dissertation report- shivangi

8/2/2019 Dissertation Report- Shivangi

1/47


2/47

Acknowledgement

It is with the deepest sense of gratitude that I wish to thank all the people who have

helped me during the course of this project. I am indebted to Dr. Yasmeen Rizvi and

Prof. Subbha Rao for the valuable time and effort they invested in my project.

Shivangi Joshi

MBA(G)

Amity Business School

Page 2 of47


3/47

Declaration

I, Shivangi Joshi, student of Master of Business Administration (G) in academic year

2008-10, Amity Business School, Amity University Uttar Pradesh; herby declare that I

have completed the project titled To analyse impact of locus of control onorganizational change in IT sector as part of the course requirements of MBA of

Amity University.

I further declare that the information presented in this project is true and & original to

the best of my knowledge.

Date Shivangi Joshi

Place A0101908638

Page 3 of47


4/47

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

SNO. CONTENTS PAGE NO.

1. Introduction

Abstract

Current Scenario

5

2. Literature review

Variables Defined

Review of Research Papers

Gap Analysis

7

3 Objective and Hypothesis 19

4.Research Methodology

20

5.

Data Analysis

Analysis of PartI

Analysis of Part II

Corelation Between Organization Change and Locus of Control

CrossTabulation Between Type of Change and Reaction to Change

22

6. Conclusion 41

7. Annexure 42

8. Bibliography 46

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Abstract

Page 4 of47


5/47

The study aimed to find a relationship between locus of control and organizational

change and how this can in turn be manipulated to increase organizational

effectiveness. Rationale behind conducting the study was to study the micro level

variables in particular locus of control that effect organization control. Organizational

change literature lacks research on such variables especially in IT sector.

According to the findings of the study locus of control and resistance or readiness to

change are not related. However it was found that locus of control could change

according to certain work settings and situations.

1.2 Current Scenario

Dynamic business environment has made change mandatory for organizations. They

need to constantly revamp themselves in order to realign their strategy time and again

to suit their business needs. Nonetheless the impact of such change on an

organizations most valuable resource cant be ignored.

Organizations operate in dynamic environments--- rapidly changing government

regulations affecting their business, new competitors, difficulties in acquiring raw

materials, continually changing product preferences by customers and so on. Static

environments create significantly less uncertainty for managers than do dynamic ones.

And because uncertainty is a threat to an organizations effectiveness, management try

to minimize it. One way to reduce environmental uncertainty is through organizational

change.

Organizational change is an empirical observation in an organizational entity of

variations in shape, quality or state over time, after the deliberate introduction of new

ways of thinking, acting and operating (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995; Schalk et al,

1998).

Rapid globalization processes, technological development and the constant change of

surroundings have made changes an inseparable part of the existence of contemporary

organizations. The general aim of organizational change is an adaptation to the

environment or an improvement in performance (Leana and Barry, 2000; Keck and

Tushman, 1993).

However the purpose of such change initiatives can only be fulfilled when stakeholders

are taken care of. One of most important stakeholders in this exercise of increasing

organizational effectiveness is an employee. A concrete change is perceived and then it

leads to some kind of emotions and later there comes a decision to react to the change.

(Dunham et al, 1989; Piderit, 2000).

Different authors (Bearley and Johnes, 1995; Vakota et al, 2003; Bovey and Hede,

2001; Nadler, 1998) present various reactions to change typology, however, having

generalized them; it is possible to single out the main two types: resistance to change

and their support. Realizing changes, it is usual to seek employees support andapproval as well as to look for the ways to escape or reduce opposition to them.

Page 5 of47


6/47

A number of factors effect an employees response to change. These may be self

esteem, self efficacy, self monitoring, need for achievement, risk propensity etc. One of

the most important personality traits is locus of control.

Locus of control determines how an individual reacts to change in his/her environment.Several studies have proved the correlation between organizational change and locus of

control. High internal locus of control tends to make transition easy for an employee

and this in turn increases the effectiveness of the change interventions.

Chapter2:Literature Review

2.1 Organizational Change

Page 6 of47


7/47

Change is generally viewed negatively by employees and engenders a feeling of

insecurity and at times guilt among employees. Change in power, influence, autonomy,

status, enhanced duties is few of the drawbacks that an employee may experience as a

result of change. Few look at change from a broader perspective and as a chance to

initiate improvements in self and organization.

Change is the continuous adoption of corporate strategies and structures to changing

external conditions. Today, change is not the exception but a steady ongoing process.

On contrast business as usual will become the exception from phases of turbulence.

In order to make change effective, organizations need to factor in individual behaviour

and understand its impact on the process

Jones, Gareth R (2004) defines Organisation Change as the process by which

organisations move from the present state to some desired future state in order to

increase their effectiveness. Singh (2005) defines it as the coping process of an

organisation, of moving from the present state to a desired state that individuals, groupsand organisations undertake in response to dynamic internal and external factors that

alter current realities.

Hence, there are two types of changes:

1. Organizational Development. This is the more gradual and evolutionary approach to

change. It bases on the assumption that it is possible to align corporate objectives with

the individual employees objectives. In practice, however, this will rarely be possible.

2.Reengineering. This is known as corporate transformation or business transformation.

It is the more radical form of change management, since it challenges all elements of

processes or structures that have evolved over time.

2.1.1 Phases in Change Processes

In order to successfully manage change processes, it is necessary to analyze the phases

of this process. Managers need to know in which phase they have to expect what types

of situations and problems.

Most successful organizations are those that are able to adjust themselves to new

conditions quickly. This requires planned learning processes that lead to improvedorganizational effectiveness. Ideally, employees are able to reflect their own behaviour

in relation to the organizational context (e.g. processes, products, resources, customers).

Normally, people perceive change processes in seven typical stages

Page 7 of47


8/47

2.1.2 Types of Change-

Figure Four types of Change

Planned versus emergent change

Sometimes change is deliberate, a product of conscious reasoning and actions. This

type of change is called planned change. In contrast, change sometimes unfolds in an

apparently spontaneous and unplanned way. This type of change is known as emergent

change. Change can be emergent rather than planned in two ways.

Managers make a number of decisions apparently unrelated to the change that

emerges. The change is therefore not planned. However, these decisions may be based

on unspoken, and sometimes unconscious, assumptions about the organisation, its

environment and the future (Mintzberg, 1989) and are, therefore, not as unrelated as

they first seem. Such implicit assumptions dictate the direction of the seemingly

Page 8 of47


9/47

disparate and unrelated decisions, thereby shaping the change process by drift rather

than by design.

External factors (such as the economy, competitors behaviour, and political climate)

or internal features (such as the relative power of different interest groups, distribution

of knowledge, and uncertainty) influence the change in directions outside the control ofmanagers. Even the most carefully planned and executed change programme will have

some emergent impacts.

This highlights two important aspects of managing change.

The need to identify, explore and if necessary challenge the assumptions that underlie

managerial decisions.

Understanding that organisational change is a process that can be facilitated by

perceptive and insightful planning and analysis and well crafted, sensitive

implementation phases, while acknowledging that it can never be fully isolated fromthe effects of serendipity, uncertainty and chance (Dawson, 1996).

An important (arguably the central) message of recent management of change literature

is that organisation-level change is not fixed or linear in nature but contains an

important emergent element.

Episodic versus Continuous Change

Another distinction is between episodic and continuous change. Episodic change,

according to Weick and Quinn (1999), is infrequent, discontinuous and intentional.

Sometimes termed radical or second order change, episodic change often involves

replacement of one strategy or programme with another.

Continuous change, in contrast, is ongoing, evolving and cumulative. Also referred to

as first order or incremental change, continuous change is characterised by people

constantly adapting and editing ideas they acquire from different sources. At a

collective level these continuous adjustments made simultaneously across units can

create substantial change.

The distinction between episodic and continuous change helps clarify thinking about an

organisations future development and evolution in relation to its long-term goals. Feworganisations are in a position to decide unilaterally that they will adopt an exclusively

continuous change approach. They can, however, capitalise upon many of the

principles of continuous change by engendering the flexibility to accommodate and

experiment with everyday contingencies, breakdowns, exceptions, opportunities and

unintended consequences that punctuate organisational life (Orlikowski, 1996).

2.1.3 Change and Approaches

The broad relationship is indicated in the following table

Type Possible approach

Page 9 of47


10/47

Incremental TQM

Parallel learning structuresand Quality circles

Organisationaldevelopment

Step-change Project management

BPR

Organic TQM

Parallel learning structuresand Quality circles

The Learning Organisation

Benchmarking

Action research

Directive BPR

Project management


Planned Project management


Emergent TQM

Action research

The Learning Organisation

Episodic BPR

Project management

Continuous Parallel learning structuresand Quality circles

2.1.4 Reaction to Organizational Change

Any person is apt to react to changes. This attitude influences the reaction to any

change in the organization. This attitude usually includes cognitive, emotional and

behavioural components. The reaction to change also embraces these three components.

Any change raises the same chain reaction: the person perceives the change, emotions

and decides to react to the change in one way or another (Dunham et al, 1989; Piderit,

2000).

Bearley and Johnes (1995) conducted the research that showed that organizations are inconstant change, therefore employees react to change. They single out three types of

Page 10 of47


11/47

reaction:supportive (moving toward change), neutral(moving away from change), and

resistant(moving against change).

Bovey and Hede (2001) present a unified model of reaction to change. This model

includes only two types of reaction: supportive and resistant. In this case reaction to

changes is analysed in the aspect of an intended behaviour. Behaviour could bebetween active-passive and open-closed. Figure below presents behaviour types.

Passive overt behaviour:

Changes are supported by accepting them and agreeing.

Resistance to changes is passive: changes are observed, some kind accepted, however,

nothing else is done to support them.

Passive covert behaviour: Changes are supported passively and even with a negative attitude, trying to give in,

complain.

Changes are met with resistance; they are ignored trying to avoid them.

Active overt behaviour:

Change support includes initiative and care of changes.

Resistance to change is expressed by the intention to resist and disagree with them, to

argue or even to hinder.

Active covert behaviour:

In this case, support of changes most often means cooperation. Changes are opposed through procrastination

Page 11 of47


12/47

2.2 Locus of Control

Locus of control refers to the extent to which individuals believe that they can controlevents that affect them. Individuals with a high internal locus of control believe that

events result primarily from their own behavior and actions.

Those with a high external locus of control believe that powerful others, fate, or chance

primarily determine events. Those with a high internal locus of control have better

control of their behavior, tend to exhibit more political behaviors, and are more likely

to attempt to influence other people than those with a high external locus of control;

they are more likely to assume that their efforts will be successful. They are more

active in seeking information and knowledge concerning their situation.

Locus of control is the framework of Rotter's (1954) social learning theory of

personality. Lefcourt (1976) defined perceived locus of control as follows: "Perceived

control is defined as a generalized expectancy for internal as opposed to external

control of reinforcements" (Lefcourt 1976, p27).

Locus of Control was derived from the Social Learning Theory developed by Rotter in

1966. The Social Learning Theory states that an individual learns on the basis of his of

her history of reinforcement. The individual will develop general and specific

expectancies. Through a learning process individuals will develop the belief that certain

outcomes are a result of their action (internals) or a result of other forces independent

of themselves (externals). From the social learning theory Rotter developed the Locusof Control Construct, consisting of an Internal External rating scale.

2.2.1 Locus of control personality orientations

It should not be thought however, that internality is linked exclusively with attribution

to effort and externality with attribution to luck, as Weiner's work makes clear. This has

obvious implications for differences between internals and externals in terms of their

achievement motivation, suggesting that internal locus is linked with higher levels of

N-ach. Due to their locating control outside themselves, externals tend to feel they have

less control over their fate. People with an external locus of control tend to be more

stressed and prone to clinical depression (Benassi, Sweeney & Dufour, 1988; cited inMaltby, Day & Macaskill, 2007).

Internals were believed by Rotter (1966) to exhibit two essential characteristics - high

achievement motivation and low outer-directedness. This was the basis of the locus of

control scale proposed by Rotter in 1966, although this was actually based on Rotter's

belief that locus of control is a unidimensional construct. Since 1970, Rotter's

assumption of unidimensionality has been challenged, with Levenson, for example,

arguing that different dimensions of locus of control, such as belief that events in one's

life are self-determined, are organized by powerful others and are chance-based, must

be separated.

Page 12 of47
http://var/www/apps/conversion/current/tmp/scratch25810/Social_Cognitive_Theory_Overview.htmhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/current/tmp/scratch25810/Locus_of_Control_Construct.htmhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/current/tmp/scratch25810/Locus_of_Control_Construct.htmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-achhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_depressionhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/current/tmp/scratch25810/Social_Cognitive_Theory_Overview.htmhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/current/tmp/scratch25810/Locus_of_Control_Construct.htmhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/current/tmp/scratch25810/Locus_of_Control_Construct.htmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-achhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_depression


13/47

Weiner's early work in the 1970s, suggested that, more-or-less orthogonal to the

internality-externality dimension, we should also consider differences between those

who attribute to stable causes, and those who attribute to unstable causes. This meant

that attributions could be to ability (an internal stable cause), effort (an internal unstable

cause), task difficulty (an external stable cause) or luck (an external, unstable cause).

Such at least were how the early Weiner saw these four causes, although he has been

challenged as to whether people do see luck, for example, as an external cause, whether

ability is always perceived as stable and whether effort is always seen as changing.

Indeed, in more recent publications (e.g. Weiner, 1980) Weiner uses different terms for

these four causes - such as "objective task characteristics" in place of task difficulty and

"chance" in place of luck. It has also been notable how psychologists since Weiner

have distinguished between stable effort and unstable effort - knowing that, in some

circumstances, effort could be seen as a stable cause, especially given the presence of

certain words such as "industrious" in the English language.

2.2.2 Attribution style

Attribution style, or explanatory style, is a concept that was introduced by Lyn Yvonne

Abramson, Martin Seligman and John D. Teasdale. This concept goes a stage further

than Weiner, saying that in addition to the concepts of internality-externality and

stability a dimension of globality-specificity is also needed.

Abramson et al. therefore believed that how people explained successes and failures in

their lives related to whether they attributed these to internal or external factors, to

factors that were short-term or long-term and to factors that affected all situations in

their situations.

The topic ofattribution theory, introduced to psychology by Fritz Heider, has had an

influence on locus of control theory, but it is important to appreciate the differences

between the histories of these two theoretical models in psychology. Attribution

theorists have been, largely speaking, social psychologists, concerned with the general

processes characterizing how and why people in general make the attributions do,

whereas locus of control theorists have been more concerned with individual

differences.

Significant to the history of both approaches were the contributions made by Bernard

Weiner, in the 1970s. Prior to this time, attribution theorists and locus of controltheorists had been largely concerned with divisions into external and internal loci of

causality. Weiner added the dimension of stability-instability, and somewhat later,

controllability, indicating how a cause could be perceived as been internal to a person

yet still beyond the person's control. The stability dimension added to our

understanding of why people success or failure after such outcomes. Although not part

of Weiner's model, a further dimension of attribution was added by Abramson,

Seligman and Teasdale, that of globality-specificity

2.2.3 Locus of control and age

Page 13 of47
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyn_Yvonne_Abramsonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyn_Yvonne_Abramsonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Seligmanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Teasdalehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Heiderhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Weinerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Weinerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyn_Yvonne_Abramsonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyn_Yvonne_Abramsonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Seligmanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Teasdalehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Heiderhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Weinerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Weiner


14/47

It is sometimes assumed that as people age, they will become less internal and more

external, but data here have been ambiguous. Longitudinal data collected by Gatz and

Karel (cited in Johnson et al., 2004 imply that internality may increase up to middle

age, and thereafter decrease. Noting the ambiguity of data in this area, Aldwin and

Gilmer (2004) cite Lachman's claim that locus of control is ambiguous. Indeed, there is

evidence here that changes in locus of control in later life relate more visibly toincreased externality, rather than reduced internality, if the two concepts are taken to be

orthogonal. Evidence cited by Schultz and Schultz (2005), for example Heckhausen

and Schulz (1995) or Ryckman and Malikosi, 1975 (cited in Schultz & Schultz, 2005),

suggests that locus of control increases in internality up until middle age. These authors

also note that attempts to control the environment become more pronounced between

the age of eight and fourteen.

2.2.4 Gender-based differences in locus of control

However, these authors also note that there may be specific sex-based differences for

specific categories of item to assess locus of control - for example, they cite evidencethat men may have a greater internal locus for questions related to academic

achievement (Strickland & Haley, 1980; cited in Schultz & Schultz, 2005).

2.2.5 Scales to measure locus of control

The most famous questionnaire to measure locus of control is the 13-item forced choice

scale of Rotter (1966), but this is not the only questionnaire - indeed, predating Rotter's

work by five years is Bialer's (1961) 23-item scale for children. Also of relevance to

locus of control scale are the Crandall Intellectual Ascription of Responsibility Scale

(Crandall, 1965), and the Nowicki-Strickland Scale.

One of the earliest psychometric scales to assess locus of control, using a Likert-type

scale in contrast to the forced-choice alternative measure which can be found in Rotter's

scale, was that devised by W.H. James, for his unpublished doctoral dissertation,

supervised by Rotter at Ohio State University, although this remained an unpublished

scale

Many measures of locus of control have appeared since Rotter's scale, both those,. such

as The Duttweiler Control Index (Duttweiler, 1984), which uses a five-point scale,

and those which are related to specific areas, such as health.

2.2.5.1 The Internal Control Index of Duttweiler

A scale with reasonably good psychometric properties has been the Internal Control

Index (ICI) of Duttweiler (1984). In her paper on this scale, Duttweiler notes many

problems with Rotter's I-E Scale, including problems with its forced choice format, its

susceptibility to social desirability and her observation that studies which have

subjected the scale to factor analysis suggest it is not assessing an entirely

homogeneous concept. She also notes that, while other scales existed in 1984 to

measure locus of control, "they appear to be subject to many of the same problems"

(Duttweiler, 1984, p211).

Page 14 of47
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likerthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_desirabilityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factor_analysishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likerthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_desirabilityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factor_analysis


15/47

She developed the ICI to assess several variables especially pertinent to internal locus -

cognitive processing, autonomy, resistance to social influence, self-confidence and

delay of gratification. Unlike the forced-choice format used on Rotter's scale,

Duttweiler's 28-item ICI uses a Likert-type scale, in which people have to state whether

they would rarely, occasionally, sometimes, frequently or usually behave as specified

by each of 28 statements.

2.2.5.2 Levenson Multidimensional Locus of Control Inventory

Questioning the idea of locus of control as a unidimensional construct Dr. Hanna

Levenson argued that understanding and prediction could be improved by studying fate

and chance expectations separately from external control b powerful others. Of the six

externally worded items on the original health locus of control scale. Only one ["I can

do only what my doctor tells me to do"] was related to the dimension of powerful

others externally. Wallston and Wallston saw that new items tapping into this

dimension were necessary. According to Levenson powerful others should not be

internal or external and beliefs about people in general should have less predictivepower than beliefs about one's own control. Realizing the utility and supporting

evidence of the multidimensionality, the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control

Scale was developed.

The Multidimensional Health Locus of Control Scale was developed to create

equivalent forms of the scale so researchers could repeat the measurements. It is

believed that equivalent forms of this instrument would decrease the possibility of

subjects remembering previous responses and increase the sensitivity of the instrument

to belief changes over time.

2.2.5.3 Brief Description of Theory

Health Locus of Control (HLC) is the degree to which individuals believe that their

health is controlled by internal or external Factors. Whether a person is internal or

external is based on a series of statements. The statements are scored and summed to

determine whether the individual has internal or external health beliefs. This is called

the unidimensional HLC Scale that was developed by Wallston. Wallston. Kaplan and

Maides. The IILC Scale consists of II items with a six point Likert response format.

Those scoring above the median are labelled "health-externals" and those scoring

below the median are labelled "health-internals." External refers to the belief that one'soutcome is under the control of powerful others (i.e., doctors) or is determined by fate.

luck or chance. Internal refers to the belief that ones outcome is directly the result of

ones behaviour.

Dr. Hanna Levenson questioned the conceptualization of the locus of control as a

unidimensional construct. She predicted that the construct could be better understood

by studying fate and chance expectations separately from external control by powerful

others. For this reason. Levenson developed the 3 eight item Likert scale termed the

IPC Scale which was used to measure generalized locus of control beliefs.

I - Internal

P - Powerful OthersC - Chance

Page 15 of47
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratificationhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/current/tmp/scratch25810/MHLC_Scale.htmhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/current/tmp/scratch25810/MHLC_Scale.htmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratificationhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/current/tmp/scratch25810/MHLC_Scale.htmhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/current/tmp/scratch25810/MHLC_Scale.htm


16/47

Wallston and Wallston combined their unidimensional HLC Scale and Levenson's IPC

Scale and developed the Multidimensional HLC (MHLC) Scale. The MHLC Scale

consists of 3 six- item scales also using the Likert format.

1. Internal HLC (IHLC) is the extent to which one believes that internal factorsare responsible for health/illness.

2. Powerful Others HLC (PHLC) is the belief that one's health is determined by

powerful others.

3. Chance HLC (CHLC) measures the extent to which one believes that health

illness is a matter of fate. luck or chance.

Although the scale is used to judge the degree to which an individual believes that s/he

can control his/her health, it can be effectively used to understand an employees locus

of control. The scale gives a better picture as compared to Rotters unidimensional

construct.

2.2.6 Effectiveness of Organizational Change a function of Locus of Control

Lau and Woodman (1995) argued that reactions to organizational change are affected

by the individual's change schemata, which they defined as "mental map[s]

representing knowledge structures of change attributes, and relationships among

different change events" (p. 538). Through qualitative and quantitative methods, these

researchers noted significant relationships between such schemata and the reactions of

individuals to change, and further found such schemata to be significantly affected by

personality.

2.3 Review of Research Papers

2.3.1 Internal Versus External Control of Reinforcement: A Review of the Locus

of Control Construct -Martin B. Kormanik1 and Tonettes.

One aspect of personality, perceptions of internal versus external control of

reinforcement, shifts under conditions of change. The study examines the relationship

between planned organizational change and locus of control.

The research reiterates the result of previous studies that organizational change iseffected by an individuals locus of control. Internal locus of control elicits positive

reaction to change.

2.3.2 Managerial Coping With Organizational Change: A Dispositional

Perspective -Timothy A. Judge and Carl J. Thoresen University of Iowa Vladimir

Pucik and Theresa M. Welbourne

The study tries to identify how organizational change gets effected by certain

personality variables. The study essentially tends to focus on how individual behaviour

effects the change process. That is the study focuses on micro level factors rather thanmicro level factors effecting the change process. The seven traits studied were- locus of

Page 16 of47


17/47

control, generalized self-efficacy, self-esteem, positive affectivity (PA), openness to

experience, tolerance for ambiguity, and risk aversion

The study further relates acceptance to change with commitment and job satisfaction.

Moreover, successful coping has been linked to transformation of organizations. The

study also emphasizes on the mechanism adopted by individuals for adapting to change

Levensons (1981) Internality scale was used to measure locus of control. It reduced

some of the shortcomings of Rotters scale and had comparatively high reliability

2.3.3 CEOs Entrepreneurship in Relation to Reaction to Organizational Change

-Asta Pundzien1, Jurga Duobien

The study analyses CEOs entrepreneurship behaviour with high need for achievement,

risk propensity and locus of control. No correlation was found between the three

personality traits. However locus of control and reaction to change was interrelated.Higher internal locus of control ensured positive reaction to change

The result hold a lot of relevance for the present study as it also tries to co-relate an

individuals locus of control and the reaction i.e resistance or readiness to change.

According to the results it is only through locus of control that reactions to change can

be judged. ANOVA was used separately for two dependent variables, i.e. intentions to

resist changes and propensity to support changes

2.3.4 A framework for assessing commitment to change. Process and context

variables of organizational change -Geert devos, Karlien Vanderheyden. Herman van

den broeck

The study analyses different variables that effect commitment to change. The variables

have been classified in three categories viz organizational, departmental level and

individual level.

In the context of the study that is being conducted individual level variables have a lot

of relevance. Locus of control is one of most influential variables in this context.

The research paper has the hypothesis- Internal locus of control is positively related to

emotional involvement and commitment to change.

2.3.5 Locus of control and the three components of commitment to change

Jingqiu Chen and Lei Wang( Department of Psychology, Peking University)

The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of locus of control on

psychological reactions to change. It examines the relationship between locus of control

and the three components of commitment to a change (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002)

that have been found to exhibit different behavioural implications.

Page 17 of47


18/47

The results show that locus of control can significantly predict participants

commitment to a specific change.

In particular, the relationship between locus of control and the three different

components of commitment to change are differentiative: participants with more

internal locus of control were more likely to have high affective and normativecommitment to change, whereas participants with more external locus of control were

more likely to have high continuance commitment to change. The implications for

theoretical research and organizational practice are also discussed.

2.3.6 Individual and organizational facets of change in the public and private

sector: a comparative study- Dave bouckenoogheGeert devos

This study compares individual (i.e., readiness to change and locus of control) and

organizational aspects of change (i.e., participation in decision making and risk-taking

reward orientation)

The hypotheses tested were that; in the public sector people report (a) a lower level of

readiness to change (i.e., emotional involvement and commitment to change); (b) a

lower

level of internal locus of control; (c) a lower risk-taking reward orientation; and (d) a

higher level of participation in decision-making in comparison to the private sector.

2.3.7 Internal-external locus of control and response to influence attempts- John

Biondo 1 A. P. MacDonald, Jr. West Virginia University

It was hypothesized that subjects having external locus of control orientations (would

conform to both subtle and overt influence attempts, whereas internals would react

against such attempts

Results showed that Externals conformed to both levels of influence and Internals

reacted against high influence. Internals were not responsive to low influence

2.4 Gap Analysis

Although a lot of research has been done on the topic of study. Little work has been

done in Indias context and the exploratory research done on the topic failed to find

any research done specifically on IT sector. Given the fact that IT sector had been at the

forefront of Indias exemplary economic growth and has led the transformation to a

knowledge economy, warrants the need to conduct some research in the area.

Moreover, most of the research conducted on the organizational change has focused on

macro level factors and has failed to take individual behaviour in consideration.

Chapter 3

Page 18 of47


19/47

3.1 Rationale of the research

To understand how locus of control can effect the change process within an

organization and if employee behaviour can be manipulated and controlled wrt to locus

of control. In case it can be, how should the change agent go about it.

3.2 Objective

To understand and study the relationship between locus of control and

organizational change

1. To learn the link between readiness or resistance to change and locus of

control

To study if the locus of control changes according to situations and worksettings and under what conditions can it be influenced to increase

organizational effectiveness.

To study whether the reaction to organization change process changes

according to type of change being implemented and the manner in which it is

implemented.

3.3 Hypothesis

Internal locus of control supports acceptance of organizational change

Page 19 of47


20/47

Chapter 4:Research Methodology

4.1 Research Methodology

Quantitative research has been employed in the research paper

4.1.1 Research Design Type

The researcher made use of two categories of research design. In the initial stages of

the project, exploratory research was employed in order to properly define the problem

and gather as much information on organizational change, locus of control and the

research conducted on these variables. After sufficient progress had been made on this

front, descriptive research was used.

4.1.2 Sample Design

Data was collected from employees working in IT sector. Organizations such as TCS,

Birla Soft, Capgemini, Kanbay, Accenture were covered. The sample size was 40. Data

was collected informally through e-mail by forming a network of acquaintances.

4.1.3 Data Collection

Questionnaire was used to ascertain if individual with internal locus of control readily

accepted organizational change or resisted it. Levenson scale was used to measure

employees locus of control. Moreover to measure the reaction towards organizational

change, an attitude survey was conducted wherein the employees reaction wasidentified using certain statements with respect to the change process initiated in the

organization. Likert scale was employed to know the degree to which change effected

the employee.

4.1.4 Sources of Data

Secondary sources- Internet and journals were explored to collect preliminary

information about organizational change and locus of control. Different websites and

research papers acted as a base for the exploratory research. Data from secondary

sources was used to get a fair idea about the theoretical construct of the two variables

and the nexus between the two.

Primary sources- Data was collected by administering questionnaires to the employees

who responded to 24 point Levenson scale to identify locus of control and then

responded to an attitude survey which attempted to gauge their reaction towards change

process. Data from these questionnaires was in turn used for further analysis and finally

prove the hypothesis.

4.1.5 Objective of the questionnaire

Page 20 of47


21/47

The questionnaire was divided in two parts. The first part, it attempts to identify the

locus of control of the respondent.

The second part of the questionnaire attempts to identify the following issues-

Respondents reaction towards organizational change. That is, did the

respondent resist it or readily accepted it and changed his mind set accordingly.

The kind of OD interventions that were used by the organization and if they

helped in manipulating the locus of control of the respondent.

To know the kind of change that was implemented and did it effect the reaction

to change.

Chapter 5 :Data Analysis

Page 21 of47


22/47

5.1. Analysis of Part I

The first part of the questionnaire measures the locus of control of the respondent.

Levenson Multidimensional Locus of Control Inventory was used for the same. The

individual score of each respondent have been shown below.

Respondent Internal Scale Powerful Others Chance scale Locus of control

Aparna 10 36 39 High External

Arjun 39 23 32 High Internal

Arun 40 35 32 High Internal

Devesh 37 16 20 High Internal

Ekta 40 32 31 High Internal

Mudgha 30 21 23 Medium InternalPankaj 33 25 26 High Internal

Pooja 42 9 17 High Internal

Neha J 41 5 16 High Internal

Neha M 36 16 18 High Internal

Shweta 34 10 18 High Internal

Shilpa 24 30 40 High External

Shivani 41 13 12 High Internal

Subhash 21 31 37 High External

Piyush 30 6 5 High Internal

Mansi 43 14 5 High Internal

Amit 32 26 24 Medium Internal

Santosh 33 27 26 High Internal

Samuya 10 35 41 High External

Anita 16 36 40 High External

Priya 31 12 22 Medium Internal

Surubhi 27 20 22 Medium Internal

Aaarti 36 10 18 High Internal

Archana 31 5 18 Medium Internal

Aditya 29 15 19 Medium Internal

Hitentra 25 10 15 Medium Internal

Saurabh 27 30 39 High External

Rajat 33 14 13 High Internal

Siya 23 31 38 High External

Ankita 29 8 7 Medium Internal

Yash 36 14 5 High Internal

Anil 30 26 24 Medium Internal

Amrita 42 27 26 High Internal

Shraddha 17 35 41 High External

Page 22 of47


23/47

The inference from the locus of control some of the respondents is given below-

R1- Respondent has low locus of control or external locus of control and believes thather life is controlled by her superiors and leaves the outcome of events of work life to

fate and luck.

R2-Respondent has internal locus of control. Although he believes in chance or luck,

he doesnt believe in being controlled by others

R3-Repondent has very high internal locus of control. However he also believes that

his work life can be controlled by those in power

R4- Respondent doesnt believe in luck and doesnt think that his destiny is in control

of those in authority

R9- He follows a balanced approach with respect to the three scales

Scale used to determine individual locus of control

Scale Low Internal LOC Medium Internal LOC High Internal LOC

0-16 16-32 32-47

Low Powerful

Others

Medium Powerful

Others

High Powerful

Others0-16 16-32 32-47

Low Chance Medium Chance High Chance

0-16 16-32 32-47

The following graph show that fifty percent of the respondents had internal locus of

control whereas twenty for had external locus of control. The rest had medium

according to the range defined in the scale described above.

5.2 Analysis of Part II

Page 23 of47


24/47

The second part of the questionnaire analysis the employees resistance or readiness to

change process carried out in an organization. The questionnaire had 16 statements

which measured the employees attitude on likert scale. Following are the results and

interpretation of each of the statements.

5.2.1 Tenure of the Employee

Options Responses Percentage

Less then 1year

6 15

1-3 10 25

3-6 20 50

6-9 4 10

More than 9years 0 0

40 100

Inference- Fitfty percent of respondents had an experience of 3-6 years. The data was

mainly collected from from team leads or module leads who have an experience of 3-6

years. Project leads have an experience of more than 6 years which comprised 10

percent of the sample.

The designation mentioned may differ from organization to organization

5.2.2 Witnessed Changes


Yes 36 90

No 2 5

Not aware of nay suchchanges

2 5

40 100

Page 24 of47


25/47

Inference- Ninty percent of the respondents had experienced some sort of change

during their tenure. This emphasizes the fact that organizations operating in dynamic

environment have to continuously rejuvinate themselves. This is especially relevant in

the case of IT sector which has an extremely volatile business envirnment.

The result supports the research conducted by Bearley and Johnes (1995) that showed

that organizations are in constant change, therefore employees react to change.

5.2.3 Classify Change


Radical and Planned 4 10

Continuous and Emergent 12 30Continuous and Planned 16 40

Only Emergent ( Not planned, in bits andpieces, nobody is aware of it )

8 20

40 100

Inference- Forty percent of the respondents said that they experienced Continuous

and Planned Change, whereas thirty percent said that they went through Continuous

and Emergent Change. This emphasis the fact that most IT companies have some kind

of change process at some point or other in their organizations. However, it may also be

Page 25 of47


26/47

a concerted effort to rejuvinate or an unconscious effort i.e radical change which ten

percent of the respondents experienced

Attitude Survey

5.2.4 The Employee Felt Enthusiastic but Sceptical


Strongly Agree 10 25

Agree 6 15

Neither Agree norDisagree

14 35

Disagree 8 20

Strongly Disagree 2 5

40 100

Inference- Thirty five percent of the respondents didnt feel much enthusiasm for the

change process. Moreover about twenty five percent didnt feel any enthusiasm for the

same. That is about sixty percent of the respondents were not very keen on accepting

change in their work styles, environment or culture. The data shows that most

employees may resist change.

5.2.5 The Employee Felt Uncomfortable about Change


Strongly Agree 6 15

Agree 16 40


8 20

Disagree 10 25


40 100

Page 26 of47


27/47

Inference- The above data reinforces the fact that people might not accept change very

readily and be uncomfortable with it. Here forty percent of the respondents agreed that

they felt uncomfortable with the changes that they have to go through in their work

settings. Fifteen percent strongly agreed with the statement.

5.2.6 Felt in Control When Experienced One Type of Change Over Other


Strongly Agree 0 0

Agree 14 35

Neither Agree nor

Disagree

18 45

Disagree 6 15


40 100

Inference- Forty five percent of the respondents gave a nuetral response for the

statement. However thirty five percent agreed.

Page 27 of47


28/47

The rationale of the statement was to access whether different type of change had some

effect on an employees locus of control. The question was asked in reference to the

categories of change mentioned in the previous question.

Different kinds of change would entail an diffenent work setting and circumstances

under which he would resist or adapt to change. Therefore if an employee experiencesplanned change, he may feel in control of his environment.

5.2.6 Effect of Change on Employees Performance


Strongly Agree 2 5

Agree 10 25

Neither Agree nor

Disagree

4 10

Disagree 24 60


40 100

Inference-Twenty percent agreed to the statement that change effected their

performance adversely. Five percent strongly agreed to it. The data proves that change

effects an employees productivity and performance and hence it is extremely

important to manage change well.

One of the ways this can be done isto have planned change rather than emergent change

5.2.7 Change Demoralized the Employee


Strongly Agree 2 5

Agree 20 50

Neither Agree nor

Disagree

4 10

Disagree 12 30

Page 28 of47


29/47


40 100

Inference- Fifty percent of the respondents agreed that change demoralized them. Fivepercent strongly agreed. The data once again reiterates the fact that people find it hard

to accept change and will demoralize them. This may have an adverse effect on

organizational effectiveness.

5.2.8 The Employee Felt Like Switching Job


Strongly Agree 2 5

Agree 12 30


12 30

Disagree 14 35

Strongly Disagree 0

40 100

Inference- Thirty percent of the employees disagreed to the statement that they felt like

switching jobs. This could be attributed to recession and the adverse effect it had on IT

sector

However a high proportion of respondents even agreed to the statement. An employee

may agree to this statement because he wanted to display passive covert behaviour to

change. This shows resistance. (Bearley and Heade (1995) )

Page 29 of47


30/47

5.2.9 Increased Particpation in the Change Process Helped Control Environment


Strongly Agree 4 10

Agree 26 65


6 15

Disagree 2 5


40 100

Inference- Sixty five percent agreed and ten percent strongly agreed that increased

participation helped my take control of their environment. They were able to handle

issues and contingencies beacuase of change, better.

Particpative descision making has also been used as OD intervention in the

organizations in which the repsondents were employed. The subsequesnt questions will

deal with the impact of internventions.

5.2.10 Employee Resisted Change When it Effected Status


Strongly Agree 8 20

Agree 30 75


2 5

Disagree 0 0


Page 30 of47


31/47

40 100

5.2.11 OD Interventions Used


Mentoring Program 6 15

Counseling session 12 30

Participative decisionmaking

8 20

Others 12 30

None 2 5 40 100

Inference- Thirty percent of the respondents went through counseling sessions to

reduce their resistance to change. Organizations also used particpative decision making

in order to involve the employees in the change process.

5.2.12 Interventions Helped Employee Control Environment Better

Page 31 of47


32/47


Strongly Agree 4 10.25641026

Agree 26 66.66666667


4 10.25641026

Disagree 2 5.128205128

Strongly Disagree 2 5.128205128

38 100

Inference- Sixty six percent of respondents felt that OD interventions helped them

better control their environment better. This means that the employees felt that could

control their work related activities despite the change. Ten percent strongly agreed tothe statement.

When an employee feels that s/he is able to control his/her environment and is also

able to decide how his/her professional life gets impacted through change, s/he has

internal locus of control. Here majority of repondents agreed with the statement. Hence,

it can be said that locus of control can be manipulated and is effected by work settings

and situations. Here change in work setting and situation refers to increased

particpation .

5.2.13 Change In Perception


Strongly Agree 2 5.263157895

Agree 16 42.10526316


20 52.63157895

Disagree 0 0

Page 32 of47


33/47


38 100

5.2.14 Change In Stance


Yes 26 68.42105263

No 10 26.31578947

Didnt experienceinterventions

2 5.263157895

38 100

Inference- Sixty eight percent said that they changed their stance towards change and

hence reduced their resistance towards it.

5.2.15 Reasons for Changing Stance


Good changemgmt

26 65

Page 33 of47


34/47

Fear of Job Loss 0 0

Others 14 35

40 100

Inference- Majority of the respondents attributed good change management by the

employer as the reason for changing their stance as far as resistance to change was

concerned. Respondents who chose the third option said that they still could not accept

change and hence their stance has not change. It also included two respondents whose

organization didnt go for any OD interventions.

5.3 Correlation Between Locus of Control and Organization Change

This section attempts to test the hypothesis that locus of control impacts organizational

change. That is to what extent an employee would resist or accept change if s/he has

internal locus of control.

Here specific questions from Part II of the questionnaire have been linked to the eight

statements of the Internal Scale of Levensons Standard Locus of Control Inventory

SPSS Software was used to calculate correlation.

5.3.1 Correlation Between I Felt Enthusiastic But Skeptical About The Change

Process * Whether Or Not I Get Into A Car Accident Depends On How Good A Driver

I am

I feltenthusiasticbut skeptical

about thechange

process?

Whether or notI get into a car

accidentdepends mostlyon how good a

driver I am.

I felt enthusiastic but

sceptical about the

Pearson Correlation 1 -.251

Sig. (2-tailed) . .119

Page 34 of47


35/47

change process? N 40 40

Whether or not I getinto a car accidentdepends mostly onhow good a driver Iam.

Pearson Correlation -.251 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .119 .

N 40 40

Karl Pearsons Coefficient is -.251. The relation between the two variables is weak.

Hence it can be said that the statements are not related.


Process * When I make Plans I am almost Certain to Make Them Work

I felt

enthusiasticbut skepticalabout thechange

process?

When I make

plans, I amalmost certainto make them

work.

I felt enthusiastic butsceptical about thechange process?



N 40 40

When I make plans, Iam almost certain tomake them work.



N 40 40

Karl Pearson Coefficient is -.038. The variables are correlated to some extent but have

have a weak relationship


Process * * I Am Usually Able To Protect My Personal Interests

I felt

enthusiasticbut skepticalabout thechange

process?

I am usually

able to protectmy personalinterests.

I felt enthusiastic butsceptical about thechange process?

Pearson Correlation 1 .131


N 40 40

I am usually able toprotect my personalinterests.

Pearson Correlation .131 1


N 40 40

Page 35 of47


36/47

Karl Pearson Coefficient for the above statements is .131. Although the statements are

related, it can not be said that they are very strongly correlated.

5.3.4 Correlation Between I Felt Uncomfortable About The Change Process That

Took Place In My Organization * I Am Usually Able To Protect My PersonalInterests

I am usuallyable to protectmy personal

interests.

I feltuncomfortable

about thechange thattook place in

theorganization

I am usually able to

protect my personalinterests.



N 40 40

I felt uncomfortableabout the change thattook place in theorganization



N 40 40

Even for the above two statements a weak correlation of -.151 was found.

5.3.5 Correlation Between I Felt Uncomfortable About The Change Process ThatTook Place In My Organization *How Many Friends I Have Depends On How Nice

Person I Am

I feltuncomfortable about thechange thattook place in

theorganization

How manyfriends I havedepends onhow nice a

person I am.


Pearson Correlation 1 -.390(*)Sig. (2-tailed) . .014

N 40 39

How many friends Ihave depends on hownice a person I am.

Pearson Correlation -.390(*) 1


N 39 39

The correlation coefficient in this case was only - .390. Hence the variables are related

to some extent but a complete relationship can not be established.

Page 36 of47


37/47

5.3.6 Correlation Between I Felt Uncomfortable About The Change Process That

Took Place In My Organization *When I make Plans I Am Almost Certain to Make

Them Work

I feltuncomfortable about thechange thattook place in

theorganization

When I makeplans, I am

almost certainto make them

work.




N 40 40




N 40 40

Karl Pearson coefficient for the two statements is -.107. The relationship can not be

established and hence the statements can not be said to be related.

5.3.7 Correlation Between The Change Effected My Performance Adversely *When I

make Plans I am almost Certain to Make Them Work



work.

The changeeffected myperformance

adversely


Pearson Correlation 1 -.313(*)


N 40 40

The change effectedmy performanceadversely

Pearson Correlation -.313(*) 1Sig. (2-tailed) .049 .

N 40 40

Even for the above two statements a weak correlation of -.313 was found.

5.3.8Correlation between The Change Effected my Performance Adversely * I am

Usually Able to Protect My Personal Interests

Page 37 of47


38/47

The changeeffected myperformance

adversely


interests.

The change effected

my performanceadversely



N 40 40




N 40 40

The correlation coefficient in this case also was only - .310. Hence the variables are

related to some extent but a complete relationship can not be established.

5.3.9 Correlation between At Times I Felt Demoralized During The Exercise * I am

Usually Able to Protect My Personal Interests


interests.

At times I feltdemoralizedduring theexercise


Pearson Correlation 1 .021

Sig. (2-tailed) . .896N 40 40

At times I feltdemoralized during theexercise

Pearson Correlation .021 1


N 40 40

Although they are related to some extent, here the relationship between the two

statements is weak. The coefficient is only .021.

5.3.10. Correlation Between I Felt Enthusiastic But Skeptical About The Change

Process* When I Make Plans I am Almost Certain To Make Them Work

I feltenthusiasticbut sceptical

about thechange

process?



work.

I felt enthusiastic but

sceptical about the



Page 38 of47


39/47

change process? N 40 40




N 40 40

The result in this case is also same as the other nine sets of statements considered for

correlation. Karl Pearson coefficient is -.038. hence the statements can not be said to be

related.

5.4.Relation Between Type of Change and Reaction to Change

In order to identify whether the type change experienced by employees has any effect

on their reaction to change and inturn their locus of control, crosstabs have been

calculated for two questions asked in the second part of the questionnaire.

Crosstabs Between If yes, how will you classify the change? * I felt enthusiastic but

skeptical about the change process?

Cross tabulation

I felt enthusiastic but sceptical about thechange process?

Total

1 2 3 4 5

If yes, how will youclassify the change?

Continuous andEmergent

0 0 4 2 6 12

Continuous and

Planned

0 2 8 4 4 18

Only emergent 2 2 2 0 2 8

Radical andplanned

0 2 0 0 0 2

Total 2 6 14 6 12 40

Fifty percent of the respondents experienced planned change during their tenure with

their present organization. If these fifty percent of the respondents were enthusiastic

about the change process we can say that reaction to organization change process

changes according to type of change being implemented.

Here according to the above table, the respondents who experienced planned change

and were also enthusiastic about change are 16 in number. That makes it forty percent

of the respondents. However employees who experienced emergent change and are

also enthusiastic were 12 in number. That is less as compared to the former type.

Therefore, it can be said that reaction to change may different for different types of

changes.

Page 39 of47


40/47

Chapter 6:Conclusion

The following inferences were drawn from the research-

1. There is no relation between resistance or readiness to organizational

change and locus of control.

Page 40 of47


41/47

The reason for this can be that information seeked by locus of control

questionnaire is a personal matter and employees may not have been willing to

divulge all the details. Hence the scale could have been manipulated and as a

result didnt reflect the true picture.

2. Locus of control is situation specific and can be manipulated

It was found that manipulating work settings and situations increased

acceptance to change. Increased participation in the change process made

employees control their environment better and inturn increase readiness to

change. Moreover, it was established that OD interventions can play a crucial

role in changing the attitude towards change and can be even considered as a

tool for effective change management.

3. Reaction of employees may vary for different kinds of change.

Chapter 7:Annexure

7.1 Questionnaire

Part IDirections

Page 41 of47


42/47

Following is a series of attitude statements. Each represents a commonly held opinion.

There are no right or wrong answers. You will probably agree with some items and

disagree with others. We are interested in the extent to which you agree or disagree

with such matters of opinion.

Read each statement carefully. Then indicate the extent to which you agree or disagreeusing the following responses:

If you agree strongly, respond +3

If you agree somewhat, respond +2

If you agree slightly, respond +1

If you disagree slightly, respond 1

If you disagree somewhat, respond 2

If you disagree strongly, respond 3

First impressions are usually best. Read each statement, decide if you agree or disagree

and the strength of your opinion, and then respond accordingly.

Levenson Multidimensional Locus of Control Inventory

1. (I) Whether or not I get to be a leader depends mostly on my ability.

2. (C) To a great extent my life is controlled by accidental happenings.

3. (P) I feel like what happens in my life is mostly determined by powerful people.

4. (I) Whether or not I get into a car accident depends mostly on how good a driver I

am.

5. (I) When I make plans, I am almost certain to make them work.

6. (C) Of ten there is no chance of protecting my personal interests form bad luck

happenings.

7. (C) When I get what I want, it is usually because Im lucky.

8. (P) Although I might have good ability, I will not be given leadership responsibilitywithout appealing to those positions of power.

9. (I) How many friends I have depends on how nice a person I am.

10. (C) I have often found that what is going to happen will happen.

11. (P) My life is chiefly controlled by powerful others.

12. (C) Whether or not I get into a car accident is mostly a matter of luck.

13. (P) People like myself have very little chance of protecting our personal interestswhen they conflict with those of strong pressure groups.

Page 42 of47


43/47

14. (C) Its not always wise for me to plan too far ahead because many things turn out

to be a matter of good or bad fortune.

15. (P) Getting what I want requires pleasing those people above me.

16. (C) Whether or not I get to be a leader depends on whether Im lucky enough to be

in the right place at the right time.

17. (P) If important people were to decide they didnt like me, I probably wouldnt

make many friends.

18. (I) I can pretty much determine what will happen in my life.

19. (I) I am usually able to protect my personal interests.

20. (P) Whether or not I get into a car accident depends mostly on the other driver.

21. (I) When I get what I want, its usually because I worked hard for it.

22. (P) In order to have my plans work, I make sure that they fit in with the desires of

people who have power over me.

23. (I) My life is determined by my own actions.

24. (C) Its chiefly a matter of fate whether or not I have a few friends or many friends.

Part II

1. For how long have you been employed in your present organization?

Less than 1 year

1-3

3-5

5-7

2. Have you witnessed any significant change during your tenure ?

Yes

No

Not aware of any changes

3. If yes, how will you classify the change?

Radical and Planned

Continuous and Emergent

Continuous and Planned

Only Emergent ( Not planned, in bits and pieces, nobody is aware of it )

Page 43 of47


44/47

If answer for the second question is No , respond to the questions from the

perspective of an employee who might have experienced change in the

organization. For instance: The morale of the concerned employee decreased

significantly instead of My morale decreased significantly

4. I felt enthusiastic but also sceptical about the change process that took place in my

organization

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

5. I felt uncomfortable about the change that took place in the organization

Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

Strongly Disagree

6. I felt in control of the environment when I experienced one type of change rather

than the other (With reference to the categories of change mentioned above)

Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

Strongly Disagree

7. The change effected my performance adversely

Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

Strongly Disagree

8. At times I felt demoralized during the exercise

Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

Strongly Disagree

9.At times I felt like changing the job during the exercise

Strongly Agree

Agree


Page 44 of47


45/47

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

10.Increased participation in the change initiatives helped me control and decide as to

how my professional life got effected.

Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

Strongly Disagree

11. Resistance to change was more when it adversely effected my position, status or

security

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree

Strongly Disagree

12. The change interventions used by the organization were :

13. After experiencing these interventions I felt that I could control my environment

better

Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

Strongly Disagree

14. The interventions changed my perception about the change process

Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

Strongly Disagree

15.I changed my stance during the change process

Yes

No

16. The reason for changing the stance was

Good change management

Fear of job loss

If other, please specify

Page 45 of47


46/47

Chapter 8:Bibliography

http://www.karis.biz/storage/crew_cv/types%20of%20change.pdf

http://www.themanager.org/strategy/change_phases.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locus_of_control

http://cart.rmcdenver.com/instruments/multidimensional_locus.p

Page 46 of47
http://www.karis.biz/storage/crew_cv/types%20of%20change.pdfhttp://www.themanager.org/strategy/change_phases.htmhttp://www.karis.biz/storage/crew_cv/types%20of%20change.pdfhttp://www.themanager.org/strategy/change_phases.htm


47/47

http://sunzi.lib.hku.hk/hkjo/view/51/5000830.pdf

dissertation report- shivangi

Documents