Guilford Press

Judge, T.A., Thoresen, C.J., Pucik. V. and Welbourne, T.M. 1999. Managerial coping with organizational change: a dispositional perspective. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 84: 107–122.

Karaevli, A. & Hall, D.T. 2006. How career variety promotes the adaptability of managers: A theoretical model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69: 359-373.

(29)

Kinicki, A.J., & Latack, J.C. 1990. Explication of the construct of coping with involuntary job loss. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 36, 339–360.

Kondratuk, T.B., Hausdorf, P.A., Korabik, K. & Rosin, H.M. 2004. Linking career mobility with corporate loyalty: How does job change relate to organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65: 332–349.

Kram, K. E. 1996. A relational approach to career development. In D. Hall (Ed.), The career is dead, long live the career (pp. 132−157). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lam, S.K., Ng, T.W.H. & Feldman, D.C. 2012. The relationship between external job mobility and salary attainment across career stages. Journal of

Vocational behavior. 80: 129-136.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. 1984. Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.

Lepine, J.A., Colquitt, J.A. & Erez, A. 2000. Adaptability to changing task contexts: effects of general cognitive ability, conscientiousness, and openness to experience, Personnel Psychology, 53: 563–593.

Lim, S., Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. 2008. Personal and workgroup incivility: Impact on work and health outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 95–107.

London, M., & Mone, E. M. 1999. Continuous learning. In D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, and development. San Francisco: Iossey-Bass. 119-153.

Lord, R.G. & Smith, W.G. 1999. Leadership and the changing nature of

(30)

performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, and development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 192–239.

Lord, A., & Hartley, J. 1998. Organizational commitment and job insecurity in a changing public service organization. European Journal of Work and

Organizational Psychology, 7: 341-354.

Mach, B. 2003. Pokolenie historycznej nadziei i codziennego ryzyka [A generation of a historic hope and everyday risk]. Warsaw, Poland: Institute of Political Studies.

Maddux, J. E. (1995). Self-efficacy theory: An introduction. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), Self Efficacy, adaptation and adjustment: Theory, research and

application. 3–33. New York: Plenum Press.

Matell, M.S., & Jacoby, J. 1971. Is there an optimal number of alternatives for Likert scale items? Educational and Psychological Measurement, 31: 657–674.

Metz, I. 2004. Do personality traits indirectly affect women’s advancement?

Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19: 695-707.

Mills, M., & Blossfeld, H. P. 2003. Globalization, uncertainty and changes in early life courses. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 6: 188–218.

Mirvis, P.H. & Hall, D.T. 1996. Psychological success and the

boundaryless career. In M.B. Arthur & D,M, Rousseau (Eds. ), The Boundaryless

Career. New York: Oxford University Press. 237 - 355

Morrison, R. W., & Hall, D. T. 2001. A proposed model of individual

adaptability. San Diego: Unpublished technical report.

(31)

Murphy, P. R., & Jackson, S. E. 1999. Managing work role performance:

Challenges for twenty-first century organizations and their employees. In D.

R. llgen & E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, and development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 325-365.

Nelson, R.M., & Merz, J.F. 2002. Voluntariness of consent for research: An empirical conceptual review. Medical Care, 9: 69-80.

Ng, T.W.H., Sorensen, K.L., Eby, L.T., and Feldman, D.C., 2007. Determinants of job mobility: A theoretical integration and extension. Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80: 363-386.

Nicholson, N. & West, M. 1988. Managerial job change: Men and women

in transition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Niessen, C, Swarowsky, C & Leiz, M , 2010. Age and adaptation to changes in the workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25: 356-383.

Noe, R., & Ford, K. J. 1992. Emerging issues and new directions for training research. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 10: 345- 384.

O’ Connel, D.J., McNeely, E. & Hall, D.T. 2008 Unpacking personal adaptability at work. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 3: 248-259

Patrickson, M. 1987. Adaptation by employees to new technology. Journal of

Occupational Psychology, 59: 1-11.

Pearlman, K., & Barney, M.F. 2000. In J.F. Kehoe (Ed.), Managing selection

in changing organizations: Human resource strategies. San Francisco:

(32)

Pearson, C. M., & Porath, C. L. 2005. On the nature, consequences, and remedies of workplace incivility: No time for “nice”? Think again. Academy of Management

Executive, 19: 7–18.

Peeters, M. A. G., Van Tuijl, H. F. J. M., Rutte, C. G., & Reymen, I. M. M. J. 2006. Personality and team performance: A meta-analysis. European Journal of

Personality, 20: 377–396.

Ployhart, R. E., & Bliese, P. D. 2006. Individual adaptability (I-ADAPT)

theory: Conceptualizing the antecedents, consequences, and measurement of individual differences in adaptability. In S. Burke, L. Pierce, & E. Salas (Eds.),

Understanding Adaptability: A Prerequisite for Effective Performance Within Complex Environments, pp. 3-39. Elsevier.

Podsakoff, P.M., & MacKenzie, S.B., & Lee, J.Y., & Podsakoff, N.P. 2003. Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 879-903.

Pulakos, E.D., Arad, S., Donovan, M.A., & Plamondon, K.E. 2000. Adaptability in the workplace: development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 4: 612–624.

Rajagopalan, N. & Datta, D.K. 1996. CEO Characteristics: Does Industry Matter?, Academy of Management Journal, 39: 197-215.

Rousseau, D. M. 1995. Psychological contracts in organizations:

Understanding written and unwritten agreements. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American

Psychologist, 55: 68−78.

(33)

Seibert, S., Kraimer, M., & Liden, R. 2001. A social capital theory of career success. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 219–237.

Smith, E. M., Ford, J. K., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. 1997. Building adaptive expertise: Implications for training design. In M. A. Quinones & A. Dudda (Eds.),

Training for 21st century technology: Applications of psychological research.

Washington, DC: APA Books.

Daryl, R., Smith, Brooks, C., Holtom, Terence, R., Mitchell, Grümer, S., & Pinquart, M. 2011. Perceived change in personal circumstances related to social change. European Psychologist, 16: 68–78.

Sullivan, S.E. 1999. The changing nature of careers: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 25: 457-484.

Thach, L., & Woodman, R. W. 1994. Organizational change and information technology: Managing on the edge of cyberspace. Organizational Dynamics, 23: 30-46.

Tomasik, M. J., & Silbereisen, R. K. 2009. Demands of social change as a function of the political context, institutional filters, and psychosocial resources.

Social Indicators Research, 94: 13–28.

Van Vianen, A.E.M., Feij, J.A., Krausz, M. & Taris, R. 2003. Personality factors and adult attachment affecting job mobility, International Journal of Selection

and Assessment, 11: 253–264.

Waite, L.J. 2004. The demographic faces of the elderly. Population and

Development Review, 30: 3–16.

De Witte, H. (1999). Job insecurity and psychological well-being: Review of the literature and exploration of some unresolved issues. European Journal of

INTERNAL TRANSITIONS: A TOOL TO INCREASE EMPLOYEES’ ADAPTABILITY?