The importance of a high-quality relationship between
agents and recipients for reducing recipients’ resistance
behaviour
‘The influence of Agent-Recipient Exchange (ARX) and the dyadic dispersion of ARX on recipients resistance behaviour to change: The moderating effect of the perceived scope of a change project.’
Master Thesis, MSc. Business Administration, specialization Change Management The University of Groningen, Faculty of Business and Economics
January, 2017 M. (MICHELLE) NIJSTAD 2187760 Moesstraat 39-1 9717 JV Groningen 06-18033996 m.nijstad@student.rug.nl Supervisor: dr. J.F.J. Vos 2nd Assessor: dr. H.C. Bruns Word count: 11.661
Acknowledgment: I would like to thank Janita Vos for her critical and helpful feedback. Especially the feedback moments
2
ABSTRACTThis study aims to add new insights into the relationship between agent-recipient exchange
(ARX) and recipients’ resistance behaviour during change projects. We proposed a negative relationship between ARX and recipients’ resistance behaviour and expected the perceived scope of a
change project to moderate this relationship. In addition, we investigated the perceptual difference of
the agent and recipients regarding ARX, which we call ‘the dyadic dispersion of ARX’, and tested if
this variable influences recipients’ resistance behaviour. A quantitative field study was conducted,
with 125 change projects. The findings suggested that recipients who perceived a high-quality
relationship reported less resistance behaviour. However, the dyadic dispersion of ARX was not
related to the resistance behaviour of recipients. Additionally, we discovered that larger perceived
change projects will result in more resistance behaviour at the recipients, but we did not find a moderating effect of the perceived scope of a change project. These findings, implications, and future
research directions are to be discussed.
3
INTRODUCTION
‘Change requires the participation of people who must first change themselves for organisational change to succeed’ (Bovey & Hede, 2001: 535). According to Cawsey, Deszca and
Ingols (2012), two different participants are involved in organisational change, the change agent and
the change recipients. While the change agent is involved with leading the change process, the
recipients have to undergo the change. In general, introducing a change by a change agent means that
recipients have to move from the known to the unknown and therefore have to change their behaviour
in order to change the organisation (Sasikala & Anthonyraj, 2015).
Although many organisations and managers have become increasingly aware of the
importance to change, Burnes and Jackson (2011) state that almost 70% of the efforts to change fail.
One of the most cited reasons for this high failure rate in organisational changes has been attributed by management to resistance (Burnes, 2015; Oreg, 2006; Georgalis, Samaratunge, Kimberley & Lu,
2015). Employee resistance is often regarded as individual behaviour not in line with the attempts of
the supervisor to change (Bartunek, 1993). Recipients have the natural tendency to resist
organisational change to defend their status quo, especially when they feel their security is threatened.
In many studies, resistance is seen as an unwarranted response arising completely on the side of the
change recipient, neglecting the effects of the change agents (Ford, Ford & D’Amelio, 2008; Dent &
Goldberg, 1999; Ford, Ford & McNamara, 2002). In this dominant perspective, resistance is portrayed
as a direct reaction to the change itself only on the side of the recipients, independent of the leadership
style of the change agent or the relationship between the agent and the recipient. However, Pieterse,
Caniels and Homan (2012), Piderit (2000) and Georgalis et al. (2015) argue that a more extensive
view and valid understanding is needed about what determines recipients’ resistance behaviour.
Moreover, Burnes (2015) claims that resistance can not only be viewed as behaviour arising from the
individual itself. Also, Oreg (2006) and Ford et al. (2008) argue that, in addition to individual
characteristics, the behaviour of change recipients can be influenced by other variables, for example,
the relationship between the agent and the recipients or the type of change projects. Although much
research has been done about resistance to change, the relationship between the agent and recipients in
4
perspective of resistance to change by investigating the impact of the quality of the relationship
between the agent and recipients on recipients’ resistance behaviour.
To investigate the quality of the relationship between the agent and recipients, the concept of
Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) is used. As recognized in studies about LMX, employees develop
unique relationships with their managers through ongoing series of interpersonal exchanges and these
exchanges are crucial for performance and well-being at work (Furst & Cable, 2008). Also in change
management, communication and interaction between the agent and recipients have become more
important in order to gain a real understanding of resistance behaviour (Ford et al., 2008). However,
there still appears a lack of empirical research when talking about LMX and the influence on recipients’ behaviour during change projects (Bernerth, Armenakis, Feild, Giles & Walker, 2007).
Because leaders and members can experience their relationship in different ways (Gooty & Yammarino, 2013) it is also interesting to examine this perceptual difference, between the agent and
their recipients, during change projects (Georgalis et al., 2015; Bernerth et al., 2007). Differences
between the agent and recipients can lead to misunderstandings and distance between both parties,
which often results in failed change projects. However, in studies about LMX, there is a lack of
empirical research that deals with the perceptual difference of the agent and recipients during change
projects (Bernerth et al., 2007). This study will investigate this perceptual difference and examines the
influence of this difference on recipients’ resistance behaviour during change projects.
In addition, to gain a better understanding of LMX and recipients’ resistance behaviour, we
will also look at different types of change projects. In change management, case studies are dominant
when it comes to conducting research. However, case studies are focused on one specific type of
change, which means they neglect the comparison of different types of change projects. Because
changes in recipients’ behaviour can vary with regard to the scope of the change, Woodman and
Dewett (2004) recommend focusing on the moderating effect of this variable. Scope determines the
level of unfamiliarity or novelty of the change project and indicates how much impact the change has
on recipients in the organisation (Street & Gallupe, 2009). Understanding how recipients of different
change projects perceive the scope of a change project can, therefore, be of real interest in examining
5
This study will expand the change management literature with a different perspective on
change recipients’ resistance behaviour (Oreg, Vakola & Armenakis, 2011). In this research, the
theory of leader-member-exchange (LMX) is used an adjusted to change management. We will label
this new variable as agent-recipient exchange (ARX) (Rogulic, 2013), defined as the quality of the
unique exchange relationship between a change agent and a change recipient (cf. Bernerth et al.,
2007). First, we will investigate a possible relationship between this new concept, ARX, and recipients’ resistance behaviour and the moderating effect of the perceived scope of a change project.
In addition, we will look at the difference in perception between the agent and their corresponding
recipients in evaluating ARX and the influence of this difference on recipients’ resistance behaviour.
The research question that follows from this is: How does Agent-Recipient Exchange influence
recipients’ resistance behaviour and what is the influence of the perceived scope of a change project on this relationship?
More knowledge about ARX during change projects will help better understand the
relationship between the agent and their recipients (Zhou & Schriesheim, 2010). This knowledge also
attempts to contribute our understanding of factors that could influence resistance of recipients. When
change agents know and understand if and in what direction the quality of their relationship and the
differences in perception regarding this relationship influences the resistance of recipients, they will be more aware of how to influence recipients’ change behaviour (Ford et al., 2008). A better
understanding of what influences the change behaviour of those recipients can eventually help reduce
6
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
In this theory section, first recipients’ resistance behaviour during change projects will be
conceptualized. Second, we will explain the transfer of LMX to change management and introduce the
newly labelled concept ARX. Given the likelihood of different perceptions between agents and
recipients regarding ARX, we will insert a new labelled variable: The dyadic dispersion of ARX.
Subsequently, the relationship between these two independent variables and recipients’ resistance
behaviour will be explained. Finally, our moderator variable, the perceived scope of a change project,
is included and the impact of this variable on the relationship between ARX and recipients’ resistance
behaviour will be argued.
Recipients’ resistance behaviour
A changing environment, economy and technology force organisations to adapt, transform and
change their way of organising (Thomas & Hardy, 2011). There will be no progress if employees and
employers do not change their behaviour (Dent & Goldberg, 1999). Especially, to achieve changes,
cooperation of recipients within the organization is needed (Thomas & Hardy, 2011). Unfortunately,
not all recipients embrace change and cooperate with others (Jones & van de Ven, 2016). Some
recipients are afraid or frustrated and feel a growing sense of alienation and uncertainty, while others
immediately resist and do not change their behaviour at all.
As mentioned, resistance to change can be defined as recipients’ behaviour, not in line with
the attempts of the change agent to change (Bartunek, 1993). This definition only takes into account
resistance behaviour, while resistance, as a reaction to change, can be viewed as a multidimensional
attitude (Piderit, 2000; Oreg, 2006). This attitude consists of behaviours, feelings and thoughts and it
is argued that conflicts arise when these components are not in line (Piderit, 2000). For instance, some
sources of resistance may have their strongest impact on recipients’ feelings, other sources influence
the behaviours of recipients the most while others still mostly influence the thoughts of recipients
about the change project. While all three components are important when investigating resistance, the
behavioural dimension truly involves the action and intention to act in response to the change. This
7
trust, while resistance behaviour is more related to quitting the change process or the organisation
(Oreg, 2006). These actions and intentions to act against the proposed change are more detrimental to
the progress of the change and the organisation, than some resistant feelings or thoughts. Furthermore,
feelings and thoughts are harder to measure than behaviour. Therefore, this research focusses on the
behavioural component of recipients’ resistance.
Resistance behaviour on the part of the recipients may have pervasive effects, it can disturb
the change initiative and thereby retain organisational progress (Piderit, 2000; Dent & Goldberg,
1999). In this way of arguing, resistance is seen as something that impacts the change in a negative
way, as a sign of failure or as a problem to be minimized (Thomas & Hardy, 2011). Resistance
behaviour depends on deficiencies of recipients’ emotions, attitudes, knowledge and/or behaviours
(Thomas & Hardy, 2011; van Dam, Oreg & Schyns, 2008). Thomas and Hardy (2011) identify this negative approach as demonizing resistance to change. However, this is only one way of viewing
resistance. Resistance can also be seen as a valuable resource in succeeding a change (Ford & Ford,
2010). Sometimes good understanding and positive intentions of the recipient can also lead to
resistance behaviour (Thomas & Hardy, 2011). Recipients who understand the change proposal of
their agent and dare to ask critical questions are not necessarily resisting because they do not want to
change. Recipients’ negative reactions can also stem from positive intentions in order to protect the
interests of the organisation (Piderit, 2000). In this way, resistance behaviour is a challenge for change
agents and can make a significant contribution to the change process. Thomas and Hardy (2011) identify this positive approach as celebrating resistance.
The theory above shows that resistance to change can be interpreted in different ways. In
these different ways of viewing resistance, it is clear that resistance is often displayed in the isolated
context of the change recipient itself and independent of the agent’s behaviour (Thomas & Hardy,
2011; Piderit, 2000). However, resistance cannot be viewed as behaviour arising completely on the
side of the recipient (Burnes, 2015; Oreg, 2006). Therefore, the influence of the interaction between
the agent and recipients and their perceptions of the type of a change project will be examined to
8
Interaction between the agent and their recipients: From LMX to ARX
When studying the behaviour of recipients during change projects, leadership behaviour
cannot be overlooked. Leadership is one of the oldest and most studied concepts in the area of
organisational research (Hwang, Al-Arabiat, Rouibah & Chung, 2016). The first leadership studies
were focused on the traits of effective leaders. However, Yukl (2006) stated that leaders’ behaviours
were more important than their traits, therefore the leadership theory shifted their focus to the
behavioural effects of leaders (Hwang et al., 2016). This behavioural approach was not sufficiently
comprehensive and still ignored both situational and follower influences, which led to new leadership
approaches. Situational and contingency approaches followed and are the most inclusive theories
about leadership at this moment. In these theories, an organisational and/or a relational situation will
impact the degree to which the behaviour of the leader will be effective. A common example of such a theory is leader-member exchange (LMX). LMX is a frequently used theory in management and
organisational research and is focused on the development of a unique type of relationship between a
leader and their individual followers (Bernerth et al., 2007). The special nature of the LMX theory
stems from the fact that the focus is on both leaders and followers and their relationship instead of
looking at the behaviours or traits of just the leaders (Gooty & Yammarino, 2010; Hwang et al., 2016).
LMX theory argues that relationships between individuals are built through social exchanges, and
therefore emphasis on relation attributes and processes (Gooty & Yammarino, 2013). When there are a
lot of favourable exchanges between the leader and a follower, the quality of the relationship is
perceived as high (van Dam et al., 2008). This means that the relationship is mainly based on trust,
interaction, reciprocity and mutual liking. In this type of relationship, there exists mutual respect
between the two parties, in which they complement and help each other not only for their own sake.
However, when the quality of the relationship is perceived as low, the relation between the leader and
the follower is mainly based on the transactional and formal part of the relationship. Such a
relationship can be seen as a basic employment contract.
A theory which is recently linked to the theory of LMX is the social exchange theory. This theory is about ‘unspecified obligations’ (Wayne, Shore & Liden, 1997). The social exchange theory
9
and vice versa. The term ‘unspecified’ means that there is an expectation of a future action, but it is
not clear what or when this action will occur (Bernerth et al., 2007). The main idea is that both parties
need to see the favour as valuable and the exchange as fair (Wayne et al., 1997). According to this
theory, Bernerth et al. (2007) developed a new measure of LMX, labelled as
Leader-Member-Social-Exchange (LMSX). Although LMX infers it is about social exchanges between a leader and their
followers, it does not really measure and assess these exchanges. The authors argued that LMX places
restrictions on the relationship between leaders and members in that it is focused on the extent to
which supervisors are willing to consider requests from a subordinate. Adding the social exchange
theory to LMX removes these restrictions and provides a more behaviour and action-oriented view,
which is more observable and concrete.
Also in change management, the communication, interaction and relation between the leader and members have become more important (Ford et al., 2008). In this study, we will transpose the
LSMX concept of Bernerth et al. (2007) to change management and label this concept
Agent-Recipient Exchange (ARX), as suggested by Rogulic (2013). ARX is defined as the quality of the
unique exchange between the change agent and their change recipients during a change project
(Bernerth et al., 2007). This means ARX is about how agents and recipients appreciate the quality of
their relationship. In this study, ARX is included a as a main independent variable in order to look at the influence of this variable on recipients’ resistance behaviour.
Perceptual differences between the agent and their recipients: The dyadic dispersion of ARX
To create a high-quality interpersonal relationship between the agent and recipients, it is important that agents and recipients establish ‘shared realities’ (Gooty & Yammarino, 2013). Shared
means ‘to have in common’ and shows the experience of having common inner states regarding, in
this case, the relationship with the other party, agent or recipients (Echterhoff, Higgins & Levine,
2009). Reality refers to people’s perception of what is a real and truthful relationship. Research argues
that perceptions of relationships are not always shared with other individuals or groups (Gooty &
Yammarino, 2013; Gerstner & Day, 1997). Even more important, the quality of the relationship can
10
As stated above, the relationship quality is crucial for achieving mutual liking and feelings of
appreciation between the two most important parties in change projects. Therefore it is important to
examine the difference in quality between the agent and recipients when examining relationships. In
this study, the difference, or variability, between the agent and recipients is labelled the dyadic
dispersion of ARX (Gooty & Yammarino, 2013). The dyadic dispersion of ARX is a vertical
dyad-level construct between the agent and recipients. This construct indicates whether agents perceive a
higher quality exchange than their corresponding recipients. This implies that there is a high dyadic
dispersion when the agent rates the quality of the exchange as higher than their recipients and a low
dyadic dispersion when the agent rates the quality of the exchange as lower than their recipients.
According to Gooty and Yammarino (2013) and Zhou and Schriesheim (2010), there are
several reasons for a high dyadic dispersion of ARX. First, Zhou and Schriesheim (2010) state that agents and recipients have different organisational roles and therefore different perceptions of a
high-quality relationship. They investigated that agents pay more attention to simple task-related aspects of
a relationship, while recipients are more focused on the social aspects of a relationship. Simple
task-related relationships are attained earlier and more easily than social, profound relationships. Agents
may, therefore, perceive the relationship with their recipient as higher than the recipients. In addition,
differences in perception can also occur due to relationship illusions (Gooty & Yammarino, 2013).
Positive illusions and unrealistic optimism of the change agent regarding the change project, attributes
a better relationship quality than the recipient, without having such illusions and optimism. Also, a
lack of quality communication, due to perceived discrepancies in status, goals, beliefs and ideologies,
can cause many differences in perception.
This analysis warrants to take a closer look at the dyadic dispersion of ARX and the influence
on recipients’ resistance behaviour.
The relationship between ARX and recipients’ resistance behaviour
Based on the theoretical analysis, the relationship between ARX and recipients’ resistance
behaviour is examined. A high-quality relationship between the agent and recipients is signed by good
11
and participation perceived by the recipients strengthens the understanding of the change process at
the side of the recipients. Therefore, a high-quality relationship can reduce uncertainties and
misguided expectations (Oreg & Berson, 2011). Fewer uncertainties and misguided expectations will
lead to more commitment and trust (Lines, 2004). The more commitment and trust, the more support
among recipients toward the change, which will, in the end, reduce resistance behaviour (Shin, Seo,
Shapiro & Taylor, 2015). Further, resistance behaviour is not a true response occurring on the side of
the recipients but can be seen as ‘a function of participant interactions that shape and are shaped by the
nature and quality of the agent-recipient relationship’ (Ford et al., 2008: 372). Based on this analysis,
we expect a negative relationship between ARX, perceived by the recipients, and recipients’ resistance
behaviour (Figure 1). Therefore, our first hypothesis is formulated as:
Hypothesis 1. In a change project, the higher recipients perceive the quality of the agent-recipient exchange, the less agent-recipients’ resistance behaviour.
The relationship between the dyadic dispersion of ARX and recipients’ resistance behaviour
To better understand the relationship between ARX and recipients’ resistance behaviour, it is
relevant to look closer at the effect of differences in perceiving ARX by the agent and their recipients.
As mentioned above, shared realities are important for maintaining interpersonal relationships (Gooty
& Yammarino, 2013). Shared realities between the agent and recipients can obtain and/or maintain a
sense of connectedness and belonging between both parties (Echterhoff et al., 2009). According to
Gooty and Yammarino (2013), when the agent and recipients do not have a shared reality, this can
lead to a difference in perceiving their relationship. This difference in perception, about the quality of
the relationship, may lead to a lack of social sharing, can diminish feelings of connectedness and
certainty and can create distance between both parties (Echterhoff et al., 2009). In short, the greater the
perceptual difference, the less mutual investment and less reciprocity in the social exchange process at
the core of ARX (Gooty & Yammarino, 2013). This causes a lack of good communication, trust and
commitment between the agent and the recipients, by less understanding of each other and less
understanding and growing uncertainty of the change. All of this can lead to more resistance behaviour
12
followers view the exchange as less favourable relative to their leader, there will be less organisational
commitment on the side of the followers. As mentioned before, less commitment will increase
resistance behaviour. Therefore, we expect that the greater the perceptual difference between the agent
and their recipients in evaluating ARX, the more resistance behaviour will occur. Hence, we expect a
positive relationship between the dyadic dispersion of ARX and recipients’ resistance behaviour
(Figure 1). Therefore, the following hypothesis is formulated as:
Hypothesis 2. In a change project, the higher the dyadic dispersion of ARX, the more recipients’ resistance behaviour.
The type of change projects: The perceived scope of a change project
The primary focus of change management was on individual and group level interventions (Cogliser et al., 2009). Most organisational changes were gradual and incremental and influenced just
a small part of the organisation. Currently, we face a lot of major external forces which leads to the
globalization of markets (Cawsey et al., 2012). This globalization will drive worldwide competitive
dynamics and significant changes in today’s organisations. To respond to these external forces, the
focus in change management moves to more large-scale interventions in which the scope of the change
processes increases. The scope of a change project is related to the compatibility of the change with
fundamental organisational structures and processes and refers to the level of unfamiliarity or novelty
of the change perceived by recipients (Street & Gallupe, 2009). According to Balogun and Hope
Hailey (2008) the scope of a change project consists of depth and breadth. Depth concerns the
magnitude of a change project and measures the effect of the change on recipients (Woodman &
Dewett, 2004). Breadth is the physical spread of a change project across an organisation and measures
the amount of recipients which are involved by the change (Balogun & Hope Hailey, 2008; Vos &
Brand, 2012). The wider and deeper the change, the greater the scope of the change. A greater scope
means the change has more inconsistency with existing infrastructure, knowledge, markets, or
processes and therefore has more impact on the recipients in the organisation. This can be further
explained by looking at the dichotomy of scope, starting with low-scope or convergent changes to
13
Convergent or low-scope change is seen as a change in which adaptations are consistent with the
current way of organizing. Organisations are refining their existing practices, strategies and processes
in consistent and familiar ways (Street & Gallupe, 2009). On this side of the continuum, the impact on
the organisation and the recipients will be low. On the other side, a change can be perceived as radical
or high-scope. This type of change involves resources, knowledge or technologies which require new
ways of organizing in order to succeed the change (Street & Gallupe, 2009). Radical change is not
about maintaining existing practices and capabilities in a consistent way but shows up with something completely ‘new’. On this side the impact on the organisation and the recipients will be much higher.
In this study, we include the perceived scope of a change project as a moderating variable as it is likely
to influence the relationship between ARX and recipient’s resistance behaviour.
The moderating effect of the perceived scope of a change project
When recipients experience a high level of unfamiliarity and novelty within a change project,
the need for communication and participation with the change agent is higher than usual (Bhal,
Bhaskar & Ratnam, 2009). High levels of positive and supportive communication are characteristics
of high-quality leader-member exchanges, while restricted communication is more a characteristic of
poor quality leader-member exchanges. When recipients perceive the change project as more radical, a
lack of communication, and therefore a poor quality relationship, may lead to higher feelings of
anxiety, fear and stress among recipients in relation to more convergent change projects. These
feelings will result in more resistance behaviour of change recipients (Vakola & Nikolaou, 2005).
Thus, when recipients assess the scope of the change project as more radical than convergent,
knowledge sharing and high-quality exchanges between the agent and recipients will become more
important in order to prevent or reduce chaos, uncertainty and resistance behaviour.
In brief, the perceived scope of a change project is expected to influence the negative relationship between ARX and recipients’ resistance behaviour in that the relationship becomes more
negative. This means that when recipients perceive the scope of the change as large, resistance
14
of a change project will negatively moderate the negative effect of ARX on recipients’ resistance
behaviour (Figure 1). Our final hypothesis is:
Hypothesis 3. The perceived scope of a change project will negatively moderate the relationship between agent-recipient exchange and recipients’ resistance behaviour.
Now that the relevant theory of this study is reviewed and the related hypotheses are
explained, the next part will elaborate on the research method that is used to test the above-formulated
hypotheses.
15
METHODOLOGY
Data collection and sample description
In order to examine and test our formulated hypotheses, a quantitative study has been
conducted with both secondary and primary data. Data were obtained from different change projects in
different companies. Every change project consisted of 1 change agent, who directed the change
project, and at least 1 change recipient. Via personal network, agents and recipients were asked if they
agreed to participate in this study. The agents and the corresponding recipients had to fill in a
multi-item online questionnaire. The link to the online survey and the individual participation code was sent
to them by email. The agents and the recipients are part of a vertical dyad and received both different
questionnaires, one specific for the agent and one specific for the recipient.
In this study, we complemented the secondary data with 8 new change projects, including 63 respondents, following the same procedures. Our final database consists of 125 change projects in 97
companies. The database includes a great variety of change projects, from a cultural change to the
implementation of a new IT system. In total, 125 change agents and 421 change recipients participated
in our study.
Of the agents 36 (28.8%) were female, and 89 (71.2%) were male. The agents were in the age
between 21 and 61 years, with a mean age of 44 years (M = 43.57, SD = 10.53). The work experience
of the agents in their current role and organisation ranged from less than 1 year to 33 years, with a
mean of 7.60 years (SD = 7.08). The general work experience of the agents ranged from less than 1
year to 43 years, with a mean of 18.88 years (SD = 10.80). The education levels of the agents differed
from primary school to secondary school to polytechnic and/or university degree: 3 agents finished
primary school (2.4%), 17 finished secondary school (13.6%), 103 graduated polytechnic and/or
university (82.4%) and there were 2 agents (1.6%) who noted their education level as ‘different’.
Of the recipients 184 (43.7%) were female, and 237 (56.3%) were male. The recipients were
in the age between 19 and 64 years, with a mean age of 40 years (M = 39.78, SD = 11.81). The work
experience of the recipients in their current role and organisation ranged from less than 1 year to 41
years, with a mean of 7.79 years (SD = 7.41). The general work experience of the recipients ranged
16
recipients differed from primary school to secondary school to polytechnic and/or university degree:
40 recipients only finished primary school (9.5%), 142 finished secondary school (33.7%), 228
graduated polytechnic and/or university (54.2%) and there were 10 recipients (2.4%) who noted their
education level as ‘different’.
Measurements
The measures used in this study are adapted from existing validated scales from literature. We
used a 7-point Likert-scale to measure our variables. This scale is anchored from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (7).
Agent-Recipient Exchange (ARX)
To measure this variable, we used an adapted version of the LMSX scale of Bernerth et al. (2007). This variable consists of eight items and therefore eight questions. We asked every individual
recipient how they perceive the quality of the relationship with their agent. We also asked these
questions to the agents about the relationship with their recipients.
Recipients’ resistance behaviour
Our measure of this variable is based on Oreg (2006). Oreg (2006) suggests a 17-item scale
which consists of affective, behavioural and cognitive resistance dimensions. In this study, we focused
on the behavioural scale (for further explanation see theory section: recipients’ resistance behaviour)
of Oreg (2006). The behavioural scale originally consisted of 5-items. Because one of these items
seemed more like a cognitive item and another was overly positive, we used 3 of the 5 items. In this
study, we will only look at recipients’ resistance behaviour perceived by the recipients.
The dyadic dispersion of ARX
The difference between both the perception of the agent in relation to the perception of the
recipient, regarding ARX, is called the dyadic dispersion of ARX (Gooty & Yammarino, 2013). To
construct this variable, we used the eight items of ARX from both perspectives. To come up with the
difference between the agent and their recipients we manually put the perception of the agent in
addition to the perceptions of the recipients. The dyadic part can be explained by the fact that we made
17
used in relation to one specific recipient and after that the same agent is used again in relation to the
other individual recipients. After all the recipients were related to their specific agent, we calculated
the new variable, the dyadic dispersion of ARX, by calculating the perception of the agent minus the
perception of the recipient. On a continuum, this means that a high dyadic dispersion identifies that the
agents perceive the quality of the relationship with their recipients as higher than the recipients while a
low dyadic dispersion means that agents perceive the quality of the relationship as lower than their
recipients.
Perceived scope of a change project
To measure this variable, we used the 10 items of Vos and Brand (2012). These items measure
the perceived scope of a change project, distinguished in depth and breadth. In this study, we used the
perceptual depth and breadth of a change project perceived by the recipients. The part on breadth consists of four items and therefore four questions. The part on depth consists of six items and
therefore six questions.
Control variables
In order to exclude the possibility that there are other variables, other than ARX and the
dyadic dispersion of ARX, who will influence recipients’ resistance behaviour, we included some
control variables. In this study, we first considered the impact of age and gender. Both parties, agents
and recipients, answered these demographic questions. We also included two questions about the
tenure of the recipients. One question about the work experience in their current role and organisation
(experience 1) and one question about their general work experience (experience 2).
Construct development
In order to check for discriminant validity within and between the items of our main variables,
we conducted a factor analysis. A factor analysis aims to check for underlying dimensions within
variables and interdependencies between variables (Hair, Anderson, Tatham & Black, 2010).
First, a Principal Component analysis was conducted from the recipients’ perspective of ARX, recipients’ resistance behaviour and the perceived scope of a change project, which consists of
18
analysis. Based on Hair et al. (2010) and Sharma (1996) a cut-off value of .4 was used. The conditions
for this first analysis were met (KMO = .85 and Bartlett’s test = .00) and indeed resulted in 3 factors. The Cronbach’s Alphas of ARX (.92), recipients’ resistance behaviour (.76) and the perceived scope
of a change project (.82) were all above the minimum value (.7), which shows a sufficient to high
valued internal reliability (Nunnally, 1978). For the preliminary results of the complete analyses, see
Appendix B.
We also performed a Principal Component analysis from the agents’ perspective of ARX. In
this analysis, we extracted 1 component. The conditions for this second analysis were met (KMO = .84 and Bartlett’s test = .00) and indeed resulted in 1 component. The results show that one item (ARX_1)
did not load on the other items (ARX_2 to ARX_8). Therefore, we deleted this item. The Cronbach’s
Alpha of ARX perceived by the agents (.88) is above the minimum value (.7) and shows a high valued internal reliability (Nunnally, 1978). For the preliminary results of the complete analysis, see
19
RESULTSDescriptive statistics
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics of our main variables constructed above. As can be
seen, there is a difference between ARX perceived by the agents and ARX perceived by the recipients.
An unpaired t-test shows that the difference between agents (M = 4.77, SD = 1.02, N = 125) and
recipients (M = 4.41, SD = 1.15, N = 421) regarding ARX is significant (t = 3.15, p = .00 < .05). This
means that the agents perceive the quality of the relationship slightly higher than the recipients.
TABLE 1
Main descriptive statistics of all the variables
N M SD Min Max
Recipients’ resistance behaviour 421 2.78 1.43 1 7 ARX recipients 421 4.41 1.15 1 7
ARX agents 125 4.77 1.02 1 7
Dyadic dispersion of ARX 421 0.35 1.50 -4 5 Perceived scope of a change project 421 4.45 1.06 1 7
After conducting the descriptive statistics, we performed a Pearson Correlation Analysis
between all our control variables, our independent variable (recipients’ resistance behaviour), our two
dependent variables (ARX and the dyadic dispersion of ARX) and our moderator variable (the
perceived scope of a change project). A correlation analysis gives an initial insight in whether and to
which degree the variables are related, and thus correlate, in line with our hypotheses. The results of
this analysis are shown in Table 2. In line with our first hypothesis, ARX perceived by the recipients
correlates negatively with recipients’ resistance behaviour. In addition, the dyadic dispersion of ARX
does not correlate with recipients’ resistance behaviour, which is contradictory to our second
hypothesis. Furthermore, the results of this correlation analysis show that our moderator variable, the
perceived scope of a change project, correlates positively with our dependent variable, recipients’
resistance behaviour. Remarkably, we also found positive correlations between the two experience
variables and recipients’ resistance behaviour. Also, the two independent variables, ARX perceived by
the recipients and the dyadic dispersion of ARX are negatively correlated with each other. Because
20
correlation was high, this test indicated that multicollinearity was not a problem (ARX recipients,
Tolerance = .43 and VIF = 2.32; Dyadic dispersion of ARX, Tolerance = .44 and VIF = 2.2).
TABLE 2
Correlation analysis between the control variables, recipients’ resistance behaviour, ARX and the perceived scope of a change project
Testing hypotheses
To test our formalized hypotheses, a multiple linear regression analysis has been conducted.
To make sure the whole regression model will not change, when all the different variables are
included, we performed the regression analysis with different models to check for the consistency
factor. Hence, we first added our control variables to control for other influences than our main independent variables. After that, we included our first independent variable, ARX, and tested
hypothesis 1. After that, we included our second independent variable, the dyadic dispersion of ARX,
and tested hypothesis 2. Finally, we also included our moderator variable, the perceived scope of a
change project, in our regression analysis to test hypothesis 3.
Hypothesis 1
In order to test if ARX, perceived by the recipients, influences recipients’ resistance
behaviour, we conducted a linear regression analysis. The results of this test are shown in Table 3. The
regression (model 2) tested significant (F = 5.16, p = .00) and explained 5.9% of the variance of recipients’ resistance behaviour. As expected, the results show a significant negative relationship
between ARX perceived by recipients and recipients’ resistance behaviour (B = -.17, t = -3.62,
N M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 Gender1 421 1.44 0.50 -
2 Age 419 39.59 12.10 -.08 -
3 Experience 1 420 7.79 7.41 .00 .54** - 4 Experience 2 421 17.58 11.33 -.04 .89** .56** - 5 Recipients’ resistance behaviour 421 2.78 1.43 -.07 .10 .15** .11* (.76) 6 ARX recipients 421 4.41 1.15 -.00 -.11* -.08 -.09 -.18** (.92) 7 Dyadic dispersion of ARX 421 .35 1.50 .04 -.01 .01 -.03 .07 -.74** - 8 Perceived scope of the change
project
421 4.45 1.06 -.03 .14** .12* .13** .13** .05 -.88 (.82)
1 Dummy coded, 1 = male, 2 = female. *p < .05, ** p < .01 (two-tailed).
21
p = .00 < .05). As expected, this suggests that the higher the recipients perceive the quality of the
agent-recipient exchange, the less resistance behaviour of recipients.
Hypothesis 2
In order to test if the dyadic dispersion of ARX influences recipients’ resistance behaviour, we
conducted a linear regression analysis. The results are shown in Table 3. The regression (model 3)
tested significant (F = 4.62, p = .00) and explained 6.3% of the variance of recipients’ resistance
behaviour. However, the dyadic dispersion of ARX was not significant related to recipients’ resistance
behaviour (B = -.10, t = -1.37, p = .17 > .05). Therefore, we cannot confirm that the higher the dyadic
dispersion of ARX, the more resistance behaviour of recipients.
Hypothesis 3
In order to test if the perceived scope of a change project will negatively moderate the relationship between ARX and recipients’ resistance behaviour, we conducted a linear regression
analysis. Before testing this hypothesis, we created a mean centred variable of both our moderator
variable and our independent variable ARX. Next, we multiplied both mean centred variables and
computed the moderator variable (ARX_scope). The results are shown in Table 3. The regression
(model 4) tested significant (F = 4.22, p = .00) and explained 7.6% of the variance of recipients’
resistance behaviour. The results show a significant positive relationship between the scope of a
change project and recipients’ resistance behaviour (B = .11, t = 2.26, p = .02 < .05). However, the
perceived scope of a change project is not significantly moderating the relationship between ARX and recipients’ resistance behaviour (B = -.03, t = -.63, p = .53 > .05). Therefore, we cannot confirm that
recipients who perceive the scope of the change as large, will show more resistance behaviour when
22
TABLE 3Regression analyses of the control variables, ARX perceived by recipients, the dyadic dispersion of ARX and the perceived scope of a change project on recipient’s resistance behaviour (M=421)
1
Dummy coded, 1 = male, 2 = female. *p < .05, ** p < .01 (two-tailed).
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
B SE T p B SE t p B SE t p B SE t p Constant 7.67 .00** 8.34 .00** 4.50 .00** 3.14 .00** Gender1 - .07 .14 -1.42 .16 - .07 .14 -1.51 .13 - .07 .14 -1.45 .15 - .07 .14 -1.39 .17 Age - .07 .01 - .62 .54 - .09 .01 - .86 .39 - .09 .01 - .85 .40 - .09 .01 - .91 .36 Experience 1 .13 .01 2.24 .03* .13 .01 2.17 .03* .13 .01 2.17 .03* .12 .01 2 .07 .04* Experience 2 .09 .01 .87 .38 .10 .01 .96 .34 .09 .01 .87 .38 .09 .01 .87 .39 ARX_Recipients - .17 .06 -3.62 .00** - .25 .09 -3.45 .00**
Dyadic dispersion of ARX - .10 .07 -1.37 .17 - .09 .07 1.20 .23
23
DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION
Discussion of the results
The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of ARX on recipients’ resistance
behaviour and the moderating effect of the perceived scope of a change project. In addition, we
investigated the dyadic dispersion of ARX on the resistance behaviour of recipients. The results of our
tests show some interesting findings.
According to hypothesis 1, we can conclude that the higher the quality of the agent-recipient
relationship, the less resistance behaviour of recipients. This finding is in line with the argument of
Ford et al. (2008: 372), in which he states that resistance behaviour can be seen as ‘a function of
participant interactions that shape and are shaped by the nature and quality of the agent-recipient
relationship’. Therefore, we assume that it is important for recipients to perceive a high-quality relationship with their agent in order to reduce resistance behaviour.
The results for the second hypothesis showed that, the dyadic dispersion of ARX was not
related to recipients’ resistance behaviour. This suggests that the difference between the agent and
recipients regarding ARX does not influence recipients’ resistance behaviour. Because the ARX
perception of the recipients does influence recipients’ resistance behaviour (hypothesis 1), this study
suggests that the ARX perception of the recipients might be more important than the ARX perception
of the agent regarding resistance behaviour. This can be explained by Yammarino and Dubinsky
(1992), who argue that perceived similarity in relationships is more important than actual similarity in
relationships. So the agent agreeing upon a high-quality relationship does not have an influence on the
resistance behaviour of a recipient. However, ascribed above, the perception of the quality of the
relationship from the recipient itself does. The work experience of the recipients may also explain the
insignificant relationship between the dyadic dispersion of ARX and recipients’ resistance behaviour.
First, we found a significant positive relationship between experience 1 (the work experience of the
recipients in their current role and organisation) and recipients’ resistance behaviour. This means that
the longer recipients work in their current role and organisation, the more they will show resistance
behaviour. Further, our results show that without both our experiences variables (general work
24
dispersion of ARX on recipients’ resistance behaviour changed (from p = .23 to p = .07). This suggests
that there might be an influence of the experience of the recipients on the insignificant relationship
between the dyadic dispersion of ARX and recipients’ resistance behaviour. Further research is needed
to arrive at a better understanding of the relations that might exist between work experience, the
dyadic dispersion of ARX and resistance behaviour. In addition, the insignificant effect could also be
explained by our data. In change projects with more than 1 recipient, the perception of the agent was
used more than once for every individual recipient. However, the questions on ARX out of the agents’
survey were based on all the recipients together. Straightening this distorted ratio regarding the agents’
ARX items can be interesting for future research, as discussed below.
Contrary to hypothesis 3, the relationship between ARX and recipients’ resistance behaviour
was not moderated by the perceived scope of a change project. However, the results show a direct positive relationship between the perceived scope of a change project and recipients’ resistance
behaviour. This finding is supported by Rafferty and Griffin (2006) and Johnson (2016) who argue
that a high level of novelty within a change project can have a large impact on change recipients,
which increases feelings of threat and uncertainty and will lead to more resistance behaviour. Also,
Pardo del Val and Fuentes (2003) found that recipients will show more resistance behaviour when
they perceive the change as radical. Although this direct relationship seems clear, the perceived scope
of a change project does not influence the relationship between ARX and recipients’ resistance
behaviour. A reason for this could be that the relationship between ARX and recipients’ resistance
behaviour is equally relevant in both small, moderate and large change projects. Apparently, to reduce
resistance behaviour, the quality of the relationship needs to be high in every type of change project.
Theoretical contributions
This study provided a negative relationship between ARX and recipients’ resistance behaviour
during change projects. This finding complements the change management literature by implementing
the LMX theory (Bernerth et al., 2007) and connecting this theory with resistance behaviour. As far as
we know, the theory of LMX is relatively unknown in the change management literature and is often
25
to the theoretical study of Ford et al. (2008), on the importance of interaction, communication and
relationships in change projects, and provides quantitative results about the importance of ARX on
resistance behaviour.
This study further highlights a perceptual difference between the agent and recipients
regarding ARX, but implies that this differences is not significantly related to resistance behaviour. It
is notable that this empirical finding is in contrast with our theoretical findings and expectations
(Cogliser et al., 2009). Therefore, this finding gives a new insight about recipients’ resistance
behaviour in that the perception of recipients regarding ARX might be more important than the
perception of the agent regarding ARX. In order to confirm this, further empirical research is needed.
Last, to our knowledge, this was the first study in change management who compared
different types of change projects and included the perceived scope of a change project as a moderating variable. Although we did not find a moderating effect of the perceived scope of a change
project, our results indicated that the perceived scope of a change project has a direct positive effect on
resistance behaviour, which confirms earlier research of Pardo del Val and Fuentes (2003). Not
finding this moderating effect, but finding a direct relationship provides existing theory with more
insight and knowledge concerning the importance of a high-quality relationship in order to reduce
resistance behaviour in every type of change project.
Managerial implications
This study also provides some implications for practice. An obvious implication of this study
is that a high-quality relationship between the agent and recipients, perceived by recipients, is of real
importance in order to reduce resistance behaviour. Therefore, agents and other managers should focus
on the perception of recipients regarding ARX. They have to investigate how recipients perceive their
relationship in order to increase the quality of this relationship. They can realize this by engaging in
dialogue with the recipients, asking them how they perceive a high-quality relationship and what they
need to increase the quality. In short, agents and managers should pay attention to really listen to the
relational wishes and needs of their recipients in order to optimize the quality of the relationship
26
end, by reducing resistance behaviour agents and managers will be one step closer in reducing the high
failure rate of change projects (Burnes & Jackson, 2011).
Limitations and future research directions
This study also has a number of limitations which suggests further options for future research
directions. First, the focus of this study was on the behavioural dimension of resistance and we,
therefore, neglected the cognitive and affective components (Oreg, 2006; Piderit, 2000). It is possible
that recipients do not show resistance behaviour, while they may experience resistance feelings or
thoughts (Oreg, 2006). To come up with a better understanding of the relationships between resistance
and its antecedents and to cover the complexity of resistance, we recommend future research to
include the whole multidimensional model of resistance.
Second, for testing true causal relationships between variables, a longitudinal research design
is required. Because we performed a cross-sectional study, we cannot confirm a causal relationship.
We recommend future research to conduct a longitudinal research design to predict and explain causal
relationships between our variables.
Third, our 125 change projects are all operating in different industries. It may be that some of
our relationships are present in specific industries, but cannot be found when all industries are taken
together. To investigate if there are differences between the different industries and to look for
significant relationships, we recommend future research to test our hypotheses by each specific
industry.
Additionally, we only included change projects of Dutch organisations, with Dutch agents and
recipients, in our study. However, different countries do have different values, behaviours and work
ethics (Hofstede, 2001). These differences can influence the way agents and recipients interact with
each other, how agents and recipients interpret the quality of their relationship and, therefore, the
relationship between ARX and recipients’ resistance behaviour. To come up with more generalizable
results, we recommend future research to include change projects of organisations in other countries or
27
Finally, our study provided some remarkable results. We found, for example, an insignificant relationship between the dyadic dispersion of ARX and recipients’ resistance behaviour. In order to
achieve more valid results about the difference between the agent and their recipients regarding ARX,
we recommend future research to include individual related questions of ARX per recipient into the
questionnaire of the agent. However, a limitation of this approach would be the extensive amount of
time to let the agent rate the quality of the relationship with each individual recipient. In addition, we
miss context information about why the dyadic dispersion of ARX seems unrelated to recipients’
resistance behaviour and why the perceived scope of a change project is not moderating the
relationship between ARX and recipients’ resistance behaviour. Unfortunately, quantitative studies are
not sufficient to explain the ‘why’ of all our unexpected results. We, therefore, recommend a more
qualitative study to investigate and clarify some of our unexpected and remarkable results.
To conclude, this study shows that a high-quality relationship between the agent and recipients
is of real importance in order to reduce recipients’ resistance behaviour during change projects.
Although the dyadic dispersion of ARX was not related to recipients’ resistance behaviour and the
moderating effect of the perceived scope of a change project could not be determined, we still found
28
REFERENCESBartunek, J. M. (1993). Rummaging behind the scenes of organisational change – and finding
role transitions, illness and physical space. Research in Organisational Change and
Development, 7, 41-76.
Balogun, J., & Hope Hailey, V. (2008). Exploring strategic change (3rd ed.). London: Prentice Hall.
Bernerth, J. B., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., Giles, W. F., & Walker, H. J. (2007). Leader member
social exchange (LMSX): Development and validation of a scale. Journal of Organisational
Behaviour, 28, 979-1003.
Bhal, K. T., Bhaskar, A. U., & Ratnam, C. S. V. (2009). Employee reactions to M&A: Role of LMX
and leader communication. Leadership & Organisation Development Journal, 30(7), 604-624.
Bovey, W. H., & Hede, A. (2001). Resistance to organizational change: The role of defense mechanisms. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16(7), 534-548.
Brower, H. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Tan, H. H. (2000). A model of relational leadership: The
integration of trust and leader–member exchange. The Leadership Quarterly, 11, 227-250.
Burnes, B. (2015). Understanding resistance to change – building on Coch and French. Journal of
Change Management, 15(2), 92-116.
Burnes, B., & Jackson, P. (2011). Success and failure in organisational change: An exploration of the
role of values. Journal of Change Management, 11(2), 133-162.
Cawsey, T., Deszca, G., & Ingols, C. (2012). Organisational change: An action-oriented toolkit
(3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Cogliser, C. C., Schriesheim, C. A., Scandura, T. A., & Gardner, W. L. (2009). Balance in leader and
follower perceptions of leader–member exchange: Relationships with performance and work
attitudes. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), 452-465.
Dam, K. van, Oreg, S., & Schyns, B. (2008). Daily work contexts and resistance to organisational
change: The role of leader-member exchange, perceived development climate and change
process characteristics. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57(2), 313-334.
Dent, E., & Goldberg, S. (1999). Challenging “resistance to change”. Journal of Applied Behavioural
29
Echterhoff, G., Higgins, E. T., & Levine, J. M. (2009). Shared reality: Experiencing commonality with others’ inner states about the world. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(5), 496-521.
Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (2010). Stop blaming resistance to change and start using it. Organisational
Dynamics, 39(1), 24-36.
Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & D’Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change: The rest of the story. Academy
of Management Review, 33(2), 362-377.
Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & McNamara, R. (2002). Resistance and the background conversations of
change. Journal of Organisational Change Management, 15(1), 105-121.
Furst, S. A., & Cable, D. M. (2008). Employee resistance to organisational change: Managerial
influence tactics and leader–member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 453-462.
Georgalis, J., Samaratunge, R., Kimberley, N., & Lu, Y. (2015). Change process characteristics and resistance to organisational change: The role of employee perceptions of justice. Australian
Journal of Management, 40(1), 89-113.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory:
Correlates and construct ideas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 827-844.
Gooty, J., & Yammarino, F. J. (2010). Dyads in organisational research: Conceptual issues and
multilevel analyses. Organisational Research Methods, 14(3), 456-483.
Gooty, J., & Yammarino, F. J. (2013). The leader-member exchange relationship: A multisource,
cross-level investigation. Journal of Management, 42(4), 915-935.
Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7nd ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviours, institutions and
organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hwang, Y., Al-Arabiat, M., Rouibah, K., & Chung, J.Y. (2016). Toward an integrative view for the
leader-member exchange of system implementation. International Management of Information
Management, 36(6), 976-986.
Johnson, K. J. (2016). The dimensions and effects of excessive change. Journal of
30
Jones, S. L., & Ven, A. H. van de (2016). The changing nature of change resistance: An examination
of the moderating impact of time. The Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 52(4), 482-506.
Lines, R. (2004). Influence of participation in strategic change: Resistance, organisational
commitment and change goal achievement. Journal of Change Management, 4(3), 193-215.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-hill.
Oreg, S. (2006). Personality, context, and resistance to organisational change. European Journal of
Work and Organisational Psychology, 15(1), 73–101.
Oreg, S., & Berson, Y. (2011). Leadership and employees’ reactions to change: The role of leaders’
personal attributes and transformational leadership style. Personnel Psychology, 64, 627-654.
Oreg, S., Vakola, M., & Armenakis, A. A. (2011). Change recipients’ reactions to organisational
change: A sixty-year review of quantitative studies. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 47, 461-524.
Pardo del Val, M., & Fuentes, C. M. (2003). Resistance to change: A literature review and empirical
study. Management Decision, 41(2), 148-155.
Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of
attitudes toward an organisational change. Academy of Management Review, 25, 783-794.
Pieterse, J. H., Caniels, M. C. J., & Homan, T. (2012). Professional discourses and resistance to
change. Journal of Organisational Change Management, 25, 798-818.
Plowman, D. A., Baker, L. T., Beck, T. E., Kulkarni, M., Solansky, S. T., & Travis, D.V. (2007).
Radical change accidentally: The emergence and amplification of small change. Academy of
Management Journal, 50(3), 515-543.
Rafferty, A. E., & Griffin, M. A. (2006). Perceptions of organisational change: A stress and coping
perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1154-1162.
Rogulic, D. (2013). Towards understanding agent-recipient exchange during change projects: A
bilateral study on the influence of change-recipients exchange on change effectiveness [online].
Available from: http://scripties.feb.eldoc.ub.rug.nl.proxyub.rug.nl/root/bdk/
31
Sasikala, S., & Anthonyraj, V. S. (2015). Self-efficacy, emotional intelligence and organisational
commitment in relation to resistance to change among employees. Annamalai International
Journal of Business Studies & Research, special issue, 30-35.
Sharma, S. (1996). Applied multivariate techniques (1st ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
Shin, J., Seo, M. G., Shapiro, D. L., & Taylor. M. S. (2015). Maintaining employees’ commitment to organisational change: The role of leaders’ informational justice and transformational
leadership. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 51(4), 501-528.
Street, C. T., & Gallupe, R. B. (2009). A proposal for operationalizing the pace and scope of
organisational change in management studies. Organisational Research Methods, 12(4),
720-737.
Thomas, R., & Hardy, C. (2011). Reframing resistance to organisational change. Scandinavian
Journal of Management, 27(3), 322-331.
Vakola, M., & Nikolaou, I. (2005). Attitudes towards organizational change: What is the role of
employees’: Stress and commitment? Employee Relations, 25(2), 160-174.
Vos, J. F. J., & Brand, M. J. (2012). How do change agents in SMEs approach change? A
cross-sectional study into change projects within Dutch SMEs. Paper presented at the Euram
conference, Rotterdam.
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organisational support and
leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Acadamy of Management Journal, 40,
82-111.
Woodman, R., & Dewett, T. (2004). Organisationally relevant journeys in individual change. In M. S.
Poole, & A. H. van de Ven (Eds.), Handbook of Organisational Change and Innovation (pp.
32-49). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Yammarino, F. J., & Dubinsky, A. J. (1992). Superior-subordinate relationships: A multiple
levels of analysis approach. Human Relations, 45, 575-600.
32
Zhou, X. T., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2010). Quantitative and qualitative examination of propositions
concerning supervisor–subordinate convergence in descriptions of leader–member exchange
