empirical research about the relationship between

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

READINESS FOR CHANGE & RESISTANCE AND THEIR

DETERMINANTS

Master thesis, MscBA, specialization Change Management

University of Groningen, Faculty of Management and Organization

July 9, 2010

ELINE DE WAGT

Student number: 1738062

Oosterbadstraat 15

9726 CJ Groningen

Phone: +31 (0)653188461

Email: [email protected]

Supervisor/university

Dr. C. Reezigt

Co-supervisor/university

Dr. J.F.J. Vos

Supervisor/ field of study

F.W.H.M. Kools MSc CMC

NDC|VBK de uitgevers, Leeuwarden

mailto:[email protected]

2

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

READINESS FOR CHANGE & RESISTANCE AND THEIR

DETERMINANTS

ABSTRACT

An important determinant of successful change is that people are ready for change (Smith,

2005). This research therefore examines the change readiness at “NDC|VBK de uitgevers”.

Furthermore, the influence of the independent variables; self efficacy, principal support,

personal valence & appropriateness on change readiness and resistance is examined. Some

researchers (Metselaar, 1997; Armenakis & Harris, 2002) argue that readiness for change and

resistance are opposites, but there are different opinions concerning this link. This research

also investigates if change readiness and resistance are indeed opposites. The research data

are, by means of a survey, collected by “NDC|VBK de uitgevers”, a firm of publishers in the

Netherlands. The results show a causal relationship between every independent variable and

change readiness. In addition, this research provides statistical evidence that shows that

readiness and resistance are far from opposites.

Key words: change readiness; resistance; self efficacy; principal support; personal valence;

appropriateness

Acknowledgment: I would like to thank Cees Reezigt for his helpful comments and

supervision. In addition, I would like to thank Frans Kools for the opportunity to do my

research at “NDC|VBK de uitgevers” and his helpful advice and involvement. Last but not

least I would like to thank my colleague students Gurbinder Singh Garcha and Karin

Galgenbeld for the pleasant cooperation.

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................. 2 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 5

1.1 Management problem .................................................................................................. 5

1.1.2 Proposed change ...................................................................................................... 5 1.3 Research objectives & questions ................................................................................. 5

THEORY AND CONCEPTUAL MODEL ............................................................................ 7 2.1 Change ......................................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Change readiness – willingness ................................................................................... 7

2.3 Resistance .................................................................................................................... 8 2.4 Model of Armenakis .................................................................................................... 8

2.5 DINAMO- Model of Metselaar ................................................................................... 9

2.6 Similarities between the models ................................................................................ 10 2.6.1 Self efficacy ........................................................................................................... 10 2.6.2 Principal support .................................................................................................... 11 2.6.3 Discrepancy ............................................................................................................ 11 2.6.4 Personal valence ..................................................................................................... 12 2.7 Appropriateness ......................................................................................................... 12 2.8 Conceptual model ...................................................................................................... 13

METHOD ................................................................................................................................ 14 3.1 Choice of methodology ............................................................................................. 14

3.2 Data collection ........................................................................................................... 14 3.2.1 Sample size ............................................................................................................ 14

3.3 Data analysis .............................................................................................................. 15 3.3.1 Validity and reliability ........................................................................................... 15

3.3.2 Extreme values ....................................................................................................... 16 3.3.3 Normal distribution ................................................................................................ 16

3.4 Consequences for the research .................................................................................. 17

RESULTS ................................................................................................................................ 18 4.1 Change readiness at “NDC|VBK de uitgevers” ......................................................... 18

4.2 Empirical research ..................................................................................................... 18 4.2.1 Correlation ............................................................................................................. 18 4.2.2 Simple regression ................................................................................................... 19

4.2.1 Multiple regression ................................................................................................ 20

CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 21 5.1 Acceptation of hypotheses ......................................................................................... 21 5.1.1 Self efficacy and change readiness (H2a) .............................................................. 21

5.1.2 Principal support and change readiness (H3a) ....................................................... 21 5.1.3 Personal valence and change readiness (H5a) ....................................................... 21 5.1.4 Appropriateness and change readiness (H6a) ........................................................ 21

5.1.5 Appropriateness and resistance based on action (H6b) ......................................... 21 5.2 Rejection of hypotheses ............................................................................................. 22

5.2.1 Change readiness and resistance based on action (H1a) ........................................ 22 5.2.2 Self efficacy and resistance based on action (H2b) ............................................... 22 5.2.3 Self efficacy and resistance based on attitude (H2c) ............................................. 22

DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................................... 23 6.1 Implications for the organization ............................................................................... 24

6.2 Other findings ............................................................................................................ 24 6.2 Limitations and further research ................................................................................ 24

4

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 26 APPENDIX 1: QUESTIONNAIRE ...................................................................................... 28 APPENDIX 2: FACTOR & RELIABILITY ANALYSES ................................................. 34

APPENDIX 3: EXTREME VALUES – BOXPLOTS ......................................................... 38 APPENDIX 4: NORMAL DISTRIBUTION ....................................................................... 39 APPENDIX 5: CORRELATION .......................................................................................... 41 APPENDIX 6: REGRESSION .............................................................................................. 42 APPENDIX 7: ANALYSIS OF THE DATA OF GARCHA (2010) .................................. 44

APPENDIX 8: CHANGE READINESS AT “NDC|VBK de uitgevers” ........................... 45

5

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Management problem

This research is primarily carried out in the interest of “NDC mediagroep”, as well as for

“NDC|VBK de uitgevers” of which “NDC mediagroep” is a part. “NDC mediagroep” is a

firm of publishers in the provinces Groningen, Friesland, Drenthe and Flevoland. “NDC

mediagroep” publishes, amongst other things, the two newspapers “Dagblad van het

Noorden” and the “Leeuwarder Courant”. In the current economy the newspaper market is

under pressure. The circulations of the newspapers are decreasing and the advertisement

volume is not as high as expected. This is not a temporary development but a structural

problem. Due to this problem the output of “NDC mediagroep” diminishes and the continuity

of the venture is threatened. The paid newspapers also wrestle with function loss owing to the

free news available on the internet. Adjustments are necessary to structurally reduce costs and

to remain a healthy venture. Major changes have already been made. Since February 2010

both newspapers are printed in Leeuwarden and some of the personnel (+/- 200 fte/ 20%) had

to leave the “NDC mediagroep”. Before, “Dagblad van het Noorden” was printed in

Groningen and “Leeuwarder Courant” in Leeuwarden. A consequence of the changes is that

both locations, Groningen and Leeuwarden, are over spaced.

1.1.2 Proposed change

Due to the empty spaces in both Leeuwarden and Groningen the accommodation on the

Lubeckweg in Groningen is, early April 2010, sold to Geo Thermie. Approximately 350

employees are active in Groningen in April 2010. The first floor and a part of the ground floor

(4000m2) have been leased back from the new owner, Geo Thermie. So, 273 employees can

stay in Groningen. For 77 employees the work location will change, they have to move to

Leeuwarden. This concerns mainly employees from departments that are not tied to the region

(Holding activities). This change can have a big impact on the personal lives of the

employees. For some the travel time will increase enormously. When the new travel time

(single trip) exceeds 1,5 hour, employees can become supernumerary (Sociaal Plan NDC,

2009- 2010). This is probably not the case; all employees live within a radius of 1,5 hour.

1.3 Research objectives & questions

People are the real source and vehicle for change. They should be made ready for change, to

make the transformation successful (Smith, 2005). This research pursues two objectives, a

practical one and a theoretical one. The practical objective is to investigate the change

readiness (expected attitude/behavior) of the employees who will be affected by the proposed

6

change of “NDC|VBK de uitgevers” and to give advice how “NDC|VBK de uitgevers” can

potentially optimize the readiness for the change. Subsequently, when creating readiness

among the employees is properly done, the employees will be more willingly to support and

ultimately adopt the proposed change (Self & Schraeder, 2009). Then the theoretical

objective, this research will explore if readiness and resistance are really two opposites, like

the following authors put it forward. Armenakis & Harris (2002) state that a change message

shapes an individual’s motivation either in a positive way (readiness and support) or in a

negative way (resistance). In addition, Armenakis, Bernerth, Pitts & Walker (2007) claim that

“in any organizational transformation, change recipients make sense of what they hear, see

and experience. Change recipients formulate precursors (e.g., cognitions, emotions and

intentions), which become part of their decision making process that result in resistance or

supportive behaviors” (Armenakis et al. 2007, p.482). The two objectives of this research lead

to the following research questions:

1. To what extent are the employees of “NDC|VBK de uitgevers” ready for the proposed

change?

2. How do self efficacy, principal support, discrepancy, personal valence and

appropriateness influence change readiness and resistance?

3. What is the relationship between change readiness and resistance, are they opposites?

7

THEORY AND CONCEPTUAL MODEL

2.1 Change

Metselaar (1997) defines organizational change as “the planned modification of an

organization’s structure or work and administrative processes, initiated by the organization’s

top management, and which is aimed at improving the organization’s functioning” (Metselaar,

1997, p. 5). Organizational change is one of the most important issues that organizations face

in a fast moving and unpredictable world (Burnes, 2004). While the importance of

organizational change increases, one should not underestimate the difficulty of accomplishing

successful change. Beer and Nohria (2000) state that about 70% of all change initiatives fail.

Kurt Lewin, founder of the planned approach to change, has contributed to the understanding

of individual and group behaviour. He states that a successful change project should involve

three steps: unfreezing, moving and refreezing (Burnes, 2004). So, one should destabilize the

quasi-stationary equilibrium that persists of driving and restraining forces implement the

change and finally institutionalize the change. In addition, research on planned change and

diffusion theories show that an important condition for success is the full acceptance of

change by the members of an organization (Metselaar, 1997). A worker’s response to a

change varies in intensity and can either have a positive or negative effect on the change

process.

2.2 Change readiness – willingness

People are an essential factor in organisational change. To achieve successful organisational

change it is important that people involved are ready for the change (Smith, 2005). Holt,

Armenakis, Field and Harris (2007) define readiness for change as “the extent to which an

individual or individuals are cognitively and emotionally inclined to accept, embrace, and

adopt a particular plan to purposefully alter the status quo” (Holt et al., 2007, p. 235). In

addition, Metselaar (1997) writes about willingness to change; “a 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” (Metselaar, 1997, p 34). Both definitions mean (more

or less) the same and are used interchangeable in this research.

8

2.3 Resistance

In organization development literature resistance and change readiness are treated as separate,

unrelated phenomena (Coetsee, 1999). However, some researchers (Coetsee, 1999; Metselaar,

1997; Armenakis & Harris, 2002) argue that both phenomena are closely linked. Metselaar

(1997) defines resistance as “a negative behavioural intention towards the implementation of

modifications in organization’s structure, or work and administrative processes, resulting in

efforts from the organization member’s side to hinder or impede the change process”

(Metselaar, 1997, p 34). So, resistance “a negative behavioural intention” is according this

definition the exact opposite of willingness to change “a positive behavioural intention”. Also

Armenakis & Harris (2002) present resistance as the opposite of readiness. They state that a

change message shapes an individual’s motivation either in a positive way (readiness and

support) or in a negative way (resistance). Resistance can lead to adverse consequences like

high turnover of staff and reduced organizational commitment (Metselaar, 2007). However, it

is important to note that Armenakis, Harris & Mossholder (1993) are not always consistent

about the relationship between change readiness and resistance. They state for example that

readiness for change may act to preempt the likelihood of resistance to change. So, here

readiness is presented as an attitude instead of a behavior. But in general, they present change

readiness as the opposite of resistance. This leads to the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Change readiness is the exact opposite of resistance to change

2.4 Model of Armenakis

Armenakis & Harris (2002) state that a change message and its communication can provide a

framework for creating readiness and the motivation to adopt and institutionalize a change.

According to Armenakis & Harris (2002) a change message must address five domains. First

self-efficacy, this component refers to the confidence of members that they have the ability to

succeed when something changes. Then principal support, without a clear demonstration of

support through the principal, employees will become sceptical and unwilling to actively

support the change (Armenakis & Harris, 2002). Furthermore discrepancy, this component

refers to the need for change. In addition appropriateness, people may agree that there is a

need for change but may disagree with the specific change proposed (Armenakis & Harris,

2002). It is therefore important to convince people that the proposed change is appropriate.

Finally personal valence, this element refers to the attractiveness and the expected

consequences of the proposed change.

9

Figure 1. Model of Armenakis

Figure 1: Model of Armenakis

2.5 DINAMO- Model of Metselaar

DINAMO: Diagnostics Inventory for the Assessment of the willingness to change among

Management in Organizations. This model is based on the model planned behaviour of Ajzen

(in Metselaar, 1997), see figure 2.

Figure 2: DINAMO model of Metselaar based on the model of planned behaviour of Ajzen

Readiness for

change

Personal valence

Principal support

Discrepancy

Appropriateness

Self efficacy

10

The willingness to change depends according to this model on three motivational factors. First

attitude, this is based on cognitive and affective responses of a person. The reaction of a

person depends on how he or she judges the situation and what the expected consequences of

the change are for the person him- or herself and the organization. The reaction also depends

on whether people consider the change as a challenge or as a threat. Secondly the subjective

norm, this is about the thoughts of people in the direct environment of a person towards a

change. This dimension is about pressure of a group and it concerns the need for change.

Finally perceived behavioural control, this dimension refers to the capacity of a person to

change. Self control factors (knowledge & experience) and external control factors

(information & uncertainty) influence this dimension as well as the complexity and timing of

the change.

2.6 Similarities between the models

Figure 3: The models combined

2.6.1 Self efficacy

Self efficacy may be viewed as the perceived capability to overcome the discrepancy, the

difference between the current and desired end state (Armenakis et al., 1993). “Individuals

will only be motivated to attempt a change to the extent that they have the confidence that

they can succeed” (Armenakis et al, 2002 p.170). In addition, Metselaar (1997) uses the term

self control factors this term is related to the concept of self efficacy. He states that the

Readiness for /Willingness

to change

Personal valence

Work related outcomes

Affective response

Principal support

Co worker attitudes

Discrepancy

Attitude

Appropriateness

Self efficacy

Self-control factors

Complexity of the change

11

knowledge, experience and skills (self control factors) that a person possesses to deal with a

proposed change, influence the willingness to change. Furthermore, the complexity of the

change is linked to the concepts of self efficacy and willingness to change. Complex changes

draw more heavily on skills than simple changes do; consequently the perceived complexity is

negatively related to willingness to change (Metselaar, 1997). So, several writers emphasize

the importance of self efficacy and state that the higher the self efficacy, the more likely it is

that employees feel ready for change.

Hypothesis 2a: A higher level of perceived self efficacy will lead to higher levels of

readiness

Hypothesis 2b: A higher level of perceived self efficacy will lead to lower levels of

resistance

2.6.2 Principal support

Kotter & Schlesinger (2008) state that to overcome resistance for change managers have to be

supportive. Also Armenakis & Harris (2002) stress the importance of principal support,

without a clear demonstration of support through the principal, employees will become

sceptical an unwilling to actively support the change. In the planned behaviour model of

Ajzen (in Metselaar, 1997) the process of social influence/principal support is captured by the

subjective norm. The subjective norm is defined as “the likelihood that important referent

individuals or groups approve or disapprove of performing a given behaviour” (Metselaar,

1997, p.47). Applying this to a change scenario; if important referent individuals or groups

approve a proposed change, this will positively influence an individual’s readiness for change.

So, principal support will probably positively influence the readiness for change.

Hypothesis 3a: A higher level of perceived principal support will lead to higher levels

of readiness

Hypothesis 3b: A higher level of perceived principal support will lead to lower levels

of resistance

2.6.3 Discrepancy

According to Kotter (1995) a change process goes through certain phases. He states that the

first phase, creating a sense of urgency, is essential because without motivation a change

effort will fail. In this phase it is important to convince people that there is a need for change,

that the status quo is more dangerous than the unknown. Also Burnes (2004) emphasizes the

12

importance of “felt- need” by changes. ““Felt-need” is an individual’s inner realization that

change is necessary” (Burnes, 2004 p. 983-984). In addition Smith (2005) claims that there is

a connection between creating a sense of need and change readiness. He states that creating a

sense of need is a key step to accomplish change readiness. Also the models of Armenakis

and Metselaar (see figure 1 & 2) underpin this connection.

Hypothesis 4a: A higher inner realization of need for change will lead to higher levels

of readiness

Hypothesis 4b: A higher inner realization of need for change will lead to lower levels

of resistance

2.6.4 Personal valence

“Vroom (1964) defined this concept as all possible affective orientations toward outcomes,

and it is interpreted as the importance, attractiveness, desirability, or anticipated satisfaction

with outcomes” (Van Eerde & Thierry, 1996 p. 576). So, it is about positive as well as

negative affective orientations. According to Self (2007) individuals rarely reject change that

has obvious personal benefits. He also states that people who are faced with a proposed

change evaluate the nature of change and the possible impact. Consequently people adopt or

resist the change. The models of Armenakis and Metselaar (see figure 1 & 2) both connect

personal valence to readiness for change. Metselaar (1997) assumes that when people expect

that the proposed change has positive work related outcomes (positive personal valence) this

will positively influence the willingness to change. In addition, when employees hold a

positive affective orientation (feelings of excitement) towards a proposed change, the

willingness to change will increase (Metselaar, 1997). So, as people view the impact more

positive the readiness for change will increase.

Hypothesis 5a: The more positive the personal valence the higher the level of

readiness

Hypothesis 5b: The more positive the personal valence the lower the level of

resistance

2.7 Appropriateness

In contrast with the model of Metselaar, the model of Armenakis does discuss this subject.

Armenakis & Harris (2002) state that people may agree that there is a need for change but

may disagree with the specific change proposed (Armenakis & Harris, 2002). Therefore, it is

13

important to convince people that the proposed change is appropriate. When people feel that

the proposed change is appropriate the readiness for change will increase.

Hypothesis 6a: The more people view the proposed change as appropriate the higher

the level of readiness

Hypothesis 6b: The more people view the proposed change as appropriate the lower

the level of resistance

2.8 Conceptual model

In this research the model of Armenakis will be used to measure change readiness. The model

of Armenakis is chosen for several reasons; in the first place the model of Armenakis is an

extensive model and in the second place this model is in contrast to the DINAMO model of

Metselaar, internationally known. Finally Holt et al. (2007) recently developed a scale to

measure change readiness, the accompanying questionnaire is widely accepted and valid.

Figure 4 shows the conceptual model of this research.

Figure 4: Conceptual model

Expected

attitude/behavior

Readiness for

change

Resistance

Personal valence

Principal support

Discrepancy

Appropriateness

Self efficacy

14

METHOD

3.1 Choice of methodology

To determine the readiness for the proposed change at “NDC|VBK de uitgevers” the model of

Armenakis is used. This model measures change readiness at the individual level. The scale,

to measure change readiness, developed by Holt et al. (2007) does not directly measure the

dependent variable readiness for change, it only measures the independent variables. An

exception is the independent variable “need for change”. Research by Holt et al. (2007)

indicates that people tend to view the ideas of need for change and appropriateness as a

unitary construct. The questions that measure the need for change are therefore included in the

concept of appropriateness. By measuring the independent variables, Holt et al (2007)

determine the readiness for change. In this research, questions are added to the questionnaire

of Holt et al. (2007) to directly measure the dependent variables; readiness for change and

resistance. Four items of Metselaar (1997) are used to measure readiness for change and six

items of Giangreco (2002) are added to measure resistance.

3.2 Data collection

A survey, consisting of questions with a 7-point Likert-scale ranging from 1 = strongly

disagree to 7 = strongly agree, was conducted two weeks prior to the implementation of the

proposed change. The questionnaire developed by Holt et al. (2007) and the additional items

of Metselaar (1997) and Giangreco (2002) were all translated into Dutch. The program

“Qualtrics Survey Software” was used to produce and distribute the questionnaire. Before the

questionnaire was distributed several people tested the questionnaire on duration, formulation

and understandability. Afterwards a few adjustments were made in the formulation of the

questions. The questionnaire (see appendix 1) was first sent to all the managers, because

employees often turn to their managers with questions. Managers were now given the

opportunity to fill in the questionnaire first to be able to answer any possible questions. They

were also asked to encourage their employees to fill in the survey. To prevent socially

accepted answers anonymity was guaranteed. In the survey invitation-email it was clearly

stated that taking part in the research was entirely anonymous. Six days after the questionnaire

was first distributed, employees received a reminder. The average time to complete the

questionnaire was approximately 10 minutes.

3.2.1 Sample size

For 77 employees the work location will change, they have to work in Leeuwarden instead of

Groningen. Therefore 77 employees will be directly affected by the proposed change. All 77

15

employees received a digital invitation to fill in the survey. In total 47 employees (a response

rate of 61%) completed the questionnaire. Table 1 shows the gender and the age category of

the respondents. The non-response group counts 13 women and 17 men, the age category of

the non-response is unknown. A comparison between the gender of all 77 employees (40,3%

women, 59,7% men) and the gender of the respondents (38,3% women, 61,7% men) shows

that the response is representative for the whole group.

Man Women Total

21 – 35 year 2 2 4

36 – 45 year 13 8 21

46 – 55 year 11 7 18

56 – 65 year 3 1 4

Total 29 (61,7%) 18 (38,3%) 47

Table 1: Gender and age category of respondents

3.3 Data analysis

To investigate if there is enough statistical evidence to support the before mentioned

hypotheses the statistical program SPSS version 16 is used. An alpha level of 0,05 is used to

test the hypotheses. The collected data have no missing values; it was not possible to finish

the questionnaire before all questions were answered.

3.3.1 Validity and reliability

To measure the concepts; self efficacy, principal support, personal valence, appropriateness,

change readiness and resistance several questions are included in the questionnaire. To reduce

the chance of a measurement error, the questions that measure the same concept are combined

(summated scales). Before the questions were combined, reverse coding was used to recode

the negative formulated statements. In addition a factor analysis and a reliability analysis

were conducted, see table 2 for the outcomes. Factor analysis showed that it was not possible

to combine the six questions of resistance into one component. The rotated component matrix

divided the questions into two components. Analysis of the division of questions revealed a

clear distinction between the questions. Three questions were about the intention to support

actions against the change, while the other three questions were about the intention of being

critical and to report complaints about the change (attitude). The concept resistance is

therefore subdivided into two concepts; resistance based on action and resistance based on

attitude. Comprehensive background information of the factor and reliability analyses is

included in appendix 2.

16

Total Variance % Cronbach’s Alpha

Self efficacy 58,155* 0,835

Principal support 64,817 0,726

Personal valence 63,742 0,707

Appropriateness 56,738* 0,840

Readiness for change 65,571 0,809

Resistance based on action 83,318 0,893

Resistance based on attitude 57,562** 0,625

Table 2: Outcomes of factor and reliability analyses

* The total variance is a bit too low; however the cronbach´s alpha and the scree plot are good, so the indicators are still combined.

** The total variance and the cronbach’s alpha are a bit too low; however the scree plot is good, so the indicators are still combined.

3.3.2 Extreme values

The extreme values of each concept are examined through a box plot (see appendix 3).

Extreme values can make an incorrect drawing of the results. Self efficacy, support and

appropriateness have a few outliers, but no extreme values. The other concepts have no

outliers and no extreme values. So, there are no extreme values that can make an incorrect

drawing of the results.

3.3.3 Normal distribution

The Kolmogorov – Smirnov test (see table 3) and the q-q plot are used to compare the

distribution of the collected data with a normal distribution. The null hypothesis of the

Kolmogorov – Smirnov test claims that a concept is normal distributed. The values in table 3

show that there is no reason to reject the null hypothesis (all values > 0,05). In addition all the

q-q plots show that the concepts are approximately normal distributed.

P-value

Self efficacy 0,243

Principal support 0,598

Personal valence 0,453

Appropriateness 0,454

Readiness for change 0,338

Resistance based on action 0,391

Resistance based on attitude 0,518

Table 3: Outcomes of Kolmogorov-Smirnov test

17

The q-q plots and the extensive tables of the Kolmogorov – Smirnov test are included in

appendix 4.

3.4 Consequences for the research

As already mentioned in paragraph 3.1 the questions that measure the need for change are

included in the concept of appropriateness. Due to this fact, there is no concept for need for

change anymore, so it is not possible to test hypothesis 4a and b. Therefore these hypotheses

are removed.

As a result of the factor analysis the concept resistance is subdivided into two concepts;

resistance based on action and resistance based on attitude. This distinction should also be

made in the hypotheses. The revised hypotheses are as follows:

Hypothesis 1a: Change readiness is the exact opposite of resistance based on action

Hypothesis 1b: Change readiness is the exact opposite of resistance based on attitude

Hypothesis 2b: A higher level of perceived self efficacy will lead to lower levels of resistance

based on action

Hypothesis 2c: A higher level of perceived self efficacy will lead to lower levels of resistance

based on attitude

Hypothesis 3b: A higher level of perceived principal support will lead to lower levels of

resistance based on action

Hypothesis 3c: A higher level of perceived principal support will lead to lower levels of

resistance based on attitude

Hypothesis 5b: The more positive the personal valence the lower the level of resistance based

on action

Hypothesis 5c: The more positive the personal valence the lower the level of resistance based

on attitude

Hypothesis 6b: The more people view the proposed change as appropriate the lower the level

of resistance based on action

Hypothesis 6c: The more people view the proposed change as appropriate the lower the level

of resistance based on attitude

18

RESULTS

4.1 Change readiness at “NDC|VBK de uitgevers”

Descriptive statistics (see graph 1) show that 74,5% of the respondents at “NDC|VBK de

uitgevers” answered (moderate) positive on the change readiness questions, 19,1 % answered

neutral and 6,4% (moderate) negative. So, the majority of the employees, that completed the

questionnaire, tend to be ready for the proposed change.

Graph 1: Percentages of readiness answers

The questions had a 7-point Likert-scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly

agree. Table 4 shows the mean scores and the standard deviation for each concept. Self

efficacy and personal valence score moderate positive, principal support neutral and

appropriateness slightly negative.

Mean Standard deviation

Self efficacy 5,29 1,14



Appropriateness 3,90 1,26 Table 4: Mean and standard deviation of independent variables

4.2 Empirical research

4.2.1 Correlation

The measurement level of the questions is ordinal. To investigate the correlation between the

concepts the Spearman’s Rang Correlation test is used. Table 5 shows the relevant significant

correlations. The complete correlation table is included in appendix 5. The hypotheses are

one-sided so the P-values are one-tailed.

19

Correlation

coefficient

P-value

Self efficacy – Readiness 0,274 0,031

Principal support – Readiness 0,321 0,014

Personal valence – Readiness 0,199 0,090*

Appropriateness – Readiness 0,480 0,000

Self efficacy – Resistance based on action -0,221 0,068**

Appropriateness – Resistance based on action -0,248 0,047

Self efficacy – Resistance based on attitude -0,250 0,045

Readiness – Resistance based on action -0,309 0,017

Table 5: Significant correlations

*Correlation is significant when the alpha level > 0,09 (1-tailed)

** Correlation is significant when the alpha level > 0,068 (1-tailed)

4.2.2 Simple regression

The simple regression test is used to examine if there is a causal relationship between an

independent and a dependent variable. The green arrows between the concepts in figure 5

indicate significant causal relationships; the red arrows indicate the insignificant relationships.

Table 6 shows the significant causal connections with the accompanied ANOVA’s and

regression coefficients. Extensive tables of the simple regression tests are included in

appendix 6.

Figure 5: Significant and insignificant relations

Self efficacy

Principal

support

Personal

valence

Appropriateness

Readiness for

change

Resistance

based on

action

Resistance

based on

attitude

1

2

3

4

5

6

20

Connection ANOVA Regression

coefficient

1 0,0075 0,328

2 0,028 0,272

3 0,0055 0,301

4 0,000 0,495

5 0,033 -0,359

6 0,0115 -0,384

Table 6: Results of the simple regression

4.2.1 Multiple regression

The multiple regression test is used to examine if there is a causal relationship between

multiple independent variables and a dependent variable. A multiple regression test between

the independent variables; self efficacy, principal support, personal valence, appropriateness

and the dependent variable readiness shows, that only appropriateness (regression coefficient

= 0,477 and α = 0,002) has a causal relationship with readiness. The independent variables,

mentioned before, have no causal relationship with resistance based on action and resistance

based on attitude. Extensive tables of the multiple regression tests are included in appendix 6.

21

CONCLUSION

5.1 Acceptation of hypotheses

The results show that there is statistical evidence for accepting hypotheses 2a, 3a, 5a, 6a & b.

5.1.1 Self efficacy and change readiness (H2a)

The results show a positive correlation between self efficacy and readiness. In addition

regression analysis demonstrates that there is a causal relationship between the concepts.

When self efficacy increases with one unit, readiness increases with 0,328. Hypothesis 2a: a

higher level of perceived self efficacy will lead to higher levels of readiness is therefore

accepted.

5.1.2 Principal support and change readiness (H3a)

The results show a positive correlation between principal support and readiness. In addition


When principal support increases with one unit, readiness increases with 0,272. Hypothesis

3a: a higher level of perceived principal support will lead to higher levels of readiness is

therefore accepted.

5.1.3 Personal valence and change readiness (H5a)

The results show a positive correlation (note: with an alpha level > 0,09) between personal

valence and readiness. In addition regression analysis demonstrates that there is a causal

relationship between the concepts. When personal valence increases with one unit, readiness

increases with 0,301. Hypothesis 5a: the more positive the personal valence the higher the

level of readiness is therefore accepted

5.1.4 Appropriateness and change readiness (H6a)

The results show a positive correlation between appropriateness and readiness. In addition


When appropriateness increases with one unit, readiness increases with 0,495. Hypothesis 6a:

the more people view the proposed change as appropriate the higher the level of readiness is

therefore accepted.

5.1.5 Appropriateness and resistance based on action (H6b)

The results show a negative correlation between appropriateness and resistance based on

action. In addition regression analysis demonstrates that there is a causal relationship between

the concepts. When appropriateness increases with one unit, resistance decreases with 0,384.

22

Hypothesis 6b: the more people view the proposed change as appropriate the lower the level

of resistance based on action is therefore accepted.

5.2 Rejection of hypotheses

The results show no statistical evidence for hypotheses 1a, 1b, 2b, 2c, 3b, 3c, 5b, 5c en 6c

therefore these hypotheses are rejected. The following hypotheses are rejected because no

significant correlations are found between the concepts:

Hypothesis 1b: Change readiness is the exact opposite of resistance based on attitude

Hypothesis 3b: A higher level of perceived principal support will lead to lower levels of

resistance based on action

Hypothesis 3c: A higher level of perceived principal support will lead to lower levels of

resistance based on attitude

Hypothesis 5b: The more positive the personal valence the lower the level of resistance based

on action

Hypothesis 5c: The more positive the personal valence the lower the level of resistance based

on attitude

Hypothesis 6c: the more people view the proposed change as appropriate the lower the level

of resistance based on attitude

5.2.1 Change readiness and resistance based on action (H1a)

The results show a negative correlation between readiness and resistance based on action.

However the correlation coefficient (-0,309) shows that the concepts are far from opposites.

Hypothesis 1a: change readiness is the exact opposite of resistance based on action is

therefore rejected.

5.2.2 Self efficacy and resistance based on action (H2b)

The results show a negative correlation (note: with an alpha level > 0,068) between self

efficacy and resistance based on action. However regression analysis demonstrates that there

is no causal relationship between these concepts. Hypothesis 2b: a higher level of perceived

self efficacy will lead to lower levels of resistance based on action is therefore rejected.

5.2.3 Self efficacy and resistance based on attitude (H2c)

The results show a negative correlation between self efficacy and resistance based on attitude.

However regression analysis demonstrates that there is no causal relationship between these

concepts. Hypothesis 2c: A higher level of perceived self efficacy will lead to lower levels of

resistance based on attitude is therefore rejected.

23

DISCUSSION

Several researchers (Coetsee, 1999; Metselaar, 1997; Armenakis & Harris, 2002) argue that

change readiness and resistance are closely linked. In addition some researchers (Metselaar,

1997; Armenakis & Harris, 2002) even state that the two concepts are exact opposites of each

other. However, according to this research change readiness has no significant correlation or

causal relationship with resistance based on attitude. So, if people have the intention to be

critical about a change by superiors, in public discussions or to report complaints about the

change by their superiors this will not (significantly) influence change readiness. In addition,

analysis of the data of Garcha (2010), which is collected at a Dutch financial institution, also

shows that resistance based on attitude has no significant correlation (see appendix 7) or

causal relationship with change readiness.

An explanation for the lack of correlation can be, that being critical is not necessarily a

negative intention. According to Ford, Ford & D’Amelio (2008) complaining and criticizing

can be functional because it keeps the change alive and it brings attention to the change. In

addition, thoughtful critics can be considered as an indicator for engagement and a valuable

source of feedback (Ford, Ford & D’Amelio, 2008).

Although resistance based on attitude has no significant relation with change readiness,

resistance based on action does have a significant relation. This research shows that resistance

based on action is negatively correlated to change readiness. Analysis of the data of Garcha

(2010) underpins this negative correlation. However, if change readiness and resistance are

actually opposite concepts, the correlation coefficient should be -1.00; this is far from the

case. Spearman’s Rang Correlation test gives a correlation coefficient of -0,309. In addition,

analysis of the data of Garcha (2010) shows a correlation coefficient of – 0,305 (see appendix

7). So, the relationship between resistance and change readiness is negative but according to

this research resistance and change readiness are far from opposites.

Holt et al. (2007) assume in their research that change readiness is determined by self

efficacy, principal support, personal valence and appropriateness. In contrast with Holt et al.

(2007) this research measured the independent variables as well as the dependent variable

change readiness. In addition this research provides statistical evidence that shows that self

efficacy, principal support, personal valence and appropriateness actual influence change

readiness. Another point of research was the connection between self efficacy, principal

support, personal valence, appropriateness (the independent variables) and resistance based on

24

attitude and action. The results show that only appropriateness has a significant negative

correlation and causal relationship with resistance based on action. The other independent

variables have no causal relationship with the dependent variables.

6.1 Implications for the organization

An important determinant of successful organisational change is that people are ready for the

change (Smith, 2005). The majority (74,5%) of the employees at “NDC|VBK de uitgevers”,

that completed the questionnaire, tend to be ready for the proposed change. Results show that

self efficacy, principal support, personal valence, and appropriateness influence change

readiness. The mean scores of these concepts are examined and show that only

appropriateness scores slightly negative, the other concepts all score neutral or (slightly)

positive. According to this research it is especially important that an organization convinces

its employees of the appropriateness of a proposed change, because appropriateness has an

influence on change readiness as well as resistance based on action. Analysis of the data of

Garcha (2010) shows, that participation has a positive correlation and a causal relationship

with appropriateness. When participation increases with one unit, appropriateness increases

with 0,295 (see appendix 7). Possible reasons for the slightly negative scores on

appropriateness at “NDC|VBK de uitgevers” can therefore be; the low involvement of

employees in the decision making process of the change and that the change is initiated top

down. More involvement by employees in the decision making process of future changes

should therefore be considered by “NDC|VBK de uitgevers”. In addition, “NDC|VBK de

uitgevers” should consider taking more effort to convince employees of the appropriateness of

the proposed change.

6.2 Other findings

Research shows that the impact of the proposed change (the travel distance) negatively

correlates with readiness for change (note: at an alpha level of > 0,059). In addition, a causal

relationship is found, when the impact increases with one unit, the readiness decreases with

0,169 (see appendix 8). The impact of a change therefore negatively influences the readiness

for change.

6.2 Limitations and further research

Despite the high response rate of 61% generalizations of the findings is limited due to the fact

that this research was done in only one Dutch organization. Furthermore, the research data are

collected at a single point in time. The assumed causal relationships in this research should

25

therefore be interpreted cautiously. Multiple measurement times for example before, during

and after the change implementation are preferred. However, due to time constraints this was

impossible. To increase the generalizability of the results, further research should include

multiple organizations and multiple measurement points in time.

This research subdivided the concept resistance into two concepts; resistance based on action

and resistance based on attitude. The total variance and the cronbach’s alpha of the concept

resistance based on attitude were a bit too low. Further research should therefore focus on a

valid and reliable factor for measuring resistance based on attitude. Opinions about the nature

of resistance differ. Several researchers (Metselaar, 1997; Armenakis & Harris) define

resistance as something negative. However, according to Ford, Ford & D’Amelio (2008)

resistance can be functional and a valuable source of feedback. Further research is therefore

required to investigate the nature and types of resistance.

26

REFERENCES

Armenakis, A.A., Bernerth, J.B., Pitts, J.P. & H.J. Walker. 2007. Organizational Change

Recipients Beliefs scale: Development of an Assessment instrument. Journal of Applied

Behavioral Science. 43: 481-505.

Armenakis, A.A. & S.G. Harris. 2002. Crafting a change message to create transformational

readiness. Journal of Organizational Change. 15: 169-183.

Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G. & K.W. Mossholder. 1993. Creating Readiness for

Organizational Change. Human Relations. 46: 681- 703.

Beer, M. & N. Nohria, 2000. Cracking the code of change. Harvard Business Review.

78:133-141.

Burnes B. 2004. Kurt Lewin and the Planned Approach to Change: A Re-appraisal. Journal

of Management studies. 41: 977-1002.

Burnes B. 2004. Emergent changes and planned change – competitors or allies? The case of

XYZ Construction. International Journal of Operations & Production Management. 24:

886-902.

Coetsee, L. 1999. From resistance to commitment. Public Administration Quarterly. 23: 204-

222.

Eerde, van W. & H. Thierry. 1996. Vroom’s Expectancy Models and Work-Related Criteria:

A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology. 81:575-586.

Ford, J.D., Ford, L.W. & A. D’Amelio. 2008. Resistance to Change: the rest of the story.

Academy of Management Review. 33: 362-377.

Garcha, G. S. 2010. Factors that influence readiness for change & resistance during a

merger: A case study at ABN AMRO during the legal merger. Unpublished thesis,

University of Groningen.

27

Giangreco, A. 2002. Conceptualisation and operationalisation of resistance to change. Liuc

Papers. 103: 1-28.

Holt, D.T., Armenakis, A.A., Feild, H.S. & S.G. Harris. 2007. Readiness for Organizational

Change, The systematic Development of a Scale. Journal of applied behavioural science. 43:

232-255.

Judge, W. & T. Douglas. 2009. Organizational change capacity: the systematic development

of a scale. Journal of Organizational Change Management. 22: 635 – 649.

Kotter, J.P. 1995. Leading change: Why Transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business

Review. 73: 59-67.

Kotter, J.P. & L.A. Schlesinger. 2008/1979. Choosing strategies for change. Harvard

Business Review. 86:130-139.

Metselaar, E.E. 1997. Assessing the willingness to change: Construction and validation of the

DINAMO. Doctoral dissertation. Amsterdam: VU-huisdrukkerij. 0-184

Roos, de J., Swagerman, D., Brouwers, E. & B. Rotsaert. 2009. Sociaal Plan NDC 2009-

2010. NDC|VBK de uitgevers.

Self, D.R. 2007. Organizational change-overcoming resistance by creating readiness.

Development and learning in organizations. 21: 11-13.

Self, D.R. & M. Schraeder. 2009. Enhancing the success of organizational change; Matching

readiness strategies with sources of resistance. Leadership & Organization Development

Journal. 30: 167-182.

Smith, I. 2005. Achieving readiness for organisational change. Library Management. 26:

408-412.

28

APPENDIX 1: QUESTIONNAIRE

Geachte medewerker, Hierbij ontvangt u een vragenlijst die is ontwikkeld in het kader van mijn afstudeeronderzoek. Ik zit in het laatste jaar van de opleiding Bedrijfskunde en volg momenteel de specialisatie Verandermanagement aan de Rijksuniversiteit in Groningen. Door de verkoop van het pand aan de Lübeckweg in Groningen, zal voor 77 medewerkers de standplaats wijzigen. Door middel van dit onderzoek, wil NDC|VBK kijken welke factoren invloed hebben op de veranderbereidheid van medewerkers binnen ons concern bij dit soort organisatieveranderingen. Tevens zullen aandachtspunten, waarmee bij volgende organisatieveranderingen rekening kan worden gehouden, worden gedestilleerd. Om betekenisvolle resultaten te verkrijgen en het onderzoek te laten slagen, is uw medewerking van groot belang. Daarom willen wij u vragen deze elektronische vragenlijst in te vullen. Het invullen van de vragenlijst is eenvoudig en zal circa 15 minuten duren. De meeste vragen in de vragenlijst zijn geformuleerd als stellingen. Hierbij is het de bedoeling dat u aangeeft in hoeverre u het eens of oneens bent met de stelling. Houd hierbij in gedachten dat er geen goede of foute antwoorden zijn; wij zijn juist geïnteresseerd in uw mening. Denkt u niet te lang over iedere stelling na; de eerste indruk is vaak de beste. Het kan ook zijn dat u sommige stellingen op elkaar vindt lijken. Het is belangrijk dat u deze vragen toch allemaal invult. Belangrijk om te weten is dat deelname aan dit onderzoek geheel anoniem is. Uw gegevens worden alleen voor onderzoeksdoeleinden gebruikt en strikt vertrouwelijk en anoniem verwerkt. In de eindrapportage aan uw organisatie worden geen namen genoemd en het zal niet duidelijk zijn welke antwoorden u hebt gegeven. Mocht u vragen hebben over het invullen van de vragenlijst of over het onderzoek, dan kunt u contact opnemen met Eline de Wagt, op telefoonnummer 06-53188461 of via het e-mailadres [email protected]. Alvast hartelijk dank voor uw medewerking. Met vriendelijke groet, Eline de Wagt Onder begeleiding van dr. C. Reezigt Frans Kools Corporate manager HRM

29

ALGEMENE VRAGEN

Wat is uw geslacht?

O Man

O Vrouw

Ik ben werkzaam bij:

O NDC Mediagroep

O De Holding

In welke leeftijdscategorie valt u?

O 20 jaar of jonger

O 21 - 35 jaar O 36 - 45 jaar

O 46 - 55 jaar

O 56 - 65 jaar

O 66 jaar en ouder

De reisafstand tussen mijn woonadres en mijn standplaats:

O Neemt af O Blijft gelijk O Neemt toe met minder dan 25 km

O Neemt toe met 26 - 50 km

O Neemt toe met 51 - 100 km

O Neemt toe met 101 km of meer

30

De volgende stellingen hebben betrekking op de verhuizing naar Leeuwarden

volledig mee oneens

mee oneens

enigszins mee oneens neutraal

enigszins mee eens mee eens

volledig mee eens

Ik denk dat de organisatie zal profiteren van deze verandering

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

Het is niet logisch dat het initiatief is genomen voor deze verandering

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

Er zijn legitieme redenen om deze verandering in te voeren

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

Deze verandering zal de totale prestatie van onze organisatie verbeteren

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

Er zijn een aantal rationele redenen voor deze verandering

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

Het is voor mij, op de lange termijn, de moeite waard dat de organisatie deze verandering invoert

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

Deze verandering maakt mijn werk makkelijker

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

Wanneer deze verandering is ingevoerd, denk ik dat ik er niks aan heb

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

De tijd die we aan deze verandering besteden, zouden we voor iets anders moeten gebruiken

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

Deze verandering komt overeen met de prioriteiten van onze organisatie

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

31

volledig mee oneens

mee oneens



volledig mee eens

Onze leidinggevende stimuleert ons allemaal om deze verandering te aanvaarden

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

De directie van onze organisatie steunt deze verandering volledig

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

Elke leidinggevende benadrukt het belang van deze verandering

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

De leidinggevenden in onze organisatie zijn toegewijd aan deze verandering

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

Ik denk dat er veel tijd wordt besteed aan deze verandering terwijl de leidinggevenden het niet eens willen invoeren

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

Het management heeft een duidelijk signaal afgegeven dat de organisatie gaat veranderen

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

volledig mee oneens

mee oneens



volledig mee eens

Ik verwacht geen problemen ten aanzien van mijn werk wanneer deze verandering is ingevoerd

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

Er zijn bepaalde taken die vereist zijn voor deze verandering waarvan ik denk dat ik ze niet goed kan uitvoeren

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

Wanneer deze verandering wordt ingevoerd, denk ik dat ik het gemakkelijk aankan

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

Ik heb de vaardigheden die nodig zijn om deze verandering te laten slagen

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

Wanneer ik mij ergens toe zet, kan ik alles leren wat vereist is voor deze verandering

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

32

volledig mee oneens

mee oneens



volledig mee eens

Ervaringen uit het verleden maken mij zelfverzekerd dat ik in staat ben om succesvol te presteren nadat deze verandering is ingevoerd

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

volledig mee oneens

mee oneens



volledig mee eens

Ik ben bezorgd dat ik mijn status (enigszins) zal verliezen in de organisatie wanneer deze verandering wordt ingevoerd

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

Deze verandering zal veel persoonlijke relaties die ik heb opgebouwd verstoren

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

Mijn toekomst in dit werk wordt beperkt vanwege deze verandering

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

volledig mee oneens

mee oneens



volledig mee eens

Ik ben bereid collega's te overtuigen van het nut van deze verandering

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

Ik ben bereid mij in te zetten zodat deze verandering slaagt

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

Ik ben bereid om eventuele weerstand tegen deze verandering te overwinnen

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

Ik ben bereid om tijd vrij te maken voor de invoering van deze verandering

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

volledig mee oneens

mee oneens



volledig mee eens

Ik ben van plan kritisch te zijn over deze verandering in publieke discussies

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

33

volledig mee oneens

mee oneens



volledig mee eens

Ik ben van plan mijn kritiek tegen deze verandering bij mijn leidinggevende te uiten

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

Ik zou vakbondsactiviteiten tegen deze verandering steunen

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

Acties van mijn ondergeschikten tegen deze verandering ben ik van plan te steunen

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

Acties van mijn collega’s tegen deze verandering ben ik van plan te steunen

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

Ik ben van plan om klachten over deze verandering bij mijn leidinggevende te melden

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

Dit is het einde van het onderzoek. Wij danken u hartelijk voor uw medewerking aan dit onderzoek!

Indien u de algemene onderzoeksresultaten wilt ontvangen, kunt u uw e-mailadres

hieronder invullen.

* Het e-mailadres wordt niet gekoppeld aan de zojuist ingevulde vragenlijst. * Het e-mailadres wordt alleen gebruikt om u de onderzoeksresultaten toe te sturen.

Eventuele opmerkingen of suggesties kunt u hieronder invullen.

34

APPENDIX 2: FACTOR & RELIABILITY ANALYSES

When all questions were imputed in a factor analysis, 11 components were distinguished. To

reduce the number of components the option to extract a number of factors was used. SPSS

was forced to divide the questions into 6 factors. The rotated component matrix showed that

self efficacy questions were grouped together into one component. This was also the case for

personal valence and readiness for change questions. Factor, screeplot and reliability analyses

were conducted for the three concepts. The results showed that it was possible to combine the

questions. It was not possible to combine all resistance questions into one factor. This was

also the case for principal support and appropriateness questions. The following three

paragraphs describe the establishment of the factors resistance, principal support and

appropriateness. The screeplots for all the concepts are included in paragraph 2.4.

2.1 Factor & reliability analyses of resistance

The results of the factor analysis of resistance showed that it was not possible to combine the

6 questions into one component. The rotated matrix divided the questions into two

components.

Rotated Component Matrixa

Component

1 2

Resistance_1 ,657

Resistance_2 ,814

Resistance_3 ,879

Resistance_4 ,920

Resistance_5 ,895

Resistance_6 ,744

The way the questions were divides was logic:

Question 3, 4 and 5 are all about taking action:

I intend to support union activities against the change;

I intend to support the actions of my subordinates against the change;

I intend to support the actions of my colleagues against the change.

Questions 1, 2 and 6 on the other hand are more about attitude:

I intend to be critical about the change in public discussions;

35

I intend to be critical about the change by my superiors;

I intend to report complaints about the change to my superiors.

So, the questions will be divided into two components resistance based on action and

resistance based on action.

2.2 Factor & reliability analyses of principal support

The results of de factor analysis of principal support showed that it was not possible to

combine the 6 questions into one component. The rotated component matrix divided the

questions across two components.

Rotated Component Matrixa

Component

1 2

Principal Support_1 ,704






Question 1, 3 & 4 were all about support of the senior leader/manager (s):

Our senior leaders have encouraged all of us to embrace this change;

Every senior manager has stressed the importance of this change;

All senior leaders in our organization are committed to this change.

Question 2 and 6 on the other hand were respectively about the organization’s top decision

makers and management;

Our organization’s top decision makers have put all their support behind this change

effort;

Management has sent a clear signal this organization is going to change.

It is possible that it was not totally clear for the respondents to who question 2 and 6 referred.

Although question 5 was about senior leaders (I think we are spending a lot of time on this

change when the senior managers don’t even want it implemented) it was not possible to

36

combine this question with question 1, 3 & 4. The total variance (53,492) and the cronbach’s

alpha (0,685) were too low. Question 1, 3 & 4 of principal support were therefore combined.

Although 3 questions (2, 5 & 6) were deleted from the original set, the remaining questions

did still represent “principal support”.

2.3 Factor & reliability analyses of appropriateness

The results of the factor analysis showed that it was not possible to combine the 10 questions

into one component. Correlation analysis showed that question 2 and 10 did not correlate with

the other questions, so these questions were removed. A factor analysis with the remaining 8

questions showed, that it was still not possible to combine the questions into one component.

Several factor analyses with the remaining questions were made to find a good set of

questions that represent appropriateness. When question 1, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 were combined,

the total variance was a little bit too low. However the scree plot and the cronbach’s alpha

were good.

2.4 Screeplots

Self efficacy Principal support

Personal valence Appropriateness

37

Readiness for change Resistance based on action

Resistance based on attitude

38

APPENDIX 3: EXTREME VALUES – BOXPLOTS

The extreme values of each concept are examined through a box plot. Extreme values can

make an incorrect drawing of the results.

Self efficacy: a few outliers but no extreme values Principal support: one outlier, no

extreme values

Personal valence: no outliers, no extreme values Appropriateness: a few outliers but no

extreme values

Readiness for change: no outliers, no extreme values Resistance based on action: no

outliers, no extreme values

Resistance based on attitude: no outliers, no extreme values

Conclusion: some variables have a few outliers but no extreme values. So, there are no

extreme values that can make an incorrect drawing of the results.

39

APPENDIX 4: NORMAL DISTRIBUTION

The Kolmogorov – Smirnov test and the q-q plot are used to compare the distribution of the

collected data with the normal distribution.

4.1 Kolmogorov-Smirnov test

The null hypothesis of this test assumes that the distribution is normal.

Kolmogorov – Smirnov test Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)

Self efficacy 1,027 0,243



Appropriateness 0,857 0,454

Readiness 0,942 0,338

Resistance based on action 0,902 0,391

Resistance based on attitude 0,816 0,518

All the concepts are significant normal distributed; there are no reasons to reject the null

hypotheses.

4.2 Q-Q Plots

Self efficacy Principal support

Personal valence Appropriateness

40

Readiness for change Resistance based on action

Resistance based on attitude

41

APPENDIX 5: CORRELATION

Spearman’s rho Readiness Resistance

based on action

Resistance

based on

attitude

Self efficacy Correlation

Coefficient

Sig. (1-tailed)

N

0,274**

0,031

47

-0,221***

0,068

47

-0,250**

0,045

47

Principal support Correlation

Coefficient

Sig. (1-tailed)

N

0,321**

0,014

47

-0,167

0,130

47

-0,109

0,233

47

Personal valence Correlation

Coefficient

Sig. (1-tailed)

N

0,199***

0,090

47

-0,067

0,328

47

-0,032

0,415

47

Appropriateness Correlation

Coefficient

Sig. (1-tailed)

N

0,480*

0,000

47

-0,248**

0,047

47

-0,170

0,127

47

*Correlation is significant at the 0,01 level (1-tailed)

**Correlation is significant at the 0,05 level (1-tailed)

***Correlation is significant at the 0,10 level (1-tailed)

Spearman’s rho Resistance based on

action

Resistance based on

attitude

Readiness Correlation Coefficient

Sig. (1-tailed)

N

-0,309**

0,017

47

0,074

0,310

47 **Correlation is significant at the 0,05 level (1-tailed)

42

APPENDIX 6: REGRESSION

6.1 Simple regression Simple regression Readiness

(dependent variable)

Self efficacy

(Predictor)

ANOVA

Regression coefficient

Sig.

0,0075

0,328

0,0075*

Principal support

(Predictor)

ANOVA


Sig.

0,028

0,272

0,028**

Personal valence

(Predictor)

ANOVA


Sig.

0,0055

0,301

0,0055*

Appropriateness

(Predictor)

ANOVA


Sig.

0,000

0,495

0,000* *Regression is significant at the 0,01 level (1-tailed)

**Regression is significant at the 0,05 level (1-tailed)

Simple regression Resistance based on

action (dependent

variable)

Self efficacy

(Predictor)

ANOVA


Sig.

0,117

-0,225

0,117

Principal support

(Predictor)

ANOVA


Sig.

0,033

-0,359

0,033**

Personal valence

(Predictor)

ANOVA


Sig.

0,272

-0,102

0,272

Appropriateness

(Predictor)

ANOVA


Sig.

0,012

-0,384

0,012* *Regression is significant at the 0,01 level (1-tailed) **Regression is significant at the 0,05 level (1-tailed)

Simple regression Resistance based on

attitude (dependent

variable)

Self efficacy

(Predictor)

ANOVA


Sig.

0,099

-0,178

0,099***

Principal support

(Predictor)

ANOVA


Sig.

0,155

-0,147

0,155

Personal valence

(Predictor)

ANOVA


Sig.

0,409

-0,029

0,409

Appropriateness

(Predictor)

ANOVA


Sig.

0,166

-0,123

0,166

***Regression is significant at the 0,10 level (1-tailed)

43

6.2 Multiple regression

Multiple regression Readiness


Predictors: ANOVA

0,000

Self efficacy


Sig. (1-tailed)

-0,071

0,325

Principal support


Sig. (1-tailed)

-0,003

0,492

Personal valence


Sig. (1-tailed)

0,157

0,084***

Appropriateness


Sig. (1-tailed)

0,477

0,002** **Regression is significant at the 0,05 level (1-tailed) ***Regression is significant at the 0,10 level (1-tailed)

Multiple regression Resistance based on action


Predictors: ANOVA

0,106

Self efficacy


Sig. (1-tailed)

-0,014

0,479

Principal support


Sig. (1-tailed)

-0,191

0,203

Personal valence


Sig. (1-tailed)

0,030

0,434

Appropriateness


Sig. (1-tailed)

-0,308

0,114

Multiple regression Resistance based on attitude


Predictors: ANOVA

0,311

Self efficacy


Sig. (1-tailed)

-0,219

0,129

Principal support


Sig. (1-tailed)

-0,156

0,187

Personal valence


Sig. (1-tailed)

0,052

0,353

Appropriateness


Sig. (1-tailed)

0,044

0,409

44

APPENDIX 7: ANALYSIS OF THE DATA OF GARCHA (2010)


attitude


Sig. (1-tailed)

N

-0,157

0,104

66


action


Sig. (1-tailed)

N

-0,305

0,006*

66 *Correlation is significant at the 0,01 level (1-tailed)

Spearman’s rho Appropriateness

Participation Correlation Coefficient

Sig. (1-tailed)

N

0,283

0,011**

66 **Correlation is significant at the 0,05 level (1-tailed)

Simple regression Appropriateness


Participation

(Predictor)

ANOVA


Sig. (1-tailed)

0,0105

0,295

0,0105** **Regression is significant at the 0,05 level (1-tailed)

APPENDIX 8: CHANGE READINESS AT “NDC|VBK de uitgevers”

Spearman’s rho Self

efficacy

Principal

support

Personal valence Appropriateness Readiness Resistance

based on

action

Resistance

based on

attitude

Travel

distance

Correlation

Coefficient

Sig. (1-tailed)

N

-0,527

0,000*

47

-0,151

0,155

47

-0,527

0,000*

47

-0,553

0,000*

47

-0,231

0,059***

47

0,098

0,257

47

0,109

0,233

47 *Correlation is significant at the 0,01 level (1-tailed)

***Correlation is significant at the 0,10 level (1-tailed)

Simple regression Readiness


Travel distance

(Predictor)

ANOVA


Sig. (1-tailed)

0,049

-0,169

0,049** **Regression is significant at the 0,05 level (1-tailed)

empirical research about the relationship between

Documents