The effect of a Generative Change Process on the level of Employees’ Readiness for Change

The effect of a Generative Change Process on the level of Employees’

Readiness for Change

Individuals’ perceptions on the level of generativity in an Appreciative Inquiry process and

influence on an individuals’ affective and cognitive component of readiness for change

August, 2013

Master thesis MCs Business Administration, Specialization Change Management

Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, faculty of Economics and Business

LIANNE KOOMEN

Studentnumber: 1687433

Korte Kamperstraat 21a

8011 MN Zwolle,

The Netherlands

0031 (0)6 12250120

koomenlianne@gmail.com

First supervisor of the University

Dr. C. Reezigt

Second supervisor of the University

Drs. H.P. van Peet

1 “Dive for dreams

or a slogan may topple you (trees are their roots

and wind is wind)

Trust your heart if the seas catch fire

(and live by love

though the stars walk backward)

Honour the past but welcome the future

(and dance your death away at this wedding)

Never mind a world with its villains or heroes

(for god likes girls and tomorrow and the earth)”

2 Thank word

This master thesis was a journey, a journey that took a lot longer than I expected. This resulted in frustrations along the way, but eventually I can look back at a fruitful journey with many learning moments.

During this journey there were many people by my side to support me one way or the other.

Robbert Masselink

Thank you for introducing me to Appreciative Inquiry and supporting me along the way. You helped me to conduct my research and always had time for me when I needed information or good

suggestions.

Cees Reezigt

Thank you for your useful feedback and making time in your schedule to help me.

Sander Kooistra, Wick van de Vaart, Nathalie Hugenholtz and Robbert Masselink

Thank you all for sharing your knowledge with me during the whole vision process of “SoZaWe klaar voor de toekomst”.

Tineke van Lenthe

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to conduct my research

Sander Kooistra and Henri Hendriks

Thank you guys for commenting on my grammar and writing style.

3 Table of content Page Abstract 5

1.

2.

2.2 A Generative Change Process 8

2.2.1 Generative Appreciative Inquiry 10

2.3 Readiness for Change 12

2.4 A Generative Change Process and Readiness for Change 13

2.4.1 Alteration of Social Reality 13

2.4.2 Collective Experience and Action 14

2.4.3 Participation and Empowerment for Self-organized Action 15

3.

3.1 Research Settings 16

3.2 Study Design 17

3.3 Data Gathering Procedure and Characteristics 18

3.4 Measurement Instrument 19

3.4.1 Alteration of Social Reality 19

3.4.2 Participation and Empowerment to take Self-organized Action 20

3.4.3 Collective Experience and Action 21

3.4.4 Generative Change Process 21

3.4.5 Readiness for Change 22

3.5 Additional Measures 23

3.6 Checking for Normality and Outliers 24

3.7 Factor Analysis 25

3.7.1 Independent Variable Generative Change Process 25

3.7.2 Dependent Variable Readiness for Change 26

3.8 Data Analysis Techniques 27

4.

4.1 Pearson Correlation 28

4 4.1.2 Relationship between Collective Experience & Action and Readiness for Change

29 4.1.3 Relationship between Participation and Readiness for Change 29 4.1.4 Relationship between Alteration of Social Reality and Readiness for Change 29

4.2 Paired Samples t-test 30

4.3 One-way between groups ANOVA 30

4.3.1 Generative Change Process 32

4.3.2 Readiness for Change 32

4.3.3 Readiness for Change; Difference Pretest and Posttest 32

5.

5.1 Discussion and Limitations 33

5.2 Future Research 35

5.3 Conclusion 35

References 36

Appendix A: Variable Items in English 42

Appendix B: Cronbach Alpha Coefficient 43

Appendix C: Factor Analysis 44

Appendix D: Pearson Correlation 49

Appendix E: Paired Samples t-test 50

Appendix F: One-way between groups variance ANOVA 52

Appendix G: Dutch Questionnaire 57

Appendix H: Impression Appreciative Conversations: “Werk in Uitvoering” 63

Appendix I: Mindmap of Vision Results 78

Appendix J: Vision Meetings: Dream Stories SoZaWe 79

5 Abstract

This study is designed to explore the relationship between a generative Appreciative Inquiry (Discovery, Dream and Design) and affective and cognitive readiness for change. Quantitative data were collected within Municipality Zwolle to measure employees’ perception of the different variables that define a generative change process and readiness for change. Findings suggest that there is a significant relationship between a generative change process, all its individual variables and affective and overall readiness for change. Cognitive readiness for change shows no significant relationship with alteration of social reality and collective experience and action. In addition, a pretest and posttest was distributed to measure readiness for change at two different points in time. No significant differences in score could be detected between these points in time. Moreover, the employees of the municipality were not obliged to participate in the Appreciative Inquiry. Findings suggest that employees’ attendance in the Discovery, Dream and/or Design had no significant effect on a generative change process and readiness for change. Reasons for these findings and

suggestions for future research will be discussed.

6 1. Introduction

Appreciative Inquiry (AI) is an approach to organizational development (OD), developed in response to and to contradict with problem solving approaches (Cooperrider & Srivasta, 1987). Cooperrider (1990) states that “Creating the conditions for organization wide appreciation is the single most important measure that can be taken to ensure the conscious evolution of a valued and positive future” (Cooperrider, 1990, p. 52). AI emphasize on positive organizational attributes to enable change, resulted in AI becoming a very popular change technique for a range of change

interventions (Grant, 2006; Haar & Holsking, 2004). It is this tempting focus on strengths and its appearance to be simple that resulted in AI being misunderstood as an attractive and easy

management technique to implement changes (Zandee & Vermaak, 2012). However, Bushe (2007; 2010), Masselink (2008) and Zandee and Vermaak (2012) state that for AI to be successful the process should be generative. Bushe (2011) argues that a change process is generative when ideas arise that are compelling to the participants themselves and that changes the way of how people think about things and create new possibilities and provoke new actions.

A generative change process is a social change process (Gergen, 1978), generated by the interaction between participants (Masselink, 2008). AI is a planned change approach that is facilitated through dialogue and follows the 4D-cycle of Discovery, Dream, Design and Destiny. The dialogue takes place between individuals’ that represent the “whole system in the room”. The whole system in the room includes everyone that gives “life” to the organization and its social reality. It is the diversity in this dialogue that creates a collective learning experience and provides the participants with new insights. When the dialogue is generative then an organization can alter its own social construction (Zandee & Vermaak, 2012).

7 However, the literature that describes a generative AI change process focuses mainly on its

transformational outcome (Bushe, 2007; 2010; 2011; Zandee & Vermaak, 2012; Masselink, 2008) and leaves the perceptions of individuals undiscussed. Nevertheless, particpants’ perceptions and their attitudes towards the intended changes are an important factor for a successful change implementation (Rafferty, Jimmieson & Armenakis, 2013; Bouckenooghe, 2008; Weiner, 2009). Therefore, I will research if participants experienced the change process as generative and if this is positively related with the cognitive and affective component of an individual’s readiness for change. This results in the following Research Question:

Will a generative change process have a positive influence on employee’s cognitive and affective component of readiness for change, controlling for the effect of employees attending the Discovery, Dream and/or Design phase of an Appreciative Inquiry.

The recent literature describing a generative AI process was written out of the subjective view of the AI practitioners. Their literature is based upon case studies and the author’s interpretation itself becomes the reality. To provide a more objective reflection of reality, I will measure this relation by means of questionnaires (Sale, Lohfeld & Brazil, 2002). The items in this questionnaire will provide quantitative data about employees’ perception of the change process. The questionnaire will be distributed among employees of Social Affairs and Employment of the municipality Zwolle.

In this thesis I will first provide a definition of Appreciative Inquiry and a generative change process, followed by the description of a generative Appreciative Inquiry. Hereafter, a definition of the cognitive and affective component of individual’s readiness for change will be provided. After this, the relationship between a generative change process, the separate variables that define a

generative change process and readiness for change will be discussed. The literature review will be followed by a methodology and result section. Finally, the derived conclusion and limitations will be discussed.

2. Literature Framework

8 concept. Finally, I will explore the relation between a generative change process and readiness for change.

2.1 Appreciative Inquiry

Appreciative Inquiry (AI) is based upon the principle of positivity, this is aligned with a form of inquiry that focuses on what works well, the peak moments and achievements within the

organization, to enhance the life confirming that exists within an organization (Oliver, Fitzgerald and Hoxsey, 2011). AI is grounded on the belief of social constructionism, wherein social interaction creates realities (Masselink & Jong, 2008). It is therefore, that AI encourages the dialogue between all individuals that give “life” to an organization and builds upon the knowledge and expertise already available in the organization (Masselink, 2008). A dialogue will inquire into the potentials for change that exist in an organization and at the same time has the potential to change reality

(Masselink & Jong, 2008).

The AI process most often follows the 4D Cycle in which “people inquire together into the infinite potentials and varieties of humans organizing” (Fitzgerald, Oliver and Hoxsey, 2010, p.222). The 4D cycle consists of the Discovery, Dream, Design and Destiny phase. The Discovery phase tries to reveal ‘the best of what is’ by sharing stories of peak experiences. This phase is aimed at discovering and appreciating “what gives life and energy to people, their work and their organization” (Haar & Holsking, 2004, p. 1018). The information revealed in the Discovery is the foundation for the Dream. The Dream is an exploration of ‘what might be’, where participants will envision an ideal future for the organization. In the Design phase the envisioned ideal will be transformed to ‘what should be’ by co-constructing an organizational design that can support this ideal ‘dream’. The focus of the Destiny phase is on ‘what will be’ by implementing and sustaining the envisioned future (Haar & Holsking, 2004; Carter, 2006).

2.2 A Generative Change Process

Gergen (1978) was one of the first to describe the generative capacity in a change process, he states that for an inquiry to be generative, it must;

“challenge the guiding assumptions of the culture, to raise fundamental questions regarding contemporary social life, to foster reconsideration of that which is 'taken for granted' and thereby furnish new alternatives for social actions" (Gergen, 1978, p.1346).

A generative change process and Appreciative Inquiry are built upon the principle of social

9 Ven & Poole, 1995) in which the employees have a shared reality (Bouckenooghe, 2008). Individuals’ mental models are the foundation of a shared reality. Individuals’ metal models can be described as the lenses through which we see the world (Forrester, 1961). They incorporate our biases, values, learning, experiences and beliefs on how we perceive the world (Chermack, 2003). It are these mental models that define our arguments, interpretations and actions in a given situation

(Chermack, 2003; Jones, 2005). Mental models are developed through the interaction in social and cultural practices and consequently create our individual and collective realities. These realities are subjective and do not present an altruistic and objective representation of reality (Masselink & de Jong, 2008). It is thus the collective interaction between an organization’s heterogeneous employees and between these employees and an organizations’ environment that will result in a shared

meaning and identity that define an organizations’ social reality (Jacobs & Heracleous, 2005; Latta, 2005; Masselink & de Jong, 2008). Hence, it is the social construction of reality that incorporates the beliefs, assumptions, patterns, habits and paradigm of an organization (Dazko & Sheinberg, 2005). It is this that determines an organization’s activities and how they interpret events, make sense of reality, assign meaning to experience and create common understanding of a situation (Chapman, 2002; Alvesson, 2002). These will ultimately drive organizational policies, procedures, systems and structures (Dazko & Sheinberg, 2005). Once a change process is generative it generates controversity and doubt and in doing so reduces the strangling biases imbedded in an organization. In effect, this will create flexibility that may enhance the adaptive capacity of employees within an organization (Gergen, 1978). employees will reconsider their attitudes, beliefs and cultural values which will open up new possibilities, generate new ideas and incite new collective action. Consequently, the new ideas and actions may alter an organization’s essential framework (Bushe, 2010).

The objective of a generative change process is that it should foster reconsideration of what is “taken for granted” and thus challenge the status quo. It has to change “the way people think”. It should alter the social construction of reality and change the relationship to others and issues (Gergen, 1978; Pruitt, 2007; Zandee & Vermaak. 2012; Bushe, 2007; 2010; 2011). To create this individuals should “experience a shift in awareness” (Pruit, 2007, p2). To generate this, the “whole system in the room” needs to be invited to participate in the dialogue. This “whole system in the room” consists of both internal and external stakeholders. It is the diversity between the

10 diversity of a stakeholder’s knowledge and expertise and their different perspectives that is

conducive for creating innovative, unique and whole-system changes.

In addition, participants are more likely to be receptive towards the change initiative when they are included in the change process (Bouckenooghe, 2008). The envisioned change is designed from within the organization increasing the chance that participants will perceive the change as necessary and appropriate. Moreover, employees who are given a say in the collective search of co-creating an ideal future will experience a higher feeling of co-ownership. It is especially their freedom to

contribute that will increase their commitment and create a sense of responsibility and solidarity towards the network as a whole and its envisioned change (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995; Glasbergen, 2010; Sorensen & Yaeger, 2004). Empowering employees in this collective search can provoke new and spontaneous self-organized group and organizational action towards a better future (Gergen, 1978; Pruitt, 2007; Bushe, 2007; 2010; 2011). Consequently, participants will take responsibility and ownership for the success of the change initiative (Chapman, 2002).

2.2.1 Generative Appreciative Inquiry

Bushe (2007; 2010) defines a generative AI as:

“The quest for new ideas, images, theories and models that liberate our collective aspirations, alter the social construction of reality and, in the process, make available decisions and actions that weren’t available or didn’t occur to us before. When successful, AI generates spontaneous,

unsupervised, individual, group and organizational action toward a better future”. (Bushe, 2010, p. 2)

11 2007). According to Thatchenkery and Metzker (2006), the appreciative search within in the present is inherent to discover the generative potentials and talents of people in the organization needed to develop a possible future. In addition, positive stories have a better ability to be spread (Bushe, 2007). Moreover, organizations with a positive attitude will give employees more informal influence than organizations that influence and control resources and information (Baker, Cross and Wooten, 2003).

The 4D cycle is the widely accepted format for an Appreciative Inquiry. However, AI might lose its potential by the simplicity of implementing this 4D cycle (Zandee & Vermaak, 2012) and only questioning peak experiences (Bushe, 2007; 2010). It is this misunderstanding of AI that easily results in the change process not dealing with complex issues and only being “a managerial tool to create motivational experience at work” (Zandee & Vermaak, 2012, p. 2). Therefore, the 4D cycle should become a generative process. This process begins by creating a generative discovery phase that will make participants reconsider their own opinion and create a collective experience. By asking questions that will surprise participants, the probability will increase that participants will go beyond their routine and cause people to reflect and think. Moreover, questions should touch people’s heart and spirit as they discuss subjects that are personally meaningful and have deep emotions attached to them. These questions should encourage the development of relationships between participants. It is by sharing important personal stories that trust and vulnerability between participants will increase. In addition, it will enhance the communication between them and the willingness to dream freely and collectively. Finally, the questions should force us to look at reality a little differently, due to the manner a questions is asked or by listening open-minded to the story of another person (Bushe, 2010; Masselink 2008). In addition, it may be generative and empowering for participants to become an action researcher themselves by also interviewing colleagues instead of only being interviewed (Zandee and Vermaak, 2012; Bushe, 2010). It will increase the interest, engagement, excitement, relationship building and ongoing conversation between the participants (Bushe, 2010). When the discovery is generative and the best of “what is” is identified, new ideas come to mind and the mind naturally begins to search further and envision new possibilities for a preferred future. This takes place in the dream phase, where people are asked to “think outside the box” and use their imagination to create a preferred future (Masselink & De Jong, 2008). A

12 will be compared with an image, expression or different symbol that represents the wanted

situation.

When the discovery, dream and design phase were generative, people will be encouraged and enthusiastic to take action themselves (Bushe, 2010; Masselink, 2008). There will be “spontaneous, unsupervised, individual, group and organizational action toward a better future” (Bushe, 2010, p. 2). However, to accomplish this self-organizing change, management must support, give space, help, trust and honor its employees to take personal action and not go back to old routines and control activities and resources. The latter, will reduce the energy of the participants and might even lead to cynicism (Masselink, 2008; Bushe, 2010; Bushe, 2007).

2.3 Readiness for Change

Armenakis, Harris and Mossholder (1993) argue that readiness for change is an individual’s “beliefs, attitudes, and intentions regarding the extent to which changes are needed and the organization’s capacity to successfully undertake those changes” (Armenakis et al., 1993, p. 681). It specifies an employee’s belief that the changes will be beneficial for themselves and the wider organization (Armenakis et al., 1993; Holt, 2002; Miller et al., 1994) and the belief that one has the ability to successfully implement the envisioned changes (Cunningham et al., 2002).

13 motivate them to explore novel peoples, objects or situations. It will also “motivate them to

continue along any line of thinking or action they have initiated” (Fredrickson, 2011, p. 221). The cognitive and affective component of readiness for change will determine an employees’ attitude towards the envisioned change; “beliefs about an attitude object and affective responses to an attitude object are distinct antecedents or causes of the overall evaluative judgment that is an attitude” (Rafferty et al., 2013, p.114). Likewise, Lavine, Thomsen, Zanna & Borgida (1998) argue that “the attitudes we form and express are likely to be influenced both by the emotions that the attitude object arouses within us and on our more ‘‘rational’’/‘‘logical’’ cognitive assessment of the attitude object’s attributes” (Lavine et al., 1998, p.339). Furthermore, it is an employee’s attitude towards the envisioned change that determines their intention towards the change (Jimmieson, Peach & White, 2008). Intentions are the tendency to act in response to a change (Bouckenooghe, 2008). Readiness for change is an attitude that acts as a precursor to intentions to support the change (Holt, Armenakis, Field & Harris, 2007).

2.4 A Generative Change Process and Readiness for Change

Bushe (2007; 2010) and Maselink (2008) argue that a generative Discovery, Dream and Design will stimulate particpants to take self-organized action in the Destiny. They act in response to the envisioned change, designed in these first three phases of the change process. Participants’ positive cognitions and emotions towards the change will drive them to act in the Destiny. A generative change process will enhance an individuals’ cognitive and affective readiness for change. This chapter will describe the relation between the underlying variables that define a generative change process and an individuals’ cognitions and emotions.

Hypothesis 1: A generative change process will have a positive influence on an individuals’ cognitive and affective component of readiness for change

2.4.1 Alteration of social reality

14 let go of their positions, securities and beliefs and listen open-minded to other possibilities. When the dialogue is generative then the involved people will hear ideas and opinions that will make them reconsider and replace their own opinions and meanings by new, more comprehensive meanings. Resulting in new possibilities and ideas that will create new actions on how to perform or improve work related issues (Masselink, 2008). Consequently, it can be argued that change can be seen as “a recursive process of social construction in which new realities are created, sustained and modified in the process of communication” (Ford en Ford, 1995, p. 542).

It is the alteration of these individual mental models as well as the collective cognitions across all employees that will increase the readiness towards the change effort (Bernerth, 2004). It will alter organization employees’ beliefs and attitudes in such a way that the employees perceive the change as necessary, appropriate and likely to be successful (Eby, Adams, Russell & Gaby, 2000).

Hypothesis 1a: Alteration of individuals’ social reality will have a positive influence on an individuals’ cognitive and affective component of readiness for change.

2.4.2 Collective experience and action

A generative change process must stimulate the social relationship between the participants. Moreover, it should encourage them to co-create outcomes and take collective actions to change. However, the problem of collective action is that employees may perceive a conflict between their own individual interest and the common or group interest. They may perceive their individual’s costs to be higher than their individual benefits, resulting in employees resisting the change effort instead of accepting it (Glasbergen, 2010). Consequently, if you want to promote all employees to put effort in the envisioned change and stimulate their believe that they themselves and the other employees of the organization are ready to implement the envisioned change effort, it’s key to realize that readiness for change is a socially constructed phenomenon (Ford et al., 2008). Although readiness for change reflects an individuals’ interpretation (Chonko, Jones, Roberts & Dubinsky, 2002), it is a result of a collective sense-making process of the interaction between individuals and the rest of the organization. Individuals consider their own attitudes as well of those to which they are exposed in the organizational context (Bouckenooghe, 2008; Armenakis et al., 1993).

15 will promote the feeling of co-ownership, responsibility and a sense of solidarity towards the

network as a whole and its’ envisioned change (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995; Glasbergen, 2010). Moreover, it is the diversity among stakeholders and their individual capacities and abilities that generates a complementary component in the taken action, making employees interdependent of each other and forcing them to support each other and collaborate as a team (Bianchi & Miller, 1996). Furthermore, it is the diversity between the stakeholders that crosses boundaries and leads to a process of collective learning. This can create an overarching common language and mental model (Jacobs & Heracleous, 2005) that fosters mutual understanding and support, trust and commitment for future oriented action (Zandee & Vermaak, 2012; Montgomery, Dacin & Dacin, 2012). Trust is a beneficial success factor for the collaboration between employees. Trust will reduce the conflict that employees might experience between their own individual interest and the

organizations interest (Hsu, Ju, Yen & Chang, 2007). Moreover, trust is based upon the assessment of other employees’ capabilities, benevolence and reliability, which will enhance an individuals’ belief of efficacy (Hsu et al., 2007).

Hypothesis 1b: Collective experience and action will have a positive influence on an individuals’ cognitive and affective component of readiness for change.

2.4.3 Participation and empowerment for self-organized action

Appreciative Inquiry provides individuals to have a voice in the collective search (Bianche & Miller, 1996) to discover new ideas and possibilities that will be beneficial for the organization. Letting individuals participate in this search provides the possibility to build upon their knowledge, expertise and their ability to respond to opportunities (Burnes, 2009; Masselink, 2008). The envisioned change is then designed from within the organization stimulating the belief that this change is an

appropriate reaction to the situation. Conversely, it is the absence of voice that might result in an individuals’ innovative behavior becoming monopolistic behavior that will provoke a reaction of resistance among the others of the organization. In which they could form a coalition that will apply sanctions to the innovator to preserve the existing structure (Bianche & Miller, 1996).

16 more receptive to the change effort. Resulting in the cognitive believe of individuals that the

organization is ready to take on large- scale initiatives (Eby et al., 2000).

Moreover, it is the dialogue in this collective search that creates new understanding and holds the potential for a level of collective energy and commitment that will lead employees towards a cooperative action to reach goals on behalf of the collective good (Stacey et al., 2000). However, participants must feel authorized and responsible for the implementation, as there is little point in encouraging employees to identify change opportunities if they are not encouraged to implement them (Burnes, 2009; Bushe, 2007). Involving employees to participate in making decisions and empowering them to implement the envisioned changes will provide them with a feeling of agency and control (Armenakis et al., 1993; Bouckenooghe, 2008). Empowering employees will provide them the ability, responsibility and authority to make decisions, which will in turn contribute to a higher self-efficiency to perform their work and deal with uncertain conditions (Latham, Winters & Locke, 1994; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). In addition, it will energize and motivate them to

undertake collective action (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Consequently, this will stimulate

employees to be more receptive towards the change and thus show a higher readiness for change (Bouckenooghe, 2008). Moreover, it will result in employees feeling more involved and encouraged to take “organizational citizenship”. When they feel supported to become change agents

themselves, it will result in them feeling responsible and taking ownership for their self-organized action (Chapman, 2002; Burnes, 2009). Moreover, empowered employees have more positive feelings toward the change and are more likely promote the change within the organization (Bouckenooghe, 2008).

Hypothesis 1c: Participation and empowerment for self-organized action will have a positive influence on an individuals’ cognitive and affective component of readiness for change.

3. Research Methodology

3.1 Research setting

17 contribution to its community. In addition, SoZaWe faces a new challenge. The government decided to decentralize the EMEA, participation law and youth welfare to the municipalities in the recent future. As a consequence, all facets of the social domain will become the responsibility of the municipality. The decentralization will be accompanied with budget cuts. It is important for SoZaWe to function effectively, so they can handle these new responsibilities.

“SoZaWe ready for the future” is the name of the Appreciative Inquiry process that will have to identify the opportunities to accomplish this goal. This process will be under the guidance of Robbert Masselink, Wick van der Vaart, Sander Kooistra and Nathalie Hugenholtz.

3.2 Study design

“SoZaWe ready for the future” will follow the well-known and most often used 4D-cycle (Discovery, Dream, Design and Destiny).The study is composed of a pretest and a posttest to measure readiness for change. The pretest is measured after the Discovery phase. In order to study if individuals perceived the AI process being generative and if this influenced individuals’ readiness for change a posttest was conducted at a later date. The posttest was measured after the Dream and Design phase.

In the Discovery, appreciative conversations were held by members of the guidance team, who interviewed clients of SoZaWe, its cooperating partners and internal and external employees. These conversations were held to discover their different views on positive experiences with and strengths of SoZaWe. Following the appreciative conversations, four vision meetings were held to discuss the future dreams for SoZaWe. All internal employees were invited to voluntarily participate in these meetings, as were multiple external stakeholders. The vision meetings were followed by a two complementary design meetings that consisted of participants of the vision meetings that voluntarily wanted to participate in the design phase.

Employees were not obliged to follow one or all of the phases. Therefore, employees’ perception on the level of generativity in the change process and employees’ readiness for change in the posttest could be influenced by employees attending in none, one or several phases of the followed

18 and wishes for SoZaWe. This could have influenced employees’ opinion on readiness for change in the pretest.

3.3 Data gathering procedure and characteristics

The questionnaires were send to all employees of SoZaWe (N=170). The pretest questionnaire was send through the internal email system with a short introduction written by the guidance team. They requested their colleagues to provide an honest response about their opinion about the upcoming vision project. In addition, it was mentioned that their answer were part of this master thesis research and that all answer would be treated fully anonymous. Furthermore, the

questionnaire was handed out at the beginning of every vision meeting and an additional email was send to employees in the second week to derive response from employees not participating in one of the vision meetings. 89 employees filled in the questionnaire, representing a response rate of 52 per cent. The response rate population displayed a higher proportion of female (64 per cent) than male respondents (36 per cent). Their age ranged from 25 to 63 years with a mean of 43,13 years (SD = 9,957) and their organization tenure ranged from 0,2 to 40 years with a mean on 12,176 years (SD = 9,390).

The posttest questionnaire was send following the second design meeting at the 5th of July. The posttest questionnaire was also send through the internal email system. This initial email was followed by two personal reminders at the 9th and the 11th of July. Although, a night in a hotel was given away among respondents who filled in both questionnaires, the response rate was too low. Therefore, I personally distributed hardcopies of the questionnaire on the 15th of July. However, the response rate of the posttest was lower than the pretest. One of the reasons for this lower response rate was the holiday period. Eventually, 69 employees filled in the questionnaire resulting in a response rate of 41 per cent. The population of the posttest also displayed a higher proportion of females (68,1 per cent) than male (31,9 per cent) respondents. Their age ranged from 27 to 64 years with a mean of 43,75 (SD = 9,802) and their organizational tenure from 0,3 to 41 years with a mean of 11,925 (SD = 9,5692).

19 Table 1

Respondents Descriptive Pretest and Posttest

Pretest N % M SD Posttest N % M SD Gender 89 Gender 69 Female 57 64,0 Female 47 68,1 Male 32 36,0 Male 22 31,9 Age 43,13 9,957 Age 43,75 9,802 Organizational Tenure 89 12,176 9,390 Organizational Tenure 69 11,93 9,569 0-10 51 57,3 0-10 39 56,5 11-20 21 23,6 11-20 16 23,2 21-30 12 13,5 21-30 10 14,5 31-40 5 5,6 31-40 3 4,3 41 > - 0 41 > 1 1,4 Education 87 Education 68 VMBO - 0 VMBO - 0 HAVO 1 1,1 HAVO 3 4,3 VWO - 0 VWO - 0 MBO 18 20,2 MBO 17 24,6 HBO 52 58,4 HBO 42 60,9 WO 16 18,0 WO 6 8,7 3.4 Measurement instrument

Each variable was measured by multiple items to provide an adequate measurement. A total of 17 items was used to measure the dependent and independent variables. To assess the internal reliability of each variable Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was used (Pallant, 2011). Readiness for change was measured with previously developed questions. However, there is no previous

established scale to measure a generative change process. Therefore, questions were derived from the literature described above. As I make a distinction between three components that define a generative change process, I will also create three variables to measure this concept. Respondents were asked to answer all questions by means of a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). To establish the clarity of the developed questions a pilottest was held with Robbert Masselink and the guidance team of “SoZaWe ready for the future”. All questions were adapted to fit the specific change process of SoZaWe. Moreover, all questions were translated in Dutch as the questionnaire was distributed in a Dutch organization. An overview of the Dutch questionnaire can be found in Appendix….

3.4.1 Alteration of Social Reality

20 variable are stated in table 2 Internal consistency was determined by Cronbach Alpha with a result of 0,646, this result is below 0,7 and thus not acceptable according to Pallant (2011). Removing one of the items would not result in a higher Cronbach Alpha. However, Hair, Anderson, Tatham and Black (1998) suggest the values between 0,6 to 0,7 are the lower limit of acceptability. Moreover, only three items were used to measure this variable and a low number of items van make it hard to get a good Cronbach Alpha. Therefore, I will also mention the mean inter-item correlation of 0,386 with values ranging from 0,307 to 0,444. This suggests a reasonable relationship between the items (Pallant, 2011). Therefore, this variable will be used for further analyses.

Table 2

Items Alteration Social Reality

Item Number

Question

1 The vision trajectory provided me new insights on how we could do things around here

2 I feel that my vision of SoZaWe’s future changed due to the change process

3 The vision trajectory led – in my perception- to new ideas that could improve our department

3.4.2 Participation and empowerment to take self-organized action

21 Table 3

Items Participation and Empowerment to take Self-organized Action

Item Number

Question

4 I felt involved in developing the new future vision of SoZaWe

5 I had the feeling that nobody listened to my ideas during the vision trajectory

6 I felt my knowledge was used and trusted in developing change plans

7 During the vision trajectory I felt motivated to contribute in the development of the vision

8 During the vision trajectory I felt stimulated to make a contribution in the upcoming implementation of the vision

3.4.3 Collective Experience and Action

Collective experience and action is based upon the literature of Zandee & Vermaak (2012), Jacobs & Heracleous (2005) Glasbergen (2010) and Van der Ven & Poole (1995). The items to measure this variable are stated in table 4. A Cronbach Alpha coefficient of 0,772 was measured between these items and thus showing acceptable internal consistency between the items (Pallant, 2011).

Table 4

Items Collective Experience and Action

Item Number

Question

9 I had the feeling that during the vision trajectory me and the other attendees (clients, colleagues of different departments, collaborative partners, etc.) learned from each other

10 I had the feeling that we all felt responsible for developing changes and improvements with each other

11 I felt that my thoughts were comparable to those of my colleagues

3.4.4 Generative Change Process

22 3.4.5 Readiness for Change

The Cognitive and Affective component of Readiness for Change will be measured by questions based upon the previous developed items of Bouckenooghe (2008, p. 100). Bouckenooghe (2008) also include the intentional component of readiness for change. However, this component will not be measured in this study, based upon the literature that an employee’s beliefs and emotions towards the envisioned change will determine their intent towards this change (Rafferty et al., 2013). The questions measuring the affective and cognitive component of readiness for change are stated in table 5.

After reversing the negative scored items internal consistency reliability was determined. Cronbach’s Alpha must exceed 0,7 to be acceptable. The tables 6 and 7 show the results of the pretest and posttest respectively. ‘Cronbach Alpha 1’ states the initial value, followed by ‘Cronbach Alpha 2’ stating the Cronbach Alpha value when an item is deleted. Deleting an item is justified if the Corrected Item-Total Correlation value is below 0,3 as this indicates that this item measures something different than that variable (Pallant, 2011). In both the pretest and the posttest deleting item 16 results in higher Cronbach Alpha values and therefore this item will be deleted in further analyses.

Table 5

Items measuring Readiness for Change

Item Number

Affective or Cognitive

Question

12 Affective I think that the results of the vision trajectory were refreshing

13 Affective I have a good feeling about the upcoming changes

14 Affective I look forward to any upcoming changes

15 Cognitive Most change projects that are supposed to solve problems around here will not do much good

16 Cognitive Overall the proposed changes are for the better

23 Table 6

Pretest Cronbach Alpha Coefficients

Table 7

Posttest Cronbach Alpha Coefficients

Variable Items Cronbach Alpha 1 Cronbach Alpha 2 Item deleted Readiness for Change 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 0,718 0,720 16 Affective Readiness 12, 13, 14 0,702 Cognitive Readiness 15, 16, 17 0,656 0,714 16 3.5 Additional measurements

There were also employees that were not interviewed and also did not attend the vision meeting and design meeting. These respondents of the questionnaire represented the control group. This group consisted of 13 people. To gather additional information about this group I asked them several questions. These questions were useful to explain the difference in readiness for change. The outcomes are presented in table 8.

Table 8

Control Group Questions

N Mean SD I heard positive stories about the vision trajectory from my colleagues _{13 3,38} ,650

I thought it was nice to read the developed visions for SoZaWe (and look at the

associated images) 11 3,27

,647

These visions match with my future image of SoZaWe ₁₁ 3,27 ,647

I am more positive about the vision trajectory than 4 months ago ₁₁ 2,91 _,701

To gain additional information about the phases of the change process I also asked respondents several other questions. These are represented in table 9.

24 Table 9

Additional Questions Change Process

N Mean SD I though the design meeting was a valuable addition on the vision meeting 22 3,59 1,141

The images of the future became more concrete in the design meeting 19 3,53 1,073

I thought the "impressions of the interviews" were a good start of the vision meeting

40 3,73 1,062

The interview, vision meeting and/or design meeting influenced my image of the future of SoZaWe in a positive manner

47 3,68 ,726

3.6 Checking for Normality and Outliers

Before continuing with checking for correlations and making a regression analysis, outliers need to be detected (Pallant, 2011). In the pretest one extreme outlier could be detected. This respondent provided highly contradicting answers, therefore I decided to delete this respondent from further analyses. The posttest did not include any extreme outliers. As table 10 shows, the Kolmogorov-Smirnove test for the dependable variable in both the pretest and posttest was below 0,05 (pretest = 0,00; posttest = 0,023) and thus significant. Indicating that that the dependable variables were not normally distributed. Furthermore, I can argue that both the pretest and posttest results were clustered at the high end (Pallant, 2011).

Table 10 Tests for Normality

Sig. Mean 5% trimmed

mean

SD. Skewness Kurtosis

Pretest Readiness for Change

,008 3,6637 3,6812 0,50225 -,834 2,513

Pretest Affective Readiness for Change

,000 3,8078 3,8181 0,54525 -,964 4,251

Pretest Cognitive Readiness for Change

,000 3,5293 3,5581 0,60076 -,739 ,315

Posttest Readiness for Change

,023 3,4915 3,4944 0,52037 -,196 -,839

Posttest Affective Readiness for Change

,008 3,4611 3,4753 0,55266 -,273 ,515

Posttest Cognitive Readiness for Change

25 3.7 Factor Analysis

The items to define a generative change process are based upon literature and are thus not based upon previous established items. Moreover, I made a distinction between three different variables that define a generative change process. Therefore, a factor analysis will be performed to analyze if the established items measure the established variables in this thesis (Pallant, 2011). A factor analysis will also be performed on the variable readiness for change. Although, the items are based upon previous established items, this study excludes one of the factors that would define readiness for change according to Bouckenooghe (2008, p.100). Moreover, questions were adapted to fit this specific study. The factor analysis will be performed by means of Principal Component Analysis (PCA) For a reliable factor analysis the ratio of items and respondents needs to be at least 5:1 (Pallant, 2011). Factor analysis will be performed with the results of the posttest. However, with a response rate of 69 minus the 13 respondents that belonged to the control group, the ratio of 3:1 is too low. Therefore, the factor analysis will be performed separately for the independent and dependent variable, resulting in a ratio of 5:1 and 14:1 respectively.

3.7.1 Independent Variable “Generative Change Process”

26 Although, item 7 also loads high on the second component “participation”, it loads higher on the first component and will therefore not be used in the second component for further analyses. The new components that will be used for further analyses have strong loadings between 0,633 and 0,874. Communalities are all above 0,608 indicating that the items fit well with the other items in the components. Moreover, the Component Transformation Matrix indicates that most components correlate highly with each other (Appendix C), making the assumption that the components are related to each other. This assumption corresponds with the fact that these three components were supposed to define a generative change process. Therefore, all items will be combined into one additional variable ‘component 4; Generative Change Process”.

The new components, their (new) descriptive label and their (new) Cronbach Alpha coefficient can be found in table 11.

Table 11

Components Cronbach Alpha coefficient and Mean

Component Descriptive label N Items Cronbach Alpha

Mean 1 Collective Experience and

Action

56 7,8,9,10,11 0,851 3,7127

2 Participation 55 4,5,6 0,733 3,6310

3 Alteration Social Reality 54 1,2,3 0,646 3,2037

4 Generative Change Process 54 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 0,830 3,5678

3.7.2 Dependable Variable Readiness for Change

The five remaining items to measure Readiness for Change were also subjected to Principal

27 further analyses. The results of the factor analysis can be found in Appendix C and the extracted components and their Cronbach Alpha coefficient can be found in table 12.

Table 12

Components Cronbach Alpha coefficient

Component Descriptive label N Items Cronbach Alpha

1 Affective Readiness for Change 64 12, 13, 14 0,720

2 Cognitive Readiness for Change 60 15, 17 0,702

3 Overall Readiness for Change 60 12, 13, 14, 15, 17 0,714

3.8 Data Analysis Techniques

Pearson Correlation: My hypotheses state that there will be a positive relationship between the

independent variables and the dependent variables. To measure the strength of these relations the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (r) will be determined. Initially I wanted to perform a Multiple Regression analysis as I believe the separate independent variables are related in

measuring the construct “generative change process” and the separate dependent variables measure the construct “readiness for change”. However, the sample size was not sufficient to perform a multiple regression analysis. Therefore, all items that define the independent variable were combined into one overlapping variable. The same was done for the dependable variable. This is consisted with the factor analysis that shows that the derived components of independent components are correlated with each other, just as the components of the dependable variable.

ANCOVA: A pretest and a posttest was conducted to measure employees’ readiness for change to

measure if the intervention would influence participants opinion. However, this intervention was influenced by employees voluntarily participating in one or more phases that consisted in the change intervention, resulting in different groups. An ANCOVA analysis can reduce the influence of group differences. However, before running an ANCOVA analysis you have to identify if the pretest and posttest correlate significantly with each other (Pallant, 2011). This is not the case in this study. Therefore, I will perform an ANOVA analysis to measure the influence of these phases on both the independent variables and dependent variables. Moreover, a paired samples t-test will be

performed to measure the differences of the dependable variables at time 1 and time 2 (Pallant, 2011).

Paired samples t-test: This analysis will provide the differences between the pretest and posttest

28

One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA): This study’s goal is to measure the level of generativity in the

change process and if this influences the level of readiness for change. However, the change process consists of multiple phases and employees are not obliged to follow these phases. Therefore, I want to measure if an employees’ attendance in none, one or more phases influenced the level of perceived generativity in the change process and the perceived level of readiness for change. One-way analysis of variance will compare the variability in the mean scores between the different groups.

4 Results

4.1 Pearson Correlation

Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was used to measure the relationship between the independent variables and dependent variables. The results can be found in table 13. Beforehand, assumptions of linearity, normality and homoscedasticity were analyzed to ensure there were no violations. Table 13 Pearson Correlation Affective Readiness for Change Cognitive Readiness for Change

Readiness for Change

Collective Experience and Action ,642** ,260 ,611** Participation ,486** ,475** ,493** Alteration Social Reality ,568** ,198 ,443** Generative Change Process ,701** ,356* ,635**

** Correlation is significant at the 0,01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0,05 level (2-tailed).

4.1.1 Relationship between Generative Change Process and Readiness for Change

29 overall readiness for change (r = ,635, n = 45, p<,01). With it explaining 40,3% of the variance in individuals’ answers on readiness for change. A medium relationship can be found between a generative change process and cognitive readiness for change (r = ,356, n = 49, p<,05) where the it explains only 12,7% of individuals’ answers. Hypothesis 1 is thus accepted.

4.1.2 Relationship between Collective Experience & Action and Readiness for Change

A strong positive relationship between collective experience & action and affective readiness for change (r = ,642, N = 46, p<,01) and between collective experience & action and overall readiness for change (r = ,611, N = 46, p<,01) was found. Explaining respectively 41,2% and 37,3% of the variance in individuals’ answer on these dependable variables. However, no significant relationship between collective experience & action was cognitive readiness for change was found. Therefore, hypothesis 1b is only partially accepted.

4.1.3 Relationship between Participation and Readiness for Change

Medium positive relationships were found between participation and overall readiness for change (r = ,493, N = 47, p<,01), affective readiness for change (r = ,486, N = 47, p<,01), and cognitive

readiness for change (r = ,475, N = 52, p<,01). Where participation explains respectively 24,3%, 23,6% and 22,6% of the variance in individuals’ answer on readiness for change. Hypothesis 1c is thus accepted.

4.1.4 Relationship between Alteration of Social Reality and Readiness for Change

A medium positive relationship was found between alteration of social reality and overall readiness for change (r = ,443, N = 46, p<,01) with it explaining 19,6% of the variance in individuals’ answers on readiness for change. A strong positive relationship was found between alteration of social reality and affective readiness for change (r = ,568, N = 46, p<,01), where 32,2% of the variance in

30 4.2 Paired Samples T-test

Table 14 Paired Samples t-test

Mean N SD t df Sig. (2-tailed) Pretest Affective Readiness for Change 3,8423 38 ,41522 3,284 37 ,002

Posttest Affective Readiness for Change 3,5351 ,50546

Pretest Cognitive Readiness for Change 3,4884 43 ,60246 ,855 42 ,398

Posttest Cognitive Readiness for Change 3,3721 ,77990

Pretest Overall Readiness for Change 3,6778 36 ,43890 1,922 35 ,063

Posttest Overall Readiness for Change 3,5000 ,50029

Table 14 shows the results of the paired samples t-test. Affective readiness for change is the only variable that shows a significant difference between the pretest (M =3,8423, SD = ,41522) and the posttest (M = 3,5351, SD = ,50546) = 3,284, p<,05. The mean decreases with ,30719 with 95% confidence interval ranging from ,11764 to ,49675. The calculated eta squared statistic of 0,225 indicates a large effect size.

4.3 One-way between groups ANOVA

Before conducting a one-way between groups ANOVA a new variable needed to be created that identified participants’ attendance at none, one or more of the 4 phases of the change process. Series that were followed by 2 or more employees were included, series that only 1 employee followed were not included resulting in 8 different groups including a total of 64 respondents (N = 69-5). Table 15 displays the new created groups and table 16 provides the results on the

31 Table 15

Groups ANOVA analysis

Groups N Appreciative Conversation Vision Meeting Design Meeting June 19 Design Meeting July 5

1 6 Yes Yes Yes Yes

2 3 Yes Yes No Yes

3 9 Yes Yes No No 4 3 Yes No Yes No 5 6 Yes No No No 6 3 No Yes No Yes 7 21 No Yes No No 8 12 No No No No Table 16

ANOVA Independent and Dependent Variables

Sum of Squares df F Sig. Generative Change Process Between Groups 1,867 6 1,188 ,332

Within Groups 10,743 41

Collective Experience and Action Between Groups 2,671 6 1,039 ,414

Within Groups 18,418 43

Participation Between Groups 8,646 6 3,551 ,006

Within Groups 17,855 44

Alteration Social Reality Between Groups 1,581 6 ,552 ,766

Within Groups 20,061 42

Affective Readiness for Change Between Groups 3,505 6 2,137 ,066

Within Groups 13,121 48

Cognitive Readiness for Change Between Groups 6,903 7 1,785 ,066

Within Groups 28,173 51

Readiness for Change Between Groups 2,250 6 1,453 ,111

32 4.3.1 Generative Change Process

A one-way between groups analysis was performed to measure the influence of the different phases on the independent variables. It seemed that only “participation” was significant affected by

employees’ attendance in the different phases. The difference was significant at p <,05 with F(6, 44) = 3,551, p = ,006. The effect size was measured using an eta squared value of ,326. Moreover, Levene’s test of homogeneity was not violated with a Sig. of ,515. The Tukey (Appendix F) indicates that there were significant differences in mean scores between group 1 (M = 3,6667, SD = 1,09545) and group 4 (M = 2,2222, SD = ,38490); group 2 (M = 4,3333, SD = ,57735) and group 4 (M = 2,2222, SD = ,38490); group 3 (M = 3,9630, SD = ,45474) and group 4 (M = 2,2222, SD = ,38490); group 5 (M = 3,4444, SD = ,54433) and group 7 (M = 3,6349, SD = ,58599).

4.3.2 Readiness for Change

There were no significant differences between the groups on the dependable variables. Also the control group (8) showed no significant difference with employees who did attend one or more phases of the change process.

4.3.3 Readiness for Change Difference Pretest and Posttest

Another challenge of this study design is the time of conducting the pretest. The pretest will measure employees’ initial readiness for change. However, the pretest is conducted after some employees were interviewed for the discovery phase. In addition, some employees filled in the questionnaire several minutes before the vision meetings started. These employees already received the document “Werk in Uitvoering” (Appendix H) with impressions of the appreciative conversation. Therefore, they were already influenced before filling in the questionnaire. A one-way between groups ANOVA was conducted to see if this resulted in a significant difference between these

respondents on the pretest. However, no significant differences between the groups could be found. As an additional analysis I also performed a one-way between groups ANOVA on the differences between the posttest and pretest of readiness for change. A new variable was created that specified the differences between the posttest and pretest (posttest – pretest). There is no significant

33 5 Discussion

5.1 Discussion and Limitations

The hypotheses that a generative change process and the components that define this generative change process would have a positive influence on affective and overall readiness for change were supported. These results comply with the literature used in the framework to set up this study. However, the results showed that there was no significant relationship between collective

experience and action and cognitive readiness for change. In addition, there was also no significant relationship between alteration of social reality and cognitive readiness for change. The Paired samples t-test showed that only affective readiness for change had a significant difference between the mean of the posttest and the pretest. However, the posttest mean was lower than the mean of the pretest, which contradicts with my initial expectations. The other dependent variables show no significant difference between the posttest and pretest. Moreover, there was no significant

difference between the control group and the participants of the change process. This contradicts with the expectation that the change process would increase participants’ readiness for change. There are multiple factors that could explain these results.

First of all, the initial height of the pretest could be explained by the fact that the Dutch government decided to decentralize the EMEA, participation law and youth welfare to the municipalities. Although, the implementation will occur in several years, “the way we do thing around here” will definitely change due to this government decision. This government decision is one of the driving forces behind the change program to implement content changes. It is an external context that explains the reason behind the change program that could explain participants’ positive attitude towards the change (Self, Armenakis & Schraeder, 2007). Moreover, this positive attitude could have been enhanced by the fact that participants were invited to provide their thoughts on the matter. The mere act of providing employees with a voice is enough to increase their positive view towards the change (Lewis & Russ, 2011). This complies with the expectation that participation is supposed to increase participants’ positive feelings and cognition towards the change (Rafferty et al., 2013; Bouckenooghe. 2008). Moreover, employees that are involved in the decision making process of the change will perceive feelings of empowerment enhancing the feeling of agency and control

(Rafferty, et al, 2013). As this deregulation will happen in 2015, there is enough time to involve employees even more in the change process and the implementation of the changes.

34 Executive Board (College van B&W) needs to approve the change plans. This existing power dynamic in the municipality, which is characterized as a top-down management approach, is hard to

overcome. However, for a successful Appreciative Inquiry, the municipality should support the vision designed by the employees and provide employees with the feeling that their input is appreciated.. In addition, the municipality should give employees the opportunity to collectively experiment in the Destiny (Zandee & Vermaak, 2012). Employees are often not experienced enough to implement changes, however by giving employees freedom and space to experiment, they will become to believe in their own strength and will use their strength, expertise and knowledge to implement changes that break with the status quo. Otherwise, “what looks like an innovative endeavor may in actuality then hardly reflect the richness of possible change dynamics, which may lead to

disappointment in the approach and a reinforcement of habitual practices” (Zandee & Vermaak, 2012, p. 19). It is this rigid bureaucratic structure, where employees are not given the opportunity to implement the changes that makes it difficult to successfully implement an OD intervention (Robertson & Seneviratne, 1995). This also occurred in former change initiatives at SoZaWe. Employees were stimulated to identify change opportunities, but no follow-up steps were taken. This resulted in disappointment among employees and the feeling that their time and effort was wasted. It are these negative change experiences that might lead to cynicism about the

implementation of the new change initiative. Moreover, a negative experience is expected to reduce employees’ motivation for new initiatives (Bouckenooghe, 2008; Rafferty et al., 2013). It could be that the influences of these factors hinder employees to become more positive toward the change initiative.

Moreover, the results show that “alteration of social reality” was the lowest scoring independent variable. Observing the meetings also showed that meetings that included more externals were more generative, here ideas arose that went beyond the old routines of SoZaWe. However, although many externals were invited not all were able to come. This reduced the effect of “the whole system in the room” (Zandee & Vermaak, 2012), which might have affected participants beliefs that the designed visions were not really different from old practices.

35 attitude towards the change. Employees’ positive attitude towards the change will decline when the scale of the change increases (Rafferty et al., 2013).

5.1 Future research

This study is the first to measure if the effect of generativity in the first three phases of an

Appreciative Inquiry will have a positive influence on readiness for change. However, as participants’ belief on readiness for change in the posttest does not significant differ from the scores in the pretest additional research need to be conducted. The process of the change initiative is still in progress and the vision will be worked out in more detail and be implemented in the upcoming months. It would be interesting to see if during the Destiny phase, when the visions are thus transformed into tangible change plans and the consequences are more concrete, employees’ opinion on readiness for change differs from the posttest measurement in this study.

Moreover, actions were taken to overcome the bureaucratic structure of the municipality by including the Mayor and Executive board into the change process by inviting members of the board to participate in the meetings and provide them with regular reports about the progression. It would thus be interesting to determine if the municipality supported and empowered employees in the Destiny to implement their designed changes and provide them with the freedom to experiment and make mistakes. Would this support impact employees’ attitude and beliefs towards the change initiative? Moreover, to provide more accurate information about the influence of public organizations on employees’ perceptions, similar research needs to be conducted in private organizations.

This study is also one of the first to conduct a quantitative research on generativity in a change process. Additional research need to be performed to create a more accurate measurement scale to measure a generative change process. Especially, since the items used in this research were adapted to fit this specific change process. Therefore, no universal measurement scale was developed that could be used without any adaptations in other generative change process studies.

5.2 Conclusion

Although, the hypotheses were fully and partially supported no general conclusion could be derived from this study. This study can be seen as an impetus to conduct additional research on the

36 References

Armenakis, A.A, Harris, S.G., & Mossholder, K. (1993). Creating readiness for organizational change. Human Relations, 46, 681–703.

Baker, W., Cross, R., & Wooten, M. (2003). Positive organizational network analysis and energizing relationships. In K. S. Cameron, J.E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive Organizational Scholarship

(pp. 328-342). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler

.

Beehr, T.A., Walsh, J.T. & Taber, T.D. (1976) Relationship of Stress to Individually and

Organizationally Values States: Higher Order Needs as a Moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology,

Vol. 61, No. 1, p. 41-47

Beer, M. & Nohria, N. (2000), Cracking the Code of Change. Harvard Business Review May-June, p. 133-141

Bernerth, J. 2004. Expanding our understanding of the change message. Human Resource Development Review, 3, 36–52.

Bianchi, P.V. & Miller, L.M. (1996) Innovation and collective action: The dynamics of change. Elsevier:

Structural Change and Economics Dynamics, Vol. 7. p. 193-206

Bouckenooghe, D. (2008) What is crucial in developing a positive attitude toward change? The role of content, context, process and individual variables in understanding readiness for change.

Submitted to the Faculty of Economics and Business Administration in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor in Applied Economics, Universiteit Gent

Burnes, B. (2004) Emergent Change and Planned Change – Competitor or Allies? The Case of XYZ Construction. International Journal of Operations & Production Management. Vol. 24, No. 9, p. 886-902

Burnes, B. (2009) Approaches to change management. In Burnes, B. Managing Change: A strategic

approach to organizational dynamics, 5th ed. Pearson Education

Burnes, B. (2009) Developments in change management. In Burnes, B. Managing Change: A strategic

approach to organizational dynamics, 5th ed. Pearson Education

Bushe, G. R. (2007). Appreciative inquiry is not (just) about the positive. Organization Development

37 Bushe, G.R. (2010) Generativity and the transformational potential of appreciative inquiry. In

Zandee, D. Cooperrider, D.L. & Avital, M. (eds) Generative Organization: Advances in Appreciative Inquiry, Vol.4 (in press). Bingley, England: Emerald Publishing.

Bushe, G.R. (2011) Appreciative inquiry: Theory and critique. In Boje, D., Burnes, B. and Hassard, J.

(eds.) The Routledge Companion To Organizational Change (pp. 87103). Oxford, UK: Routledge.

Carter, B. (2006) ‘One expertise among many’ working appreciatively to make miracles instead of finding problems. Using appreciative inquiry as a way of reframing research. Journal of Research in

Nursing. Vol. 11(1), p. 48–63

Chapman, J.A. (2002) A framework for transformational change in organisations. Leadership &

Organization Development Journal, Vol. 23, iss. 1, p. 16-25

Chermack, T. J. (2003) Mental Models in Decision Making and Implications for Human Resource Development. Advances in Developing Human Resources Vol. 5, No. 4, p. 408-422

Chiva, R., Grandio, A. & Alegre, J. (2010) Adaptive and Generative Learning: Implications from Complexity Theory. International Journal of Management Reviews

Chonko, L.B., Jones, E., Roberts, J.A., & Dubinsky, A.J. (2002). The role of environmental turbulence, readiness for change, and salesperson learning in the success of sales force change. Journal of

Personal Selling & Sales Management, 22, 227–245.

Cooperrider, D.L. & Srivastva, S. (1987) Appreciative inquiry in organizational life. In Woodman, R. W. & Pasmore, W.A. (eds) Research In Organizational Change And Development, Vol. 1 (129-169). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

Cooperrider, D. L., & Whitney, D. 1999. Appreciative inquiry. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. 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 behavioral correlates. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 377–392.

Daszko, M. & Sheinberg, S. (2005) Survival Is Optional: Only Leaders With New Knowledge Can Lead the Transformation. Theory of Transformation FINAL to SHORT article April