Change leadership and public sector organizational change:

Examining the interactions of transformational leadership style and red tape

Abstract

The implementation of organizational change is a considerable challenge for public

organizations. Recent studies have highlighted the importance of leadership in

change processes in public organizations, but limited empirical evidence exists.

Moreover, the contribution of change leadership in organizational change is likely to

be dependent on the particular characteristics of public organizations. This study

concerns the relationship between direct supervisors’ change leadership and the

commitment to change of change recipients, and examines to what extent this

relationship is affected by the bureaucratic features that often characterize public

organizations. The findings indicate that change leadership contributes to change

recipients’ commitment to change by providing high quality change communication

and stimulating employee participation in the implementation of change. However,

the findings also indicate that bureaucratic red tape and a low reliance on a

transformational leadership style impede the potential of change leadership to bring

about employee participation in the implementation of change.

Keywords: Change leadership, red tape, transformational leadership, commitment to

change, communication, participation, change management, organizational change.

2

1 Introduction

In times of financial austerity and cutbacks, there is a great need for public

organizations to implement organizational change. However, the implementation of

organizational change is generally a challenge for organizations (Burke, 2002). The

implementation of change is much more complex and unpredictable than the initiation

and planning for organizational change (Brunsson, 2009). This may be especially the

case in public organizations, as their environmental and structural characteristics

arguably further increase the difficulties that are associated with implementing

organizational change (McNulty & Ferlie, 2004; Van der Voet, Groeneveld &

Kuipers, 2014). Many studies have highlighted the importance of leadership in order

to overcome the difficulties of organizational change in the public sector (Fernandez

& Rainey, 2006; Stewart and Kringas, 2003; Hennessey, 1998). However, one of the

problems associated with leadership is that it qualifies as a ‘magic concept’ (Pollitt &

Hupe, 2011), in the sense that the term leadership has a broad scope and positive spin,

and is often used with great flexibility.

The literature on transformational leadership (Bass, 1985) and change

management (Fernandez & Rainey, 2006; Burke, 2002) highlight the importance of

leadership during organizational change in different ways, and there have been

limited attempts to integrate these literatures (Herold, Fedor, Caldwell, & Liu, 2008).

Some studies have examined to what extent transformational leadership may

contribute to commitment to change of change recipients (e.g. Oreg & Berson, 2011;

Herold et al., 2008). These studies show how transformational leaders transform

followers to go beyond their individual motivations and interests, thereby indirectly

stimulating them to support organizational change (Bass, 1985). However, as the

transformational leadership style is not directly aimed at making followers more

3

supportive of a specific organizational change (Eisenbach, 1999: Higgs & Rowland,

2011), such studies fail to encompass the leadership behaviors that are outlined in the

literature on change management (e.g. Fernandez & Rainey, 2006; Herold et al.,

2008; Higgs & Rowland, 2011). Change leadership behaviors are specifically aimed

at furthering the implementation of an intended, planned organizational change

initiative. Among others, Fernandez and Rainey (2006) outline change leadership

behaviors such as ensuring the need for change, providing a vision and a plan,

building support and commitment for change, and monitoring the implementation

process. Following Higgs and Rowland (2010), change leadership is defined in this

study as the behaviors of direct supervisors aimed at framing and shaping

organizational change, and creating capacity among change recipients to implement

the change. Most studies that argue for the importance of change leadership behaviors

in the public sector are case studies using qualitative methods (Kuipers et al., 2014).

As a result, there is little imperial evidence about how and to what extent change

leadership contributes to processes of change (Fernandez & Pitts, 2007; Herold et al.,

2008; Burke, 2002).

This study focuses on the role of change leadership in processes of

organizational change from the perspective of change recipients. The way employees

perceive and respond to organizational change can greatly determine the degree to

which an organizational change achieves its intended objectives (Walker, Armenakis

& Berneth, 2007). The first intended contribution of this study is to assess the

relationship between direct supervisors’ change leadership and change recipients´

commitment to change. Commitment to change is argued to be an important condition

for the successful implementation of change (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002). Rather

than a direct relationship between these concepts, change leadership contributes to

4

high quality change communication and a high degree of employee participation in

the implementation of change, thereby indirectly creating commitment to change

among change recipients.

The second intended contribution of this study is to examine to what extent the

particular organizational characteristics of public organizations affect the role of

change leadership, thereby adding to the literature on change management in the

public sector (e.g. Kuipers et al., 2014; Van der Voet, 2014; Wright, Christensen &

Isett, 2013; Isett, Glied, Sparer & Brown, 2013; By & Macleod, 2009). Change

processes are dependent on the context in which they take place (Pettigrew,

Woodman & Cameron, 2001). This study examines to what the relationship between

change leadership and commitment to change is affected by organizational red tape

and the leadership style of direct supervisors. These are relevant factors because of

the bureaucratic nature that is often attributed to public organizations (Rainey, 2014;

Boyne, 2002). Because of their bureaucratic nature, public organizations are typically

expected to be characterized by considerable levels of red tape (Bozeman, 1993;

Pandey & Kingsley, 2000) and have low reliance on a transformational leadership

style by managers (Wright & Pandey, 2010; Pawar & Eastman, 1997; Shamir &

Howell, 1999). In the following section, it is argued that these bureaucratic features

may impede the potential of change leadership to contribute to commitment to

change. The main research question is: How is change leadership related to change

recipients’ commitment to change, and to what extent is this relationship moderated

by the bureaucratic features of public organizations?

2 Theoretical framework and hypotheses

5

The relationship between change leadership and commitment to change

In the past decade, several studies have aimed at the implementation of organizational

change in the public sector (e.g. McNulty & Ferlie, 2004; Fernandez & Rainey, 2006;

Fernandez & Pitts, 2007; Van der Voet, Kuipers & Groeneveld, 2014). Similar to

studies conducted in private sector organizations (Higgs & Rowland, 2010, 2011;

Herold et al., 2008), leadership is often highlighted as a central factor in processes of

change in public organizations (Stewart and Kringas, 2003; Hennessey, 1998). The

literature on change management contains many prescriptive models of how change

leaders can contribute to the implementation of organizational change (Kotter, 1996;

Fernandez & Rainey, 2006). Although such models are different in details and

emphases, most models are similar in the sense that they stress formulating a change

vision, communication, empowering employees and consolidating or

institutionalizing the change. Typical change leadership activities include developing

a vision and implementation plan, communicating the vision of change, being a good

role model and motivating employees to implement the change (e.g. Fernandez &

Rainey, 2006).

In both the practitioner and scientific literature on change management,

authors argue that change leadership may contribute to ‘successful’ organizational

change (e.g. Kotter, 1996; Self & Schraeder, 2009; Higgs & Rowland, 2011).

However, prescriptive change leadership models are seldom based on a systematic

comparison of successful and unsuccessful changes. There is relatively little empirical

evidence concerning the contribution of change leadership (Burke, 2002; Herold et

al., 2008), especially in the public sector (Kuipers et al., 2014; Fernandez & Pitts,

2007). An associated problem is that change success is a subjective and multi-

6

interpretable term. Because little will change without the support of employees, many

studies therefore focus on employee attitudes toward change (e.g. Wright, Christensen

and Isett, 2013; Van der Voet, 2014). This study examines the relationship between

change leadership and change recipients’ commitment to change. Commitment to

change is defined as “a desire to provide support for the change based on a belief in

its inherent benefits” (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002: 475).

Change leadership is aimed at inducing favorable attitudes among change

recipients concerning change. Change leadership is therefore expected to be positively

related to commitment to change. By engaging in change leadership behaviors, direct

supervisors contribute to two change process characteristics that are positively related

to support for change among change recipients. These characteristics are high quality

change information and employee participation in the implementation of change

(Walker et al., 2007; DeVos, Buelens & Bouckenhooghe, 2008; Rafferty & Restubog,

2010). Herold et al. (2008) argue that communicating about the change and providing

individuals the opportunity for inputs are important aspects of change leadership.

Rather than a direct relationship, change leadership contributes to commitment to

change among change recipients by improving the quality of change communication

and the degree of employee participation in the implementation of change.

Change leadership approaches typically stress communicating the sense of

urgency, vision of change and implementation plans (e.g. Fernandez & Rainey, 2006).

Walker et al. (2007: 762) state that “change agents must prepare employees for

change through open, honest communication.” By explaining to employees why

change is necessary, employees may better understand and support the

implementation of change. Moreover, the implementation plan must be clearly

communicated to employees, so that employees are aware of the scope and time

7

planning of the implementation process (Van Dam, Oreg & Schyns, 2008). When the

implementation process is based on high quality communication, there are little

surprises and uncertainty concerning the changes being implemented. High quality

change communication ideally 1) addresses why the change is necessary by

demonstrating that the organization is not where it should be, 2) expresses that

employees can succeed in implementing the change, 3) successfully argues that the

measures that are being taken are appropriate, 4) convinces employees that they will

be supported during the implementation of change, and 5) emphasizes that an

employee’s self-interest is not at stake because of the change (Armenakis & Harris,

2002). By improving the quality of change information that is available to change

recipients, change leadership is thus expected to be positively related to change

recipients’ commitment to change.

Change leadership models also stress stimulating and empowering employees

to participate in the change (Herold et al., 2008). Employee participation is often seen

as an important way of creating support for change among change recipients.

Participation may give change recipients a feeling of ownership and control over the

change, thereby making the change less threatening (DeVos et al., 2008).

Participation may also contribute to the quality of the change that is being

implemented (DeVos et al., 2008; Lines, Selart, Espedal & Johansen, 2004). Senior

managers may have a good birds-eye view of the organization, but frontline

employees are often more knowledgeable about the operations of the organization.

Their expertise may thus be used as important input in designing and implementing

the organizational change. Organizational change theorists have also been critical

about employee participation in organizational change. Organizational change in the

public sector often emanates from higher level reforms and top-down policies

8

formulated at the political level. Although examples of far-reaching employee

participation in public sector change can be found (e.g. Van der Voet, Kuipers &

Groeneveld, 2014), Dunphy and Stace (1988) argue that employee participation is

often limited to determining the sub goals of a larger change effort that is being

directed by senior managers. Moreover, many contemporary organizational changes

in the public sector are primarily concerned with cost reduction and efficiency gains

rather than improvement of service delivery (e.g. Wright et al., 2013). Such

circumstances are ill-suited for employee participation, since decision-making is

likely to be centralized to the higher management levels (Mintzberg, 1979). Finally,

while it has been argued that employee participation may improve commitment to

change because of its emphasis on shared vision, it may also prevent the emergence of

radically new ideas and innovations (Dunphy & Stace, 1988). Despite these

apprehensions, change leadership is expected to positively affect the commitment to

change of change recipients by stimulating their participation in the implementation

of change. The following hypotheses are proposed.

H1a: The positive relationship between change leadership and commitment to change

is mediated by the quality of change communication.

H1b: The positive relationship between change leadership and commitment to change

is mediated by the degree of employee participation.

Bringing in the public sector: Change leadership in a bureaucratic context

9

There is an elaborate literature on the specific characteristics of public sector

organizations (e.g. Boyne, 2002; Rainey, 2014; By & MacLeod, 2009). Public

organizations are often argued to be characterized by a bureaucratic organizational

structure (Pandey & Moynihan, 2006; Wright & Pandey, 2010). Because of this,

public organizations are, among others, typically characterized by considerable levels

of red tape and a low degree of transformational leadership style among managers. To

date, research has resulted in little empirical evidence about how such these

characteristics affect the implementation of change in public organizations, let alone

change leadership. In this section, it is argued that red tape and transformational

leadership are relevant factors in the implementation of change in public

organizations as both factors may moderate the relationship between change

leadership and commitment to change.

A bureaucracy can be defined as an organization in which operations are to a

large extent predetermined and predictable (Mintzberg, 1979). This is achieved

through the formalization of organizational behavior. Formalization refers to the

degree in which organizational activities are manifested in written documents

regarding procedures, job descriptions, regulations and policy manuals (Rainey,

2014). Red tape is generally perceived as ineffective rules (Bozeman & Feeney,

2011). Red tape is thus necessarily a pathology. Formalization can be said to lead to

red tape but is not by itself red tape (Pandey & Scott, 2002). Many definitions of red

tape are abound, ranging from Bozeman’s (1993) stringent definition as “rules,

regulations, and procedures that have a compliance burden but do not achieve the

functional objective of the rule” to Al Gore’s (1993) more normative “good people

trapped in bad systems.” According to Pandey and Scott (2002: 565): “red tape exists

when managers view formalization as burdensome and detrimental to organizational

10

purposes”. Pandey and Garnett (2006) state that the position that public organizations

are typically characterized by relatively high levels of red tape is supported by both

theory and evidence.

Research on the consequences of red tape has mostly concentrated on

organizational performance. There is substantial evidence that red tape negatively

influences organizational performance (e.g. Pandey & Moynihan, 2006). Many

organizational changes have thus been aimed at cutting red tape, but there has been

little attention for how red tape affects the implementation of organizational change

(Pandey & Moynihan, 2006). The relationship between leadership and red tape has

also received little attention (Moynihan, Wright & Pandey, 2012). Moynihan et al.

(2012) have shown how transformational leadership can alter civil servants’

perception of red tape. However, there is little work available on the relationship

between red tape and change leadership. The literature contains several indications

that high levels of red tape limit the extent to which change leadership contributes to

high quality change information during organizational change. Pandey and Garnett

(2006) argue that rigid rules and procedures can restrict managers’ formal and

informal channels of communication. In addition, Pandey and Bretschneider (1997)

argue that red tape may complicate communication in an organization. As a result, red

tape may limit the opportunities for direct supervisors to clearly communicate the

change to change recipients. In addition, other studies suggest that red tape is

negatively related to risk-taking cultures and risk-taking among organizational

members (Bozeman & Kingsley, 1998; Feeney & DeHart-Davis, 2008). Because risk

and experimentation are inherent to more devolved, participatory change approaches

(Brown & Osborne, 2013), red tape may limit the potential of change leadership to

11

stimulate employee participation in organizational change. The following hypotheses

are proposed:

H2a: A high degree of red tape will weaken the positive relationship between change

leadership and the quality of change communication.

H2b: A high degree of red tape will weaken the positive relationship between change

leadership and the degree of employee participation.

Next to the prevalence of red tape, the bureaucratic nature of public organizations

may result in a lower degree of transformational leadership styles among managers.

Due to their bureaucratic nature, public managers are typically expected to rely to a

lesser extent on a transformational leadership style (Pawar & Eastman, 1997; Shamir

& Howell, 1999). Bureaucratic organizations rely on control-based mechanisms to

direct organizational behavior, which provides a substitute for leadership based on

influence or charisma. Similarly, Weber (1947) has argued that leadership in a

bureaucracy is based on a rational, legal basis, rather than charisma. Although several

studies have questioned to what extent public organizations are truly more

bureaucratic than their private sector counterparts (Rainey & Bozeman, 2000; Pandey

& Wright, 2006), Wright & Pandey (2010) argue that the relationship between the

organizational structure and leadership styles is theoretically relevant, because the

degree in which public organizations have bureaucratic characteristics can vary.

The implementation of organizational change is dependent on the characteristics

of the leader (Fernandez & Pitts, 2007). Research on leadership styles indicates that

certain styles are better equipped to handle situations of change than others (Pawar &

12

Eastman, 1997; Shamir & Howell, 1999). One of the dominant leadership theories is

the theory of transformational leadership (Bass, 1985). The core of transformational

leadership theory is that “by articulating a vision, fostering the acceptance of group

goals, and providing individualized support, effective leaders change the basic values,

beliefs, and attitudes of followers so that they are willing to perform beyond the

minimum levels specified by the organization'' (Podsakoff, MacKenzie & Bommer,

1996, p. 260). Although some studies have directly related transformational

leadership to employee support to change (Van der Voet, 2014; Oreg & Berson,

2011), transformational leadership is not aimed at the implementation of a specific

organizational change (Herold et al., 2008). Rather, transformational leaders aim to

transform the values of their followers so that they value the interests of the group or

organization above their personal interests (Bass, 1985). Nevertheless, in an attempt

to integrate the literatures on transformational leadership and change leadership,

several authors have outlined how leaders with a transformational leadership style

may be uniquely effective change leaders (e.g. Eisenbach et al., 1999; Higgs &

Rowland, 2011). Transformational leaders articulate desirable future visions for the

organization, lead by example and intellectually stimulate their subordinates (Bass,

1985). Such behaviors are also highlighted in theories of change leadership (Herold et

al., 2008; Fernandez & Rainey, 2006). Change leadership behaviors thus come more

natural to leaders with a transformational leadership style, and can therefore be

expected to be more impactful. Although limited empirical investigation concerning

the interrelations of both leadership types exists (Higgs & Rowland, 2011), it is

expected here that the change leadership behavior of direct supervisors with a

transformational leadership style is more likely to result in high quality change

communication and a high degree of employee participation. The following

13

hypotheses are proposed:

H3a: A high degree of supervisors´ transformational leadership style will strengthen

the positive relationship between change leadership and the quality of change

communication

H3b: A high degree of supervisors´ transformational leadership style will strengthen

the positive relationship between change leadership and the degree of employee

participation

The conceptual model of this study is given in figure 1.

-insert figure 1 here –

3 Case selection, methods and measures

Case selection

To test the hypotheses of this study, quantitative methods were adopted. The main

way of data collection was a survey among the personnel of the City Works

Department of the Dutch city Rotterdam. This is a permanent organization focused on

city maintenance and spatial upkeep. The organization consists purely of career civil

servants, with top level managers that are directly accountable to their respective

14

political superiors (aldermen and the city council). Due to economic crisis, Rotterdam

has initiated a reform program aimed at restructuring its administrative departments

and centralizing their back offices. Similar organizational changes are currently being

implemented by a large number of public organizations as a response to the economic

crisis. The organizational changes are mainly concerned with efficiency gains and

financial savings because of the financial crisis. This particular change is thus relevant

for other government organizations, as many contemporary organizations are

currently occupied with implementing efficiency related change (e.g. Wright et al.,

2013; Isett, Sparer, Brown & Glied, 2012).

In exploratory interviews with managers prior to the collection of quantitative

data, the organization is characterized as an organization with a long and valued

history of over 147 years. The organization consists of two units, which are referred

to here as unit A and unit B. At the moment of data collection, the organization was

involved in the implementation of changes that were aimed at separating both units

and merging them into separate administrative clusters. Given the rich history of the

Public Works Department, this organizational change is likely to be a radical change

for change recipients.

Prior to conducting a survey, interviews with key informants such as

managers, HR advisors and members of the work council highlight the organization’s

tendency to rely on a directive management style and its bureaucratic and hierarchical

features. Until a few years ago, all employees were required to punch-in upon arrival

and departure, and very few decisions would be taken without consent from the senior

management board. Given the large differences in operations between teams in the

organization, some consist of highly skilled engineers while others consist of workers

that have only received internal training, considerable variation can be expected in

15

terms of organizational red tape and leadership styles of supervisors. These features

arguably make this organization an appropriate case given the focus of this study on

the bureaucratic characteristics of public organizations. Moreover, variation in terms

of the degree of participation of change can be expected, as the approach to change

adopted by unit B was more devolved and participative than the approach taken by

unit A.

Methods and procedure

Data was collected using a survey among the employees of the organization. A pilot

of the initial survey was done among a group of 10 employees in order to test the

overall clarity of the study, as well as the time required to fully fill out the survey.

This resulted in minor changes in the formulation of some of the items. The survey

was then send to the employees of both unit A and B. Employees working in back

offices such as HR and financial administration were not contacted, because they

were involved in a different organizational change process. An invitation, written and

signed by the executive managers of unit A and B, was included in order to urge

employees to participate in the survey. In order to counter common method bias, the

survey stressed anonymity of respondents in order to reduce evaluation apprehension

and social desirability bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Moreover, separate sections of

the survey were clearly labeled and the academic purpose of the questionnaire was not

made explicit in order to prevent hypothesis guessing by employees (Brannick et al.,

2010). A reminder to fill out the survey was send out to improve response rate.

The dataset consists of 515 respondents. This corresponds with a response rate

of 35,5%. A comparison of the respondents’ personal characteristics and the

16

administrative systems of the organization indicates that the sample is representative

for unit A and B. At the time the survey was conducted, the average age of employees

in unit A and B was 47,1 years. The average age in the sample is 47,5 years. The

percentage of women in unit A and B was 17.3%, compared to a percentage of 16%

in the sample. All analyses were modeled using MPLUS software.

Measures

All variables were measured using validated measurement instruments. The measures

for all concepts concern self-reports, which are appropriate given the focus of the

study on employees as change recipients (Conway & Lance, 2010). Unless stated

otherwise, all variables were measured on a five-point Likert scale, where 1 indicated

‘fully disagree’ and 5 indicated ‘fully agree’. All survey questions, including those

not used for the purposes of this study, are given in appendix A.

Change leadership. Change leadership was measured using a seven-item

scale proposed by Herold et al. (2008). The lead-in is: “Related to the specific change

being implemented, my direct supervisor …” An example item is: “made it clear up

front to those in our unit why the change was necessary”.

Quality of change communication. This concept was measured using a seven

item scale by Bordia, Hunt, Paulsen, Tourish and Difonzo (2004). The lead-in of the

measure is “The official information provided about the change …”. An example item

is “Kept you informed throughout the change process, even after the official

announcement”.

17

Degree of participation. The degree of participation was measured using a

three item scale by Lines et al. (2005) with a seven point scale. An example item is “I

was allowed to participate in the development of the change”.

Commitment to change. The six item scale for affective commitment to

change by Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) was used. An example item is “I believe in

the value of this change”.

Red tape. Red tape was measured using the single item measure proposed by

(Pandey & Scott, 2002). The formulation of this item is: “If red tape is defined as

burdensome administrative rules and procedures that have negative effects on the

organization’s effectiveness, how would you assess the level of red tape in your

organization?” Red tape was measured on scale ranging from 1 to 11, where 1

indicated ‘no red tape at all’ and 11 indicated ‘a very high level of red tape’. Pandey

and Scott (2002) conclude that the single item measure is consistent with conceptual

definitions of the concept. Moreover, this use of this measurement instrument has had

consistent results (Bozeman & Feeney, 2011).

Transformational leadership style. The transformational leadership measure

of Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman and Fetter (1990) was applied. This measure

consists of 21 items and contains the dimensions articulating vision, providing

appropriate model, fostering acceptance goals, high performance expectancy,

individual support and intellectual stimulation. The lead-in is “My direct supervisor

…”. An example item is “gets the group to work together for the same goal”.

Control variables. The analysis controls for the personal characteristics of

respondents. Control variables for gender, age, years of tenure with the organization,

and the respondent’s highest completed educational level are included in the analysis.

18

The highest completed educational level contained the following answers: 1) primary

school, 2) lower secondary education, 3) higher secondary education, 4) lower

professional education, 5) higher professional education / applied university and 6)

university/ academic degree. Moreover, the perceived impact and significance of the

organizational change are included in the analysis in order to control for the content

of change (cf. Herscovitch & Meier, 2002). Significance of change was measured

using a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not significant) to 7 (very

significant). The measure for impact of change addresses the perceived consequences

of the change for the respondent’s job performance, the organizational climate and

personal life. This concept was also measured on a seven-point Likert scale, where 1

indicated ‘very negative consequences’ and 7 indicated ‘very positive consequences’.

4 Analysis and results

In this section, the analysis and results of the study are presented. Anderson and

Gerbing’s (1981) approach to structural equation modeling was followed,

supplemented with other recommendations for reporting results and demonstrating

construct validity (Williams, Vandenberg & Edwards, 2009; Fornell & Larcker,

1981). First, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is executed to confirm the data’s

factorial structure and to examine construct validity. Next, the descriptive statistics

and correlations are presented and discussed. Finally, the structural model is tested in

order to examine the study’s hypotheses.

Confirmatory factor analysis and construct validity

19

A CFA was executed to confirm the factorial structure of the study’s latent constructs.

Transformational leadership was included in the measurement model using a

secondary CFA approach. The construct’s items load on their respective dimensions,

which in turn load on the overlying transformational leadership construct. All control

variables were included in the measurement model. For all factor loadings of

observed variables, a conservative cut-off point of .50 for factor loadings was applied.

This resulted in the exclusion of item COM2. Following Farell and Rudd (2009),

items CL4 and CL7 were removed because of high cross-loadings with

transformational leadership construct. The fit indices of the measurement model

indicate acceptable model fit with CMIN/DF = 2539.077/1147, CFI = .920, RMSEA

= .049 and SRMR = .056.

In table 1, all factor loadings for the latent constructs are reported. Following

Fornell and Larcker (1981) these constructs are then used to calculate the Average

Variance Extracted (AVE) and Construct Reliability (CR) for all latent constructs.

The AVE and CR values for all constructs are reported in table 2. The AVE for all

constructs in the study is above the desirable thresholds of .5 for AVE and .7 for CR,

thereby demonstrating convergent validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). In addition,

Fornell and Larcker recommend that the squared correlation between any two

variables should not exceed neither of their AVE values in order to demonstrate

discriminant validity. The squared correlations between all latent variables are given

in table 2. This table shows that Fornell and Larcker’s condition is met for all

variables, indicating that the constructs are empirically distinct.

- Insert table 1 here -

20

- Insert table 2 here -

Descriptive statistics

In table 3, the mean and standard deviation (S.D.) of variables are given. The control

variables indicate the sample predominantly consists of male respondents. The

average age of respondents is 47.5 years. On average, respondents have been

employed by the organization for 16.8 years. The average education level is 4.44

which corresponds with a lower professional education and applied university. The

relatively high S.D. indicates points at a high degree of variation. In effect, many

employees have a relatively low education (mostly department B), while others have

an applied university or academic degree (mostly department A).

Two control variables were included to account for the perceived content of

change, both measured on a seven-point scale. The average impact of change is 3.52

and well below the mid-range of the measurement scale. This value indicates that the

organizational change is perceived to have predominantly negative consequences for

the organization. The average significance of change is 5.05, which shows that change

recipients experience the organizational change as a relatively radical change.

The average change leadership behavior by respondents’ direct supervisor is

valued with a score of 3.01. Respondents report relatively high levels of red tape. The

average score for transformational leadership style is slightly above the scale’s mid-

range with a score of 3.20. The quality of change communication and degree of

participation in the change process are on average 2.77 and 2.30. These scores

indicate that employees are slightly dissatisfied with the disseminated information

21

about change, and that most employees feel that there was little emphasis on

employee participation in the change process. The average commitment to change is

3.04. This score indicates that on average, there is neither a sense of affection of

disaffection among employees concerning the organizational change.

- Insert table 3 here-

Structural model

Based on the hypotheses outlined in the theoretical section, a structural model was

constructed. Because the hypotheses contain both mediating (H1a and H1b) and

moderating relationships (H2a, H2b, H3a and H3b), Preacher, Rucker and Hayes’

approach (2007) for testing moderated mediation models was used. The fit indices for

the structural model indicate acceptable model fit with CMIN/DF = 2690.702/1171,

CFI = .911, RMSEA = .050 and SRMR = .070. All significant relationships are

depicted in figure 2. The moderating relationships as depicted in figure 2 do not

resemble the structural model that was tested. Following Preacher et al. (2007),

interaction variables were defined in MPLUS. The mediating variables

(communication and participation) were then regressed on the independent variable

(change leadership), moderators (red tape and transformational leadership) and the

defined interaction variables to test the moderating relationships. Standardized

regression coefficients are depicted and standard errors are reported in parenthesis.

For the moderating relationships, unstandardized regression coefficients are reported.

In addition, the explained variance (r-square) for all dependent variables is reported in

between brackets.

- Insert figure 2 here –

The structural model indicates that several control variables are significantly related

to the study’s dependent variables. The data shows that the change process in

23

department B was characterized by a higher degree of employee participation.

Furthermore, the structural model indicates that the more years an organizational

member has worked in the organization, the less committed to change an employee is.

This result can be explained from the particular context of the change, as the

organizational change was aimed at breaking up an organization that had been in

existence for 147 years. Next, the perceived impact of change is an important

antecedent of the outcomes of change. When change recipients feel that the change

has positive consequences, they are more likely to value the quality of change

communication, participate in the implementation of change, and be committed to

change.

The structural model indicates that change leadership is positively related to

both the quality of change communication and the degree of participation. In turn,

communication and participation are both positively related to change recipients’

commitment to change. In order to test H1a and H1b, the significance and effect size

of the indirect relationships between change leadership and commitment to change

were estimated using a bootstrapping method with 2000 iterations. This analysis

indicates that the standardized regression coefficient for the total indirect relationship

between change leadership and commitment to change is .119 with a significance

level of p < .001. Both the path via communication and the path via participation are

significant at the p < .05 level, with the effect size via communication path .074 and

the effect size of participation .045. The data thus support H1a and H1b.

Furthermore, the structural model indicates that the indirect relationship

between change leadership and change recipients’ commitment to change is

moderated by red tape and transformational leadership style. More specifically, the

results indicate that both red tape and transformational leadership affect the

24

relationship between change leadership and the degree of participation of change

recipients. The interaction between red tape and change leadership is negatively

related to participation (b = -.046 with p < .01). The interaction between

transformational leadership style and change leadership is positively related to

participation (b = .119 with p < .05). However, red tape and transformational

leadership do not moderate the relationship between change leadership and the quality

of change communication. The model thus indicates that the data support H2b and

H3b, but not H2a and H3a. The statistically significant moderating relationships are

plotted in figure 3 and figure 4 in order to interpret the results.

- insert figure 3 here-

- insert figure 4 here –

Figure 3 shows that the slope that accounts for the relationship between change

leadership and participation of change recipients is less positive in situations with a

high degree of red tape. Red tape thus decreases the positive relationship between

change leadership and employee participation. Figure 4 shows that a transformational

leadership style enhances the relationship between change leadership behaviors and

employee participation. Change leadership in combination with high degrees of

transformational leadership result in higher degrees of employee participation than

when combined with low levels of transformational leadership.

25

5 Discussion and conclusions

This study intends to make two contributions to the literature on change management

in public organizations. First, the study aims to provide empirical evidence for the

relationship between leadership and commitment to change in public sector

organizational change. Although studies about organizational change in the public

sector often make a case for the importance of leadership, little empirical evidence

exists (Kuipers et al., 2014). This study draws on the change management literature in

order to explain how direct supervisors’ change leadership may contribute to the

commitment to change of change recipients by providing high quality change

information and stimulating employee participation in the implementation of change.

The results of the analysis indicate that there is no direct relationship between change

leadership and change recipients’ commitment to change, and confirm that the

relationship between change leadership and employee commitment to change should

be understood as an indirect relationship.

Most literature on change leadership in both the private sector (e.g. Herold et

al., 2008) and the public sector (e.g. Hennessey, 1998; Fernandez & Rainey, 2006)

has focused on the leadership of executive or senior management levels. This study,

in contrast, looks at the role of direct supervisors in the implementation of change.

The results thus indicate that lower management levels are able to contribute to

support for change among change recipients. However, change leadership should not

be seen as the task of either higher or lower level managers. Instead, it is a

phenomenon that takes place on multiple levels at the same time, but more needs to

26

be known about how different levels of change leadership are interrelated (Kuipers et

al., 2014). Researchers could investigate ways in which the complementarity of

higher and lower level change leaders can be improved. For example, Allen,

Jimmieson, Bordia and Irmer (2007) argue that change recipients prefer to receive

strategic change information from senior management, but that the consequences for

personnel should be communicate by direct supervisors. Other directions could be

that change leadership at different hierarchical levels should consist of different

behaviors and at different actors (e.g. Van der Voet, Kuipers & Groeneveld, 2014).

Alternatively, stage-models of organizational change could be used to theorize and

test to what extent different levels or types of change leadership should be present at

different stages of the change process (Burke, 2002). In addition, future research

could address the role of other leadership styles than change leadership and

transformational leadership in organizational change. For example, transactional

leadership could have a role in more directive organizational change initiatives

(Pieterse, Van Knippenberg, Schippers & Stam, 2010), while servant leadership could

be an appropriate leadership approach in more devolved or continuous organizational

changes (Kool & Van Dierendonck, 2012).

The second intended contribution of this study is to advance the literature on

change management in the public sector by explicitly accounting for the particular

context of public sector organizations in the study’s variables. Many recent studies

have focused on organizational change management in the public sector, and many of

these studies have highlighted how the specific context of public sector could be an

important factor in determining appropriate change management strategies and

leadership behaviors (e.g. McNulty & Ferlie, 2004; By & Macleod, 2009). However,

little studies have systematically investigated such statements. This study examines

27

the bureaucratic organizational structure that often applies to public organizations. As

is outlined in the theoretical section of this study, bureaucratic organizations features

include a tendency for red tape and a low reliance of managers on a transformational

leadership style.

The results indicate that red tape is negatively relate to change recipients’

perception of the quality of change communication. The study thus provides support

for assertions that red tape may complicate processes of communication in public

organizations (Pandey & Garnet, 2006; Pandey & Bretschneider, 1997). However, the

data do not support the expectation that red tape weakens the positive relationship

between direct supervisors’ change leadership and the quality of change

communication. A possible explanation may be that direct supervisors disseminate

change information using personal or informal channels, which are to lesser extent

distorted by organizational red tape. In contrast with senior managers, who typically

communicate changes through e-mails, the organization’s intranet and at specific

change-related events, direct supervisors can communicate through personal, informal

channels, and on an everyday basis. This result indicates that direct supervisors are an

important channel of communicating organizational change, especially in large,

bureaucratic organizations.

As has been suggested in other studies (e.g. Fernandez & Pitts, 2007), the

personal characteristics of managers matter during change. This study investigated

how the transformational leadership style of direct supervisors moderates their change

leadership behaviors. The analysis indicates that a transformational leadership style

strengthens the relationship between change leadership behaviors and the

participation of change recipients. By investigating the interactions between both

leadership concepts, this study contributes to the integration of two separate

28

leadership paradigms. Transformational leadership is widely studied and is generally

seen as an effective leadership style in times of organizational change (Pawar &

Eastman, 1997; Shamir & Howell, 1999). Empirical studies have identified the

concept as an antecedent of commitment to change (Herold et al., 2008; Oreg &

Berson, 2011), and change management theorists have identified commonalities

between transformational leadership and change leadership (Eisenbach et al., 1999;

Higgs & Rowland, 2011). This study contributes to the integration of the two

leadership concepts in a methodological way, by testing and conforming their

convergent and discriminant validity, and in a theoretical way, by explaining and

testing how the two concepts are interrelated in the implementation of organizational

change. This study provides empirical support for the position that transformational

leaders may be especially effective change leaders (Eisenbach et al., 1999; Higgs &

Rowland, 2011).

A shortcoming of this study is that all data was collected among a single group

of respondents at a single point in time. The cross-sectional analysis thus points

toward significant relationships between concepts, but cannot identify causal effects.

For such results, future research could apply experimental or longitudinal research

designs. As is argued above, future research concerning organizational change in the

public sector could also focus on taking into account different or multiple contextual

factors that are relevant for public sector organizations, such as their complex and

political organizational environment (Van der Voet, Kuipers & Groeneveld, 2014) or

the role of the specific motivational bases of public sector employees during change

(Wright et al., 2013). In addition, future research could look into the multi-level

issues of change leadership by studying change leadership on multiple hierarchical

levels.

29

Despite these limitations, this study has several practical implications. First,

while many organizational changes and public sector reforms have focused on

reducing bureaucratic red tape, this study indicates that red tape should not only be

seen as an anticipated outcome of public sector change, but also as an important factor

during change processes. Red tape can impede change communication and change

leaders’ ability to foster employee participation. Second, this study indicates that

public organizations could apply more devolved, participatory change approaches in

order to create support for organizational change among employees. The results show

that involving direct supervisors as change managers and stimulating employees to

participate and be more than passive ‘change recipients’ are beneficial for

commitment to change. At the same time, it is acknowledged here that participatory

change approaches may not always be appropriate in the public sector. Organizational

change often results from wider public sector reforms or policy changes, in which

individual organizations, let alone employees, have little opportunity to shape or

adjust the organizational change. In such changes, there is an additional risk that

participation may be counter-beneficial as a means or creating support for change,

because change recipients may get the feeling that all the important decisions have

already been made, and that the participatory processes are simply a form of window-

dressing. Employee participation and involving direct supervisors in change

leadership may thus increase public organizations’ potential to create employee

support for organizational change, but the use of such strategies must also be

appropriate given the particular circumstances of organizational change in the public

sector.

References:

30

Allen, J., Jimmieson, N.L., Bordia, P. & Irmer, B.E. (2007). Uncertainty during

organizational change: Managing perceptions through communication.

Journal of Change Management, 7(2), 187-210.

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

transformational readiness. Journal of Organizational Change Management,

15(2), 169-183.

Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York:

Free Press.

Bordia, P., Hunt, E., Paulsen, N., Tourish, D. & Difonzo N. (2004). Uncertainty

during organizational change: Is it all about control? European Journal of

Work and Organizational Psychology, 13(3), 345-365.

Boyne, G. A. (2002). Public and private management: What’s the difference? Journal

of Management Studies, 39(1), 97-122.

Bozeman, B. (1993) A theory of government red tape. Journal of Public

Adminstration Research and Theory, 3(3), 273-303.

Bozeman, B. & Feeney, M.K. (2011). Rules and red tape: A prism for public

administration theory and research. M.E. Sharpe: Armonk and London.

Bozeman, B. & Kingsley, G. (1998). Risk culture in public and private organizations.

Public Administration Review, 58(2), 109-118.

Brannick, M.T., Chan, D., Conway, J.M., Lance, C.E. & Spector, P.E. Organizational

Research Methods, 13(3), 407-420.

Brown, L. & Osborne, S.P. (2013). Risk and innovation: Towards a framework for

risk governance in public services. Public Management Review, 15(2), 186-

208.

31

Brunsson, N. (2009). Mechanisms of hope: maintaining the dream of the rational

organization. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.

Burke, W.W. (2002). Organization change: theory and practice. Thousand Oaks:

Sage publications.

By, R.T. & Macleod C. (2009). Managing organizational change in public services:

International issues, challenges and cases. London and New York: Routledge.

Conway, J.M. & Lance, C.E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors

regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of

Business and Psychology, 25(3), 325-334.

DeVos, G., Buelens, M. & Bouckenooghe, D. (2007). Contribution of content,

context and process to understanding openness to organizational change: Two

experimental simulation studies. The Journal of Social Psychology, 147(6),

607-630.

Dunphy, D. C., & Stace, D. A. (1988). Transformational and coercive strategies for

planned organizational change: beyond the OD model. Organization

Studies, 9(3), 317-334.

Eisenbach, R., Watson, K. & Pillai, R. (1999). Transformational leadership in the

context of organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change

Management, 12(2), 80-88.

Farrell, A. M. and Rudd, J. M. (2009). Factor analysis and discriminant validity: A

brief review of some practical issues. Presented at the Australia-New Zeeland

Marketing Academy Conference (ANZMAC). Melbourne, Australia.

Feeney, M.K. & DeHart-Davis, L. (2008). Bureaucracy and public employee

behavior: A case of local government. Review of Public Personnel

Administration, 29(4), 311-326.

32

Fernandez, S. & Pitts. D.W. (2007). Under What Conditions Do Public Managers

Favor and Pursue Organizational Change? The American Review of Public

Administration 37(3): 324–341.

Fernandez, S. & Rainey, H. G. (2006). Managing successful organizational change in

the public sector: An agenda for research and practice. Public Administration

Review, 66(2), 168–176.

Fornell, C. & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable

variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing

Research, 18, 382-388.

Gore, A. (1993). From red tape to results: Creating a government that works better

and costs less: Reengineering through information technology. Washington

DC: U.S. Government printing office.

Hennessey, J.T. (1998). “Reinventing” government: Does leadership make a

difference? Public Administration Review, 58(6), 322-332.

Herold, D.M., Fedor, D.B., Caldwell, S. & Liu, Y. (2008). The effects of change and

transformational leadership on employees’ commitment to change: A

multilevel study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 346-357.

Herscovitch & Meyer, (2002). Commitment to organizational change: Extension of a

three-component model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 474-487.

Higgs, M. J. & Rowland, D. (2010). Emperors with clothes on: The role of self-

awareness in developing effective change leadership. Journal of Change

Management, 10(4), 369-385.

Higgs, M.J., & Rowland, D. (2011) What does it take to implement change

successfully? A study of the behavior of successful change leaders. Journal of

Applied Behavioral Science, 47(3), 309-335.

33

Isett, K.R., Glied, S.A.M., Sparer, M.S. & Brown, L.D. (2013). When change

becomes transformation: A case study of change management in Medicaid

Offices in New York City. Public Management Review, 15(1), 1-17.

Kool, M., & van Dierendonck, D. (2012). Servant leadership and commitment to

change, the mediating role of justice and optimism. Journal of Organizational

Change Management, 25(3), 422-433.

Kotter, J.P. (1996). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Kuipers, B.S., Higgs, M., Kickert, W.J.M., Tummers, L., Grandia, J. & Van der Voet, J.

(2014). Managing change in public organizations: A review of the literature between

2000-2010. Public Administration, 92(1), 1-20.

Lines, R., Selart, M., Espedal, B. & Johansen, S.T. (2005). The production of trust

during organizational change. Journal of Change Management, 5(2), 221-245.

McNulty, T. & Ferlie, E. (2004). Process transformation: Limitations to radical

organizational change within public service organizations. Organization

Studies, 25(8): 1389-1412.

Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice

Hall.

Moynihan, D.P. Wright, B.E. & Pandey, S.K. (2012). Working within constrains: Can

transformational leadership alter the experience of red tape? International

Public Management Journal, 15(3), 315-336.

Oreg, S. & Berson, Y. (2011). Leadership and employees’ reactions to change: The

role of leaders’ personal attributes and transformational leadership style.

Personnel Psychology, 64(3), 627-659.

34

Pandey S.K. & Bretschneider, S. (1997). The impact of red tape’s administrative

delay on public organizations’ interest in new information technologies.

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7(1), 113-130.

Pandey, S.K. & Garnett, J.L. (2006). Exploring public sector communication

performance: Testing a model and drawing implications. Public

Administration Review, 66(1), 37-51.

Pandey, S.K. & Kingsley, G.A. (2000). Examining red tape in public and private

organizations: Alternative explanations form a social psychological model.

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(4), 779-799.

Pandey, S.K. & Moynihan, D.P. (2006). Bureaucratic Red Tape and Organizational

Performance: Testing the Moderating Role of Culture and Political Support. In

Boyne, G.A., Meier, K.J., O’Toole Jr., L.J. & Walker, R.M. (Eds.), Public

Service Performance. Cambridge, England, Cambridge University Press.

Pandey, S.K. & Scott, P.G. (2002). Red tape: A review and assessment of concepts

and measures. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12(4),

553-580.

Pandey, S.K. & Wright, B.E. (2006). Connecting the dots in public management:

Political environment, organizational goal ambiguity, and the public

manager’s role ambiguity. Journal of Public Administration Research and

Theory, 20(1), 75-89.

Pawar B.S. & Eastman, K.K. (1997). The nature and implications of contextual

influences on transformational leadership: A conceptual examination.

Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 80-109.

35

Pettigrew, A.M., Woodman, R.W. & Cameron, K.S. (2001). Studying organizational

change and development: Challenges for future research. Academy of

Management Journal, 44(4): 697-713.

Pieterse, A. N., Van Knippenberg, D., Schippers, M., & Stam, D. (2010).

Transformational and transactional leadership and innovative behavior: The

moderating role of psychological empowerment. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 31(4), 609-623.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. & Bommer, W.H. (1996). Transformational leader

behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee

satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors.

Journal of Management, 22(2), 259-298.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. & Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common

method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and

recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H., & Fetter, R. (1990).

Transformational leadership behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in

leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership

Quarterly, 1(2), 107-142.

Pollitt, C. & Hupe, P. (2011). Talking about government: The role of magic concepts.

Public Management Review, 13(5), 641-658.

Preacher, K.J., Rucker, D.D. & Hayes, A.F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation

hypotheses: Theory, methods and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral

Research, 42(1), 185-227.

36

Rafferty, A.E. & Restubog, S.L.D. (2010). The impact of change process and context

on change reactions and turnover during a merger. Journal of Management,

36(5), 1309-1338.

Rainey, H.G. (2014). Understanding and managing public organizations. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Rainey, H.G. & Bozeman, B. (2000). Comparing public and private organizations:

Empirical research and the power of the a priori. Journal of Public

Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 447-469.

Self, D.R. & Schraeder, M. (2009). Enhancing the success of organizational change:

Matching readiness strategies with sources of resistance. Leadership &

Organization Development Journal, 30(2), 167-182.

Shamir, B. & Howell, J.M. (1999). Organizational and contextual influences on the

emergence and effectiveness of charismatic leadership. Leadership Quarterly,

10(2), 257-283.

Stewart, J. & Kringas, P. (2003). Change management-strategy and values in six

agencies from the Australian public service. Public Administration Review,

63(6), 675-688.

Van Dam, K., Oreg, S. & Schyns, B. (2008). Daily work contexts and resistance to

organisational change: The role of leader-member exchange, development

climate, and change process characteristics. Applied Psychology: An

International Review, 57(2), 313-334.

Van der Voet, J. (2014). The effectiveness and specificity of change management in

a public organization: Transformational leadership and a bureaucratic

organizational structure. European Management Journal, 32(3), 373-382.

37

Van der Voet, J., Groeneveld, S.M. & Kuipers, B.S. (2014). Talking the talk or

walking the walk? The leadership of planned and emergent change in a public

organization, Journal of Change Management, 14(2), 171-191.

Van der Voet, J., Kuipers, B.S. & Groeneveld, S.M. (Accepted for publication,

2014). Held back and pushed forward: Leading change in a complex public

environment. Journal of Organizational Change Management.

Walker, H.C., Armenakis, A.A. & Berneth, J.B. (2007). Factors influencing

organizational change efforts: An integrative investigation of change content,

context, process and individual differences. Journal of Organizational

Change Management, 20(6), 761-773.

Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. New York: The

free press.

Williams, L.J., Vandenberg, R.J. & Edwards, J.R. (2009). Structural Equation

Modeling in management research: A guide for improved analysis. The

Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 543-604.

Wright, B.E. & Pandey, S.K. (2010). Transformational leadership in the public sector:

Does structure matter? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,

20, 75-89.

Wright, B.E., Christensen, R.K. & Isett, K.R. (2013). Motivated to adapt? The role of

public service motivation as employees face organizational change. Public

Administration Review, 73(5), 738-747.