An empirical study of the impact of organizational climate, inform

7/30/2019 An empirical study of the impact of organizational climate, inform

1/24

AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF THE IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL

CLIMATE, CHANGE COMMUNICATION AND EMPLOYEE

PARTICIPATION ON COMMITMENT TO CHANGE

Sofie E. Rogiesta, Jesse Segersab, Arjen van Witteloostuijnac

a University of Antwerp

b Antwerp Management School

c Tilburg School of Economics and Management


2/24

1

Introduction

Low successrate organizational change

Employees are critical

Commitment to change as leading concept (Choi, 2011)

Importance of combining content, context, process and outcome

(Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999)

Climate, information sharing and participation during change


3/24

2

Theoretical framework

Methods

Results Discussion

Study considerations and suggestions for further research

Implications for theory & practice

+

(H1)

+

(H1)

Overview

Formalization

climate

Commitmentto change

Change

communication

Employee

participation

Involvement climateAutonomy climate +

(H4)

+

(H4)

-

(H2)

+

(H3)


4/24

3

Commitment to Change (C2C)

Commitment to change:a force (mind-set) that binds an individual to a

course of action deemed necessary for the successful implementation of

a change initiative (Herscovitch, & Meyer, 2002, p 475)

Affective commitment to change: a desire to provide support for the

change based on a belief in its inherent benefits (Herscovitch, & Meyer,

2002, p 475)


5/24

4

Information Sharing,

Employee Participation

and Commitment to Change

Information sharing and employee participation as strategies

Change strategy framework of Chin & Benne (1985)

- Rational-empirical view

- Normative-reeducative view- Power-coercive view

Which approach is most appropriate to increase C2C

- Rational-empirical view

- Normative-reeducative view

H1: Employee participation during the organizational change process will

contribute more than change communication to an employees commitment to

change.


6/24

5

+

(H1)


Commitment

to change

Change

communication

Employee

participation

+

(H1)


7/24

6

Formalization, Involvement and Autonomy

Climate


Climate: shared perceptions of the policies, practices, and procedures

that an organization expects, supports, and rewards (Schneider &

Reichers, 1983)

Psychological climate: individual perception of the climate

- Affective variables at work

- Attitudes towards change

Multiple facet-specific climates

- Formalization

- Involvement

- Autonomy


8/24

7


Climate


Competing Values framework (Quinn, & Rohrbaugh, 1983)

Formalization

climate

Involvement

climate

Autonomy

climate


9/24

8


Climate


Formalization climate: concerned with formal rules and procedures*

Involvement climate: employees have considerable influence over

decision-making & free sharing of information in the organization*

Autonomy climate: jobs are designed in ways which give employees

wide scope to enact work*

H2: Formalization climate will negatively relate to C2C

H3: Both (a) involvement climate and (b) autonomy climate will positively relate

to C2C

* (Patterson, e.a., 2005, pp. 386)


10/24

9

+

(H1)


Formalization

climate

Commitment

to change

Change

communication

Employee

participation

Involvement climate

Autonomy climate+

(H1)

-

(H2)

+

(H3)


11/24

10

Climate

Change Process


Climate affects commitment to change (H3)

Change communication and employee participation affect C2C (H1)

Climate ensures the presence of the organizational capability useful

during the change process

- Change communication and employee participation

- Autonomy and involvement

H4: The positive effect of (a) involvement climate and (b) autonomy climate oncommitment to change is mediated by change communication and employee

participation during the organizational change process.


12/24

11

+(H1)


Formalizationclimate

Commitmentto change

Change

communication

Employeeparticipation

Involvement climateAutonomy climate

+(H1)

+(H4)

+(H4)

-(H2)

+(H3)


13/24

12

Methods

2 police organizations: support unit and local police force

Organizational change: 2 mergers

134 surveys, respons rate 75,3%

Average respondent :

- Male

- 36-45y

- tenure >10y

- no leadership position- Received supplementary secondary education


14/24

13

Measures

Dependent variable:

- Affective commitment to change (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002)

Explanatory Variables:

- Change communication (Miller, Johnson, & Grau, 1994)

- Employee participation (Wanberg & Banas, 2000)- Organizational Climate Measure (Patterson et al., 2005)

Control variables:

- Consequence of change (Caldwell, Herold, & Fedor, 2004)

- Organization

- Age- Managerial position

- Organizational tenure

- Gender


15/24

14

Chronbachs alpha - Results

Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities, and Intercorrelations

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1. Organization 1.13 .34 -

2. Gender .32 .47 .152 -

3. Age 3.13 1.01 -.009 -.108 -

4. Organizational tenure .57 .50 -.105 -.137 .598** -

5. Management function .22 .41 .061 -.085 .286** .112 -6. Change consequence 3.24 1.46 .292** .154 .054 -.072 .165 (.80)

7. Change communication 4.05 1.60 -.161 .085 .160 -.070 .359** .346** (.89)

8. Employee participation 2.96 1.59 .179* .008 .202* -.064 .498** .302** .403** (.82)

9. Formalisation climate 2.86 .52 -.121 .180* -.079 -.084 -.014 .031 .073 .054 (.65)

10. Involvement climate 2.31 .75 .155 .218* .068 -.019 .186* .633** .491** .344** .099 (.87)

11. Autonomy climate 2.36 .54 .189* -.067 -.070 -.054 .122 .119 -.004 .066 -.412** .017 (.60)

12. Affective commitment

to change 3.36 1.74 .332** .047 -.048 -.248** .333** .563** .442** .431** -.089 .464** .181* (.92)

Note. Alpha coefficients are presented on the diagonal in parentheses. Dashes indicate a single-item measure. For Organization, 1=largest organization

and 2 = smaller organization. For Gender, 0 = man and 1 = women. For Age,1 = 55y. For

Organizational Tenure, 0 = 10y. For Management Function, 0 = no and 1 = yes.

* p < .05 ** p < .01


16/24

15

Change Process - Results


M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12


2. Gender .32 .47 .152 -

3. Age 3.13 1.01 -.009 -.108 -









to change 3.36 1.74 .332** .047 -.048 -.248** .333** .563** .442** .431** -.089 .464** .181* (.92)




* p < .05 ** p < .01


17/24

16

Climate - Results


M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12


2. Gender .32 .47 .152 -

3. Age 3.13 1.01 -.009 -.108 -









to change 3.36 1.74 .332** .047 -.048 -.248** .333** .563** .442** .431** -.089 .464** .181* (.92)




* p < .05 ** p < .01


18/24

17

Control Variables - Results


M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12


2. Gender .32 .47 .152 -

3. Age 3.13 1.01 -.009 -.108 -









to change 3.36 1.74 .332** .047 -.048 -.248** .333** .563** .442** .431** -.089 .464** .181* (.92)




* p < .05 ** p < .01


19/24

18

Impact of Change Process on C2C - Results

Affective commitment to changeChange

communication

Change

communicationVariable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 6 Model 7

Step 1

Organization .27*** .15** .16** .22*** -.35*** -.29***

Gender -.14* -.11 -.13* -.13* .09 .03

Age -.08 -.07 -.04 -.09 .10 .15

Organizational tenure -.18** -.21*** -.25*** -.18** -.14 -.19**

Management function .18** .19** .26*** .14* .19** .28***

Change consequence .38*** .43*** .35*** .31*** .28*** .12

Step 2

Change communication .29*** .24***

Employee participation .20** .12 .27***

Formalisation climate -.10 -.10

Involvement climate .20** .09 .36***

Autonomy climate -.02 -.01 -.04

Overall model F 18.22*** 15.36*** 11.78*** 11.53*** 9.30*** 8.81***

R .54 .50 .50 .55 .38 .40

Adjusted R .51 .47 .46 .50 .34 .36

R change .06 .03 .03 .08 .05 .08

*p < .10 ** p < .05 *** p < .01

VIF < 2 for all variables

H1: Not supported


20/24

19

Impact of Climate on C2C - Results

Affective commitment to changeChange

communication

Change

communicationVariable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 6 Model 7

Step 1

Organization .27*** .15** .16** .22*** -.35*** -.29***

Gender -.14* -.11 -.13* -.13* .09 .03

Age -.08 -.07 -.04 -.09 .10 .15

Organizational tenure -.18** -.21*** -.25*** -.18** -.14 -.19**

Management function .18** .19** .26*** .14* .19** .28***

Change consequence .38*** .43*** .35*** .31*** .28*** .12

Step 2


Employee participation .20** .12 .27***


Involvement climate .20** .09 .36***

Autonomy climate -.02 -.01 -.04

Overall model F 18.22*** 15.36*** 11.78*** 11.53*** 9.30*** 8.81***

R .54 .50 .50 .55 .38 .40

Adjusted R .51 .47 .46 .50 .34 .36

R change .06 .03 .03 .08 .05 .08

*p < .10 ** p < .05 *** p < .01


H2: Not supportedH3a: SupportedH3b: Not supported


21/24

20

Mediation of Change Process - Results

Affective commitment to changeChange commu-

nication

Employee

participationVariable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 7 Model 8

Step 1

Organization .27*** .15** .16** .22*** -.29*** .11

Gender -.14* -.11 -.13* -.13* .03 -.03

Age -.08 -.07 -.04 -.09 .15 .17*

Organizational tenure -.18** -.21*** -.25*** -.18** -.19** -.17*

Management function .18** .19** .26*** .14* .28*** .40***

Change consequence .38*** .43*** .35*** .31*** .12 .05

Step 2


Employee participation .20** .12


Involvement climate .20** .09 .36*** .24**

Autonomy climate -.02 -.01 -.04 .00

Overall model F 18.22*** 15.36*** 11.78*** 11.53*** 8.81*** 8.04***

R .54 .50 .50 .55 .40 .38

Adjusted R .51 .47 .46 .50 .36 .33

R change .06 .03 .03 .08 .08 .04

*p < .10 ** p < .05 *** p < .01


H4a: Supported


22/24

21

Discussion

Employee participation does not contribute more to C2C than change

communication (H1)

- No moderation effects

- Mediation effect: the effect of participation is fully mediated by change

communication

- Larger impact of employee participation in tactical changes?

Involvement climate increases C2C, fully mediated by change

communication (H4a)

- Organizational capabilities and expectations

No significant support for H2, H3b and H4b

- climate strength?


23/24

22

Study considerations

& Suggestions for further research

Considerations Suggestions

Focus on police organizations Include diverse organizational

climates

Focus on one organizational change:

merger

Include multiple changes

Multi-level design

Cross-sectional design Longitudinal design

Possible impact of common-method

variance

Split population to survey

explanatory variables in different

groups

Focus on organizational

characteristics Include individual differences


24/24

23

Implications for theory & practice

Theory

- Are the benefits of employee participation more important than the ones of

change communication?

- Importance of climate to create organizational capabilities useful during

organizational change

Practice

- Change agent: ensure participation and change communication

- Strategic partner: build involvement climate

Thank you for your input

Documents

An empirical study of the impact of organizational climate, inform