Thesis: The Moderated Effect of Organizational Change on Organizational Commitment

Name: Ron van de Port BBE

Student number: 1047591

Insitute: Amsterdam Business School (University of Amsterdam)

Program: Executive Program in Management Studies – Strategy Track

Draft: Final

Submission: 30-01-2015

Supervisor: Jeroen Kraaijenbrink PhD

Contents Aknowledgements ............................................................................................................................... 2

Statement of Originality ...................................................................................................................... 3

Abstract ............................................................................................................................................... 4

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 5

Literature review ................................................................................................................................. 9

Method .............................................................................................................................................. 23

Results ............................................................................................................................................... 30

Discussion .......................................................................................................................................... 36

Appendixes ........................................................................................................................................ 46

Aknowledgements

This master thesis would not have completed without the help of many people. First of all, all

respondents who took time out of their schedule to provide me with the necessary data, and off

course the managers who gave me access to all the employees.

My parents who supported me at times I was willing to throw it all out of the window, without them I

wouldn’t be in the place I am now!

My fellow students, in particular Eelke van Tienhoven, David van der Hoeven and Dennis Disseldorp,

with whom I have had many laughs at times non of us where planning on ever finishing our thesis

anymore, which gave enough energy to go on.

And last but certainly not least my supervisor Jeroen Kraaijenbrink, who provided me with just the

right amount of guidance for me to follow my own path, without wandering to far from the path to

success.

To all of you: Thank you for your support!

Statement of Originality

This document is written by Student Ron van de Port who declares to take full responsibility for the

contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other

than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.

The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the

work, not for the contents.

Signature

Abstract

A study on the effect of organizational change on post-change organizational commitment, based on

Meyer and Alan’s three component model, among employees and in what manner change

management influences this relationship.

In a multi-level study, conducted among 107 respondents in organizational change situations, the

effect caused by an organizational change process on the employees within these organizations has

been studied. Moderating effect of change management practices on this relationship has been

added to this study to provide deeper insight into the relationship between change impact and post-

change commitment.

Interestingly in particular the personal impact on an employee’s work and the culture within the

company, or unit, have a substantial and significant effect on different components of organizational

commitment.

Change management principles like communication, strong leadership and the experience of vision

and direction have not been found to have a significant effect on the relationship between change

impact and post-change organizational commitment, which might be caused by the size of the

impact on a personal level of employees.

Introduction

Organizational change has been the subject of managerial and theoretical research for decades, from

the organizational or industry reasons to merge or acquire (Porter, 1987) to the effects of

organizational changes on change commitment among employees and managers (Armenakis, Harris,

& Mossholder, 1993; Balogun & Hailey, 2008; Barton & Ambrosini, 2013; Chung, Du, & Choi, 2014;

Cohen, 1993; Meyer, Srinivas, Lal, & Topolnytsky, 2007). However, if you have worked in a firm that

has undergone an organizational change, you know the feeling that comes upon you from the

moment the change is announced to all staff members. That feeling has an effect on numerous forms

of behavior and other feelings. The feeling of not being treated fairly, the feeling that a change is not

necessary at all, or the idea that the process in which the change has been implemented was far

from sufficient. In contrast, changes can have a positive effect on the feelings of employees. The

change can enhance their career perspective, it can provide the necessary push for a culture change

for the better, or a simple change of location provides a better work-home balance.

Positive or negative, change will influence employees’ feelings and behavior, which are both

connected to organizational commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1991), therefore one could say that

organizational change has an effect on one’s commitment to the firm (Meyer et al., 2007).

However, in what manner does organizational change affect commitment to an organization, and

what antecedents within organizational change have particular positive or negative effects on

commitment?

For the base of this research Meyer and Allan’s three-component-model has been used. Meyer and

Allen have described organizational commitment in their three-component-model: “as a

psychological state, [which] has at least three separable components reflecting (a) a desire (affective

commitment), (b) a need (continuance commitment), and (c) an obligation (normative commitment)

to maintain employment in an organization.” (Meyer & Allen, 1991).

In the two decades following Allen and Meyer’s definition there has been research on several aspects

of the so called ‘three-component model’. Organizational commitment has been proven to be a

multi-dimensional construct (Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002) and the three

elements of commitment described in the three-component-model are antecedents to among others

organizational citizenship behavior, job-performance, and turnover intentions (Herscovitch & Meyer,

2002). The generalizability of the model over different age-groups, cultures and organizational levels

has been tested and validated in a number of studies across the globe, including studies in South-

America, Asia and mainland Europe (Hackett, Bycio, & Hausdorf, 1994; Irving, Coleman, & Cooper,

1997; Meyer & Allen, 1991; Stinglhamber, Bentein, & Vandenberghe, 2002).

A bit over ten years ago Herscovitsch stated: “Despite its presumed importance, however, little

attention has been paid to the definition and measurement of commitment within a change context,

and there is virtually no evidence to substantiate the claims made about its effects”.

The effect of organizational change on organizational commitment, and its antecedents has still had

little attention from researchers according to several recent studies performed in the field of change

management and organizational commitment (Lines & Selart, 2013; Lines*, 2004; Meyer et al.,

2007).

Lines’ 2004 paper provides support for the assumption that employee or management participation

in change processes, from the change initiative onwards, has a positive effect on organizational

commitment and commitment to the strategic change, moderated by the change’s compatibility to

the organizational culture and employee’s personal goals (Lines*, 2004). Meyer et al. have studied

the reverse effect, of commitment on organizational change success. They found that pre-change,

organizational commitment has a positive effect on non-discretionary (compliance) and discretionary

(championing and cooperation) behavior among employees and managers (Meyer et al., 2007), i.e. if

employees and managers are committed to a company they will exhibit positive behavior towards

the organizational change initiative. Meyer et al. however do not report on the effects of the changes

on post-change commitment and its effects.

It can be assumed that these effects do exist, and that the size of the impact of changes relates to

the effect sorted by the change on organizational commitment. Lines and Selart stated in a recent

study: “From the research on commitment, it seems plausible that the effects of commitment

depend on the size of the change” (Lines & Selart, 2013). However Lines and Selart see it as plausible,

little to no research has been performed on the size effect of change on commitment. This study

therefore was performed to find support for the size effect of organizational change impact on post

change commitment.

The impact of a change on organizational commitment is of grave importance to organizations going

through organizational change. While these organizations have to adapt to ever changing

environments, technologies and economical/financial circumstances, small and big organizational

change has to be executed to make sure the organization remains profitable on the short and long

term. These changes affect the antecedents to organizational commitment as cited earlier, which in

turn leads to the above mentioned changes in organizational citizenship behavior, job performance,

and turnover intentions. If companies, and their managers, want to maintain or increase current

levels of commitment within their organizations, it is crucial to know what elements of change effect

organizational commitment and how they can be influenced by different forms of change-

management-practices (CMP).

Although many theoretical papers have been written on the subject of change management, how it

should be performed in particular situations, types of companies or different cultures, little research

has been performed on the effects of change management on organizational outcomes.

Organizational commitment, and changes within it, due to organizational change can be influenced

by change management according to several (theoretical) studies from among others Fedor, Caldwell

and Herold, Meyer et al. and Raineri (Fedor, Caldwell, & Herold, 2006; Meyer et al., 2007; Raineri,

2011; Todnem By, 2005). In these studies the effects of change management practices (CMP) have

been researched on change commitment, but have not yet fully been researched on post-change

commitment, although there has been some instances it has been reported in longitudinal studies

(Chawla & Kelloway, 2004).

Therefore this study has been performed not only to find support for the effect of change impact on

organizational commitment, however also to find support for change management effect on the

aforementioned relationship.

The study is performed as a multi-level case analyses with the use of an online survey distributed

among several companies which have been under change conditions in the recent past.

For readers interested in the theoretical aspect, this research provides them with insight into how

organizational change affects overall organizational commitment and what moderating influence

CMP have on this effect.

For those who are interested in the managerial aspect, this research provides insights into the effects

of organizational change on the post change commitment of employees and in what manner change

management influences this relationship.

In using the outcomes of this research future organizational changes can be orchestrated in a fashion

that has the most positive outcome on organizational commitment, which in turn leads to desired

employee behavior (Cohen, 1993; Hackett et al., 1994; Meyer & Allen, 1991).

9

Literature review

This study has had its focal point on the interaction between two streams of literature, organizational

commitment and change management practices (CMPs) in organizational change processes.

Therefore both literature streams are reviewed in the following paragraphs, starting with a review of

organizational commitment, followed by change management theory and concluding with the

interaction between these two theories on the organizational level, combined with the hypotheses

that have been tested in this study.

Organizational Commitment Theory

Organizational commitment research dates back to late ‘50s and early ‘60s, with others theories in

‘calculative commitment’ (Becker, 1960) with its ‘side-bet’ theory and attitudinal commitment

(Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979). More recent research finds a foothold in the ‘Three-component-

model’, originally formulated by Allen and Meyer in the early ’90s (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Their view

on commitment translates into three components, which form organizational commitment:

- ‘affective commitment’ (AC): employees wanting to commit to a firm or a positive emotional

attachment to an organization. Employees experience a feeling of belonging to the

organization, in which they see the organizations goals as their own goals, experience the

organizations problems as their own problems and they experience the organization as a

family or a team to which they belong;

- ‘normative commitment’: employees feeling they should stay with the firm because it is the

right thing to do or they see it as a ‘moral’ obligation to remain with the organization. These

moral reasons can spring from different antecedents, varying from socio-cultural values on

how the hierarchical relationship between employer and employee is defined to investments

an organization has made for a certain employees career or personal development, or the

10

feeling of obligation towards colleagues with whom an employee has worked for several

years;

- ‘continuance commitment’: employees needing to stay committed to the firm due to the

costs or risks associated with not staying committed to the firm. These risks can be specified

as internal and external risks, the former are risks within the current organization when

leaving as for instance a training-cost-contract which has to be repaid by the employee when

leaving the firm, or an anti-competition clause in an employment contract. External risks are

among others the risks of not getting a job on a similar or higher level or obtaining a bad

reputation in the field of employment due to leaving the organization at a certain point in

time.

Meyer and Allen created their model in the belief that earlier research was correct, although not

limitative in its forms of organizational commitment. Meyer and Allen’s ‘continuance commitment’

has been formed from the research done based on Becker’s model of calculative commitment, where

employees make a weighed decision on staying committed to the company. As in continuance

commitment, calculative commitment is based on internal and external pull and push factors, which

are strongly influenced by choices made in the past and opportunities and risks in the future (Becker,

1960).

Mowday, Steers and Porter’s attitudinal commitment has been split up by Meyer and Allen into

‘normative commitment’ and ‘affective commitment’. Meyer and Allan believed attitudinal

commitment was a combination of feelings of wanting to commit and feelings of should commit to

an organization as different constructs. In the past two decades Meyer and Allan’s construct has

become the dominant model in organizational commitment. Although critics still contest the model

on different areas.

11

The model is contested by among others Solinger, Olffen and Roe to be a model that predicts

turnover (an intent) instead of a feeling towards an organization (commitment) (Solinger, Van Olffen,

& Roe, 2008a). Sollinger et al. propose to use Eagly and Chaiken’s (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993) model of

commitment (Solinger et al., 2008a). Although Meyer and Allen’s model is contested on the base of

measuring attitudes instead of commitment, it does not affect the underlying study into CMP

moderating the effect of organizational changes on organizational commitment.

Meyer and Allen’s three-component model of commitment has been tested in several ways over the

last two decades (Hackett et al., 1994; Stinglhamber et al., 2002). In the earlier years after Meyer and

Allen proposed their model, most research has been done on the distinguishability of the three

different components of their model, which have been found to be as such (Hackett et al., 1994;

Stinglhamber et al., 2002). In addition the model has been tested for its generalizability over

different educational levels/organizational levels (Irving et al., 1997; Snape & Redman, 2003;

Stinglhamber et al., 2002), where strong proof has been found in all studies. Though the model is an

American based model of commitment, which inherently has its roots in Northern American culture,

the model has been shown to be generalizable over different continents (Cheng & Stockdale, 2003;

Meyer et al., 2007; Stinglhamber et al., 2002). In particular Stinglhammer’s research, which was held

at the University of Leuven takes into account the Western European culture and the generalizability

over different organizational levels (Stinglhamber et al., 2002). Combined with the aforementioned

research, this has led the author to make use of Meyer and Allen’s three component model of

commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1991) to test organizational commitment after organizational change.

12

Change Management Theory

Organizational change is a broad construct that can be explained in many different ways. Changes

within organizations can be minor, as for instance, a small process change to comply with a national

regulation, or major process change, for instance downsizing or mergers and acquisitions. All

organizational changes share a goal: assuring present and future results will remain at current levels

or will improve compared to current levels.

Although the plans for organizational change are intended to provide similar or improved results,

often these objectives are not met (Balogun & Hailey, 2008). Perhaps objectives were set too high,

perhaps the industrial environment took a change for the worse, perhaps the base on which the

organizational change started from was not solid enough. An important other example of a factor

influencing post-change results and success is the manner employees react to an organizational

change (initiative), if employees are not willing to commit to the change or the changed organization,

it will have a negative effect on organizational performance and results (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002).

To gain a better understanding of some of the contextual influencers of employees’ responses to

organizational change, the first literature discussed is on the effects of change on the personal level.

Starting with Gaertner, who conducted research on impact of organizational change on an

employee’s career perspective.

Gaertner’s study has pointed out that commitment to strategy after a change is strongly correlated

to experience of an employee if he or she is a ‘winner’ or a ‘loser’. Which means they were in a

better or worse position after the change than they were before (Gaertner, 1989). This feeling or

emotion has a substantial effect on employee’s post-change commitment, due to the effect on their

career perspective, the risks they take by leaving the organization or the work fulfillment experience.

Different forms of ‘winning’ and ‘losing’ are defined by pro- or demotion, change of business-unit to

a more or less successful business unit, or the threat of dismissal. These individual outcomes of a

13

change, among others, were found to be of importance to employees and managers alike to support

new organizational strategies (Gaertner, 1989). In the same study Gaertner found that independent

of ‘winning’ or ‘losing’, other factors played a role in the acceptance of a change by employees and

managers. Communication of the changes and the reasons for these changes, and ‘fair treatment’

were found to be of importance to organizational changes and the acceptance of it (Gaertner, 1989).

These early steps in CMPs were a managerial break with the previous period, in which employees

were supposed to do whatever was asked of them. In their 2007 study Self et al. found supporting

evidence for Gaertner’s conclusions, although the study was not intended to do so (Self, Armenakis,

& Schraeder, 2007a). The impact a change had on a particular employee had a substantial effect on

the employee’s justification of the change. Where it had a positive impact (no threat of job loss), the

justification level was high, and where it had a negative impact (high threat of job loss), the

justification level was low (Self et al., 2007a). However in accordance to Gaertner’s outcomes

(Gaertner, 1989), the change process, or in other words, ‘the change management’, had a strong

moderating effect on the justification of the change. Even when an employee was negatively

impacted by the change, CMP’s have a positive moderating effect on post-change justification. CMP’s

which are proposed to have a positive effect on the relationship between change-impact and

justification of the organizational change were according to Self et al. (Self et al., 2007a):

- Organizational support: the level of support an employee receives pre-, during, and post- the

organizational change. In particular employees who are negatively impacted by the change

appreciate support in transitioning into a new role, a new work location or even a departure

with the company;

- Communication: to what extent employees and managers are informed concerning the

change, the underlying reasons, the direction, and goals of the change;

- Strong leadership: although different types of leadership can be seen as strong leadership,

the individual’s perception of strong leadership, however it is executed, is perceived to be of

a positive influence on the results of organizational changes. Overall aspects of leadership as

14

‘support of change’, ‘personal attention’ and ‘guidance’ are most commonly perceived as

positive.

Except for communication and strong leadership, little CMP results on change commitment or

perception have been found from empirical research over the years. In his 2005 article Todnem

argues that CMP is necessary in a continuingly and rapidly changing business environment (Todnem

By, 2005). Supported by Balogun and Hailey in 2008 (Balogun & Hailey, 2008), he states that due to a

lack of insight in CMP, 40-70% of organizational change objectives are not reached. Interestingly

Chawla and Kelloway report a disturbing counter-productive sentiment among employees one year

after organizational change had been effectuated within the company (Chawla & Kelloway, 2004),

giving support to the idea that organizational change has an impact on organizational commitment in

the long run, in view of the outcomes of organizational commitment in behavioral patterns from

employees (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Balogun and Hailey propose that the use of CMP’s is, in

accordance to Gaertner’s earlier findings, of importance in commitment.

However, little empirical research has been done on the particular effect of CMP’s on organizational

post-change results. In the meanwhile many guidelines have been written over the past decades on

how to manage organizational change. Kanter’s ‘ten commandments for organizing change’ (Kanter,

Stein, & Jick, 1992) and Kotter’s ‘eight-stage process’ (Kotter, 1996) have been used over the past

two decades to provide guidance in organizational change processes to managers across the globe

(Todnem By, 2005). Both Kanter and Kotter have given instructions for pre-change and during change

situations. Although fairly untested, Kanter’s and Kotter’s CMP’s have been used over the past years

to provide guidance. In this study those CMP’s have been used to provide a base for the measures of

change management. Therefore a selection of the CMPs from Kanter and Kotter will be elaborated

on.

15

Both Kotter and Kanter describe having a clear sense of vision and direction as of importance to

change success. This vision or direction has to be aligned with the company’s values and culture to

match with employee’s personal values and culture to positively affect the result. By giving a clear

direction, employees have a new goal to work towards, which gives sense to their change-effort

(Kanter et al., 1992; Kotter, 1996).

Kanter adds to the sense of vision and direction by creating of a sense of urgency. When a company

is on the verge of bankruptcy or with strongly diminishing revenues, it is not hard to rally employees

to change. However, if the reason for a change not apparent to all employees, it will take the change

manager more effort to provide a solid change reason, and explain why the change has to be

executed at this time and date. At different levels in the organization, different approaches would

need to be employed: (top) management can be rallied by strategic foresight; blue-collar workers

would have to be rallied on a more personal level (Kanter et al., 1992).

Communicating on the aforementioned subjects plays a substantial role in change management. In

addition to communication on the strategic and tactical level, it is important to communicate with

employees concerning their personal future and role within the organizational change (Kanter et al.,

1992).

A strong leadership role by top and middle management in guiding employees into change is a

commonly mentioned and advocated medium to convincing employees of the necessity, the sense of

urgency and the goals of organizational change. Thus, is a multiplier for the above mentioned CMP

(Kotter, 1996).

A decade after Kanter’s ‘ten commandments’ had been published, Leucke developed a seven-step

change management guideline, in which many of Kanter’s ideas were implemented. An important

addition to Kanter’s commandments is the ‘focus on results’. Although related to the

aforementioned vision and direction, the focus on results leads employees to visualize the end result,

16

which is often, in particular for lower level employees, too abstract in vision and direction to

communicate (Luecke, 2003).

These change management practices are proposed to have a positive effect on the relationship

between change impact and post-change organizational commitment, and have therefore been

tested in this research.

17

From commitment to change, to commitment after change

Only recently, few studies have gone into organizational commitment in a post- organizational

change situation as proposed by Meyer in his 2007 study (Meyer et al., 2007) and even less have

done so in an empirical way according to Self et al. (Self et al., 2007a). However, several studies have

made assumptions or deductions on the effect of organizational change on commitment to the

change, or the post-change organizational strategy (Gaertner, 1989; Meyer et al., 2002; Meyer et al.,

2007; Raineri, 2011; Self et al., 2007a). If the size of the impact of a change has an effect on the

commitment to the change and related behavior (Kavanagh & Ashkanasy, 2006; Lines*, 2004), it can

be assumed that a similar effect will occur in post-change organizational commitment. Kavanagh’s

research into effects of mergers on commitment to the merger gives a strong indication of the effect

of change-impact on commitment. Employees react negatively when confronted with a merger that

does not have a direct positive effect on their personal positions (Kavanagh & Ashkanasy, 2006). A

few years earlier Lines had similar results in her study towards change commitment (Lines*, 2004).

Gaertner’s study in the late ‘80ies already gave insight onto the consequential impact on employees.

She found employees to be negatively positioned against a change if their personal goals were not

positively affected or even negatively affected, the so called ‘losers’ in an organizational change

(Gaertner, 1989). In contrast, Gaertner also found employees to be positively positioned against an

organizational change if they felt the change would benefit their personal goals and beliefs

(Gaertner, 1989).

Combining the finding of Lines and Kavanagh (Kavanagh & Ashkanasy, 2006; Lines*, 2004) from the

last decade with those of Gaertner in the late ‘80ies (Gaertner, 1989) on the size and direction of the

influence of an organizational change has led to the following hypothesis:

Hypotheses 1a: A positive organizational change impact will have a positive effect on organizational

commitment;

18

Hypotheses 1b: A negative organizational change impact will have a negative effect on organizational

commitment.

Due to the lack of literature on the effect of organizational change impact on the three individual

forms of organizational commitment the above mentioned hypothesis have not been specified to

these individual components. However it is assumed the impact has the same ‘symbol’ for all three

components of organizational commitment, as proposed in the theoretical model.

19

Change Management Practices

The use of (employee focused) change management practices could lead to better results on change

of goals, organizational trust, and organizational commitment (Chawla & Kelloway, 2004; Fedor et al.,

2006; Herold, Fedor, Caldwell, & Liu, 2008; Luecke, 2003; Raineri, 2011). Change management

practices which are suggested to have influence on post-change commitment (or change

commitment) have been formulated over the past two decades: strong leadership, a role taken by

managers in supporting, guiding and directing employees pre, during an post change (Herold et al.,

2008; Kotter, 1996; Meyer et al., 2007), change communication (Chawla & Kelloway, 2004; Kanter et

al., 1992; Kotter, 1996; Raineri, 2011), focusing on results (Luecke, 2003), creating clear vision and

direction (Kanter et al., 1992; Kotter, 1996; Luecke, 2003) and creating a sense of urgency among

employees (Herold et al., 2008; Kanter et al., 1992; Kotter, 1996; Raineri, 2011) are among the most

important change management practices that have been associated with change commitment and

are perceived to have an effect on post-change organizational commitment (Herscovitch & Meyer,

2002; Meyer et al., 2007). Employees being affected by an organizational change, as has been

hypothesized earlier, will experience a change in organizational commitment post change. These

effects can be moderated by the use of change management practices. If employees experience one

or more of the above mentioned practices it is assumed they will respond in a more positive manner

to the organization post change (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002). This in turn will lead to a higher level

of overall organizational commitment with an employee. It depends on the individual what particular

CMP has more or less effect on the outcome of organizational commitment (Barrick & Mount, 1991),

therefore the total of CMP practices is hypothesized to have an effect on post change organizational

commitment in a random group of employees in organizational change situations.

20

Based on theory supporting CMP’s positive effect on change-commitment (Herscovitch & Meyer,

2002; Kavanagh & Ashkanasy, 2006; Lines*, 2004) and propositions made on the effect on

organizational commitment (Fedor et al., 2006; Herold et al., 2008; Raineri, 2011) the following is

hypothesized:

Hypothesis 2: CMP will have a positive effect on the relationship between organizational change

(impact) and post-change organizational commitment.

The three component model, which is used as a dependent variable, consists of three different items

of organizational commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1991), which will be differently affected by CMP due

to their different antecedents (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Irving et al., 1997).

Affective commitment, Meyer and Allen’s first partial construct of organizational commitment, is a

feeling coming from the willingness to work at a company, a feeling of belonging and wanting to be

part of a team (Hackett et al., 1994; Meyer & Allen, 1991; Solinger, Van Olffen, & Roe, 2008b), which

are, at least partly, originating from the treatment of the employee by the company and its managers

in normal circumstances. The use of CMP in a change process can be seen as the treatment of

employees during the change and will therefore have a particular positive effect on the relationship

between change impact and affective organizational commitment as hypothesized:

Hypothesis 2a: CMP will have a positive effect on the relationship between organizational change

(impact) and affective organizational commitment;

Normative organizational commitment like affective organizational commitment is a ‘feeling driven’

form of commitment (Hackett et al., 1994; Solinger et al., 2008a). The idea of being treated fairly by a

company and its managers under normal circumstances leads an employee to feel ‘obligated’ to stay,

21

because the company has done its best in the past to ensure the employees personal goals were

obtained (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Meyer & Allen, 1991; Meyer et al., 2007). The company acting

in an employee’s best interest brings on these feelings of commitment, and by making use of CMPs

in an organizational change situation, will therefore have a positive effect on the post change

normative organizational commitment of an employee. Hypothesized as follows:

Hypothesis 2b: CMP will have a positive effect on the relationship between organizational change

(impact) and normative organizational commitment;

Continuance commitment is, as described earlier on in this paper, a result from risks an employee

experiences concerning his or her present job and (the lack of) opportunities outside of the company

for a similar or better position. Although continuance commitment is affected by an organizational

change as hypothesized, CMP is not assumed to have a direct influence on that relationship, because

of the antecedents of organizational commitment are found in ‘risk’ of leaving which an employee

experiences (Meyer & Allen, 1991).

22

Theoretical Model

Based on the previous chapter and its hypotheses the following theoretical model has been drafted

to represent the connection between organizational change & organizational commitment and the

moderation of change management practices on this relationship:

23

Method

The data for this study has been collected by the use of a digitally distributed survey. Data gathering

via a survey has found preference over the use of qualitative data gathering for a number of reasons.

First of all, by the use of an online survey a larger sample has been available to gather data from to

provide a more generalizable outcome for this study. In addition, the use of an online survey gave

the researcher the opportunity to gather data from several companies and levels within these

companies, within a limited and constrained timeframe. Last the theoretical model with its causal

effect relations is easier to be tested by numerical data analyses, than is it by the use of a limited

number of qualitative data sources.

All respondents have directly or via a colleague, been contacted via e-mail to take part in an online

survey concerning the effect of organizational change on their level of organizational commitment

pre and post change. All respondents were informed the survey was distributed as part of a master-

thesis research and the results would only be used for the purpose of the thesis research and data

would not be provided to any of the participating organization or managers.

The e-mails contained a link to an online survey (set up in Qualtrics). For different organizations,

different links were established, including one for the LinkedIn contacted respondents.

Measures

To measure the different constructs of the model via the survey, per construct items (questions)

have been formulated. Due to the fact that the survey has been distributed among Dutch employees,

the items have been formulated in Dutch to make sure all targeted respondents were able to read

and understand the questions in the survey. All constructs, if applicable, have been measured on a 5-

point Likert scale.

24

Organizational Commitment

Organizational commitment has been used as a dependent variable in this study. The construct of

organizational commitment has been developed by Meyer and Allen (Meyer & Allen, 1991; Meyer et

al., 2002). In 2010 the construct has been translated and validated by Jak and Evers at the University

of Amsterdam for Netherlands based organizational commitment research (Jak & Evers, 2010). These

measures have been adjusted to measure the change of organizational commitment during the

organizational change, necessary due to the fact that the survey was only distributed to during or

post change respondents and the survey has not been distributed pre change.

Affective Organizational Commitment

Affective organizational commitment items as translated and adjusted by Jak and Evers (Jak & Evers,

2010) have been adjusted for use in this study. An example of the items used for affective

commitment is “I experience the organizations problems, compared to before the organizational

change, [much less-…..-much more] as my own problems”. All the Dutch items for affective

organizational commitment are included in Appendix 1. Proven validity for the five item construct of

Jak and Evers (α= .84)(Jak & Evers, 2010). The adjusted items for the change-measurement have a

Crohnbach’s Alpha of .88 in this study.

Normative Organizational Commitment

Jak and Evers have also translated and adjusted the items for normative organizational commitment

to a Dutch standard. These standards have been addapted for this study. For example, “I think that ,

compared to before the organizational change, I am [much less-…..-much more] obligated to my

employer to remain at the company” was included in the survey. Again all the items used to measure

normative organizational commitment have been included in Appendix 1 (Dutch version of the

items). In Appendix 1 the items which have been analyzed in as counter indicative items have been

25

highlighted. The original construct of Jak and Evers was valid (α= .75) for their four item construct

(Jak & Evers, 2010). Adjusted to the change in commitment items these items were valid (α= .72).

Continuance Organizational Commitment

All the individual items have been included in Appendix 1, first item in the survey concerning

continuance commitment was: “For me at this moment in time, as compared to before the

organizational change, it would be [much less hard-…..-much harder] to leave the organization, even

if I wanted to”. In Appendix 1 the items which have been changed to counter indicative scales are

mentioned. Continuance commitment measured in a five item construct had a Cronbach’s Alpha of

.75 in Jak and Everts’ five item construct (Jak & Evers, 2010). Due to validity issues in the results of

this survey alterations have been made to the included items. The fifth item has been removed, with

a positive effect on the Alpha, which became α= .61.

Change Impact

Change Impact is the independent variable and consists out of two complementing constructs:

personal impact and organizational impact or significance. Both constructs have been measured

through four items on a 5-point Likert scale.

Personal Impact

The impact the change had on the individual employee is measured, as said, on a four item construct

containing questions on the individual’s experience of change in his or her work and personal life due

to the organizational change. Although these items do form a construct together, they are not

directly related to each other since items address private and work situations. The items have been

distilled from different papers on organizational change (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Self, Armenakis,

& Schraeder, 2007b). All Dutch items have been included in Appendix 1, English translated items

have been included in figure 1 below. Personal impact has α= .72.

26

Figure 1: personal impact items

Organizational Impact

The organizational impact or change significance of the organizational change has also been based on

Herscovitch’s paper (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002), where she addresses the impact of organizational

changes as an influencer of change commitment. The four items were distilled from her research and

conclusions, and adjusted to fit a Dutch survey with as example: “Of what importance is the change

to your organization?”. The total of four Dutch items have been included in Appendix 1, English

translations have been included in figure 2. A lower reliability was found of α= .55. The elimination of

any of the items resulted in lower Alpha’s, therefore the analyses has been done using all items.

Figure 2: organizational impact items

Change Management Practices

The moderating effect of change management practices on the relationship between change impact

and organizational commitment has been tested. As stated in the literature review it depends on

one’s personal characteristics what practices have or do not have effect on an employee. From

different change management literature several items have been distilled to form a set of change

management practices which have been tested in this model. All items have been measured on a 5-

point Likert scale.

Personal Impact items

To what level does the organizational change effect your performance at work? [very negative-.....-very positive]

To what level does the organizational change effect the culture within the organization? [very negative-.....-very positive]

To what level does the organizational change effect your personal life? [very negative-.....-very positive]

To what level does the organizational change effect your job security? [very negative-.....-very positive]

Organizational impact items

Of which importance is the organizational change to your organization? [very small-.....-very large]

What effect did the organizational change have on the effectiveness of your organization? [very small-....-very large]

What effect did the organizational change have on the direction of your organization? [very small-.....-very large]

What effect did the organizational change have on your team/organizational unit? [very small-.....-very large]

27

Vision and Direction

Vision and direction has been named in multiple papers to be of importance to employees in a

company during change (Kanter et al., 1992; Kotter, 1996; Kotter, Zaleznik, & Farkas, 1998). Although

no exact items were found to measure the experience of vision and direction by employees, for this

particular research three items were formulated, which can be found in Appendix 1, and were found

to be internally valid (α= .88). The question has been formulated in Dutch, for the previously

mentioned reasons.

Figure 3: Items Vision and Direction

Sense of Urgency

Sense of urgency has been mentioned by Kanter as important to the commitment of employees

regarding changes (Kanter et al., 1992). Like ‘vision and direction’, these items have been formulated

in Dutch distilled out of Kanter’s paper. The three Dutch items to make up ‘Sense of Urgency’ are all

included in Appendix 1.

Figure 4: Items Sense of Urgency

The inter-item validity has been analyzed to be α= .88.

Strong Leader Role

Kotter has described the experience of a strong leader role by employees to be of positive effect on

employees’ commitment to change (Kotter, 1996; Kotter et al., 1998). Items to measure strong

leadership have not been found in the literature, therefore based on Kotter’s paper two items have

been formulated, again formulated in Dutch. For example: “During the organizational change I

Vision and Direction

During the organizational change I was well aware of where we were going as an organization

During the organizational change I was aware of the vision that formed the foundation for this organizational change

It was clear to me what direction the organizational change was intended to have

Sense of Urgency

The necessity of the organizational change is clear to me

I well understand why this organizational change at this moment is of importance to the future of the organization

I well understand why this organizational change had to take place at this time

28

experienced a strong leader role from middle and/or upper management”. The two items were

found to be valid for the construct (α= .75). Both items are included in Appendix 1.

Figure 5: Items Strong leader role

Communication

Communication on change has been earlier described as to be an important factor in employees’

experience of a change. One of the items used in the survey is for example: “During the

organizational change I was clearly informed on the process of change”. All four items have been

included in Appendix 1. The four items formulated to measure the level of communication

experienced by employees has been found to be valid (α= .90).

Figure 6: Items Communication

Focus on results

Leucke proposed a focus on results to have positive influence on employees’ commitment to a

change (Luecke, 2003). This construct has been formed into a two item measure, which are included

in Apendix 1. No strong reliability has been found in the construct of ‘focus of results’: α= .51. Like all

the previous items, these were also formulated in Dutch to ensure respondents would not

misinterpret the questions in the survey.

Figure 7: Items Focus on results

Strong leader role

During the organizational change I have experienced a strong leader role from middle and/or upper management

During the organizational change I was wel lead to the new organizational structure

Communication

During the organizational change I was clearly informed on the process

During the organizational change I was clearly informed on what was expected of me in the process

During the organizational change it was well communicated what the policy surrounding the organizational change was

During the organizational change it was well communicated what the policy for the new organization was

Focus on results

During the organizational change the emphasis was on the end result

During the organizational change the the focus was on the future form of the company

29

Control Variables

Age

Age has been measured in years alive. Beneath 0,5 years has been rounded down, above 0,5 years

has been rounded up.

Years in Company

Years in Company has been measured by full years in company. Beneath 0,5 years has been rounded

down, above 0,5 years has been rounded up.

Gender

Gender has been measured dichotomous: male/female.

Sample

Data for this research was collected from 107 respondents from different companies located in the

Netherlands. Veolia Transport Limburg (from which 24 respondents out of 40 have replied) is a public

transportation company that operates on a government contract. These government contracts are

tendered for every 10 years. Veolia has in the last year been in a tender process, from which was

clear they would not win it, therefore employees will have to change employer to the winning

company. VVM is a Multi Service Provider in flexible employment industry, they acquired Infraflex (a

competing company) at the end of 2014. Both companies were from the relative same size, which

made it on an operational level a merger between two equals. From both sides a total of 27

respondents (out of 48 employees) have filled in the questionnaire. A small sample (4 respondents)

came from Royal HaskoningDHV, personal contacts of the author have been asked to fill in the

questionnaire. Royal HaskoningDHV has merged in 2012 from two equal Dutch engineering

companies, DHV and Royal Haskoning.

30

In addition 300 direct Linkedin contacts have been asked to fill in the questionnaire, with the request

to only fill in the questionnaire if they had experienced an organizational change in the past 3 years.

From these 300, 52 have filled in the questionnaire. Due to the anonymity of the questionnaire, no

information is available on the companies these respondents work for.

The respondent group consisted out of males and 42 females. Of the respondents 48,6% described

themselves as employee, 7,5% lower management, 30,8% middle management and 8,4% upper

management. 4,7% of the respondents belonged to the board of their respective companies. The

companies where the respondents are currently active are all in an organizational change situation or

have recently finished organizational change. The organizational changes endured by the

respondents were reported to be mergers, acquisitions, downsizing/reorganizations and company

split-ups. The size of the organizations ranged from under 1-10 employees to over 500 employees,

with a substantial amount of employees working in large companies with over 500 employees

(43,0%). 35,0% of the respondents have been through an acquisition of their former company, 33,0%

have experienced a restructuring of the company they work for. Smaller numbers have been through

a merger or have experienced ‘a different’ organizational change, respectively 10,7% and 21,4%.

Results

Correlation analysis

The data collected via the survey have been analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

(SPSS) to find support for the hypotheses and theoretical model as depicted under ‘literature review’.

Initial analysis has been performed on antecedents’ inter-correlation and correlation between

antecedents and the three commitment scales.

31

Table 1: correlation matrix (Full size matrix in Appendix 2)

Table 1 provides information on the correlations between different constructs in this study. The

correlation between personal impact and the three components of commitment is substantial and

significant, even to the 0.01-level. Correlation between organizational impact and the three

components of commitment is only significant for the correlation with continuance commitment,

while the correlation of personal impact is substantially larger on continuance commitment. In

addition the correlation between organizational impact and personal impact is substantial and

significant to the 0.05-level. Therefore all analyses for the effect of impact on the three components

of commitment will be done using only personal impact as an antecedent.

Regression analyses have been performed using the size of ‘change impact’ (positive or negative) as

independent variable and the three components of ‘organizational commitment’ as individual

dependent variables, resulting in three different causal relationships.

All CMP’s have a significant and substantial correlation with the three components of commitment.

Therefore the moderating effect of ‘CMP’ on these relationships has been analysed using ‘process’

analyses (model 1) as developed by Hayes (Hayes, 2012). The individual CMP as CMPs as a whole

have been analysed to provide additional insight in what CMP’s have a stronger individual effect on

the relationship between change impact and the three components of post-change organizational

commitment.

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

1 Gender 1,39 0,49 -

2 Age 39,76 12,59 -,229* -

3 Years in company 9,33 10,22 -,208*

,555** -

4 Size of company 3,54 1,41 -,024 ,150 ,267** -

5 Position in company 2,13 1,24 -,224*

,417** ,161 ,121 -

6 Type of organization 2,79 1,32 ,141 ,003 ,091 ,218* ,143 -

7 Affective commitment 2,76 0,88 -,053 ,072 -,003 -,205* ,133 -,066 -

8 Normative commitment 2,96 0,73 -,032 ,038 ,106 -,216* ,128 -,082 ,606

** -

9 Continuance commitment 2,96 0,76 -,068 ,144 ,130 -,121 ,167 -,140 ,556**

,575** -

10 Sense of vision and direction 3,21 1,08 -,052 -,027 -,088 ,011 ,150 -,004 ,251**

,402** ,131 -

11 Sense of urgency 3,5 1,11 ,019 -,101 -,043 ,009 -,006 -,056 ,291**

,319** ,190 ,604

** -

12 Strong leadership 2,52 1,03 -,168 ,056 -,030 -,123 ,099 -,079 ,215*

,314**

,257**

,622**

,437** -

13 Communication 2,55 1,07 -,228* ,068 -,012 -,102 ,137 -,097 ,245

*,318

**,254

**,597

**,453

**,790

** -

14 Focus on results 3,24 1,02 -,055 ,136 ,196* ,012 ,169 -,056 ,190 ,316

**,223

*,449

**,493

**,526

**,598

** -

15 Personal Impact 2,78 0,74 -,083 ,012 ,016 -,054 ,113 -,031 ,611**

,488**

,487**

,472**

,343**

,397**

,461**

,368** -

16 Organizational Impact 3,29 0,69 -,094 -,003 ,163 ,158 ,056 -,086 ,117 ,120 ,230* -,038 ,141 ,002 ,029 ,187 ,203

* -*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

32

Regression analyses

Hierarchical multiple regression analyses have been performed to test for the causal relationships

between change impact and the three components of commitment. Three control variables have

been entered (number of years in company, gender and age) for model 0, the second set consisted of

the antecedents as predicted by the theoretical model (personal impact and organizational impact)

combined with the three control variables. As dependent variable the three components of

commitment have been individually entered.

The model with the change in affective commitment as dependent variable produced a non-

significant (p= .763) effect (R Square = .012, adj. R Square = -.018) of the first set of antecedents. The

second set of antecedents had a significant (p = .00) effect (R Square = .380, Adj. R Square = .348, R

Square Change = .368). 11.87% (F = 11.87) of the variance in affective commitment is explained by

model 2. The model is substantially effected by the antecedent ‘personal impact’ (Beta=.606, p<.01).

Table 2: Hierarchical regression model of change in three components of commitment (appendix 3)

The model with the change in continuance commitment as dependent variable produced, like the

former model, a non-significant (p=.496) effect (R Square = .024) for set 1 of antecedents. The

second set of antecedents has a significant effect (p<.01) on the variance of Normative commitment

of 37% (R Square Change = .368) after controlling for Gender, Age and Years in company. Similar to

the first model, personal impact has as substantial larger Beta (β=.606) while being the only

significant antecedent (p<.01).

Dependent variable: Affective Commitment Dependent variable: Continuance Commitment Dependent variable: Normative Commitment

B SE β t p B SE β t p B SE β t p

model 0

Gender -.059 .189 -.033 -.314 ,754 -.045 .163 -.029 -.278 ,781 -,020 ,157 -,013 -,126 ,900

Age .008 .009 .116 .947 ,346 .006 .008 .099 .811 ,419 -,002 ,007 -,029 -,239 ,811

Years in Company -.007 .011 -.085 -.698 ,487 .005 .009 .063 .520 ,604 ,009 ,009 ,116 ,958 ,340

R² .012 .024 .011

Model 1

Gender ,022 ,152 ,012 ,143 ,887 ,026 ,143 ,016 ,182 ,856 ,034 ,139 ,022 ,242 ,809

Age ,008 ,007 ,110 1,112 ,269 ,007 ,007 ,116 1,076 ,285 -,002 ,006 -,035 -,323 ,748

Years in Company -,006 ,009 -,073 -,736 ,463 ,003 ,008 ,040 ,370 ,712 ,009 ,008 ,127 1,163 ,248

Personal Impact .728 .098 .606 7.394 ,000 ,477 ,092 ,458 5,163 ,000 ,489 ,090 ,489 5,423 ,000

Organizational Impact .012 .107 .009 .110 ,912 ,147 ,100 ,133 1,461 ,147 ,001 ,098 ,001 ,006 ,995

R² .380 .274 .249

R² Change .368 .236 .238

33

The third and last regression model was performed using the change in normative commitment as

dependent variable with identical sets of antecedents as the previous models. Similar to the previous

models the control variables did not have a significant effect (p= .775) on the variance explained in

the change in normative commitment. Set two has been proven to be significant (p<.01) and explains

24% (R Square Change = .236) of the variance in change in normative commitment after controlling

for age, gender and years in company. Similar to both previous models, personal impact has a

substantial larger Beta (β=.458) and is the only significant antecedent to change in normative

commitment (p<.01).

Moderation analyses

Moderation analyses have been performed in light of the hypotheses 2, 2a and 2b. Based on Hayes’

moderation/mediation macro for SPSS (Hayes, 2012) analyses have been performed on the

moderating effect of CMP’s on the causal effect relationship between (personal) change impact and

affective commitment and normative commitment. The ‘Model 1’analyses has been performed from

Hayes’ macro, which provided a single moderation analyses on a single causal relationship. Five

CMP’s have each been individually tested for moderation on the linear relationship between

personal impact and affective and normative commitment, while the remaining CMP’s have been

entered into the model via covariates.

For affective commitment the effect relationship with personal change impact was found to be

significant (p<.01)> however none of the CMP’s were found to have a significant moderating effect

on this relationship, all p-values were above .05, with non-substantial changes in R2 (ΔR² between

.000 and .002)

Variables R R² ΔR² coefficient SE p

Model .629 .395 .000

Interaction CMP vision and direction .002 -.041 .083 .626

Interaction CMP sense of urgency .001 -.033 .086 .700

Interaction CMP communication .001 -.028 .075 .710

Interaction CMP strong Leadership .000 .013 .080 .873

Interaction CMP focus on results .001 -.040 .099 .690

34

Table 3: moderation matrix of change of affective commitment

For normative commitment similar high p-values (p>.05) have been found for the moderating effect

of CMP’s on the causal relationship between personal change impact and change in normative

commitment. Changes in R2 were found to be not substantial at levels between .000 and .006.

Table 4: moderation matrix op change of normative commitment

Although it was not hypothesized, analyses has been performed on the moderating effect of CMP’s

on the relationship between change impact and change in continuance commitment. Similar to

affective and normative commitment, CMP’s were not found to have significant moderating effect on

the aforementioned relationship.

Table 5: moderation matrix op change of continuance commitment

Additional analyses

Hierarchical linear regression on items of personal impact

In light of the results on personal impact in the previous analyses, additional analyses have been

done on the individual items of personal impact. Regression analyses has been performed, with the

individual items from personal impact as independent variables and the three components of

Variables R R² ΔR² coefficient SE p

Model .536 .288 .000

Interaction CMP vision and direction .006 .070 .076 .360

Interaction CMP sense of urgency .000 -.003 .078 .965

Interaction CMP communication .001 .029 .068 .675

Interaction CMP strong Leadership .000 .014 .073 .845

Interaction CMP focus on results .006 .081 .090 .369

Variables R R² ΔR² coefficient SE p

Model .550 .302 .000

Interaction CMP vision and direction .000 -.007 .077 .928

Interaction CMP sense of urgency .001 .022 .079 .778

Interaction CMP communication .001 .023 .069 .737

Interaction CMP strong Leadership .003 .043 .073 .558

Interaction CMP focus on results .015 .129 .090 .157

35

organizational commitment as dependent variable. The control variables were similar to the earlier

used control variables, with the exception of the addition of the total of organizational commitment.

Table 5: Hierarchical regression model of individual personal impact items on change in commitment

The additional regression analyses on the individual items provides deeper insight into the drivers of

the change effect of personal impact on commitment as a construct within organizational change

situations. Impact on work performance has a significant (p<.01) linear effect on all three

components of change in organizational commitment with substantial Beta’s as seen in Table 5.

Impact on culture was found to have significant (p<.01) linear effect on change in affective

commitment, although was not found to be significant for change in continuance and normative

commitment. Both impact on personal life and impact on job security were found not to be of

significant effect on any of the dependent variables.

Curve linear analyses on organizational impact

Organizational impact was found to have a non-significant effect on organizational commitment in

the linear hierarchical regression analysis. An additional curve linear analysis has been performed in

order to test if a non-linear effect of organizational commitment was found, although as for the

linear regression, the curve linear regression analyses came up with non-significant (p>.05) effects.

Dependent variable: Affective Commitment Dependent variable: Continuance Commitment Dependent variable: Normative Commitment

B SE β t p B SE β t p B SE β t p

model 0

Age ,009 ,009 ,134 1,063 ,291 ,009 ,007 ,159 1,285 ,202 -,001 ,007 -,012 -,099 ,921

Years in Company -,010 ,011 -,117 -,925 ,357 ,000 ,009 -,001 -,012 ,991 ,009 ,009 ,129 1,018 ,312

Gender ,027 ,193 ,015 ,141 ,888 -,005 ,158 -,003 -,031 ,975 ,040 ,160 ,027 ,248 ,805

Organizational Impact ,171 ,134 ,136 1,277 ,205 ,176 ,110 ,168 1,601 ,113 ,088 ,111 ,084 ,790 ,432

Model 1

Age ,001 ,007 ,016 ,170 ,866 ,006 ,006 ,108 1,035 ,304 -,006 ,006 -,103 -,928 ,356

Years in Company -,010 ,008 -,111 -1,199 ,234 ,001 ,008 ,012 ,117 ,908 ,011 ,008 ,148 1,353 ,180

Gender ,038 ,141 ,021 ,265 ,791 -,047 ,130 -,031 -,358 ,721 ,022 ,139 ,015 ,160 ,874

Organizational Impact ,020 ,099 ,016 ,199 ,843 ,059 ,092 ,056 ,641 ,523 -,005 ,098 -,005 -,053 ,958

Impact work performance ,476 ,084 ,544 5,679 ,000 ,412 ,077 ,564 5,332 ,000 ,377 ,082 ,518 4,575 ,000

Impact culture ,248 ,074 ,298 3,347 ,001 -,040 ,068 -,057 -,583 ,561 ,062 ,073 ,089 ,847 ,399

Impact personal life ,141 ,111 ,115 1,270 ,207 ,134 ,102 ,131 1,313 ,193 -,087 ,109 -,085 -,801 ,425

Impact job security -,172 ,075 -,209 -2,303 ,024 -,006 ,069 -,009 -,087 ,931 ,019 ,073 ,028 ,257 ,798

R² ,508 ,401 0,311

R² Change ,481 ,345 0,286

36

Discussion

Conclusion

This study’s findings have provided mixed results on the set hypotheses. Support was found for the

main effects of organizational change impact on the change in organizational commitment. Positive

impact was found to have a significant positive effect on the change in all three components of

organizational commitment (hypothesis 1a). Although both personal and organizational impact were

measured, only personal impact was found to have significant effect on the main relationship. This

relationship was found to be larger for the effect on affective commitment, however was also

substantial for the effects on normative and continuance commitment.

In additional analyses of the direct effect of individual items of personal impact on all three

components of organizational commitment it was found that only ‘impact on work performance’ had

a substantial and significant effect on all three components of organizational commitment. In

addition ‘impact on organizational culture’ was found to have a significant effect on affective

commitment, although not on the other two components of organizational commitment. (Which in

turn provides support for Meyer and Allen’s differentiated three-component-model of organizational

commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1991)).

A negative personal impact from the organizational change was in conjunction with the positive

impact found to be significant and substantial, which provides support for hypothesis 1b.

The organizational impact component of organizational change impact was not found to have a

linear effect on organizational commitment, nor was it found to have significant curve linear effect

on the dependent variables.

This study has found that change of organizational commitment in organizational change situations is

foremost attributable to personal impact of the organizational change.

The moderating effect of CMP on the main effect between change impact and organizational

commitment was not found to be significant in this study. Therefore hypotheses 2, 2a and 2b were

37

not supported based on the data collected for this study. For this is one of the first studies to do

analyses on the moderating effect of CMP’s on commitment after change, based on mainly

theoretical papers it is debatable that although change management has effect on change

commitment (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Lines*, 2004) it has no effect on the post change

commitment. This result might be caused by the severity of the personal impact of the change, which

causes the impact effects of CMP’s on the main effect to be minimalized.

Theoretical implications

The results of this study give support to the three-component-model of Meyer and Allen (Meyer &

Allen, 1991), in particular in the different effect of antecedents within changing organizations. The

support found for the effect of personal change impact on commitment adds to the recent literature

on commitment in organizational change situations as performed by Herschovitsch, Meyer, Raineri

and Lines (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Lines*, 2004; Meyer et al., 2007; Raineri, 2011). Although the

aforementioned studies have not directly touched the subject of the change of commitment due to

organizational change, the underlying research gives support to the claim made by these studies that

change has significant effect on different forms of organizational commitment.

However Kanter, Kotter en Luecke have provided the scientific community with frameworks for

change management with the intention to provide support in changing organizations (Kanter et al.,

1992; Kotter, 1996; Luecke, 2003). Balogun & Hailey and Todnem proposed CMP’s would have a

effect on commitment (Balogun & Hailey, 2008; Todnem By, 2005). However the proposed CMP’s

have not been found to be of significant effect on the relationship between (personal) change impact

and post-change organizational commitment. This result could be due to the size of the effect of

change impact on organizational commitment, which eliminates any other moderating effects on the

relationship. It can be proposed that change management can have a moderating effect if the impact

of an organizational change is smaller on the employee level.

38

Managerial implications

Managers should be aware of the impact an organizational change has on the employees within the

organization. The impact on personal level has effect on all three components of organizational

commitment in a significant and substantial way. To manage post-change commitment managers

have to analyze what effect the change will have on employees’ feelings toward the organization,

their feeling of obligation and how they the perception of risk changes due to an organizational

change. If managers can create an environment where employees believe that the impact on their

personal situation will be as less as possible in a negative manner, of as big as possible in a positive

manner it will lead to stronger feelings of commitment with all the consequences related to it.

In particular managers should focus on the work-performance of employees and how this will be

affected for particular employees. In addition maintaining organizational culture is of particular

importance to maintain commitment on the affective component.

The CMP’s that have been studied did not have a substantial, nor a significant, effect on the

relationship between change impact and organizational commitment. To managers this does not

imply that change management is to be thrown overboard, different situations, different workforces

and different organizations need different approaches to change. To not communicate with

employees directly, implies employees do not have access to information on their future, which leads

to an unclear perspective on the personal implications the change will have on themselves. Leading

teams and providing them with a clear vision and direction has been proven to be of importance in

ordinary daily business and will also play a role in giving employees a better picture of the personal

impact on them. Therefore managers should not abandon all (change) management principles.

39

The lack of effect of organizational impact on post-change commitment implies that managers

should not emphasize the benefits of the change to the organization to justify personal impact on

employees, this will not lead to improved post-change commitment.

Limitations

Although every precaution was taken to provide this study with a dataset that is generalizable for at

least the Dutch professional working environment, limitations to the study are present.

The first and most substantial limitation to this research is the fact all data have been collected post-

change, which forced the respondents to give an indication on the difference of their organizational

commitment pre and post change. Several biases can and probably will have played a role in the

answers given by respondents. People tend to romanticize past situations, even though situations

were not different from present situations. The other way around goes as well. In addition, memories

tend to diminish over time, and it is hard for respondents to exactly retrieve feelings and opinions

from the past.

To prevent similar bias in future research, a longitudinal study should be executed to retrieve ‘as is’

data on organizational commitment, or data should be retrieved from organizational sources from

before and after the organizational change.

Due to several limitations set by targeted organizations, in addition to the responses obtained from

their employees, the survey has been distributed via Linkedin to a convenience sample, of which the

researcher does not know in what kind of change situations these respondents have found

themselves. Although this could muddle results on particular change situations, this study was

conducted to find relationships between ‘change impact’ and organizational commitment. Different

respondents react different to similar organizational changes, due to their experience of the impact,

which is subjective and therefore has no substantial effect on the results.

Due to the different cases and a substantial amount of respondents gathered from a convenience

sample, particular CMP’s have not been isolated, which entails that not all respondents have

40

experienced similar CMP during their organizational changes. By analyzing the individual CMP’s and

the total CMP effect on the relationship, this limitation has been minimized. Although in an ideal

setting, future research could be done by analyzing the implemented CMP per case and report on the

particular effect it had on change in organizational commitment due to a particular organizational

change.

Future research

As stated earlier in this study, this study has combined findings from different strains of literature to

provide insight into the phenomenon of organizational change, the impact on employees and the

effect on organizational commitment. Several limitations have been stated, from which several can

be addressed in future research. First of all this study has made use of a sample of respondents in

different organizational change situations, in future research one particular situations (in a single

case) should be studied to find differences between impact in different organizational change

situations.

In future research control for CMP’s can lead to different findings. In single case studies alpha and

beta groups can be formed, which are exposed to different CMP’s during the organizational change.

The scales used in this study were partly constructed by the researcher, future research could adjust

or validate those scales. A different measure for the constructs of impact or CMP could result in

different findings. The lack of significant effect of CMP’s as discussed is as a whole of particular

interest to future research, a deeper insight in how CMP’s do or do not affect different changes will

provide managers with insight into when to apply what managerial methods.

The Netherlands is a country where individual freedom and personal success are valued by the

community, a job is to provide for a good or even better personal life, the answers given by

respondents in this study therefore are ‘colored’ by cultural values. In future research differences in

cultural values can be explored to provide information for multi-nationals who set of in global change

programs: to what extent do similar changes affect different cultural groups?

41

References

Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating readiness for organizational

change. Human Relations, 46(6), 681-703.

Balogun, J., & Hailey, V. H. (2008). Exploring strategic change Pearson Education.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A

meta‐analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1-26.

Barton, L. C., & Ambrosini, V. (2013). The moderating effect of organizational change cynicism on

middle manager strategy commitment. The International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 24(4), 721-746.

Becker, H. S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology, , 32-40.

Chawla, A., & Kelloway, E. K. (2004). Predicting openness and commitment to change. Leadership &

Organization Development Journal, 25(6), 485-498.

Cheng, Y., & Stockdale, M. S. (2003). The validity of the three-component model of organizational

commitment in a chinese context. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62(3), 465-489.

Chung, G. H., Du, J., & Choi, J. N. (2014). How do employees adapt to organizational change driven by

cross-border M&As? A case in china. Journal of World Business, 49(1), 78-86.

Cohen, A. (1993). Organizational commitment and turnover: A met A-analysis. Academy of

Management Journal, 36(5), 1140-1157.

42

Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College

Publishers.

Fedor, D. B., Caldwell, S., & Herold, D. M. (2006). The effects of organizational changes on employee

commitment: A multilevel investigation. Personnel Psychology, 59(1), 1-29.

Gaertner, K. N. (1989). Winning and losing: Understanding managers' reactions to strategic change.

Human Relations, 42(6), 527-546.

Hackett, R. D., Bycio, P., & Hausdorf, P. A. (1994). Further assessments of meyer and allen's (1991)

three-component model of organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(1),

15.

Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation,

moderation, and conditional process modeling. Manuscript Submitted for Publication,

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

leadership on employees' commitment to a change: A multilevel study. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 93(2), 346.

Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J. P. (2002). Commitment to organizational change: Extension of a three-

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

Irving, P. G., Coleman, D. F., & Cooper, C. L. (1997). Further assessments of a three-component model

of occupational commitment: Generalizability and differences across occupations. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 82(3), 444.

Jak, S., & Evers, A. (2010). Onderzoeksnotitie: Een vernieuwd meetinstrument voor organizational

commitment. Gedrag En Organisatie, 23(2), 158-171.

43

Kanter, R. M., Stein, B. A., & Jick, T. D. (1992). The challenges of execution: Roles and tasks in the

change process. The Challenge of Organizational Change, , 369-394.

Kavanagh, M. H., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2006). The impact of leadership and change management

strategy on organizational culture and individual acceptance of change during a merger. British

Journal of Management, 17(S1), S81-S103.

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

Kotter, J. P., Zaleznik, A., & Farkas, C. M. (1998). Harvard business review on leadership Harvard

Business Press.

Lines, R., & Selart, M. (2013). Participation and organizational commitment during change: From

utopist to realist perspectives. The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Leadership,

Change, and Organizational Development, , 289.

Lines*, R. (2004). Influence of participation in strategic change: Resistance, organizational

commitment and change goal achievement. Journal of Change Management, 4(3), 193-215.

Luecke, R. (2003). Managing change and transition Harvard Business Press.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational

commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61-89.

Meyer, J. P., Srinivas, E., Lal, J. B., & Topolnytsky, L. (2007). Employee commitment and support for

an organizational change: Test of the three‐component model in two cultures. Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80(2), 185-211.

44

Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and

normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and

consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61(1), 20-52.

Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational

commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14(2), 224-247.

Porter, M. E. (1987). From competitive advantage to corporate strategy Harvard Business Review

Cambridge, MA.

Raineri, A. B. (2011). Change management practices: Impact on perceived change results. Journal of

Business Research, 64(3), 266-272.

Self, D. R., Armenakis, A. A., & Schraeder, M. (2007a). Organizational change content, process, and

context: A simultaneous analysis of employee reactions. Journal of Change Management, 7(2),

211-229.

Self, D. R., Armenakis, A. A., & Schraeder, M. (2007b). Organizational change content, process, and

context: A simultaneous analysis of employee reactions. Journal of Change Management, 7(2),

211-229.

Snape, E., & Redman, T. (2003). An evaluation of a three-component model of occupational

commitment: Dimensionality and consequences among united kingdom human resource

management specialists. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 152.

Solinger, O. N., Van Olffen, W., & Roe, R. A. (2008a). Beyond the three-component model of

organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 70.

Solinger, O. N., Van Olffen, W., & Roe, R. A. (2008b). Beyond the three-component model of

organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 70.

45

Stinglhamber, F., Bentein, K., & Vandenberghe, C. (2002). Extension of the three-component model

of commitment to five foci: Development of measures and substantive test. European Journal of

Psychological Assessment, 18(2), 123.

Todnem By, R. (2005). Organisational change management: A critical review. Journal of Change

Management, 5(4), 369-380.

46

Appendixes

Appendix 1: Measures

Construct Measures Source

Organizational commitment

, in vergelijking tot voor de wijziging, ......

Affective Commitment

Ik ervaar de problemen van deze organisatie, in vergelijking tot voor de wijziging, ......[veel minder-.....-veel meer] als mijn eigen problemen

Onderzoeksnotitie: Een vernieuwd meetinstrument voor organizational commitment, Jak & Evers (2010)

I experience this organizations problems, in comparison to before the organizational change, (much less-....-much more) as my own problems

Affective Commitment

Ik heb het gevoel dat ik, in vergelijking tot voor de wijziging, ......[veel minder-.....-veel meer] echt bij deze organisatie hoor

Onderzoeksnotitie: Een vernieuwd meetinstrument voor organizational commitment, Jak & Evers (2010)

I feel like, in comparison to before the organizational change, I belong (much less-.....-much more] to this organization

Affective Commitment

Ik voel me, in vergelijking tot voor de wijziging, ......[veel minder-.....-veel meer] emotioneel gehecht aan deze organisatie

Onderzoeksnotitie: Een vernieuwd meetinstrument voor organizational commitment, Jak & Evers (2010)

I feel, in comparison to before the organizational change, [much less-.....-much more] emotionally attached to this organization

Affective Commitment

Ik voel me, in vergelijking tot voor de wijziging, ...... [veel minder-.....-veel meer] als ‘een deel van de familie’ in deze organisatie

Onderzoeksnotitie: Een vernieuwd meetinstrument voor organizational commitment, Jak & Evers (2010)

I feel, in comparison to before the organizational change, [much less-.....-much more] 'a part of the family' in this organization

Affective Commitment

Deze organisatie betekent, in vergelijking tot voor de wijziging, ...... [veel minder-.....-veel meer] voor mij

Onderzoeksnotitie: Een vernieuwd meetinstrument voor organizational commitment, Jak & Evers (2010)

This organization means, in comparison to before the organizational change, [much less-.....-much more] to me

Continuance commitment

Het zou voor mij op dit moment, in vergelijking tot voor de wijziging, ...... [veel minder moeilijk- ......- veel moeilijker] zijn om weg te gaan bij deze organisatie, ook al zou ik dat willen

Onderzoeksnotitie: Een vernieuwd meetinstrument voor organizational commitment, Jak & Evers (2010)

47

At this time it would be, in comparison to before the organizational change, [much easier-.....-much harder] for me to leave the organization, even if I would want to

Continuance commitment

Er zou, in vergelijking tot voor de wijziging,......[veel minder-.....-veel meer] in mijn leven verstoord worden als ik nu ontslag zou nemen.

Onderzoeksnotitie: Een vernieuwd meetinstrument voor organizational commitment, Jak & Evers (2010)

In comparison to before the organizational change, [much less-.....-much more] would be disrupted in my life if I would resign.

Continuance commitment

Ik heb het gevoel dat ik, in vergelijking tot voor de wijziging, ......[veel minder-..... - veel meer] te weinig andere opties heb om nu ontslag te overwegen

Onderzoeksnotitie: Een vernieuwd meetinstrument voor organizational commitment, Jak & Evers (2010)

I feel that I, in comparison to before the change, have [much less-.....-much more] options to consider resigning.

Continuance commitment

Als ik niet al zo veel van mezelf in deze organisatie had gestopt, zou ik, in vergelijking tot voor de wijziging, ......[veel sneller-.....-veel minder snel] overwegen ergens anders te gaan werken

Onderzoeksnotitie: Een vernieuwd meetinstrument voor organizational commitment, Jak & Evers (2010)

If I hadn't put this much of myself into the organization, I would, compared to before the organizational change, consider other employment [much faster-....much less fast]

Continuance commitment

Als ik ontslag neem wordt het, in vergelijking tot voor de wijziging, ......[veel moeilijker-.....- veel minder moeilijk] om een vergelijkbare baan te vinden

Onderzoeksnotitie: Een vernieuwd meetinstrument voor organizational commitment, Jak & Evers (2010)

If I resign it will be, in comparison to before the organizational change, [much harder-.....-much easier] to find a comparable job

Normative commitment

Ik vind dat ik, in vergelijking tot voor de wijziging, ...... het [veel minder-.....-veel meer] aan mijn huidige werkgever verplicht ben om te blijven

Onderzoeksnotitie: Een vernieuwd meetinstrument voor organizational commitment, Jak & Evers (2010)

I feel that I, in comparison to before the organizational change, am [much less-.....-much more] obligated to my employer to remain at this organization

Normative commitment

Zelfs als het in mijn voordeel was, zou het, in vergelijking tot voor de wijziging, ...... [veel minder-......-veel meer] rechtvaardig zijn deze organisatie nu te verlaten

Onderzoeksnotitie: Een vernieuwd meetinstrument voor organizational commitment, Jak & Evers (2010)

Even it would be in my advantage, it would be, in comparison to before the organizational change [much less-.....-much more] justified to leave this organization

48

Normative commitment

Het zou, in vergelijking tot voor de wijziging, ......[veel minder-.....-veel meer] onbehoorlijk zijn om nu ontslag te nemen

Onderzoeksnotitie: Een vernieuwd meetinstrument voor organizational commitment, Jak & Evers (2010)

It would be, in comparison to before the organizational change, be [much less-.....-much more] unseemly to resign at this moment in time

Normative commitment

Ik zal, in vergelijking tot voor de wijziging, op dit moment [veel minder snel-......-veel sneller] ontslag nemen, omdat ik de mensen op mijn werk iets verschuldigd ben

Onderzoeksnotitie: Een vernieuwd meetinstrument voor organizational commitment, Jak & Evers (2010)

At this time, in comparison to before the organizational change, I would [much less likely-.....-much more likely] resign, because I feel obligated to the people at my work

Change management practices

Experience vision en direction

Gedurende de wijziging in de organisatie wist ik goed waar we als organisatie naartoe gingen

Free, from: "Ten commandments for executive change" (Kanter et al., 1992); "eight-stage process for succesful organizational transformation" (Kotter, 1996)

During the organizational change I was well aware of where we were going as an organization

Gedurende de wijziging in de organisatie wist ik welke visie ten grondslag lag aan deze fusie/verandering

Free, from: "Ten commandments for executive change" (Kanter et al., 1992); "eight-stage process for succesful organizational transformation" (Kotter, 1996)

During the organizational change I was aware of the vision that formed the foundation for this organizational change

Het was mij duidelijk waar deze wijziging in de organisatie toe moest leiden Free, from: "Ten commandments for executive change" (Kanter et al., 1992); "eight-stage process for succesful organizational transformation" (Kotter, 1996)

It was clear to me what direction the organizational change was intended to have

Experience Sense of Urgency

De noodzaak van deze wijziging in de organisatie is voor mij helder Free, from: "Ten commandments for executive change" (Kanter et al., 1992)

49

The necessity of the organizational change is clear to me

Ik begrijp goed waarom deze wijziging in de organisatie op dit moment van belang is voor de toekomst van het bedrijf

Free, from: "Ten commandments for executive change" (Kanter et al., 1992)

I well understand why this organizational change at this moment is of importance to the future of the organization

Ik begrijp waarom deze wijziging in de organisatie plaats heeft moeten vinden op dit moment

Free, from: "Ten commandments for executive change" (Kanter et al., 1992)

I well understand why this organizational change had to take place at this time

Experience a strong leader role

Gedurende de wijziging in de organisatie heb ik een sterke leidersrol ervaren vanuit het midden- en/of hoger management

Free, from: "eight-stage process for succesful organizational transformation" (Kotter, 1996)

During the organizational change I have experienced a strong leader role from middle and/or upper management

Gedurende de wijziging in de organisatie werd ik goed begeleid naar de nieuwe organisatiestructuur

During the organizational change I was wel lead to the new organizational structure

Experience communication

Gedurende de wijziging in de organisatie is mij altijd duidelijk verteld hoe het proces verliep

Free, from: "Ten commandments for executive change" (Kanter et al., 1992)

During the organizational change I was clearly informed on the process

Gedurende de wijziging in de organisatie is mij altijd duidelijk verteld wat van mij verwacht werd in het proces

Free, from: "Ten commandments for executive change" (Kanter et al., 1992)

During the organizational change I was clearly informed on what was expected of me in the process

Gedurende de wijziging in de organisatie is goed gecommuniceerd over het beleid rondom de fusie

Free, from: "Ten commandments for executive change" (Kanter et al., 1992)

During the organizational change it was well communicated what the policy surrounding the organizational change was

Gedurende de wijziging in de organisatie is goed gecommuniceerd over het beleid rondom de nieuwe organisatie

Free, from: "Ten commandments for executive change" (Kanter et al., 1992)

During the organizational change it was well communicated what the policy

50

for the new organization was

Experience focus on results

Gedurende de wijziging in de organisatie heeft de nadruk op het resultaat gelegen

Free, from: "Seven steps" (Leucke, 2003)

During the organizational change the emphasis was on the end result

Gedurende de wijziging in de organisatie heeft de blik vooruit gestaan op het toekomstbeeld

Free, from: "Seven steps" (Leucke, 2003)

During the organizational change the the focus was on the future form of the company

Change impact

Effect on job performance

In welke mate heeft de wijziging in de organisatie invloed op uw prestaties op het werk? (zeer negatief - negatief - neutraal - positief - zeer positief)

Free from Herscovitsch & Meyer, (2001)

To what level does the organizational change effect your performance at work? [very negative-.....-very positive]

Effect on organizational climate

In welke mate heeft de wijziging in de organisatie invloed op de cultuur binnen uw organisatie? (zeer negatief - negatief - neutraal - positief- zeer positief)

Free from Herscovitsch & Meyer, (2001)

To what level does the organizational change effect the culture within the organization? [very negative-.....-very positive]

Effect on non-work life

In welke mate heeft de wijziging in de organisatie invloed op uw privé leven? (zeer negatief - negatief - neutraal - positief - zeer positief)

Free from Herscovitsch & Meyer, (2001)

To what level does the organizational change effect your personal life? [very negative-.....-very positive]

Effect on job security

In welke mate heeft de wijziging in de organisatie invloed op uw baanzekerheid? (zeer negatief - negatief - neutraal - positief - zeer positief)

Free from Self, Armenakis & Schraeder, (2007)

To what level does the organizational change effect your job security? [very negative-.....-very positive]

Change significance

Level of Van welk belang is de verandering voor uw organisatie? (zeer beperkt- Free from Herscovitsch & Meyer, (2001)

51

significance for the organisation

beperkt-gemiddeld-groot-zeer groot)

Of which importance is the organizational change to your organization? [very small-.....-very large]

Welk effect heeft de verandering op de effectiviteit van uw organisatie? (zeer beperkt - beperkt - gemiddeld - groot - zeer groot)

What effect did the organizational change have on the effectiveness of your organization? [very small-....-very large]

Welk effect heeft de verandering op de richting van uw organisatie? (zeer beperkt - beperkt - gemiddeld - groot - zeer groot)

What effect did the organizational change have on the direction of your organization? [very small-.....-very large]

Welk effect heeft de verandering op uw team/afdeling? (zeer beperkt - beperkt - gemiddeld - groot - zeer groot)

What effect did the organizational change have on your team/organizational unit? [very small-.....-very large]

52

Appendix 2: Correlation Matrix

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

1 Gender 1,39 0,49 -

2 Age 39,76 12,59 -,229* -

3 Years in company 9,33 10,22 -,208*

,555** -

4 Size of company 3,54 1,41 -,024 ,150 ,267** -

5 Position in company 2,13 1,24 -,224*

,417** ,161 ,121 -

6 Type of organization 2,79 1,32 ,141 ,003 ,091 ,218* ,143 -

7 Affective commitment 2,76 0,88 -,053 ,072 -,003 -,205* ,133 -,066 -

8 Normative commitment 2,96 0,73 -,032 ,038 ,106 -,216* ,128 -,082 ,606

** -

9 Continuance commitment 2,96 0,76 -,068 ,144 ,130 -,121 ,167 -,140 ,556**

,575** -

10 Sense of vision and direction 3,21 1,08 -,052 -,027 -,088 ,011 ,150 -,004 ,251**

,402** ,131 -

11 Sense of urgency 3,5 1,11 ,019 -,101 -,043 ,009 -,006 -,056 ,291**

,319** ,190 ,604

** -

12 Strong leadership 2,52 1,03 -,168 ,056 -,030 -,123 ,099 -,079 ,215*

,314**

,257**

,622**

,437** -

13 Communication 2,55 1,07 -,228* ,068 -,012 -,102 ,137 -,097 ,245

*,318

**,254

**,597

**,453

**,790

** -

14 Focus on results 3,24 1,02 -,055 ,136 ,196* ,012 ,169 -,056 ,190 ,316

**,223

*,449

**,493

**,526

**,598

** -

15 Personal Impact 2,78 0,74 -,083 ,012 ,016 -,054 ,113 -,031 ,611**

,488**

,487**

,472**

,343**

,397**

,461**

,368** -

16 Organizational Impact 3,29 0,69 -,094 -,003 ,163 ,158 ,056 -,086 ,117 ,120 ,230* -,038 ,141 ,002 ,029 ,187 ,203

* -*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

53

Appendix 3: Hierarchical regression models in three components of organizational commitment

Dependent variable: Affective Commitment Dependent variable: Continuance Commitment Dependent variable: Normative Commitment

B SE β t p B SE β t p B SE β t p

model 0

Gender -.059 .189 -.033 -.314 ,754 -.045 .163 -.029 -.278 ,781 -,020 ,157 -,013 -,126 ,900

Age .008 .009 .116 .947 ,346 .006 .008 .099 .811 ,419 -,002 ,007 -,029 -,239 ,811

Years in Company -.007 .011 -.085 -.698 ,487 .005 .009 .063 .520 ,604 ,009 ,009 ,116 ,958 ,340

R² .012 .024 .011

Model 1

Gender ,022 ,152 ,012 ,143 ,887 ,026 ,143 ,016 ,182 ,856 ,034 ,139 ,022 ,242 ,809

Age ,008 ,007 ,110 1,112 ,269 ,007 ,007 ,116 1,076 ,285 -,002 ,006 -,035 -,323 ,748

Years in Company -,006 ,009 -,073 -,736 ,463 ,003 ,008 ,040 ,370 ,712 ,009 ,008 ,127 1,163 ,248

Personal Impact .728 .098 .606 7.394 ,000 ,477 ,092 ,458 5,163 ,000 ,489 ,090 ,489 5,423 ,000

Organizational Impact .012 .107 .009 .110 ,912 ,147 ,100 ,133 1,461 ,147 ,001 ,098 ,001 ,006 ,995

R² .380 .274 .249

R² Change .368 .236 .238