WILLINGNESS TO CHANGE
ASSESSING THE INFLUENCE OF
COMMUNICATION AND PARTICIPATION ON
WILLINGNESS TO CHANGE
AT AXENZA
April 2007
ELLEN JOYCE DIJKEMA
Student number 1334093
University of Groningen Supervision and co-assessment:
Faculty of Management and Organization Dr. B.J.M. Emans
Master of Science in Business Administration: Mrs Prof. Dr. J.I. Stoker Specialization Change Management
Pinksterbloem 26, 9411CH Beilen Supervision at Axenza | Lentis:
+31(0)6 5341 2232 E. Holkers, general director
ejdijkema@gmail.com
Willingness to change at Axenza: Preface PREFACE
Beilen, March 2007
‘Life is a struggle,’ my mum is used to say. According to my supervisor at Axenza every student finishing his or her studies has to go through a “valley of tears”. Life is not always easy; that I have experienced. Finishing my studies, however, has never brought me to tears. On the contrary; while doing my research and writing my master’s thesis I actually had a great time! It felt nice to be able to apply the knowledge I have acquired in practice. I could, however, not have done it single-handedly and therefore I would like to express my gratitude to the people that have been important to me during this period of time.
First of all, my thanks go to my supervisor at Axenza, Eric Holkers, for giving me the opportunity to do my research amongst these fine colleagues, for giving me the freedom to do what I thought needed done, and for supporting me by providing me with the necessary resources and contacts. I felt motivated by his enthusiasm and in turn I have encouraged him to proceed with his own research.
I thank my colleagues at ‘de Reehorst’ for their warmth, their openness, their collegiality, and not to mention the fun, the coffees and the cups of soup during the breaks! I also thank the people at Axenza and other parts of Lentis that have provided me with resources and information, and for enabling me to do my research by responding to my questionnaire. Without the contributions and efforts of all these people, my research could not have been completed successfully.
In addition, I would like to show my appreciation to my supervisor and co-assessor at the Faculty of Management and Organization at the University of Groningen: Ben Emans and Janka Stoker. Thank you for your positive feedback, your critical assessments of my draft versions, and your constructive guidance and inspiration.
Of course I thank my friends for being true friends during the past four-and-a-half years of my (studying) life. We have shared laughter and we have shared tears; and I would love to continue to do so in the years to come. Being there for each other in times of trouble and in times of joy enriched our lives and pulled us through our studies at this rapid pace.
Last, but definitely not least, my thanks go to my loving and supporting family for always believing in me, for listening to both my frustrations and enjoyment, for just being there for me when I needed you. I hope you can be proud on the woman that I am becoming to be, on what I have accomplished thus far and on what I will accomplish in the future. I love you; I always have and always will.
The vulnerable position I have taken up in this preface by laying myself open and making this preface this personal, equals the vulnerability of Axenza. Management and employees have been open to contribute to my research and I value them for the trust they had in me. By means of this research I have attempted to provide additional insights into the subject of ‘willingness to change’ and what this means for Axenza. I hope that you, as a reader of my master’s thesis, will find pleasure in reading this document.
Willingness to change at Axenza: Abstract ABSTRACT
The objective of this study was to examine the influence of the communication and participation on willingness to change and its presumed antecedents (i.e. attitude toward change outcomes, subjective norm, and perceived behavioural control). The research aimed to answer both a practical question (what is the level of willingness to change at Axenza?), and a theoretical question (what factors are likely to predict willingness to change?). In order to achieve the objectives a number of hypotheses have been formulated, assembling the factors that are considered in the research. The hypothesized relationships have been based on the model of Metselaar (1997), with the addition of the change interventions communication and participation. By means of a questionnaire amongst the employees of Axenza the factors have been assessed, after which analyses regarding correlation, regression and comparison have taken place.
Although it can be concluded from the results of this research that willingness to change has a positive influence on change effectiveness, willingness to change is not the single most important factor predicting change effectiveness. This conclusion is a remarkable deviation from the theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1991). The results of this study show that the factor proximal subjective norm can be regarded as the strongest predictor of change effectiveness, meaning that other’s opinions may be valued even more than one’s own intentions. It is an interesting notion for both researchers and practitioners that colleagues can be powerful (de)motivators of one’s behaviour.
The results indicate that most of the variance in willingness to change can be predicted by one’s attitude toward the change (i.e. the belief that the organizational change is beneficial to the employee and/or to the organization), and one’s experiences with organizational change (i.e. the belief of being capable to implement the proposed changes). These attitudes and perceptions of behavioural control can be influenced by the perceived quality of information and by the extent to which employees are granted opportunities to participate in the decision-making with regard to the change. The influence of communication and participation on both willingness to change and change effectiveness is mediated by the respective antecedents of these factors.
Comparative analyses pointed out that, managers should consider that part-time employees may need some additional attention to fully integrate them in the organization. This is especially true for Axenza, as the majority of employees have a part-time contract. Part-time employees may not have received all disseminated information, leading to e.g. a less positive attitude, a less positive perception of the proximal subjective norm and subsequently a lower level of willingness to change.
Willingness to change at Axenza: Introduction CONTENTS
PREFACE ... 2
ABSTRACT ... 3
1. INTRODUCTION... 5
1.1 Changes in the Dutch national health care system ...5
1.2 Axenza ...7
1.3 Changes for Axenza ...9
1.4 Central topic of this thesis... 10
2. THEORY...11
2.1 The human side of change ... 11
2.2 The unwillingness to change... 11
2.3 Willingness to change ... 13
2.4 Antecedents of one’s willingness to change ... 14
2.5 Direct effects of perceived behavioural control on change effectiveness ... 17
2.6 Enhancing the willingness to change through the change process... 18
2.7 A need for research regarding willingness to change ... 21
3. RESEARCH METHODS...23
3.1 Data collection ... 23
3.2 Data analysis... 27
4. RESULTS ...29
4.1 Respondents ... 29
4.2 Description of the results ... 31
4.3 Testing the hypotheses ... 38
4.4 Additional relationships ... 47
4.5 Comparing groups of respondents ... 53
4.6 Qualitative data... 58
5. DISCUSSION ...62
5.1 Answering questions and drawing conclusions... 62
5.2 Theoretical implications and new lines of research... 71
5.3 Practical implications... 76
5.4 Reflection ... 79
Willingness to change at Axenza: Introduction 1. INTRODUCTION
The Dutch national health care system has been confronted with several environmental changes, of which the introduction of a market orientation probably has most consequences. Related developments include the rise of new competitors, strengthened cooperation with other providers of health care, and a changing role of insurance companies. These developments affect organizations like Lentis. It will require a completely new approach and therefore a process of Positioning has been started in order to determine the organization’s new direction. For Axenza (that is the division of Lentis in which the research has been conducted) this Positioning process will have internal consequences, including amongst others the need for more transparency; the formalization of processes; the creation of a pro-active, promoting attitude; and a results orientation. This thesis aims to provide insight into the level of willingness to change of Axenza’s employees. First the broader context of these developments will be described, before focusing on the situation at Axenza.
1.1 Changes in the Dutch national health care system
It is not just the profit sector that has been confronted with the continuous pressure to change; the public sector is forced to change as well. For some time the Dutch government has begun to privatize mail, telecommunications, public transport, and public utilities. Currently, the national health care system is subject to change. A new health insurance system has been introduced, replacing the old system that distinguished privately insured citizens from those insured through the Dutch National Health Service. The new Health Insurance Act (Zorgverzekeringswet) that has come into effect as of 1 January 2006 is one of the many changes citizens, often seen as ‘health care consumers’, have been confronted with. This means that as of 1 January 2006 ‘all residents of the Netherlands are obliged to take out health insurance’ (Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, 2004). This health insurance policy is the same for each and comprises ‘a standard package of essential healthcare’ (Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, 2004).
In today’s society citizens are considered to be more critical than ever and, therefore, less likely to accept the waiting lists they have been confronted with for so many years (Kreuger, 2002). As a result, the question whether or not to move from a supply directed towards a demand directed system has risen. It is a question that has been answered mainly positively (Kreuger, 2002). The current view is that patients’, or clients’, demands should be leading rather than the supply ‘dictated’ by the government. Hence, the health care system in the Netherlands (including e.g. hospitals and mental health care organizations) is trying to become more market oriented, as is demanded by the Dutch government.
In the 1980’s the idea to introduce a market orientation in the health care system has already been proposed. At the time, both the Dutch government and organizations in the national health care system gave the impression that a market orientation and subsequent deregulation were desired. The Committee Structure and Financing Health Care System (Commissie Structuur en
Willingness to change at Axenza: Introduction Bereidheid tot verandering (i.e. ‘Willingness to change’) in 1987. The committee proposed the idea
of an elementary insurance including eighty-five per cent of the available services for all Dutch citizens, insurance premiums proportionate to wages, deregulation, and a market orientation among health care suppliers and insurers (Dunning, 2001). The notion of market orientation as guiding principle was the second radical intervention in the government’s health care policy, following the demand for more productivity (De Jong, 1995). There was unmistakably a deficient of that presumed willingness to change, since the Dutch government hesitated to act according to the report.
In 1994 a committee conducted a research in order to answer the question why the decision-making regarding the national health care system had failed (Dunning, 2001). According to Dunning (2001) the debate merely addressed the control of expenses rather than the issues concerning the content of health care. The focus turned to the regulation of care supply instead. Unfortunately, demand and supply were not balanced well; resulting in long waiting lists (Dunning, 2001). In 1997 the Scientific Advisory Committee for the Government’s Policy (Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het
Regeringsbeleid) again stressed that there was a need for better financing and improved efficiency
due to market orientation (Dunning, 2001). This committee’s notion has, however, been rejected by the Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Sport (Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport).
It is not until recently that the call for market orientation has become more solid. Following more than thirty years of ‘fruitless attempts […] to reform the system’ (Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, 2006a) the new Health Insurance Act has been introduced in January 2006. The new national health care system includes a market orientation and a revision of the Dutch health care insurance system. The Ministry (2006a) believes that in the new system there will be more choices for customers, more competition, guaranteed affordability, greater dynamism, better quality of care, greater cost consciousness, and more tailor-made care through greater influence of customers. The new act therewith puts an end to several maladies from which the system was suffering (Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, 2006a).
Willingness to change at Axenza: Introduction organizations; cooperation amongst various organizations; cooperation with clients; effectiveness and efficiency; working evidence-based; and continuity of care (GGz Nederland, 2006). Demand directed care is thus seen as a joint effort of the patient-client and his or her social workers, which will result in care that meets the clients’ wishes and expectations, while meeting professional standards as well (GGz Nederland, 2006).
The question then arises, what does a market orientation mean in terms of the health care sector? Certainly, this will represent a way of working that is unknown, and possibly undesired. In the past, clients received care and this care had been budgeted. Nowadays a client has to be viewed as a customer with (amongst others) a need for quality. In business it is said that ‘customer is king’, but in the health care system this is a phrase unheard of. A survey (Van de Poel, 2005) held among thirty-four managers in the mental health care sector concluded that a market orientation might be inevitable; but is, however, not wanted. The aforementioned survey also demonstrated that although management considers the sector to be ‘ready’ for a market orientation, they think their own organization definitely is not. It may be interesting to examine the reasons why.
Whether or not a regulated market orientation is the right direction for the Dutch national health care system is not a question to be answered by means of the current study. That is, in fact, more an issue of political preference or ‘taste’. Profit and non-profit organizations can learn from each other. Since in a commercial setting making profit is the primary objective, social aspects may suffer from that focus. Non-profit organizations, on the contrary, may have put too much interest in the social side of the organization. Often an eye for financial matters and competition is lacking. A (regulated) market orientation can contribute to a better organization in terms of responsibilities. Even health care managers and employees agree that more transparency is needed. Proponents view the shift towards market orientation as improving transparency, efficiency, and quality of care. Reasons to object this shift may include the idea that policyholders will choose lower expenses to the debit of lower quality. This will cause the health care sector to generate fewer benefits, as a result of which there will be fewer possibilities for development and innovation. In addition, the increased competition will cause the organizations in the health care sector to share fewer results (in terms of medical breakthroughs) with other organizations in the sector. One could wonder whether this will be in anyone’s merit.
1.2 Axenza
Willingness to change at Axenza: Introduction In this new organization of Lentis five newly (re) organized divisions have replaced the former face of GGz Groningen, each with their own face and target group(s). One of these is the division Axenza (i.e. specialised care for exquisite target groups) in which the research underlying this master’s thesis has been conducted. The other newly discerned divisions focus on welfare (Welnis), care for the elderly (Dignis), forensic psychiatry (Forint) or ‘regular’ mental care for adults and youth (Linis and Jonx; Raad van Bestuur GGz Groningen, 2006). These divisions will be supported by departments that provide for personnel and organization, finance and information, and (other) facilities. A dual management, consisting of a general director and a care director, who is also a psychiatrist, leads Axenza.
The new definition of divisions includes the shift of several departments from the one division or management to the other. In the new organizational structure the following units are included in the division Axenza, i.e.: ‘Long term rehabilitation’; ‘Trauma and childhood’; ‘Particular handicaps’; ‘Somatic-neurotic psychiatry’; ‘Work, daily activities and coaching’; and ‘Evening, night and weekend chiefs’ (Werkgroep Doelgroepspecifieke Zorg, 2006). These units are formed in this way in order to support the primary process in the best possible way. The issues (disorders) that are dealt with form the central point in the distinction of the units.
The unit Long-term rehabilitation focuses on people that have been diagnosed with a chronic psychiatric disorder. The department of Wonen Zuidlaren (Residence located in Zuidlaren) offers those people a protected environment to live in. The unit Trauma and childhood consists of the target groups that show problems at a very young age, i.e.: Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), eating disorders and personality disorders. The target group of people that suffer from a traumatic experience completes the unit. Trauma and childhood includes the Centrum voor
Klinische Psychotherapie (CKP; Centre for Clinical Psychotherapy) and Psychiatrische Deeltijd Behandeling (PDB; Part-time psychiatric treatment). People with either an autistic disorder or
psychiatric problems, and a sensory or mental disability form the target group for the unit Particular handicaps. This unit includes the departments Autismeteam Noord-Nederland (ATN; Autism team for the northern part of the Netherlands), Woon-/Werkgemeenschap Autisten (WWA; Housing and working community for autistic people), Centrum GGz voor Doven en Slechthorenden (Centre for Mental Health Care for Deaf and Impaired Hearers), and the Polikliniek Psychiatrie Verstandelijk
Gehandicapten (PVG; Psychiatric Polyclinic for Mentally Disabled People). For people with a
(somatic) neurotic disorder the division holds the Sergey Korsakov Centrum. In addition to these target group related departments, there is a unit Work, daily activities and coaching (Arbeid,
Dagbesteding & Trajectbegeleiding or ADT) which is managed by both the division under study and
the division Linis (former GGz Centra). The unit Avond-, Nacht- & Weekendhoofden (ANW; Evening, night and weekend chiefs) is added to the division Axenza, since these employees mainly operate in the primary process of the units that have accommodation in Zuidlaren.
Willingness to change at Axenza: Introduction 1. Management and coordination, including general managers/director, care managers/director
(simultaneously psychiatrist), (team)coordinators, and staff members; 2. Nursing, including nurses, prolonged care nurses, and night-nurses;
3. Coaching, including (assistant) companions/coaches, work (project) coaches, activity coaches, and residence coaches;
4. Psychological, including (medical) psychologists and psychiatrists;
5. Psychotherapeutic, including psychotherapists, psychometric therapists, and creative therapists; 6. Social and system, including sociotherapists, system therapists, and social workers;
7. Remedial education: orthopaedic therapists; 8. Medical: (assistant) doctors.
Table 1.1: Number of employees per function per department
The new organization, Lentis, is not only confronted with changes with respect to the organizational structure. Restructuring alone would not have been sufficient to meet the new demands. At the cultural side the new organization will require new characteristics to a certain extent, i.e.: a strong loyalty of employees, a climate in which clients’ needs are leading, a culture in which performances can be appealed, possibilities for personal growth, a client oriented attitude and a service oriented style. These (partially) new characteristics may request a change from the employees.
1.3 Changes for Axenza
Willingness to change at Axenza: Introduction expectations. For Axenza this will have internal consequences that are presented in the business plan of the division (Werkgroep Doelgroepspecifieke Zorg, 2006), including:
• the development of results focused, relations oriented leadership; • the introduction of a strategic human resource management policy;
• the improvement of transparency regarding management, decision making, budgeting and finance;
• the obtainment of the HKZ-certification1;
• the improvement of the quality of care;
• the formalization of approaching and communicating with clients; • the improvement of a sense of safety amongst employees;
• the initiation of agreements regarding cooperation with other providers of (mental) health care; • the development of a centre of expertise;
• the development of a pro-active attitude in order to promote the organization.
The abovementioned objectives are to be obtained in the period 2006-2008 by Axenza. For the employees it will include not only a change in their way of working, but a cultural change as well. 1.4 Central topic of this thesis
On the one hand external organizations (e.g. the government, insurance companies) urge the organization to adapt, while on the other hand there is growing scepticism regarding these (market) developments amongst employees (Helmus & Strijk, 2005). So far, general change plans have been drawn up (Werkgroep Doelgroepspecifieke Zorg, 2006). Now it is time to implement these plans. The question arises whether this will succeed. One will have to change, but is one willing to change? What issues will enhance the change process, and what will hinder the progress? The subject of how the level of willingness to change can be assessed and how this willingness can be mobilised is what will receive most attention during this research in the division Axenza.
The research will answer both a practical question (what is the level of willingness to change at Axenza?), and a theoretical question (what factors are likely to predict willingness to change?). The objectives of the research are subsequently to be both practically and theoretically beneficial by describing what comprises willingness to change, by describing how willing the employees of Axenza are to change, by explaining what factors determine willingness to change, by investigating what the influence is of communication and participation in this change process, and by translating what that means in terms of consequences for the organization (recommending how to increase the willingness to change) and further scientific research.
The succeeding chapter will deal with the theoretical foundation of the research. In detail it will be explicated what theories and terminology will be used, and why the subject under study is relevant. The chapter is followed by a chapter on the methods for data collection and analysis. Subsequently, the results of the collected data will be presented. The interpretation and discussion of the found results are presented in the last chapter.
Willingness to change at Axenza: Theory 2. THEORY
2.1 The human side of change
Lewin (1947) stated that ‘change and constancy are relative concepts; group life is never without change, merely differences in the amount and type of change exist.’ The notion that today’s organizations have to be able to cope with changes in order to be, to become, or to remain successful (Wissema, Messer & Wijers, 1991) is often heard. The need to master changes is a part of every manager’s job according to Kanter’s (1985) judgment. As may be clear from the introduction, the process of Positioning will have quite an impact on the organization under study. Until recently, changes related to this Positioning process have been made exclusively on paper. With the change of leadership (a rearrangement of the second echelon) the organization has come into action. Now it is time for the division’s employees to follow this example and live up to the demands made by the Board of Directors in the new business plan.
As is stated by Demers, Forrer, Leibowitz & Cahill (1996) ‘change on paper matters very little if human behaviour does not change.’ Cozijnsen & Vrakking (2003) take as a basic assumption that ‘successful change will continue to be work of man.’ Management must not only realize that change has an impact on the organization’s employees. It should be considered that as much attention should be paid to the human side of change as to the planning of the technical and structural aspects of change. The fact is, however, that organizations tend to be rather poor at the former, while being good at the latter (Demers et al., 1996). That is striking, especially when one considers that the success of a change operation is assumed to be determined by the level of cooperation of the lower level echelons and executing employees (Wissema et al., 1991). The human side of change may therefore be an interesting subject to both practitioners and researchers.
2.2 The unwillingness to change
Nowadays organizational change may be ubiquitous, or even common, but the people involved may still not like it (Kanter, 1985). Generally, employees tend to understand plans and proposals that are based on solid ground. When, however, it comes down to the implementation and a tangible change in their own situation is requested, that understanding and willingness to cooperate is very likely to decrease (De Jong, 1995). In order to manage a change process successfully one has to understand how the people involved view and experience this change (Kanter, Stein & Jick, 1994). Leaders, managers, and experts, unfortunately, often neglect the people that are affected most by the change. When employees are expected to be unwilling to change, resistance will often accompany changes. Being able to analyze the reasons why people resist change makes it possible to get grip on the change process (Kanter et al.¸1994). Hence, managers need to know how to guide people through change so that they can end up with an effective organization (Kanter, 1985).
Willingness to change at Axenza: Theory especially resistant ones, consciously. People may be willing to change when provided with the space to prepare oneself and when treated in a decent manner (Kayzel, 1998). The latter notion is important, for resistance to change can be formed in reaction to the change itself and to the way (change) managers deal with the people involved (Kayzel, 1998).
The widely held mental model that there is resistance to change and that managers must overcome it, interferes with successful change implementation according to Dent & Goldberg (1999). The term ‘resistance’ has initially been introduced by Lewin (1947) as a systems concept. Lewin (1947) viewed ‘resistance to change’ as a force affecting managers and employees equally, not something that can be attributed to employees solely. Currently, the implicit assumption is that subordinate resistance is always inappropriate (Dent & Goldberg, 1999). As is held by Lewin (1947) the status quo represents ‘an equilibrium between the barriers to change and the forces favouring change.’ In order for change to occur some difference in the strengthening of driving forces and/or (preferably) the weakening of barriers is required – the so-called process of ‘unfreezing’ (Lewin, 1947). Since Lewin introduced the term ‘resistance to change’ the term has undergone a transformation in meaning from a systems concept to a psychological one (Dent & Goldberg, 1999). Hence, the concept – as it is used today – may not be correct.
Merron (1993) assumes that the use of the term resistance to change will feed the forces that obstruct change from progressing. According to Merron (1993) people have to be supported to act on their own initiative, and to express their needs. Resistance, in that case, is not a force obstructing change per se, but a term including a collection of ideas about what the organization ought to resemble (Merron, 1993). Piderit (2000) concluded that ‘researchers have largely overlooked the potentially positive intentions that may motivate negative responses to change’ as well. In other words: by focusing on resistance to change researchers may have oversimplified and dichotomized responses, while one’s reaction to change, in turn, might be a complex phenomenon (Piderit, 2000).
It is a fact that, both in the past and today, the negative model has received most attention of researchers and practitioners alike. The current research will break with that tendency and will accept a more positive view, following only a few other researchers (e.g. Merron, 1993; Metselaar, 1997; Metselaar & Cozijnsen, 1997). The positive model equals ‘a view of organizations as systems with built-in mechanisms to cope with change: people’ (Metselaar, 1997). This corresponds with the notion of De Leeuw (2002) that ‘management is getting things done with people.’
Willingness to change at Axenza: Theory readiness for change, but it is seldom acknowledged as being distinct from resistance (Armenakis et
al., 1993). According to Armenakis et al. (1993) it seems that expressing organizational change in
terms of ‘readiness’ is more congruent with the image of proactive managers. This belief supports the choice to apply the positive model in this research.
Readiness for change can be defined as ‘the cognitive precursor of the behaviours of either resistance to, or support for, a change effort’ (Armenakis et al., 1993) and is an important factor in understanding sources of resistance (Eby, Adams, Russell & Gaby, 2000). According to Armenakis et
al. (1993) readiness for change is similar to Lewin’s (1951) concept of unfreezing. The process of
unfreezing (Lewin, 1951) means that people have beliefs and attitudes about upcoming organizational change, and that these beliefs and attitudes can be altered over time. Employees’ perceptions of an organization’s readiness for change can facilitate, or hinder, the effectiveness of a change intervention (Armenakis et al., 1993). It is perhaps one of the most important factors involved in employees’ initial support for change initiatives (Armenakis et al., 1993; Armenakis, Harris & Feild, 1999). Readiness, or openness as it is referred to at times, is a necessary, initial condition for successful organizational change (Covin & Kilmann, 1988; Lewin, 1951). It represents an elementary concern in change management (Armenakis et al., 1993) and by overlooking the importance of it, an appropriate change intervention may not produce the intended outcomes (Pasmore & Fagans, 1992).
Examining one’s level of readiness for change – and the factors that contribute to it – may result in a better understanding of the processes involved in organizational change. In empirical research, however, the perception of readiness for change has obtained little attention (Eby et al., 2000). Armenakis et al. (1993) argue for the deliberate and active creation of readiness for change. This active creation should take place both before and during the change process, because there are often various (smaller) changes that form a large-scale change (Armenakis et al., 1993).
Rather than the negative expression of ‘resistance to change’ or the more positive formulated ‘readiness for change’, the concept of ‘willingness to change’ will be the central issue in this research. Although readiness and willingness are closely connected, both concepts may have somewhat distinct meanings. ‘Readiness’ reflects the beliefs that a change is needed and that an organization is capable of changing (Armenakis et al., 1999), while in this thesis ‘willingness’ addresses the actual intention to act according to one’s beliefs. Willingness to change, therefore, stretches further than readiness for change. It is seen as the deliberate expression of one’s readiness, or as it is formulated by Beckhard & Harris (1987): ‘readiness is reflected in the willingness (…) that organizational members have regarding a proposed change.’ Put differently: a low(er) level of readiness for change may result in resistance to change, while a high(er) level of readiness for change is likely to result in willingness to change.
2.3 Willingness to change
Willingness to change at Axenza: Theory change process.’ The measurement of this concept poses a major empirical challenge (Holt, Armenakis, Harris & Feild, in press (a)), because the concept has not been clearly identified. There are, however, over forty instruments available to measure an organization’s or an individual’s readiness and/or willingness. This large amount of instruments contributes to the ambiguity surrounding the concepts (Holt et al., in press (a)).
Whether or not an individual regards oneself or his/her organization to be prepared for a proposed change is dependent on four dimensions, i.e. content, process, context, and individuals’ attributes (Holt et al., in press (a)). The content refers to the subject of what is being changed (Holt et al., in press (a)). In addition, the process refers to how the change is being implemented (Holt et al., in press (a)). The extent to which participation is permitted is, for instance, one dimension of the change process, according to Holt, Armenakis, Harris & Feild (in press (b)). The conditions and environment within which employees function denotes the context of change (Holt
et al., in press (b)). Finally, individual attributes (i.e. personal characteristics) are of influence on
the way in which people perceive changes (Holt et al., in press (b)). Every organizational change takes place in a particular organizational setting, which is determined by the abovementioned dimensions. It is, therefore, hard to address a general willingness to change, as it is defined as a ‘multi-dimensional construct influenced by an array of factors’ (Holt et al., in press (a)).
The construct of willingness to change should be measured at the individual level for a number of reasons. First and foremost, organizations are complex human systems. That means that organizations cannot act, nor perceive, nor have an attitude towards a change. Individuals, however, can generate and interpret information and, in doing so, form an opinion about the need for and capability to change. Hence, the level of readiness or willingness to change tends to vary – per definition – from individual to individual (Holt et al., in press (a)). Second, change has to be implemented through the organization’s members essentially by adjusting the way they do their work, as is commonly held in change management literature (Holt et al., in press (a)). In other words, the success of a change intervention is dependent on the extent to which the organization is able to make the individual employees change (Robertson, Roberts & Porras, 1993).
2.4 Antecedents of one’s willingness to change
Recognition of the antecedents of willingness to change is important for change managers because knowing what actions can enhance one’s willingness to change, can lead to better results. That is important, since approximately seventy per cent of unsuccessful change projects can be explained by human behaviour (Cozijnsen & Vrakking, 2003). Unfortunately, the antecedents of willingness to change (i.e. the factors that influence or predict the level of willingness to change) are generally understudied (Miller, Johnson & Grau, 1994). Further insight into those factors may provide managers with approaches how to facilitate change processes better (Miller et al., 1994).
Willingness to change at Axenza: Theory workplace situation, the theory of planned behaviour can be applied in a workplace situation without much effort (Arnold, Silvester, Patterson, Robertson, Cooper & Burnes, 2005). The theory of planned behaviour, namely, holds that a person’s behavioural intention follows certain motivational forces. In general, it is said that the stronger the intention to engage in certain behaviour, the more likely should be its performance (Ajzen, 1991). According to Metselaar & Cozijnsen (1997) the model has proven to be of value in predicting, explaining, and changing various kinds of behaviour. According to Ajzen (1991), the three factors that are believed to predict an intention (i.e. in this case the willingness to change) include:
1. the attitude toward the behaviour (i.e. the degree to which a person has a favourable or unfavourable evaluation of the change);
2. the subjective norm (i.e. the perceived social pressure (not) to perform change behaviour and one’s (lack of) wish to comply with other’s opinions);
3. the perceived behavioural control (i.e. the ease or difficulty of performing change behaviour).
The relative importance of the abovementioned factors may vary across situations (Ajzen, 1991). The following subparagraphs will elaborate the factors ‘attitude’, ‘subjective norm’, and ‘behavioural control’.
The theory of planned behaviour can be regarded as a starting point for the investigation or explanation of one’s willingness to change (Metselaar & Cozijnsen, 1997). Furthermore, the theory can provide possible ways for the development of interventions that are to enhance the level of willingness to change (Metselaar & Cozijnsen, 1997) and is, for that reason, very useful in the current research. Applying the theory of planned behaviour and assuming that the enhancement of one’s willingness to change can lead to better change results, leads to the following hypothesis:
H
Hyyppootthheessiiss:
1. The higher the willingness to change, the higher the effectiveness of the change
2.4.1 Attitude toward the change
Willingness to change at Axenza: Theory Hackman and Oldham (1980) distinguish between ‘core job characteristics’, ‘critical psychological states’, and ‘work outcomes’. If a change will have a positive influence on the core job characteristics (e.g. higher task significance), this will affect one’s psychological state in a positive way (e.g. higher level of perceived meaningfulness). This, in turn, will lead to a certain outcome (e.g. higher work effectiveness). ‘If a change will negatively affect a core job characteristic it is expected to negatively contribute to the [employee’s] attitude’ (Metselaar, 1997). The same line of reasoning can be used regarding the organizational change outcomes (Metselaar, 1997), i.e.: one’s evaluations of the expected outcomes of the change create a certain attitude, which will lead to a certain outcome in terms of (un)willingness to change.
Moreover, employees may possess positive or negative feelings about the change. With regard to this emotional component it can be said that threatening changes contribute to a negative attitude, and consequently a lower willingness to change. It is believed that changes that are perceived to be ‘exciting’ are accompanied by a positive attitude. This positive attitude is expected to contribute to one’s willingness to change. Hence, to know one’s attitude towards the change allows the prediction of one’s behaviour related to that change (e.g. to support or to resist the proposed changes). Following the abovementioned line of reasoning the subsequent hypotheses can be formulated:
H
Hyyppootthheesseess:
2. The more positive the attitude toward the change, the higher the willingness to change a. The more positive the expected outcomes of the change regarding the work, the higher the
willingness to change;
b. The more positive the expected outcomes of the change regarding the organization, the higher the willingness to change;
c. The more positive the emotions regarding the change, the higher the willingness to change
2.4.2 Subjective norm
One’s attitude is thus seen as a ‘major determinant of the person’s intention to perform the behaviour in question’ (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). In addition to the individual’s beliefs regarding the desirability of the change, it is important to identify the beliefs of relevant others (e.g. colleagues, management). These beliefs whether (or not) one should (not) perform the behaviour – i.e. support the change – are of a normative nature (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) and are, consequently, termed ‘subjective norm’. The term ‘subjective norm’ relates to the pressure to change that an individual may feel from his or her environment. Hence, when prominent persons favour the change, it will be more likely for others to be willing to change (Kayzel, 1998). This leads to the succeeding hypotheses:
H
Hyyppootthheesseess:
3. The more positive the subjective norm, the higher the willingness to change
Willingness to change at Axenza: Theory
2.4.3 Perceived behavioural control
‘The perceived behavioural control reflects the extent to which a person believes that he or she can perform the necessary behaviours in any given situation’ (Arnold et al., 2005). Perceived behavioural control is related to the availability of knowledge, experience, and resources necessary to be capable of changing (Metselaar & Cozijnsen, 1997). The concept is related to the concept of ‘self-efficacy’ that encompasses one’s perception of his or her ability to successfully implement the change (Bandura, 1991; Metselaar, 1997). Perceived behavioural control with respect to a change process is determined by, amongst others, the perceived complexity of the change (Metselaar, 1997). Complex changes demand more managing skills and cause the employee to have less control over the situation. One may expect that the perceived complexity of the change is negatively related to the perceived behavioural control. In turn, there may be a negative relationship between perceived complexity and willingness to change (Metselaar, 1997).
Another factor of influence is one’s self-control; that is the available knowledge, experience and skills to successfully implement the change (Metselaar, 1997). The more skilled or experienced an employee, the more likely he or she is to feel ‘in control’. In addition, information and the level of uncertainty are of influence on one’s perception of behavioural control (Metselaar, 1997). Uncertainty makes people feel insecure and, therefore, less likely to be willing to change. Information may decrease the amount of uncertainty.
The abovementioned relations between dimensions of perceived behavioural control (i.e. uncertainty, experience, influence, and complexity) and willingness to change, have been hypothesized as follows:
H
Hyyppootthheesseess:
4. The higher the perceived behavioural control, the higher the willingness to change
a. The more perceived uncertainty regarding the change, the lower the willingness to change; b. The better the experiences with organizational change, the higher the willingness to change; c. The more perceived influence on the change process, the higher the willingness to change; d. The more perceived complexity, the lower the willingness to change;
2.5 Direct effects of perceived behavioural control on change effectiveness
Willingness to change at Axenza: Theory H
Hyyppootthheesseess:
5. The higher the perceived behavioural control, the higher the effectiveness of the change
a. The more perceived uncertainty regarding the change, the lower the effectiveness of the change; b. The better the experiences with organizational change, the higher the effectiveness of the change; c. The more perceived influence on the change process, the higher the effectiveness of the change; d. The more perceived complexity, the lower the effectiveness of the change
2.6 Enhancing the willingness to change through the change process
As is stated in a preceding paragraph (‘The unwillingness to change’), proactive managers are believed to be able to deliberately create willingness to change. By proactive attempts to influence beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and behaviour of the change target (i.e. the employees that are forced to change the way they work) so-called change agents (e.g. internal change managers or external consultants) can create willingness to change (Armenakis et al., 1993). Besides changing individual cognitions the creation of willingness to change involves social phenomena (Armenakis et
al., 1993).
Two – possibly complementary – interventions are appropriate for the creation of willingness to change, i.e. communication and participation (Armenakis et al., 1993; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Glavimans & Reijnders, 1994). Communication includes the persuasive dissemination of information regarding discrepancy and efficacy (Armenakis et al., 1993). According to Armenakis et al. (1993) the form of persuasive communication ‘sends symbolic information regarding the commitment to, prioritization of, and urgency for the change effort.’ It is a direct way of influencing the employees involved.
Participation, however, may enhance willingness to change more indirectly. ‘The message created by active participation is essentially self-discovered’ (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Individuals tend to place greater trust in information discovered by themselves (Armenakis et al., 1993) – e.g. self-discovery of the challenges that the organization is facing and what discrepancies have to be overcome. Hence, this strategy is likely to enhance one’s level of willingness to change.
The following sub paragraphs will further elaborate on the roles of communication and participation in a change process.
2.6.1 Communication
Lewis (1999) found that ‘communication processes and organizational change are inextricably linked processes.’ Communication during organizational change is believed to be important to an
Willingness to change at Axenza: Theory ‘organizational commitment’ will, however, not be included in the scope of the current study, since it would make the research unnecessarily complex.
People cannot not communicate (Visser et al., 2005). When two or more individuals are
aware of each other’s presence, they will be aware of each other’s behaviour (Visser et al., 2005). Accordingly, they will interpret each other’s intended and unintended, verbal and non-verbal messages. Hence, communication is a bilateral process containing the transfer and reception of messages. Although communication is bilateral, that does not mean that both parties are equal in a (change) management context. Managers have more responsibilities, information, and power. Therefore, managers play a larger role than employees in the communication process regarding organizational change (Visser et al., 2005). Since it is the management that actively attempts to manage the communication, it will be important to understand how employees experience this (Visser et al., 2005). It is believed that a more positive evaluation of the various dimensions of managerial communication during a change process will have a positive influence on one’s willingness to change.
A central issue in the communication process regarding an organizational change is what to communicate when and in what way? There are roughly two approaches to change, which Beer & Nohria (2000) call ‘Theory E’ and ‘Theory O’. The two approaches are guided by very diverse assumptions about, amongst others, the means for change. ‘Theory E’ is associated with maximizing economic value, top-down leadership, programmatic planning, and a structural focus (Beer & Nohria, 2000). ‘Theory O’, on the other hand, is associated with a more emergent and participative approach, the development of organizational capabilities, and a cultural focus (Beer & Nohria, 2000). Related to these theories are two distinct communicational approaches, i.e. the design approach (‘E’) and the developmental approach to change (‘O’; Kayzel, 1998). According to the design approach management must create a blueprint of the change process that is communicated to the employees afterwards (Elving & Bennebroek Gravenhorst, 2005). In the developmental approach employees are involved earlier, and in different phases of the change process. Proponents of the developmental approach believe that the greater involvement of employees causes positive effects (Elving & Bennebroek Gravenhorst, 2005). In practice, however, a balance should be sought between these alternatives.
Communication has multiple dimensions (Elving & Bennebroek Gravenhorst, 2005), i.e. the quantity of information, the quality of information, and the quality of the relation (between management and employees). When applied to a change context, it can be concluded that it is important to provide information on what will change, when, for what reason, and what consequences it will have (Elving & Bennebroek Gravenhorst, 2005). It is essential to determine what is to be communicated. How it should be communicated is, however, equally important. Visser
et al. (2005) assert that the quality of non-verbal communication has a positive influence on one’s
Willingness to change at Axenza: Theory ‘communication’ during organizational change is viewed as being equal to ‘information’, i.e. a one-way process. A complex happening like an organizationalchange requires, nonetheless, a dialogue between the various (groups of) people involved or affected (Kanter et al., 1994). As changes are accompanied by the disturbance of the existing situation, communication can be helpful to reduce uncertainty with respect to the continuance or loss of job, status, power, or skills and knowledge needed (Elving & Bennebroek Gravenhorst, 2005). Positive feelings towards the organization will increase when the level of uncertainty decreases (Elving & Bennebroek Gravenhorst, 2005). Since people find it important to know what is expected from them, the degree of relevance of communication has a significant positive influence on employees’ willingness to change (Visser et
al., 2005). In addition, communication is regarded as one of the main antecedents of commitment
(Meyer & Allen, 1997; Postmes, Tanis & De Wit, 2001).
Communication can, thus, be viewed as a critical factor in creating psychological ownership with the employees involved (Beer, 1980). In other words, communication is critical in creating willingness to change (see hypothesis 6). Chawla & Kelloway (2004) even found that communication predicts willingness to change both directly and indirectly through procedural justice (i.e. the perceived fairness of a certain decision). The latter concept will, however, not be investigated here for reasons of simplicity. The cited researchers stress that communication should be used as an instrument in the change process, in order to make the content-related change possible (Caluwé & Vermaak, 1999).
H
Hyyppootthheesseess:
6. The better the communication regarding the change, the higher the willingness to change; a. The more communication regarding the change, the higher the willingness to change;
b. The better the quality of information regarding the change, the higher the willingness to change; c. The better the perceived communicative relationship, the higher the willingness to change
It is acknowledged that communication is not the sole factor of influence on the level of willingness to change. Visser et al. (2005) found that sixty-five per cent of the variance of willingness to change could not be explained by communication only. Visser et al. (2005) indicate that further investigation might focus on factors on the individual level (e.g. personal characteristics; Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979) or on group level (e.g. social obstacles; Armenakis et
al., 1993). In the current research communication, personal characteristics (e.g. attitude towards
the change process) and social obstacles (e.g. subjective norm) are indeed – amongst others – considered.
Willingness to change at Axenza: Theory antecedents of willingness to change and, in doing so, communication will probably have a mediating effect on willingness to change (hypothesis 6*).
H
Hyyppootthheesseess:
6*. The effects of communication regarding the change on willingness to change are mediated by one’s attitude and/or subjective norm and/or perceived behavioural control
2.6.2 Participation
Change management literature is unanimously in declaring that employee involvement during organizational change is critical for its success (Chawla & Kelloway, 2004). Coch & French (1947) were the first authors to stress the importance of ‘participation’ in their search for ways to overcome resistance to change. By means of active participation employees can gather information and can observe actions, events, and people they would have otherwise not encountered (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). These effects of participation may influence the acceptance of the information (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) as people tend to believe own findings rather than what is said by others, but not yet experienced. Gathering new (or other) information and enduring new experiences may cause people to change their beliefs (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). This in turn can perhaps influence one’s willingness to change.
If employees are encouraged to participate in the change process and their input is enlisted, this participation is expected to increase commitment and performance, to reduce resistance and to enhance the acceptance of (even unfavourable) decisions, according to Chawla & Kelloway (2004). This notion has been concluded in the seventh hypothesis. Similar to what has been stated in the previous paragraph, the influence of participation on willingness to change is believed to be mediated. Participation alone would not cause participations to be more willing to change. If participation is to enhance willingness to change it will be because it improves, for example, participants’ attitudes with regard to the change or participants’ perceptions of being able to control the change situation. This has been translated into the last hypothesis (7*).
H
Hyyppootthheesseess:
7. The more participation in the change process, the higher the willingness to change;
7*. The effects of participation in the change process on willingness to change are mediated by one’s attitude and/or subjective norm and/or perceived behavioural control
2.7 A need for research regarding willingness to change
Willingness to change at Axenza: Theory It is for those reasons that this thesis addresses the ‘willingness to change’ at Axenza. The research question that has been posed involves the following: What is the level of willingness to
change at Axenza, and how can the willingness to change be enhanced? The central issue, i.e.
willingness to change, has been defined as the positive behavioural intention towards the implementation of modifications in an organization’s structure, or work and administrative processes, resulting in efforts from the organization member’s side to support or enhance the change process. It is a construct that will be measured on the individual level, because the success of a change intervention is determined by the extent to which ‘organizations’ (often: management) can make their employees change.
It appears to be necessary to know what actions can enhance the level of willingness to change to obtain better change results. Therefore, antecedents of willingness to change and interventions that can influence those ought to be distinguished (see figure 2.1). Again, these are subjects that are generally understudied. The objective of the current research is to provide insight into the factors that can enhance or mobilise one’s willingness change. In doing so it is aimed to contribute to scientific research on change management. Accordingly, it is aimed to provide the management of Axenza with ways to improve the change process under study, i.e. the process of Positioning.
The numbers correspond with the outlined hypotheses Figure 2.1: Conceptual model
The concepts introduced and elaborated in this chapter form the theoretical foundation of the research. These concepts and presumed relations enable us to answer the following sub-questions that make it, in turn, possible to answer the main research question that has been formulated. Each sub-question can be answered by means of the hypotheses in brackets:
1. To what extent is willingness to change connected to change effectiveness? (Hypothesis 1) 2. To what extent are one’s attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioural control
Willingness to change at Axenza: Theory 3. To what extent is one’s perceived behavioural control connected to change effectiveness?
(Hypothesis 5)
4. To what extent is one’s evaluation of the communication with regard to the change connected to willingness to change? (Hypotheses 6 and 6*)
5. To what extent is one’s evaluation of the participation in the change process connected to willingness to change? (Hypotheses 7 and 7*)
3. RESEARCH METHODS
In the previous chapters the subject and theoretical base of this thesis have been addressed. The following chapter will deal with the methodology underlying this research. The means to obtain and to process data will be addressed in this chapter. As has been stated, this research has aimed to assess the willingness to change at Axenza. Several presumed antecedents of and possible stimulators of willingness to change have been discerned. The hypothesized relations between the various factors have been explored, i.e. the hypotheses were tested by means of a questionnaire. 3.1 Data collection
In order to be able to answer the research question that has been posed – i.e. What is the level of
willingness to change at Axenza, and how can the willingness to change be enhanced? – empirical
data has been gathered. Data is collected by means of a questionnaire among the employees of all departments of Axenza. The use of a questionnaire as a means to collect data is considered to be appropriate since through this approach a large amount of research units can be addressed. Questions can be posed regarding a large number of characteristics (factors). In the assessment of attitudes it is common to make use of a questionnaire. The employees of Axenza have been given the opportunity to respond by filling in a paper version of the questionnaire or a web version. It has been stressed that no data would be published that would be reducible to a single person. This guarantee of confidentiality intended to remove any hesitations with regard to the responses to the questionnaire.
3.1.1 Characteristics
Willingness to change at Axenza: Methods 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
ADT (38%) ANW (57%) ATN (28%) CKP (64%) SKC (26%) WOZ (28%) WWA (36%) Other
Response Employed A total of 90 respondents (approximately thirty-seven per cent) returned their completed questionnaires, thirty-five per cent (n = 31) of which through the Internet. In the following table (3.1) the response rates are assigned to the respective organizational units. The number of responses is presented graphically in figure 3.1. The organizational units presented represent those discerned at the time the research was conducted, before the (re)assignment of the third echelon managers. Some of the departments that existed at that time are now joined into new, larger units.
Department Number of employees Response Response rate
M&S 5 1 20% ADT 29 8 28% ANW 7 4 57% ATN 29 8 28% CKP 33 21 64% SKC 50 9 18% WOZ 43 12 28% WWA 50 18 36% Other (unknown) 9 Total 246 90 37%
For explanation of the abbreviated departments see table 1.1. Table 3.1: Response rates
For explanation of the abbreviated departments see table 1.1.
Figure 3.1: Number of reactions and number of people employed per department (response rate in brackets)
3.1.2 The construction of the questionnaire
The questionnaire consisted of four parts, starting with general questions considering the respondents’ gender, age, department, function, and engagement in the organization. The existing questionnaire of Bennebroek Gravenhorst (2004) acted as a model for this part of the questionnaire. The second part of the questionnaire addressed the respondents’ commitment to the organization, their willingness to change and its antecedents. The concepts introduced in the preceding chapter have been assessed through various items. Thirdly, a part of the questionnaire has been devoted to (the influence of) communication and participation. The questionnaire concluded with a triplet of open-ended questions. Respondents were invited to – but not obliged to - provide suggestions and to give their opinion on the management of the change process. This fourth and final part has proven to be a rich source of information.
Willingness to change at Axenza: Methods means that most of the items needed translation. For the items derived from Metselaar (1997) in particular, the context has been adapted from ‘employees’ to ‘colleagues’. Metselaar, namely, has conducted his research within a context of solely middle managers. The research underlying this thesis, however, included both managers and care professionals.
Communication
In the third part of the questionnaire the concepts ‘communication’ and ‘participation’ have been addressed. The items that aimed to measure the concept ‘communication’ were derived from multiple resources. The items that originally are supposed to assess the quantity of information are derived from Postmes et al. (1991). Both the dimensions ‘quality of information’ and ‘quality of the relationship’ were measured by items originally developed by Miller et al. (1994) and Willems (2004). Answer options ranged from ‘completely disagree’ to ‘completely agree’ on a five-point Likert-scale. Two items were worded negatively and were excluded, for these did not load adequately and were rather difficult to interpret correctly. The three sub-factors, i.e. the three dimensions of communication shortly referred to as quantity, information and relationship, were measured reliably. Quantity included three items responsible for a Cronbach’s alpha (α) of 0.800. Information, including six items, had α = 0.847. Relationship included seven items with α = 0.904.
Participation
Bouma & Emans (2005) created a scale specifically to measure the level of (perceived) participation. In the current research that scale has been used to measure participation regarding certain elements of the change process as part of the Positioning process. Answer options included those formulated by Bouma & Emans (2005), i.e. ‘being passed’, ‘being informed’, ‘being consulted for opinion’, ‘being involved’, and ‘being consulted for decision’. Cronbach’s alpha for all five items articulated was 0.879, which may be regarded as rather reliable.
Attitude towards the change
The items regarding the measurement of ‘attitude towards the change’ have been based largely on Metselaar’s (1997) DINAMO (i.e. Diagnostics INventory for the Assessment of the willingness to
change among Management in Organisations), but have been tailored to the change process within
the organization and its characteristics. Items presented by Metselaar & Cozijnsen (1997), Bennebroek Gravenhorst (2004), Elving (2006) and Holt et al. (in press (a)) have acted as inspiration as well.
Willingness to change at Axenza: Methods 0.897, and for the five items measuring the emotional part of the attitude α = 0.789. All three factors had, thus, an adequate to good reliability level.
Subjective norm
The five items measuring ‘subjective norm’ were measured on a five-point Likert-scale with answer options ranging from ‘very negative’ to ‘very positive’. As was expected (and confirmed by a factor analysis), two sub-factors could be discerned. The questionnaire items 6 and 7 were believed to measure the perceived subjective norm of proximal colleagues (scoring a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.741); the other three items (questionnaire: 8, 9 and 10) represented the perceived subjective norm of distal colleagues (i.e. management) and scored a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.834.
Perceived behavioural control
In addition to the influence of Metselaar (1997) on the design of the questionnaire, items were derived from Holt et al. (in press (b)), Elving (2006), and Elving & Bennebroek Gravenhorst (2005) regarding the measurement of the perceived behavioural control. Answer options ranged from ‘completely disagree’ to ‘completely agree’ for the sub-factors ‘uncertainty’, ‘experience’, and ‘influence’ that have been discerned in § 2.4.3. The last sub-factor of perceived behavioural control, ‘complexity’, had answer options ranging from ‘no change’ to ‘radical change’ on a five-point scale.
The factor uncertainty scored a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.735, while consisting of only two items. A third item (uncertainty with regard to the division’s future) had to be excluded in order to increase the reliability of the scale from α = 0.638 to α = 0.735. The experience factor could be measured by six items with a reliability of α = 0.790. A lower reliability of α = 0.676 was associated with the influence factor that was measured by five items. The most reliable scale (α = 0.795) of all factors that form part of perceived behavioural control was formed by the complexity of the change, measured by seven items.
Willingness to change
The most important concept of all is the ‘willingness to change’, since it is the central subject of this master’s thesis. Willingness to change, readiness to change, support for change, and behavioural intention are discussed by some, but measured by few. The items used in the questionnaire were derived from various sources, i.e.: Metselaar (1997), Elving (2004; 2006), and Miller et al. (1994). Ten items aimed to measure willingness to change on a five-point Likert-scale with answer options ranging from ‘completely disagree’ to ‘completely agree’. Two of the items were worded negatively, but that did not result in a need to exclude those items. The factor ‘willingness to change’ accounted for a Cronbach’s alpha (α) of 0.899. Hence, the factor appeared to be tested in a rather reliable way.
Change effectiveness
Willingness to change at Axenza: Methods ranging from (active/passive) willingness to change to (passive/active) resistance to change, could be marked. It was believed that this peer-rating would provide a more objective view than a self-rating. Eight behaviours could be marked. The most active expression of willingness to change received a score of 4; the second most active expression of willingness received a score of 3 etcetera. The most active expression of resistance (‘calling in sick’) received a score of –4; the second most active expression of resistance received a score of –3 etcetera. A total score on this factor could, thus, be maximal 10 (i.e. all forms of willingness have been marked) and minimal –10 (i.e. all forms of resistance have been marked).
It was a deliberate choice to measure change effectiveness through a peer-rating scale, for it was believed to enhance the objectivity of the research as people usually tend to present themselves somewhat more positive than they are in fact. Change effectiveness was, thus, measured at the group level (referring to colleagues’ change behaviour), while willingness to change was measured at the individual level (referring to one’s own intentions). This design may have had consequences for the results. It is believed, however, that assessing change effectiveness in this way made it easier for respondents to answer.
3.1.3 Qualitative research
The questionnaire is concluded by the fourth part in which respondents have been given the opportunity to give their opinion and advice on the Positioning process. Three open-ended questions have been formulated, asking for respondents’ suggestions for the management; respondents’ satisfaction regarding the Positioning process; and respondents’ dissatisfaction regarding the Positioning process.
3.2 Data analysis
In order to generate results from the collected data various kinds of analyses have been conducted, making use of SPSS. The statistical choices and reasons for those will be addressed in the following subparagraphs.
3.2.1 Descriptive analyses
Firstly, reliability analyses have been conducted for each factor. Factors are composed of those items that form a reliable scale. The items that did not load sufficiently or decreased the reliability of the scale considerably when included have been removed. The higher the resulting Cronbach’s alpha the better the reliability of the scale. A high reliability indicates that all items included in the factor measure the same and are, for that reason, affected by error to a low degree.
