1
A critical perspective on pre-change empowerment in planned change –
A necessary prerequisite or a Trojan horse?
Master thesis, MSc BA, specialization Change Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
I
Abstract
This study investigates how pre-change empowering actions will affect recipients’ readiness for planned change. Pre-change empowerment in terms of change related participation possibilities, information as well as coaching are supposed to foster change readiness. Based on equity theory, pre-change empowerment might act as a ‘Trojan horse’ that leads to higher workload and addi-tional accountability. A theory testing approach is chosen to close this research gap. This study analyzes respondents from five instances of organizational change (N = 226) using an web-based questionnaire. The results are ambiguous. While participating and informing increase change readiness, the effects of coaching are insignificant. The same holds true for the moderating ef-fects of accountability and workload. The results are discussed and theoretical as well as practical implications are elaborated. Limitations regarding the methodology and the applicability of pre-change empowerment are mentioned. Future research needs to provide more reliable items and once more test for the effects of coaching on change readiness, as well as the moderating influ-ence of workload and accountability, maybe also in different scenarios.
II
Acknowledgement:
III
Table of Content
Introduction ... 1
Theoretical Background ... 2
Change readiness for planned change ... 2
Pre-change empowerment: Delineating the concept ... 4
Hypotheses development Part I: Pre-change empowerment as a necessary prerequisite ... 6
Participating ... 6
Informing ... 7
Coaching ... 8
Hypotheses development Part II: Pre-change empowerment as a Trojan horse ... 10
Workload and empowerment ... 10
Accountability and empowerment ... 12
Methods ... 13
Data collection procedure and sample description ... 13
Measures ... 15
Factor analysis and reliability testing ... 17
Results ... 20
Descriptive Results ... 20
Examining the Hypotheses ... 23
1
Introduction
Nowadays, organizational change is not the exception but the rule and individual readiness for change is considered key to achieve it (Bouckenooghe, 2009). Weiner et al. (2008) state that or-ganizational leaders who overestimate the degree to which they have prepared the organization and its employees for change will lead to (1) a false start from which the change might or might not recover, (2) growing resistance, or (3) failed organizational change because of both. Failed organizational change will result in a waste of resources, lower organizational performance and decreased employee morale (Fachruddin & Mangundjaya, 2012). This will threaten an organiza-tion’s existence in today’s highly competitive and unpredictable environment.
The problem that comes along with organizational change is that recipients especially be-fore and during phases of organizational transformation feel powerless, and consequently possess low levels of change readiness (Kanter, 1992). In these very moments empowering actions are supposed to alleviate these feelings and foster change readiness. Empowerment can be described as a process that involves actions contrary to the principle of organizational hierarchy and posi-tional power (Menon, 2001). Empowerment in a change management context is supposed to be an appropriate instrument for increasing the quality of the change initiative. Furthermore, it is supposed to also foster a positive attitude towards organizational change (Kotter, 1996; Beer, 1990; Lizar, 2015). Empowered employees report a higher level of competence and self-confidence (Lee & Koh, 2001), which are necessary conditions for perceived individual change readiness. However, few studies also indicate that empowerment can have negative effects on change readiness due to the fact that it is simply not appreciated (Argyris, 2001; Foegen, 1999; Rafiq & Ahmed, 1998; Petter et al., 2002). Whereas it undisputed that change readiness is a nec-essary prerequisite for successfully planned change as already stated by Lewin in 1947, it appears that there are still areas on the topic that currently restrict the understanding of this concept.
2
state that no less than two third of all change implementation attempts fail. It could be assumed that among others, the wrong usage of empowering change recipients is one of its roots.
By addressing this literature gap, this paper aims to contribute to the change management literature by researching how empowerment of change recipients will influence the perceived individual readiness for planned organizational change. If the aforementioned reservation holds to be true, the current idea of how to plan, manage and implement change requires rethinking. Therefore, the different dimensions of empowerment that are mentioned for planned change will be identified and tested for their effects on individual change readiness.
From a practical perspective, this paper will contribute with valuable insights in preparing future organizational change initiatives. It provides change agents with guidance about if and how to empower change recipients in order to foster individual change readiness. This might con-tribute towards decreasing the failure rate of planned organizational change. Based on this, the research question in this paper will be the following.
‘What is the influence of Change Recipient Empowerment on Change Recipients’ per-ceived Readiness for planned change?’
Theoretical Background
Before hypotheses regarding the relation of the concepts of change readiness and empowerment can be put forward, valid working definitions are required. Therefore, the concept of change read-iness is elaborated and defined based on the extant literature. Furthermore, two perspectives on empowerment are introduced. In Part I a positive perspective of empowering actions are present-ed. Part II contains context variables that are likely to moderate negatively the effects of empow-erment on change readiness.
Change readiness for planned change
man-3
agement literature refers to Lewin (1947) and his 3-step model which consists of the ‘unfreezing’, ‘moving’ and ‘refreezing’ phases in order to implement planned change successfully (Arnemakis et al., 1993; Weiner et al., 2008). The process of unfreezing describes the necessary steps under-taken by change agents meant to foster change readiness before the actual change implementation can take place (Lewin, 1947). Further, Lewin (1947) states that for organizational changes to happen, the driving and constraining forces need to be understood. Planned organizational change in this context is understood as a deliberate process undertaken by organizations to modify the organizational composition, structure or its behavior (Weiner et al., 2008). Organizational change can only occur when either driving forces fostering the change are increased or constraining forc-es hindering the change are reduced. The most commonly cited definition is provided by Ar-menakis et al. (1993, p.681) that describes change readiness as an individual’s ‘beliefs, attitudes, and intentions regarding the extent to which changes are needed and the organization’s capacity to successfully undertake those changes’. The three dimensions of change readiness that evolved from this definition are intentional, cognitive and emotional readiness for change.
However, this categorization seems to be inaccurate. The definition also encompasses be-havioral intentions. Intentions concern motivational factors that influence a future behavior. In-tentions are indicators of how hard a person is willing to try and of how much effort he or she is willing to invest in order to support organizational change (Rafferty et al., 2013). Thus, it can be argued this definition creates overlap with another change attitude, namely change commitment (Bouckenooghe, 2010). Furthermore, Holt et al. (2007) state that the measurements of the three categories are neither valid nor reliable.
be-4
lieves that the organization is capable to change (Weiner et al., 2008). Principal support describes the degree to which an individual perceives that the supervisors invest effort in making the change happen and whether the management is committed to the change and also supports its implementation (Holt et al., 2007). Valence is concerned with the believed benefits the organiza-tional change will bring and can be further distinguished into personal and organizaorganiza-tional valence (Holt et al. 2007). If the change content is appropriate, and if efficacy, valence and principal sup-port are high, so will be the individual readiness for change (Weiner et al., 2008; Bouckenooghe, 2009; Rafferty et al., 2013).
This papers’ working definition of change readiness combines the findings of Armenakis (1993), Holt et al. (2007), Weiner et al. (2008), Weiner (2009) and Rafferty et al. (2013) and will be the following, namely: ‘Change Readiness describes the extent to which organizational mem-bers are prepared to implement organizational change. Readiness for change refers to organiza-tional members’ individual sensed discrepancy and its appropriateness (need for change) as well as the individual belief in the capability to do so (self-efficacy). Furthermore, it refers to the indi-vidual belief that change will be beneficial for the self (personal valence) and the organization (organizational valence) as well as that it is supported by the supervisors (principal support).’
This definition implies that change readiness is a single-level construct that takes place only on the individual level. For the purpose of this paper, this notion will be followed because it is the individual that initiates and carries out change activities (Holt et al., 2007). Kanter (1992) states that individuals especially before major organizational changes feel powerless and depend-ent. This might lead to low degrees of individual readiness for planned change. In these very in-stances, empowering actions could become an important prerequisite for successful change im-plementations (Armenakis et al., 1993).
Pre-change empowerment: Delineating the concept
iden-5
tification of conditions that foster powerlessness and their removal by both formal organizational practices and informal techniques.’ Empowering actions are aimed at the individual or small groups (Wilkinson, 1998). The most straightforward managerial action to empower change recip-ients seems to be allowing them to participate in the decision-making process (Menon et al., 2001, Petter et al., 2002). However, Bowen and Lawler (1995) acknowledge that most empower-ing actions fail because they overemphasize the role of power and forget about the distribution and communication of relevant information to the lower layers in the organization. They also fail because of the lack of efforts to educate and coach employees upfront, in order to convey neces-sary skills and knowledge (Erstad, 1997; Herrenkohl et al., 1999). Additional actions refer to em-powering employees through conveying accountability and granting autonomy (Rothstein, 1995; Menon, 2001; Petter et al., 2002). However, empowerment is not universally definable as well as context-dependent and requires adjustments to a change context (Herrenkohl et al., 1999; Wil-kinson, 1998).
In the change management context empowerment is used during phases preparing planned organizational change and can be linked to participating, informing and coaching (Beer, 1990; Kotter, 1996; Kanter, 1992; Luecke, 2003). Beer (1990) links empowerment to the common analysis of the problem, in terms of designing a shared vision for the organizational change and in conveying change recipients the competence to accomplish organizational change. Luecke (2003) relates empowerment also to change recipients participating in the problem analysis and the design of the solution. Although Beer’s (1990) and Luecke’s (2003) models can be seen as participative change approaches, which in nature should possess a certain degree of empowering actions, even top-down directed change approaches do so.
6
Hypotheses development Part I: Pre-change empowerment as a necessary prerequisite
In Part I three forms of empowerment in a change management context are introduced that should be likely to have an influence on recipients’ change readiness. Those are participating, informing and coaching. Based on the literature, hypotheses are developed which are tested quantitatively further in this study. Part I will end by illustrating a preliminary conceptual model in Figure I.
Participating
The first dimension of pre-change empowerment refers to participating. Participation is defined as joint decision making and influence sharing between hierarchical superiors and their subordi-nates (Lam et al., 2002). Change agents can empower change recipients by granting them the ability to control, direct and make decisions that are directly linked to the change initiative (Petter et al., 2002; Lines, 2005). Cawsey et al. (2015) distinguish between two types of decisions re-garding the change in terms of what is going to change and how the change is going to be imple-mented. Empowering actions to allow participating change recipients are the creation of self-managed change project teams that have the ability to make decisions regarding the project and the organizational strategy (Marguilies & Kleiner, 1995).
Armenakis and Bedejan (1999) determine active participation as a main strategy to create readiness for planned change. Moreover, Armenakis and Harris (2009) state that without partici-pative actions no sustainable change implementation is possible. Coch and French (1948) illus-trated an impact of participation on productivity and satisfaction during organizational changes. Their results indicate that the greater the extent of participation, the more satisfied the change recipients and the quicker new production goals were met. Petter et al. (2002) have identified in qualitative studies that participation is appreciated. Rafferty and Simmons (2006) found strong positive correlations between participation and readiness for both fine-tuning changes and corpo-rate transformations.
7
(Charness & Sutter, 2012). Wanberg and Banas (2000) reported that high levels of participation strengthen the beliefs that the change will be beneficial for the organization. Kotter and Schle-singer (1979) state that recipients who are able to participate in activities related to design the change process are more committed to its success because their contributions are integrated into the change objectives.
If organizational members participate in determining the scope, depth, level and desired outcomes of organizational change, it will be likely to foster self-efficacy because recipients can determine these dimensions. This process could be influenced by the individual thoughts about their current skills and capabilities and might lead to an alignment of the change with their self-interests (Renn, 1998). As a consequence, the change recipient will be likely to influence change initiatives which seems too challenging or too shallow. Furthermore, making decisions regarding the scope might also influence the assessment of the change initiatives appropriateness. If the change initiative was determined by the recipients themselves they will be less likely to criticize its appropriateness. Based on this analysis the following hypothesis can be expected:
Hypothesis 1a: The more recipients are empowered by participation in the phase preparing or-ganizational change, the higher will be their readiness for planned change.
Informing
A second form of pre-change empowerment happens through the granting of change related in-formation about the change process or the current organizational situation (Petter et al., 2002). Informing can be defined as a process of briefing change recipients about the nature of change in order to modify their attitude towards organizational change (Elving, 2005). Informing recipients can be achieved through newsletters, team briefings, the intranet or the management chain (Petter et al., 2002).
8
the granting of necessary information about the planned change, change recipients’ could per-ceive that organizational change is not only meaningful but also required (Elving, 2005; Kanter, 1985). DiFonzo and Bordia (1998) state that many organizations fail to provide recipients with the needed information pre-change, which in turn impedes change implementation. According to Reichers et al. (1997), in such cases recipients are likely to gain information through other unreli-able channels resulting in rumors and ambiguity of the change (Bouckenooghe, 2009).
Pre-change empowerment in terms of informing will be likely to facilitate change recipi-ents access to and the quality of the change-related information (Eby et al., 2000). This could result in a better understanding of the underlying reasons for change and emphasizes the future individual and organizational benefits. Informing change recipients will be likely to decrease the perceived uncertainty about the change outcomes and as a consequence change recipients will be less likely trying to maintain status quo. Pre-change empowerment by informing will be likely to foster change recipients’ readiness for planned organizational change. Based on the foregoing analysis the following relation can be expected:
Hypothesis 1b: The more recipients are empowered by information in the phase preparing organ-izational change, the higher will be their readiness for planned change.
Coaching
The third form of pre-change empowerment refers to coaching. Coaching aims to increase em-ployee strengths and decrease weaknesses which results in improved performance (Henry et al., 2004). Coaching is a collaborative and personal approach ‘aimed at assisting others to unlock and realize their full potential’ (Mujtaba, 2008, p.3). Bowen and Lawler (1995) state that em-powerment is not only about the sharing of decision-making power and information with subor-dinates, but also about redistributing skills and knowledge through employee development meth-ods like coaching. Coaching can be done either on-the-job during the day-to-day business prac-tices or by off-the-job trainings and workshops (Rock & Donde, 2008).
9
are considered necessary for organizational members in order to achieve the desired change out-comes (Palmer et al., 2007). During the pre-change period or in the early stages of organizational change, trainings and workshops can be used to teach recipients the required competencies for their new roles and tasks. Grant (2013) states that change recipients who receive coaching, are more likely to think that organizational change can be achieved with their skills and abilities. Pre-change empowerment in terms of training and coaching possibilities will be likely to foster change recipients’ feelings of self-efficacy (Davis et al., 2000).
Another psychological effect of coaching affecting change readiness might steam from the costs of coaching. Since coaching is often linked to high expenses, recipients could perceive it as a sign of trust. The company signals the change recipient that post-change the company still plans to employ the individual and does not intend to substitute the recipients as soon as the change is implemented (Rock & Donde, 2008). Rock and Donde (2008) further found that recipi-ents who receive internal change related coaching from their managers, even if it was only one hour a week, perceive the change as important and see managers as being highly committed. In-ternal coaching by the (top) management could be perceived as principal support.
Hudson (1999) states that coached employees are more likely to question the status quo and more likely to be inspired to remain future oriented and cautiously optimistic, which will positively influence their motivation to support change initiatives. Pre-change empowerment in terms of coaching will result in a higher degree of self-efficacy, need for change and principal support. Based on this analysis the following relation can be expected.
Hypothesis 1c: The more recipients are empowered by coaching in the phase preparing organi-zational change, the higher will be their readiness for planned change.
10
Hypotheses development Part II: Pre-change empowerment as a Trojan horse
In Part I the studies discussed point to a positive effect of pre-change empowerment on change readiness. However, there seems to be evidence that requires a more nuanced view on empower-ment. Part II incorporates reservations regarding the general positive impact of empowerment mentioned by Argyris (2001, p.99) who states that ‘employees are often ambivalent about em-powerment - it is great as long as they are not held personally accountable.’ Furthermore, con-sidering equity theory, empowerment might be rejected by change recipients because it is contra-ry to human nature and will always result in additional workload (Yates, 2001). Based on this notion, two additional variables will be introduced, that are likely to impact the relation between change recipient empowerment and change readiness, namely workload and accountability. This chapter ends by illustrating the complete conceptual framework (See Figure 2).
Workload and empowerment
Whereas empowerment is supposed to have advantages for employees through high involvement and high participation possibilities, it actually translates into an increase in workload due to addi-tional tasks and responsibilities that come along with it (De Cuyper & De Witte, 2006). The no-tion that addino-tional workload caused by pre-change empowerment will have a negative impact can be drawn from Yates et al. (2001) who define empowerment as a ‘Trojan horse’. According to Yates et al. (2001), empowerment at a first glance, leads to advantages for the employees through involvement and additional power, but in fact it generates more duties and workload. Their findings demonstrate that employees feel more exhausted from work due to empowerment than before (Yates et al., 2001).
Consequent-11
ly, more required effort through empowerment during organizational change might be assessed as an increase in input while the output stays the same.
Recipients could perceive the costs of pre-change empowerment to be higher than the ac-tual benefits (Grant, 2013). Actions by managers to empower their employees are team briefings and meetings, suggestion schemes, work groups and coaching which consume employees’ time, demand additional effort and are likely to decrease change readiness. Participative decision-making can be a conflictive, exhausting and very time-consuming process (Amason, 1996; Frank et al., 2003). This will be likely to cause negative change attitudes (Greenglass et al., 2003). This is why Freeman et al. (2003) doubt that participative decision-making will be appreciated if there is no monetary incentive offered to do so. Additional information which is spread needs to be received and understood. This takes times and will require additional cognitive effort.
Coaching and workshops consume recipients’ time and are likely to be perceived as an increase in input. Most often, trainings happen next to the daily business and are oftentimes linked to additional effort learning new tasks, systems or competencies (Brown et al., 2002). Fur-ther, Grant (2010) states that applying the newly learned methods can decrease productivity with-in the first six months due to additional effort required and will lead to frustration. Moreover, Rock and Donde (2008) state that if employees feel that they are being forced to attend training they will show lower motivation to make use of the skills learned afterwards. Rafiq and Ahmed (1998) conclude that empowered employees perceive greater workloads due to empowerment because of their expanded efforts to cope with the broader ranges of tasks.
To sum up, it can be assumed that pre-change empowerment in terms of participation, in-forming and coaching requires additional effort and according to equity theory could be per-ceived as an increase in workload. The increase in workload is likely to be perper-ceived as a de-crease in personal valence. Following from these theoretical reservations, the moderating influ-ence of additional workload caused by empowerment leads to additional hypotheses, namely:
Hypothesis 2a: The relation between participating and readiness for planned change will be neg-atively moderated by workload.
Hypothesis 2b: The relation between informing and readiness for planned change will be nega-tively moderated by workload.
12 Accountability and empowerment
Frink et al. (1995) refer to accountability as the dark side of empowerment, which in turn is caused by participation. Accountability describes an internal or external expectation to be called to justify personal actions and decisions to others (Lerner & Tetlock, 1999). Petter et al. (2002) found evidence in their qualitative study that employees do appreciate certain dimensions of em-powerment. However, they do not appreciate being involved in the decision-making process when it means being held accountable for future outcomes. Recipients might feel that personal accountability means to justify their course of action to their supervisors. Furthermore, in severe cases, it can lead to punishment or sanctions (Rus et al., 2012). Being held accountable in a change management context might not be appreciated since the likelihood of unintended change outcomes and punishment is relatively high (Beer & Nuhria, 2000; Frink & Klimoski, 2004; Hochwarter et al., 2005). In that sense, accountability acts as a stressor which induces strain reac-tions such as anxiety and fear (e.g., Frink & Klimoski, 1998; Frink & Klimoski, 2004; Lanivich et al, 2010).
Change recipients might perceive accountability caused by participating in decision-making as a decrease in personal valence. Applying equity theory, additional accountability caused by participating in decision-making can be perceived as an increase in input (additional responsibilities for risky projects), while the output (salary) stays the same. Nowadays, especially top managers stress that their high salaries are appropriate due to the enormous degree of ac-countability and pressure (Luo, 2005). If things do not go according to plan, top managers are the first ones to be punished. In this sense, additional accountability might be unfavorable if it comes without further remuneration. Following from these reservations, accountability caused by pre-change empowerment could lower readiness for pre-change. Based on the foregoing analysis the fol-lowing relation can be expected:
Hypothesis 3: The relation between participation and readiness for planned change will be mod-erated negatively by accountability.
13 Figure 2. The conceptual framework
Methods
Readiness to organizational change can be researched using both qualitative and quantitative methods. Although qualitative methods provide incredibly rich change-specific information, quantitative methods are more appropriate (Holt et al., 2007) and better fit this papers’ research purpose. A quantitative research method is chosen if the field of literature is already mature, while not all relations among the concepts have been ultimately identified (van Aken et al., 2012). Furthermore, a quantitative research fits this research since it converts phenomena into numeric values in order to conduct a statistical analysis which enables to explore causal relations among variables (Gelo et al, 2008).
Data collection procedure and sample description
14
business in order to ensure an unambiguous and understandable final version. An overview of the questionnaire is illustrated in Appendix I.
All participating companies were chosen from the Orbis database and approached by ei-ther mail and/or phone. In order to ensure that the companies fit this paper’s research require-ments the particular change was discussed with the change agents in advance. Typical points dis-cussed were related to the change itself, the current phase and the degree of recipient empower-ment. After making sure that the organizational change project fits this papers requirements an URL-link for conducting the actual survey was sent to the contact persons of companies located in the headquarter. The contact persons have distributed the link among the prospective respond-ents who had been identified and informed in advance. In order to increase the response rate, re-minders were sent to the participants. All participating companies were about to experience or were experiencing planned organizational change at the time of the survey.
In total, 568 respondents from five different companies in Germany agreed to participate in the research. Out of these 568 questionnaires, 226 have been completed and could be analyzed. This results in a response rate of 39.8%. The sample contained of 104 male and 122 female re-spondents. All respondents operate in German companies and have German nationality. The larg-est group of respondents was between 51-60 years old, with 64 respondents.
15
Table 1. Sample descriptives
Sample Gender Male 104 Female 122 Age 21-30 years 56 31-40 years 54 41-50 years 49 51-60 years 64 61 + years 3 Educational level Primary education 15 Secondary education 135 Polytechnic or University 76 Work experience (mean in years)
Current position (sd) 10.10 (9.50) Total experience (sd) 19.35 (11.49) N = 226
Measures
16
Change Readiness. Change readiness was measured using 15 items of the questionnaire by Holt et al. (2007). The items were divided into the following five categories based on this study’s definition of readiness: self-efficacy, personal and organizational valence, need for change and principal support. All items were measured using a seven-point Likert scale ranging from ‘I strongly disagree’ (1) to ‘I strongly agree’ (7), consistent with the research method con-ducted by Holt et al. (2007). Example items are ‘When I hear about this change, I feel I can han-dle it with ease.’ (self-efficacy); ‘I think the organization will benefit from this change’ (organi-zational valence); ‘This organization’s leaders are committed to this change’ (principal support); ‘I am worried I will lose some of my status in the organization when this change is implemented’ (personal valence) and ‘This change I clearly needed’ (need for change).
Moderating Variables. In order to align workload with the individual conception of change readiness and pre-change empowerment, a measurement technique that is based on self-assessment seems most logical. Lamm and Chen (2011) measured workload using three items. An example item is ‘Overall, I feel that my workload is high.’ The responses were assessed on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from ‘I strongly disagree’ (1) to ‘I strongly agree’ (7).
Accountability was measured using three items adapted from Hochwarter et al. (2005). A sample item measuring accountability is 'top management holds me accountable for all of my decisions.’ The responses were assessed on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from ‘I strongly disagree’ (1) to ‘I strongly agree’ (7). Prior research has proven that the initial construct adequacy in terms of internal consistency and reliability to be relatively high for both, workload and ac-countability items (Lamm & Chan, 2011; Hochwarter et al., 2005).
17
Factor analysis and reliability testing
Before the hypotheses could be tested, a factor analysis was conducted. For this purpose all items which have been formulated reversely required a re-coding. As commonly agreed a factor analy-sis’ purpose is to gain information about the interdependencies between variables and their items (Field, 2013). To test whether the items mentioned under the measurement section are congruent with their underlying theoretical assumption, an exploratory factor analysis was conducted. A factor analysis on the six constructs mentioned in the hypothesis- participation, informing, coach-ing, perceived readiness for change, workload and accountability- helped to investigate whether these constructs are indeed different.
Only items that fulfilled the following criteria according to Song et al. (2011) were re-tained in the study: (1) Each measure must have a loading of 0.65; (2) each measure is only load-ing in one factor of greater than 0.4; (3) each factor must load in the expected factor. Afterwards, a reliability analysis of the remaining items has been conducted to test each construct’s items separately. The results show that all multiple-item constructs show good reliability with Cronbach’s alphas between 0.63 and 0.91 (see Appendix I).
18
Moderating variables. Two moderating variables were included in this study namely, ac-countability and workload. Out of five items measuring workload, two items did not fulfill the statistical requirements. The same holds true for three items measuring accountability. The Cronbach’s alpha for accountability is α = .63 and for workload α = .90. Based on the reliability analysis for both constructs, sum variables could be computed. After excluding the items that did not meet the statistical conditions all remaining items loaded into six factors as expected.
19
Table 2. Factor loadings from Factor Analysis
1 2 3 4 5 6
Change Readiness
CR_1 I think there are real business needs that make change necessary.
.83 .03 .22 -.09 .05 .02
CR_2 I think the organization will benefit from this change.
.83 .14 -.02 .08 -.01 .06
CR_3 The change is clearly needed. .82 .09 .14 -.09 .03 .10
CR_4 This change improves our organization’s overall efficiency.
.79 .06 .21 .16 -.04 .07
CR_5 Our organization will be more productive when we implement this change.
.78 .23 -.02 .15 -.01 .03 Participation
P_1 I have high degrees of influence in decisions. .13 .87 .13 .10 .06 .09 P_2 I can participate in setting new policies. .17 .86 .16 .12 -.05 .14 P_3 My views have a real influence in decisions. .20 .76 .31 .21 -.02 .03 Information
I_1 I am regularly informed about how this change is going.
.15 .21 .84 .31 -.05 .11 I_2 Information provided on change is clear. .16 .21 .84 .24 -.06 .08 I_3 I am sufficiently informed about the progress of
this change
.17 .19 .83 .19 -.06 .06 Coaching
CO_1 Considering the work I do, the trainings I have received are sufficient.
-.01 .15 .19 .84 -.19 .06 CO_2 I am satisfied with the training and development I
have received.
.11 .19 .32 .83 -.10 .04 CO_3R Considering the work I do, the trainings I have
received are not sufficient.
.06 .10 .30 .79 -.12 .17 Workload
WL_1
I feel that I work too hard. -.02 .04 -.04 -.07 .92 .05 WL_2
It often seems like I have too much work to do. -.01 -.02 -.05 -.08 .91 .00 WL_3
Overall, I feel that my workload is high. .04 .15 -.05 -.18 .87 .05 Accountability
AC_1 I am held very accountable for my actions at work. .11 .05 .10 .06 .06 .85 AC_2 The management holds me responsible for all my
decisions.
20
Results
For each multi-item construct the respondents’ ratings of the specific items were combined and divided by the number of items in order to achieve a composite scale for each item. Multicolline-arity diagnostic tests indicate no serious multicollineMulticolline-arity problems in the mean-centered regres-sion models (all Condition Indices <30, and all Variance Inflation Factors <10). Although, multi-collinearity did not appear to be a problem, the study variables and the moderator variable were mean-centered in order to test for interaction effects as suggested by Song et al. (2011) and en-sure independence among the variables. Hypotheses 1a, 1b and 1c hypothesized the relationship between pre-change empowerment and readiness for change. Hypotheses 2a, 2b and 2c take the moderating influence of workload on the aforementioned relation into account. Hypothesis 3 in-corporated the notion of additional accountability caused by pre-change empowerment. This sec-tion commences by a discussion of the descriptive results.
Descriptive Results
21
The moderating influence of workload and accountability are ambiguous. Workload cor-relates negatively with every other variable. The strongest negative correlation exists with coach-ing (r = -.26, p = .01). Recipients reported to have a rather high level of workload with 4.53 (sd = 1.58). Contrary, accountability is significantly and positively correlated to all three forms of pre-change empowerment. Change recipients assessed their perceived accountability 5.38 (sd = .98). Both constructs have been measured on a seven-point Likert scale.
22
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics, Cronbach’s alphas, and Correlations
Mean (sd)
1. RFC 2. P 3. I 4. C 5. WL 6. AC 7. A 8. G 9. ED 10. T 11. EX
1. Readiness for Change 5.26 (1.07) .96 2. Participation 3.22 (1.10) .36* .86 3. Information 5.18 (1.28) .31* .49* .91 4. Coaching 4.77 (1.30) .14** .37* .55* .86 5. Workload 4.53 (1.41) -.01 -.02 -.10 -.26* .88 6. Accountability 5.58 (.95) .12 .28* .28* .24* .09 .68 7. Age 3.63 (1.18) -.02 .09 .07 .02 -.03. 13 n.a 8. Gender 1.55 (.50) -.08 -.25* -.12 -.19* -.04 -.10 .00 n.a 9. Education 2.29 (.59) .18* .31* .14** -.15** .14** -.15 -.12 -.04 n.a 10. Tenure 10.10 (9.50) -.09 -.08 -.08 -.09 -.01 .05 .52 .05 -.33 n.a 11. Experience 19.35 (11.49) -.06 -.01 .03 -.07 -.01 .22* .87* .04 -.21* .56* n.a N = 226
Note that Cronbach’s alphas are on the diagonal in Italics * significant for p < .01
23
Examining the Hypotheses
The purpose of a regression analysis is to determine whether there is a causal relationship be-tween the dependent variable and the independent antecedents (Field, 2013). A hierarchical re-gression is ideally suited to test theory-based hypotheses (Petrocelli, 2003). For this study, three hierarchical regression models were used to analyze the hypotheses. Model 1 contains the afore-mentioned different control variables and shows an adjusted R² of 0.24 and an F value of 5.50. Model 2 contains the aforementioned control variables, as well as the three dimensions of em-powerment namely, participating, informing and coaching. Model 2 possesses an adjusted R² of 0.34 and an F value of 6.50. Model 3 combines all aforementioned variables and adds the mean centered moderating variables workload and accountability. The third model displays significant improvement over the previous two models. The adjusted R² of Model 3 is 0.36 and an F statis-tics of 4.59. All three regression models are highly significant (p < 0.001). See Table 3 for the results of the regression analysis. Several consistent effects of pre-change empowerment on change readiness can be identified.
Hypothesis 1a assumed a positive effect of participation on readiness for change. The effect is positive and significant for Model 2 with (ß = .26, p = .001) and Model 3 with (ß = .26, p = .001). Hence, Hypothesis 1a is supported by the findings and it can be concluded that pre-change empowerment in terms of participating in this sample positively affects pre-change readiness. In hypothesis 1b we expected a positive effect of informing on readiness for change. This relation is positive and significant for both Model 2 with (ß = .15, p= .05) and Model 3 (ß= .17, p = .01). Thus, as predicted by Hypothesis 1b, in this sample pre-change empowerment in terms of inform-ing increases readiness for planned. In hypothesis 1c, we expected a positive effect of coachinform-ing on readiness for planned change. The results show a negative relation between coaching and change readiness for Model 2 with (ß = -.07, p= .29) and Model 3 (ß = -.07, p= .31). However, these results are not significant.
24
change. This effect is indicated by the findings, but again these results are not significant either (ß = -.04, p. =.34). With hypothesis 2c we assumed that the relation between coaching and perceived readiness for planned change is negatively moderated by workload. Although the level of insig-nificance decreased, results still do not indicate a significant relation between coaching and read-iness for change, moderated by workload (ß = .03, p = .19). Noteworthy however, is that high levels of workload indicate to increase the effect of coaching on change readiness. Following from the results, workload cannot be said to have a significant moderating effect on the relation between any form of pre-change empowerment and change readiness.
Hypothesis 3 was also based on equity theory and assumed accountability will negatively moderate the relation between pre-change empowerment in terms of participating and change readiness. Although the results show a decreasing effect in Model 3 with (ß = .07, p= .39), this relation is not significant, either.
25
Table 3. Results from Hierarchical Regression Analyses
N = 226
* significant at p < .001 ** significant at p < .01 *** significant at p < .05
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Coefficient Estimate ß Standard Error Coefficient Estimate ß Standard Error Coefficient Estimate ß Standard Error
Readiness for Change 5.58 .48 4.47 .58 4.31 .62
26
Discussion
This study investigated whether the effects of pre-change empowerment on perceived readiness for planned organizational change. In response to the debate, this study developed a model in which three different dimensions of pre-change empowerment have been identified and tested for their effect. Based on the reservation put forward by Argyris (2001) and equity theory, the mod-erating effects of workload and accountability have been researched.
In Part I, we assumed positive effects of pre-change empowerment and change readiness. This relation can be confirmed for the dimensions of participating and informing. The results referring to participating in terms of change related decision-making indicate a positive effect on perceived change readiness. Participating recipients perceive organizational change as beneficial for the organization and show higher understandings of the need for change. This relation is sig-nificant and in line with previous research. Similar studies have proven the positive effects of participative management in terms of higher motivation, higher satisfaction and a more positive and understanding attitude towards organizational change (Rafferty & Simmons, 2006; Petter et al., 2002; Armenakis et al., 1993). With a view to this study’s results, participation in decision-making as one form of pre-change empowerment has the strongest effects on change readiness.
27
coaching recipients pre-change cannot be stated to foster readiness for organizational change. In a nutshell, Part I of this study confirms the existing literature and has found a positive effect in terms of participating and informing on change readiness. Pre-change empowerment affects the change process which increases readiness for change (Holt et al., 2007).
In Part II, we expected a negative effect of workload and accountability on change readi-ness based on equity theory. However, the results do not indicate that workload decreases the positive influence of pre-change empowerment in terms of participating, informing and coaching on readiness for change. The moderating and negative effect of accountability on the relation between participating and change readiness could not be proven, either. The results for both moderators are insignificant.
One demographic variable has a significant impact on change readiness. The better edu-cated a recipient the higher the readiness for change (Devos et al., 2007). Hudson (1999) states that better educated individuals are more likely to question the status quo and in general are more open for change. Furthermore, the characteristics of each instance of organizational change seem to be the crucial variable influencing change readiness the most. Not only individual attributes like education but also the change content and change context seem to have an influence on change readiness. Change readiness seems to be a concept influenced by content, context, process and personality (Holt et al., 2007). Pre-change empowerment is likely to affect the change pro-cess.
Theoretical implications
28
more holistic and more critical view on empowerment were given. The results indicate that both concepts pre-change empowerment and change readiness are multi-level concepts as well as highly context depended.
Practical implications
From a practical perspective this research outlines a few recommendations for change agents pre-paring future organizational change. Empowering recipients pre-change will be likely to foster change readiness. This effect will be stronger for recipients that are participating than recipients who are informed. It would be a straight forward approach to simply recommend participation opportunities for recipients in order to foster change readiness. However, it is not always possible to give all recipients participation possibilities since empowerment is mainly focused on smaller groups (Wilkinson, 1998). Under circumstances in which big groups of recipients are the aim of a change readiness fostering initiative, this can be done best by informing recipients. In this sense, participation possibilities and change related information are powerful strategies that taken to-gether will foster readiness for change best. This can for instance be achieved by means of using information channels such as the intranet, newsletters or informing meetings and joint decision-making meetings or suggestion boxes.
29
There will be by no means a one best way about how to empower recipients pre-change. Recipients are human beings and by nature human beings are different. Some individuals will appreciate the opportunity to be empowered in no matter what form and in very different situa-tions, while others do not appreciate it (Petter et al., 2002; Kuokkanen et al., 2007). Change agents are advised to allow recipients possibilities to be involved or even empowered, but should not force them to do so. In this manner, a self-sorting effect will be implemented that takes recip-ients personality and their current situation into account (Lazear & Gibbs, 2014)
Limitations
Like every other study, this research presents some limitations which need to be taken into ac-count before applying the results. Limitations are mentioned in terms of methodology and con-cept development.
First, a general methodological issue which refers to the general downsides of quantitative research approaches. The reservation of Argyris (2001) is based on the assumption that additional workload and accountability are caused by participating, coaching and informing. However, this relation is statistically not researchable due to possible multicollinearity of the variables (Field, 2013). Hence, the research approach had to be adjusted. What was researched instead is how high levels of workload and accountability will moderate these relations.
Second, the results from the hierarchical regression indicate that the different cases have significant different results at all three Models. This indicates that the change projects are very diverse and it is hardly possible to generalize the findings. This indicates that additional variables influence change readiness and need to be discovered. As suggested by Holt et al. (2007) change readiness seems to be context and content depended. Regarding the sample in this study, a more differentiated per case analysis would have been required to achieve more reliable results.
30
Third, the concepts of empowerment and change readiness operate on different levels than assumed in this study. Change readiness can be defined as a multi-level construct taking place on the individual-, group- and organizational level (Weiner et al., 2009; Rafferty et al., 2013). It is likely that the (missing) change readiness of one recipient will affect the other and vice versa. Actions by change agents that are meant to foster change readiness should usually be researched by taking the social context into account (Arnemakis, 1993). Pre-change empowerment usually focusses on the individual or the group level. However, this papers’ theory testing approach could not be aligned with the group level and thus the concepts had to be adjusted to an individual lev-el. A qualitative research approach would have been more appropriate to unravel underlying thoughts and emotions arising from pre-change empowerment.
Fourth, as indicated in the discussion, change readiness was only measured by five items, instead of 15 covering all its sub-categories. In this sense, not all effects of pre-change empow-erment on change readiness could be researched.
Moreover, a few remarks need to be mentioned regarding the applicability of pre-change empowerment. What becomes apparent from the results is that no other variable causes or deteri-orates change readiness as much as the organizational change. Thus, the organizational change and its content as a whole are the most meaningful and pre-change empowerment can only be used as an instrument to either dampen negative feelings or strengthen positive attitudes. Pre-change empowerment cannot be seen as the ultimate instrument to prepare any kind of organiza-tional change. Burnes (2014) states that companies will at some point face situations in which radical change is the only solution to ensure the survival of an organization. Beer and Nohria (2000) refer to these changes as Theory E. When time is of the essence and the situation is se-vere, empowerment is not appropriate, since it usually requires time and unpleasant decision that need to be made (Arnemakis, 1993; Beer & Nohria, 2000; Burnes, 2014). Lazear and Gibbs (2014) describe empowerment as a reverse shaped U-curve that after a tipping point hinders or-ganizational success.
Wil-31
kinson, 1998). A reason for that is given by Zimmermann (1995) who insisted that empowerment does not mean the same thing to everybody and hence, trying to define it universally is not going to succeed.
Future research
Based on the aforementioned limitations, this study offers directions for future research. The ef-fect of coaching on change readiness as well as the moderating influence of workload and ac-countability are insignificant. The reason for this might lay in the composition of the construct of change readiness. The factor analysis eliminated the dimensions of self-efficacy, personal valence and principal support that are the ones to be most likely affected by coaching (Grant, 2013; Davis et al., 2000; Rock & Donde, 2008). To enable further research, reliable items need to be devel-oped for the dimensions of self-efficacy, principle support and personal valence. Pre-change em-powerment, especially in terms of coaching, is likely to affect these dimensions. These new items would also enable future research to test the entire effects of pre-change empowerment and its three dimensions on all sub-categories of change readiness.
Furthermore, the results in this study could lead to the assumption that moderating influ-ence of workload might bear the risk to not only lower the positive effect of pre-change empow-erment but also might decrease change readiness. However, this effect seems to be stronger for informed recipients than for participating recipients.
32
Hochwarter et al. (2005, p.518) state that accountability ‘has the potential to possess both positive and negative direct associations with important work attitudes’. This statement is sup-ported by the descriptive results that indicate a positive correlation of accountability and readi-ness for change. From an equity theory perspective, additional accountability could also be per-ceived as an increase in personal valence. Future quantitative research needs to test the influence of workload and accountability again before qualitative studies could focus on exploring explana-tions for the different strengths and direcexplana-tions of the moderating influences.
Another topic that leaves space for future research refers to the role of empowerment in different change projects. Following form a more detailed per case analysis in the Appendix IV, results indicate that different contexts and contents of the organizational change is likely to influ-ence the relation of pre-change empowerment, change readiness and the aforementioned moder-ating variables. Future research should focus on the contextual and content variables in order to better understand in what situations pre-change empowerment is useful or should be avoided.
In line with this, the role of empowerment in emergent change approaches also requires additional research. In this sense, an additional dimension of empowerment, namely autonomy, could be incorporated into the conceptual framework. This also enables future research to include the second stream of empowerment literature that defines empowerment as a psychological state. Lee and Koh (2001) have generated a scale for measuring the perceived level of empowerment on four different dimensions. These dimensions are called meaningfulness, efficacy, self-determination and impact. Lizar et al. (2015) indicate in a recently published study a positive influence of psychological empowerment on individual change readiness. However, it would be interesting to know whether this psychological state of empowerment can be achieved by the dimensions of pre-change empowerment and whether this contributes to change readiness. Future research could use this papers’ conceptual model and incorporate the scales by Lee and Koh (2002) as mediating factors. This research would clarify whether participating, informing and coaching can actually be called forms of empowerment.
33
have to give up power, which is an important resource in organizations (Mintzberg, 1983). So far, studies have pre-dominantly focused on recipients’ personal characteristics such as integrity or expertise that will be likely affect the appreciation of empowerment (Kuokkanen et al., 2007). From an agency perspective, equity theory would suggest pre-change empowerment to be a de-crease in outcome while keeping the same level of inputs. The question which requires additional research is whether change agents want to empower their recipients.
Conclusion
This paper’s aim was to investigate and explain the effects pre-change empowerment has on individual readiness for planned change. Based on a literature gap mentioning that empower-ment could either affect change readiness positively or negatively a theory testing approach was applied to clarify this phenomenon. A significant and positive effect of participating and inform-ing was confirmed. The reservation from Argyris (2001) and equity theory that additional work-load and accountability caused by empowerment would have negative effects could neither be confirmed nor rejected. Workload and accountability might have the potential to lower the posi-tive effects of pre-change empowerment. Additional research in this field is required.
References
Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J., & Rapp, A. (2005). To empower or not to empower your sales force? An empirical examination of the influence of leadership Empowerment behavior on cus-tomer satisfaction and performance. Journal of Applied psychology, 90(5), 945.
Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on stra-tegic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of man-agement journal, 39(1), 123-148.
Argyris, C. (2001). 15 Empowerment: The Emperor's New Clothes. Creative Management, 195 Armenakis, A. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (1999). Organizational change: A review of theory and
re-search in the 1990s. Journal of management, 25(3), 293-315.
34
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating Readiness for organiza-tional change. Human relations, 46(6), 681-703.
Arnold, J. A., Arad, S., Rhoades, J. A., & Drasgow, F. (2000). The empowering leadership ques-tionnaire: The construction and validation of a new scale for measuring leader behav-iors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(3), 249-269.
Beer, M., Eisenstat, R. A., & Spector, B. (1990). Why change programs don’t produce change. Beer, M. and Nohria, N. (2000), “Cracking the code of change”, Harvard Business Review, Vol.
78 No. 2, pp. 133-41.
Bouckenooghe, D. (2010). Positioning Change Recipients’ attitudes toward change in the organi-zational change literature. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 46(4), 500-531. Bouckenooghe, D., Devos, G., & Van den Broeck, H. (2009). Organizational change
question-naire–climate of change, processes, and Readiness: Development of a new instru-ment. The Journal of psychology, 143(6), 559-599.
Bowen, D. E., & Lawler, E. E. (1995). Organising for service: Empowerment or production line. Understanding services management, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 269-294. Brown, S. A., Massey, A. P., Montoya-Weiss, M. M., & Burkman, J. R. (2002). Do I really have
to? User acceptance of mandated technology. European journal of information sys-tems, 11(4), 283-295.
Burnes, B. (2014). Managing Change (sixth ed.). Harlow, United Kingdom: Pearson Education Limited.
Cawsey, T. F., Deszca, G., & Ingols, C. (2015). Organizational change: An action-oriented toolkit. Sage Publications.
Chan, K. W., & Lam, W. (2011). The trade-off of servicing Empowerment on employees’ service performance: examining the underlying motivation and workload mechanisms. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(4), 609-628.
Charness, G., & Sutter, M. (2012). Groups make better self-interested decisions. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 157-176.
Choi, M., & Ruona, W. E. (2010). Individual Readiness for organizational change and its impli-cations for human resource and organization development. Human Resource Development Review, 1534484310384957.
35
Coch, L., & French Jr, J. R. (1948). Overcoming resistance to change. Human relations.
Collins, D. (1999). Born to fail? Empowerment, ambiguity and set overlap. Personnel Re-view, 28(3), 208-221.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The Empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of management review, 13(3), 471-482.
Davis, W. D., Fedor, D. B., Parsons, C. K., & Herold, D. M. (2000). The development of self‐ efficacy during aviation training. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(8), 857-871. De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2006). Autonomy and workload among temporary workers:
Their effects on job satisfaction, organizational commitment, life satisfaction, and self-rated performance. International Journal of Stress Management, 13(4), 441.
DiFonzo, N., & Bordia, P. (1998). A tale of two corporations: Managing uncertainty during or-ganizational change. Human Resource Management, 37(3-4), 295-303.
Dysvik, A., & Kuvaas, B. (2008). The relationship between perceived training opportunities, work motivation and employee outcomes. International Journal of Training and Devel-opment, 12(3), 138-157.
Eby, L. T., Adams, D. M., Russell, J. E., & Gaby, S. H. (2000). Perceptions of organizational Readiness for change: Factors related to employees' reactions to the implementation of team-based selling. Human relations, 53(3), 419-442.
Elving, W. J. (2005). The role of communication in organisational change. Corporate Communi-cations: An International Journal, 10(2), 129-138.
Erstad, M. (1997). Empowerment and organizational change. International Journal of Contempo-rary Hospitality Management, 9(7), 325-333.
Fachruddin, D.F. & Mangundjaya, W. (2012). The impact of workplace well-being and Psycho-logical Capital to Individual Readiness for Change. Proceedings 4 th Asian PsychoPsycho-logical Association, Jakarta, 5-7 July, 2012. ISBN 978-602-17678-0-1
Fernandez, S., & Moldogaziev, T. (2013). Employee Empowerment, employee attitudes, and performance: Testing a causal model. Public Administration Review, 73(3), 490-506.
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage.
36
Freeman, R., Blasi, J., Buchele, R., Scharf, A., Rodgers, L., & Mackin, C. (2003). Motivating employee-owners in ESOP firms: Human resource policies and company perfor-mance (No. 10177). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Frink, D. D., Klimoski, R. J., Hopper, H., Mitchell, T. R., Mero, N. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1995). Dramatus personae in organizations: Two faces of accountability effects. In Symposium conducted at the Academy of Management, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Frink, D. D., & Klimoski, R. J. (1998). Toward a theory of accountability in organizations and human resource management.
Frink, D. D., & Klimoski, R. J. (2004). Advancing accountability theory and practice: Introduc-tion to the human resource management review special ediIntroduc-tion. Human Resource Man-agement Review, 14(1), 1-17.
Gelo, O., Braakmann, D., & Benetka, G. (2008). Quantitative and qualitative research: Beyond the debate. Integrative psychological and behavioral science,42(3), 266-290.
Gilley, J. W. (2001). Fixing employee weaknesses. Addressing the myth. Performance Improve-ment, 40(6), 24-29.
Grant, A. M. (2010). It takes time: A stages of change perspective on the adoption of workplace coaching skills. Journal of Change Management, 10(1), 61-77.
Grant, A. M. (2013). The efficacy of coaching. Handbook of the psychology of coaching and mentoring, 15-39.
Greasley, K., Bryman, A., Dainty, A., Price, A., Naismith, N., & Soetanto, R. (2008). Under-standing Empowerment from an employee perspective: what does it mean and do they want it? Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 14(1/2), 39-55. Greenglass, E. R., Burke, R. J., & Moore, K. A. (2003). Reactions to increased workload: Effects
on professional efficacy of nurses. Applied psychology, 52(4), 580-597.
Han, T. S., Chiang, H. H., & Chang, A. (2010). Employee participation in decision making, psy-chological ownership and knowledge sharing: mediating role of organizational commit-ment in Taiwanese high-tech organizations. The International Journal of Human Re-source Management, 21(12), 2218-2233.
Henry, C., Hill, F. M., & Leitch, C. M. (2004). The Effectiveness of Training for New Business Creation a Longitudinal Study. International Small Business Journal, 22(3), 249-271.
37
Hochwarter, W. A., Perrewé, P. L., Hall, A. T., & Ferris, G. R. (2005). Negative affectivity as a moderator of the form and magnitude of the relationship between felt accountability and job tension. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(5), 517-534.
Holt, D. T., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., & Harris, S. G. (2007). Readiness for organizational change the systematic development of a scale. The Journal of applied behavioral sci-ence, 43(2), 232-255.
Hudson, F. M. (1999). The handbook of coaching. Jossev-Bass Publishers: San Francisco. Huseman, R. C., Hatfield, J. D., & Miles, E. W. (1987). A new perspective on equity theory: The
equity sensitivity construct. Academy of management Review, 12(2), 222-234.
Jimmieson, N. L., Terry, D. J., & Callan, V. J. (2004). A longitudinal study of employee adapta-tion to organizaadapta-tional change: the role of change-related informaadapta-tion and change-related self-efficacy. Journal of occupational health psychology, 9(1), 11.
Joshi, K. (1991). A model of users' perspective on change: the case of information systems tech-nology implementation. Mis Quarterly, 229-242.
Kanter, R. M. Stein, BA, and Jick, TD (1992). The Challenge of Organizational Change: How Companies Experience It and Leaders Guide It.
Karr-Wisniewski, P., & Lu, Y. (2010). When more is too much: Operationalizing technology overload and exploring its impact on knowledge worker productivity.Computers in Hu-man Behavior, 26(5), 1061-1072.
Kotter, J. (1999). Change leadership. Executive Excellence, 16(4), 16-17.
Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard business re-view, 73(2), 59-67.
Kotter, J. P., & Schlesinger, L. A. (1979). Choosing strategies for change (pp. pp-106). Harvard Business Review.
Kuokkanen, L., Suominen, T., Rankinen, S., Kukkurainen, M. L., Savikko, N., & Doran, D. (2007). Organizational change and work‐related Empowerment. Journal of Nursing Man-agement, 15(5), 500-507.
38
Lamm, E., & Gordon, J. R. (2010). Empowerment, predisposition to resist change, and support for organizational change. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies.
Lanivich, S. E., Brees, J. R., Hochwarter, W. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2010). PE Fit as moderator of the accountability–employee reactions relationships: Convergent results across two sam-ples. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77(3), 425-436.
Laschinger, H. K. S., & Finegan, J. (2005). Using Empowerment to build trust and respect in the workplace: A strategy for addressing the nursing shortage. Nursing Economics, 23(1), 6. Lazear, E. P., & Gibbs, M. (2014). Personnel economics in practice. John Wiley & Sons.
Lee, M., & Koh, J. (2001). Is Empowerment really a new concept? International journal of hu-man resource hu-management, 12(4), 684-695.
Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological bulletin, 125(2), 255.
Lewin, K. (1947). Group decision and social change. Readings in social psychology, 3, 197-211. Lines, R. (2005). The structure and function of attitudes toward organizational change. Human
resource development review, 4(1), 8-32.
Lizar, A. A., Mangundjaya, W. L., & Rachmawan, A. (2015). The Role of Psychological Capital and Psychological Empowerment on Individual Readiness for Change. The Journal of Developing Areas, 49(5), 343-352.
Luecke, R. (2003) Managing Change and Transition (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press).
Menon, S. T. (2001). Employee Empowerment: An integrative psychological approach. Applied Psychology, 50(1), 153-180.
Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in and around organizations (Vol. 142). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Mujtaba, B. (2008). Coaching and performance management: Developing and inspiring leaders. ILEAD Academy, LLC.
