JOB SATISFACTION AS A PREDICTOR OF EMPLOYEE’S READINESS FOR CHANGE
Master thesis MscBA, specialization Change Management
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
January, 2010
IJEOMA OWEREGBULAM
Student number: 1660403
Werve 90, 3155 GM
Maasland.
Tel.: +31(0)643832390
E-mail:
aijay_c@yahoo.com
Supervisor: C. Reezigt
Co-assessor: J. F. Vos
People don't resist change. They resist being changed!
- Peter Senge
In motivating people, you've got to engage their minds and their hearts. It is good
business to have an employee feel part of the entire effort . . . ; I motivate people, I
hope, by example—and perhaps by excitement, by having provocative ideas to make
others feel involved.
ABSTRACT
Creating readiness for change is one of the influential factors to successful adoption and
implementation of organizational change. Research has shown that employees that show high
readiness for change end up committing to the change process, therefore increasing readiness
for change can be one of organizations’ intervening techniques. This study investigates the
relationship between facets of job satisfaction and readiness for change. The study also tries to
determine whether job satisfaction has a significant positive influence on employees’
readiness for change. The study uses a sample of 39 employees from a service organization in
the Netherlands. Descriptive results show high job satisfaction and high readiness for change
among employees. Correlation analysis shows a strong relationship between job satisfaction
and employee’s readiness for change. The result of the regression analysis shows that
satisfaction with fringe benefit, contingent reward, nature of work and communication had a
significant influence on employee’s readiness for change. Furthermore, job satisfaction had a
positive influence on employee’s readiness for change. This research finally concludes that
satisfaction with various facets of the job positively influences employee’s readiness for
change. Implication, limitations and recommendation are discussed.
TABLE OF CONTENT
1- INTRODUCTION……….….….………...…5 1.1 Research Motivation….………..6 1.2 Research Objective……….6 1.3 Company background………...…..…8 2 – THEORETICAL FOUNDATION………...92.1 Organizational change and readiness………..9
2.2 Readiness for organizational change……….………10
2.3 Job satisfaction as a predictor of readiness for change………..………....11
2.4 Conceptual framework………..…………...12 2.4.1 Pay………...…..12 2.4.2 Promotion……….…….…....13 2.4.3 Supervisor……….……13 2.4.4 Fringe benefit………..………...14 2.4.5 Contingent reward……….……14 2.4.6 Working condition……….…...15 2.4.7 Co-worker……….…………15 2.4.8 Nature of work……….……….15 2.4.9 Communication……….………...16 3 – RESEARCH METHODOLOGY….……….18 3.1 Research methodology………..18
3.2 Target population, sample and sample procedure………....18
3.3 Research instrument and data collection……….………….19
3.4 Questionnaire………19
3.5 Piloting and validation of questionnaire………...20
4 – RESULTS………..………...21
4.1 Data analysis………...21
4.2 Descriptive results………..…..21
4.3 Correlational results………..…...23
4.4 Regression analysis results………..…....23
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Evidence has shown that successful change efforts are not only dependent on their content or substantive nature but also on the processes followed or actions undertaken before, during and after their implementation (Hendry 1996; Armenakis & Haris 2002; Neves 2009). Organizational change can be analyzed at individual, group and organizational levels. Nevertheless, organizational interventions cannot be successful unless individual change takes place. Individual change can only effectively occur when employees are prepared and ready for it (Madsen, John & Miller, 2006). In the same line of thought, Whelan-Berry, Gordon, & Hinings (2003) sees organizational change as a phenomenon that exists at the individual level because change occurs only when enough individuals change their behaviour or attitudes. Hence, it is essential that individuals work through their fears and anxieties about change. Therefore increasing the overall readiness for change of all employees could be an important change intervention organizations can adopt towards a successful change implementation (Cunningham, Woodward, Shannon, MacIntosh, Lendrum, Rosenbloom &Brown, 2002).
Readiness reflects the extent to which an individual is emotionally inclined to accept a purposeful plan to alter the status quo (Holt, Armenakis, Field, & Harris 2007). Readiness has been seen as a precursor to resistance to or support for change efforts undertaken by organizations (Weeks, Roberts, Chonko and Jones, 2004; Armenakis, Harris, & Mossholder, 1993). Drawing from the studies of Armenakis et al., (1993), Bernerth (2004), Smith (2005) and Madsen et al., (2006), readiness for change is an important factor for the successful implementation of organizational changes. According to Backer (1995), “individual readiness to change is involved with peoples beliefs, attitudes and intentions regarding the extent to which changes are needed and their perception of individual and organization capacity to successfully make those changes” (p.22). He further explains that a high level of readiness for change is needed for change implementation, nevertheless, change can also occur in a condition of low readiness, but change research indicates that the probability of success is reduced when low readiness leads to low motivation to change or to active resistance (Backer, 1995).
positive emotional reaction or feelings (Schmidt, 2007; Locke, 1976) and individual subjective assessment (Pichler & Wallace, 2008).
The purpose of this research is then to know how this pleasurable feeling reflected from satisfaction with one’s job has an influence on employee’s readiness for change. In addition, the research seeks to know if facets of job satisfaction independently have an effect on readiness for change. This investigation will be carried out in an organization currently undergoing a change process. This research can assist organizations that seek to understand how employee’s job satisfaction can have an influence on employee’s readiness for change. The research can also assist with tools to increase employee’s readiness for change which will in turn benefit the organization and its employees.
1.1 Research Motivation
A number of researchers have come up with factors that predict readiness for change among employees and the organization. Cunningham et al., (2002) advises organizations to look into different policies or strategies that can count as predicators of employee’s readiness for change. An example of such strategies can be to work towards increasing employee’s job satisfaction. Notwithstanding, a number of efforts have been put into finding more predictors of readiness for change since the research of Armenakis and Bedeian, (1999); Cunningham et al., (2002); Bernerth, (2004). Most of these efforts are directed at the organizational or group level. Only a few have concentrated on individual level (Madsen, Miller,& John, 2005; Yousef, 2000; Neves, 2009). Madsen et al., (2005) calls for more research on the predictors of readiness for change at the individual level.
1.2 Research Objectives
To stimulate research interest in this new domain, by attempting to fill the gap created by lack of research effort on the relationship between job satisfaction and readiness for change.
To determine whether a significant relationship exists between facets of job satisfaction such as satisfaction with pay, promotion, supervision, working conditions, co-worker, nature of work, fringe benefit, contingent reward and communication as used in this research and employee’s readiness for change.
Hence, the research question:
Research Question- Does employee level of job satisfaction influence the level of employee’s
readiness for change?
Based on the literature and theories to be reviewed, hypothesis will be developed to give the above research question a clear shape in other to arrive at conclusive answers. The method for this research will involve a survey questionnaire to be given to employees in the organization of study. It will take the form of a correlation study since two or more kinds of data will be gathered from the same group of subjects to test the relationship between the independent and the dependent variables.
1.3 Company Background
This study explores the influence of job satisfaction on employee’s readiness for change at Mediavisie BV. Mediavisie is a full service internet company that specializes in career planning, education and labour market communication. Mediavisie is established in the North-east of Netherlands and its head office resides in Enschede.
Mediavisie is responsible for developing internet sites for specific target groups and career tools which contribute to the strategic objectives of its client organizations. It provides clients with strategies, up-to-date recommendation and creative concepts for internet site development. Mediavise employs approximately forty above average educated people. Mediavise has two mainstreams – concept and ICT. These streams are made up of five departments that work towards keeping Mediavise a first choice to organizations that welcome innovative ideas. Working together with Regionaal Opleidingen Centrum (ROC) for ten years, Mediavisie has been able to create for itself a good position in the market.
CHAPTER 2
Theoretical Foundation
This chapter is a review of literature and theory structured in four sections. Section 2.1 briefly discusses organizational change, change management and the importance of managing individuals. Section 2.2 discusses readiness for change, section 2.3 talks about job satisfaction as a predictor of readiness for change and section 2.4 explores the research framework. The research hypotheses are also stated.
2.1 Organizational change and readiness
Organizations are constantly in the process of change. These changes could be externally driven by competition, economic consideration etc. Others are driven internally by increased need for efficiency and effectiveness, change in personnel, new products and services, new technology and new organizational structures. According to Smith (2006), changes in organizations are important, constant and imperative. Change comes in different shapes and sizes, may be planned or unplanned, dramatic or easy, small or large but reflects thoughts, feelings and intentions (Schein, 1999) which becomes both pervasive and persistent. Research has also proven that the process of change is not easy due to the interference of human nature. Different individuals display different behavioral patterns depending on contextual factors such as their diverse cultures, values, ethics, or expectations. These individual behaviors can either be in the form of acceptance or resistance of an impending change.
Organizations seeking best results or employee’s acceptance before, during and after a change project need to manage the people side of change. Managing change is then a structured process or set of tools for leading the people side of change in order to prevent unexpected and unpleasant surprises from employees (Bernerth, 2004). Passive or active employee’s response toward change can be critical for management. Since organizations are made up of employees who are either the real sources or vehicles to change (Smith, 2005), it is important to investigate employee’s readiness for change (Eby, Adams, Rusell and Gaby, 2000; Madsen, 2003).
have come to the conclusion that knowing employees readiness for change is to a large extent important for a successful change process (Armenakis et al., 1993; Eby, et al., 2000; Smith, 2005). According to Madsen (2003), readiness for change refers to employees’ mental and physical preparedness for immediate action that aim to improve, alter or modify something. Readiness for change can be seen in organizational members’ beliefs, attitude and intentions (Armenakis et al., 1993).
2.2 Readiness for Organizational change
Readiness has been equated to Lewin (1951) unfreezing part of a change process. Readiness occurs when an organization and its members are receptive to a forth coming change (Armenakis et al., 1993). Readiness involves preparing organizational members to unfreeze and begin the moving process (Berneth, 2004). Both unfreezing and readiness describe a similar organizational phenomenon, that is, the process of altering cognitions of employees in an effort to facilitate organizational change. Researchers have come up with many factors that contribute to speed and effectiveness when organizations move through a change phase. Creating readiness for change has been regarded as crucial (Simon, 1996; Jansen, 2000). According to Holt et al., (2005) readiness has been discussed only within the context of manager’s effort and strategies to avoid or overcome employee’s resistance to change, whereby the developed strategies are indirectly used to increase employee’s readiness for change. Holt et al., (2007) expanded on the research of Coch and French (1948); Jacobson (1957) and Bartlem and Locke (1981) and arrived at the conclusion that methods and strategies did not only prevent resistance but went further to create a state of readiness where employees discovered the seriousness of competition and recognized the necessity of the changes.
In summary, readiness is a state of mind reflecting willingness or receptiveness to changing the way an individual thinks (Berneth, 2004). The model of readiness for change developed by Armenakis and Bedeian (1999) draws on five components that should be incorporated for change to be successful. They are briefly explained below.
Discrepancy is the gap between the present state and the visualized state. Since change entails moving
in a new direction and is most times accompanied by some degree of risk, employees would most likely avoid change unless they sense a need for the change. The second component is
appropriateness. According to Madsen et al., (2005) when the need for change is known, a proper
capabilities (Armenakis, Bernerth, Pitts, & Walker, 2007). Therefore the presence of self-efficacy among individuals and groups represent another component of readiness for change. Self-efficacy refers to the perceived ability to manage change successfully. The fourth component is principle
support, this refers to support from key organizational leaders. Armenakis et al., (1993) explains why
management support is a critical factor in creating readiness for change, stating that employees will be more willing to change when they see a clear demonstration of support from management (p. 572). The last component of readiness for change is personal valance. Employees will be quick to accept change when they are convinced that the change is beneficial to them. A high personal valance can help develop a momentum for change (Armenakis et al., 2007). By increasing employee’s extrinsic and intrinsic valance, organizations can capitalize on the prospect that employees will not only recognize the change, but will also work towards its success.
2.3 Job satisfaction as a predictor of readiness for change
Employee job satisfaction has been treated in diverse organizations such as human service and nursing (Spector, 1985), production and manufacturing industry (Pichler and Wallace, 2008) and hotel industry (Hochwarter, Perrewe, Ferris, & Brymer, 1999) etc. The topic job satisfaction has been debated over decades, several researchers have deliberated over cause/hindrances of job satisfaction (Locke, 1974), effects of satisfied and dissatisfied employees (Oshagbemi, 2000) and further to the effects of job satisfaction on performance, organization commitment, and total life satisfaction (Saari and Judge, 2004; Hochwarter et al, 1999). Locke, (1976) distinguished two major approaches to the causes of job satisfaction 1) the discrepancies between what the job offers and what the person expects and 2) the degree to which the job fulfills individual’s need. Similar to readiness for change, job satisfaction can be communicated through employee’s reaction to certain organizational demands or his /her behavior towards the organization. For instance, the expression of happiness and willingness to involve in so called organizational activities could come from satisfaction with ones job. On the other hand, the expression of sadness and reluctance can be an outcome of dissatisfaction with ones job. According to Wruck (2000)
“Satisfaction and dissatisfaction of one’s job, including the benefits of changes that make a job easier or safer, public recognition, the value of interaction and relationship with peers, raises, promotions, bonuses, profit-sharing plans and equity ownership programs helps improve the motivation and productivity of employees and help overcome organizational inertia and opposition to change” (p. 271).
First, a low level of satisfaction with one or more facets of an individual’s job can create an atmosphere of discrepancy. Dissatisfaction creates a sense of urgency which makes employees see the gap between the present and the desired state. It is very unlikely for employees to share in a vision for a better organizational life if there is no dissatisfaction with the current method of operation. When such low level of satisfaction exists, for instance with job facets such as working condition or the nature of work, it can lead management and employees to come to an agreeable appropriate change intervention. Likewise if employees perceive the proposed change to be wrong, they are more likely to resist and not commit to making the change work. Literature also notes that high job satisfaction is correlated with self-efficacy (Jimmieson, Terry, & Callan, 2004). Intrinsic motivation such as feedback can also increase one’s self-efficacy. That is to say, employee’s satisfaction with supervisor’s reaction for instance, constructive criticism and feedback can help their sense of self-efficacy. Furthermore, the emotional and physical support of management is characterized by overall job satisfaction. That is to say, satisfied leaders or supervisors often offer their best support to subordinates and co-workers. In a research on Indian managers by Viswesvaren, Deshpande, & Jacob (1998), it was found that highly satisfied employees rated support from management as high and ethical. The final component of readiness for change related to job satisfaction is personal valence. Organizational change often requires a certain extent of sacrifice from organizational members. When these sacrifices are made, employees expect to be rewarded on some level. Through the course of time, employees would have built up high or low satisfaction on the extent to which they gain personally from the organization and can therefore influence their thought/reaction toward change.
2.4 Conceptual Framework
Reviewed literature shows that job satisfaction comprises of these facets: pay, promotion, supervision, working condition, contingency rewards, fringe benefits, co-workers, nature of work and communication, (Spector, 1985, 1997). The theory of Spector (1997) proposes that employees have to be satisfied on all these facets in order to attain a high level of job satisfaction.
This section explains these nine facets and how they can influence readiness for change.
2.4.1 Pay
resistance to change, it can also potentially foster a willingness to consider change” (p.327). In other words, satisfaction with pay and pay raise system can influence an employee’s reaction toward change. In that line of reasoning, we propose that satisfaction with pay will have an influence on employee’s readiness for change.
Hypothesis 1: Employees’ satisfaction with pay will have a significant positive influence on
employee’s readiness for change.
2.4.2 Promotion
This refers to employees’ satisfaction with promotion opportunities within the organization. An employee’s satisfaction with promotion opportunities may influence their readiness for change. For example, if promotion opportunities are readily accessible, then employees will foresee a greater opportunity with the proposed organizational change and, as a result, influence readiness for change. On the other hand, if employees perceive promotion as a dead end or as being unfair then readiness for change could be low (Mignonac, 2002).
Hypothesis 2: Employees’ satisfaction with promotion opportunities will have a significant positive
influence on employee’s readiness for change.
2.4.3 Supervision
Hypothesis 3: Employees’ satisfaction with supervision will have a significant positive influence on
employee’s readiness for change.
2.4.4 Fringe benefit
In relation to change, employees ponder upon what benefits they stand to gain when the change is implemented. Armenakis et al., (2007) labelled extrinsic valance as the benefit realized from adopting the new behaviour (p.488). They also point out that organizational change can also provide intrinsic benefit in order to motivate employee’s acceptance and involvement of change. A high level of satisfaction with already existing benefits creates room for anticipating an even better benefit when the change is finally implemented. For example, Van Dan (2005) investigated the role of personal benefit (valance) in job change of hospital employees. Her findings show that attitude towards job change (i.e. change in job content, changing departments, office relocation and voluntary turnover) were related to the benefits about expected extrinsic and intrinsic benefits.
Hypothesis 4: Employees’ high level of satisfaction with fringe benefits will have a significant
positive influence on employee’s readiness for change.
2.4.5 Contingent Reward
It is human nature to constantly measure rewards for work done. Employees knowingly or unknowingly evaluate their rewards and appraisal against what they might know about other organizations. Satisfaction with reward (not necessarily monetary) given for good performance is another job facet that can influence readiness for change. According to Lawyer (2002), rewarding performance can encourage implementation just as it can encourage readiness for change (p.329). Lawyer (2002) argued that in order for organizations to move to a new phase of organizing, together with other factors, the contribution of reward has to change.
Hypothesis 5: An employees’ high level of satisfaction with contingent rewards will have a
significant positive influence on his/her readiness for change.
2.4.6 Working condition
This refers to satisfaction with organizational rules and procedures of working. Employees may be faced with difficulties of carrying out their various duties as a result of the so called organizational rules and procedures. There is also a possibility that efforts to do a good job may be blocked by red tape. When this is the case, it is most likely that there will be a low level of satisfaction with the working condition. In situations like this where employees look forward to a better working condition, they will be more willing to accept change with the belief that the proposed change may bring about changes in the working condition.
Hypothesis 6: Employees’ satisfaction with working condition will have a significant negative
influence on their readiness for change.
2.4.7 Co-worker
Madsen, Miller and John (2005) found that social relationship at work is also connected to readiness for change. Social relationship here comprises of co-workers, and communication between the co worker and their supervisors. Madsen et al., (2005) measured employees like or dislike of his or her co-workers and their enjoyment in relation to talking, interacting and working with them. They found that to a large extent, employee’s satisfaction with interaction with co-workers influenced their perception about their organization and how they see the impending change project.
In contradiction to this finding, Cunningham et al., (2002) discovered a weak relationship between readiness for change and satisfaction with co-workers relationship at work. They state that job related interpersonal relationship (such as interaction and social bond between co-workers) made a very limited contribution to the prediction of employee’s readiness for change. Also that supportive co-worker may play a more important role in employee effort to cope with the stress of organizational change (p.387). Despite the findings of Cunningham et al., (2002), this research draws on Madsen et al (2005) view on the relationship between co-workers interaction and attitude towards change by proposing that the level of satisfaction derived from interacting with co-workers will have an influence on their individual level of change readiness.
Hypothesis 7: Employee’s satisfaction with co-workers will have a significant positive influence on
2.4.8 Nature of work
This refers to satisfaction with the type of work done. One of the reasons why employees resist organizational change is that the proposed change may break the continuity of the type of work performed and create a climate of uncertainty and ambiguity. In a situation where there is high satisfaction with the type and nature of work performed by an employee, resistance to alter that particular status quo might be seen. But if employees are challenge driven, satisfaction with the present type of work done can influence employee’s self-efficacy regarding ability to handle a modified work. Through the mediation of increased self-efficacy, the acceptance of the modified work may represent the needed adjustment for a successful change implementation. Jimmieson, Terry, & Callan (2004) were able to arrive at the findings that self-efficacy had a direct effect on employee adjustment through the moderating effect of job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 8: Employees’ satisfaction with nature of work will have a significant positive influence
on employee’s readiness for change.
2.4.9 Communication
There is also literature available supporting the findings that communicating change to employees has an effect on employee’s readiness for change. A study by Armenakis and Harris (2002) suggests that communicating the right message to employees can influence the degree to which they accept organizational change. They explained that negative responses to organizational change are caused by leader’s oversight of the importance of communicating a consistent change message (p.169). Pronk, Tang and O’connor (1999) studied the relationship between willingness to communicate and individual readiness to change behavior. Their result showed a positive relationship. Employees find dissatisfaction with communication within the organization when they literally and practically are not aware of what is going on within the organization. Armenakis et al., (2007) stresses the need for change agents to emphasize and re-emphasize the need for change. This helps employees to see the discrepancy between the present and the desired state.
Hypothesis 9: Employee’s satisfaction with communication (within the organization) will have a
significant positive influence on employee’s readiness for change.
Hypothesis 10: High level of employees’ job satisfaction will have a direct and positive influence on
employees’ readiness for change.
The Research Model
S.W = Satisfaction with L.S.W = Low Satisfaction with
Figure 1: Hypothesized research model
CHAPTER 3
Research Methodology
This chapter reports methods and techniques used in the collection and analysis of data. This comprises the research design, study population, sample and pilot testing of the research instrument, data collecting instruments and collection procedure.
3.1 Research Design
A research design refers to the structure of the research. It is the binding factor that keeps the research project together. A research design is used to portray how components of the research function together by attempting to address the central research question (McMillan, 2000). This research adopts a descriptive survey design and a correlational research design.
A descriptive survey according to Gray (2004), seeks to measure what happened as a result of influence of one variable on another. A descriptive survey is done to ascertain attitudes, values and opinions. This design approach is most suitable in a study such as this that seeks to measure the reaction of employee’s at a fixed point in time.
Correlational research design according to McMillan (2000) is used to describe the statistical association between two or more variables. The correlational research design helps the researcher to establish whether there is a relationship between the independent variable(s) and the dependent variable. In addition to the correlation analysis is regression analysis. Regression analysis design will be used to measure whether job satisfaction has any direct influence on readiness for change.
3.2 Target population, Sampling and sample procedure
conveniently available. Particular attention will be given to staff that were directly affected by the change process.
3.3 Research instruments and data collection
Quantitative method concerns numerical measurements, which comprises various types of data collection tools: checklists, surveys and questionnaires. This method does not go without some advantages and disadvantages, thus, Gray (2004) points that the quantitative method has the benefit of permitting the researcher to attain conclusions with a known level of confidence about the extent and making of exact statements. The positive advantage of the method will be utilized in this study.
The research instrument used for this study was questionnaire. The questionnaire was used to elicit reliable and valid data on employee’s readiness for change and the level of employee’s job satisfaction. The questionnaire was distributed in two ways. Employee’s in Enschede filled out the question in paper and pencil while employee’s in Deventer received theirs online.
3.4 Questionnaire
The questionnaire was created largely of closed-ended questions focusing on facets of job satisfaction and the components of readiness for change. The first part consists of validation instruments adopted from prior study used to measure job satisfaction. Factors that were measured are satisfaction with pay, promotion, supervision, fringe benefit, contingency reward, working condition, nature of work, co-workers and communication. The items used for this measurement were adopted from Spector (1985) job satisfaction scale. Some of the items used in this section included items like, “I feel I am being paid a fair amount for the work I do”, “I Like my supervisor”, “I am satisfied with the benefits I receive”, “I like the people I work with”, “I have too much work to do” etc. Employee’s were required to rate these items in a 5 point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The internal consistence (Cronbach’s alpha) for the overall job satisfaction scale is 0.81.
for us to initiate this change”, and other relevant questions aimed at eliciting information about employee’s level of readiness for change. The internal consistence (Cronbach’s alpha) for the overall readiness for change scale is 0.79.
3.5 Piloting and validation of questionnaire
Researchers have expressed concern on the relevance of piloting and validating research questionnaire. Gillham (2000) proposes that it is proper to pilot at least 50 per cent more questions than one requires so that unreliable and incomprehensible questions can be eliminated. Gray, (2004) further stresses the importance of piloting, and argued that basically all the content of the questionnaire should be taken into consideration when piloting a questionnaire.
CHAPTER 4
Results
4.1 Data analysis
Descriptive analyses which include percentages and frequencies were used to get a clear picture of the set of responses. Means, standard deviation and intercorrelation was calculated to present the general result of the study. Pearson correlations were used to test the magnitude and direction of the relationships for all the hypotheses. For the sake of the research hypotheses which states clear directions in the relationships between variables, regression analysis was specifically carried out to test the predictive power of job satisfaction on employee’s readiness for change. Also they determine the variation of the independent variable that can account for readiness for change. In addition to the regression analysis was confidence intervals of all facets of job satisfaction and components of readiness for change. Confidence intervals were used to confirm the statistical results and to indicate the reliability of the research estimates.
4.2 Descriptive results
Mean, standard deviation and intercorrelation of the variables of interest are reported in table I. The results show that the mean of job satisfaction is well above the scale of midpoint, 3. The results indicate that employees are highly satisfied with co-worker, nature of work and supervisor facets of the job with means well above scale of midpoint, of which satisfaction with other facets such as pay, promotion, contingent reward, fringe benefit, working condition and communication are just above the scale of midpoint. This pattern of high satisfaction with co worker and supervisor in particular is consistent with what has been found in Yousef (2000). Such a pattern can be attributed to the social relationship established while interacting with fellow employees (Madsen et al., 2006).
Table I Mean standard deviation and intercorrelation
Note: N=39, M=mean, SD= standard deviation, correlations above 0.28 are significant at p˂ 0.001
4.3 Correlation analysis result
The correlation analysis results provide preliminary support for hypotheses 4, 5, 8 and 9. As indicated, there are significant positive relationships between fringe benefit, contingent reward, nature of work, communication and employees readiness for change. Results can be seen above in Table I.
4.4 Regression analysis results
The results of the regression analysis do not support hypothesis 1 which states that satisfaction with pay will have a significant positive influence on employee’s readiness for change. Table II shows that satisfaction with pay is not significant and in addition, the coefficient is negative which would mean that a high satisfaction with pay is related to a low readiness for change. The results also do not support hypothesis 2, which states that satisfaction with promotion opportunity will have a significant positive influence on employee’s readiness for change. Table II shows a 0.433 significant value for satisfaction with promotion which is far above the accepted p value. The t value is also below 2 and cannot account for any significance. The same applies to hypothesis 3, which states that satisfaction with supervision will have a significant positive influence on employee’s readiness for change. The p and t values are 0.5 and 0.681 respectively therefore account for no significant influence on employee’s readiness for change.
Regression analysis results show that satisfaction with fringe benefit and contingent reward have significant positive influences on employee’s readiness for change. Therefore, these results support hypothesis 4, which states that high satisfaction with fringe benefit will have a significant positive influence on employee’s readiness for change. The results also support hypothesis 5 which states that satisfaction with contingent reward will have a significant positive influence on employee’s readiness for change. The results support hypothesis 6 which states that satisfaction with working condition will have a significant negative influence employee’s readiness for change.
employees’ readiness for change. This can be seen in Table III, the regression coefficient is 0.67 and the coefficient of determination is 0.45. From the result, it is right to say that job satisfaction explains 45% of the variance of employee’s readiness for change. The results of the regression analysis are reported in Table II and Table III
Table III
Regression Model Readiness for change
R
R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std Error of
the Estimate
F
Sig.
0.677
0.458
0.290
0.31381
2,727
0.019
CHAPTER 5
Discussion
One objective of this study was to determine whether a significant relationship exists between facets of job satisfaction and employee’s readiness for change. Supporting our expectations, job satisfaction was related to employee’s readiness for change but not all facets of job satisfaction showed strong correlation with readiness for change. Strong correlations were seen in satisfaction with fringe benefit, contingent reward, nature of work and communication. The findings support the research of Wruck (2000); Eby et al., (2000) and Armenakis et al., (1993).
A second objective serving as the research question was to know whether greater level of satisfaction leads to high level of employee’s readiness for change. A positive influence of job satisfaction on employee’s readiness for change is apparently indicated by the results. Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to assume that change efforts are likely to be more successful where there are satisfied employees. This assumption in turn provides a basis for arguing for a temporal sequence of events where employees are very satisfied and yet unwilling to accept change.
It was earlier noted that change is more dependent on the process as it is dependent on the content and context. The most fundamental concern of change for individuals is the process of change itself. Change is associated with the notion of routine disruption, undermining relationships and requires learning (Bracken, 2000). With this premise, it becomes a bit difficult for employees who are satisfied with their present way of work to accept change. Another reason why satisfied employees could reject change lies in the content of the change. It is possible that the content of a particular change keeps employees from accepting change. This can be likened to an individual’s general and specific attitude towards change. According to Lau and Woodman (1995), a person may have a general attitude towards change and at the same time possess different attitude about a specific change. For example, an individual can be generally supportive of the overall idea of an organizational change program yet vary in his/her enthusiasm about specific changes being undertaken (in this case, relocation).
as to why the expected outcome is countered especially pay, supervisor and co-worker. For instance, satisfaction with pay, supervisor and co-worker can be seen in Yousef (2000) to have a positive influence on employee’s attitude towards change but the reverse is the case for this present study. Possible answers to this could be that employees attach more value to benefit and rewards than pay. It could also be that pay has no significance for overall satisfaction. Secondly, it was earlier noted that direct supervisors can influence the extent to which employees react to change (Hansma and Elving, 2006). Gathering from the results it is obvious that supervision is not a job facet that can influence employee’s attitude and behavior towards change. A sole reason for this could be that having a direct supervisor does not apply to employees in the researched organization as they report directly to top management.
Thirdly, a reason why satisfaction with promotion opportunity has no significance could be traced back to the organization. Promotions really do not apply to employees in this organization. Most of the employees have remained in the same job for several years and are comfortable with their jobs. Furthermore, satisfaction with working condition had a negative influence on employee’s readiness for change. This can be interpreted to be that low satisfaction with working condition leads to high readiness for change which is in line with Yousef (2000). Finally, in contrast to Madsen et al., (2005), satisfaction with co-worker does not explain an increase in employee’s readiness for change or otherwise. Therefore, this result supports Cunningham et al., (2000).
The level of satisfaction among employees in this organization reveals a positive attitude which aside from influencing employees readiness, can benefit the organization in other ways such as, better job performance, less absenteeism, low intention to quit and low turnover (Yousef, 2000; Hochwater et al, 1999). On the other hand, management should pay attention to low satisfaction with fringe benefit, contingent reward, nature of work and communication facets of job satisfaction because such low satisfaction is expected to result in resistance or low readiness to change and several disadvantages including, low performance, high absenteeism, high intention to quit and turnover.
Table IV
Regression Model Readiness for change (Deventer)
R
R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std Error of
the Estimate
F
Sig.
CHAPTER 6
Conclusion
The purpose of this research was to conduct an analysis on the influence of job satisfaction on employee’s readiness for change. This research was also designed to assist in bridging the gap caused by lack of research to readiness for change at an individual level. To fulfill this objective, the present study incorporated literature on significant findings from past research coupled with quantitatively analyzed questionnaires on both constructs that make up the research. In order determine the relationship between the variables (a) Job satisfaction and (b) Readiness, the facets of job satisfaction were empirically isolated and correlated against readiness for change. This analysis indicated that the job facets that were related to readiness for change were fringe benefit, nature of work, contingent reward and communication. These same job facets were seen to have a significant positive influence on employee’s readiness for change.
This research concludes that job satisfaction is significantly related to readiness for change and also has a direct and positive influence on employee’s readiness for change. Finally, satisfaction with contingent rewards, fringe benefit, nature of work and communication facets of the job significantly influences employee’s readiness for change.
6.1 Implications
Furthermore, more research is needed to find out reasons for negative significance between some of the job facets and readiness for change. It will be interesting to introduce factors to mediate the influence of satisfaction with pay, promotion, supervisor and co-worker, and employee’s readiness for change. Secondly, there is need to investigate the influence of employee’s perception of the organization’s readiness for change on employee’s readiness for change since it is expected that employees make assumptions based on what they see and these assumption may influence their attitude towards change. Lastly, replication of the present study is encouraged using relatively broader (more organizations) and larger sample size followed by a qualitative study such as, observations and structured interviews.
This research can also be used be any organization incorporating change. It would be useful for change agents to know how employees feel about changes. Knowing whether the employee felt (a) the change was needed, (b) the change was appropriate, (c) management supported the change, (d) confident in making change successfully, and (e) if employees believe the change had personal benefits would help change agents know if actions may be needed to make the change successful.
6.2 Limitation
Two primary limitations should be considered. First, the sample size used was small and as such can affect the generalization of its findings and conclusion. Second limitation is that measures were mainly questionnaires based on quantitative method. The use of this method alone reduces the richness that could come from qualitative method such as observations and interviews. For future research however, a larger sample size and the inclusion of interviews will be more appropriate.
6.3 Recommendation
One objective of this study was to use the findings of this study to give recommendations. Drawing from the results of this research, the following recommendations are made:
building cues to enhance employee’s confidence in their own belief that they have the capacity to overcome the discrepancy.
Communication: This goes beyond communicating the change message. This involves overall organizational communication. From the results, it is obvious that communication can influence employee’s attitude and behavior. Good communication helps build trust which makes change easier to accept. No individual likes to be kept in the dark; in the same way employees could be unhappy if communication is restricted to a particular time or people. When communication is open, clear and on time, it can help increase employees readiness for change. According to Armenakis et al., (1993), persuasive communication can influence individual capacity to understand the concept of readiness.
Contingent reward: Drawing from the results, reward means more to employees in the researched organization than pay. Organizations should encourage involvement and readiness, which means rewarding employees for their effort in the change process. Organizations should create an ambient atmosphere even when the organization is not undergoing change. Employees need to feel comfortable, valued and appreciated. Therefore, managers should ensure that employees are recognized and rewarded for every effort made at work. Managers are to encourage feedback, listen to feedback and give feedback. In other words, managers should walk the talk. In addition, contingent reward is also beneficial to managers. According to Densten (2006) managers can negotiate extra efforts through contingent rewards.
References
Alas, R. 2009. The Impact of Work-related values on the readiness to change in Estonian organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 86: 113-124.
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. 1993. Creating readiness for organizational change. Human Relations 43(6): 681-703.
Armenakis, A., & Bedeian, A. 1999. Organizational change: a review of theory and research in the 1990’s. Journal of Management, 25: 293-315.
Armenakis, A. A., & Harris, S. G. 2002. Crafting a change message to create transformational readiness. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 25(3): 293-315.
Armenakis, A. A., Bernerth, J. B., Pitts, J. P., & Walker, H. J. 2007. Organizational change recipients’ beliefs scale: Development of an assessment instrument. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43(1): 481-506.
Backer, T. E. 1995. Assessing and enhancing readiness for change: Implications for technology transfer. In Backer, T. E., David, S. L., & Soucy, G. (Eds.), Reviewing the behavioral science
knowledge base on technology transfer: 21-41. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Bandura, A. 1994. Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior. 4: 71-81. New York: Academic Press.
Bartlem, C., & Locke, E. 1998. The Coch and French study: A critic and reinterpretation. Human
Relations, 34: 555-566.
Bernerth, J. 2004. Expanding our understanding of the change message, Human Resource
Development Review, 3(1): 36-52.
Bracken, W. 2000. Change Ringing: Real change requires continuous learning. Canada: Trafford publishing.
Coch, L., & French, J. 1948. Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relations, 1: 512-532.
Cunningham, C. E., Woodward, C. A., Shannon, H. S., MacIntosh, J., Lendrum, B., Rosenbloom, D., & Brown, J. 2002. Readiness for organizational change: A longitudinal study of workplace, psychological and behavioral correlates. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75: 377-392.
Desplaces, D. 2005. A multilevel approach to individual readiness to change. Journal of Behavioral
and Applied Management, 7(1): 25-39.
Gray, D. E. 2004. Doing research in the real world. London: Sage publications
Gillham, B. 2000. Developing a questionnaire. London: Continuum
Hackman, J.R., & Oldhan, G. R. 1976. Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16: 250-279.
Hanpachern, C., Morgan, G. A., & Griego, O. V. 1998. An Extension of the Theory of Margin: A Framework for Assessing Readiness for Change. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 9(4): 339-350.
Hansma, L ., Elving, W.J. 2006. Leading organizational change: The role of top management and supervisors in communicating organizational change. 13th International Corporate and Marketing Communications Conference Proceedings, p. 116-127. Retrieved 11 September, 2009.
Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. 1996. The affective implications of perceived congruence with culture dimensions during organizational transformation. Journal of management. 22: 527-547.
Hendry. C. 1996. Understanding and creating whole organizational change through learning theory.
Human Relations, 49: 621-641.
Holt, D T., Armenakis, A. A., Field, S. H., & Harris. S. G. 2007. Readiness for organizational change. The systematic development of a scale. Journal of applied behavioural science. 43(2): 232-256.
Hochwater, A. W., Perrewe, P. L., Ferris, G. R., & Brymer. R. A. 1999. Job satisfaction and performance: The moderating effects of value attainment and affective disposition. Journal of
Vocational Behaviour 54(1): 296-313.
Jacobson, E. H. 1957. The effect of changing industrial methods and automation on personnel. Paper presented at the symposium on preventive and social psychology, Washington, DC.
Jansen, K. J. 2000. The emerging dynamics of change: Resistance, readiness and momentum. Human
Resource Planning, 23(2): 53-55.
Jimmieson, N. L., Terry, J. D., & Callan, V. J. 2004. A Longitudinal study of employee adaptation to organizational change: The role of change-related information and change-related self-efficacy.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 9(1): 11-27.
Jones, R.A., Jimmieson, L., & Griffiths, A. 2005. The impact of organizational culture and reshaping capabilities on change implementation success: The mediating role of readiness for change. Journal of
Management Studies. 42(2): 362-386
Lawler, E. E. 2000, Pay system change: Lag, Lead or Both? In Beer and Nohria (Eds) Breaking the
code of change: 323-336. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.
Ledford, G. E., & Heneman, R. L. 2000. Compensation: A Troublesome Lead System in Organizational change. In Beer and Nohria (Eds.), Breaking the code of change: 307-322. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.
Lewin, K. 1951. Field Theory in Social Science- Selected theoretical papers. New York, NY: Harper and Row
Locke, E. A. 1976. The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In Dunnette, M. D. (Eds.),
Handbook of Industrial and Organisational Psychology: 1297-1349. Chicago: Rand McNally
Madsen, S. R. 2003. Wellness in the workplace: Preparing employees for change. Organizational
development Journal, 21(1): 46-53.
.Madsen, S, R., Miller, D., & John, C. R. 2006, Influential factors in individual readiness for change.
Journal of Business and Management 12(2): 93-110.
Madsen, S, R., Miller, D., & John, C. R. 2005. Readiness for organizational change: Do organizational commitment and social relationships in the workplace make a difference? Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 16(2): 213-234.
Martin, A. J., Jones, S. E., Callan V. J. 2006. Status differences in employee adjustment during organizational change. Journal of managerial Psychology 21(2): 145-162.
McMillan, J. H. 2000. Educational research fundamentals for the consumer. New York: Longman
Micheal, J., Leschinsky, R., & Gagnon, M. 2006. Productive employee performance at a furniture manufacturer: The importance of supportive supervisors. Forest Product Journal 56(6): 19-24.
Mignonac. K. 2002. Understanding the willingness to accept domestic relocation: the example of French managers. Career Development, 7(6): 359-370.
Miller, V. D., Johnson, J. R., & Grau, J. 1994. Antecedents to willingness to participate in a planned organizational change. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22: 59-80.
Neves, P. 2009. Readiness for change: Contribution for employee’s level of individual change and turnover intentions. Journal of Change Management, 9(2): 215-231.
Oshagbemi, T. 2000. How satisfied are academics with their primary task of teaching, research/ administration and management? International Sustainable In Higher Education. 1(2): 124-136
Oshagbemi, T. 2000b. Correlates of pay satisfaction in higher education. International Journal of
Education Management, 14(1): 31-39.
Pichler, F., & Wallace, C. 2008. What are the reasons for differences in job satisfaction across Europe? Individual, compositional and institutional explanations. European Sociological Review, 25(4): 1-15.
Pronk, N. P., Tang. A.W., & O’conner, P. 1999. Obesity, fitness, willingness to communicate and health care cost. Medicine and Science in sports and Exercise 31(11): 1535-1543.
Saari L. M., & Judge, T. A. 2004. Employee attitude and job satisfaction. Human Resource
Management, 43(4): 395-407.
Schein, E. H. 1999. Process consultation revisited: Building the helping relationship. Reading MA: Addision-Wesley.
Smith, I. 2005. Achieving readiness for organizational change. Library Management. 26(6/7): 408-412.
Smith, I. 2006. Continuing professional development and workplace learning: Achieving successful organizational change-do’s and don’ts of change management. Library Management, 27(4/5): 300-306
Spector, P. E. 1985. Measurement of human service staff satisfaction: Development of the job satisfaction survey. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13(6): 693-713.
Spector, P. E. 1997.Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Causes and Consequences. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Van Dam, K. 2005. Employee attitudes towards job changes: An anticipation and extension of Rusbult and Farrell’s investment model. Journal of occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78(2): 253-272.
Viswesvaran, C., Deshpande, S.P., & Jacob, J. 1998. Job satisfaction as a function of top Management support for ethical behaviour. Journal of Business ethics, 17(4): 365-371.
Weber, P.S., & Weber, J. E. 2001. Changes in employee perceptions during organizational change.
Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 22(6): 291-300.
Weeks, W. A., Roberts, J., Chonko. L. B., & Jones, E. 2004. Organizational readiness for change, individual fear of change and sales manager performance: An empirical investigation. Journal of
personal selling and sales Management . 24(1): 7-17.
Whelan-Berry, K .S., Gordon, J. R., & Hinings, C. R. 2003. The relative effect of change drivers in large scale organizational change :An empirical study in woodman, R, W., & Pasmore, W.A (Eds.),
Research in Organizational Change and Development, 14: 99-146.
Wright, B. E., & Kim, S. 2004. Participation’s influence on job satisfaction. Review of Public
Personnel Administration. 24(1): 18- 40.
Wruck, K. H. 2000. Compensation, incentives, and organizational change: Ideas and evidence from theory and practice. In Beer and Nohria (Eds.), Breaking the code of change: 269-305. Boston, Massachusetts. Harvard Business School Press.
