EMPLOYEES’ PERCEPTIONS OF ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS by LEBOGANG MAUREEN MALULEKE1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF STUDY 1.1 INTRODUCTION TO STUDY In today’s profoundly intricate business environment where change is the norm rather than the exception, organisational change has become a core organisational value providing organisations with a sustainable competitive advantage. Within this framework, management academics acknowledge that this rate of change may negatively affect employee attitudes, perceptions, morale, emotions, and/or feelings (Eby, Adams, Russell & Gaby, 2000:419; Osterman, 2000:182). The changing nature of technology and economy puts excessive pressure on organisations to change their structural and functional characteristics.
In accordance with universal developments, especially in the last quarter of the previous century, changes concerning content and presentation of the programmes, technologies, structural processes and the roles of management and employees have become necessary. It is important that organisations engender efficacious programmes and procedures to meet organisational needs, to improve skills, and attitudes and change organisational policies in order to ensure development of the individual and sustainability of communal life. This is paramount in preparing individuals for change by considering the needs from outside or within the organisational structure (Gökçe, 2005; Rosenblatt, 2004). According to Leavitt (1964), forces within the organisation that support organisational change include technology, the major field of business, people and administrative structures (formalised lines of communication, formation of working procedures, managerial hierarchies, reward systems and disciplinary procedures). Therefore, it can be said that inside forces for change emanate from both human resources and managerial deportment or decisions. Furthermore, key external forces outside the organisations include law and regulations of the government, the standards and values of society, changing technology, demographic characteristics, administrative processes and needs of the members of the organisation (Dawson, 2003; Kreitner & Kinicki, 2010). These external and internal factors all affect speed, direction and results of change in organisations (Dawson, 2003). According to the White Paper on Public Works towards the 21st century (SA, 1997:20), the Department of Public Works (DPW) is experiencing internal change to reach both2 comprehensive legislative targets and all the more proficiently fulfil its task.
This incorporates rebuilding the DPW to focus on a new way to deal with property venture; enhancing analysis of investment; promoting private and public pa partnerships to advance development; considering various models of implementation; and making and communicating plans that start processes immediately. . As a major aspect of its general change, the DPW is rebuilding its Property and Facilities Management Division to guarantee customers’ needs are met in a viable, proficient and cost-effective way (SA, 1997). According to Ashford, Lee and Bobko (1989: 803), while an organisation is experiencing organisational change, including restructuring, downsizing, or merging, employees experience apprehension, strain, and insecurity, and these affect employees’ productivity, contentment, and commitment towards the organisation. The attitudes and behaviours of personnel develop as a result of unique existential experiences, socio-demographic traits, expertise and abilities, attitudes, values and behavioural pattern in the end, organisations require willingness and behavioural support from employees which ensure an adaptable organisation. As a result, organisational change is considered as both a challenge and a threat as it activates a positive reaction when considered as challenge and activates a negative reaction when considered otherwise.
Change as a threat has an impact on employees’ perception of job insecurity, anxiety and depression, which may cause employee resistance to a change programme (Conner, 1993) In case of a challenge, change has an impact on motivation, loyalty, job commitment and job satisfaction and may automatically expedite the rate of employees’ acceptance and willingness to implement the change programme (Reichers, Wanous & Austin, 1997). Therefore, organisations need to develop a sense of challenge in their employees to get a positive response to change and to avoid dissatisfaction and depression among the employees. Researchers have remarked that both the ability to accept change as well as the tendency to resist change lies within the individuals who are experiencing the change (Judge et al., 1999; Oreg, 2003). Similarly, Lau and Woodman (1995) reveal that each individual decides through his or her perceptual skills whether change is a threat or a challenge. Hence change management agents and academic scholars are studying issues of handling the change process so that employees can actively agree to and be involved in the change programmes. With the3 above said, this study attempts to analyse the different perceptions of employees during organisational change, based on hierarchical position, to study the perceptions of employees during organisational change, to study the demographic differences in employees’ perceptions during organisational change and to determine the factors that influence employees’ perceptions. 1.
2 BACKGROUND OF STUDY According to the Department of Public Works Revised Strategic Plan, 2015-2020:37, during the course of 1999, cabinet approved the establishment of a State Property Agency (SPA) as a vehicle which would professionally manage the state’s immovable assets. By 2002, no progress had been made in establishing the SPA and, as a result, the joint National Treasury / DPSA Technical Committee recommended that a trading entity, with a lifespan of approximately two (2) years be created, as the first step towards separating the functions of the Department of Public Works (DPW) and the Property Management Trading Entity (PMTE). Another period of inactivity followed until 2006, after which the “property agency” discussion was resuscitated. At this time, National Treasury approved the devolution of accommodation budgets to individual user departments and the introduction of the concept of “user charges” for state accommodation. During March 2006, and subject to certain specified conditions, National Treasury then authorised the establishment of a Property Management Trading Entity (PMTE), as a vehicle to account for the costs recovered from user-departments and payments towards leases, maintenance, property rates and municipal services (Department of Public Works, 2015).
Unfortunately, National Treasury’s directive was not fully complied with and the Department of Public Works underperformed for the following eight (8) consecutive years. This culminated, inter alia, in adverse audit findings with two (2) consecutive disclaimers during 2010 – 2011 and 2011 – 2012 financial years, mainly due to the failure to operationalise the PMTE, in line with National Treasury’s 2006 approval. This led to a concerted effort by the current executive and accounting officers to put measures into place to correct the history of poor management in the Department of Public Works. As a result, in November 2011, the4 Minister requested assistance from the Technical Assistance Unit (TAU) of National Treasury to provide a rapid diagnosis in respect of the state of affairs within the Department. The findings in the report detailed problems of mismanagement and misalignment and pointed to the need for fundamental reorganisation of the department to deliver its core business effectively (Department of Public Works, 2015). The aforementioned exercise culminated in the launching of the turnaround strategy during 2012, which was to be implemented in phases over a seven (7) year period with measurable deliverables against budget and timeframes.
The three (3) phases of the turnaround strategy are interrelated and interdependent to the extent that the stabilisation in certain areas will only be realised in phase II while simultaneously ensuring efficiency enhancements in other stabilised areas. The turnaround strategy defined the process for organisational review and renewal to ensure compliance with the mandate of the department and satisfactory audit performance. This process required change to the organisational processes, systems and resource perspectives, as well as change to the structure and internally focused culture of the department. In addition, it required proper implementation of a performance management system that affected all areas of the department and the way in which business was to be conducted. The turnaround strategy was to be implemented in the following phases: the stabilisation phase, efficiency enhancement phase and sustainability and growth phase. The aim of the change management programme was to facilitate readiness and to support stakeholders during the operationalization of the department and the PMTE.
Change management is a by-product of the turnaround strategy and occurs in various areas in the department. All identified turnaround strategy projects are change initiatives by nature. During the 2016/17 financial year, the Department finalised the organisational structure for both the Department and the PMTE (Department of Public Works, 2017). 1.3.
RATIONALE OF STUDY Organisational studies have predominantly concentrated on the organisational level and not the individual level, i.e. responses, attitudes and perceptions of the people involved in the change and how these influence the organisation. Martin, Jones, and Callan (2005:265) mention that impressions of employees may turn out to be a key factor concerning effective execution of progress and change.
Most existing studies centre on how organisations plan for,5 execute and respond to change, while very few have inspected reactions to organisational change in developing countries, for example, South Africa. For this reason, this study attempts to fill a gap in the literature on the individual level, and to determine to what a degree perception affects the organisation. 1.4.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS OF STUDY The purpose of this study is to see if employees differ with regard to organisational change according to their individual hierarchical positions and to what degree they differ. By applying the significant hypotheses and presenting the findings obtained from the study, this study intends to answer the research questions presented below: Main Research Question Do employees’ perceptions during organisational change differ across hierarchical levels? Research Sub-questions What are the perceptions of employees during organisational change? What are the demographic differences in employees’ perceptions during organisational change? Which factors influence employees’ perceptions? 1.5. OBJECTIVES OF STUDY The study will address the following research objectives: Main Objective ? To analyse the different perceptions of employees during organisational change, based on hierarchical position.
Sub-Objectives ? To study the perceptions of employees during organisational change ? To study the demographic differences in employees’ perceptions during organisational change ? To determine the factors that influence employees’ perceptions 1.6 CHAPTER OUTLINE The dissertation consists of the following chapters, list of references and appendix.6 Chapter 1: Introduction and background of study This chapter presents an introduction to the study along with the relevant background of the study. The chapter states the research questions and specific objectives.
The chapter also presents the chapter outline of the study. Chapter 2: Literature Review Chapter 2 presents a review of the literature. Chapter 3: Methods and materials of study Chapter 3 presents the methods and materials used in the study. The chapter presents the study design, the sample size of the study, sampling technique, statistical methods of data analysis, and tests of validity and reliability.
Chapter 4: Results of study This chapter presents the results obtained from a quantitative data analysis. Chapter 5: Discussion of results Chapter 5 presents a discussion of the key results and findings. A thorough and critical analysis of the results obtained from analysis will be conducted with a view to identify gaps that should be addressed by other researchers. The discussion of results is guided by the key research questions of study. Chapter 6: Conclusions and Recommendations This chapter provides relevant recommendations based on the findings of the study.
1.7 SUMMARY This chapter has presented an introduction to the study, the background of study, the rationale of study, the objectives of study and the research questions of study. The chapter has explained the key motivations and potential benefits of study. The next chapter will present a review of the relevant literature.7 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter reviews literature about the conceptual framework of organisational development and change management.
It also looks at the most prominent theoretical change models which are utilised both by managers leading their organisations through change, as well as researchers who attempt to conceptualise organisational change. 2.2 CHANGE MANAGEMENT As Moran and Brightman (2001: 111) explain, change management is an on-going process of reviewing and improving the focus, structure and capacities of an organisation to live up to its responsibilities and meet the expectations of its customers and other stakeholders. At every level of operation and strategy, change remains a constant characteristic of an organisation’s existence (Burnes, 2004). In view of this, it is important for an organisation to identify a vision for its future as well as manage the changes that accompanies its achievement. Change management addresses the way in which an organisation supports its employees towards understanding, accepting and embracing major organisational changes in the workplace (Hassan, Obasan and Abass, 2016). Other theorists such as Barratt-Pugh, Bahn, and Gakere (2012) and Hayes (2007) relate change management to the ways in which change is integrated into the workplace systems, structures and characteristics towards the improvement of efficiency and effectiveness of an organisation. At organisational level, Harrington (2006) indicates that change management is a series of organised processes that are involved in the different phases of change such as decision-making, planning, execution and evaluation.
For an organisation to manage change successfully, Carnall (2003) recommends that its management must apply an organisation-wide approach in implementation and embrace emerging learning points in the change phases. In the same vein, van Tonder (2004) observes that change can only be managed effectively when concerned leaders or managers have a genuine appreciation of change in its entirety. Given the different definitions of change8 management in this section, the study concurs with the general definition of change management as the management of plans for change, communication strategies and implementation of change initiatives. 2.3 INDUSTRIALISATION Organisational development and change management as a field of theoretical engagement dates back to the early 20th century.
The expansion of industrialisation of the 1900s in many parts of the Western world led to simultaneous growth in the manufacturing sector and consequently resulted in establishment of more factories and a demand for factory workers. These waves of expansion triggered the need for a better understanding of the working of an organisation, human resource management and development towards labour efficiency and productivity as well as organisational management, (Burke, 20007). 2.4 SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT Scientific management theory, which is also referred to as Taylorism or the classical perspective, is recognised by many scholars as the first theory that was formulated to address management challenges scientifically. The theory which was introduced in 1911 by Frederick Taylor who applied scientific methods to enhance economic efficiency and labour productivity, (Locke, 1982). According to Taylor’s theoretical analysis, an organisation is considered as a machine that can be studied scientifically in terms of a cause and effect approach. Guided by his engineering background, Taylor applied methods such as information gathering, institutionalisation of best practices and data transfer in the study of an organisation, (Grönroos, 1993).
2.4.1 Four principles of Scientific Management Theory: • Data Collection: Taylor proposed that collection of data would help to develop a set of rules and laws that managers can apply to increase efficiency in the workplace. • Worker Selection and Development: This principle of scientific management theory emphasises specialisation as well as employees’ development. It demands that an organisation should hire employees who are suited for specific positions and provide them with necessary capacity building for their jobs. • Scientific Management and Workers: The principle provides managers with scientific instruments to measure and improve employees’ performance.9 • Distributing the work: The principle identifies the separate work responsibilities of workers which were to carry out specific job assignments while management staff was to plan and supervise workers’ jobs (Locke, 1982). Despite its influence on later theories, the scientific management theory falls short because of its conceptualisation of an organisation as a machine and its narrow focus on the manufacturing sector.
Burke (2007) avers that the theory was no longer relevant as early as the 1930s because of the increasing complexity of organisations. However, the lasting influence of Taylor’s theory on contemporary theories can be seen in his contribution to modern industrial organisational psychology with the discourse on incentive pay. Taylor’s works also contributed theoretical knowledge to the fields of industrial engineering and total quality management (Locke, 1982).
Over the years, there has been a shift from pioneering thoughts on organisation such as Taylor’s scientific cause-and-effect approach of scientific management to psychological and sociological approaches that emphasise the significance of factors such as employee attitude, perceptions, morale and common associations. One of the leading theorists whose works encompass this approach is Hawthorne (Burke, 2007). 2.5 THE HAWTHORNE EFFECT Hawthorne’s contribution to theoretical understanding of organisation and management started with a number of experiments that were conducted between 1924 to1932 involving the workers at the Hawthorne Works factory. The purpose of the experiments was to measure the influence of working conditions on efficiency. One aspect of the experiments revealed that varied lighting conditions had an impact on productivity.
The researchers found that an increase in lighting increased productivity considerably. However, a decrease in lighting further increased productivity and even when the lighting was supposedly changed, workers’ productivity continued to increase, (Gillespie, 1991). This observed phenomenon is what is now referred to as the Hawthorne effect. The Hawthorne-effect is found in situations in which research subjects improve or alter their conduct having understood that they are being examined or watched (McCarney et al., 2007).10 At the time of the Hawthorne Works factory experiments, the Hawthorne-effect was unknown.
However, researchers were able to deduce that apart from lighting there were other factors contributing to the workers’ productivity. As a result, they justified their hypothesis that a cause-and-effect relationship did not exist between working conditions and efficiency (Burke, 2007). This conclusion inspired further researchers to focus on non-physical variables such as the impacts of psychological factors on employees’ productivity. Researchers sought to understand the impacts of variables such as supervision, perceived status and social relations on workers’ behaviour and productivity.
With its specific focus on psychological factors, the Hawthorne study made a substantial contribution to the studies of contemporary change management and organisational development, paving the way for a more humanistic approach (Burke, 2007). Although the Hawthorne study researchers started with a theory of the effect of physical stimuli on employees, similar to Taylor’s scientific management approach of organisation as a machine, they however reached a different conclusion that demanded a more humanistic approach to such research fields as well as employees’ relations (Gillespie, 1991). . Burke (2007: Add page number) summarises the fundamental impact of the Hawthorne studies on organisational development and change management in the statement below: They exhibited the imperative impact of mental or human factors on specialist profitability and assurance.
… the relative absence of a requirement for close supervision of individuals who know their employments, the significance of getting criticism on the immediate connection between? Execution and remuneration? And having options and some impact over change. 2.6 LEWIN AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT Following the milestone contribution of the Hawthorne study to the theory of organisational development and change management in the 1940s, the dominance of humanism and social psychology in organisational research grew continually as scholars and researchers engaged with issues of organisational change management. One of the major scholars whose pioneering works in applied and social psychology dominated the field of change management was the German psychologist Kurt Lewin (Burnes, 2004).11 In most of Lewin’s works, the central theoretical theme was the emphasis on the fact that a group influences its individual member’s perceptions, feelings and actions (Allport, 1948).
As is discussed in subsequent section, the emphasis on the importance of the group turns out to be one of the foremost components of the social psychological approach to improving an organisation. 2.7 INDUSTRIAL PSYCHOLOGY Industrial psychology gained popularity during the Second World War as a method of conducting morale and efficiency tests, particularly in industrial and military organisations. The method involves the use of standardised testing, questionnaires and screening followed by a test of validity and reliability. This was built on psychological testing and psychometrics developed by Sir Francis Galton and L.L.
Thurstone’s contributions (Jensen, 2002; Burke, 2007). Also, around the 1950s and 1960s, the Rensis Likert-led group of psychologists at the University of Michigan increased research interest in the field of industrial psychology. The group used industrial psychology components of measurements, surveys and questionnaires to evaluate employees’ morale and attitudes in organisations (Burnes, 2004). This was to be widened into the broader scope of organisational culture, transformational change and socio-technical systems in the decades that followed Rensis Likert’s group of the 60s (Burke, 2007). Initially, the socio-technical systems dealt with revolutionising work structures and focused on a bottom-up management approach.
The systems later adopted the University of Michigan action research approach which included survey feedback and behavioural science as earlier proposed by Kurt Lewin. In view of this, Kurt Lewin’s works continue to be prominent and relevant in the literature and study of contemporary change management (Beckhard, 1997). Another major contribution to the literature and study of change management is that of Kotter (1996) published in the mid-1990s. Kotter developed an 8-step model for change implementation; a prominent model in management literature. The next section explores other change models of Lewin, Kotter and Bridges.
12 2.8 CHANGE MODELS Scholars have propounded different types of models in their attempt to conceptualise the change process, many of which have been embraced by leaders and managers tasked with the responsibility of managing organisational change. The discussion in the section is centered on some of the popular and often applied models as well as the opportunities and challenges they present to managers and leaders experiencing the process of change.
2.8.1 LEWIN’S MODEL Force field analysis is one of the seminal works in the field of change management. Published in the mid-20th century by Kurt Lewin, the model is based on two forces described as driving and resisting forces. Lewin postulated that the two forces stand opposed to each other in most organisations until they finally reach equilibrium.
According to Lewin, change occurs when there is an imbalance in the equilibrium as a result of developing tension (Burnes, 2004). Lewin’s theory of change was built on four related factors, namely Field Theory, Group Dynamics, Action Research and the 3-Step model (Burnes, 2004). With his field theory, Lewin aimed at unravelling the complex nature of group behaviour. The German theorist argued that behaviour was a set of interactions and forces that influence group behaviour as well as that of individuals. Therefore, behavioural changes can be traced back to changes in this set of forces (Lewin, 1946). The group dynamics factor emphasises the importance of group behaviour as the major focus of change research in the sense that the key to rallying individuals around a change agenda and also changing individual behaviour is the appreciation of the internal dynamics of the group to which the individual belongs (Burnes, 2004). The action research factor emanated from Lewin’s research paper; Action Research and Minority Problems (Lewin, 1946) in which he recommended a proper situation analysis and appropriate action as factors for successfully implementing change. With the 3-step model factor, Lewin proposed three stages of change process as unfreeze, change and refreeze.
The unfreeze stage deals with putting in place the right conditions that engender change which involve managing initial opposition to change and helping with13 transition from a “frozen” state to a “ready for change” state. The change stage is characterised by state of confusion as well as changes in roles and identity. The refreeze stage deals with securing the sustainability of the change (Burnes, 2004). 2.8.
2 KOTTER’S 8-STEP MODEL Kotter developed an 8-step change model similar to previous work by Kurt Lewin, (Kotter, 1996). Kotter’s model indicates that implementing a successful change requires an organisation to pass through certain steps as follows: 1. Establish a sense of urgency.
This requires that change managers must create awareness of the need and importance of change as soon as possible. Failure to do this, Kotter (1996) argues, may result in opposition to the change agenda with a negative impact on the implementation process. Therefore, establishing a sense of urgency is a step that mobilises employee support for a change agenda through effective communication about the change, its reason and potential benefits. 2. Create the guiding coalition. Kotter emphasises the importance of change managers assembling a team of key individuals tasked with the specific responsibility of communicating the purpose, plan and expected benefits of change. According to Kotter, the team must be a group of committed individuals who can also inspire a similar level of commitment in others.
In this regard, change strategists or managers must ensure there is an appropriate mix of skill and status and also pay attention to factors such as leadership qualities, individual integrity and expertise. 3. Develop a vision and strategy. A successful change process requires that an organisation going through a change phase must clearly define its change goals and objectives. As Kotter observes, the failure of many change projects is as a result of lack of clearly defined objectives, poor or lack of planning and failure to put in place or implement contingency plans.
4. Communicate the change vision. This involves ensuring a shared vision among stakeholders, especially employees about the need and importance of a change initiative or agenda. To achieve this requires effective communication and mobilising stakeholders towards realising this common vision. 5. Empower action. This indicates that for a change initiative to be successfully implemented, it must start with identifying and removing obstacles, and creating communication channels among stakeholders in an organisation. In addition, it demands commitment of the top14 management as well as motivation of employees to provide feedback and constructive criticism.
6. Generate short-term wins. Since many change processes usually take a long time and are demanding, change managers must develop a set of short-term goals to keep employees interested and committed to the process. Short-term wins help to create momentum especially in the beginning stages as it gives stakeholders an impression of on-going progress. This also serves to boost stakeholders’ morale and motivate them to complete the whole change project when there is a sense of achievement through achievement of smaller goals.
7. Consolidating gains and producing more change. Consolidating gains requires that change managers measure on-going progress and also re-evaluate set goals and objectives. This will help to establish if certain objectives have been achieved or not and identify reasons why objectives have not been met, as well as lead to developing and implementing contingency plan in such cases. 8.
Anchoring new approaches in the culture. Kotter proposes securing the sustainability of a successful change in a manner similar to that in which Kurt Lewin explained his ‘freeze’ factor (Kotter, 1996). 2.8.3 BRIDGES’ TRANSITION MODEL Bridges’ model explores the challenges people experience during transitions brought about by change (Bridges, 2009). Bridges concludes that the primary challenge for employees in the change process is the transition rather than change itself. In this regard, the model identifies change and transition as different concepts. According to Bridges, change refers to the situation such as staff downsizing or companies’ merger, while transition is the psychological conditions brought about by the change process.
Bridges, in keeping with the theoretical traditions of scholars such as Lewin and Kotter, also submits that those who are going through a change process experience it in stages. Like Lewin and Kotter, Bridges identifies three emotional stages as follows: letting go, the neutral zone and the new beginning. All three stages are interdependent and interact with one another to the effect that those affected by the change process may experience more than one of the stages at the same time. Letting Go This is the first stage and it demands acceptance of an expected end. Therefore, employees or people experiencing a change must be prepared to let go of certain things before a new stage15 can begin. In this regard, change managers have the responsibility of preparing employees against any sense or perceived loss that may occur as a result of organisational change (Bridges, 2009).
Neutral Zone This is the stage that is characterised by neutrality which is often expressed in uncertain feelings on the part of the employees who have already let go of certain things but are still awaiting the implementation of proposed change. Bridges believes that it is crucial that employees are adequately supported and guided during the stage as this will help their transition to the next stage (Bridges, 2009). New Beginning: This stage is Bridges’ final stage of the change process which is the point at which employees completely leave the past behind and embrace the new initiatives and experiences which may be, for example, acquiring new skills, adjusting to a new situation and accepting certain changes being implemented. Supervisors or change managers play critical roles at this stage in securing the change and supporting the implementation of change processes and procedures (Bridges, 2009). 2.8.4 CRITIQUES OF LEWIN’S THEORIES Despite his widely acknowledged contributions to the study of organisational change management, Lewin’s theoretical works have been seriously critiqued by other scholars (Kanter, Stein and Jick.
, 1992; Pettigrew, Ferlie and McGee, 1992; Wilson, 1992). Critics argue that Lewin’s model is erroneous in assuming that organisations exist in a state of stability. In this regard, they opine that the model can only work in stable conditions involving small-scale change.
However, they find it irrelevant to modern organisations. This is because most modern organisations are dynamic and evolving entities which are constantly undergoing changes. As such, Lewin’s ‘freeze’ model may not be practicable in such environment. In critiquing Lewin’s model, Kanter et al. (1992) comment as follows: Lewin’s model was a simple one, with organisational change involving three stages; unfreezing, changing, and refreezing.
This quaintly linear and static conception – the organisation as ice cube – is so wildly inappropriate that it is difficult to see why it has16 not only survived but prospered, except for one thing. It offers managers a very straightforward way of planning their actions, by simplifying an extraordinary complex process into a child’s formula. Lewin’s theory has also been criticised for its downplaying of organisational power and putting too much emphasis on top-down management where managers are the main drivers of major change process (Burnes, 2004). Another weakness of Lewin’s change model is its over-reliance on personal business experience without complimentary external sources (Applebaum, 2012). Critics are concerned about the theory’s lack of empirical evidence (Todnem, 2005).
Other critics argue that Lewin’s change model is over-simplified and inflexible in the sense that it assumes ‘one-size-fits-all’ and is not adequately contextualised. They believe that such an approach does not cater for different types of organisations and change processes (Kanter et al., 1992; Dunphy and Stace, 1993). Overall, the foregoing discussion has shown that change models can serve as effective tools in conceptualising the change process, and at the same time, their weaknesses may also pose as difficult challenges to the processes they seek to improve. The next section presents an overview of organisational change and a discussion of the effectiveness of change, types of change and resistance to change. 2.9 ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE Organisational change refers to a situation in which an organisation moves from a particular fixed state, position, condition or situation to a predetermined and preferred state of change often characterised by growth, development, decrease or increase (Rebeka and Indradevi, 2015).
However, as Rebeka and Indradevi explain, organisational change management deals with the process of initiating, planning and actualising change in an organisation in a way that minimises challenges and cost to both organisation and its employees while simultaneously maximising the result of change initiatives.17 Organisational change happens as a result of a dynamic environment or as a reaction to an existing situation. In addition, organisational change management is a process developed to provide stakeholders with the necessary support to understand, accept and adapt to change in the workplace and in their personal lives (Rebeka and Indradevi, 2015).
As indicated by Pardo-del-Val, Martínez-Fuentes and Roig-Dobón (2012:1845) organisational change alludes to “an empirical observation of difference in form, quality or long term state of an organisational entity, coming out of the deliberate introduction of new styles of thinking, acting or operating, looking for the adaptation to the environment or for a performance improvement.” Moreover, many organisational change theories focus on organisational lifetime, built on the assumption that organisational growth can or will trigger certain transformation, for instance, a change in control or management style resulting from organisational size growth (Barnett & Carroll, 1995). 2.9.
1 Organisational Change as a Process Many scholars have observed that much of the literature in the fields of organisational theory and organisational change mainly focuses on the content of change to the detriment of the change process. According to Amburgey, Kelly and Barnet (1993), this trend is an indication of many organisations’ resistance to change. Yet, Kotter and Schlesinger, 1979, and Rafferty, Jimmieson and Armenakis (2013) submit that competitiveness and the dynamic nature of the business environment compels organisations to embrace change. Porras and Silvers (1991) explain organisational change as a process arising from an initiative that aims at different ways of doing things in relation to existing organisational processes in a way that impact individuals’ contributions and overall organisational results. Similarly, van Tonder (2004) states that organisational change is a time-bound process that produces a new condition or situation in an organisation. Furthermore, Mack et al.
, (1998) argue that organisational change is a process of migrating from a present state to a desirable state in a determined future. Barnett and Carroll (1995)18 conceptualise the term organisational change in relation to the way in which change occurs and the change that actually occurs in an organisation. Overall, organisational change as a process encapsulates the organisational change management process where an organisation renews its direction, structure and management of people with the main purpose of successful organisational change resulting in achieving expected outcomes (Berns, 2007; Todnem, 2005). Drawing from the insights of reviewed definitions of different authors of organisational change, the study will be guided by the definition that describes organisational change as processes leading to changes within an organisation; such changes may be a merger, structural, cultural and/or technical change, but the end results will primarily be increased effectiveness and improved efficiency. The next sections discuss change and different types of change focusing on the processes, strategies and effects. 2.
9.2 Change and Types of Change Change is a constant characteristic of an organisation featuring throughout its life cycle at all levels of its operation and management. In this regard, it is imperative that every organisation is able to determine and plan for a desirable future and also put in place a change management process and strategy to achieve future goals (Todnem, 2005). Since organisations are different in the nature, purpose, process and systems of operation and management, it is expected that the changes that may likely occur will vary from organisation to organisation. This section looks at the different types of change along with their processes, strategies and effects. In his definition of organisational change, Smith (2002) identifies the following types of change that can occur in an organisation: acquisitions and mergers, restructuring and downsizing, expansion, culture change or technology change. Organisational change theorists suggest that some of these change types have similar characteristics, particularly acquisitions and mergers, and restructuring and downsizing.
Burke and Nelson (1997) observe that these19 pairs are interrelated in the sense that they both emanate from the need for organisational economic survival and productivity. 2.9.
2.1 Downsizing and Restructuring Using quantitative measures of operational and financial performance, many studies have been conducted in an attempt to understand the dynamics of downsizing and restructuring in relation to organisational change (Smith, 2002). The findings of some of the studies suggest that downsizing, for example, offers both economical and organisational benefits such as increased income from reduction in cost (Burke and Nelson, 1997). Downsizing is characterised by a reduction of staff population and divestiture of company assets (Smith, 2002) while, restructuring is the process of structural change whereby an organisation merges or disbands work units or departments (Bordia, Hobman. Jones, Gallois and Callan, 2004). In many organisations restructuring is used to achieve improved productivity, strengthen market competitiveness, reduce overhead cost as well as improve communication and decision-making processes (Burke & Nelson, 1997). Other benefits of downsizing and restructuring include a better motivated workforce, better positioned and focused organisational leadership, and a forward-looking organisation, commitment to capacity development and innovation (Burke & Nelson, 1997).
Despite these benefits and the success rate of downsizing and restructuring, Smith (2002) observes that the experience is often accompanied by an emotional and physical downside. Some of these downside effects include loss of jobs and livelihood for many staff members, resulting in separation that can break personal relationships with dire emotional impacts and mixed moods across rank and file. In such an atmosphere, managers are expected to be cognisant of these downside effects and be prepared to respond them in an effective way that does not jeopardise change process and expected outcomes (Garvin and Roberto, 2005). 188.8.131.52 MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS Mergers and acquisitions occur when two separate organisations combine under one ownership and operate as one organisation (Smith, 2002). However, the two concepts are differentiated by the fact that mergers deal with a combination of two equal or similar organisations in a situation where neither of the two can claim to have acquired the other,20 whereas in the case of acquisitions, one of the two organisations is the acquired of the other (Bordia et al.
2004; Vaara, 2000). Organisational change occurs when organisations engage in processes of mergers or acquisitions. This may take the form of total or partial integration or dissolution of the merging organisations’ departments, units and functions (Seo ; Hill, 2005). In some cases, however, mergers and acquisitions may bring about positive changes in an organisation. In the case of acquisition for instance, the organisation acquiring another may benefit from the assets and values of the acquired organisation. Also, some mergers may help the new emerging organisation to diversify and enhance its competitiveness through the new capital injection from the merger (Smith, 2002).
Mergers and acquisitions have also been found to help facilitate organisational changes by enhancing organisational capacities for expansion and growth (Smith, 2002). 184.108.40.206 CULTURE CHANGE Culture is defined as the link or connection between individuals who share common interests, relationships and characteristics (Carlström and Ekman, 2012).
Linking this to organisational culture, Carlström and Ekman submit that culture explains the relationship among individuals and their collective behaviour in the sense that an individual typifies an organisational culture shared by the whole group. Similarly, (Jones, 2010) construes organisational culture as shared values and principles that guide different levels of stakeholders’ relations and interactions within an organisation. However, for purposes of this study, organisation culture is defined as the shared values and principles that guide relations and interactions among management, supervisors and non-supervisors of, in this case, the Department of Public Works. Literature on culture management can be divided into three categories, namely those who state that culture: i. can be controlled; ii. Can be changed in given conditions and; iii. Cannot be changed arbitrarily (Harris & Ogbonna, 1998).
According to (Porter and Parker, 1992) culture changes significantly when work environment processes and operations change over an extended period of time resulting in significantly different processes of work and operations. During this period of change, organisations21 employ different strategies to influence employees’ attitudes and behavioural patterns towards the emerging changes. These include motivation tools such as rewards and recognition, exposure, capacity building through training and development opportunities as well as sensitisation and awareness training and seminars to help employees understand and respond to the changes that are taking place (Smith, 2002; Porter ; Parker, 1992). Overall, different types of changes occur in an environment of organisational change with many organisations experiencing different types of changes simultaneously or concurrently.
Smith (2002) finds that about 40% of organisational change includes more than one category of organisational change suggesting overlapping of different types of changes. The next section discusses change processes that are involved in change implementation. 2.10 EFFECTIVENESS OF CHANGE For a change agenda and initiative to be successful, many factors must be in place because the change process by itself does not ensure achievement of expected ends without proper management of the process. Some of the contributing factors are further discussed in the subsequent sections. 2.
10.1 Readiness for Change Organisations must be prepared for change and its outcomes for it to be successful in relation to target organisational change. Readiness for change enhances effectiveness of change implementation (corresponding to Lewin’s unfreezing concept), described as the way in which organisational stakeholders’ behaviours and beliefs impact their understanding and responses to change (Armenakis et al.
, 1993). The importance of factors like readiness for change is emphasised when certain processes or steps in the implementation of the change process is omitted or ignored, and in the end the desired results are not achieved. Kotter (1995) warns that skipping any step, such as preparing employees for the coming change may negatively affect change momentum and continuity. 2.11 PREPARING FOR CHANGE: BUILDING MOMENTUM AND SUPPORT Preparing for change demands that an organisation builds momentum and support from the onset and puts an effective change communication strategy in place as well as forecasts22 potential conflict that may arise as challenge to the process. This is because a successful change initiative or agenda is not only dependent on its content, but more importantly on the carefully planned processes and actions taken in the course of implementation.
In this regard, Armenakis and Bedeian (1999) advise organisations to recognise the complementary roles that exist between both content and process of change in the stages of planning, implementing and monitoring organisational change. Although many individual reports attest to the success of organisational change, researchers believe that change can be a very challenging task to accomplish especially at organisational level. For instance, it has been observed that organisational change that occurs through downsizing or change in company culture usually records low success rates of just 30% of such change efforts (Beer and Nohria, 2000). Despite such discouraging statistics of success rate of organisational change, Haveman (1992) believes that an attempt at organisational change will be worthwhile in situations where it ushers in transformation of organisational conditions that reveal the weaknesses of existing strategies and processes. Ultimately, organisational change can be maximised and opposition to it minimised when there are concerted efforts and commitment from all stakeholders including leaders, managers and employees (Weber and Weber, 2001).
Weber and Weber (2001) argue that involving employees before change begins and carrying them along through the processes of change implementation will minimise resistance to change and increase commitment. In this regard, Jones et al. (2008) canvass for strong leadership to oversee the process of change because of leaders’ abilities to inspire and communicate a clear vision of change and ability to offer necessary and direct support to their employees as well as promote stability and commitment. Kotter (1995) further emphasises the importance of strong leadership to successful change management. He affirms that leading people through the process of change remains one of the greatest tests for a strong leader, because people are naturally averse to change.
In this regard, leaders are expected to engage in intensive background work in the early stages of change to understand employees’ preconceived ideas of change and find ways to influence these views towards support and action for the emerging change (Garvin and Roberto, 2005).23 Importantly, for an organisation to successfully implement change, it must present a clarity of purpose and goals to be achieved towards engendering positive attitudes among its employees in the course of the change process (Weber and Weber, 2001; Lehman et al., 2002). Successful transition, change management and organisational change have always succeeded under the leadership of managers who develop and communicate clear goals, strive to achieve set goals and commit to rewarding those involved in the change process appropriately (Kotter, 1995).
Overall, Armenakis et al., (1993) recommend that for an organisation to effectively prepare its stakeholders for organisation change focus must be on conveying a clear message of change. They advise that such a message must contain two elements which are stating why the change is important and support for adaptation to change for those who will be affected. In view of this, effective communication is an important factor in achieving success with organisational change. Therefore, managers must have effective communication tools and channels at their disposal. 2.12 COMMUNICATION Kotter (2008) affirms that communication is a crucial factor in successful implementation and achievement of change. For this reason, research advises that communication about change must be built around a designated change team that will be tasked with the responsibility of communicating clear and realistic vision as well as the processes and impacts of change in the organisation.
As Muller (2006) observes, stakeholders will most likely resist change if the change agenda is not properly communicated for them to make sense of it. In this case, employees’ resistance may weaken their abilities to adapt and progress with the new changes taking place in the organisation. Muller’s view emphasises the crucial role communication plays in the change process particularly in the way it helps to manage mixed reactions among staff (Nelissen and van Selm, 2008). Grobler and Puth (2002) add that effective communication can help managers to convince employees to rally around the change processes. Also, Weber and Weber (2001) share the24 view that communication can facilitate and support change towards achieving set objectives especially if managers create an environment that promotes credible communication and collaboration. Researchers have been critical of managers’ approach of using tools such as reports, and spreadsheets in c communication about change. They reason that while these tools may help amplify change messages, they are mostly unconvincing and ineffective. (Kotter and Cohen, 2002; Kim and Mauborgne, 2003).
Armenakis et al., (1993) corroborates this point with the example of an external diagnostic report adding credibility to an internal message sent to employees by a change manager. In this regard, messages from more than one source prove to be more effective as receivers find them more believable. In addition, effective communication can help to minimise possible negative results of a process of change as it provides employees with relevant and timely information regarding the process. This can happen through involving employees in the change process decision-making and thereby enhance their understanding of the process (Bordia et al., 2004). Armenakis et al.
(1993) argue that the process can be further enhanced when change managers regularly communicate the state of change all through the stages of change implementation. In this regard, Kotter and Cohen, (2002) stress that organisations’ actions must be in keeping with their speech. Therefore, communication efforts should not disregard or gloss over the initial fears and concerns of the employees; otherwise, it will be perceived as propaganda. Instead, change managers must engage with the employees and honestly address their concerns. To achieve this, Garvin and Roberto (2005) recommend that managers must gain the trust of the stakeholders by convincing them through their actions and plans that their leadership can drive the change process and produce expected results.
As noted earlier, leaders and managers must maintain consistency in their words and actions without which they will derail the change process because their personalities and positions carry weight in the minds of other members of the organisation they lead (Kotter, 1995). Therefore, a reputable and trustworthy manager will be able to deliver messages that are acceptable to employees (Armenakis et al., 1993).25 Leaders and managers must be adept in applying all available communication channels to communicate their c vision of change clearly to achieve success with change initiatives.
Opportunities such as routine management meetings must be explored to generate discussions about change processes. Other media of communication such as audio- and videotapes and electronic mail must also be engaged to convey simple, straightforward, rational logical and personalised messages and also generate quick feedback (Armenakis et al., 1993; Kotter, 1995). Overall, the use of appropriate communication tools and channels increases the chance of change initiatives becoming a success. With communication aspects firmly fixed, other challenges may arise from potential conflict that accompanies the change process. The next section looks at some of these conflicts in relation to change management.
2.13 CONFLICT As creature of habits, some employees struggle to let go of old processes and principles because of personal and even group attachment to old values, norms, and history, and consequently they fail in their attempt to adapt to a new order of things. This becomes even more difficult for this group when some of the positive culture and processes of an organisation are eroded by change (Jones et al., 2008).
Also, researchers have observed that factors such as stress and the pressure of the change process as well as uncertainty that accompanies it may push employees to the point of resistance and conflict notwithstanding the noble intentions conveyed by their managers (Jones et al., 2008; Mack et al., 1998). Conflict in organisational change is further fuelled by the interaction of change and the individual employee who is compelled by the forces and process of change to function or stop functioning in a particular way. Similarly, an employee impacts the process of change and its end results through her or his acceptance or rejection and continual commitment to the stages of change (Mack et al., 1998). In other situations, employees may choose denial as a way of coping with irresistible change (Armenakis and Bedeian, 1999).26 In view of the above, Armenakis and Bedeian (1999) recommend that managers must pay attention to factors such as resistance, commitment, stress and other related personal behavioural patterns all of which are by-products of the change process and may degenerate into conflicts, which can equally hamper its success.
2.14 RESISTANCE TO CHANGE According to Garvin and Roberto (2005), one of the reasons why change seems difficult is because affected stakeholders are unwilling to change old habits and situations they are accustomed to. Over time, employees get used to certain processes and may not seek innovation unless forced to change these old ways. As Kurt Lewin (1946) had earlier identified, employee resistance to change is one of the main factors why change initiatives fail. The importance of this factor has been further emphasised by the high rate of failure of change initiatives (Jones et al.
, 2008; Dent ; Goldberg, 1999). In addition, resistance to change arises in many instances because managers have not paid attention to Lewin’s unfreezing process before engaging in the process of change (Armenakis, 1993). Weber and Weber (2001) submit that employees’ resistance to change can negatively impact change efforts as well as other aspects of an organisation such as the corporate morale and productivity. This is why there is a need for capable management teams to manage dynamics of change among employees. Kotter and Schlesinger (1979) suggest that people are resistant to change because of lack of clear understanding of change and its outcomes, fear of losing cherished old values and inability to adapt to and tolerate change. Other reasons why people resist include fear of losing their current status and the benefits that come with it in the form of pay, comfort and perks (Dent and Goldberg, 1999; Jones et al., 2008). The authors stress that these reasons are not in themselves resistance to change, but a reaction arising from misunderstanding of expected outcomes of change and its impacts on them.
In the same vein, Vakola and Nikolaou (2005) observe that dedicated employees are more disposed to embrace organisational change if they find it advantageous to them but may oppose it if they find it to be threatening to their status quo and benefits.27 In this regard, it is up to the individual to determine whether a change process and its outcomes are a threat or benefit (Vakola and Nikolaou, 2005). This state of uncertainty is what Bordia et al. (2004) link to lack of foresight to analyse a situation appropriately which might have been caused by lack of adequate information. However, Kotter and Cohen (2002) add that uncertainty can also be characterised by doubt about future situations and/or the relationships of cause and effect in an environment of change. An individual caught up in such situation where he or she is fearful and have to defend himself or herself is forced to opt for self-preservation rather than engaging in creative solutions or progress. Moreover, researchers also indicate that resistance to change may not be as a result of uncertainty but might be connected to the emotional conditions that an individual is exposed to in the course of the change process (Vakola and Nikolaou, 2005).
2.14.1 Developed Resistance by Managers Scholars argue that managers indirectly contribute to employees’ resistance to change because of their lack of preparation to factor in such tendencies among employees and their sources and reasons at the planning stage of change process. Therefore, managers can prevent or manage employees’ resistance to change when they have already assumed that such a situation may arise before implementation of the change process (Kotter ; Schlesinger, 1979). 2.14.2 Conclusion Overall, researchers in the field of organisational development conclude that time is the most important factor in determining the net effects of change in an organisation (Amburgey et al., 1993).
Although change may be adaptive, Amburgey et al. submit that it will be a matter of time for an organisation to recover from and address challenges linked to the process of change. However, the scholars warn that some organisations may not reach the point of recovery if changes are initiated too often. An organisation that always initiates change will perpetually need to adapt to novelty with little or no time to consider the benefits and lessons of change. (Amburgey et al., 1993).28 The discussions in the previous sections have highlighted some of the factors that are germane to successful organisational change, such as effective communication, conflict management and good working relationships.
When these are put in place they will ensure that the change takes place in an environment of positive attitudes that promotes its success. In addition, it is crucial that change managers and other leaders take pre-implementation planning seriously as this will create an enabling environment for the change process and reduce change-related stress and uncertainty (Vakola and Nikolaou, 2005). Moreover, managers should pay attention to the stakeholders’ experiences and reactions particularly to those stakeholders who are directly affected by change and its outcomes. In this regard, employee relations management must be put in place to deal with change. Employees are the greatest asset of an organisation; therefore, an organisation that seeks to achieve successful change must manage conflicting emotions to get their support and commitment to the change process.
The next section reflects on this important aspect of emotion and how it affects employees during the process of change. 2.15 EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE Emotional intelligence is a type of social intelligence developed as a theoretical concept by Salovey and Mayer (1990). Emotional intelligence, according to Vakola et al. (2004) refers to the ability of individuals to observe their emotions and other people’s emotions, to differentiate between them and to be able to control their thinking and actions with derived information.
Emotional intelligence is a model founded on Gardner’s theories (cited in Salovey and Mayer, 1990) of intrapersonal and interpersonal intelligence. The key issue in intrapersonal intelligence is the ability of every individual to understand his or her own emotions, while the main focus of interpersonal intelligence is on the ability of the individual to understand other people’s emotions (Salovey and Mayer, 1990; Schutte et al., 1998).
According to Mayer and Salovey (1993), emotional intelligence involves verbal and non-verbal evaluation and29 communication of emotions, the management of emotions in oneself and other people as well as the application of emotional content in solving problems. Apart from the works of Gardner, theorists such as Daniel Goleman also made useful contributions to the concept bringing increased interest in the relevance of emotional intelligence in the workplace. Goleman defines emotional intelligence as the ability to identify one’s feelings and the feelings of other people, inspire oneself and control emotions in ourselves as well as in our different relationships. Further, Salovey and Mayer (as cited by Côté et al., 2010) also developed what they call the ability model of emotional intelligence which is a set of four emotion-related abilities: ability to perceive emotions, ability to use emotions, ability to understand emotions, and ability to manage emotions. The later effort of conceptualising emotional intelligence expands it to include potential for intellectual and emotional growth (Mayer and Salovey, 1993). Research on the subject of emotional intelligence reveals that in comparison with people with low emotional intelligence, individuals who exhibit high levels of emotional intelligence are more likely to be successful in their careers, less likely to feel threatened by job insecurity, more efficient in management and leadership, are able to cope well when faced with challenges and able to adapt to change.
2.15.1 EMOTIONS AND MOODS Emotion is broadly defined as a particular way of feeling, a state of being or a certain reaction to a particular situation while moods are emotional states of adversity or attraction towards a situation or an object (Gooty et al., 2010).
Over the years, the roles of human feelings in the workplace have been a major area of research interests for psychologists in the field of organisational psychology with a specific focus on two constructs – stress and satisfaction. However, it has been discovered that this is inadequate for a deep understanding of employees’ mental states in relation to the workplace dynamics (Briner, 1999). Often emotions are not regarded as a serious factor especially in the workplace where organisational setting is considered to be logical, rational and non-emotional. This kind of view does not recognise the roles of emotion in the change process since the focus is on achieving set objectives (Briner, 1999).
30 Moods are considered to share similar characteristics with emotions, but compared to emotions, moods are slow-changing, weaker in intensity, and irresponsive to specific events (Mayer and Salovey, 1993). Overall, researchers agree that both emotions and moods play important roles in organisational change as they can be influenced by workplace activities, inspire loyalty and dedication as well as enhance the achievement of individual, team and organisational goals (Fineman, 1997; Cooper, 1997). 2.15.
2 COPING According to Judge et al., (1999) the nature of the major response to organisational change is largely dependent on how change managers cope with the unforeseen circumstances triggered by the change process in the workplace. The scholars define the concept of coping as an attempt to deal with internal and external demands of an environment or situation which is found to be challenging and surpassing an individual’s abilities (Judge et al., 1999). Cherniss (2001) submits that coping successfully with change requires the ability to identify and appreciate the emotional impact of organisational change on the individual and others.
It also involves becoming conscious of those emotional issues such as fear of uncertainty and anxiety present in oneself and others, and finding effective ways of addressing it as well as helping others within the organisation to deal with their own responses provoked by the change process. As Judge et al. (1999) discovered, emotional intelligence study reveals that positive attitudes towards and perception of organisational change among employees is closely linked to job satisfaction, in the same way that lack of job satisfaction is closely related to negative attitudes. Similarly, the same study also found a link between employees’ lack of or low commitment and stress-related job dissatisfaction. As noted earlier in the change management section, attitudes, beliefs and perceptions are some of the significant factors in the success of organisational change. However, what is pertinent is the individual emotional disposition as it determines each person’s reaction to the change process. Particularly, some researchers argue that negative reactions to change will usually will be shown by those employees who have weak control over their emotions as this is an31 indication of their psychological weakness to manage the stress and outcomes and the draining processes of change. Contrary to this, employees who have reasonable control of their emotions are said to be positive in their attitudes and actions towards the change process in a way that engenders best performance and support for others (Scott-Ladd and Chan, 2004; Vakola et al.
, 2004). 2.15.
3 DENIAL AND RECEPTIVITY Huy (1999) affirms that the concept of receptivity involves a state and a process that indicate an interpretive and attitudinal state of responding to change in a likely positive way. Receptivity applies at both individual and organisational level. Individual receptivity involves the willingness of an individual to give change a chance, while organisational receptivity refers to an organisation’s or group’s readiness to examine and acknowledge change proposals (Huy, 1999).
Therefore, the processes of making sense of proposed organisational change are influenced by the receptivity of individual stakeholders in an organisation. In this regard, every stakeholder embarks on an internal process of understanding the main idea of a proposed change and simultaneously each one influences the other in the direction of a particular perception of the state of affairs in the organisation. Therefore, a radical change proposal may create a powerful emotional reaction that impacts on how an individual makes sense of a proposed change and the processes that may follow (Huy, 1999). As George and Jones (2001) warn, an attitude of denial may jeopardise a change process in a situation that triggers negative emotional reactions. For instance, denial may set in in a situation where individuals try to control their emotional reactions as they struggle to suppress or deny initial and present emotions.
Other possible characteristics of personal denial may include a psychological distancing from the unfolding reality, being consumed with other tasks, or completely ignoring the nagging internal emotions (George & Jones, 2001). Further, researchers submit that individual employees are in a better position to make sense of the effects of change in an organisation depending on the composition of their emotional intelligence (Vakola et al. 2004). Therefore, the higher the emotional intelligence of an employee, the better is his or her understanding and management of his or her feelings in relation to the change process. Hence, researchers note that such employees are more likely to32 be able to cope with emotional responses to circumstances leading to change (Vakola et al., 2004). 2.15.
4 LEARNED HELPLESSNESS Change theory recognises control as the perceived mental ability of an individual to make a useful contribution to the process of change. However, this ability may be weakened by uncertainty and lack of understanding of present or future situations. In an environment of uncertainty, individuals develop a sense of powerlessness and lose their ability to control situations which may lead to negative outcomes such as poor performance, anxiousness and learned helplessness (Bordia et al., 2004). The state or experience of not being in control may lead to feelings of helplessness consequently disrupt a person’s sense of control. In this sense, an individual who has previously experienced change in an environment of lack of influence or control would be disposed to a perception of not being in control when change is introduced again. Learned helplessness may even arise in such individuals even when responding to other future situations and conditions that are remotely similar and may result in weakened efforts (Maier and Seligman, 1976; George and Jones, 2001).
Learned helplessness is not only limited to the average employee. It might also manifest among managers and leaders in an organisation. As such, the experience of learned helplessness points to the importance of emotional intelligence even among managers. For instance, if an average employee is affected with learned helplessness from past organisational change, she may demonstrate an attitude of lack of control from the onset, staying aloof and detached from the change process.
In this regard, being engulfed in helplessness may disrupt their performance and negatively project the employee as resisting change. 2.15.5 CONCLUSION The preceding sections have demonstrated that emotions and emotional intelligence play an important role in the process of change in any organisation. Likewise, the management of emotions and employees’ perceptions and attitudes towards change are equally important in organisational change management. These issues of employees’ perceptions and their relationship with the change process are discussed in the next section33 2.16 EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS This section of the discourse covers employees’ perceptions and the different ways they impact recipients’ reactions.
It also discusses the relationship between group identity and perceptions in an environment of organisational change. Some of the discussions in previous sections of this chapter have shown that organisational change initiatives often record higher failure rates than success. For example, both Applebaum (2012) and Kotter (1995) reveal that organisational change failure rate is between 30% to 80%, while Herold and Fedor (2008) put the figures between 67-80% with only about 20% success rate for all change initiatives. As Jones et al. (2008) point out, employees’ resistance to change counts as one of the major reasons for the failure of change process.
Therefore, the scholars recommend that an organisation needs to find ways to engender favourable beliefs, perceptions and attitudes amongst employees in order for change management to be successful. According to Jones et al. (2008), employees’ resistance to change is one of the main reasons for the high failure rate. Kotter (1995) share similar views arguing that human factors, such as attitudes, behaviour and responses, are the major factors responsible for failure in organisational development efforts. Perception is defined as the way in which information from sensory impressions are organised and interpreted for the purpose of understanding or making meaning of an environment (Robbins et al.
, 2004; Schacter, 2011). As Bernstein (2010) suggests, one’s perceptions may be influenced by learning, memory and expectations. Therefore, in a work environment, an employee can make sense of the environmental experiences by linking a present situation to past experiences, learning from colleagues and predicting expected outcomes of organisational change initiatives. For instance, an employee’s perception of a change initiative may be negatively affected by a predetermined attitude towards organisational change.
This demands that a change manager detect these attitudes and help the employee to manage it in a way that eases transition to a more positive attitude towards the process of change.34 According to Robbins et al. (2004), perception may not necessarily depict reality, but an individual’s viewpoint or understanding of a particular phenomenon. Therefore, in an organisational setting, employees’ behavioural patterns are often informed by their perception of reality rather than by reality itself. Since perception influences the individual reality of each employee, it is expected to exert a strong influence on relationships in the workplace. Therefore, this demands that change managers and leaders must find strategies of understanding and improving employees’ perceptions and attitudes about the change process.
It requires a new model that does not just focus on organisational process but recognises and addresses the dynamics an individual brings to the workplace as it particularly relates to change (Oreg et al., 2011). 2.17 GROUP IDENTITIES The employees experiencing change are of often treated as a single homogeneous entity by researchers. By so doing, researchers overlook the significant impact of the larger group on perceptions and attitudes of employees (Armstrong-Stassen, 1998). In this regard, researchers fail to examine the potential impact of different group identities; rather they focus attention on the individual change recipients as a single entity. Some scholars disagree with this approach pointing to the significant factor of individual diversity that a change recipient brings to the process of organisational change (Martin et al., 2005).
2.17.1 GROUP IDENTITY THEORY Group identity theory is a theoretical branch of social psychology that focuses on the interaction between group factors and behaviour of individuals. The core assumption of the theory is that individuals derive their self-identity from the connection they share with different groups (Tajfel and Turner, 1979). Individuals can be influenced by the dynamics of a group they belong to in a way that changes their self-cognition resulting in self-redefinition.
This is an indication that the individual member of a group assumes the group’s behaviour and values; as such their self-esteem is directly connected to the group’s social status. Another feature of group membership dynamics is comparison of the group they belong to (in-group) to other groups (out-groups) which may result in superiority or inferiority complexes if the out-group is perceived to be better or worse than the in-group (Festinger, 1954).35 Further, Hennessy and West (1999) find that identifying with a particular in-group in a work environment may lead to intergroup conflict in organisations which may result in bad outcomes, such as distractions and waste of resources as organisational time and effort are spent resolving internal group squabbling. This kind of situation corroborates the problematic approach of focusing only on individual reactions to organisational change and neglecting group dynamics in the process of change (Jones et al.
, 2008; Terry and Callan, 1997). In this regard, Terry and Callan (1997) submit that group identity is an important issue to members of an organisation as the process of change may pose serious threats to group status because of various changes that accompany it. 2.18 GROUP IDENTITIES DURING ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE According to Martin et al. (2006:21), people associate with various groups on the grounds of various attributes, for example, “gender, ethnicity, role or occupation, position in the hierarchy, work unit or department/division, and union membership”. These variables are further discussed in subsequent sections: 2.18.1 GENDER Many older theories suggest that the reactions of women and men to stressful situations differ because they are socialised differently and experience things such as the work environment differently (Armstrong-Stassen, 1998). However, contemporary theories have also overlooked the important fact of women and men responding differently to organisational change, arguing that the differences discovered in older theories were as a result of the difference in the types of jobs studied. Early research by Folkman and Lazarus (1980) reveals that women and men cope differently. For instance, women are likely to use avoidance methods for coping because an average woman works in a lower position compared to her male counterpart. This is an indication that differences in coping methods are more linked to the hierarchal position an individual holds in an organisation rather than the gender. Furthermore, Armstrong-Stassen (1998) argue that there are no serious differences in the ways women and men respond to change such as downsizing in relation to such variables as job36 uncertainty, avoidance coping or negative emotional responses. Also, Kanter (1976) argues that employee reactions are more influenced by other factors like organisational structures and hierarchical systems with little or no regard for gender differences. Given the discourse above, it is apparent that gender difference is not a strong factor in relation to group identities and response to the change process, and where gender difference is considered, it is a result of difference in status within an organisation. This conclusion about status leads to the discussion of the relationship of hierarchy and reactions to change in the next section 2.18.2 HIERARCHICAL LEVEL The finding of research by Katz and Kahn (1978) reveal that one of the most important factors that affects employees’ perception, attitudes and behaviours is their position in the organisational hierarchical structure. This suggests that members of an organisation’s primary way of identifying group membership is through their job specification and the level they are at. Many research findings have identified how hierarchical status of an individual produces different reactions, perceptions and attitudes. The next sections discuss some of these findings further. 220.127.116.11 CLASSIFICATION Kanter et al. (1992) identify three major groups of participants in an organisation during the process of organisational change. These include the change strategists who are usually at the topmost of the organisational structure, the change managers who usually are the middle management personnel and the change recipients represented by average employees below managerial level. Also, change recipients or respondents are further classified into three other categories, namely those of controllers, interventionists and targets (De Luca, 1984). Other classifications include that of Covin and Kilmann (1990) and Jones et al. (2008) who categorise participants of an organisation into three groups of non-supervisors, supervisors and executives. King et al., (1991); Nelson et al., (1995) and Kozlowski et al., (1993) suggest twin categories of managers and non-managers; superiors and subordinates; or white-collar and blue-collar workers.37 Non-supervisors are described as the employees without managerial roles who are less likely to be affected by organisational change and wield little or no influence in terms of decision-making. On the other hand, supervisors/managers/middle managers are the category on managerial level who are tasked with certain managerial roles and the responsibility of implementing organisational change. Although not affected by change like the non-supervisors, this category is caught in-between the non-supervisors and executive groups. Executives/senior managers/change strategists are the officials who function at the top level of an organisational hierarchy. They are responsible for initiating and conceptualising the change agenda but are most likely not affected by it in terms of daily process of operations. Yet, they are expected to contribute more in ensuring the overall success of a change implementation (Jones et al., 2008; Kanter, et al., 1992, and Covin and Kilmann, 1990). 18.104.22.168 DIFFERENCE IN PERCEPTIONS AND FOCUS Some research findings have indicated that perceptions of change will likely differ between higher to lower level employees. For instance, research by Hatfield and Huseman (1982) reveals a difference in the perceptions of lower- and higher-level employees in relation to the challenges faced by both groups as well as their attitudes towards each other. Fundamentally, what these findings establish is the difference of perception as determined by hierarchical status and how it affects the approach of different groups to the process of change. The work of King et al. (1991) explains this argument that there is a difference between managers and non-managers in terms of their focus during different stages of the change process. Given their different job roles, managers are more likely to focus on implementation and positive aspects of the entire process than non-managers. King et al. (1991:57) suggest that these observations are influenced by four factors, namely “a group's stake, part in the process, distinctiveness within the organisation and effectiveness of inter-group communications.” Furthermore, Covin and Kilman (1990) discover that external sources such as consultants tend to be more focused on planning during the change process than managers in an organisation while managers focus more on implementation. This difference in focus may result in different perceptions of the change process among groups which in turn has a serious impact on their overall attitudes, perceptions and reactions to the process of change. As such, lower-level38 employees are likely to be less able to cope and perform more poorly than the higher-level ones during the organisational change process. 22.214.171.124 NEGATIVE REACTIONS OF LOWER-LEVEL EMPLOYEES As Martin et al. (2006) observe in an organisational study, the most negative attitudes during the change process were among lower-level employees. This same group also demonstrated higher turnover goals and higher levels of stress during the same process. Also, the authors suggest that the lower-level employees seemed to fare worse during change because they have few or no resources and no power in the organisation. Armstrong-Stassen (2005) observes similar situations noting that non-managers seem to experience ambiguity of job roles, low job security, low support from line managers and lower job satisfaction as well as lower acceptance of the change process. The difference in hierarchical status can also affect employees’ mental health. According to the organisational transition study by Nelson et al. (1995), it was discovered there was a sharp decline in job satisfaction, as well as physical and mental health among manual labourers compared to managers and white-collar workers. Similarly, Kozlowski et al. (1993) observe that downsizing has different impacts on blue-collar and white-collar workers which may be a result of differences in job roles. The research findings of Armstrong-Stassen (1998) support this theory with the argument that differences in job roles can cause lower levels of health and higher levels of stress among lower-level employees. 126.96.36.199 PERCEIVED THREAT AND LEADERSHIP SUPPORT As observed earlier by Kanter et al. (1992), the process of change exposes lower-level employees to a greater threat of negative outcomes than any other groups in the organisational hierarchy because of their limited access to resources and power to control impacts of change process on their job and status (Martin et al., 2006). Also, supervisors and managers are deeply engaged with the process and thus have been found to enjoy more leadership support with many opportunities to access information. (Haugh and Laschinger, 1996).39 Although they could not find a causal relationship, the scholars found certain linkages in all these experiences. For instance, lower-level employees may feel threatened by the change process given their limited access to resources and power. Consequently, this might result in negative attitudes towards change with resultant negative effects on stress levels, job security and acceptance of change initiatives (Haugh and Laschinger, 1996). 188.8.131.52 POSITIVE ATTITUDES OF HIGHER-LEVEL EMPLOYEES Higher-level employees have been found to demonstrate a more positive attitude in the course of the change process such as positive evaluation of change itself, ability to adjust with ease to the change, leadership support and commitment (Martin et al., 2006). In addition, in comparison to other levels, the higher-level category of employees also has a positive perception regarding the future of their jobs. In addition, they seem to cope well with the challenges of change through the application of more positive methods of coping compared to lower-level category of employees who usually resort to avoidance (Armstrong-Stassen, 1998). However, other studies show that higher-level employees fare worse on some indicators. Research findings by Martin et al. (2006) reveal instances of higher-level employees reporting higher stress level during the change process than lower-level ones. Yet, most higher-level staff expressed having more control of the change process than lower-level staff which is a result of the difference in focus of each group which also influences difference perceptions as indicated by Jones et al. (2008) and Covin and Kilmann (1990). Finally, most of the studies conducted indicate that status and position in an organisational hierarchy have a high possibility of influencing differences in attitudes towards and perceptions of the process of change (Armstrong-Stassen, 1998). 2.19 CONCLUSION This chapter presented an overview of the theoretical framework underpinning the research as well as relevant literature in the fields of organisational development, change management, organisational psychology and organisational change which have helped to illuminate the research topic and problem.40 The chapter examined the theoretical concepts of change management and organisational development. It also investigated some of the most prominent theoretical change models such as the scientific management theory which is also referred to as Taylorism or the classical perspective. This was the first theory that was formulated to address management challenges scientifically. Another theory reviewed was Hawthorne contribution to the theoretical understanding of organisation and management which is known as the Hawthorne’s effect and is used to regulate the impacts of working conditions on productivity. The chapter also reflected on some of the change models such as Kurt Lewin’s model which is based on the two forces of driving and resisting. Kotter’s 8-step model was another change model discussed in this chapter. Bridges transition model also contributed to the change model discourse. Bridges’ model explores the challenges people experience during transitions brought about change and concludes it is the transition rather than change itself that poses the greatest challenge to employees who experience change. The chapter also examined change and types of change such as acquisitions and mergers, restructuring and downsizing, expansions, culture change or technology change. Other important issues discussed in the chapter are factors responsible for effectiveness of the change process. Some of these factors include readiness for change, preparing for change: building momentum and support, as well as communication. Different categories of organisational change were also examined as content issues, process issues and reaction issues as well as employees’ reactions. In connection to this, the chapter examined issues that can affect the change process such as emotional intelligence, perceptions, attitude, hierarchical structure and group identities. The next chapter presents the research methodology that was used to conduct and complete the research.41 CHAPTER 3: METHODS AND MATERIALS OF STUDY 3.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter presents the methods of data collection and analysis used in the study. The chapter explains the study design, the sample size, data collection instruments and the methods of data analysis. The study uses the quantitative method of data collection and analysis. 3.2 STUDY DESIGN The research design was motivated and partially based on similar studies conducted by Jones et al. (2008) and Martin et al. (2006). These studies regarded organisations as intergroup individuals, i.e. as groups of individuals who classify themselves with specific departments, units, or hierarchical levels. The researcher decided to investigate whether there was a difference in perception among three categories of individuals: executives, who are responsible for planning and delegating the change strategy; supervisors, who have the responsibility to manage and implement the change; and non-supervisors, who have the least amount of influence. This grouping of employees was suggested by Kanter et al. (1992) who identified these three groups as the key stakeholders within organisations when change took place. The research will look at if and where there is a difference in perception between these three groups during change. The same grouping was then later used by Jones et al. (2008). This study only relied on open-ended interviews with individuals from different organisational levels for data collection. For this study, the researcher decided to use a questionnaire, with the aim of collecting more descriptive data. The researcher collected data from one organisation, as Jones et al. (2008) did who investigated one specific workplace. For data collection, the questionnaire was sent to the employees of the Department of Public Works in the branch Property Management Trading Entity (PMTE) Head Office Pretoria. The participating individuals were restricted to those who either currently or had recently experienced organisational change, which was also the reason why the Department of Public Works was approached. This study made use of quantitative research. Leedy and Ormrod (2014:97) describe a quantitative research approach as a tool that measures one or more variable. The reason for using this methodology was to ensure that the researcher was able to quantify the findings of the study.42 According to Yin (2009:26), a research design can be regarded as a plan that directs the researcher in the process of data collection, analysis and the interpretation of the observations. According to Bowling (2009:214), quantitative research, by definition, involves quantities and relationships between attributes. It deals with the collection and analysis of highly structured data according to the positivist tradition. With the quantitative research design, relevant information was obtained from the Department of Public Works via the distribution of questionnaires. 3.3 SAMPLE SIZE OF STUDY This study made use of a sample of 224 employees which was drawn from the executive, supervisory, and support staff levels. The sampling plan of a study defines the sampling unit, frame, procedures and the sample size of the study. The sampling frame refers to the list of all population units from which the sample was carefully chosen (Cooper & Schindler, 2003). The sample was chosen from the Department of Public Works as it was going through a change process. All of the respondents had experienced change recently or currently, presenting a paradigm. Based on this, a sample of 224 respondents (5% of the target population) was drawn from the target population of 4 489. In this study, convenience sampling was used since the respondents were easily accessible and the study was voluntary. The researcher distributed questionnaires to a population of 224 employees at the Department of Public Works Head Office in Pretoria. Out of the 224 distributed questionnaires, 158 were returned; 66 employees did not respond; therefore they could not be statistically analysed. The remaining 158 questionnaires gave a 70 % response rate. A high response rate was attributed to the manner in which questionnaire distribution was undertaken which is well known to yield a 76.9 per cent response rate (Sitzia & Wood, 1998). The use of the convenient sampling method also contributed to a high response rate because the method is known to be rapid to conduct and cost-effective. 3.4 DATA COLLECTION Data collection was conducted via a structured questionnaire. Questionnaires offer an efficient way of collecting useful and comparable data from a large number of individuals (Mathers; Fox & Hunn, 2007:19). Ravhura (2006:33) indicates the advantages of using a questionnaire as being a time-saving instrument, reasonably inexpensive and a way in which large amounts of data can be obtained. It also allows for the opinions of the respondents to be obtained in a structured manner. All the questions were explained to the respondents in detail.43 It was also explained that there was no time restriction in answering the questionnaire and they were requested to return the completed questionnaire to the researcher before a certain date. 3.4.1 Structure of the questionnaire The researcher decided on a self-completed questionnaire to collect the data (see Appendix B). First, respondents answered six (06) background questions. Subsequently the respondents described the change process they were currently experiencing or had previously experienced, followed by twenty-nine (29) questions related to the change process. The questions used were adapted to match the aim of the research, and the researcher found the questions to properly reflect the research question (Balnaves & Caputi, 2001). The purpose was to measure a subjective variable such as perception, making use of self-assessments. Many survey questions involve what is essentially a rating task. Respondents are given a stimulus in the form of a question or a statement and are then requested to describe their attitudes, thoughts, and/or feelings towards the subject on a response scale. The questions in this study were in the form of a summative scale which allowed for agreement and disagreement on individual items or statements along a 7-point Likert-scale, which is the most commonly used form of summative scale. The respondents had to indicate whether they strongly disagreed, disagreed, somewhat disagreed, neither disagreed nor agreed, somewhat agreed, agreed or strongly agreed with the position or statement contained in the question (Alwin, 1997). According to information theory, a greater number of response levels supply more information about the basic variable of interest, and in this case the different perspectives of employees, depending on their position in the organisational hierarchy. In addition, this 7-point response scale is more accurate than a 5-level scale, which made it the scale of preference in this study. This also allows for a better measurement of direction and neutrality, and differentiates three levels of perception intensity. The increased response levels enabled the researcher to access more accurate communicative internal states such as perceptions, attitudes, feelings and beliefs. The information supplied when using more response levels also ensures greater reliability of measurement (Alwin, 1997).44 The 29 questions of the questionnaire were formulated with the research in mind and were aimed at reflecting what employees at different hierarchy levels experience during organisational change. This questionnaire was further developed by including items from Martin et al. (2005), Chawla & Kelloway (2004), as well as items from the Michigan Organisational Assessment Questionnaire (1979). Themes developed by Jones et al. (2008) who identified three main categories of issues during change, each containing several sub-themes, with a total of 12 themes were used as a reference in this study. This inevitably led to modifications of the external questionnaire items to suit the research question and objective. Some items were changed to fit the aims of the study better, and others were modified in order to clarify wording, after feedback from the pilot study of the questionnaire. A pilot study is a test-run of the questionnaire in which a few volunteering respondents take part, in order to improve the research design, to ensure that the respondents understand the process and questions, and to calculate how long it takes a participant to answer the questionnaire (Elmes et al., 2006). The pilot study was conducted on a total of 20 colleagues, friends and classmates, before the questionnaire was sent out to the selected respondents, in order to gain feedback on the clarity and understanding of questions. The resulting feedback was very helpful and beneficial and prompted the researcher to rethink, restate, and in some cases delete questions in order to improve the questionnaire and make it more user-friendly. The researcher chose a self-complete questionnaire or personally-administered questionnaire. In this case some questionnaires were sent to respondents via email (about 100) and 124 were delivered by hand to each respondent and collected later. This method of data collection was found to be inexpensive and less time-consuming than mailing them (Cavana; Delahaye & Sekaran., 2001). Respondents’ privacy and the anonymity of their information were guaranteed. Those who decided to participate were then given an option to sign up for receiving a copy of this thesis when completed. The researcher used a structured questionnaire with both listing questions and rating questions because such questions guide the responses clearly and make analysis simpler. That is why a self-completed questionnaire was chosen as the best option. Respondents were sent the basic information on the survey, instructions on how to participate and a promise of confidentiality, stating that all respondents would remain anonymous and45 responses would not be traceable to the respondents in any way. It took a respondent approximately 15-20 minutes to complete the questionnaire, which is a desirable length to ensure high participation and does not take up much time of participants (Neal, 1987). 3.5 RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY 3.5.1 Reliability According to Mabe (2015:83) citing Kleinhans, reliability refers to the extent to which a measure will produce consistent results and the extent to which the research results are repeatable. Reliability tests were performed on all scales of this study to determine if there is a reasonable basis for use before embarking on any further analysis. The Cronbrach’s alpha coefficient was the tool used to measure reliability for the purpose of this study, the results of which are found in Chapter 4. Cronbrach’s alpha coefficient is a tool that provides information about the extent to which each item in a set correlates with another in the same set (Netemeyer, 2001:57). The widely accepted level of adequacy for Cronbach’s alpha, 0.70 was applied in this study (Netemeyer, 2001:57). All scales used in this study were found to be reasonably reliable. 3.5.2 Validity According to Goddard and Melville (2011:41), validity simply means that the measurement is correct in that it measures what it is intended to measure and it measures it correctly. Validity issues were handled by designing the questions in such a way that they showed a good, logical relationship to the problem at hand. 3.6 DATA ANALYSIS McMillan and Schumacher (2001:206) indicate that statistics are methods of arranging analysed quantitative data. Statistics and numbers do not interpret themselves and the meaning of the statistics is derived from the research design (McMillan & Schumacher, 2001:206). The statistical software package, STATA version 13, was used for the analysis of the data in this study. The following techniques were used for analysis: i. Descriptive statistics –was used to describe the sample’s demographic profile and employee perception towards organisational change. ii. Factor analysis was used to reduce variables to smaller groups of latent variables and test validity.46 iii. Reliability analysis was done through Cronbach’s alpha so as to assess the measure of internal consistency (reliability) of the measurement scales. iv. Chi-square tests determined associations among variables. The Pearson’s chi-square test was applied to establish significant relationships between variables. The term chi-square refers both to a statistical distribution and to a hypothesis testing procedure that produces a statistic that is approximately distributed as the chi-square distribution (Howell, 2009). The Pearson chi-square is also known as the p-value. At the 5% level of significance, the strength of association between two categorical variables is said to be statistically significant if the p-value is smaller than 0.05. If the p-value is greater than or equal to 0.05, the two variables are independent of each other. 3.7 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2007:178) refer to ethics in the context of research as the appropriateness of the researcher’s behaviours in relation to the rights of those who become the study respondents. Leedy and Ormrod (2014:106) mention that the ethical issues in research are to fall within principles of informing the respondents about the study, explaining it to them and affording them the right to privacy and protecting respondents. Informed consent should be obtained prior to conducting a research. All the respondents in the study participated voluntarily. They were all informed of their right to withdraw from the study at any time. They were all informed that they would remain anonymous when taking part in the study. A copy of the information leaflet can be seen in Appendix A. 3.8 SUMMARY The purpose of this chapter was to discuss methods and techniques used in the study. The chapter discussed the study design, sample size and sampling techniques. The chapter also discussed the data collection technique, methods of data analysis and ethical considerations followed prior to conducting the study.47 CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 4.1 INTRODUCTION In the previous chapter the researcher gave a summary of the research methodology that was used in order to research and test the question. In this chapter, the researcher provides a comprehensive overview of the analysis and procedures that were performed on the data and provides the results thereof. The results of the statistical analysis are presented in four main sections. Firstly, the demographic information of the sample data is set out and descriptive statistics on employee perception towards organisational change. Secondly, the validity of the instruments (as assessed through factor analysis) is explained. Thirdly, the results of reliability and validity analysis (using Cronbach’s alpha and factor analysis respectively) are shown. Lastly, chi-square tests, to determine associations among variables are included. The Pearson’s chi-square test was applied to establish significant relationships between variables. Finally, the chapter is concluded with a summary of the results. The statistical software package, STATA version 13, was used for the analysis of the data in this study. This chapter will only present the data obtained, but not feature interpretation of the data, as this will be covered in Chapter 5: Findings & discussion. 4.2 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE In this section, the researcher covers 10 selected questions from the questionnaire, and presents the results, in a detailed and accessible manner. The reason for only covering 10 questions out of the 29, is that these questions were considered to be the most indicative and to be more significant than the others. As indicated earlier, the questionnaire responses from respondents were formatted on a 7-point Likert scale, where the options were: strongly disagree, disagree, somewhat disagree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat agree, agree, and strongly agree. In this section, however, the researcher will combine the answers of strongly disagree, disagree, and somewhat disagree, forming the category generally disagree. The same then applies for strongly agree, agree, and somewhat agree, which forms the category generally agree. The answers neither agree nor disagree will stand unchanged as a category. This will allow the reader to have a clearer impression of the respondents’ perception of change, although every question will be supported by a figure containing the full detail of the results, i.e. excluding categorisation.48 First the researcher will present background information on respondents, including the subsection general perceptions towards change, where respondents’ answers will be covered without taking hierarchical position into account. In the following subsection the researcher will then present and analyse the results more thoroughly by comparing findings with the respondents’ hierarchical position. This will allow the researcher to find potential differences in the perception towards change based on the hierarchical position of respondents. Descriptive analysis was performed to obtain frequency distribution of demographic variables which are age, gender, education, position and work experience. Table 4.1 illustrates the frequency and percentage distribution of the demographic characteristics. Table 4.1: Demographic profile of respondents Demographic characteristics Frequency (;#55349;;#56455;) Percentage (%) Age 21-30 21 13 31-40 65 41 41-50 56 35 51+ 16 10 Gender Male 61 39 Female 97 61 Education Matric 18 11 Undergraduates /Bachelor’s degree 94 59 Postgraduates/Master’s degree 43 27 Position Employee/Non-supervisor 84 53 Manager/Supervisor/Middle Management 44 28 Executive/Senior Management 27 17 Work experience Less than a year 7 449 1-5 years 67 42 6-10 years 60 38 11 years + 24 15 4.2.1. RESPONDENTS’ BACKGROUND Before presenting results on change-related issues, the background of respondents will be introduced. 184.108.40.206 AGE DISTRIBUTION FIGURE 1: AGE OF RESPONDENTS Most respondents were in the age group of 31-40 years old, or 41%, with the second largest age group being 41-50-year olds, or 35%. Respondents who were 21-30 years old accounted for 13%, while only 10% of respondents were 51 years or older, as seen in Figure 1. 220.127.116.11 GENDER DISTRIBUTION50 FIGURE 2: GENDER OF RESPODENTS The gender ratio among respondents, is seen in Figure 2. A total of 158 individuals responded to the questionnaire, of which there were 61 men and 97 women. 18.104.22.168 LEVEL OF EDUCATION FIGURE 3: EDUCATION DISTRIBUTION With regard to the level of education, 62% of the respondents had completed either a diploma or a degree while 26% were holders of a postgraduate qualification and only 12% held a matric certificate. The majority of respondents were those who had completed either a diploma or a degree, as seen in Figure 3.51 22.214.171.124 HIERARCHICAL POSITION DISTRIBUTION FIGURE 4: HIERARCHICAL POSITION As can be seen in Figure 4, 84 respondents or 53%, were non-supervisors, 44 respondents or 28% were supervisors, and 27 or 17% were executives or working in senior management. Three respondents chose ‘other’ as a position, and it was our conclusion that these respondents might skew the results as an outlier, and subsequently the respondents were left out of the presentation of results. The distribution of respondents in the other three hierarchical positions was however considered to be particularly positive, with the number of respondents representing each group being similar. 126.96.36.199 WORK EXPERIENCE DISTRIBUTION52 FIGURE 5: RESPONDENTS’ TENURE IN CURRENT POSITION When questioned about how long the respondents had held their current position, most respondents had work experience at the current department of 1-5 years or 42%, while 38% had held their current position for 6-10 years, 15% where those who had held their current position for more than 10 years, and 4% had held the position for less than a year. The results can be viewed in Figure 5. 4.2.2. GENERAL PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS CHANGE In this section the researcher will briefly cover the results of respondents’ perceptions towards the change their organisation is experiencing or the change the organisation has recently experienced. The results in this section are independent of the hierarchical position of respondents. Although respondents were either currently or had previously experienced change, the researcher will refer to the change in the past tense throughout, for the sake of consistency and simplicity. 188.8.131.52 RESULTS FROM THE QUESTIONNAIRE 184.108.40.206.1 I FEEL THAT THE CHANGE WAS NECESSARY53 FIGURE 6: I FEEL THAT THE CHANGE WAS NECESSARY Figure 6 shows that respondents were overall in agreement that the change the department was going through was necessary, with 56% of respondents generally agreeing with the statement. Only 33% of respondents generally disagreed, and 10% neither agreed nor disagreed. 220.127.116.11.2 I THINK THAT CHANGES IN THIS ORGANISATION, IN GENERAL, TEND TO WORK WELL FIGURE 7: I THINK THAT THE CHANGES IN THIS ORGANISATION, IN GENERAL, TEND TO WORK WELL54 When asked if they thought that changes in their organisation, in general, tended to work well, 44% of respondents generally disagreed with the statement, while 18% neither agreed nor disagreed, and 36% generally agreed, as seen in Figure 7. 18.104.22.168.3 IT IS REALLY NOT POSSIBLE TO CHANGE THINGS AROUND HERE FIGURE 8: IT IS REALLY NOT POSSIBLE TO CHANGE THINGS AROUND HERE As seen in Figure 8, similar results to the previous question were derived from the statement ‘It is really not possible to change things around here’, where 55% generally disagreed with the statement, while 14% neither agreed nor disagreed and 31% generally agreed. 22.214.171.124.4 CHANGES SEEM TO CREATE MORE PROBLEMS THAN IT SOLVES55 FIGURE 9: CHANGE SEEM TO CREATE MORE PROBLEMS THAN IT SOLVES The statement Changes seem to create more problems than it solves was generally accepted by respondents, with 47% generally agreeing. Meanwhile, 8% neither agreed nor disagreed, and 44% disagreed. The results can be viewed in Figure 9. 126.96.36.199.5 I FEAR THAT CHANGE MIGHT AFFECT MY POSITION IN A NEGATIVE WAY FIGURE 10: I FEAR THAT THE CHANGE MIGHT AFFECT MY POSITION IN A NEGATIVE WAY As seen in Figure 10, respondents mainly disagreed with the statement I fear that change might affect my position with 72% generally disagreeing, while 19% generally agreed with the statement, and 8% neither agreed nor disagreed.56 188.8.131.52.6 I THINK THAT THE CHANGE SUITS/ IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE OVERALL DEPARTMENT CULTURE FIGURE 11: I BELIEVE THAT THE CHANGE SUITS/ IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE OVERALL DEPARTMENT CULTURE When asked on the subject of department culture with the statement ‘I think that the change is compatible with the overall company department’, 44% of respondents generally disagreed with the statement, as seen in Figure 11. Also 43% of respondents generally agreed, while 13% neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement. 184.108.40.206.7 I THINK THE CHANGE MIGHT CAUSE UNCERTAINTY ABOUT WORK ROLES IN THE DEPARTMENT FIGURE 12: I THINK THE CHANGE MIGHT CAUSE UNCERTAINTY ABOUT WORK-ROLES IN THE COMPANY57 Figure 12 shows that when faced with the statement I think the change might cause uncertainty about work roles in the department, 59% generally agreed with it, while 36% generally disagreed, and 5% neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement. 220.127.116.11 EMOTIONAL AND ATTITUDINAL ISSUES BY HIERARCHICAL POSITION In this section the results will be analysed by comparing the hierarchical positions of employees. The section will furthermore be divided into five sub-sections: Relationships between people; Perceptions of change; Uncertainty; and Conflict, power and politics. 18.104.22.168.1 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PEOPLE 22.214.171.124.1.1 I BELIEVE THE CHANGE PROCESS WILL POSITIVELY INFLUENCE RELATIONS BETWEEN ME AND MY CO-WORKERS FIGURE 13: I BELIEVE THE CHANGE WILL POSITIVELY INFLUENCE RELATIONS BETWEEN ME AND MY CO-WORKERS Figure 13 shows that 59% of non-supervisors generally agree with the statement I believe the change process will positively influence relations between me and my co-workers. Supervisors seem to generally have different views on the subject, unlike respondents from other hierarchical position groups, with 44% generally agreeing with the statement, 14% neither agreeing nor disagreeing, and 43% generally disagreeing. Among executives, 52% generally agree with the statement, 4% neither agree nor disagree, and 45% generally disagree.58 126.96.36.199.2 PERCEPTIONS OF CHANGE 188.8.131.52.2.1 I FEEL THAT THE CHANGE WAS NECESSARY FIGURE 14: I FEEL THAT THE CHANGE WAS NECESSARY When questioned if they felt the change was necessary, the respondents were generally in agreement with the statement, with all hierarchical position groups mostly agreeing. Figure 14 shows that 74% of executives generally agreed with the statement, while 18% of executives disagreed. Both supervisors and non-supervisors participating answered similarly, the responses of supervisors were fairly distributed along the scale, with 50% of supervisors generally agreeing, while 42% generally disagreed. The remaining 7% neither agreed nor disagreed; 54% of non-supervisors generally agreed, while 34% generally disagreed and 12 neither agreed nor disagreed. 184.108.40.206.3 UNCERTAINTY 220.127.116.11.3.1 I FEAR THAT THE CHANGE MIGHT AFFECT MY POSITION IN A NEGATIVE WAY59 FIGURE 15: I FEAR THAT THE CHANGE MIGHT AFFECT MY POSITION IN A NEGATIVE WAY Figure 15 shows that executives generally disagree with the statement I fear that the change might affect my position in a negative way, where 41% disagreed, and a total of 86% generally disagreed with the statement. The supervisors participating had a fairly even distribution of answers, although a larger share of managers than non-supervisors and executives agreed with the statement. Overall, more supervisors generally disagreed with the statement, 84%, than generally agreed with it. Non-supervisors, similar to the supervisors, mostly disagreed with the statement, although their answers were spread fairly evenly on the scale. A total of 61% of non-supervisors generally disagreed with the statement. 18.104.22.168.3.2 I BELIEVE THE CHANGE WILL BE BENEFICIAL FOR ME PERSONLLY60 FIGURE 16: I BELIEVE THE CHANGE WILL BE BENEFICAL FOR ME PERSONALLY When respondents were questioned if they thought the change would be beneficial for them personally, it became evident that executives mostly agreed with the statement, with 78% of executives generally agreeing with the statement, while only 8% generally disagreed. In comparison, 39% of supervisors generally agreed with the statement, while only 43% generally disagreed. The answers of non-supervisors were fairly evenly distributed, with 55% generally agreeing with the statement, 30% generally disagreeing, and 14% neither ageing nor disagreeing. The results can be seen in Figure 16. 22.214.171.124.4 CONFLICT, POWER AND POLITICS 126.96.36.199.4.1 I THINK THE CHANGE WILL INCREASE CONFLICT IN THE DEPARTMENT61 FIGURE 17: I THINK THE CHANGE WILL INCREASE CONFLICT IN THE COMPANY As seen in figure 17, executives to a large extent agreed with the statement I think the change will increase conflict in the department, with 66% generally agreeing. Supervisors responded to the statement quite differently, with 33% generally disagreeing with it. Another 9% of supervisors neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement. Furthermore, around 57% of supervisors generally agreed with the statement. Similarly to the supervisors, non-supervisors mostly disagreed with the statement with 41% generally disagreeing. Meanwhile, 45% of participating non-supervisors generally agreed, and 14% neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement. 188.8.131.52.4.2 I FEEL I HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE CHANGE PROCESS FIGURE 18: I FEEL I HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE CHANGE PROCESS62 There appeared to be a difference in how respondents answered the statement I feel I have been included in the change process, depending on their hierarchical position, as seen in Figure 18. It is clear that executives agreed with the statement, with 33% strongly agreeing, and a total of 70% generally agreeing they had been included in the change process in some way. The responses of supervisors were unequally distributed along the scale, with 33% of supervisors generally agreeing, while 61% generally disagreed. The remaining 5% neither agreed nor disagreed. When compared to the answers of executives, the results of non-supervisors are quite different. Non-supervisors, for the most part disagreed, with 63% generally disagreeing, while 26% generally agreed with the statement. 184.108.40.206 PROCESS This section will continue covering the results by comparing the hierarchical positions of employees. The section will be divided into two sub-sections: Participation and involvement; and desired process. 220.127.116.11.1 PARTICIPATION AND INVOLVEMENT 18.104.22.168.1.1 I FEEL I HAVE A VOICE WHEN IT COMES TO THE CHANGE PROCESS FIGURE 19: I FEEL I HAVE A VOICE WHEN IT COMES TO THE CHANGE PROCESS63 When questioned if respondents felt they had a voice when it comes to the change process, the distribution of answers was in many was similar to the previous question on whether respondents felt they were included in the change process, as seen in Figure 19. Executives mostly agreed, with 37% agreeing with the statement, I feel I have a voice when it comes to the change process, with 19% strongly agreeing, and 19% somewhat agreeing to the statement. Therefore, 75% of executives generally agreed with the statement. The responses of non-supervisors were fairly evenly distributed, although generally they were more likely to disagree that they had a voice when it came to the change process; 55% of the non- supervisors participating generally disagreed with the statement, while only 42% generally agreed. The remaining 4% therefore neither agreed nor disagreed. Supervisors were in more disagreement than executives and non-supervisors with the statement, with only 12% generally agreeing. On the contrary, 78% generally disagreed when asked whether they felt they would have a voice when it came to the change process. The remaining 11% neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement. 22.214.171.124.1.2 I ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE IN THE DECISION-MAKING IN MATTERS THAT AFFECT ME AT WORK FIGURE 20: I ACTIVELY PARTICIAPTE IN THE DECISION MAKING, IN MATTERS THAT AFFECT ME AT WORK Figure 20 displays the distribution of responses when respondents were questioned if they agreed or disagreed with the statement that they actively participated in the decision-making, in matters that affected them at work.64 Executives almost entirely agreed with this statement, with 89% generally agreeing. No executives disagreed, somewhat disagreed, only 7% of executives strongly disagreed with the statement. Different results can be observed amongst supervisors, with 61% generally disagreeing. Supervisors neither agreeing nor disagreeing accounted for 7%, while only 32% generally agreed with the statement. The answers of non-supervisors were quite different from those of the executives and similar to the ones of supervisors, with only 31% of non-supervisors generally agreeing with the statement, compared to 89% of executives. The number of non-supervisors generally disagreeing with the statement accounted for 62%, which is in contrast to the results of executives, where 7% generally disagreed. 126.96.36.199.2 DESIRED PROCESS 188.8.131.52.2.1 I WOULD HAVE PREFERRED SOME THINGS DONE DIFFERENTLY FIGURE 21: I WOULD HAVE PREFERRED SOME THINGS DONE DIFFERENTLY When questioned if participant would have preferred some things done differently, all three groups of executives, supervisors and non-supervisors provided similar answers. Out of the three groups, executives agreed the most with the statement, with 92% generally agreeing, while 8% generally disagreed. Supervisors were also quite positive towards the statement, with 84% generally agreeing, 9% neither agreed nor disagreed, and 7% generally disagreed. Non-supervisors also agreed with the statement, with 78% generally agreeing. Meanwhile65 11% of non-supervisors generally disagreed with the statement. The results can be seen in Figure 21. 184.108.40.206 OUTCOMES In this fourth and final section, the results will continue to be analysed using the hierarchical positions of employees, as in the previous two sections. 220.127.116.11.1 THE CHANGE PROCESS HAS MADE IT EASIER FOR ME TO PERFORM CERTAIN TASKS FIGURE 22: THE CHANGE PROCESS HAS MADE IT EASIER FOR ME TO PERFORM CERTAIN TASKS As seen in Figure 22, the opinions of the respondents were divided on this question. Executives were somewhat split, with 48% generally disagreeing. Meanwhile, 37% generally agreed with the statement, and 15% neither agreed nor disagreed. Supervisors answered quite differently, as a higher proportion (71%) of respondents disagreed. For the most part though, 16% of supervisors neither agreed nor disagreed, while 14% of supervisors participating generally agreed with the statement. The perception or attitude of non-supervisors regarding the subject were somewhat split, with 57% generally disagreeing, while 31% generally agreed. Less than a quarter of non-supervisors, or 12%, neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement.66 4.3 FACTOR ANALYSIS According to Field (2010: 101-103), factor analysis is used to reduce a large set of variables into a smaller set of underlying dimensions, called factors. It consists of three phases, namely: • Factor extraction: where clusters of variables with a high degree of commonality are identified; • Factor loadings: which can be examined to identify and name the underlying dimensions of the original set of variables; and • Factor rotation: where variables are aligned more distinctly with a particular factor. The results of factor analysis in this study are as follows: 4.3.1 Principal Component Factor Analysis A principal component factor analysis with varimax rotation of 29 Likert scale questions from the questionnaire used was performed on data gathered from 158 respondents. Factors were retained using the Kaiser criterion where only factors with Eigen values greater than one are retained; hence seven factors were retained. The seven factors accounted for about 68% of the total variation. Table 4.2: Principal Component Factors Factor Eigenvalue Difference Proportion Cumulative Factor1 9.49244 6.74454 0.3273 0.3273 Factor2 2.74789 0.72365 0.0948 0.4221 Factor3 2.02425 0.32718 0.0698 0.4919 Factor4 1.69707 0.39605 0.0585 0.5504 Factor5 1.30101 0.04363 0.0449 0.5953 Factor6 1.25739 0.13754 0.0434 0.6386 Factor7 1.11985 0.1921 0.0386 0.6772 Factor8 0.92774 0.10587 0.032 0.7092 Factor9 0.82187 0.03202 0.0283 0.737667 Factor10 0.78985 0.07275 0.0272 0.7648 Factor11 0.7171 0.04743 0.0247 0.7895 Factor12 0.66967 0.06209 0.0231 0.8126 Factor13 0.60758 0.06962 0.021 0.8336 Factor14 0.53796 0.03919 0.0186 0.8521 Factor15 0.49878 0.04396 0.0172 0.8693 Factor16 0.45482 0.01634 0.0157 0.885 Factor17 0.43847 0.0377 0.0151 0.9001 Factor18 0.40077 0.04026 0.0138 0.9139 Factor19 0.36051 0.03994 0.0124 0.9264 Factor20 0.32057 0.02305 0.0111 0.9374 Factor21 0.29751 0.01927 0.0103 0.9477 Factor22 0.27824 0.02961 0.0096 0.9573 Factor23 0.24863 0.02828 0.0086 0.9659 Factor24 0.22035 0.02419 0.0076 0.9735 Factor25 0.19617 0.02306 0.0068 0.9802 Factor26 0.17311 0.02177 0.006 0.9862 Factor27 0.15134 0.02355 0.0052 0.9914 Factor28 0.1278 0.00652 0.0044 0.9958 Factor29 0.12127 . 0.0042 1 4.3.2 Orthogonal Varimax The results of an orthogonal rotation of the solution are shown in Table 4.3. When loadings less than 0.40 were excluded, the analysis yielded a seven-factor solution simple structure.68 Table 4.3: Orthogonal Varimax Factor Variance Difference Proportion Cumulative Factor1 4.8069 1.36152 0.1658 0.1658 Factor2 3.44538 0.47517 0.1188 0.2846 Factor3 2.97021 0.08698 0.1024 0.387 Factor4 2.88323 0.86052 0.0994 0.4864 Factor5 2.02271 0.2443 0.0697 0.5562 Factor6 1.77841 0.04535 0.0613 0.6175 Factor7 1.73306 . 0.0598 0.6772 4.3.3 Estimates for rotated factor loadings The table below shows that only one item loaded on to factor 7. The factor analysis was therefore repeated restraining the solution to six factors. Table 4.4: Estimates for rotated factor loadings Variable Component 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 b11 0.6881 b14 0.769 b15 0.7635 b16 0.8445 b17 0.7148 b29 0.5513 b19 0.6479 b25 0.6654 b26 0.77669 b27 0.5707 b28 0.6296 b1 0.8465 b2 0.7121 b3 0.6487 b4 0.6042 b12 0.4737 b5 0.7299 b6 0.7958 b7 0.7035 b9 0.5581 b8 0.4475 b13 0.541 b18 0.6858 b24 0.6884 b20 0.5352 b21 0.5588 b22 0.5718 b23 0.5615 b10 0.7852 4.3.4 Principal Component Factor Analysis (Rotated) A principal component factor analysis with varimax rotation of 29 Likert scale questions from the questionnaire was repeated on the data gathered from 158 respondents. The factor70 solution was constrained to six factors which accounted for about 63% of the total variation, as seen in Table 4.5. Table 4.5: Orthogonal Varimax Factor Variance Difference Proportion Cumulative Factor1 5.12458 1.72628 0.1767 0.1767 Factor2 3.39831 0.35943 0.1172 0.2939 Factor3 3.03887 0.08922 0.1048 0.3987 Factor4 2.94965 0.77751 0.1017 0.5004 Factor5 2.17214 0.33566 0.0749 0.5753 Factor6 1.83648 . 0.0633 0.6386 4.3.5 Repeated estimates for rotated Factor loadings Table 4.6: Estimates for rotated factor loadings Variable Component 1 2 3 4 5 6 b10 0.601 b11 0.744 b14 0.785 b15 0.783 b16 0.767 b17 0.667 b29 0.548 b19 0.721 b25 0.599 b26 0.79171 b27 0.487 b28 0.611 b5 0.761 b6 0.703 b7 0.724 b9 0.611 b13 0.511 b1 0.851 b2 0.722 b3 0.638 b4 0.591 b12 0.471 b8 0.516 b18 0.664 b21 0.486 b24 0.569 b20 0.581 b22 0.588 b23 0.594 4.3.6 Rotated Component Matrix showing variables Table 4.7: Rotated Component Matrix showing variables Component Six (6) Factors Item No Description 1 2 3 4 5 6 Factor 1: b16 I feel I have a voice when it comes to the 0.84472 Participation & involvement change process b14 The implications of the change have been clearly communicated to me by my superiors 0.769 b15 I know what to expect from the change process 0.763 b17 I actively participate in the decision-making in matters that affect me at work 0.714 b11 I feel I have been included in the change process 0.688 b10 I am confident that I will be able to influence the extent to which the changes will affect my job 0.601 b29 The change process has made it easier for me to perform certain tasks 0.551 b26 I feel the change has been successful so far 0.776 Factor 2: Change process b25 I feel the change will have a positive impact 0.665 b19 For the most parts change processes tend to run smoothly around here 0.647 b28 I am pleased with the way the change process has been handled 0.629 b27 It is my opinion that the change will be permanent 0.571 b6 I fear that the change might affect my position in a negative way 0.703 Factor 3: General perception towards change b5 Change seem to create more problems than it solves 0.761 b7 I think the change might cause uncertainty about work-roles in the department 0.724 b13 I fear that the change may threaten some part 0.51173 of the department culture b9 I believe the change will be beneficial for me personally 0.611 Factor 4: Relationship between people b1 The change process has affected work relationships in a positive way 0.851 b2 I believe the change process will positively influence relations between me and my co-workers 0.722 b3 I feel that the change was necessary 0.638 b4 I think that changes in this organisation in general tend to work well 0.591 b12 I believe that the change suits/ is compatible with the overall department culture I believe that the change suits/ is compatible with the overall department culture 0.471 Factor 5: Desired process b24 I would have preferred some things done differently 0.688 b18 I’m concerned about implementation issues related to the change process 0.664 b21 I am confident in my ability to deal with the planned structural changes 0.486 b8 0.516 b22 My superiors have been supportive throughout the process 0.588 Factor 6: Communication b23 I can generally count on good feedback from my superiors 0.594 b20 It is really not possible to change things around here 0.58174 Table 4.7 above show the following correlations between variables within factors and between factors themselves Factor 1: Participation and involvement Six items which are; ‘I have a voice when it comes to the change process, changes have been clearly communicated, I know what to expect from the change process, I participate in the decision-making, I have been included in the change process, I am confident that I will be able to influence the extent to which the changes will affect my job’ and ‘change process has made it easier for me to perform certain tasks’ were loaded under factor one with loading range from 0.844 to 0.551. The alpha value for the first factor 0.877 which indicated that there is a strong level of agreement among the respondents for factor one. The items loaded under factor one ‘understand the importance for decision making processes. Hence factor one was named as participation and involvement. Factor 2: Change Process Five items which are ‘change has been successful, change will have a positive impact, change process tends to run smoothly, pleased with the way the change process has been handled’ and ‘change will be permanent’ were loaded under factor two with loading range from 0.776 to 0.571. The alpha value 0.812 which indicated that there is a strong level of agreement among the respondents for factor two. The items loaded under factor two ‘understand the importance of handling the change processes. Hence factor two was named change process. Factor 3: General perception towards change Five items which are ‘change might affect my position, change seem to create problems, change might cause uncertainty, change may threaten some part of the department culture’75 and ‘change will be beneficial’ were loaded under factor three with loading ranging from 0.703 to 0.611. The alpha value is 0.766 which indicated that there is a strong level of agreement among the respondents for factor three. The items loaded under factor three regarded the uncertainty and uncomfortable attitude/ perception of employees on change. Hence factor three was named general perception towards change. Factor 4: Relationship between people Five items which are ‘change process has affected work relationships, change process will positively influence relations, change was necessary, changes in this organisation in general tend to work well’ and ‘change suits/ is compatible with the overall department culture’ were loaded under factor four ranging 0.851 to 0.471. The alpha value 0.832 which indicated that there is a strong level of agreement among respondents for factor four. The items loaded under factor four identify the importance of relationships between people/employees during the change process. Hence factor four was named relationship between employees/people. Factor 5: Desired process Four items which are ‘things done differently, implementation issues related to the change process, ability to deal with the planned structural changes’ and ‘change will be beneficial for me personally’ were loaded under factor five ranging from 0.688 to 0.516. The alpha value is 0.463 which indicated that there is a strong level of agreement among the respondents for factor five. The items loaded under factor five ‘have preferred things done differently’. Hence factor five was named ‘desired processes. Factor 6: Communication Three items which are ‘my superiors have been supportive, count on good feedback from my superiors’ and ‘not possible to change things around here’ were loaded under factor six ranging from 0.588 to 0.581. The alpha value is 0.699 which indicated that there is a strong level of agreement among respondents for factor six. The items loaded under factor six ‘have good feedback from their employees’. Hence factor six was named ‘communication’.76 4.4 RELIABILITY ANALYSIS Cronbach’s Alpha is a measure of internal consistency. When alpha is 0.70 or higher it is considered acceptable in most social science research situations. This suggests that there is internal consistency within these items. The individual alpha tells you how the overall alpha would improve if that item was to be removed from the questionnaire. Table 4.8: Item analysis for participation and involvement Item No Description Cronbach’s Alpha estimate b11 I feel I have been included in the change process 0.849 b14 The implications of the change have been clearly communicated to me by my superiors 0.846 b15 I know what to expect from the change process 0.841 b16 I feel I have a voice when it comes to the change process 0.857 b17 I actively participate in the decision-making in matters that affect me at work 0.866 b29 The change process has made it easier for me to perform certain tasks 0.865 b10 I am confident that I will be able to influence the extent to which the charges will affect my job 0.891 Total Scale Cronbach’s Alpha 0.877 The scale above appears to have good internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.877. All the items seem to correlate very well with the scale. Table 4.9: Item analysis for change process77 Item No Description Cronbach’s Alpha estimate b19 For the most parts change processes tend to run smoothly around here 0.814 b25 I feel the change will have a positive impact 0.772 b26 I feel the change has been successful so far 0.725 b27 It is my opinion that the change will be permanent 0.811 b28 I am pleased with the way the change process has been handled 0.748 Total Scale Cronbach’s Alpha 0.812 The scale above appears to have good internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.812. All the items seem to correlate very well with the scale. Table 4.10: Item analysis for change process Item No Description Cronbach’s Alpha estimate b5 Change seem to create more problems than it solves 0.687 b6 I fear that the change might affect my position in a negative way 0.745 b7 I think the change might cause uncertainty about work-roles in the department 0.682 b9 I think the change will increase conflict in the department 0.716 b13 I fear that the change may threaten some part of the department culture 0.775 Total Scale Cronbach’s Alpha 0.766 Apparently for the most part the items of the scale are consistent. The Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient of 0.766 is clearly acceptable.78 Table 4.11: Item analysis for general perception towards change Item No Description Cronbach’s Alpha estimate b1 The change process has affected work relationships in a positive way 0.8014 b2 I believe the change process will positively influence relations between me and my co-workers 0.7984 b3 I feel that the change was necessary 0.807 b4 I think that changes in this organisation in general tend to work well 0.788 b12 I believe that the change suits/ is compatible with the overall department culture I believe that the change suits/ is compatible with the overall department culture 0.798 Total Scale Cronbach’s Alpha 0.832 The scale above appears to have good internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.832. All the items seem to correlate very well with the scale. Table 4.12: Item analysis for desired process Item No Description Cronbach’s Alpha estimate b8 I believe the change will be beneficial for me personally 0.474 b18 I’m concerned about implementation issues related to the change process 0.322 b21 I am confident in my ability to deal with the planned structural changes 0.40879 b24 I would have preferred some things done differently 0.364 Total Scale Cronbach’s Alpha 0.463 The scale above appears to have unacceptable internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.463. All the items seem to not correlate with the scale. Table 4.13: Item analysis for communication Item No Description Cronbach’s Alpha estimate b20 It is really not possible to change things around here 0.861 b22 My superiors have been supportive throughout the process 0.328 b23 I can generally count on good feedback from my superiors 0.353 Total Scale Cronbach’s Alpha 0.669 The scale above appears to have questionable internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.669. Not all the items seem to correlate very well with the scale. 4.5 RESULTS FROM CROSS-TAB ANALYSES Cross-tab analysis refers to the Pearson chi-square test of association (Dawson and Trapp, 2004), and is used for assessing the strength of association or interdependence between two or more categorical variables. At the 5% level of significance, the strength of association between two categorical variables is said to be statistically significant if the P-value is smaller than 0.05. If the P-value is greater than or equal to 0.05, it is said that the two variables are independent of each other at the 5% level of significance. In this study, all expected cell frequencies were greater than 5. As such, results of data analysis obtained from Pearson’s chi-square tests of association were all valid. 4.5.1 Cross tabulation for Age80 The chi-square test was used to test the relationship between age and each of the six factors of change management. Associations that are significant at the 5% level are indicated by *. Table 4.14 Results obtained from cross-tabulation analysis (Age) Factor 1: Participation ; involvement Observed chi-square value P-value I am confident that I will be able to influence the extent to which the changes will affect my job 9.0026 0.173 I feel I have been included in the change process 10.7365 0.097 The implications of the change have been clearly communicated to me by my superiors 11.1129 0.085 I know what to expect from the change process 9.1689 0.164 I feel I have a voice when it comes to the change process 16.5615 0.011* I actively participate in the decision-making in matters that affect me at work 7.2304 0.300 The change process has made it easier for me to perform certain tasks 10.4357 0.107 Factor 2 : Change process For the most parts change processes tend to run smoothly around here 6.7592 0.344 I feel the change will have a positive impact 4.7806 0.572 I feel the change has been successful so far 8.6886 0.192 It is my opinion that the change will be permanent 9.8928 0.129 I am pleased with the way the change process has been handled 15.4121 0.017*81 Factor 3: General perception towards change Change seem to create more problems than it solves 6.0083 0.422 I fear that the change might affect my position in a negative way 7.566 0.272 I think the change might cause uncertainty about work-roles in the department 9.45 0.150 I think the change will increase conflict in the department 6.2004 0.401 I fear that the change may threaten some part of the department culture 12.1696 0.058 Factor 4: Relationship between people The change process has affected work relationships in a positive way 4.1249 0.660 I believe the change process will positively influence relations between me and my co-workers 3.465 0.749 I feel that the change was necessary 7.8263 0.251 I think that changes in this organisation in general tend to work well 8.1313 0.229 I believe that the change suits/ is compatible with the overall department culture I believe that the change suits/ is compatible with the overall department culture 2.9131 0.820 Factor 5: Desired process I believe the change will be beneficial for me personally 7.4415 0.282 I’m concerned about implementation issues related to the change process 5.3173 0.504 I am confident in my ability to deal with the planned structural changes 8.713 0.190 I would have preferred some things done differently 11.0038 0.08882 Factor 6: Communication It is really not possible to change things around here 7.5581 0.272 My superiors have been supportive throughout the process 3.6413 0.725 I can generally count on good feedback from my superiors 1.7901 0.938 Legend: Significance at *Perception towards change Change seem to create more problems than it solves 6.0083 0.422 I fear that the change might affect my position in a negative way 7.566 0.272 I think the change might cause uncertainty about work-roles in the department 9.45 0.150 I think the change will increase conflict in the department 6.2004 0.401 I fear that the change may threaten some part of the department culture 12.1696 0.058 Factor 4: Relationship between people The change process has affected work relationships in a positive way 4.1249 0.660 I believe the change process will positively influence relations between me and my co-workers 3.465 0.749 I feel that the change was necessary 7.8263 0.251 I think that changes in this organisation in general tend to work well 8.1313 0.229 I believe that the change suits/ is compatible with the overall department culture I believe that the change suits/ is compatible with the overall department culture 2.9131 0.820 Factor 5: Desired process I believe the change will be beneficial for me personally 7.4415 0.282 I’m concerned about implementation issues related to the change process 5.3173 0.504 I am confident in my ability to deal with the planned structural changes 8.713 0.190 I would have preferred some things done differently 11.0038 0.08882 Factor 6: Communication It is really not possible to change things around here 7.5581 0.272 My superiors have been supportive throughout the process 3.6413 0.725 I can generally count on good feedback from my superiors 1.7901 0.938 Legend: Significance at *P