The middle manager as change agent
-Influence of change leadership behavior, social norm and self-efficacy on readiness for change-
Master Thesis, MscBA, specialization Change Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
September 22, 2012
MARTIJN HUTTENHUIS Studentnumber:1790528
Postweg 47a 7587 PC De Lutte tel.:+31 (0)651323757
email: martijn.huttenhuis@gmail.com
Supervisor/ university Dr. C. (Cees) Reezigt
Second supervisor/ university Drs. H.P. (Heleen) van Peet
Supervisor/ field of study Bianca Meekers Gemeente Zwolle, Zwolle
Acknowledgments: I would like to thank my family for supporting and motivating me
during the last two year of my master. Besides, I would like to thank Cees Reezigt for the
support and opportunity to write this thesis. Finally, I would like to thank Bianca
Meekers for giving me the opportunity to conduct this research at Gemeente Zwolle.
Abstract
During organizational change middle managers more often get involved as agents of change. They need to bring the change and vision to group and individual level and help their employees embrace and implement the change. Therefore this study investigates the influence middle managers have on their subordinates’ readiness for change in relation to social and personal influences at a Dutch municipality. The relationships were examined by measuring a tridimensional construct of readiness for change, a two-dimensional construct of change leadership behaviors, group norm, group identity and change self- efficacy. However, different dimensions for readiness for change and change leadership were found. Findings showed that change leadership behaviors and change self-efficacy beliefs had a significant positive effect on employees’ readiness for change and significant negative effect on cynicism to change. No effects were found for social influence. Change self-efficacy even showed a stronger effect on readiness for change than change leadership behaviors. This research concludes that middle managers need to pay attention to their change leadership behaviors but most look at individual differences of change recipients and create individualized interventions, for example to bolster efficacy beliefs.
Keywords: Middle management, change leadership, readiness for change, group norm,
group identity, change self-efficacy.
Table of Content
Introduction... 4
Process of change... 5
Context of change. ... 5
Individual characteristics. ... 6
The company under study... 7
Theory ... 8
Attitudes towards change... 9
Readiness for change ... 10
Change leadership... 12
Social influence... 15
Change self-efficacy ... 18
Conceptual model ... 20
Methodology ... 20
Participants... 20
Measures ... 22
Control variables... 22
Dependent variables... 22
Independent variables. ... 23
Data analysis ... 24
Factor analysis. ... 24
Correlations analysis... 26
Hierarchical regression analysis. ... 27
Results ... 27
Change leadership... 28
Group norm... 28
Interaction effect. ... 29
Change self-efficacy ... 29
Discussion... 30
Change leadership... 30
Change self-efficacy ... 32
Social influence... 32
Implication for Zwolle ... 33
Limitation & further research ... 34
Conclusion ... 35
References... 36
Appendix... 46
Appendix A: Survey (Dutch & English)... 46
Appendix B : Factor and reliability analysis... 48
Appendix C : Regression analysis assumptions check ... 53
Introduction
Few organizations can avoid big periodic changes in the dynamic environment they operate in these days. Whatever the cause; a tough macroeconomic environment, increasing costs, competitive struggles or just a desire to improve operations, most responses to change are familiar and start at the top of an organization. Top management determines the strategic course of the organization and more often the middle and front managers are the change agents that have to implement these changes (Gilley, McMillan,
& Gilley, 2009). The middle managers need to bring the new vision and change down into the organization and help their employees to embrace the change. However, successful organizational change is still a utopia. Research by Mckinsey reveals that only one-third of the organizational change efforts were considered successful by their leaders (Meaney & Pung, 2008). Among change management researchers broad agreement consist that successful organizational change does not occurs unless individuals change (Armenakis, Harris, & Mossholder, 1993; Kotter, 1995; Lines, 2005; Piderit, 2000). By changing their behaviors, values, processes and frameworks they decide to make the organizational change a success. Thus, successful implementation of organizational change depends largely on how employees react to the change and its implementation process. (Piderit, 2000). Crucial for an employees’ reaction in the change process is the formation of attitudes towards change, especially because attitudes may be extremely difficult to alter during the change process (Lines, 2005). But what shapes peoples’
attitudes and reactions towards change and what role do middle and front line managers have in it?
Researchers have tried to categorize the elements that shape employees attitudes
towards change (Armenakis et al., 1993; Holt, Armenakis, Field, & Harris, 2007; Kotter,
1996; Lines, 2005; Oreg, Vakola, & Armenakis, 2011) and identified three factors that
have a major influence on attitudes towards change: (1) process of change, (2) context of
change and (3) individual characteristics.
Process of change. The role managers play in organizational change processes is vital to successful organizational change implementation (Armenakis et al., 1993; Gilley, 2005; Kotter, 1996). According to Gilley (2005) a manager’s inability to modify one’s management style and lack of understanding change implementation techniques are barriers to change success. In line with these are the inability to motivate others to change, poor communications skills, and failure of management to reward or recognize individuals who make the effort to change (Kotter, 1996). However, mastering the challenges of a change process should not be a specialist activity to be facilitated or driven by an expert, but be an increasingly part of every manager’s role (Carnall, 2003).
Thus for managers it is not enough to simply overcome employee resistance to change.
Successful organizational change depends on managers generating employee support and enthusiasm for the proposed change initiative (Armenakis et al., 1993; Piderit, 2000). In the last decade the role of middle management during change has shifted to facilitators and coaches of change, who can bring together and empower their team or group to indentify the need for change and achieve change. (Caldwell, 2003; Gill, 2002; Herold, Fedor, Caldwell, & Liu, 2008; Higgs & Rowland, 2000; 2005; 2011). This role puts more emphasis on effective change leadership behaviors and distinguish it from necessary change management aspects as planning, monitoring and control. Several researcher (Armenakis & Harris, 2009; Herold et al., 2008; Oreg et al., 2011) have addressed the need to further explore the relationship between local change agents’ actions and behaviors and change recipients’ attitudes and emotions associated with change. Lui (2010) even argued that the effects of change leadership behaviors have not been well tested with quantitative methods. Therefore this study aims to further explore the causal relationship between change leadership behavior of middle management and change recipients’ attitudes.
Context of change. The social context of an individual is seen as an important factor in determining one’s attitudes (Armenakis et al., 1993; Hogg & Smith, 2007;
Lines, 2005; Wood, 2000). Especially in more complex social settings that may include
interactions among participants, like organizational change (Wood, 2000). During
organizational change employees may look to one another for clues regarding the
meaning of the change and its impact on organization or team. Armenakis et al. (1993) argue that a change agent is not the only source of information regarding organizational change and that change agents’ actions will be shaped by social interpretation. The tradition perspective on social influence over the last 50 year is the distinction between normative and informational social influence (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955). People’s attitudes toward change are influenced by normative influence as they seek approval and want to conform to positive expectations of others in change situations. With informational influence people’s attitudes are influenced when they accept information on the change from others. However, Hogg & Smith (2007) argue that most studies of social influence on attitudes see it as a process of inter-individual influence. They suggest using normative attributes of social groups and intergroup relations to explain attitude change in social contexts. Furthermore, Bouckenooghe (2010) addressed the need to explore how collective attitudes about a specific change project affect the emergence of an individual’s attitudes towards change. Therefore this study aims to further explore the social influence of normative group behavior and intergroup relations on change recipients’ attitudes towards change.
Individual characteristics. A person’s beliefs in his or her ability to succeed in a
particular situation are determinants of how people feel, think and behave (Bandura,
1982). People commonly will avoid activities that they believe are beyond their coping
capabilities and will engage and perform in activities they perceive themselves
successful. These beliefs that one is able to cope with new tasks and situations is referred
to as self-efficacy (Bandura, 1982) and is vital in the creation of one’s attitudes towards
change (Armenakis et al., 1993). Employees who doubt their ability to cope with the
demands of a specific organizational change are likely to focus their attention on feelings
of incompetence, which will create stress and may result in a failure to deal with the
situation (Bandura, 1982). Thus, self-efficacy beliefs provide employees with a reflection
of the self and influences their attitudes. Armenakis & Harris (2009) argue that the
relationship between self-efficacy and emotional reactions to change need to be further
explored. They also recognize to need to investigate the relationship between change
recipients’ characteristics and reactions to organizational transformation. Therefore this
study aims to further investigate the relationship between change self-efficacy and change recipients’ attitudes.
The company under study
Gemeente Zwolle is the municipality of the city Zwolle and has around 1200 employees over 8 business units. Since 1989 the Gemeente Zwolle had 3 major organizational changes. The last change started in 2002 and formed the current organization structure, norms and values (FRIES); Flexibility, Result-oriented, Innovation, External orientation and Cooperation. This change intended to create a project organization with flatter organization structure and separation between strategy and operational work. In 2008 the change resulted in the Best employer non-profit award and in 2009 the Best local government employer award. These were all signs the change was successfully implemented and the organization was at a new level.
However, recent social developments like individualization and economic crisis have set the Gemeente Zwolle for new challenges. Local governments are expected to cooperate more with citizens and provide faster and more personal services. Whereas the national government decreases the founding for the municipalities, due to the crisis. To deal with these issues and to keep a head of further income cuts the Gemeente Zwolle wants to change to an organization with less managers and more self-managing employees. They want to operate with less financial means, more productive hours and better use of recourses. Therefore ‘De Nieuwe Ambtenaar’ (DNA) Zwolle program is created in 2011. This program should change the role of managers and employees and redefine their relationship. It is a behavioral change that revitalizes the FRIES values and coincides with other change processes like ‘Het Nieuwe Werken’ and general overhead reduction. The program should lead to inspired and self-managing employees in a result- oriented organization.
The DNA change program consists of three development interventions:
leadership, team and individual. Last year, may 2011, the change process started with
leadership development interventions and reduction of 50 managers. The remaining
managers were trained in a coaching leadership style. According to the trainers, coaching
leaders should have a vision on the development of their subordinates and department
and connect the organizational goals with the meaning at work. The next phase contains the development of team and individuals and starts during this study.
The purpose of this study is the get a deeper understanding of the effects of change leadership, social influence and change self-efficacy on change recipients’
attitudes towards change at the Gemeente Zwolle. The first goal is to get an understanding of the employees’ attitudes towards the DNA program and their antecedents. This will provide the Gemeente Zwolle insight in the change process, especially the role middle managers played, and will give indications for the development of the individual and team part. The second goal is to add academic knowledge for a better understanding of the role middle managers play in the change process. It aims to further exploration of the readiness construct and the influence of change leading theories, like Kotter, on the readiness of employees. Because employees’ attitudes towards change are seen as key elements for successful change it is important to investigate these relationships.
Research question:
To what extent do change leadership, social influence and change self-efficacy affect employees’ attitudes towards DNA Zwolle?
Theory
Everybody experiences situations and environments of change in a different way.
Some people associate it with a source of pleasantness or experience the benefits and
advantages of the change. Whereas other may feel it as a source of stress and anxiety or
experience the disadvantages of the change. Studies on organizational change have
attempted to identify these change experiences and attitudes towards change to explain
why and how individuals react to organizational change (Armenakis et al., 1993; Lines,
2005; Vakola, Tsaousis, & Nikolaou, 2004). Studies by Wanberg & Banas (2000), Jones,
Jimmieson & Griffiths (2005), Oreg (2006) and Neves (2009) demonstrate that these
attitudes towards change play a meaningful role to get a better understanding of the
organizational change process and organizational outcomes. However, reviews of
Bouckenooghe (2010) and Oreg et al. (2011) show that there is a wide variety in the perceptions and reactions people have towards change and the way scholars have tried to conceptualize these reactions. Concepts like resistance to change, readiness to change, commitment to change, openness to change and cynicism about organizational change all tap into the attitudes people have towards organizational change. Therefore we will first take a closer look at attitudes towards change and discuss the concept used in this study.
Attitudes towards change
Attitudes can been seen as a person’s evaluation of an entity in his or her environment and are held in a positive or negative manner. (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977;
Katz, 1960). The entity in question can be another person, physical object, behavior, policy or organizational change. According to Piderit (2000) attitudes towards organizational change can best be conceived as a tridimensional construct of cognitive, affective and intentional dimensions. Because reactions and behaviors to change differ during the stages of a change process these dimensions provide a better understanding of the ambivalence in attitudes during organizational change (George & Jones, 2001;
Piderit, 2000). For example, employees may belief the organizational change is an advantage though they simultaneously have bad feelings about it. On the other hand, employees may have positive feelings about the organizational change but do not intent to support the change because they lack resources to implement it or lack control and authority to make any changes. The three attitudes towards change dimensions will be discussed briefly below (Bouckenooghe, Devos, & Van, 2009; Elizur & Guttman, 1976;
Oreg, 2006; Piderit, 2000).
Cognitive attitudes towards change refer to an opinion or belief employees have about the organizational change. These vary from advantages or disadvantages of the change to the usefulness or necessity of it. A more positive belief might be that it is essential for the organization to survive. On the other hand a negative belief might be that it threatens the current job or work situation.
Affective attitudes towards change refer to feelings employees have about the
organizational change. Employees’ feelings may range from positive emotions such as
excitement, happiness and enthusiasm to more negative emotions like anger, fear and anxiety.
Intentional attitudes toward change refer to the actions employees have already taken or which will be taken in the future to support or resist the organizational change.
Positive intentions could be that employees would invest time in bringing the change to a success and convincing others of its advantages. Negative intentions could be that employees complain about the change and try to sabotage the change process.
The field of attitudes towards change is dominated by the negative term resistance to change and the positive term readiness for change. Coch & French (1948) were one of the first to mention negative attitudes towards change as they addressed ways to overcome resistance to change. The positive term readiness for change was introduced about 10 years later by Jacobson (1957), but both have dominated the field since.
However, according to Bouckenooghe (2010) the majority of the research published before the 90’s addressed a negative view on change and has been partly responsible for the limited progress organizational change research made past 50 years. The negative view holds an idea that most change recipients always resist change and that one should overcome these problems of resistance to successfully implement changes. However, the positive view is more concerned with identifying factors that enable opportunities for improvement, motivate change recipients to perform at a higher level and facilitate employees’ attitudes towards change. Furthermore, the mindset of a positive view on attitudes towards change is more in line with the today’s view on management and leadership to inspire, motivate and transform people (Bass, 1985). Therefore we will use the positive attitude readiness for change in this study.
Readiness for change
The most used definition of readiness for change in today’s change management
literature stems from Armenakis et al. (1993). They define readiness for change as: “the
beliefs, feelings, and intentions regarding the extent to which changes are needed and
perceptions of individuals and organizational capacity to successfully make those
changes” (Armenakis et al., 1993:681) and see it inline with Lewin’s (1951) concept of
unfreezing. Both concepts focus on a cognitive process to change the organizational
member’s belief and attitudes so that they perceive the change as necessary. Armenakis et al. (1993) even defined readiness for change as the cognitive precursor to the behaviors of either resistance or support for the change effort. However, they make a clear distinction between positive (readiness) and negative (resistance) but the core of their definition does not address emotional and intentional attitudes towards change. The definition of readiness for change by Bouckenooghe et al. (2009) better suites the tridimensional construct of attitudes towards change. They conceived readiness for change as a multidimensional concept that comprises the three attitude dimensions, emotional, cognitive and intentional dimension of change. Specifically they define:
“emotional readiness for change is the affective reactions toward change, cognitive readiness for change is the beliefs and thoughts people hold about the change, and intentional readiness for change is the extent to which employees are prepared to put energy into the change process” (p.599). Therefore their definition of readiness for change is used in this research.
Employees’ readiness for change is seen as one the most important aspects organizations have to create for successful implement a change. According to Armenakis et al. (1993) the main reason why organizations fail in their attempts to manage change successfully is a lack of readiness for change. Organizations are thus increasingly reliant on generating employee support and enthusiasm to be successful in organizational change instead of focusing on overcoming resistance (Piderit, 2000). As (Bouckenooghe et al., 2009:561) noted: “When readiness for change exist, the organization is set to embrace change and resistance is reduced. If organizational members are not ready, the change may be rejected and negative reactions could be initiated.” Studies by Cunningham et al.
(2002), Jones et al. (2005) and By (2007) provide support for the need of readiness for
change in successful organizational change. Cunningham et al. (2002) found that
employees with higher readiness scores participated in more re-engineering activities and
felt that they made a greater contribution to the organization’s redesign efforts. In line
with that, Jones et al. (2005) revealed that pre implementation levels of readiness for
change had a positive main effect on change implementation success. Therefore this
research will focus on the relationship between readiness for change and the behavior of
the change agent, social influence and self-efficacy. In the following sections the
antecedents and their relationship with the specific readiness for change attitudes is described and hypotheses are formulated.
Change leadership
Successful organizational change must be planned, organized, directed and controlled but most and for all it requires effective leadership behaviors to introduce change successfully. As Gill (2002:307) states: “it is leadership that makes the difference”. Change leadership behaviors can be seen as skills, strategies and actions of leaders to shape employees’ attitudes and behaviors towards change to increase effectiveness of the change implementation. (Gilley et al., 2009; Herold et al., 2008;
Higgs & Rowland, 2005; Kotter, 1996; Liu, 2010; Whelan-Berry & Somerville, 2010).
Most of the recommendations as to what leaders should do to successfully implement change has its roots in early work of Lewin (1951) where he conceptualized change as a process through phases called unfreezing, moving and refreezing. Later work of Kanter et al. (1992), Kotter (1996) and Galpin (1996) build on to this and have described multi- phase models and processes change agents should follow to successfully implement organizational change. Perhaps Kotter’s (1996) eight steps to successful change is the most cited an used one: 1. Establishing a sense of urgency, 2. Creating a guiding coalition, 3. Creating a vision and strategy, 4. Communicating the change, 5.
Empowering broad-based action, 6. Planning and creating short-term wins, 7.
Consolidating gains and 8. Institutionalizing change in organization. In line with Kotter’s findings other researchers identified a range of leadership behaviors and competences that are associated with successful change implementation.
Vision. Creation of a vision and communicating the need for change is seen as one of the most important aspects of successful change leadership (Armenakis et al., 1993;
Gill, 2002; Herold et al., 2008; Higgs & Rowland, 2011; Whelan-Berry & Somerville, 2010). According to Gill (2002) leadership of successful change requires vision, strategy and development of a culture that support the vision and strategy for change. By effectively engaging others in this process of creating a change vision and recognizing the need for change a case for change is build (Herold, Fedor, & Caldwell, 2007; Higgs
& Rowland, 2005). However, it is not always possible or wanted to engage other in this
process. Thus a successful change leader must be able communicate the vision to persuade and buy-in employees (Armenakis et al., 1993; Whelan-Berry & Somerville, 2010). Whelan-Berry & Somerville (2010) even stress that it is important for manager to move the vision to group and individual level to show how the change initiative will work in their department, team and individual roles and jobs.
Communication. Change related communication is seen as an important ability of change leadership and driver of change (Gilley, Dixon, & Gilley, 2008; Gilley et al., 2009; Whelan-Berry & Somerville, 2010). Change agents need to provide employees with regular two-way communication about the proposed change initiative and its implementation, discuss related success, concerns and challenges to increase acceptance and keep the momentum of change. (Rousseau & Tijoriwala, 1999; Whelan-Berry &
Somerville, 2010). According to Herold et al (2008) and Higgs & Rowland (2005) a manager can implement and sustain changes by developing effective plans and ensuring good monitoring, review and feedback practices regarding the change. Others address the importance of fair communication and its effect on positive attitudes and behaviors associated with successful change (Caldwell, Herold, & Fedor, 2004).
Participation. A manager’s ability to encourage employee participation and involvement in the change process is seen as critical to successful implementation of change. (Gilley et al., 2008; Herold et al., 2008; Higgs & Rowland, 2005; Whelan-Berry
& Somerville, 2010). Research by Wanberg & Banas (2000) revealed that employee participation and involvement in the change process has a positive impact on change implementation and positive attitude towards change.
Coaching. Furthermore, Gilley et al. (2008), Higgs & Rowland (2005) and Gill (2002) argue that change agents must by able to coach, facilitate and develop employees’
capability by ensuring that people are challenged to find their own answers during the change process and that they are supported in doing this. Coaching skills enable change agents to challenge the status quo, approach situations from new perspectives and allow others to make and learn form mistakes (Gilley et al., 2008).
High and Rowland (2005; 2011) have analyzed most of theses behaviors and
competences leaders most have to successfully implement change and came up with three
broad sets of change leadership behaviors that captures the essential differences in change agent behaviors: Shaping, Framing and Creating behavior.
Shaping behavior refers to the communication and actions of leaders related directly to the change and is leader centric focused. The manager controls what gets done by using his own experience and beliefs to shape and implement the change. This style relies heavily on the persuasive powers and skills of a manager.
Framing behavior refers to leaders that design and manage the journey for change by establish points for change that go beyond personal ambition and tune in to day-to-day reality. This style relies on an emotional connection for change and challenging others to deliver the change.
Creating capacity refer to leader who creating individual and organizational capabilities by making connections and coaching people to enable them to think and act differently. This style relies heavily on the coaching skills of a manager.
Based on Kotter (1996), Lui (2010) found two sets of leadership behaviors, change selling and change implementing behaviors. The change selling behaviors reflect leaders’ efforts to promote and sell a particular change to participants. Whereas the change implementing behaviors focus on behavior that move the change forward and consolidate success throughout the change processes. For this research the findings of Kotter (1996) and Liu (2010) will be used as dimensions for change leadership behavior.
The theory of Kotter (1996) prescribes that change leadership behaviors are expected to increase employees’ support to the change initiative. Thus, to successfully implement change a managers’ change behavior need to positively influence their subordinates’
attitudes to create the needed support.
A large number of articles in the change management literature have investigated
the influence of one of the behaviors mentioned above on employees’ attitude towards
change. However, few have studied the effect of an overarching set of change leadership
behaviors on employees’ readiness for change. Change leadership behaviors have only
been related to individual level topics, like employees’ commitment to change, and
management impressions of change success. Research by Herold et al. (2008) and Liu
(2010) only investigated a small section of a person’s reaction to change. They focused
on employees’ intentional attitudes towards change and studied changes that were either
just finished or almost completed. Similarly, the studies by Higgs & Roland (2000; 2005;
2011) used a retrospective recollection method to access change leadership behavior on successful organizational change. This research focuses on a change that has just started and therefore tapping into a persons’ current attitude and view of their managers’ change leadership behaviors. As attitudes differ from time to time it is hard to use retrospective methods and determine the effect of change leadership on people’s attitudes during change. Therefore this research tries to expand literature on change leadership by tapping into people’s current readiness for change attitudes and investigating if change leadership behaviors affect more than just intentional attitude towards change.
Hypotheses 1a: Change selling leadership behavior is positively correlated with emotional, cognitive and intentional readiness for change.
Hypotheses 1b: Change implementation leadership behavior is positively correlated with emotional, cognitive and intentional readiness for change.
Hypotheses 1c: A higher level of change selling leadership behavior will lead to a higher level of emotional, cognitive and intentional readiness for change.
Hypotheses 1d: A higher level of change implementing leadership behavior will lead to a higher level of emotional, cognitive and intentional readiness for change.
Social influence
Armenakis et al. (1993) and Lines (2005) argue that social influence plays an important role in creating employees attitudes towards change. Because organizations are dynamic social systems social interactions between individuals are frequent and intense.
This means that other organizational members particularly members of the same group,
coalition or department are relevant to the way people define themselves in a given social
context. Thus other organizational member’s perceptions, norms, values and evaluations
are likely to influence a person’s attitude formation (Hogg & Reid, 2006; Hogg & Smith,
2007; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Terry, Hogg, & White, 1999; Wood, 2000). According to
Hogg & Smith (2007) personal attitude formation may rest on the fact that a person
identifies or has identified with different groups and acquired attitudes that are normative
to these different groups. An employees’ readiness for change thus may be influenced by
the identification with a group and the beliefs, attitudes and intentions they have. This relationship between individual readiness for change and the group norm is best described by the social identity perspective, especially the self-categorization theory and referent informational influence theory (Hogg & Smith, 2007; Turner, 1982).
The social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) describes intergroup behavior, out-group discrimination and conditions that promote these differences. According to the social identity theory people use prototypes to categorize people into social categories, to classify a person to a similar group of persons. A prototype is a context specific set of attributes that individuals use to describe groups, prescribe how people ought to behave as a group member and what attitudes they ought to hold (Hogg & Smith, 2007).
The self-categorization theory (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987), however focuses on group members’ behaviors and social categorization. The theory describes a process that causes people to identify with groups and see themselves and others in group terms and manifest its behavior. Self-categorization causes people to configure and change their thoughts, feelings, attitudes and behaviors to their prototype of the group. Because group members are tied to intergroup relations these prototypes are shared within groups. One can imagine that it is difficult to form or sustain a prototype if differences between in and out group are not validated. According to Turner (1991), group prototypes are group norms because when perceptions, behaviors or attitudes are shared within a group it becomes normative of that group. However for self- categorization to produce normative behavior a person must psychologically identify with the in-group norm in that context. People will only self-categorize to an in-group norm that in their view optimal fits the context. (Hogg & Reid, 2006; Hogg & Smith, 2007).
For example people will refer to different norms at work than at home or even when they work on different locations. Thus the process of self-categorization explains why and when people internalize group attributes and behave inline with group norms.
In the social identity perspective the influence process by which people develop
situational normative attitude and behavior is called referent informational influence
theory (Turner, 1982). Generally people have an idea of what is normative in a given
situation, however they use the behavior and expressed attitudes of others for
confirmation of what is situational normative. According to the referent information
influence theory people only conform to a context specific norm because they are group members and even conform to it in absence of surveillance by other group members (Hogg & Smith, 2007). This contrasts with the traditional dual-process model that differentiates between normative influence and informational influence (Deutsch &
Gerard, 1955). Normative influence involves conformity of a person with the positive expectations of others or self. Informational influence involves accepting information obtained from others as evidence about reality. According to referent informational influence, in organizational change situations the in-group norm is adjusted to the change context and group members produce normative behaviors and attitudes change inline with the norm. Thus only if people can indentify with a group, the salient group norms will have an impact on their readiness for change.
In the organizational change literature little research has investigated the influence of group norm and group identification on individual attitudes towards change. Research that investigated the relation between group norm and change attitude shows that positive norms have a positive effect on attitudes towards change (Jimmieson, White, &
Zajdlewicz, 2009; Rousseau & Tijoriwala, 1999) and negative norms have a negative effect on attitudes towards change (Oreg, 2006). These findings suggest that there is evidence of a direct influence of referent groups norm on attitudes towards change.
Therefore this study will include a measure of group norm as a direct antecedent of readiness for change.
Hypotheses 2a: Group norm is correlated with emotional, cognitive and intentional readiness for change.
Hypotheses 2b: Depending on the group norm (positive or negative) it will increase or decrease the emotional, cognitive and intentional readiness for change.
In the social identity theory perspective, identification with a referent group is
seen as the actor to which people take on group norms. Jimmieson, Peach and White
(2008) found that group norms had a positive influence on intentions to change only for
those that were high identifiers with the referent group. Other research shows that
identifying with a low intentional group norm caused people to lower their intentions
(White, Smith, Terry, Greenslade, & McKimmie, 2009). Therefore in this study identification with referent group will act as a moderator between group norm and employees readiness for change.
Hypotheses 3a: For employees with high group identity, positive group norm will result in more positive emotional, cognitive and intentional readiness for change compared to low group identity.
Hypotheses 3b: For employees with high group identity, negative group norm will result in more negative emotional, cognitive and intentional readiness for change compared to low group identity.
Change self-efficacy
Self-efficacy refers to beliefs in one’s capabilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources and courses of action needed to meet a given situational demand (Wood & Bandura, 1989). It is defined as a dynamic comprehensive judgment of a person’s perceived capabilities required to deal with prospective situations or tasks.
(Bandura, 1982; Gist & Mitchell, 1992). As Bandura (1982:123) notes, it is not just a simple estimation for an individuals future action. “It functions as a set of proximal determinants of how people behave, their thought patterns and emotional reactions they experience in taxing situations”. Thus employees must believe they are capable of executing the new behaviors required by the change initiative. Otherwise, the outcome of a change initiative may be less than expected (Armenakis, Bernerth, Pitts, & Walker, 2007). Also individuals who perceive themselves as adapting easily to change, may be more receptive to organizational change efforts and are more likely to see organizational change as favorable (Eby, Adams, Russell, & Gaby, 2000).
The influence of change related self-efficacy on positive attitudes towards change has been studied by several scholars (Cunningham et al., 2002; Eby et al., 2000; Herold et al., 2007; Neves, 2009; Rafferty & Simons, 2006; Wanberg & Banas, 2000).
Cunningham et al. (2002) study showed that employees who were more confident in their
ability to cope with job change, reported higher readiness for change scores, participated
in a greater number of redesign activities and felt that they made a greater contribution to
organizational change. Change self-efficacy was also positively associated with readiness for fine-tuning and corporate transformational changes (Rafferty & Simons, 2006).
Wanberg & Banas (2000)found that higher levels of change related self-efficacy were associated with an increased openness towards organizational change. A recent study by Herold et al. (2007) found that individual differences in change-related efficacy can effect one’s commitment to change and that interaction with the turbulence of the change setting influenced change outcomes. When individuals are low in change self-efficacy, an extensive change environment may negatively influence their commitment to a given change. This in contrast to individuals who are high in change self-efficacy.
Other studies showed that change self-efficacy had no influence on positive attitudes towards change (Eby et al., 2000; Neves, 2009). Although Neves (2009) found no significant relation of change self-efficacy on affective commitment to change, it did help to reduce employees’ turnover intentions. Despite the number of studies on the relation between change self-efficacy and positive attitudes towards change, most studies focused on the intentional dimension. The effects of change self-efficacy on the emotional and cognitive dimension in the positive attitude towards change field are underexposed. As cited earlier, self-efficacy functions as a set of proximal determinates of how people behave, their thought patterns and emotional reactions they experience in taxing situations (Bandura, 1982). Therefore it is important to investigate the effect of change self-efficacy on the emotional, cognitive and intentional dimensions of readiness for change.
Hypotheses 4a: Change self-efficacy shows a positive associated with emotional, cognitive and intentional readiness for change.
Hypotheses 4b: A higher level of change self-efficacy will lead to a higher level of
readiness for emotional, cognitive and intentional readiness for change
Conceptual model
The hypotheses lead to the following conceptual model.
Methodology
Participants
The research object of this study was the organizational change at the Gemeente Zwolle. In 2011 Gemeente Zwolle has started with a change process called “De Nieuwe Ambtenaar” Zwolle. Last year the focus of the change has been on leadership development and coming year more emphasis will be put on the team and individual part of the change. The target population of this study were employees who will experience upcoming interventions. Therefore this research has focused on departments that are
Group norm
Change self-efficacy
Readiness of change Cognitive
readiness
Emotional readiness
Intentional readiness Change
implementation behavior Change selling
behavior
Group
identity
going to initiate team and individual interventions. Among the several business units 11 departments were selected to participate in this study, with a total workforce of 311 employees.
The translated questionnaire was tested by several HR and communication advisers and adjusted accordingly before it was send to the participants. The questionnaire was open for two weeks and after one week a reminder was send. Out of the 311 distributed questionnaires 134 usable responses were collected, resulting in a response rate of 43%. Within the group of respondents 69 were male and 65 were female.
All ages were represented, most employees that participated were between 36 and 45 years and 46 and 55 years and more than 50% of the respondents had job tenure of 10 or higher. Other descriptive statistics are presented in table 1.
TABLE 1
Descriptive statistics of respondents
Number and percentage of population ( N = 134) N % Gender
Men 69 51.5
Woman 65 48.5
Age
<26 jaar 4 3.0
26-35 jaar 23 17.2
36-45 jaar 38 28.4
46-55 jaar 46 34.3
>55 jaar 23 17.2
Tenure (at job)
<6 maanden 4 3.0
6 maaden - 2 jaar 8 6.0
2-5 jaar 32 23.9
5-10 jaar 24 17.9
>10 jaar 66 49.3
Department
Advies en Ondersteuning 7 5.2
Civiel & Cultuurtechniek 6 4.5
Communicatie 8 6.0
Financiën 26 19.4
Fysieke Leefomgeving 21 15.7
HR 15 11.2
Informatie - Advies 9 6.7
Juridische zaken & veiligheid 10 7.5
Maatschappelijke Ontwikkeling 16 11.9
Managementondersteuning (Brandweer) 9 6.7
Ruimtelijke Planvorming 7 5.2
Measures
The focus of this study was to get a better understanding of the relationship between the change leader, team or group and self on the three dimensions of readiness for change. Most of the items were measured on the 7-point likert response scale ranging from, “I absolutely disagree” to “I absolutely agree”, unless otherwise indicated. The item choice for each variable will be clarified below. The items were translated to Dutch by the researcher, since to organization which is subject to this study is Dutch. The full questionnaire (Dutch and English) can be found in Appendix A.
Control variables. Control variables as age, tenure, gender and department were used for control and deeper investigation. Age and Tenure were divided into groups, to ensure anonymity of the respondents. (see, Herold et al., 2008).
Dependent variables. Readiness for change was measured using 9 items of the Organizational Change Questionnaire from Bouckenooghe et al. (2009). The items capture the three dimensions of readiness for change: cognitive, emotional and intentional dimension, with three items per dimension. The factors had alphas of .66; .82; .86 respectively. The items for the cognitive dimension were formulated in a negative sense.
Examples of the items are: “Plans for future improvement will not come too much”
(cognitive), “I experience the change as a positive process” (emotional), “I am willing to put energy into the process of change” (intentional).
Independent variables. Change leadership was measured using 13 items of the change leadership measure from Lui (2010). The items were adjusted to the organization’s situation and to measure the relation between direct manager and individual employee. The items captured the two dimensions of change leadership:
change selling and change implementing leadership behavior. The change selling dimension was captured by six items and the change implementing dimension was captured by seven items. The factors had alphas of .92 and .95 respectively. Examples of items are: “My leader built a broad coalition up front to support the change” (change selling), “My leader empowered me to implement the change” (change implementing).
Group identity was measured using 4 items of the group identification scale from Van Dick, Van Knippenberg, Hägele, Guillaume, Brodbeck (2008). The items were adjusted to fit the organization’s situation. The scale has an alpha of .83. The items were measured using a seven-point scale ranging from 1 totally not applicable to 7 completely applicable. Examples of the items are:” I define myself as a member of my syndicate group” and “I feel strong ties with members of my syndicate group”.
Group norm was measured using 4 items of the group norm scale of White, Terry
& Hogg (2009). The items were adjusted to fit the organization’s situation. The scale had an alpha of .80. The items were measured using a seven-point scale ranging from 1 none to 7 all. Examples of the items are: “How many of your friends and peers would think that engaging in household recycling was a good thing to do” and “Think about your friends and peers. What percentage of them do you think engage in household recycling”.
Change self-efficacy was measured using 4 items of the change self-efficacy scale
from Ashford (1988). The scale had an alpha of .69. Two of the four items were
negatively formulated. Examples of the items are: “Though I may need some training, I
have little doubt I can perform well following the restructuring” and “I get nervous that I may not be able to do all that is demanded of by the restructuring”
Data analysis
The data from the questionnaire was analyzed in SPSS. First, negatively formulated items were re-coded. On the second step a factor analysis was performed to check the validity of the scale and summarize the individual items. Third, a correlation analysis was performed to asses whether the expected relationships existed. Finally two hierarchical regression analyses were performed to determine the relative effect of the independent variables on the dependent variables.
Factor analysis. A principal component exploratory factor analysis with varimax rotation was conducted on the sample data. A high Kaiser-Meyer-Olking Measure of Sampling Adequacy (.901) and significant Bartlett’s test of sphericity (< .001) revealed that the data was sufficient for conducting a factor analysis. The outcomes of the factor analysis will be discussed briefly as hypotheses had to be adjusted by factor results. The total factor analysis can be found in Appendix B.
Based on the factor analysis the intended items measuring emotional readiness for
change and intentional readiness for change all loaded on the same factor. This indicates
that there is little attitude ambivalence between emotional and intentional readiness for
change. A possible explanation for this might be that emotional and intentional readiness
measure attitude reactions towards a specific change and that in the change under study
these attitudes already coincide with each other. Whereas items for cognitive readiness
for change were negatively coded and focused more on beliefs and thoughts of
employees about change in general. According to Bouckenhooge et al. (2009) cognitive
readiness for change even overlaps with cynicism about organizational change. Therefore
two variables were formulated. The emotional and intentional dimension formed
readiness for change and the cognitive dimension formed cynicism to change. The
reliability for the formed scales was sufficient, for readiness for change (α = .94) and for cynicism to change (α = .79).
The original intended 13 items measuring the two change leadership dimensions loaded all on the same factor. Although change leadership was measured as multi- dimensional construct, the factor analysis showed a uni-dimensional construct. A possible explanation for this might be that participant did not experience the difference between change selling and change implementation at the moment of survey. This is a know limitation to change and leadership research. Therefore the change selling and change implementation dimensions formed the change leadership variable. The reliability of the new formed scale is high (α = .96).
The items measuring group norm, group identity and change self-efficacy all loaded on the intended factors. The scales had a reliability (α) of .94, .93 and .80 respectively.
The results of the factor analysis showed that most hypotheses had to be adjusted to match the variables formed by the factor analysis. Therefore all hypotheses were adjusted accordingly to the new formed variables. The new hypotheses are presented below.
The original hypotheses for change leadership expected two change leadership factors and three readiness for change factors. The following hypotheses are the adjusted hypotheses to meet results in the factor analysis:
Hypotheses 1a: Change leadership behavior is positively correlated with readiness for change and negatively with cynicism to change.
Hypotheses 1b: A higher level of change leadership behavior will lead to a higher level of readiness for change.
Hypotheses 1c: A higher level of change leadership behavior will lead to a lower level of
cynicism to change.
The original hypotheses for group norm and group identity needed to be changed to meet the results of the factor analysis.
Hypotheses 2a: Group norm is correlated with readiness for change and cynicism to change
Hypotheses 2b: Depending on the group norm (positive or negative) it will increase or decrease readiness for change.
Hypotheses 2c: Depending on the group norm (positive or negative) it will decrease or increase cynicism to change
Hypotheses 3a: For employees with high group identity, positive group norm will result in higher readiness for change and lower cynicism to change compared to low group identity.
Hypotheses 3b: For employees with a high group identity, negative group norm will result in lower readiness for change and higher cynicism to change compared to low group identity
The hypotheses for change self-efficacy needed to be changed to meet the results of the factor analysis
Hypotheses 4a: Change self-efficacy shows a positive correlation with readiness for change and cynicism to change.
Hypotheses 4b: A higher level of change self-efficacy will lead to a higher level of readiness for change and cynicism to change.
Hypotheses 4c: A higher level of change self-efficacy will lead to a lower level of cynicism to change.
Correlations analysis. Pearson’s correlation analysis (two tailed) was performed
to test whether the expected relationships exist. Table 2 presents means, standard
deviations and inter-correlations for the variables. In addition, internal reliability
coefficients (Cronbach’s α) are presented between parentheses on the diagonal.
Hierarchical regression analysis. The assumptions for regression analysis were explored and are presented in Appendix C The data was found to be sufficient for regression analysis. A noteworthy finding of the check is that the readiness for change variable had a high kurtosis. Removal of two cases stabilized the normality of the readiness for change variable.
First, a hierarchical regression analysis on readiness for change was conducted.
To control for confounding effects the variables gender, age, tenure and department were entered on step one. Change leadership, group norm, group identity and change self- efficacy was entered on step two. Before step three, both group norm and group identity were centered before entering. On the third step the interaction effect of group norm with group identity was entered. The results of these analyses are presented in table 3.
Second, a hierarchical regression analysis on cynicism to change was conducted.
To control for confounding effects the variables gender, age, tenure and department were entered on step 1. Change leadership, group norm, group identity and change self- efficacy was entered on step 2. Both group norm and group identity were centered before entering. On the third step the interaction effect of group norm with group identity was entered. The results of these analyses are presented in table 4.
Results
In this section the quantitative results will be presented. The correlation analysis
is presented to determine the correlations between the variables. The hierarchical
regression analysis is presented to determine the causality between the dependent and
independent variables.
TABLE 2
Pearson correlation analysis, means, standard deviations and Cronbach Alpha's
Variables Mean (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1.
Readiness for
change 5.35 (0.97) (.92)
2. Cynicism to change 5.12 (1.04) -.52** (.76)
3. Change leadership 4.44 (1.12) .45** -.39** (.96)
4. Group Norm 4.64 (1.18) .36** -.39** .53** (.94)
5. Group Identity 5.58 (1.16) .10 -.18* .15 .20* (.93)
6.
Change self-
efficacy 5.28 (1.14) .51** -.36** .21* .34** .04 (.80)
7. Gender 0.48 (0.50) -.23** .10 -.15 -.15 .02 -.15
8. Age 3.46 (1.06) -.01 .03 .07 .11 -.10 -.07 .32**
9. Department 6.30 (3.23) -.03 .04 .22* .02 -.15 -.02 -.03 .05
10. Tenure 4.04 (1.12) .00 .10 -.04 -.11 -.09 -.09 .22* .56** -.01
NOTE: N = 134. Cronbach alpha diagonal between parentheses. ** p < .01, * p < .05
Change leadership
Expected was that change leadership should positively relate to readiness for change and negatively to cynicism to change (hypotheses 1a). In line with the hypotheses the correlation analysis showed a significant positive relationship between change leadership and readiness for change (r = .45, p < .01) and a significant negative relationship with cynicism to change (r = -.39, p < .01). Moreover as expected in hypotheses 1b and 1c, regression analysis showed that change leadership had a significant positive effect on readiness for change (t = 4.39, p < .01) and a significant negative effect on cynicism to change (t = -2.70, p < .01).
Group norm
There was expected that group norm was related to readiness for change and cynicism to change (hypotheses 2a). In line with that the correlation analysis showed a significant positive relationship between group norm and readiness for change (r = .36, p
< .01) and significant negative relationship with cynicism to change (r = -.39, p < .01).
However the regression analysis showed no significant effect of group norm on readiness
for change (t = -.02 p = ns) and on cynicism to change (t = -1.57, p = ns). Therefore no evidence is found for hypotheses 2b and 2c
Interaction effect. With respect to hypotheses 3a and 3b the interaction effect between group norm and group identity was tested. The regression analysis results did not show a significant interaction effect. Therefore no further analysis was done to explore the interaction effect.
Change self-efficacy
In line with hypotheses 4a the correlation analysis showed a significant relationship between change self-efficacy and readiness for change (r = .51, p < .01) and significant negative relationship with cynicism to change (r = -.36, p < .01). Moreover as expected in hypotheses 4b and 4c, the regression analysis showed that change self- efficacy had a significant effect on readiness for change (t = 5.60, p < .01) and cynicism to change (t = -2.88, p < .01). This indicates that the higher a persons change self-efficacy the higher their readiness for change and lower their cynicism to change were.
TABLE 3
Hierarchical regression analysis readiness for change
Readiness for change (B) R² ∆R²
step 1 Gender -.52** .07 .04
Age .06
Tenure .02
Department -.02
step 2 Change leadership .31** .42** .38**
Change self-efficacy .35**
Group norm .01
Group identity .02
step 3 Group norm X Group identity .02 .42 .38
NOTE: N = 134. Multiple linear regressions enter method
* p < .05, ** p < .01
TABLE 4
Hierarchical regression analysis Cynicism to change
Cynicism to change (B) R² ∆R²
step 1 Gender .20 .02 -.01
Age -.07
Tenure .11
Department .02
step 2 Change leadership -.24** .27** .22**
Change self-efficacy -.23**
Group norm -.13
Group identity -.08
step 3 Group norm X Group identity -.03 .27 .22
NOTE: N = 134. Multiple linear regressions enter method
* p < .05, ** p < .01
